>In other industries, allowing further competition and opening the market has led to further innovation and lessened costs.
>
>The financial system, for example? you criticized government for "opening up" that market, will you criticize them again if they repeat that failed exercise in healthcare and it goes the same way?

I criticized the specific decisions which went against historical lessons already learned. It's actually very similar to my problem with the proposed health reforms. We've been repeatedly applying restrictions and regulations to the various health care industries for decades and the result is increasing costs, bloated bureaucracies (private and public), bankrupt programs and individuals, discouraged medical practitioners and a general lack of supply in relation to demand. There's ample evidence from other countries that the government-first approach leads to these same problems and worse. There are a couple of novel solutions being implemented, but none have had time to be properly assessed. Meanwhile we can look to many industries which are allowed to compete in a more free market and see tremendous innovation and lowered costs. History tells us that free market capitalism is uniquely qualified to address these very problems. Isn't it about time we try some? It's already working in some less restricted health related fields.

>All evidence is that this system will be unaffordable inside a decade, some say as quickly as 5 years.

The current proposals in the house increase those costs by all estimates, let alone when we account for the "unforeseen" costs that always arise with government programs. By this logic, we're doomed regardless. ;)

>YOU won't be able to afford it. What then?

Not for nothing, but I WILL be able to afford it. ;) Now, whether or not I choose to spend my money on my health will be a personal decision my wife and I will make when the time comes. Which is of course the point.

>Why would you expect it to be different with health care? If we've never had a true "free market" in the modern medical era and costs continue to spiral out of control, why should we push for more restriction?
>
>Who is pushing for more restriction? The only restriction I see is people trying to protect/expand the near-monopolies enjoyed by insurers who barely compete at all according to most recent peer-reviewed studies.

Some of the current proposals are supported and in fact partially designed by drug companies and insurers. They seek to increase their monopoly by backing the legislation that they've helped to create. They fully support the idea of tax penalties for those without insurance. The public-option is not the only issue I have with the current proposals, not by a long shot. There is a great deal of awful policy in the works, not only involving government agencies. It just so happens that I find the public-option to be the worst part due to the inevitable entitlement which will ensue.

>And note the use of that word "modern" in your quotation, referring to incentivized entry of commercial profit into the mix with market segregation into those who need insurance including the largest most expensive group, the elderly, who are paid for by taxes, and a generally fit population amply served by commercial insurers at a cost at least 50% higher than anywhere else in the industrialized world. Your problem is that these insurers have established near-monopolies and woeful efficiency since the last time government tried to incentivize their involvement and now you ask "why should healthcare be different?"

I used "modern" as a reference to the article you cited.

>Why indeed: it failed last time, it failed in other industries, a failure you attributed in the most recent banking example to "opening up" of markets by government, but now you want to try it again.

I have proposed specific areas to "open" which I feel have created the exact monopoly to which you refer. Competition has been stifled by government interference by price controls, both foreign and domestic, regional insurance mandates, employer based care, lottery-style malpractice awards, etc. These are specific areas of reform which I have suggested should be addressed first. None of them are on the table. The only options on the table are at a minimum more restriction of choice as orchestrated by large companies and government takeover as openly desired by the far left. I see no way in which our care nor our costs can possibly improve with these proposals.

>Why not look for ideas that *have* worked

What are some of these ideas? And how do you define "have worked"?

>rather than sticking to ideology that clearly does not benefit anybody except the people booking the immediate profits?

That "ideology" is the single greatest creator of freedom, wealth, productivity and innovation the world has ever known. I "stick" to it like glue because there is no better system that has ever existed. When one comes along I'll consider changing, but all current contenders pale in comparison.