Well single payer isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism. I wasn't trying to represent it as Capitalism. In (this form) Capitalism, if one buyer and one seller can't agree (where the supply and demand meet), then that's ok because there are (most likely, given a supply/demand graph) other buyers and other sellers.
In (this form) Socialism, if the sellers cannot agree with the single payer (or the payer that represents an overwhelming number of the potential buyers) then they don't get paid for services (or are relegated to the much smaller market segment).
>> I know people see this as a bad word, but if we leveraged the best of both Socialism and Capitalism in situations like these we would be better off.
Not to imply that you were being disingenuous/malicious, but leaving out this part of my post misrepresents what I was trying to say.
No providing loans increases the demand side of things (more people capable of paying) without controlling costs or increasing supply.
Building and operating more schools increases supply which would have a downward pressure on costs as private institutions would then be competing for students against (more) government run schools.
> IMO, when you have a functioning government, this is what makes a single payer system (like is often seen in healthcare) so great. The single if schools can't come to a reasonable price/agreement with the single payer, they don't get paid. And it leverages a central tenant of Capitalism... there's always someone out there willing to work for less.
Ha! This is first time I've heard someone try to explain single-payer healthcare as an example of capitalism.