No, it's not irrational. Do you really expect that the most expensive care is always the best? People tend to seek the best value for their money, which is typically neither the cheapest not the most expensive option. When my dog needed surgery, I shopped around and saved more than 60% by going with a cheaper vet, for whom I searched and found years of stellar online reviews. What's irrational is that I can't do the same for myself or the human members of my family.

No, but emergent care accounts for a tiny fraction of all health care spending, making this common argument mostly irrelevant.

The fact that not everyone can shop around for not change the fact that prices are brought down for everyone by the consumers who do choose to shop around. Besides, the more serious the medical condition, the more likely you are to find the time to have it addressed, including shopping around for the best care you can afford.

True, information asymmetry can be a problem. But it can be a problem in any situation where consumers rely on a professional with training and knowledge they lack. This can be remedied b, at least in part, by asking multiple professionals for opinions and relying on the published experiences of previous consumers. No one seriously suggests nationalizing the auto repair industry because people don't understand all the details of how automobiles work.

Elasticity of demand does exist in the medical industry. Yes, it tends to be relatively inelastic compared to other industries, as one would expect, but this does not mean that it is perfectly inelastic, as you seem to claim. Note that A) as one would expect, price elasticity is higher in when people pay more out-of-pocket rather than depending onon this-party payers such as insurers, employers, or governments, and B) there is significant income elasticity of medical care, which ties into your third point above.