I think you might be misreading my comment as advocacy of one solution vs another; it absolutely wasn't, and in fact my views are roughly the same as yours (I t

I think you might be misreading my comment as advocacy of one solution vs another; it absolutely wasn't, and in fact my views are roughly the same as yours (I think that a more market-oriented system would cause far less suffering than the current system, but that single-payer is a lot more feasible and that either solution would be preferable to the grotesque status quo). Where we disagree is that I don't think minor market-friendly improvements to the system would get us, given the mountain of regulation and other govt involvement that already exists. My thesis is basically: I'd prefer a more fully market-oriented solution, with the access problem explicitly handled through subsidies et al. But if we're going to have a healthcare economy that's planned in much more detail, let's actually plan it instead of the current nightmarish hodgepodge of inconsistent and mutually counter-productive one-off gov't interventions.