****

Unfortunately though, this is the case more times than not. "

Except in the case of essential services required by every citizen, then private enterprise fails. Look at how well private enterprise worked for your banking industry, or the financial services sector. There are plenty of times when private enterprise is completely inferior to the Government.

Let's use your banking collapse as an example: private enterprise-run banks failed, people lost their money, their homes, etc. In Canada, if a bank fails each bank account I had with that bank is insured by the Government for up to $100 000 dollars. That money goes to me  to cover my losses if my bank fails, not the bank. Where did all the bail out money go in the US? To the banks or to the people?

It seems to me that any American who says  "The USA is the best country in the world, our Government is the best Government" should really be saying " I was wrong, our Government can't do anything as well as other countries that somehow mange to do what ours can not"

The US government could run a tax-payer funded, Universal Health care system, and probably come up with innovations to do it better than any other country so far has done, but Republicans have convinced roughly half the citizens that anything government run and funded by taxes is evil, socialist, wrong, and inferior.

To me evil is: I have more money than you, I deserve better health care than you. 

Other counties count on and trust their governments to deliver the things deemed essential for their citizens, and they hold their government accountable if it fails. It seems like in the states the train of thought is " our government could never do a good job with this better let private enterprise run with it" instead of holding that government accountable at election time.

If the agencies you mentioned were providing enough care, then we wouldn't be having this debate.

******

Agreed. 

Marc, the bailout money is not the equivalent of the insurance you speak of.  We have a similar insurance that covers losses for individuals that have deposits in a failed bank.  Apples and oranges, my friend. 

Your other points, I can't completely disagree with, unfortunately. 

Except, I do disagree with your basic premise, to a degree.  To lift up our Canadian neighbors as a bastion of social equality is a bit disingenuous, isn't it?  Plenty of haves and have nots up there too, no? 

The US government could run a tax-payer funded, Universal Health care system, and probably come up with innovations to do it better than any other country so far has done, but Republicans have convinced roughly half the citizens that anything government run and funded by taxes is evil, socialist, wrong, and inferior.

--------------------

And that's why it's so crazy here right now.  The rhetoric has been amazingly successful.  And it spins off into weird directions.  I've lost track of how many people who are convinced that their guns are next in line, like this government is some cackling disarming montrosity.  As much as I hated hated HATED the Bush Administration, I never thought it was bad enough to weigh violent opposition.  And some think Obama's already come for the guns, pointing out shortages all over the nation, to which I had to reply that Bush must have outlawed the Wii a couple of Christmases ago, then.

"It is apparent that it will take a few assassinations to stop Obamacare. Militia central has selected you for assassination. If we cannot stalk and find you in Washington, D.C., we will get you in Little Rock."

Yikes.

"Unfortunately though, this is the case more times than not.  "

I keep hearing this being said by conservatives, yet every time they privatise a service here under the motto of "more for less", we inevitably end up with "less for more".  In cleaning services, for instance, the "efficiency" consists of buildings being cleaned less thoroughly in much shorter time by inexperienced workers who will work for much less pay/ work security.

In both private enterpise and goivernment you have to pay for quality. But government has no profit requirement and faced with a choice between"profit" and quality they are often required by law to choose quality. While private enterprise has to get its profit from somewhere.

If we estimate that a private business aims for a 10% profit margin (before or after taxes), we have to presume that every single government service is at least 10% inefficient just to put it on par with a fully efficient private enterprise. And that private enterprise from day one (to justify its competitive bidding) can recoup 10% efficiency without a reduction of services either by quantity or quality. Simply by being "private".

the "private is always/mostly better than public" mantra is just some bullshit that conservatives take on faith. And if you elect them, they'll make damn sure to change the terrain to fit the map.