Give me everything you've got.
It doesn't require theft.
It doesn't require threats of force.
It does allow for a free society.
It provides the best quality.
It provides the most service.
It does this at the lowest costs.
It gives incentives for people to be responsible for themselves.
It leaves people with more money to do this.
It also may leave extra for people to be charitable.
It gives incentives for people to live healthier.
It lets people choose the medicine that they (and their doctors) decide is best, rather than what a bureaucratic approval agency thinks is okay.
It allows for more people to become health care practitioners.
It allows for more hospitals.
It allows for a more prosperous economy.
It cuts out more unnecessary middlemen, like insurance companies and lawyers.
It pisses off kylio.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
No actual facts to back anything up. Typical.
Show me a free market health care system and you'll get your facts. There isn't one in existence today. If you want comparrisons between the US and Canadian systems perhaps you might want to pull your head out of your ass long enough to realize the US isn't a free market system.
You sound like greenbabe, which would be ironic, since you also fail to provide evidence. You're not looking for evidence, there are already books that explain how free (real free markets, not what we have now) markets provide better medical services, what you want is for us to tell you you're a troll so that you can say to yourself, "Those stupid free market supporters are dogmatic.", or something along those lines.
These ideas have been backed up on this forum so many times its not worth doing it again. You don't want to admit that liberty is better than slavery, and that you're wrong, so you continue to not do any research and reading for yourself. Don't worry, though, you aren't impressing anyone with a no-getter attitude like that. When you can refute the law of supply and demand, and find a new definition and function of prices, you will have disproven most of my points. If you cannot, then I'm correct. (I'm glad I've got basic economic principles to fall back on!)
MissMapleLeaf:No actual facts to back anything up. Typical.
Trolling and ban-evading (again). Typical.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
If socialism is so good in healthcare, why not apply it to every area of the economy?
Listen, even if a free society produced inferior healthcare, a libertarian would still be for the free version on moral grounds. That a free society also produces a far better economic climate is a happy coincidence.
We will never accept any system predicated on aggressive coercion.
Anyone who accepts aggressive coercion in any form, in any sphere of life, becomes an accessory to all forms and uses of aggression.
So, by pushing aggressive-coercion provided healthcare, OP, you put yourself in the same category as those who use aggressive coercion to thieve, rape, murder, and commit war, indeed every act of immorality is subsumed within the concept of aggressive coercion over another's property rights.
The question is not primarily the utilitarian question of 'which is better for society' but the fact that one, your preference, is completely immoral and relies on force, and is therefore illegitimate and should be done away with.
Eh, I live in Canada.
You go into the hospital for hives, wait several hours in extreme pain to be seen by a nurse, eventually get to see some doctor who barely speaks English who shoos you out because you aren't high enough priority, leaving you to suffer at home.
Not exactly a great system.
The definition of insanity is: signing back up for Mises forum over and over again, posting the same kinds of statements that do nothing to further the dialog, and expecting something other than the eventual ban.
It creates a system where there is are large incentive to give consumers higher quality healthcare at any price, and care to those who cannot afford it at these prices up to what society would be willing to pay under a state run system. This is inherent within the definition of "free market" in all but the most bizarre conditions.
As for evidence, I have nothing beyond the abomination which is what governments have done to existing healthcare systems.