I have a question about the state of the public discussion of single-payer health care, at the level of ideas and principles at an economic level. First, some background comments:
-------

I agree with Keynes that "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."

Often these ruling ideas have devolved into a simplistic form, like the simplistic market fundamentalism that is today a background to much of what is said about (among other things) health care.

The idea that single-payer health care systems are superior clashes with the idea that minimally regulated markets are always the best way to organize the production and delivery of goods and services. To argue for single-payer in terms of concrete facts (successes overseas, problems with the US system, etc.) doesn't address a key problem as seen by thoughtful, principled market fundamentalists and their fellow travelers: Advocacy of "socialized medicine" seems to open the door to advocacy of socialized everything, which they know in their bones is Bad.

What principle draws a line here? How could they possibly acquiesce to single payer without abandoning their core beliefs? Without an answer to this, advocacy of single-payer is an assault on a fiercely defended intellectual fortress, and will be fought to the death.

It might be nice to avoid this, especially if it is entirely unnecessary.
-------

That said, here is the question:

Who is arguing (and where?) that health insurance markets are fundamentally different from other markets, in ways that can't be fixed, even in principle, by greater transparency, competition, consumer information, and so on?

The case for this can be made, briefly and persuasively, but I don't see this appearing as a visible part of the public discussion, even on the moderately wonky side of the world. Am I missing something?

I see a huge opportunity cost here. Pushing the case for a fundamental difference could melt away hard-core resistance in a small but extraordinarily influential segment of the opposition.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.