Originally Posted by A.Nonymous
The only reason some government services are able to provide the same services for less money is because they operate at a loss. They are not at all viable long term solutions. At least not if we have any interests in cutting the size/cost of government. They are certainly not more efficient.
Operate at a loss = efficiency? You are a smart guy A.Nonymous, sheesh. If we compare government regulated and mandated (or run) health systems, they are far more efficient than the free for all model in the US.
Healthcare spending around the world, country by country | News | guardian.co.uk
Healthcare spend as a %GDP: Germany = 11.6% vs US = 17.9 %GDP.
Private spend as a % of HC spend: Germany = 22.9% vs US = 46.9%.
Public spend per capita PPP: Germany = $3339 vs US = $4437.
Germany has 3 doctors for every 2 the US has.
Don't give me a bunch of shit about US governments being inefficient etc. German healthcare is run by their states, many of whom have quite large fiscal deficits and could be run somewhat better.
Basically, what I'm saying is, taking the government out of healthcare will only increase overall healthcare spending, cause millions to die unnecessarily, drive up costs and economic inefficiency and make the US more uncompetitive.