Why do I believe this? Because with private care or organizations that are not funded by the government, they have to be very efficient in their purpose. They will not be able to print or call upon more money from future tax payers if they find themselves short of funds. What they receive is what they get nothing more not until more charitable donations are given. When resources are limited it is natural for people to ration their resources and the same applies for businesses. A business will cut out the waste and other unnecessary inefficiencies to maintain its survival.
In the early years of United States history, most of what is known as today's public sector (i.e. transportation, police, welfare, etc) used to by run and operated by the private sector. In the 1800s the Pinkerton detective agency was established to assist with theft, non-peaceful rallies, and various other crimes. Today, the private police sector is becoming more common and more reliable than the public police. For example, 1the cost of San Francisco's private patrol specials is $25–30/hour, compared to $58/hour for an off-duty police officer.
Even private transportation had better results than public transportation. In the late 1800s, congress passed the 2Pacific Railroad Act and created the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific railroads, granting between sixteen-thousand dollars up to forty-eight thousand dollars per mile of track. However, both railroads eventually went bankrupt in the late eighteen hundreds costing the US government hundreds of thousands of dollars to bail out and restructure each railroad. But for a private railroad entrepreneur James J. Hill, his railroad industry became very successful amassing great profits and never filed for bankruptcy even during the panics of 1873 and 1893.
If one does their research on centralize planning and the results of private business versus public business, they'll find out that there are plenty of examples of government sponsored business doing much poorly than private business. But things get even worst when you add in other centralized planning policies such as, wage determination (minimum wage), price determination (price controls), monetary policies, and regulatory policies. Most policies of centralized planning are what you see in city simulators such as SimCity.
And while I do enjoy many of these city simulators, I do find them to be somewhat misleading as to what economies are and should be. Since the players control everything in the game, I believe this style of play leads to the belief that our economy should be controlled by governments. But perhaps the next city simulator will be more accurate. Given that the mayor (player) can only control things that influence the cities simulation, such as, tax rates, regulations, laws, and land permits.
This way players understand that the market controls the affects of the economy but the mayor, city counsel, or politicians can influence the results of their city. This would teach players that governments don't not have direct control of their economies but rather dictate the direction of their economy by the laws they impose.
2 Folsom, B W., & Folsom A. (2014) Uncle Same Can't Count. New York, NY: HaperCollins.