The misconception of the first part is that the government isn't forcing companies to accept prices, the companies make the politicians arbitrate a very favorable price for them. Monopolies are very much a government thing that beneficial the companies that they like.
You are only looking at one type of bad use of public money. Still, as put before, overhead is added cost so you can't say COST (not price) is lower when you have administrative cost from the government PLUS the cost of the service itself against only the price of the service.
I think we just seem to have a very different level of trust in the institutions that represent us.
In Canada, it's straight up illegal for a committee to take a contract when another producer also fills all the requirements, for cheaper. That creates its own problems, of course, but it's a good halt on corruption.
My point was, *if* it's working correctly, a single-payer system should most certainly drive down medical prices by a considerable amount. So it would certainly be a valid explanation for the price differential.Last edited by palou - on 07 March 2018
Bet with PeH:
I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.
Bet with WagnerPaiva:
I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.