>The correct question to ask is not why America's health care costs more than other nations, but rather why do those other nations cost so much? Why do the same procedures, office visits and prescriptions we've been using for years still cost the same or more? That's the opposite of proven free-market results. We should be moving to open the market more, not further suffocate it. As I posted in the other thread before I left : The US government accounts for roughly 45% of health expenditures in the US. Do you see any correlation or causation?
>
>One of the problems is that unlike battery-farmed chickens, cottonseed oil or clothing, the raw product in healthcare has variable quality with no obvious way to specify a minimum standard or to discard units that don't make the grade. Unlike a sack of flour, it also has an opinion and a voice and a long list of questions from the internet. ;-) Every patient is treated as a singleton, just as every Aston Martin is hand-assembled. So yes, it costs more.

I've been pointing out that government run care is the deterioration of individual care. Patients are not treated as "singletons" but rather have their care managed from afar in the form of "best practices", drug bans, price controls and rationing. However, the price of those drugs and services keeps increasing. We know from history that price controls and rationing lead to higher prices. Are you sure you see no correlation or causation between government care and price?

>To continue the analogy, I agree that one of the ways to reduce costs is to drive a cheaper car. Maybe Joe Public would be happy with a BMW 5-series health service if it reduces cost, or even a Chrysler Neon health service. Or maybe people would be interested in a far cheaper Aston Martin that can be any color you like as long as it is black. ;-) I agree, these discussions need to take place. But I don't see how that can happen if people are more interested in shoulder-charging the other team whether it brings them closer to the goal or not.

We do not agree. Further continuing the analogy. Let's say that the car you purchase is tied to your job. The current job you have allows you to drive a Neon. Another job offer has come up and you'll get to drive a Bentley. However, you'll have to work at the other job for 6 months before you qualify and of course you'll lose the Neon in the meantime. In order to take the new job, you'll need a car, but you're unable to buy a Neon because they're not sold individually in your state. So now you'll have to buy the BMW-5 series in the interim, but it costs 10% more because you no longer receive a pre-tax medical benefit from participating in an employer-sponsored plan.

If we change the laws so that all cars are available to be bought by all people regardless of employment and provided the same tax benefits more car companies will emerge to compete for those dollars and more people will look to upgrade their cars and many will stop walking and get behind the wheel.