Written by David Desautel   

As the theory has always gone, a private, for-profit, organization will always be more efficient (because they are trying to make a profit) than the government when running a program or service. There may be some validity to this idea, but there are also at least two serious flaws.

Yes, an organization that is trying to make a profit will do whatever it takes to be efficient, in order to make that profit. A government agency may be less efficient without some external motivation (such as a mandate to save costs or a limited budget). But the first problem with privatization is that it is immediately more costly than a government-run organization because of the requirement for a profit. All things being equal, when you convert a government organization to a private one, you are adding profit as a requirement, and thus any efficiency gains first goes to profit, not the service or product being provided.

But there is a much more serious flaw with privatizing a government function. The top priority for the government when it provides a service or product for the people is the service or product – the quality. When you turn that function over to a private, for-profit organization, the new top priority is making a profit, not the quality of service or product provided (or making sure the service or product is available to every citizen who need it).

Worse yet, the same side of the isle in Congress that is always talking about privatizing things is also constantly fighting for deregulation of private business. If Republicans had their way, every vital service provided to American citizens would become as bad as the health care industry is today. People are dying and going bankrupt because they are at the mercy of greedy health insurance companies. Health insurance companies are not in business to make sure every American has access to the health care they need, they are in business to make as much profit as possible. That is exactly why this country needs a government-run, single-payor system. What good are efficiencies when the savings goes into the pockets of executives instead into care for the people?

Shall we do the same for Social Security, national defense and other important services that the government provides? When effectiveness is defined as how wealthy executives and stock holders get, individual rights and needs are not even considered. And when we are talking about a function that the government performs for its citizens, this is NOT the way to go.