The Big Bad Swedish Politics & News Thread

[The Lord Marbury]

Wait, what are "companies in the welfare sector"? You mean insurance companies?

Nope, companies operating services in the welfare sector, such as private hospitals, schools and nursing homes. Basically they're just like regular private companies, only with the quirk that they get a sizable chunk of taxpayer money to provide services for the same price and quality as the municipal and county operated services. This has lead to the debate over their profits, since there were revelations that some companies had cut back on staff and patient care in order to expand their profit margins, and then there's the fact that a good deal of taxpayer money is ending up in the pockets of venture capitalists which I think many would find quite distasteful.

[The Lord Marbury]

The debate going on is basicly wether privte hospitals, schools, and nursing homes should be allowed to make a profit on their business if it's a business that is fully or partially state funded and is suppouse to provide welfere to someone.

The left's argument being that it's immoral to make a profit on something that is tax-payer funded (so funded by national health insurence, or school voachers) as well as that allowing profits will naturally lead to companies cutting the quality of care and education in order to make large profit.

While the right argue that it would be wrong to be able to make money by making bombs (the military weapon industry in Sweden is huge) while if you do something good like provide health care or education you're not allowed to make money on it, and that the problem with busnisses cutting the quality of care or education is solved by the free market. If your school or hospital doesn't live up to your expectations you switch to another alternative.

The counter argument to that being that switching your hospital/school/nursing home isn't like switching to another brand of bread in the super market, and that (especially when it comes to schools and nursing homes) it's a question of people being too young and too old to be able to make good choices for themselves.     

The question has been splitting the Social Democrats in their traditional right- and left- fractions for quite a while.

LO, (Swedish Trade Union Confederation) who're usually completly worthless, actually come up with a good compromise proposal, which even though I don't agree with it, I think would be a winning position in an election. But if Marbury is correct (and I count on him knowing his party better than I do) that will probably not be adapted.

Another argument against which isn't brought out that often is the fact that it very hypocritical for a government which claims to be fiscally responsible to allow the taxpayers' money to end up in the pockets of venture capitalists based out of tax havens so that the profits aren't even taxed here in Sweden. Also unlike what some rightwingers say about us who oppose profits in welfare we aren't against private alternatives in welfare at, we just believe that their profits should be reinvested in the actual business because it is the best for the patients. Basically what we say is that if your ultimate goal is to just make money and nothing else, then you shouldn't be in the welfare business in the first place.

And to clarify, I'm not saying that there's not enough people who would support the LO proposal in order to give it a majority, because there most likely is, however the big issue here it that a lot of those will most likely not be willing to hand Löfven a major defeat just when he has started to define himself as a credible opponent to Reinfeldt. Some type compromise, quite possibly more far reaching than the one already proposed, is indeed likely to pass.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Also unlike what some rightwingers say about us who oppose profits in welfare we aren't against private alternatives in welfare at, we just believe that their profits should be reinvested in the actual business because it is the best for the patients. Basically what we say is that if your ultimate goal is to just make money and nothing else, then you shouldn't be in the welfare business in the first place.

Yes, but there are people on the left, mostly in V but also in your party, who're still entierly against private initiatives altogether. Obviously we shouldn't say you're all the same, but we need to face and debate both positions. 

As for the people who hold your position, that still leaves the question: Why shouldn't people be allowed to make money for being involved in helping people as opposed to producing a physical product. Should being the founder and CEO of a group of succesful  hospitals be valued less than being the founder and CEO of a company in the weapons industry?

Obviously profits shouldn't be allowed to decrease  the quality of the welfere that customers recive, or the conditions of the employes, but that you solve with tighter regulations and harder inspections, not by out-lawing profit. There have been rotten eggs on the market, but should you punish the good companies for John Bauer or Carema being sh**t, or should you make sure they live up to a good standard by regulation, and leave the good alternatives alone. That is where our oppinion differ.

As for the problem with tax-evasion, and tax-planing, that is a different issue that must be tackled seperatley. We need to make sure everyone (undependant of wether they're Bofors or Carema) pay their taxes in Sweden, but that is solved by closing loop-holes and tax treaties, not banning profit for a small number of certain enterprise. 

Some type compromise, quite possibly more far reaching than the one already proposed, is indeed likely to pass.

Well it shall be intresting to follow the debate and see what they come up with.

[The Lord Marbury]

Yes, but there are people on the left, mostly in V but also in your party, who're still entierly against private initiatives altogether. Obviously we shouldn't say you're all the same, but we need to face and debate both positions.

Yes we very much understand that however even when you debate with someone who just wants stop profits or cap them, you're still guilty of using the argument that we're against "freedom of choice" and private intitiatives entirely which is a fallacy.

As for the people who hold your position, that still leaves the question: Why shouldn't people be allowed to make money for being involved in helping people as opposed to producing a physical product. Should being the founder and CEO of a group of succesful  hospitals be valued less than being the founder and CEO of a company in the weapons industry?

Obviously profits shouldn't be allowed to decrease  the quality of the welfere that customers recive, or the conditions of the employes, but that you solve with tighter regulations and harder inspections, not by out-lawing profit. There have been rotten eggs on the market, but should you punish the good companies for John Bauer or Carema being sh**t, or should you make sure they live up to a good standard by regulation, and leave the good alternatives alone. That is where our oppinion differ.

As for the problem with tax-evasion, and tax-planing, that is a different issue that must be tackled seperatley. We need to make sure everyone (undependant of wether they're Bofors or Carema) pay their taxes in Sweden, but that is solved by closing loop-holes and tax treaties, not banning profit for a small number of certain enterprise.

That's because the companies operating in the welfare sector aren't like other companies. If a regular private company wants to take out profits from their enterprise we have no issues with that, but the problem with the ones in welfare is that they're either partially of fully funded by tax money and we find it amoral for the government to allow the taxpayers' money to end up in the pockets of investors because it's supposed to go to financing our common welfare system among other things. Essentially allowing private companies to take a piece of that money and use it as they please is quite simply a waste of the taxpayers' dime.

Yes preventing tax-evasion and tax-planning is indeed a different issue, but fixing that still does not the overall problem that tax money is going into corporate profits.

[The Lord Marbury]

Looks like a compromise in the welfare issue has finally been reached, as reported by Aftonbladet.

Here's a rough translation of the new writings:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It also mentions national laws regarding quality control, as well as municipal control over planning when and where new schools are established.

I'm actually quite happy with this compromise. It may not be all that I wanted, it may not completely ban profits or seriously cap them, but it's good enough for now. It gives Löfven and the rest of the leadership enough flexibility and it definitely shows that we are offering a clear alternative to the Alliance in welfare issues.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My solution would be, stop funding these companies and give this money to the public hospitals and schools instead. If you want to be a for-profit company, there's no reason the State should subsidize you.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

My solution would be, stop funding these companies and give this money to the public hospitals and schools instead. If you want to be a for-profit company, there's no reason the State should subsidize you.

Ah but then you get the problem that only the wealthy can buy private alternatives. I can assure you that it's not a solution that'd be accepted by anyone on the swedish left.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My solution would be, stop funding these companies and give this money to the public hospitals and schools instead. If you want to be a for-profit company, there's no reason the State should subsidize you.

Ah but then you get the problem that only the wealthy can buy private alternatives. I can assure you that it's not a solution that'd be accepted by anyone on the swedish left.

Who cares, as long as the public options are of good quality?

[MaxQue]

My solution would be, stop funding these companies and give this money to the public hospitals and schools instead. If you want to be a for-profit company, there's no reason the State should subsidize you.

Ah but then you get the problem that only the wealthy can buy private alternatives. I can assure you that it's not a solution that'd be accepted by anyone on the swedish left.

Who cares, as long as the public options are of good quality?

Well, there will be more people in the public system than in the private one, so, rich people using private option will get care quicker.

[DC Al Fine]

My solution would be, stop funding these companies and give this money to the public hospitals and schools instead. If you want to be a for-profit company, there's no reason the State should subsidize you.

Ah but then you get the problem that only the wealthy can buy private alternatives. I can assure you that it's not a solution that'd be accepted by anyone on the swedish left.

Who cares, as long as the public options are of good quality?

Well, there will be more people in the public system than in the private one, so, rich people using private option will get care quicker.

I'm assuming that "good quality" includes roughly equal wait times.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, yeah. I'm pretty sure that if public utilities were properly financed waiting wouldn't be much of a problem.

[freefair]

Most of the social and economic growth and development of Nordic nations in recent years has been thanks to its intelligent reform and efficient marketisation of public services and sharp fiscal conservatism- well, that's the impression that I get from most sources.

[The Lord Marbury]

Most of the social and economic growth and development of Nordic nations in recent years has been thanks to its intelligent reform and efficient marketisation of public services and sharp fiscal conservatism- well, that's the impression that I get from most sources.

Fiscal conservatism yes, at least during the 1990s when it was sorely needed in light of the crisis of the time, but marketisation of public services hasn't really contributed to economic growth, but rather it has been the strong and stable relations between the parties on the labour market and a well educated population with skills in growing technology-related sectors.

The unfortunate marketisation of vital public services hasn't contributed much at all to our growth, except for the obvious growth of profit-seeking interests in the welfare sector, I guess.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The unfortunate marketisation of vital public services hasn't contributed much at all to our growth, except for the obvious growth of profit-seeking interests in the welfare sector, I guess.

Well naturally you would say that, you're a left-winger.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The unfortunate marketisation of vital public services hasn't contributed much at all to our growth, except for the obvious growth of profit-seeking interests in the welfare sector, I guess.

Well naturally you would say that, you're a left-winger.

And naturally you would object, you're a right-winger.

[The Lord Marbury]

The unfortunate marketisation of vital public services hasn't contributed much at all to our growth, except for the obvious growth of profit-seeking interests in the welfare sector, I guess.

Well naturally you would say that, you're a left-winger.

And naturally you would object, you're a right-winger.

+1

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The unfortunate marketisation of vital public services hasn't contributed much at all to our growth, except for the obvious growth of profit-seeking interests in the welfare sector, I guess.

It also adds extra layers of management, don't forget that...

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The Social Democrats have the last couple of days once more been engaged in scandal. This time over one of their newly elected board members who has been accused of anti-semitism and homophobia since he as chairman for the Swedish Islamic Association invited openly anti-semetic and anti-LGBT speakers. Wether he, Omar Mustafa holds these views privatly is unclear. The chritisism has come mostly from inside the party and not from the opposition. 

http://www.thelocal.se/47270/20130411/#.UWp7scq6558

Omar Mustafa has now been forced to resign while giving a minor kicking towards the party leadership while doing so, saying:

“The party leadership believes that having a mandate within the party and within Muslim civil society is incompatible. The party leadership’s view isn’t only regrettable, it’s also a frightening signal to Muslims and other Social Democrats who are people of faith,”

http://www.thelocal.se/47320/20130413/#.UWp928q6558

[politicus]

This is starting to look like a Sweden General Discussion thread which kinda "starves" the Great Nordic Thread which is more and more becoming just a Denmark thread since nobody post about Finnish or Norwegian stuff (even if we do have a couple of Finnish posters and a Norwegian newbie).

Its fair enough if you think Sweden has enough news for its own thread, but maybe you should rename it to Sweden General Discussion then?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Its fair enough if you think Sweden has enough news for its own thread, but maybe you should rename it to Sweden General Discussion then?

We could PM Afleitch and ask him to rename them. I don't mind either way.

[politicus]

Its fair enough if you think Sweden has enough news for its own thread, but maybe you should rename it to Sweden General Discussion then?

We could PM Afleitch and ask him to rename them. I don't mind either way.

Well, I dunno. My idea when I made the GNT was that there werent going to be enough news from each of the Nordic countries to keep separate threads going, but if you combined them in one megathread there woud be. But it never really got off the ground.
I still dont think there is enough news for a separate Denmark thread, but now that you are so many Swedish posters, it seems there is enough Swedish news to keep a separate Sweden thread going. The problem is that it kinda kills the GNT since there isnt enough news from the rest of the Nordic countries to keep it going on a regular basis.

(but then again, maybe thats just a problem for me   )

[Antonio the Sixth]

I like giving Sweden its own thread.

[politicus]

I like giving Sweden its own thread.

Okay, lets ask afleitch to rename this one to Sweden General Discussion then and see what will happen with the GNT. Maybe this new guy, Lurker, will start posting some Norwegian news in it.

Will you do it Johan? (since you started the thread)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I think renaming it should be Cheese's decision, no?

[politicus]

Well, I think renaming it should be Cheese's decision, no?

He already agreed to that (see his latest post).

I changed the entry in the GNT to this:

For discussion of issues regarding the Nordic countries Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands.