Those are generally private companies too, at least in Sweden, I would assume most of the nordics.
That last 20-30 years have seen increasing privatization of services paid for with public funds, in everything from infrastructure, healthcare, eldercare and schools. Of course they maximize profits (maximizing residents, students, patients) and minimize costs (staff, care).
But that is not a property of private industry ... or I should say, it is, but it is not a difference with public industry.
In public industry the name of the game is to maximize subsidy for minimal actual work done. Lots of people, but nothing happens.
If you were alive in the 80s you would have seen this in action. People who "work" ... but not much at all. Many people, but zero activity. I'm told it was much worse in the 60s.
There are inherent incentives for the behavior I described (and I described those incentives) with the private industry, but those are absent from public institutions. An absence of an incentive does not equal an opposite or corresponding countering incentive.
It could of course pan out like you describe, but the only guarantee for it is if humans are inherently lazy, and while I agree some are I don't believe this to be a general fact. Just look at teachers or nurses for example. They're certainly not doing it for the pay, and a lot of them are absolutely going above and beyond.
Is your claim that not funneling profits to private holding companies and instead hiring extra nurses with that money would not lead to better care? Or what is the comparative claim?
Yes, I was alive in the 80s, and I'm not sure what you're referring to.
That last 20-30 years have seen increasing privatization of services paid for with public funds, in everything from infrastructure, healthcare, eldercare and schools. Of course they maximize profits (maximizing residents, students, patients) and minimize costs (staff, care).
It's the same problem, not a different one.