The following is in response to this unfounded, ludicrous post about letting free markets save the American health care system - evidence as to the decadent ignorance of those who might influence American policy from the right wing. Sadly this is posted on a University of Belmont blog - evidence of how education is failing the country as well. This should be short and sweet.
As Suetonius pointed out, you've made a number of assumptions without proof.
This one in particular frustrates me: "If you want to see where complete government control of healthcare takes us, just ask Canada, or Great Britain, or any of the long list of socialist democracies that have taken that path. Not only are their systems inefficient, but theirs are also increasingly ineffective."
Have you spent time in either of those countries? What is "ineffective" about their systems, the fact that they have a longer life span and spend less on health care per capita? I dare you to provide one iota of proof to backup your statement and, in the mean time, please see this study as proof to the contrary.
Your ideas for reducing the corporate bureaucracy are fine and dandy, and indeed they might help to loosen up the tightly controlled fist of US health insurance, but I can't foresee a private sector, entirely insurance-based solution being superior, more generally effective, equally fair, or more efficient than a socialized health care system (particularly one like Canada's which offers plenty of private sector opportunities for clinics and medical insurance for the wealthy).
The rest of Jeff's points are, at best, obvious, at worst, ill-considered. Sometimes I wonder if Locke and Smith were advocates of a free market because they were just simpletons with no desire to be responsible for their fellow humans' well being. Obviously Jeff Cornwall is.