They can be, but they aren't successful, private hospitals for instance still get huge amounts of public funding same goes for most schools. Publicising things makes them cheaper, certain things.

1. how do they make them cheaper ?
2. why arent they successful ?

Money, money, money, business business business

^^

Well because the concept of pure market based transaction is supply and demand. And, because the goods that hospitals provide aren't demanded by everyone, there is not enough money to maintain supply, so to do so they have to increase prices to accommodate, Whereas with public hospitals the supply is not dictated by the demand, but by the choice of where the government sees that there is a need for money that is not met by the economical principal of supply and demand.
They aren't successful because they limit customers who can afford it.

Seeing far more ideology than pragmatism here.

Nice counter argument.

Imo nationalisation is a good idea in a lot of sectors like health care and rail but it when you try to apply it to a sector that a free market would work in, that's when it goes wrong

I'm not so eager on that. Infrastructure sure, health care has issues.

@The Lemon Do you mean nationalization, by the definition? Or did you misspeak?

I mean taking an industry into government control and having it controlled by the state

Like the NHS in the UK

@The Lemon sounds like communism

^^

the free market rules supreme

Not in trains

For example

If I want to get from London to reading on the british "free market" rail system

How many options of train company do I have

The answer is one, I can only go on south western trains

Which are notorious for ridiculously high ticket prices and Rampant delays all the time

But there's no possibility for a competitor to come in and take their place because there's only one train track and they own all of the trains on it

So unless someone was to come and build new train tracks all around the UK (which would be impossibly expensive) SWT are always going to have a monopoly on the trains in that part of the country

So even if you do have a "free market" there's going to be a natural monopoly

Therefore in this scenario its better to have a state owned monopoly where the people controlling it have to answer to the voting population rather than a company which owns the monopoly which cant be ousted by the people and is only trying to make profit

@TheNobody @Adolf-senpai

Obviously this only works in specific scenarios

Aka why I didn't say it works all the time

It dosen't

And that's why communism fails

Because communism tries to apply that everywhere

But in sectors like water rail and healthcare nationalization can work better

Nationalization works in some areas, a free market works better in others

No. Governments can limit Monopolies, and that's just fine.
A private Monopoly, can be held accountable for their actions, an entire government can not be so easily.

a Monopoly exsists beacuse its good

when its bad ppl dont use it

and it starts to fail

You can't hold a private monopoly accountable in that situation