[Certhas]

I know it's just a throw away joke, but this persistent idea that government is incompetent, no matter what is really damaging.

When it comes to health care systems there is no evidence whatsoever that less government means more efficiency, if anything the US is a huge example to the contrary.

[ProAm]

Im not really joking, their ability to do anything efficiently or correctly for a reasonable sum of money is embarrassing. I know it's a joke as well, but it's funny because it's true.

[Retric]

Social Security has vastly lower overhead than any equivalent private program.

Now, you can see crazy waste on both sides EX: Drug Advertising. But, it's hard to look at this objectively.

[mozumder]

My experience is the opposite. Private companies seem completely inefficient compared to government, and I've worked as engineers in both.

Really it is only a right-wing profit-driven talking point to say government is inefficient, mostly to protect against their profits that government takes away.

Government is exceedingly efficient.

[ProAm]

I've worked in both as well and vehemently disagree.

[mozumder]

The numbers support my case. You can send a mail with the USPS for 50 cents anywhere in the country, but it costs $5-$10 to do the same with UPS or FedEx.

Literally 10x-20x costlier.

Government just doesn't have to waste money on things like profit or marketing that private companies need to do.

[ProAm]

USPS is a private entity under the government, they fund themselves. They receive no funding from the government.

You can look at the military and at obamacare/heathcare.gov for examples.

[mozumder]

You can also look at the USPS as an example, since it IS a government entity that doesn't have to serve profits.

Also, the military and healthcare is more efficient in government, but you probably already knew that already.

[deelowe]

Uhh, the US has had extreme government regulations regarding healthcare for as far back as I remember. Every state has it's own insurance administrator and purchasing insurance across state lines isn't allowed. What we have right now is the worse of both systems actually. It's a heavily regulated false free market where the customer has basis for comparing prices and has no direct control over providers. Instead they must choose between a government chosen option or an employer chosen one. It's just terrible all around.

With a single payer system, at least it would be fair to lay all blame on the single payer. It'd still be beuqacratic and political, but at least there'd be direct responsibility.

Removing the regulations, at least the customer would be able to choose a provider themselves and people could sue over pricing disagreements. There would be issues with pre-existing conditions and low income that would still need to be addressed, though.

Either option is better than where we are today, which is, well I'm not sure. There's not really a term to define the mess we've created. It's not socialist, it's not capitalist, it's just a mess of special interests, political concessions, and reactionary legislation. I guess the one thing we can definitely call it is bureaucratic.