If capital markets are, by definition, more efficient than government,
as many people claim, then why does the Canadian government spend only
a fraction of it's health care budget on administrative/overhead
costs compared to those of American insurance companies?

Is it wrong to conclude that the gummint is actually *more* efficient
in this case? If so, why?

Have you ever had to get health care in Canada? Do you want to be in
a system where you have no control? Our next door neighbor (who was
an elderly lady) had heart problems. For all non-emergency care she
would have to wait up to 30 days or more. She was fairly well off and
her son was a doctor, but still she had no choice but to take what the
system gave her.

I prefer a health care system where if I choose get better coverage I
can buy it. From a patient satisfaction perspective, I would say a
free market health care system is more efficient.

ta nc.rr.com> wrote:

I think the primary reason is due to cost of advertising. If I remember
right, something like 10-12%% of the money spent on health care in the US
goes toward advertising which would be wholly unnecessary in a
single-payer system.

On Aug 27, 4:54 pm, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 27, 3:57 pm, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:

They call it 'market failure', ta, and it is inevitable given the
conditions that exist. What it means is that there really isn't a
market in health care.

-tg

You have your own army? Cool. Do you have tank and planes and
missile defense systems? Do you have your own satellite network and
ground base communication systems?

If you did not have your own army (or even if you did) and if you live
withing the territory of the US (or territories protected by the US)
how do you not benefit from US military forces protecting you?

You can say you don't wont their protection and choose to stop paying
for it, but it requires that you renounce your citizenship and move to
some area not protected by the US military. Otherwise you get this
benefit (and have to pay for it) whether you like it or not.

On Aug 28, 4:57 am, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:

Why should "efficency" have anything to do with health care? Surely
"choice" is the only moral argument.

Given a choice, would you ta, use a public toilet in the park owned by
the local council, looked after by council workers on a very tight
budget designed to make them "efficent" - who you never see or know
and always doubt because of the evidence, that they've ever seen or
used a toilet brush in their life as a council worker, or would you
prefer to use a toilet in a small shopping centre owned and operated
and cleaned by human individuals, you may even see each time you visit
the complex and where you know there are human individuals, like the
managers who you can complain to when things are bad and you know that
you will get and can see in most cases of a complaint instant results,
because if there isn't you will take your business to a shopping
complex who does want your business?

What on earth makes you think that State Health Vs YOUR Free Choice in
health care, is not the identical argument?

On Aug 27, 4:54 pm, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 27, 5:08 pm, "Daniel T." earthlink.net> wrote:

Probably so, although I imagine some of that overhead comes from
having to pay entire departments for scouring through claims to find
reasons not to pay them. Some of that inefficiency probably also
arises from having to deal with so many different companies.

On Aug 27, 5:15 pm, tg earthlink.net> wrote:

Why isn't there a market for health care?