When one software vendor dominates a government sector, it creates a "software monoculture." This introduces systemic risk, where a single bug can be forked across dozens of states, simultaneously disabling critical services for millions of people, as seen when a Medicaid eligibility error affected 29 states.

The complexity in applying for government benefits is not just poor design; it functions as an implicit policy tool. This "administrative burden" can be increased or decreased to control program access and costs without changing explicit eligibility laws, effectively making policy below the surface.

Counter-intuitively, making a government benefit universal can be more cost-effective than restricting it. Universal programs eliminate the significant administrative costs of means-testing—the staff and systems spent verifying income—which can outweigh the expense of providing the benefit to those who could otherwise afford it.

The government's standard procedure is to disburse funds and attempt to recover improper payments later—a highly inefficient process that costs hundreds of billions annually. A more effective system would require real-time prepayment verification, defaulting to "no pay" if eligibility cannot be confirmed, preventing fraud before it occurs.

Government programs often persist despite failure because their complexity is a feature, not a bug. This system prevents average citizens, who are too busy with their lives, from deciphering the waste and holding the "political industrial complex" accountable, thereby benefiting those in power.

The immense regulatory complexity in U.S. healthcare creates an estimated $500 billion "tax" of administrative bloat. The non-obvious opportunity is that by using AI to eliminate this waste, the savings could be redirected to fund expanded patient care, rather than just being captured as profit.

To minimize risk, government contracts often require bidders to have prior experience building the exact same system. This seemingly prudent rule creates a catch-22, barring new entrants and locking in a small number of incumbents who can then dominate the market and inflate prices.

Unlike private enterprises, government-run entities are inherently inefficient. They lack the two fundamental drivers of improvement: market-based price signals and direct competition, which remove any incentive to innovate or improve.

Government procurement is slow because every scandal or instance of fraud leads to new rules and oversight. The public demands this accountability, which in turn creates the very bureaucracy that citizens and vendors complain about.