Q: Why not just let the market solve our health care problems?

We hear from some of our readers that the best way to solve our nation’s health care problems would be to open the market up to more competition. We agree that there is too little market competition in health care, but encouraging the right kind of competition is harder than you might think, because buying health insurance is nothing like buying a flat-screen television or new car.

It’s fairly easy to compare the features of a television or car, and if you can’t afford a new one, well, you do without or keep your old clunker going. Going without health insurance isn’t optional (or shouldn’t be), and the way the “market” works now, comparing one plan to another is difficult if not impossible.

A television has a price tag right on it. Health insurance doesn’t. If you get insurance through your employer, you may have no idea how much it really costs beyond your personal contribution. (In fact, your employer might refuse to tell you even if you ask.) Those who buy their insurance in the individual market know what their premiums are, but may end up accidentally purchasing a “bargain” policy that turns out to be hopelessly inadequate when they get sick and need to use it.

You also get to decide up front what kind of television or car you need and what features are worth paying for. Not so with health care. Most decisions on what tests or treatments you receive are made by your doctor, not you. And if you have insurance, you likely have no idea of the actual cost until you get the bills for your co-insurance and co-pays long after the fact.

Far from being a "government take-over of healthcare," the proposals in Congress are first and foremost a market expansion on a grand scale. The majority of the millions of new enrollees would be purchasing private plans. And the bills include many provisions to make the market work better overall, especially for consumers. Here are a few of them: