To anyone who intuitively understands why the maintenance of human health and well-being might suffer for being corrupted by vested interests who are more inter

To anyone who intuitively understands why the maintenance of human health and well-being might suffer for being corrupted by vested interests who are more interested in said vesting than human health and well-being (ie, "opposition to privatisation"), the disturbing aspect is precisely how non-nefarious and academic the synopsis seems. "Starve the beast" and other traditional conservative anti-public-service techniques are functionally sabotage, yes. I'm not sure what other concept might succinctly describe "cut as much funding as you can, then highlight the resultant disaster as proof that the private sector can do better". The cultural acceptance of the practice doesn't change what the practice is.