4 ms·

When you say "cheaper" you mean to partialy subsidised services. I'm refering to tollroads, train networks, healthcare, pensions, etc. What you "pay" is not the

by antr 11y ago

When you say "cheaper" you mean to partialy subsidised services. I'm refering to tollroads, train networks, healthcare, pensions, etc. What you "pay" is not the real cost, but paid for in good part by the Government's budget.

clavalle 11y ago
I'm pretty sure they mean 'cheaper' as in 'lower total cost including that incurred by the government' not just 'the end consumer pays less'. It is strange that you seem to believe the free market is the only way to achieve efficiency.
- antr 11y ago
  From experience, yes. That's my understanding. I have worked on several transportation infrastructure projects, and now work in energy, and government-led projects (local, regional, national) tend to be more expensive (even if we include the repayment of debt) than private funded projects.
jjoonathan 11y ago
Did you not click on the link? IMO the site does a pretty good job of making it crystal clear that it's referring to the full cost (all levels of government + business + individual + other).
- antr 11y ago
  Sure, I did see the link to the data you provided. Unfortunately that doesn't provide the entire picture, lets not be naïve about it. US healthcare cost is not "expensive" because it is private. Some of the main reasons why it is expensive are (i) lack of pricing transparency, (ii) redudant test culture in US healthcare, (iii) lack of expenditure in preventive care vs curative, etc. This issues can be addressed without the need of nationalising any industry. Showing just a healthcare expenditure vs GDP figure doesn't address the root cause problem, and it defiently doesn't explain that public is better than private, and vice versa. I'm not talking out of ignorance, as my father is a orthpeadic surgeon in the public healthcare system here in Europe, and the above is a logical fallacy that doctors are well aware of.

by antr 11y ago

clavalle 11y ago

I'm pretty sure they mean 'cheaper' as in 'lower total cost including that incurred by the government' not just 'the end consumer pays less'. It is strange that you seem to believe the free market is the only way to achieve efficiency.

antr 11y ago
From experience, yes. That's my understanding. I have worked on several transportation infrastructure projects, and now work in energy, and government-led projects (local, regional, national) tend to be more expensive (even if we include the repayment of debt) than private funded projects.

jjoonathan 11y ago

Did you not click on the link? IMO the site does a pretty good job of making it crystal clear that it's referring to the full cost (all levels of government + business + individual + other).

antr 11y ago
Sure, I did see the link to the data you provided. Unfortunately that doesn't provide the entire picture, lets not be naïve about it. US healthcare cost is not "expensive" because it is private. Some of the main reasons why it is expensive are (i) lack of pricing transparency, (ii) redudant test culture in US healthcare, (iii) lack of expenditure in preventive care vs curative, etc. This issues can be addressed without the need of nationalising any industry. Showing just a healthcare expenditure vs GDP figure doesn't address the root cause problem, and it defiently doesn't explain that public is better than private, and vice versa. I'm not talking out of ignorance, as my father is a orthpeadic surgeon in the public healthcare system here in Europe, and the above is a logical fallacy that doctors are well aware of.