>We can argue back and forth with all kinds of imaginative scenarios. But I see capitalism as the best (not perfect, of course) approach to setting the prices.

I agree, so far the best among the bad approaches. So why don't we introduce capitalism then? Not corporativism, not the monopolism, not the socialism-for-the-rich-capitalism-for-the-poor, not the banksters-own-everything, but capitalism, where owners own their own and a share in a few others, where they know their workers and dare show their face on the street. Where market makes sense, because the field is level and the buyer can make an informed decision.

> You (based on what I read in your messages) are proponent of socialist approach

Actually, that'd be a self-managed, proprietor's capitalism (including level field for worker owned enterprises - let them exploit themselves at will).

>(anybody who says that government is the best way to set the prices is a socialist in my book <g>).

Is a statist in my book and does disservice to the idea of socialism. Whoever says that corporations should have a free reign to quash competition and establish monopolies is a {expletive needed} and does disservice to the idea of capitalism.

> But, anyways, I just don't like when the government will control prices for health-care. Because in the end it will mean more corrupt politicians (and we already have too many of those).

Instead, you got corrupt politicians to dismantle any laws that may impede free reign of banks and corporations. The laws the previous generations were fighting for.

>To those that say that price for medications is the main cause of health-care cost being so high (and it is high, I agree, but it is good), I will say that the setting the limits on malpractice suits will greatly reduce the health-care costs too. Which will reduce the premiums doctors and hospitals have to pay for their insurance.

That's a two-edged sword, though. The number of people who die of malpractice (due to clerical errors in prescribed drugs, doctors working overtime, taking about 5 minutes per patient, relying on instruments more than talking to the patient etc etc) was, last time I checked, around 100,000 a year in the US alone. And don't tell me it's so much better than elsewhere - the one time we had a (minor) accident, the only guys who did their jobs right were the fire squad. The others - nurses, doctor - spent a total of 20 minutes with us, out of which 15 was typing our data into a computer (so the invoice doesn't get lost); all the doctor did was listen through a stethoscope (without removing daughter's shirt) in a very noisy hallway and poke in a few places asking does it hurt. The bill was around $250 (half of which was for the ride) and, oops, we weren't covered, because the employer stopped paying (just before going bankrupt). Another oops, they sent the bill two or three times, just in case I was crazy enough to pay more than once.

Let it be known that I got no health insurance for the last ten years, and don't intend to get one. State insurance (госсударственное, i.e. gov't at any level) is thief bait - it will be legally robbed sooner or later. Private insurance is for profit. The very idea that they make more money the cheaper I get cared of is obscene, specially combined with for-profit hospitals which make more money the more frequent I get sick. IOW, I have no intention to help either system (gov't or profit), I'd rather stay out of both.