Would third-party payment lead to overuse of health care if insurers had more freedom to deny payments and to customize policy terms? If government intervention were eliminated, couldn't insurers write and enforce contract terms that effectively controlled medical care costs?

This is the major weapon that the liberal Republicrats have against libertarians. We can make brilliant, logically sound arguments until our faces turn blue, but the politicians will still have the people's hearts because they promise easy answers and the assurance that they can just magically make it work.

An intractable problem.

I can understand helping poor people with their medical expenses, but why automatically those over 65? The fact that there are "large groups" that are poor is the problem to address. Lyndon Johnson made great strides to address the plight of poor, held-back America with his Great Society programs. Unfortuntately, the egocentric rich didn't want to ante up, so they got pro-rich Republicans elected to dissolve the programs. As a result, the rich got richer and poor had babies which they were forced to have before Roe v. Wade, or government subsidized abortions.

If Mormon (not moron) doctors tithed 10% of their medical services to the poor then, perhaps, we wouldn't be in the health care mess that we are in, at least in Utah. Along with the hippocratic oath, the requirement to serve the poor at no, or small charge should be part of their duty and pledge. Some law firms do pro-bono work. That should be the norm. Let's get the government out of the health care/insurance business. Let the charitible forces of successful professionals and business people of good will throughout the country do the necessary things to help the poor and give them a leg up. We are our brother's keeper contrary to libertarian theory.

There is a subtle argument here for tackling the problem of people who have vast fortunes that they selfishly hoard and keep all to themselves to societies great detriment. That bad acquisitive nature of some is the antithesis of charitable good works. Let's squash them like the greedy bugs that they are! Let's make the world a better place to live for all not just those with the means to enjoy the finer things in life.

Where do your true beliefs end and the joke begin?

There is a massive argument here for ending public schools and requiring voters to take an economics course. Keep up the exemplary behavior.

Apparently the very wealthy have kidnapped large numbers of health care professionals and are holding them on an island somewhere.

Obviously a lot of people don't comprehend what the very wealthy actually own, which are basically numbers in various accounts.
The assumption is that these numbers can be divided up to make everybody else better off.

"Each of us, at the end of the day, has more control over the size of our bank accounts than we have over politically influenced bureaucrats."

While France (7.6%) and the Netherlands (7.8%) spend less out-of-pocket, other countries with socialized medical schemes spend MORE out-of-pocket: Germany (13.3%), Ireland (13.5%), Canada (14.9%), Norway (15.7%), New Zealand (17.2%), Japan (17.3%), Switzerland (31.9%).

Source: http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL34175.pdf

The standard public health benefits in France and Japan tend to cover 70% (of government "negotiated" costs), with private health insurance coverage above that (France will cover you 100% in a significant health event though).

The burden of paying for food is very consistent, and the increments are quite small. People are always smarter when this is the case. Medical care can often have no cost at all for long stretches, followed by massive spikes. It is inherent to human nature to struggle with these types of responsibilities. This is made worse by the fact that consumption patterns are often concurrent with disability.

You don't have to depend on expensive expertise to feed yourself if you don't want to. You can take care of as much or as little of your own food needs as you want, with little consequence.

It is also far easier to depend on others. It is relatively easy to feed the weak and infirm, making it much easier for social networks to help those in need.

There is a limit to how much food can be consumed. Technology doesn't change this much, and it continues to drive the cost of food down. Healthcare, on the other hand, continues to grow in expense, scale and importance rapidly as technology advances.

I could go on and on…

Which is why one should consider buying insurance against catastrophic events. You don't need medical insurance for common cold. We don't use car insurance for oil changes, but we do use them in case of a collision.

I'm not so sure Americans are using insurance for the common cold.

If I want full health coverage insurance – and I'm willing to pay for it directly or through agreement with my employer – what's the problem?

The insurance company is willing to sell me that policy – either directly or through my employer. The health care providers agree to accept the terms my insurance company dictates.

So why do you and Arnold Kling and Russell Roberts and Don Boudreaux feel I should not have full health coverage insurance? Or do I misunderstand your argument?

I'm not so sure Americans are using insurance for the common cold.

If I want full health coverage insurance – and I'm willing to pay for it directly or through agreement with my employer – what's the problem?

No problem, so long as the treatment is the same for someone buying it though the employer and someone else buying it directly from the insurer. Also, people should be given an option to opt out of employer provided healthcare.

I have no problem with allowing a tax deduction for direct purchases of health insurance.

S Andrews: "people should be given an option to opt out of employer provided healthcare."

I think some employers offer that option.

IMO, the employer should have the freedom to offer whatever combination of salary and benefits he deems appropriate. Through 100% participation, the employer can likely lower the health insurance costs for all employees. I think the employer should be free to make that a condition of employment.

I think the employer should be free to make that a condition of employment.

I agree.

Sam, it's comforting to know there are others out there who understand this. I fear for this country because there are so few such people left. Thank you for saying it so eloquently.

Many doctors in the US make so much money that they can afford yearly (carbon-intensive) Alaska vacations, along with frequent trips to Yosemite. I wonder how much of an impact they are having on health care costs?

It just amazes me that people have the gall to tell physicians to donate time and supplies to caring for the poor. Do grocers give 10% of their food to the poor? Do clothing stores give 10% of their clothes? How about book stores, hardware stores, plumbers, tax return preparers, trash haulers, car dealers? Why is it that just one class of professionals is expected to donate time and goods to the poor?

Instead of expecting doctors to provide free care for the poor, how about expecting that family, friends, and neighbors collect money so the poor patient can go to a doctor and pay for the visit.

Full health care coverage, in and of itself, is not wrong. The problem has been that nearly everyone has full health coverage and doesn't directly pay for medical services. This has allowed doctors and hospitals to rapidly raise charges. It also promulgated the idea that everyone is owed platinum-plated healthcare: minor injuries get MRI scans, a questionable problem gets assessed with three dozen lab tests, a dying person gets $30,000 of care in his final few days, etc. Much of the "waste" in health care is due to the attitude of "so what, the insurance company will pay for it."