SLP here. I hear you. But the reality is greyer. Yes, it's easy for anyone and everyone to see the financial layer of developmental services. But virtually 100% of working SLPs care about getting clients to their goals, even if that client's access to services is determined by insurance.
Money is an inescapable reality for every service in society. But most clinics are busy, and so there isn't a real incentive to try to slow walk clients. Which would be radically corrupt on a number of levels. Even if some backroom financial functionary in a clinic were to have that thought on occasion. I've never heard it verbalized nor seen any evidence of it trickling down from management.
Moreover, most (but not all) clients will be perpetually slightly behind if they start behind. Even if they catch up at a faster rate, with the help of services. Thereby justifying services if the family wants them. But that's not the same as clinic level corruption. It's just a fact of cognitive development. But there's no better advertisement for a clinic or clinician than graduating a client.
Although I can't speak to reading in the following regard, I agree that there are sometimes lesser supported therapy methods for some delays. This is where the art of picking one's therapist is important, as they differ and what they use is within their discretion. As is the case across the rehab field.
> Money is an inescapable reality for every service in society.
Yes
That is a problem
Unfortunately "Every fruit has its seed (yes even seedless ones, in that circumstance the seed is the effort humans put into grafting it)" which is a saying that clarifies in all situations far beyond fruit, any replicating system that is of benefit to a third party must also wrap some portion of its benefit into self-replication that does not immediately benefit a third party.
Whether that takes the shape of money or some different shape, it remains the case that "free benefit" cannot exist, and that any beneficial system requires some kind of give to supplement the take that it offers.
Finding a way to establish that with balance is the challenge.
A system can do something without any of its members directly intending it. Quite common, actually.
The GGP's claim was quite a bit stronger than that, though.
"Can do something" is carrying a lot of weight here. I explained how it is in practice.