[jimbokun]

Here are some contrarian positions (to go with those already presented):

The article currently refers to "a society's wealth" but not the distribution thereof. The American economy has grown significantly since 2000, for example, but the median wage has not. Is there any point to a growing economy when the median citizen is not benefiting from it?

There is a brief mention of the irrationality of voters who do not trust increasing market forces as a means of solving health care problems. However, one can argue that we have a more market based health care system than the systems of Western Europe, for example, but worse health outcomes. How can we be sure, then, that increasing market forces even more will improve the situation?

[mynameishere]

we have a more market based health care system

Health care, whether anyone likes it or not, can never be a free market. A free market requires willing buyers and sellers. Health-care consumers are uniformly unwilling. This prevents the occurrence of something you see in penny stock markets: The formation of a spread, in which buyers and sellers are unwilling to trade. In health care, the sellers can force a sale in such situations.

[eru]

Sorry, I do not know if I really get your argument. Could you please elaborate?

[mynameishere]

It's simply that economists often assume that all markets are (or potentially are) free, when that isn't the case. Some markets come close (items on eBay, stocks, commodities, currencies, etc) while others don't. If you start with a naturally "unfree" market, the same set of rules don't apply.

It's just economists' long-standing physics-envy coming through. They want to think their field has "laws of gravity" that are always true.

[rms]

As a price inelastic service a pure market based health care system unreasonably favors the service providers.