[decebalus1]

> the government's goals are not necessarily aligned with your own.

as opposed to the private sector?

> But if the government is also providing the healthcare services "for free" to individuals, then there is an incentive to downplay testing for rare or expensive to treat diseases due to the cost/benefit ratio.

Which is what current private insurers often do. The government's incentives aren't just to cut costs and run more efficiently. It mostly cares about staying 'the government' and having people live long enough to pay taxes. I want to hear the same argument when you're talking about the government's incentives to be more cost effective when it comes to funding the armed forces.

I think the gist of it is that as an individual, in theory, you have leverage over the government via your votes or representatives. You have none of that when dealing with the private sector. So in this case, if I'm bothered by what the government publicizes about diseases and such, I have several tools at my disposal to deal with it (FOIA requests to track down who's responsible, town halls, writing to the representatives, lobby, voting etc..). If a private company does it, what am I going to do? Write a bad review?

[googlryas]

The private sector will generally be happy to give you a service if you come with cash in hand. Which is why in the UK I can go get a brain MRI at a private clinic if I had a dream that I was developing MS, whereas I can't do that with the NHS.