Most health issues are not emergencies. I as a consumer would be perfectly happy to shop around the market, and find the best deal on healthcare, if my efforts were rewards.
Unfortunately, prices are not transparent, and the costs are not payed directly by me. They are paid by my insurance provider, so why would I bother trying to reduce my bill by thousands of dollars, if someone else is paying for it anyway?
I've heard that people with high-deductible plans are now finding it advantageous to just say they are self-pay to get the discounts.
For comparison shopping, healthcarebluebook.com can give an average price for a certain procedure in your area.
Also food is cheap and plentiful to create.
And most importantly, food is easy to steal; the one important factor in a functioning free market libertarians tend to forget about is the natural control at the bottom, for the poor: if the poor need something in order to survive and can't afford it, they act as a check on greed and neoliberalism run amok by ignoring the fake magic pieces of paper that the wealthy wave around as tokens of power and take what they need.
It's a lot harder to steal health care so there's no incentive for the rich to modify the system to help the poor like there is with food.
Yes, and this is a bug, not a feature. Food would be cheaper if this were not done. The "subsidies" are to the food producers, to artifically keep prices up. The equivalent for health care would be subsidies to health care providers.
> and food for the poor
Yes, with food stamps. But nobody tells the poor what they have to spend the food stamps on, and nobody regulates grocery stores up one side and down the other telling them what food items they have to provide if they accept food stamps and what they have to charge for every single item. So this regulation is nothing at all like US health care regulation.
The equivalent of food stamps for health care would be to give poor people a flat sum of money per month on a "health care spending card" that they could use at any health care provider they wanted, for any service they wanted. And then no other regulation of health care providers--no rules about what services they have to provide, no regulation of prices, etc. I personally think this would be a significant improvement over the current US system.
> food is cheap and plentiful to create
Yes, and it would be cheaper if the government did not subsidize producers, as above. The reason for this is, of course, that there is a free market in food (or at least much closer to one than the market in health care) and so producers are competing on price, therefore driving them to make food production more and more efficient. A century ago in the US, food was not cheap and plentiful to create. Technology and production processes improve over time if they are forced to by competition. I see no reason why the same would not apply to health care, if it were competitive the way food production is.
> food is easy to steal
This is an interesting point, but I'm not sure how much difference it makes in itself, because even the richest person in the world can only consume a limited quantity of food. So it makes no difference to rich people whether the poor can steal food or not; even if they do, the rich won't be the one to suffer, someone much further down the income ladder will (if anyone does).
A more interesting aspect is this:
> It's a lot harder to steal health care
I would rephrase this as: health care is much less fungible than food is. You and I can trade lunches, but we can't trade, say, gallbladder operations or physical exams. I agree that this is potentially a valid reason to treat health care different from food. What might be helpful is to look at other goods or services that are not fungible and see how they are handled in comparison with health care.
Also once "the system" has its claws in you, you can't leave in practice even if its theoretically legally possible. My MiL goes in with stomach upset vomiting urgent care, next thing you know she's getting admitted something to do with gallbladder removal. In theory she legally could have vomited her way out of the hospital with an IV attached into the parking lot to another, cheaper hospital to have her gallbladder removed (or whatever it was) but in practice this isn't happening.
Emergency care, yes, that's unpredictable, and that's the sort of thing that health insurance should cover.
End of life care is not always unpredictable. In fact it rarely is in terms of the general need. Yes, you can't predict the exact point in time at which an 80-year-old person, say, will have an event that makes them require assisted living or a nursing home, but you can certainly foresee well in advance that such a need will arise at some point around that age. So this is not an unexpected need in the sense that emergency care is. And there's no reason why the same health plan should have to cover both needs, yet that is what the US health system does.
> you can't leave in practice even if its theoretically legally possible
Yes, this example of yours is an case of an unexpected need that health insurance should cover. However, I don't know of any "health insurance" in the US that only covers cases of unexpected need like this, and does not also cover everything else that is in any way involved with health care.
