The problem is--much faith as I have in the invisible hand--I think the free market will always run into a few hiccups. Monopolies will occasionally happen. Another problem with free markets is the tragedy of the commons (overgrazing, pollution, etc.).
Asbestos, the "tragedy of the commons" is a problem of socialist economic relations, not free market. Its the DMV, the High School, and the Social Security office that goes without paint, landscaping, and maintinence, and has all the obscene drawings on the bathroom stalls, not your home (at least, I hope this is not the case!) The tragedy of the commons is what you have in socialized medicine and in partly socialized systems such as the American, in which people perceive the cost of medical care to be low of 'free" and consume it accordingly, trying to get as much out of it while it lasts, driving prices into the stratosphere and leaving less for others coming into the system at a later date.
I think another problem is that of insurance--companies simply won't want to ensure high-risk customers at an affordable rate. I don't think it's fair to make them ensure high cost customers, but I don't think it's fair that people are denied coverage because of it.
This is a problem, but again, the best way out is the free market, the reason being that the competitive and entrepreneurial pressures of the market will eventually bring the cost of medical care down substantially, allowing otherwise uninsurable people to find insurance in a market, profit based system in which net wealth entering and enriching the medical system can absorb catastrophic illness cases much more efficiently without destroying a hospital or insurance company.
Medical costs in Canada and the U.K. have gone into low orbit, but the populace has no idea of the economic realities because they are shielded from them.
I think health care costs have recently skyrocketed for a number of reasons. Government meddling may be part of it, but I think another problem is that liability has increased with costly lawsuits for healthcare providers, doctors, etc.
This is an excellent point, and one I have made many times in these kinds of discussions. Indeed, without substantial tort reform, free market approaches, in and of themselves, may be of only marginal effectiveness.
Another part of it may be that we are able to do more, but it costs a lot to do. In any case I don't see how the uninsurable will ever be insurable without something drastic changing. I don't see how private insurance companies are ever going to ensure high-risk patients unless it is done as with large companies and huge policies for a substantial number of employees and dependants.
It can be done, if the medical profession and various medical industries and providers are free to grow, prosper, and innovate without the heavy handed regulation that has made much of doctoring and nursing the filling out of government forms. The compliance costs, Asbestos, of government meddling with the every facet of the medical profession, are astounding. Let hospitals and clinics take that money and put it into company or corporate slush funds to assist indigent or other patients that may need financial help. its in the many billions of dollars, so there's no lack of funds if the waste and fraud are taken out of the equation.
By the way, I'm not totally against government help of private individuals, but I would stipulate that this occur at no level higher than the state level (and even this is giving a lot of libertarian ground. The states don't have a great deal of credibility either, but at least there that much closer to the populace they serve). In no manner should the federal government have anything to do with providing health care (or housing, or food, or school tuition, or anything else of this kind). Ideally, it should be as local as possible.
And ideally, a good start would be medical savings accounts. That, however, would involve substantial tax cuts and, well, you know...