In a recent post, Paul Krugman makes the following argument as to why the free market cannot provide health care:
You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don’t trust them — they’re profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.
Yes, as opposed to the government (whom everyone trusts), where your treatment is my cost.
The Everyday Economist 
This is not the main argument for the failure of free-market health care, as you well know. Yet your snarky comment didn’t event rebut the straw man argument that you chose.
This, my friend, is intellectual dishonesty.
The real straw man Krugman makes is that for-profit insurance firms are somehow less effective than non-profit ones. The reality is that this couldn’t be further from the truth. I’d be interested to see anyone argue that either one is more or less effective.
If the problem with insurance companies was profit, we’d all be investing in them, not criticizing them.
Why should my treatment not be your cost, and why should your treatment not be my cost?
Isn’t decent health care something all people should be entitled to… why should you be entitled to better health care just because you come from an affluent family or area?
Ask around in Sweden and see what people think of free health care.