The administrative cost of the US health care system is 31% of the total health care budget (reference [PDF]).When the NHS was introduced in 1948 it spent 2% of its budget on administration.
Both statements are true so clearly a state run health service is more efficient, no?
Just to stop us getting into the argument of whether it is or not let's just say that whether it is or not cannot be proven by the above.
Have a look at "excess burden of taxation" or "deadweight loss" on Wikipedia.
Then consider the following. That number for the US system includes all of the costs of raising the money to pay for the system. That number for the NHS does not include the costs of raising the money to pay for the system. Thus we must add the deadweight costs of taxation to our costs for the NHS in order to be comparing like with like.
A useful rule of thumb for such costs is 20% of the sum raised.
Makes something of a difference really, doesn't it?
It most certainly does: the cost of collecting and administering the taxes, plus the damage done to the economy by the effective confiscation of that money, actually makes a state run system look very much less attractive than maybe Dr Rant would like it to.
We'll chalk another one up to the economists then, shall we?