Recently in the UK a major provider of residential care went bankrupt. The news reported accurately that the company plan to sell off their houses and rent them back backfired in the economic climate. But no one in the news pointed out that every care home in the UK applies some form of salary subsidy to its care staff, or that the amount some publicly funded residents pay is capped by government policy.
Part of the financial strains which brought down the company were the frozen amounts they could pay. These sums had been frozen for years and no one when making decisions had thought they would be frozen for so long. The result for homes that are functioning, like the one I visited yesterday, is that there are empty beds available but not enough workers who accept the low pay to be trained to staff them, so people who want care cannot receive it.
I wonder why these things escape journalists who report avidly the major reasons why something happens, but miss secondary reasons that, if they were corrected, would ensure stability. We all know foundations are essential to a building but you do not get anywhere without the walls. And in these situations I always fear journalists are covering up for government mistakes.