4 ms·
Because a private company could to it more cheaply and efficiently?
by johnnyb9 11y ago
Because a private company could to it more cheaply and efficiently?
- ceejayoz 11y agoProbably not. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/ http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-ef...
- johnnyb9 11y agoWell then, why not have the government do everything? Service mortgages, run supermarkets, etc.
- mfringel 11y agoI'm sure you have about fifty more strawmen in your back pocket, but whipping them out and waving them around is a bit unseemly, don't you think?
- jessaustin 11y agoYou're the one who responded to a question about education loans with the example of medicare. How are those more similar to each other than either of them is to mortgages?
- ceejayoz 11y agoBecause the goal is efficiency, not having the government do everything. In mortgages, student loans, and healthcare, the government is already heavily involved on all aspects of the transaction. They might be providing insurance for a mortgage via FHA, student loan guarantees for a federal loan, or paying via Medicare. Private servicers/insurance are, in these cases, usually an unnecessary middleman that exists mainly to make a profit. In much of the rest of the developed world, the government acts as a single-payer for education and healthcare, and is more involved in housing than in the US. Having the government take over supermarkets would be less efficient - it'd be adding complexity to the system, not reducing it.
- srtjstjsj 11y agoBecause the government fund these loans but doesn't care about the quality. Private supermarkets aren't funded by the government. Student loan industry is a moral hazard.
- srtjstjsj 11y agoBecause the government fund these loans but doesn't care about the quality. Private supermarkets aren't funded by the government. Student loan industry is a moral hazard.