Health and insurance in a free society

Does a free society mean the death for the sick and the poor? Far from it. The problems of health care and its provision are not market-related. The are a State-created problem. A brilliant analogy from a brilliant man serves as a good start to explain why:

For those who believe that consumer safety would be hurt under such an open, competitive system (a free market in healthcare), let me use an analogy. Suppose you were to say, "Look, some people have crummy Chevy cars, which are less safe and less comfortable. This falls short of our goal that all consumers get only the best. Therefore we should insist that all cars live up to the standards of a BMW or a Mercedes." Would we all wind up with the comfort and safety of driving luxury cars? Of course not. Many of us would have to resort to bicycles or go on foot. If all cars had to be luxury cars, very few of us would be able to ride in any sort of car. With respect to doctors, a similar situation has been put in place. We have basically outlawed all Chevy doctors who focus on the less expensive minor health problems (which is, in fact, all that most people have) and are forced instead to use Mercedes doctors who charge Mercedes prices even for ailments that can be fixed by people with significantly less training. (#)

A few question arise that are easily answered:

But what about the medium well-doing individuals that actually do need the luxury car, for example because of a difficult and/or rare sickness?
This is an easy "problem". Many have cars. Most of those have insurance. If a poor car-owner with a standard insurance hits an expensive car (by accident), his insurance will most likely cover it. The insurance market actually wants the unexpected and unanticipated, because why else would people buy insurance? The unexpected creates and incentive for the normal, average guy to buy an insurance (why else would he?). Those who actually become beneficiaries are the random statistic that creates the whole (hopefully profitable) market for rare-case and difficult illnesses.

What about the absolutely poor and devastated that have long-term difficult diseases?
Again an easy "solution". The quote above illustrates the health care that a free society would offer. There would be a whole lot of "okay" doctors and good ones that either can't or don't want to cure only the rich and famous. The market for health care in a free society would be enormous. And the wealth of the average person would be tremendous compared to the system we recognize today. And historically, the lack of State-interference in the market of health care means the presence of a vast number of volunteer, charity and non-profit health care institutions. When we aren't told the State solves the problems of the poor, individuals step in. And they do a better job. And the absolutely poor and devastated would be a tiny minority group that wouldn't create any kind of burden for the society of individuals as a whole.

But the important thing to keep in mind is the effects a State-regulated and -provided health care has on the actions of the rational individual. If you give away free candy, people eat more candy. When you give away "free" health care, more people get sick. This is the fundamental problem with collective systems of any kind. They create a demand for the otherwise undemanded or less-demanded. They make healthy individuals sick, to name one thing. And when everybody is sick all the time, everybody needs doctors all the time, and everyone pays the price (in all aspects of the term "price").