Wrong State for Market-Based Health Insurance

Isn't healthcare expensive because of artificially increased demand (caused by third-party payment) and decreased supply (caused by regulation of healthcare professionals, hospitals, drug production, etc.)?
Why not try economic freedom?

I keep trying to remember the quote, but it was to the effect, anything that ranks Mississippi first and New England last has to be an example of something you do not want to have.

Isn't the reason health care is more expensive in Massachusetts it that it has a lot more and a lot better health care then Mississippi? If and when I have a heart attack, I will prefer havings a lot of expensive technology and medical specialists on call.

I don't get it. Doesn't MA have its hands full this holiday season with Puritan-era blue laws? Wouldn't that be a great thing to focus on and repeal in the coming election year?

[quote]If and when I have a heart attack, I will prefer havings a lot of expensive technology and medical specialists on call.[/quote]

True, but that is what catastrophic insurance would be for: to cover expensive technology and medical specialists when you need it. What we have now is insurance that gives people what they want whenever the hell they want it and not necessarily because they need it.

One thing that is not mentioned, but can help reduce transaction costs greatly is upgraded IT in the healthcare industry. It's silly that I have to establish a new file with every doctor I visit. Of course, people who are concerned with privacy stand in the way of an integrated information sharing network from popping up, but this can help out a lot by reducing redundancies in information and cut down on misdiagnoses and unnecessary procedures and prescriptions from being undertaken.