That's true in regard to medical care at least, it never occurred to [me] things could be improved by having ... less government of the current f'up system we have? That what we need is less not more government involvement.
What has occurred to me however is this. That there is fundamentally no significant difference in quality between the private and government sectors. Both are made up of individuals drawn from a wide range of knowledge, skills and personalities. Neither the Private nor Government sector is more efficient or capable than the other. so looking at obvious problems to be solved through ideologically tinted glasses does no good. The answer will never be "more of this" and "less of that". Because the "this" and the "that" are fundamentally the same.
We will have to think in terms of policy and operational improvement in both sectors. We must start by deciding whether a particular function is best handled by the Private or Government sector, and then figure out how best to do it. With regard to medical care delivery we are fortunate to have a wide range of models to consider and improve on. Each of those models is demonstrably better than our own. We can, therefore, answer the initial question. And we even know why the answer comes out as it has. It's because medical care pricing is highly inelastic by nature, and in the U.S. it has been made even more so by regulatory capture. A satisfactory private sector solution is, of course, impossible without pricing elasticity. Ergo Healthcare must be handled by the Government Sector. This does not necessarily mean however that providers will be on the government payroll -- although that is a possibility in some models -- it simply means that government, not the private sector must determine policy, make the rules, and see that they are uniformly applied and that all citizens are treated equally under the law. So let's just get on with it. Trying to fix a fundamentally flawed model with incremental changes can never work.