>>Of course economics applies.
>>Our former system had all the problems any econ 101 class could predict from a quasi-socialist system.
>>Shield consumers from the real cost, and they over-consume.
>>Shield consumers from the real cost, and they demand the best of the best.

You keep saying this, but you're ignoring the rest of the First World and comparing real life to an imagined alternative. In the real life, everybody except the US seems to manage universal coverage at lower cost. If you won't engage that truth, there's no advancement to be had.

>>Our lawyers, and absence of the loser-pays rule at law are a big part of it.
>>Entitlement mentality of US consumers whether insured, on the dole, or just indigent explains the rest.

You would cry to see the entitlement mentality elsewhere in the world- and yet, they manage.

>>A US patient has every right to sue if he is not given the best of the best care, cost be damned.
>>A US doctor cannot be parsimonious.

Correct- and it's invading the rest of the world as well. Drive the enjoyment out of medicine and keep hammering physician income, and there will be a lot more bankers out there as those who once were encouraged to become doctors, follow the market directive that parasitic endeavors are more important to society than doing good works. Maybe that would be a good thing, to have some thoughtful bankers for a change. ;-)