With respect to this repeated and puzzling public-private health debate we are having. I really can't even believe we are having this argument as it should not even be an ideological one at this stage. I mean it's up there with arguing over whether smoking increases one's likelihood of lung cancer or the existence of climate change!

Anyways, all impartial, studies and meta-analyses, published in peer-reviewed journals, show a higher cost and higher mortality rate stemming from a for profit, private healthcare provision approach.

While the contrary is the case with non-for profit, and in particular public non-for-profit provision. It is also shown that for-profit healthcare introduces contraindicative incentives, which increases risk and mortality rates to patients - including patients that can afford it.

At the same time, those same studies and comparison of nation's costs, quite clearly show a correlation between having for-profit private health care and much higher costs, administration cost and bureaucratisation, and much increased inequity of access and outcome.

Basically publicly provided non-profit health care is more efficient, and produces better outcomes, as shown by decades of evidence.