You don't need one, all you need is brand and reputation. Customer doesn't know much about products in most markets: electronics, cars, software. It's never a problem when you have lasting brands/companies servicing many people with various level of knowledge.

Because the company uses quite a lot of administrative pressure (patent trolling, vendor's bullying etc etc), hence the market is not competitive.

You are talking about competitive markets here, not information asymmetry. I see no evidence that monopolies are the outcome of asymmetry of knowledge, but rather that they are the outcomes of significant administrative measures like license-bullying or patent-trolling.

The only markets that have the problem of information asymmetry are lemon markets.

> And these are industries where it's reasonably easy to pick and choose compared to trying to switch hospitals or doctors part way through your treatment.

It's way easier to change a doctor than to change a car. There are only few conditions which restrain one from bargaining: heart attacks and other severe conditions, and these should be treated differently.

But in case of the vast majority of diseases from common cold to Epstein-Barr changing the doctor and bargaining is even simpler than in most other markets.

But again, bargaining power has nothing to do with information asymmetry as well.

and you think that won't happen with health care?

It could happen, but it's totally unrelated to the original thesis regarding information asymmetry.

There are some things that work really well in a free market but health care will never be of those.

One can make the argument that some big share of the affordability issue has been generated by the government in its policies of preventing cost transparency for medical services and drugs.

I'm not saying cost transparency will solve every problem, but this is a government caused problem. I have heard no good reasons for the monopoly pricing granted the medical industry.

Also bear in mind the whole system of government subsidized employer group health insurance was invented by the government to satisfy the labor unions, way back when private sector labor unions had influence.

Now only government employee labor unions have influence, and boy what influence they have. Just remember, public employees are in entirely different social benefit and retirement systems than us mortals.

It's almost just as bad as the collegiate system here as well. Except the college system you can somewhat anticipate costs. Insurance is a total gamble.

But I completely agree with you on the free market. My personal issue with going to the doctor is I have no idea what my bill will be at the end of the day.