The problem is that people would have a lot of trouble swallowing some of the consequences of a true free market on medical care. From "patient dumping" cases (

The problem is that people would have a lot of trouble swallowing some of the consequences of a true free market on medical care. From "patient dumping" cases (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305897/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305897/) to the very real possibility that a medication with horrible consequences will be put on the market (ala a Thalidomide -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide), it is clear that some regulations are needed for moral and practical reasons in health care that would run against the spirit of free markets. Part of that is that there is a very significant barrier in obtaining the knowledge needed in order for a consumer to be truly "informed", as medicine and chemistry etc. are hard subjects. Another problem is that a sick patient in need of medical emergency by definition is not going to be in the best place to make an informed decision -- and it's not like you always can chose things beforehand (example: what if you have a medical emergency while traveling?). So I don't think the gun / food comparisons are directly comparable, personally. That being said, it is entirely possible to design a system that introduces plenty of competitive opportunities while keeping the above in mind. Personally, I think many single payer systems in the world are actually more free-market-friendly than the United States, in that there's provisions for competition from either/or private insurance and private health care facilities! Capitalism / free markets lose many of their advantages if they turn into monopolies that are able to strong-arm competition away with legislation... this pretty much is the situation with American pharmaceuticals, I'm afraid.