>Meanwhile we can look to many industries which are allowed to compete in a more free market and see tremendous innovation and lowered costs.
>
>Meanwhile in the real world the healthcare insurance market has contracted massively to avoid competition. If you don't believe me, google it.

I'm well aware and this is not in dispute. Apparently we disagree as to why. You cited an article which points to government interference contributing to the contraction and yet you propose more? I really do not understand your analysis.

>History tells us that free market capitalism is uniquely qualified to address these very problems. Isn't it about time we try some?
>
>Did you read that link at all? That's how it began. If you want to identify a flaw, try "banding together." When people in a market "band together" it is to reduce competition. Preventing "banding together" is the way to foster competition and efficiency and it does require regs, because free markets *always* band together and/or intertwine their dealings to maximize profit.

Again I agree and there does need to be regulation to prevent monopolistic control and to encourage competition. My suggestions accomplish that end, the current proposals before Congress do the opposite. What do you expect? As I said before they were crafted with the support and helping hand of the health industries affected.

>Seems to me that the broad-brush proposals you've described so far are more likely to further concentrate the market and reduce competition than to foster it, meaning the crisis will arrive even more quickly.

Please elaborate on your reasoning. Clearly we have diametrically opposite positions here.

>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.
>
>As it says in that article, free choice is hardly pure in healthcare. If you choose to live somewhere that floods, you should pay a higher premium than somebody who chooses to live somewhere that doesn't flood. But you do not have free choice to move from a diseased body into a healthy one. If costs are too high your only "choice" may be to forgo care or join the majority of personal bankruptcies caused by medical bills, meaning you'll be left with nothing. I can't understand why you would wish that on yourself.

Quite simply put, freedom isn't free. There are costs associated with giving that control over to another person, entity, etc. I find those costs more imposing than any monetary concern. I have previously spoken about our struggles with State bureaucracy and the constant unending list of regulations and encroachment upon our rights. To me, my body is my ultimate private property. To which no one else shall have any say. My family & friends can suggest healthier habits, my doctors can recommend others, but ultimately I'm going to make the decisions and I'll live and pay for the consequences. Accidents happen, they're a part of life and when they do, I will address them. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take care of me. Nor is it their place to tell me how to behave. That's the price of liberty, personal responsibility.

>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.
>
>Ma Bell had to be broken up. Standard Oil had to be broken up. AIG and the "too big to be allowed to fail" financial entities deserve to be broken up. Government *does* have a role when markets begin exhibiting monopolistic or destructive tendencies.

I've never disagreed that government has a role. It's what role they have where we disagree. Frankly, in each of those examples there's government interference which led to their positions. After all, they paid for their politicians then, just like now. FWIW, 25 years later and AT&T is bigger than Ma ever was. ;)

>Giving such markets more rope has *never* succeeded.

Giving individuals more liberty always has.