I don't think that you understand "econ 101" as well as you think you do. If markets worked like you described, nobody would be able to afford to buy anything. Yes, suppliers try to maximize the price they get for what they're selling but somebody has to pay for it. That's what drives the price down - if almost all the doctors charge $x for something and one guy charges $x-1, all the sudden people start flocking to him and he makes more money. In a truly competitive market, long term profits are zero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition) because everybody sells their goods at exactly what it costs to manufacture them because that's the only way to sell any units at all. Of course I'm not claiming that health care can be perfectly competitive - there are many reasons why it can't be. But there's no reason why the current market needs to be noncompetitive.
Furthermore, as I've said up and down this thread, I'm not opposed to funding poor people's private care through government subsidy. The important piece is that the people participate in the free market and can choose how to use the money - not where the money comes from. This is how this discussion started in the first place - I believe the government should just give veterans money for health care instead of trying to actually provide it.
Having one central administration for a whole sector of the economy is inefficient. The Soviets thoroughly proved this with their (mis)adventures in central planning. Fostering free markets aren't just good morally, they promote better outcomes for patients and more innovation in the sector.
Furthermore, as I've said up and down this thread, I'm not opposed to funding poor people's private care through government subsidy. The important piece is that the people participate in the free market and can choose how to use the money - not where the money comes from. This is how this discussion started in the first place - I believe the government should just give veterans money for health care instead of trying to actually provide it.
Having one central administration for a whole sector of the economy is inefficient. The Soviets thoroughly proved this with their (mis)adventures in central planning. Fostering free markets aren't just good morally, they promote better outcomes for patients and more innovation in the sector.