Germany 'exporting' old and sick to foreign care homes

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks for sharing this, Jan. I have long believed that there exists certain "businesses" or perhaps "industries" that need not be allowed to
"go public" and sell shares of company stock. In the States there is a requirement that "publicly held" companies must strive at all times to
return a profit on investment to the shareholders. While this may, on the surface, appear to be in the best interest of the shareholders and
serve to prevent those tasked with guardianship over shareholder investment funds from failing to keep their proverbial eye on the ball, there
is more to it than that. When the actual Products and Services offered by these companies to consumers are of a crucial nature, such as, health
care, then the profit to shareholders must take a back seat to greater Hippocratic Principles. So, until an exception is made to the "return on
investment" fiduciary responsibility of these Health Care Companies to their shareholders (not likely to happen) or alternately a restriction is put
in place that prohibits Health Care companies from selling stock to the public in order to avoid a conflict of interest that inevitably results in
the company being between a rock and a hard place, we will continue to have a health care mess. Choosing between providing "great health
care" --OR-- "providing the highest return on shareholder investments" is no way to run a company and certainly is no way to provide health care.
The conflict is much too deep given the laws in existence today.

Of course, it should go without saying that patient care MUST take precedence over shareholder ROI. But, until the laws are amended that is
not likely to become a reality. Moreover, what of those who are heavily invested in health care? How do we amend the system (which certainly
needs amending) without damaging the interests of honest folks whose retirement funds are heavily invested in health care industries? These
are very challenging considerations, indeed. It is easier to make laws going forward BEFORE anyone is heavily invested, much more difficult is
it to protect those already invested.

While I agree that capitalistically driven health care is a recipe for disaster, still... free markets tend to bring costs down, but only if they are truly
free. I believe that a restriction from trading stock for certain, select industries is a necessary and sensible regulation that should have already
been implemented.

I just wonder: How did "they" miss this conflict to begin with? Answer: We give "them" way too much credit (no pun intended).


.