It annoys me that he keeps saying 'Stockholm' when he means parlement. The general gist, whilst he makes his bias clear, is fairly well put and supported. Wha

It annoys me that he keeps saying 'Stockholm' when he means parlement. The general gist, whilst he makes his bias clear, is fairly well put and supported. What worries me is the trajectory he wants to launch on: "Stockholm has also introduced a law that empowers Swedes to chose their providers for health care and other public services. This has led to a robust surge in entrepreneurship within the health-care sector, where more competition is bound to improve services." Hmm. Right. That works really well elsewhere in the world, right? We need to get more for our money in healthcare, but I think that comes from effectivness at the regional level and not from inviting private companies to run healthcare for profit. The school system with 'free schools' - schools run by companies and for a profit - has been, in my direct experience, despicable. By all means privatise the various misc things that the country still has a stake in. But run healthcare and education on a non-profit basis. I would go off on a thing about pensions but that's a big ponzi scheme whichever way you look at it. Its not like I or anyone else has an honest answer. /Swede.