Cops and firemen. Slaves. Soldiers and marines. Slaves. McConnell and Bunning. Slaves.

Why do you hate patriots Andy?

LOL. I can see this post brought out a panopoly of "deep thinkers" on the Left. It's interesting to see how they all seem to be reading from the one single-page pamphlet (for easy repetition).

Take the Phone, above. Is he actually equating government service with slavery? Does he not realize that there are no private sector alternatives to a local municipally provided police (and fire) services?

Also, another commenter above refers to the ability of healthcare providers to leave the system should it not suit them (due, ostensibly, to gov't cost caps, one is assuming).

This reader stumbles upon exactly why free market advocates (who are looking at other gov't healthcare "solutions" provided in other States) reject fiat limited care (such are price controls) -- namely, the drop off in supply! Why do you think government payor healthcare in every other Western nation is marked by long queues?

Moreover, why in the world would we want to discourage our best and brightest from investing eight to ten years of their lives (and in some specialties, even more) in order to bring us the best and most innovative healthcare on the globe? Seems like an awfully steep price to pay (and the globe would be paying for it) to ensure free stuff for all.

There are ways to ensure 100% coverage with efficiency, and without a drop off in supply or quality of care. Government payor is not one of those.

Your thumbnail sketch is sophistry. Inherent to what you say is the perpetual nauseating idea that a complete free market in all goods and services is the best organization for society. This isn't true. All western economies are mixed economies of one degree or another. A "pure" free market in everything is not possible nor desirable. None of the various social groups in society will ever permit themselves to be overwhelmed by the annihilating and corrupting force of an unfettered free market.

The talk about enslavement is silly. We all know that the freedom that "providers" have in mixed economies is to negotiate their own position as favorably as possible and if they are not satisfied to quit their jobs and take up in some other sector of the economy. In short free market theory says a provider ultimately denies their labour by quitting their job. By free market theory health care providers are still as free as birds, they can always quit and do something else. Whether that is practical or not is another issue and not one that free market doctrine cares to comment on, practicality would be addressed by some other framework of values.

This need to employ non market values in economic decisions, like what type of provider to be, is just one of many things that will keep society from being organized 100% as a free market. The thing to do is try and manage as best we can in a mixed economy type system.

The core of my post is that anything that must be provided by others should not and cannot be guaranteed as a "right" in a free society.

Thought-provoking. But... in America don't we have a right to fair trial by a jury of our peers? I don't feel like jurists have been enslaved, even though their services are required to make it happen.

Good thing there is a clearing corp for enslavement. Eg. Canadian Government.

...Let me tell you, I'd rather pay for healthcare, and have firms compete to provide the best solutions at the lowest cost, than the alternative which is having it "provided" to everybody with an address.

Firms will only compete to find a "solution" that is most profitable to them, not necessarily most beneficial to your health. How to protect against this?

What's required is that incentives are aligned. The worst part about the current governmental distortion of the health care market is that incentives are pointed toward: 1) volume, 2) disease treatment (vs. primary disease prevention), 3) fragmented "services" rather than integrated programs, 4) commodity services vs. personalized, 5) "average impact across a group" rather than "optimized impact for each individual"

The government structure under Medicare/ Medicaid is a key reason why disruptive innovation rewarding higher value approaches have not emerged. With aligned incentives (e.g., the Lasik market) you do see profits tied to impact.

Easy. I wouldn't go to that firm again, and I wouldn't refer my friends.
And, I trust margins in the health care industry, would work the same way as
every other industry. That is, if excess profit exists, more firms would
enter to compete...levelling the margins, to account for the risk and
liquidity.

You're not thinking properly. "margins in the health care industry, would work the same way as every other industry." Whenever you look at an industry you have to catagorize it into a market structure. The one you're using to let do your thinking for you (instead of thinking for yourself) is the model of perfect competition. Listen, all outside observers can do when they see extra normal profit in the healthcare industry is salivate all over their neckties, because the barriers to entry are enormous.

Secondly, you're overlooking that healthcare demand is relatively inelastic. If you buy a crummy bicycle from China, fine don't go to that firm again. If you need some medicine to manage some horrid malady you'll be in such a state (emotionally, mentally, physically, perhaps financially if your ability to work has suffered that you will take what you can get. You'll do this not necessarily because the product is so wonderful but because when one's health is suffering even a sub standard remedy is better than no remedy at all.

Clearly, I'm not thinking properly. Obviously, a free market couldn't
possibly offer advantages to a tax-subsidized government controlled one.

Funny....because every time I (or anyone I know) needs something looked at...from cancer to ACL tears, the "shopping around" process is intense.  

"Oh...ACL?  You gotta go to Dr. Tillet....he's the best...does all of the UofL football guys and did my sister's awesome"

Why couldn't the same be said of LASIK providers, or life-jacket manufacturers?  

Why are you so quick to dismiss the role of "providing a quality product/service" in the long-term viability and profitability of an offering?

I disagree. Nobody is enslaved, because nobody is FORCED to do anything. Using this logic, every tax payer would be a "slave". I see the health care reform more like a solidarity agreement between the people. Nobody is left behind, regardless of his social or financial background. If somebody cant afford medical treatment, everybody will contribute a little to help the needing person.
Your point of view is somewhat similar to the thought-experiment a few days ago: It changes everything when e.g. Dave didn't build the hut by himself, but with the help of the others or when the resources to build a hut are limited (much closer to reality) and the others dont have the possibility to build a house anymore. And what if the rain season starts and the two guys NEED to shelter in order to survive? Does Dave have the right to make them work for him the rest of their lifes in exchange for providing them shelter, just because he had the idea or "coordinated" the building of the hut? This is a way too complex matter and should include moral considerations. Maybe this post from Paul Krugman may interest you too: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11kru...

simplest and best argument i've seen for killing the health care bills

Even if you kill the health care bills, destitute patients will still get treated in emergency rooms and via Medicaid. I don't think that's really what's at issue here. With the possible exception of one hardcore Randian I know of, I don't think anyone wants to deny care to the destitute. The issue, in a nutshell, is whether everyone should be treated as if they were destitute.

Agree.  Who wants to deny care to the destitute?

Outstanding post Andy! In a nutshell am I understanding you correctly:

Health Care is a good/service. It is not a right.

healthcare is a luxury

This is the distinction between negative and positive rights.

An insightful foray of logic, undoubtedly.