Why Luxury TVs Are Affordable when Basic Health Care Is Not 

Disclaimer: I try to only criticise political theories themselves, not the people behind them. I hope it doesn't come across differently, lol.

This illustrates a problem I have with libertarianism: it offers the same solution to every problem. An simplistic maxim to apply to apply to every complicated, nuanced real-world situation. The problem with having such an overarching rule is that sometime it seems a conclusion is reached ("the free market is good for everything") and THEN reasoning is formed to fit it ("the free market is good for everything, so how will the free market be good for healthcare?"), in some type of reverse process. Preferable, IMO, is not operating from a pre-formed premise on privatisation at all - privatisation may be good for some things, bad for others, depending wholly on the facts and circumstances of the case. At the risk of strawmanning it, I feel like the bulk of the author's argument is "Look at all these things the free market and competition is good for, ergo the free market is great, ergo it'll be great for healthcare" . The evidence pertaining to healthcare suggests the opposite.

The best healthcare systems in the world, according to the WHO (assessed on 5 factors - overall population health, health disparities, effectiveness of the system, distribution of effectiveness, distribution of financial burden) are:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
(Compare #37 USA, though paying more than any other nation)

These countries all have universal healthcare subsidised and regulated by the government. Consider France - the best in the world - with 77% of healthcare costs covered by government, great quality of care, short wait times, and high consumer satisfaction. At the same time, they spend less than the US. Or Singapore, where 70 - 80% of citizens obtain their healthcare through the public system despite private options being available, due to it being ranked the most efficient in the world.

Also consider link by a well-known economist, which found that a single-payer healthcare system (where healthcare is paid for by the state instead of private insurers) would save billions, improve healthcare quality, and cut prices on drugs.

Analogies to TVs (which I'd argue have decreased in price due more to better technology, in any case) don't really hold up to the absolute wealth of evidence worldwide: better healthcare is obtained if it's subsidised and universal.

There are other criticisms of his "free market" proposal - there is no financial incentive to provide healthcare for someone who cannot afford it, and even if prices go down (which they won't necessarily do) there will always be people who cannot afford it - but the extremely large body of contradictory evidence is his biggest stumbling block.