It seems to me that the system is just very inefficient. There's a huge amount of bureaucracy, and not a lot of serious competition between healthcare and insurance providers. It's hard to switch providers and the pricing structures are very confusing.
Similar to broadband and mobile phone services, the free market hasn't been able to drive prices down as effectively as it theoretically should. I think it's because the incumbent providers have successfully lobbied for a network of regulations that protect their monopolies. What's actually needed is better regulations (a la net neutrality) to level the playing field.
Or alternatively, just run it as a free public service like many other countries do. That approach works pretty well.
It's a feedback loop that started because of government intervention in the free market and it continues simply because of government intervention in the free market. There are many examples of this, such as your broadband and mobile phone markets, and university tuition loans.
Well, hang on now, wouldn't you agree that the free market has sometimes left us stuck with cartels and monopolies? (In the US, look at the railroads and telephone network.) Sometimes you need regulations to break out of those traps.
Yes, there are examples of the free market creating monopolies. This is even more possible today than years past. But in those examples I'm willing to bet the only way they are maintained is from the assistance of government.
Sometimes it is good thing, I admit, but in most cases it is not consumer friendly.
The telephone network hasn't had anything to do with a free market since 1934 at the latest. The Justice Department chose a monopolist winner in 1913.
The USA freight rail system exhibited some monopoly through the 1880s, but since has been quite regulated. Perhaps the current level of regulation may not be ideal, but since the USA freight rail system is the best in the world it would seem foolish to tamper with it.
I didn't mean those are monopolies now, I meant that they had wandered into monopoly territory in the past, and regulation has been somewhat (not entirely) successful in fixing that.
I guess we agree about the railroads. However, telecom has never been a natural monopoly, and the USA government has had to work hard for a century to make and keep it one (...and to convince the public that telecom monopoly is unavoidable.) VZN and ATT may not have merged officially yet, but they certainly act in concert to maintain their duopoly position. This will only change when the FCC ceases to stifle modern radio technology.
Similar to broadband and mobile phone services, the free market hasn't been able to drive prices down as effectively as it theoretically should. I think it's because the incumbent providers have successfully lobbied for a network of regulations that protect their monopolies. What's actually needed is better regulations (a la net neutrality) to level the playing field.
Or alternatively, just run it as a free public service like many other countries do. That approach works pretty well.