Some people say that’s why the Lasik is now so cheap – that competition was allowed to thrive since insurance would not cover it and consumers were actually shopping for the best price.

Very good.

Now Lasik is an elective procedure for a non life-threatening condition – myopia.

The MRI’s are presumably sought by people with serious conditions which are time-sensitive.

Granted, those few of us who can afford to pay out of pocket for treatment of the kind of illnesses that require MRI’s will benefit tremendously from this service.

The people on HMO, though, will find out (only after hours of phone-calls) that only one of the 30 providers is actually covered by their plan. And if they have two options they will not care since for them the cost is the same.

That to me is the biggest problem with the healthcare system anywhere: if you want it to be very efficient you have to allow competition, but that means that some (a lot of) people will not be able to afford treatment. If you consider a right to medical care one of the human rights, you regulate prices and stifle innovation, which is no good either.

IMHO, in the battle between the two, a compassionate liberal or a compassionate conservative both should err on the side of providing care to everybody who needs it.
I’m not sure the universal health care is the good answer, but from what I experienced, read and heard – it seems to be the least evil one. At least I’d know that some stock holders are not getting rich because I’m not allowed an insulin pump I want.