Hacker News Reader

Comment by TruthAndDare | Hacker News Reader

> predatory practices by private companies

It does sound awful not to have access to fire service to someone like me who is used to it,* but then again, have the company done anything wrong by offering the service? Starting no company at all and offering no service at all would have been acceptable, right? I mean, that's what most of us do. Then, is there really anything wrong with offering people a service, even at a high price, if you don't take away any alternative they already had (which in this case would be to let the house burn)?

* I haven't actually ever used the service, but I count on that they will come if I call. I count on the fire department coming more than I do the police, because if there's a fire, other people's stuff and lives are on the line. When it's just about me, I'm not as sure that I am considered worth the cost. For the record, I'm in Europe.

View on HN

That's a very simplistic way to do things. If there were no private firefighters then it wouldn't take long for there to be enough public pressure for a firefighting force to be financed by the state. Because these predatory companies are already in place, the government won't bother and will just shrug. So the alternative to private firefighters isn't no firefighters.

That would mean that the rest of the people (i.e. not the fire fighting company) aren't rational. I'm not sure we can put the responsibility on a company to behave so as to save everyone else from their irrationality.

But does the public version cost less than the private one. I would be shocked if it did.

You'd have to analyze it on a case-by-case basis. The hope would be that public programs have less of a profit incentive to gouge people. That said, public programs are often bloated. However, that bloat often comes from contracting out to private entities with connections. Going pure private, profit motives may cause an entity to strive for efficiency, or it could make them strive to have a monopoly stranglehold on a market and gouge customers as much as possible.

Similar situation here in my country (middle Europe). There is one big corporate connected to some political representatives. They bought few hospital, 112 ambulance service (equal to 911 service), pharmacies, some local medical centers, they even have one health insurance company (one of three acting here).

They have great diversification. In some locations they have monopoly. If you need immediate help (you see or are member of accident, you have strong pain no matter where (head, teeth, back)) you have almost no choice. You are still calling emergency and/or paying to one pocket.

From one side, public hospital all very old and incredibly indebted, outdated medical devices, buildings are old and need renovation. Mentioned corp invested huge amount of money in renovation, improving environment and business process. People have better services and new private hospitals has very good financial health and level of customer services.

On the other hand, very sad thing is that public representatives are able only talk about nothing and perform reformation feasibility studies and studies about studies. They are not able to get needed public services to desired level. If private corps will own entire public health-care system this will be an issue. Charging for services will not limited at all. There is almost no competition in this area since have huge entry difficulties. And even someone would be able to get into competition with this shark corp. they simply buy him.

Cost? Probably very similar. However, should the private fire service be around when your house is on fire, you are in no position to refuse whatever price they ask for (and they will happily pocket the difference).

You are always in a position to refuse and I would assume that in most places if the price is astronomical you would have a pretty good case in court after the fact.

In Germany, as far as I know, towns are mandated to have a fire service. Either the town raises a volunteer firefighter force, or the county will levy taxes and put a force in for the town. There's something to be said for a functioning civil service, not every issue has to be fought over every year in city council, and the only one who benefits are politicians seeking exposure.

OK, but what does it have to do with my comment?

What I'm trying to say is that the private-equity model isn't an inevitable outcome. It all depends on the legal and cultural environment.

I'm all of removing regulation where it makes sense, replacing public with private where it makes sense. This seams like a clear regulatory failure, as in not enough regulation and not enough right kind of regulation.

So while the company could (and should) have done more. The real issue is that there should be statewide clear policy and regulation that defines what standards (public / private) entities must meet if they provide these services. And I do image these would be stringent and complex.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com