Mary may add value by her attention to detail. Bob may add value by his marketing skills.
Or they might be adding the same exact value (or as close as too different people can come to that, presumably for a very simple task). One doesn't have to be better or even provide a different service, the point is that doing the exact same thing is still adding value. If there the same you could pick either of them to add that value. Mary doesn't reasonably have to add more to be considered acceptable.
I am assuming that all hospitals, regardless of ownership, are equal in that any one will remove your appendix, give you hospital socks, and provide lousy food.
All of which is adding value (except maybe the food <g>)
What I was looking for was what Catholic ownership would add to that.
And my point is that even if the answer is "nothing", that's ok. There isn't any reason for them to have to be special standouts in order for them to exist.
If the Catholic hospitals are engaged in an initiative to take over and crowd out secular hospitals, though, are you neutral or are you sticking up for the underdog secular hospitals?
I don't think they are, if they are I don't think it will work, and if it does work and they abuse it, they will just lose the market to new or existing specialized competitors (and perhaps eventually to new hospitals as well).
Providers of goods and services don't typically have a lot of power over the end consumer, unless they can get the government to restrict competition. They may look like they have a lot of power but if they don't provide what the consumer wants that apparent power will dissipate. |
