Opponents of the health care reform often frame it as a (big) government vs. private sector/business/free markets. Proponents, on the other hand, cite extraordinary profits in the medical insurance and pharmaceutical sectors (presumably at the expense of those whose treatment was denied by insurance).
And this is where the debate gets heated very quickly, as it becomes emotional, hitting all the buttons where the basic sense of fairness is: huge profits vs. people being denied treatment or coverage, going bankrupt, etc. (bear with me, I am not claiming this is true or taking sides here, just describing). What then follows is an endless chain of anecdotal evidence on both sides: glaring examples of wrongs by either system (i.e., Canadian/European vs. American). And as in religious debates, nothing ever gets resolved, as strong beliefs and emotions rule.
Yet, there is an alternative (to the debate driven by emotions and beliefs). Given that I am, in general, a proponent of free markets, this is how, in my humble opinion, truly free markets would solve this: any industry with extraordinary profits would attract newcomers, increasing competition and ultimately decreasing prices and thus profits to the level of normal ones (or what economists call "zero economic profit").
So, the real issue here is not only about social justice, basic fairness, should-I-save-my-finger-or-feed-my-kids dilemmas, etc. The real questions is then : why isn't there a free(er) market for medical insurance and pharmaceuticals? What is preventing more competition? True, pharmaceuticals have huge barriers to entry (i.e., huge critical mass necessary for research). However, if insurance companies are racking enormous profits up, why aren't new insurance companies entering the fray?
And that is where the proper role of government should be: ensuring free markets. Given that Republicans like to portray themselves as champions of business and free markets, the questions is why didn't they open the health care markets to more competition in the eight years of unquestionable power? Had they done that, there would be much less need for a direct government intervention, the likes of which we are supposedly facing now.