That would cost some serious money tho ( on a large scale I mean ). It's not like it's a quick tap with stethoscope.

Obv there can be a tax penalty for those that lie.

I think that is the hardest question to answer. I do think there is some line where immediate treatment probably should be administered before validation. However, I don't think a hospital should be forced to do anything more than the absolute minimum. If there was a tax for this, it would be direct and apportioned (kinda). I would have much less problem with a small tax for immediate treatment of accidents.

Or just tax tobacco products.

Hey, that non-complicated idea that can't be cheated sounds familiar..

Man, if only some of those amazing insurance employees could get jobs doing the exact same thing for the government..

There is no market if it is one unit. There is no incentive or competition. Let's just eliminate all grocery markets, banks, plumbers, electricians, teachers, doctors, mechanics, construction firms and have the US govt control it. Why not just pay 100% taxes and let the government figure it all out for us?

Only in your mind buddy, only in your mind.

And this would be a totally convincing argument if healthcare in the US was done cheaper and more efficient. I mean, if what you say is true, we should be measurably beating comparable countries around the world in terms of cost and efficiency with our free market health insurance companies. Unfortunately the facts don't show this at all. Yet conservative keep asserting this unsupported argument and keep ignoring reality.

Reality is we don't have anything close to a free market.

And what part of the electorate or establishment is pushing for a more "actual" free market in health care? Hint: The answer is essentially no one.

So that being the case, are we better off fighting for the status quo(which is essentially what establishment/mainstream conservatives do) or trying to adopt some of the changes all the other 1st world countries of the world have done and are doing for significantly cheaper health care, with essentially equal or better healthcare outcomes.

As has been pointed out, we have more of a free market in healthcare than all the other countries with UHC, yet they do it much cheaper per capita.

There is no "more free market." You either have one or you don't. You can't compare it that way. We don't have a free market at all. UHC may very well be way better than what we have currently. I am becoming more intrigued by it, but I still don't think it is the ideal solution.

lol, ok then, give me an example of a industry/market where this "actual/real/legitimate" free market that you speak of actually exists. Because I can't think of one, I can only think of degrees of free market and government intervention - but since you said it is a all or nothing thing -"You either have one or you don't", I'd like to see an example.

use google obviously

There are small markets for things like collectibles or whatever on small scales that are essentially free markets. There is no large free market that exists in the United States.

We can ONLY talk about free markets in terms of degrees because a "pure" free market has never existed and could never exist except in the imagination of mostly privileged, extremely gullible, white males.

So like, for example, for those who study the situation seriously, it's obvious the free(r) market capitalism we see in the third world (which was imposed on them) has a lot to do with why they ARE the third world. The idea that this is not a knock against free markets because it's not a pure form, is just LOLpureSOPHISTRY that allows one the intellectually dishonest luxury of dismissing ANY evidence against free markets. Free market theory thus becomes unfalsifiable just like any other religion, and make no mistake, this IS a religion we're talking about here.

In any serious discussion, however, of course our horribly inefficient free(r) market health care system which delivers lackluster results would be counted as evidence against free market "theory", and maybe then a sort of meta-argument about how strong the evidence is could develop, but only extreme religious zealots would dismiss that evidence out of hand because it's not a perfectly free market. Those type of people are not worth talking to for the same reason it's not worth talking about science with young earth creationists.

Whoa there buddy! "Essentially"? What kind of wiggle word is that? The world is 100% black or white all the time, remember?

I agree. They are not free markets. In very small communities, they are. The entire market is not free, though.

The U.S. health care insurance model doesn't work. It can only work if no one commits fraud. The govt should protect for catastrophic care and give preventative care for free. Let everyone be responsible for all inbetween type ailments and health care needs.

For some reason the U.S. seems to pay more for prescription drugs than any other nation. Remember when Bush 43 tried to allow U.S. citizens to purchase prescription drugs from other countries?

What would you generally define as catastrophic and preventative care?

This would be much better than the current system. Also would allow for better competition in the remaining insurance market.

The healthcare market isn't nearly as open to free market as other markets. How often do people shop around for treatments and prescriptions. How many doctors are adept at offering different options based on cost? You can run these tests for 10k, which are the best, or these tests for 2k - you can have this new top of the line prescription for $800 a month or the older generation that is nearly as good in terms of expected outcomes for $80 a month. Consumers think and ask these kinds of questions in other markets and meticulously take into account price and preference and degree of improvement, but not nearly so much in healthcare. And it is unlikely to change. For one, it is so much more complex. Even if you take the relatively small percentage of people who are even capable (not even counting whether you have the time) of understanding how much better one prescription or test is from another or from a older generation version, ect.

While I'm sure you could come up with a theoretical argument for a high functioning more free market healthcare system. It doesn't seem that any tiny part of the electorate or establishment is pushing for those kind of changes. It is more of the status quo vs implementing reforms that other 1st world countries have done with reasonable success. This is my understanding thus far anyway...

That's what I've been slinging for years, but I fear it makes too much sense. So simple, so efficient, and so little chance of happening...

@fedorfan you can definitely shop around and negotiate prices with hospitals. especially when it comes to having a baby.they will actually compete for your business.

you can also lower your price for a hospital stay a bit by bringing some of your own supplies. i have done this more than once.