This is NOT a rhetorical question.

Why are none of the presidential candidates suggesting anything besides insurance for everyone? Insurance does not guaranty that people get diagnosed and treated correctly. It only protects them from high prices, and guarantees that the medical group gets paid. Why are none of the candidates saying we need to revert to free market forces?

It seems to me that real reform would abolish the AMA's price fixing; their quotas on the number of new doctors trained; and abolish the no-competition policy set up by the AMA. Competition always brings prices down, doesn't it?

No candidate is saying affordability will come from a free market. Why? Is insurance for everyone the answer? I don't think so. So why doesn't anyone say "I'm gonna get big pharmas and the AMA's hands out of government's pockets, and the government's out of the pharmas' and medical groups'?"

Great Point, Lengo.

The issue SHOULDN"T be insurance for astronomically high health care costs.  It should be exactly about truely affordable free market, health care.

Look at the costs for major operations in places like India and Singapore.  Care as quality as is availible here, is availible, there, for 1/3rd the price or less.  For some operations, like liver transplants, the savings are flat unbelievable!  If Brazil can do this, why can't the U.S.?

Take a peak at this page from a Medical Tourism site.....

 http://www.meditravels.org/medical-tourism.htm

---

An ascendant man, living in a degenerate age, MUST, by definition, live in contradistinction to his times.