I disagree with the language you use. It was not designed to make money. It was designed to cost less, in the same way the USSR was designed to make workers ri

I disagree with the language you use. It was not designed to make money. It was designed to cost less, in the same way the USSR was designed to make workers rich - it simply failed spectacularly. Neoliberals dislike both regulation and public ownership, but made a Faustian bargain where they replaced public ownership with more regulation, thinking that regulation was the lessor of the two evils. In reality, it's not - like in the USSR where they had corporatised but heavily regulated "companies". A heavily regulated company doesn't make money by offering better value to customers, it makes money by finding loopholes in regulations, and regulators will always lose the cat and mouse game of closing these loopholes. Neoliberals end up creating a system that's actually a lot like the USSR (if the famous "Well intentioned Commissaire" essay is representative of the USSR) - heavy regulations, with corporate entities outsmarting the regulators to enrich their owners (or managers) while minimising the value they create. Neoliberals deny the need for pubic management, but are forced to badly reinvent it (via heavy regulation). Communists deny the need for incentives, and are forced to badly reinvent it (once again via regulation), ending up not a million miles away from where neoliberals end up - with endless regulation and lost efficiency. It's worth noting that the US spends far more tax dollars (per capita) than Australia on health (Australia has a hybrid public / private model). Medicare, Medicaid and the VA costs about as much as Canada's expensive public system (per capita) since the US is so insanely inefficient. (edit: The essay I mentioned - https://highered.blogspot.com/2009/01/well-intentioned-commissar.html https://highered.blogspot.com/2009/01/well-intentioned-commi...)