I suspect that’s more controversial than some persons think.
For example, private agencies are providing health insurance in the United States. But there is a belief, based in historical evidence, that the government could handle this sector more efficiently, & therefore should institute single-payer health care.
Flip it around. Would you cancel a government program on the theory that a private agency could provide some version of the service & make money at it? Would you take away a government agency so someone could do that, even if it was less efficient?
I remember when my hometown experimented with privatizing trash hauling some years back; it was a mess. Some things work better with a single-payer model.
I don’t know all the context and details of that thread you pulled from. Anyways, I think this conversation will not be productive because “efficient” is mixed up with words like “effective” and “cheaper.”
So if it’s a common business practice to swindle the public . . . the government should stop doing it?
Or only if businesses aren’t doing it efficiently enough?
I would be happy to see the private health insurance industry disappear. It doesn’t even do a good job for those who have health insurance, and it’s a major source of waste, bureaucracy, and evil.
Here’s a situation straight out of economic theory where the government should be spending money on things where there’s already a market. This is a case of a positive externality, where the market is not providing enough of the good or service.