[ericmay]

I'd say the health insurance industry specifically doesn't function and that's because in the United States you will not be turned away from life saving treatment regardless of the cost [1]. Other aspects range from working very well to working marginally and could be improved. Public-private relationships generally seem to do well but we need to capture more of the profits when the funding is subsidized by the public, but that doesn't mean that private entities who do heavy lifting shouldn't also profit. It seems like we have some clear win-wins if we want to take them. On the whole the government is far better at cutting checks than it is at innovating.

I agree with your statement that "Free" is likely short-hand but I personally still don't like it because I prefer to think of items like that less so as entitlements because entitlements are easy to attack and dismantle. On the other hand when someone feels like they paid for something they are more likely to defend it. Social Security in the US is IMO a good example of this.

[1] Price discovery is impossible in a free market where you can't be denied service. Since society is (in my view correctly) not willing to let people die on the street if they can't pay for treatment the health insurance industry can't function except as a parasite with the aim to extract as much as it can and redistribute it to employees and shareholders. I do think healthcare costs would be cheaper under a "pure" free market where we let people die on the streets, though, but again I just don't find that acceptable.