I'm specifically pointing to price elasticty and high barrier for entry regarding health services. Eliminating insurance does nothing to fix those issues.In the terms you;re trying to use, this is rrelevant to the issue.
Market forces apply in all cases - regardless of the good/service, you look for the best cost and the best quality. In the case of the heart valve, you're subtituting someone who charges too much or does inferior work for soemone who doesn't. Eliminating insurance brings competition; competition, subsitituion, informed consumers are the bedrocks of a good effective market system.
I'm arguing from the perspective that uses the system we currently have...which provides emergency care to anyone no matter their ability to pay. Yes, if we had a system where that wasn't the case then the incentive of recieving not care would be sufficient...there would be no need for a mandate."We" have no responsibility whatsoever to make sure that anyone has anything.
You, personally, may think you have a moral responsibility to do so, but you have an outlet for that, and you have no standing whatsoever to impose that morality on others.