/edit/

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.

Yes, but you've taken my price analogy and perverted it to mean something different. My point is that if offered a choice between an Aston Martin or a BMW/Neon with $ left in your pocket, not everybody would choose an Aston Martin. And some might ask why there isn't a General Motors option too or what it would cost for an electric car. The current situation is that the market offers you a "car" at an expensive price which is justified on the grounds that the "car" is such high quality; but in the absence of open efforts to quantify this,for all you know you may be buying a fine Soviet Volga motor vehicle whose manufacturer insists it is the best vehicle in the world. I don't believe you are- IME US healthcare quality is very high based on my visits to hospitals in many states- but there is nothing wrong with assessing these things and watching where the $ goes. IMHO hospitals would like this too. Many of them feel pressured and run ragged just staying afloat while the public perceives that they are creaming it.

Question: if you discovered that the price you pay for a widescreen TV is 50% higher than they pay in Canada, wouldn't you want to know why? Is the US version really so much "better" as the distributor claims or is it just more expensive?