I'm the poster who you originally posed this question to, and I think it's a valid question without an easy answer. In large part, it depends on the culture of

I'm the poster who you originally posed this question to, and I think it's a valid question without an easy answer. In large part, it depends on the culture of the country. On one hand, government healthcare could easily be cheaper an provide better outcomes by eliminating the middleman of insurance- having things centralized into one entity can be more efficient through many mechanisms (reduction of duplicated effort, elimination of requirement for profitability, etc) On the other hand, government healthcare could easily be more expensive and provide worse outcomes if it was corrupt or poorly administered, or if it became a target for corrupt providers. I think in America we have a culture of ripping off and destroying any government provided social benefit. Just look at medicare fraud and social security fraud. Other countries may not face those issues- for example the nordics seem to be doing well.