> My premiums go up by double digit percentages every year because "costs" keep increasing
Because of government regulation.
> The more private companies run our lives (especially something like healthcare), the more they will be able to dictate our choices (what we eat, risky behavior etc).
Not violently, under the threat of fees or imprisonment.
> The only difference between corporate control and government control is that we actually have some say in how the government controls us because at the end of the day we control the government.
That's not true. The principal difference is that government uses violence to maintain control, while companies almost universally do not (except when they do so by lobbying government). Businesses go out of business all the time, which is a prime example of society exercising control over unpopular businesses, but unpopular governments very rarely cease to exist. I'm not sure how you can justify the claim that society has more control over government, with its vast military and police system and its nationwide campaign of mandatory taxation, than over businesses, which (with very few counterexamples, most of which involve employing government violence) only make money through voluntary transactions where both parties believe they are benefiting.
When you list the downsides of public and private health care, you leave out the primary distinction, which is that with private health care each person gets to choose which (if any) provider and plan to pay for, while with public health care there is no (or less) individual choice.
Now, I won't deny that a "perfect public health care system" sounds ideal, but the problem is that the definition of "perfect" varies from individual to individual. This is not a particularly profound or original idea: any dictatorial control is great for the people who enjoy the choices the dictatorship makes. You can easily apply this to some industry that is mostly privatized, like automobiles. If the perfect vehicle for Bob is a 4 door sedan with great gas mileage because Bob commutes and drives his family around a lot, then a "perfect" system for Bob would probably be one where 4 door sedans were the only automobile produced, and every household paid a set fee and was issued one of these sedans. Bob's costs would almost certainly go down, both from the economy of scale from only manufacturing a single type of car, and from the distributed fees. But that system is really bad for Joe, a farmer who really needs a large pickup truck and will probably have to buy one himself while his government-issued sedan goes to waste. Joe could argue (and I would agree) that even though switching to a privatized automobile industry might cause higher prices for a lot of people (like Bob), the individual choice is the important factor.
Because of government regulation.
> The more private companies run our lives (especially something like healthcare), the more they will be able to dictate our choices (what we eat, risky behavior etc).
Not violently, under the threat of fees or imprisonment.
> The only difference between corporate control and government control is that we actually have some say in how the government controls us because at the end of the day we control the government.
That's not true. The principal difference is that government uses violence to maintain control, while companies almost universally do not (except when they do so by lobbying government). Businesses go out of business all the time, which is a prime example of society exercising control over unpopular businesses, but unpopular governments very rarely cease to exist. I'm not sure how you can justify the claim that society has more control over government, with its vast military and police system and its nationwide campaign of mandatory taxation, than over businesses, which (with very few counterexamples, most of which involve employing government violence) only make money through voluntary transactions where both parties believe they are benefiting.
When you list the downsides of public and private health care, you leave out the primary distinction, which is that with private health care each person gets to choose which (if any) provider and plan to pay for, while with public health care there is no (or less) individual choice.
Now, I won't deny that a "perfect public health care system" sounds ideal, but the problem is that the definition of "perfect" varies from individual to individual. This is not a particularly profound or original idea: any dictatorial control is great for the people who enjoy the choices the dictatorship makes. You can easily apply this to some industry that is mostly privatized, like automobiles. If the perfect vehicle for Bob is a 4 door sedan with great gas mileage because Bob commutes and drives his family around a lot, then a "perfect" system for Bob would probably be one where 4 door sedans were the only automobile produced, and every household paid a set fee and was issued one of these sedans. Bob's costs would almost certainly go down, both from the economy of scale from only manufacturing a single type of car, and from the distributed fees. But that system is really bad for Joe, a farmer who really needs a large pickup truck and will probably have to buy one himself while his government-issued sedan goes to waste. Joe could argue (and I would agree) that even though switching to a privatized automobile industry might cause higher prices for a lot of people (like Bob), the individual choice is the important factor.