1) have people shop with their own money or vouchers and keep what they don't spend
2) have providers compete on basis of price and quality
Here's the problem with trying to apply Remedial Economics 099 to health care: It doesn't fit such simplistic thinking.
Health care isn't a free market in the way you and I normally think of it. Normal markets have the basic fundamental forces of choice, competition, and a reasonably informed consumer. When it comes to televisions, I have choices. Samsung competes with Sony and LG. There are different sizes and qualities and features. Better yet, I can make a decision regarding those features because they are something I am qualified to assess. (because it's all a personal, subjective measurement anyway) Also, I don't need to buy a television. These are "entertainment dollars" I'm spending. I can also buy an Xbox, a computer, a laptop, or a sound system instead. Or a tennis racket.
Or, probably most important of all, I can buy
nothing. If the price of the available products just are not of sufficient value to prompt my purchase, I can walk away entirely and wait until something that piques my interest hits the market.
This simply isn't true of health care. Being sick or injured is not something I chose. The cure for it is specific, there's no competing product. I can't choose to take antibiotics instead of chemotherapy for cancer. Worse, I'm not remotely qualified to assess the effectiveness of various remedies when there
is more than one option. Medicine is just too complicated. I am highly reliant on a doctor's advice. And not being treated... isn't really a choice at all. Particularly with serious illnesses or injuries.
Life is the most inelastic product there is. The demand curve for
continuing to live is infinitely steep. ]
How on earth can we expect the private market to function properly when such fundamental pillars of economics aren't present?