Ok, so I've been trying to avoid this topic, but somehow it just sucks me right back in.
First, silk: did you say that other countries have a better healthcare system than us? (Not a good one, but a better one?) In that case, I have to ask "is it wrong to strive for a better solution, if a good/perfect solution is not possible"?
Second, we do not have free-market healthcare. Not really. Hospitals set prices as dictated by their own personal "charge masters," and they don't tell you the price for critical/necessary care until after they've been done and they billed you.
We have something approaching free-market healthcare when it comes to non-critical stuff, like dental, or plastic surgery, precisely BECAUSE they are non-critical. You have time to shop around, you can put it off, you can wait for a vacation, etc. But when you're in serious trouble, you go to the nearest hospital and they gouge you.
I would say this is best exemplified by the differences in costs for treatments between countries. (I'm probably incorrect on the exact numbers, but I'm fairly confident about the scale of difference. I saw someone's research project, I just didn't bother to remember the exact figures, focusing more on the broader strokes)
For non-critical procedures (like plastic surgery), the US may only be $7000 versus India's $2000. Or in dental, the US may actually be a little cheaper, at $148 vs $170.
But for critical stuff like open-heart surgery, the US is somewhere around $130,000 versus India's $9,000.
And in terms of quality of care, it's maybe a drop from 95% chance of survival to 90%.
I love the free-market, because I believe it takes into account people's greed. It's very realistic that way. Greed gets checked by competition. But competition starts to go out the window when it's about something time-critical. You can live without an LED TV, but if you're in Michigan, in December, and your heater breaks down, you better believe the repairman's going to charge you more than he would during the summer.