That's completely false. Private health care charge more for the same services and the same waiting lists, and I know this because I've experienced both systems.
Please see my detailed comments below. A pay for yourself system is far superior to any system with a bureaucratic overhead that limits the care options available and limits the number of spaces available for that care. I don't mean 'private' HMO care, but
truly private I pay for directly from my own resources health care.
If I use the taxes I now pay to the government for healthcare that they then use for government agencies that decide what and how much I'm allowed, I would get more actual medical care and less government workers paid with my money to make for me what should be my decisions to decide for myself.

I don't think any single country has a private-only or public-only school system, including colleges.
Agreed, but not the topic. Most people get their education solely from the public school system and a much smaller number get their education solely from private schools.
My point was that paying for your own schooling directly allows more choice of where to go to school than paying the government through taxes, and then letting them tell you what schools they will let you attend, and that they will pay for with
your money. My other point as addressed below is that government involvement in this process is also far less efficient than direct choice.

maybe you should open your eyes. Just look at the energy sector, and ask Californians how efficient their energy companies are now that they're private.
Perhaps you should open your eyes and read what I said?
Agreed, but infrastructure works best as a monopoly without competition. Healthcare and education are very different services.
Power generation and distribution are infrastructure.
--------
It is actually free.
...Sure, I pay a crapload for it...
So is it free or isn't it?
It may be free for a homeless person, but that hardly makes it free.
You just admitted to paying "a crapload" for it, so please explain if you would how that is better than my simply paying for my own healthcare for myself?
Just because you can afford to pay your government-forced charity doesn't make your system better.
Just because you don't mind paying your government-forced charity doesn't make your system better.
Just because we both have a similar standard of living doesn't make your system better.
Please tell us
why you believe your government run, buracracy riddled, choice restricted, waiting-lists for treatment system is better than a purely private system where I simply pay out of my own pocket for any medical care I choose to receive?
--------
The survey I was drawing on compared Canadian National Healthcare service levels to private American care.
Don't confuse a survery based on the average level of "private American care" with the
available level of care for a private citizen that pays his medical expenses directly from his own pocket.
"Private American care" would include anyone part of a HMO, health plan, etc. This is an apples and oranges comparison to Canada's system as American HMO's are restricted as to the levels of care, and costs they can charge, etc. by the US government through medicare, medicaid, et. al., and thus are not really private. If the government tells an HMO what procedures they can do, what the payment they will receive is, etc. then that is not the private care I advocate and prefer.
A truly private health care - exactly like I have where if I have an expense I just pay it, has no such restrictions.
And are you honestly telling me that just because you pay more for it makes it a better service? What kind of services would you like, that aren't approved by the government? Because if it isn't funded by the government, I am free to go pay for it myself, and have it done.
Yes, in most cases higher cost does allow more treatment options.
There are a huge number of treatment options that government healthcare won't pay for, whether it be your government's system or our not really "private" system that is told what to do by our government. If you would like I will spend the time to get you a list.
If you can find a treatment you need and then pay for it yourself, then you just admitted that:
A) The government doesn't cover every treatment you consider worth having.
B) That private healthcare is an option you are willing to participate in.
C) That your government care you pay for isn't using your money as efficiently as it could be.
I don't follow. Are you saying my arguments aren't valid because they happen in Canada?
Not at all. IMHO Canada has one of the best run government heathcare systems available, and it would be the logical choice for anyone attempting to defend that type of bureaucracy.
I am saying to only compare it to a truly private system, not the US government's HMO mess. The OP topic discusses being taxed, and I said I prefer to not be taxed for healthcare and education, but to provide for myself. Please feel free to compare your bureaucracies to my personally preferred purely private choose-for-myself, pay-for-myself system.
I can choose any school I want, provided I have the marks to get in, same as you.
We do have private colleges, and I could have gone there, had I felt like paying for it/moving away from home. I pay tuition, among the largest in the country as a matter of fact.
So let's say you do choose to aspire to a private education. In that case are you telling us you still would prefer to be taxed for a public education that you didn't receive? That's like being forced to pay for a meal you didn't eat, a show you didn't see, or a book you didn't read.
You can only choose any school you want to if you abandon the very public education system you are defending, and include the private schools as well. In order for your choices to include all schools, then you must see that public education facilities are a smaller sub-set of "all schools". You can not choose any school without admitting that public education doesn't include every school, and therefore by nature limits your educational options.
Wouldn't it be better to have just paid for whatever education you received in a direct manner? Cut out the middle-man? Who needs the government involved at all? Why add a layer of fat, overhead and salaries for some government agency when you are perfectly capable of picking your own school? How can that extra layer possibly be more efficient than direct, individual choice?
Calgary is filled with some of the most right-wing economists in Canada. And even then a good deal of the profs I have met are confident the government has a place in a few marketplaces.
Occasionally, the market does fail. And when it does, it's typically a catastrophic failure.
I don't see how these comments relate to where you choose to go to school or how to most efficiently pay for it.
I personally am in agreement that the government has a place in many marketplaces, but as a rules-enforcer, not as a competitor with the private sector as is the case in healthcare and education.
They may be gaining market share against Canada Post in the cities, but they may not be as well. One thing is for sure, they haven't made inroads at all in the small towns they view as too small for a delivery outlet. I'll give you a hint: the free market provides a solution for most people, most of the time. But the free market ALWAYS fails to provide for some people.
A hundred years ago there was no UPS or FedEx, so they are obviously gaining market share. I will again seek links for you if you even try to deny the rise of the private package services.
If as you claim, government is more efficient, then there would be
no UPS or FedEx at all. If as I claim, private sector is more efficient, then there would be increasing growth and market share expansion of the private package carriers. Would you like some links to illustrate which of us is correct?
Government also "ALWAYS fails to provide for some people." Frankly, some people expect something for nothing and even when given something still complain. Our topic was the efficiency of the government vs. the private sector, and forced taxes to support said same. Social engineering for the benefit of the masses is a topic for another thread.
Not necessarily. Japan does not have a dispersed rural population. If growing bananas in Brazil works well, should it work well everywhere?
If government run systems really are more efficient as you claim, then why shouldn't it work everywhere? I claimed private systems are more efficient and gave the privatization of Japan's Postal System as an example to support my view.
I'm absolutely amazed you believe the market is always superior. While you're spouting generalizations at people, may I offer a helpful suggestion that you read even an elementary economics textbook? Even they cover market failure.
Bold by me.
Please provide a link to where I said the market is
always superior. In order to have a discussion it works best if you read what was said and not add your comments to my statements.
The market is not always superior, just most of the time. Please see my concession to infrastructure above as already mentioned. Other examples include police, courts, national defense and market regulation.
I have given specific examples, hardly the "generalizations" as you claim. If as you claim government really is the master at efficiency then ask yourself why does the private sector even exist? Why does any government operation ever get privatized? When privatization occurs why is efficiency always the number one reason for the decision?
Market failure has nothing to do with the topic. Any economics textbook will tell you one of the benefits of the private sector over government bureaucracy is efficiency.
EDIT - edited for clarity and corrected typo.