>>>>>But it would cost nothing here.
>>>Actually, it costs, but the cost is spread.
>>>I wonder what the actual cost is compared to the "market" system here.
>>
>>It is high here, but the US system is 80% higher. The US citizen pay the most by far. Norway is 2nd, but pays about 35% less. See
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
>
>From what I've read, the health outcomes here are in many cases worse than they are in countries that spend a lot less.
>
>So much for the efficiency of a free market vs state control!

But is the market free? IMO, it's very much controlled by those who wield a heavier wallet - the big pharma, the insurers, the big hospitals, the ambulance chasers. Just check how come that the percentage (or, better, market share) of non-profits among insurers declined over the years. And then the market may work where the buyer is in a position to make an informed decision, but this informed part has become ridiculous. A simple herbal tea must not be labeled as potentially having any health benefit, because there's a thick sheaf of paragraphs forbidding that unless conditions are met (and if they were, the tea would cost tenfold).

Buying insurance? You better plan! Know in advance what you'll choose to be ill from, so buy for coverage for that and save on the diseases and wounds you won't get.

Choose your medication? Sure, get to know the results of the tests... and then you'd need to know whether it was independent labs, seemingly independent labs, or quite dependent (aka internal) ones but owned only indirectly by the manufacturer. And you'd need to know the results they chose not to publish at all. There's information for your decision.

And when you're injured, you better watch which waivers you are signing, the 6th one is probably the one with most of that source of wisdom, the small print. And ask to see the prices in advance and watch them trying not to laugh.