> That’s because I tend to think that when a service is for profit rather than for the public’s benefit, all sorts of perverse incentives arise. If schools operated for profit, with education subsidized by vouchers, the companies running the schools would have an interest in spending as little as possible actually educating the students, because every dollar they could save would be a dollar they could keep.

The problem with this kind of argument is that it forgets the incentive of a government run or public's benefit is that they too have a different metric to adhere to - politics. They then lead to a cumbersome system with nearly zero responsibility. This then gets picked up by people on the opposite side of the fence as failures of public benefit, government run system.

So, unfortunately things have to seen on a case to case basis. Public benefit schooling is a great thing. But public benefit food option? That is debatable. For some it will come off "government controlling what we eat" and hurting fundamental rights.