But consider if the United States did not have free market health care. The advances in medical science cost ungodly sums of money and are the direct product of competition and entrepreneurialism. If the United States had a government-only health care system, the health of the world would stagnate.
Riiiight. Because the NHS doesn't pay for new drugs? It spent £10 billion in 2005-06, £7 bn branded, £3 bn generic.

As for the reference to the health of the world stagnating without the US free market, I could contrast the sums spent on developing, say, antimalarials compared with the sums spent on lifestyle drugs like viagra and "cures" for makle pattern baldness, but as Viagra was developed in the stagnant UK I won't.