That's true in regard to medical care at least, it never occurred to [me] things could be improved by having ... less government of the current f'up system we have? That what we need is less not more government involvement. What has occurred to me however is this: there is fundamentally no significant difference in quality between the private and government sectors. Both are made up of individuals drawn from a wide range of knowledge, skills and personalities. Neither the Private nor Government sector is more efficient or capable than the other. some things are best handled by the private sector, while others belong in the government sector. Looking at obvious problems to be solved through ideologically tinted glasses does no good if we are talking about the private sector versus the public sector. The answer will never be "more of this" and "less of that". Because the "this" and the "that" are both products of people that are fundamentally the same. We will have to think in terms of policy and operational improvement in both sectors. We must start by deciding whether a particular function is best handled by the Private or Government sector, and then figure out how best to do it. With regard to medical care delivery we are fortunate to have a wide range of models to consider and improve on. Each of those models is demonstrably better than our own. We can, therefore, answer the initial question. And we even know why the answer comes out as it has. It's because medical care pricing is highly inelastic by nature, and in the U.S. it has been made even more so by regulatory capture. A satisfactory private sector solution is, of course, impossible without pricing elasticity. Ergo Healthcare must be handled by the Government Sector. This does not necessarily mean however that providers will be on the government payroll -- although that is a possibility in some models -- it simply means that government, not the private sector must determine policy, make the rules, and see that they are uniformly applied and that all citizens are treated equally under the law. So let's just get on with it. Trying to fix a fundamentally flawed model with incremental changes can never work.
You first say: "That there is fundamentally no significant difference in quality between the private and government sectors." Then: "We must start by deciding whether a particular function is best handled by the Private or Government sector, ..." Which is it?
In general I would say this is true. But not when it comes to the insurance market. Health insurance is a very complicated industry and no one actually knows how expensive a procedure is. The doctors who administer care rarely know and the patients who receive the care basically never know. Further there is so much administration between the actual care giving and the bill that overhead and inefficiencies have to be creating price inflation. Multiple firms touching an invoice, HIPA rules, and multiple insurance plans create a perfect system price inflation. I believe that if the government were to get more involved in health insurance, you would see costs go down just on transparency and paperwork reduction.
Regulators aka Lawyers. Also Politicians and Lobbyists aka Lawyers. There are even Doctors who are Lawyers. In other words if it is not already plainly obvious too many damn Lawyers.
That's because the consumer of that insurance is you. "You" consume medical services, but (in the U.S.) it's been 30+ years since you paid the doctor. Transparent fees and a'la carte pricing; no treble-damages on malpractice; no employer-related insurance (i.e., recognize "insurance benefits" as regular income). All solved.
I think that's because there aren't many stakeholders in the middle (none of the beauracracy I mentioned earlier).