> That's a fine bit of conservative nonsense you just regurgitated

Conservative, libertarian, I guess they are more or less the same for this subject. Fine.

> coming to the conclusion that the problem the U.S. is suffering from is "too much health care"

I suppose you're saying that because higher prices suggest a glut of supply? Wait, no.

I'm not sure why you say that is the conclusion of my argument. I certainly never said the US has too much healthcare, nor imply it.

In fact, if anything the US is supply-constrained in healthcare thanks to the AMA, FDA, etc. There is plenty of demand for healthcare, but the supply is pretty well controlled through regulation.

I certainly can't start selling healthcare. Even with a lot of studying, I still couldn't just sell healthcare. Making additional healthcare supply isn't like making more supply of furniture, food, or even cars (which is closer on the regulation spectrum to healthcare, meaning it requires a herculean effort to enter this industry—witness Tesla).

> therefore the solution is to reduce access to healthcare and insurance

What?

No, I'd rather make these services more readily available to everyone by making them available in the same way nearly every other product is available to anyone. Is the iPad unavailable to me because my employer doesn't provide tablet insurance? Just sell me healthcare and health insurance on regular markets, please. Nothing could be more available in my opinion.

As it is, the "availability" of healthcare in my life is extremely narrow (again thanks to what evolved from 1940s price controls). I have a small set of options from one vendor selected by my employer. With the ACA, I will now have that option (maybe, though it's an HSA and I've been told to kiss HSAs goodbye) and a few other ratified options that have been selected by a central planning committee.

If I can't afford routine health care on a regular market, I'd rather work harder to get a better job. In a worst-case scenario, I'll plead with friends and family or charities. I genuinely would prefer this to the current model. I'd pick up insurance to handle catastrophic events. I'd donate more to charity to boot.

> your health is worth an infinite amount of money to you

Actually, not really. If I have a quality of life issue and I can improve my quality of life for $500, I will weigh the pros and cons and probably go for it. If it costs $500,000, I'll suck it up until someone innovates the cost down to something I can afford.

Even if I have a catastrophic issue and I have no insurance, and the only resolution is something that costs $1M, this is something my family (friends, charities) should decide. Sell/refinance property or pull the plug? Bottom line, it's a local decision to pull the plug, not something for a central planning board.

> Further, healthcare prices are unpredictable

This is not a counter-argument to using regular price signals. Services that are unpredictable are usually billed at hourly rates or time and materials with an estimate. If I have the termite guy out to check my house, he's not going to be able to give me a quote until he assesses the situation. Even then, it may be worse than he thought. But he has a price sheet of hours and services and I can look at that and select a different termite guy if the price sheet seems out of line. Better yet, other people will have paid termite guys and give me a basic feel for what a termite guy charges. When he says his hourly rate is $5,000, I'll know he's a nutcase.

Today, if I heard it cost $5,000/hr for some medical procedure, I wouldn't even know how to react. Is that a lot? Is it low? I don't even know who I could ask for a guess.

> which has been discovered by every advanced nation on Earth except the U.S.

I don't enjoy the argument that everyone else does something a given way, so why don't you get in line already. The way I see it, this country has been doing healthcare more similar to other countries (no true market, no price signals) than similar to what I want for decades.

A free market can support a central-planning model inside of itself, but vice-versa is never possible. This is why those of us who support free markets are so sensitive to those who would shut them off. Central planners don't have to kill the free market to do their central planning exercise, but they always choose to.

We don't ask them to kill central planning so we can have a free market. In fact, we don't even care how central planners want to arrange their centrally-planned plan inside the free market, as long as it's voluntary. Have fun!

If I had my way, the ACA would make centrally-planned healthcare an entirely in or entirely out proposition. Voluntary. Don't want in? Fine, you're on your own. Entirely.

I'd opt out. And soon enough, I'd find people ready to sell me health care. Then I'd give more to charity. I'd be so much happier.