The funny thing is, the money is still going to a bunch of bureaucrats who multiply like rabbits -- it's just that they work for the insurance companies rather than the government. They're needed because of the ongoing arms race between providers and insurance companies, of which the overbilling described by this article is a major part.

In fact, a single payer system would sharply reduce the number of jobs for health care administrators -- to the point that I've seen a blog post somewhere pointing out that these people would need income support and retraining. The economies of several small cities depend heavily on these jobs.

So they pay for profit insurance companies owned by Wall Street investment firms. I don't understand why American's find that more palatable. The "government doesn't work" mentality is self-feeding. If you want government to work, you make it work. The alternative is just defeatist.

You won't find many conversatives in other countries who want to give up their socialized medical system.

I've lived in the US for 40 years. I'd estimate that less than 5% of all the people I've ever known ever donate time. A substantially higher number donate money to the millionaire operators of charities and "ministries".

Americans aren't generous. Americans are preoccupied with moving money. The more it moves, the faster it accumulates to the top of the economic pyramid.

Do you have any evidence that socialized health care systems have more bureaucrats?

[NB I'm just out of a UK NHS hospital so therefore feeling very warm and fuzzy about our favourite chunk of socialism].

I think that basically, the "bureaucrats" of the government become the "employees" of the companies, and are somehow not counted as bureaucrats, even though they form a private, less efficient bureaucracy that has more trouble providing basic services for a decent price (like home nursing).