> What you seem to be suggesting is that we leave the healthcare market completely open to market forces. I suggested nothing of the sort. I said our current r

> What you seem to be suggesting is that we leave the healthcare market completely open to market forces. I suggested nothing of the sort. I said our current regulation regime is harmful, however good the intentions were when it was passed. > This would be a disaster of epic proportions because, realistically, not everyone can afford their own healthcare costs. I also never said the impoverished should be left to die in the streets. The government clearly needs to help people afford things. But the current regulatory approach is both too heavy and too complex. > ...regulations exist to protect citizens against predatory practices. And they're clearly not working, no matter the intention when they were passed. > Most of them are OK. Like the ones that let pharma companies keep generic drugs off the market? Or the ones that heavily regulate drug releases but could not prevent the opioid epidemic? There should be regulations. There should be welfare. They should both be simple (anything else is not fair, especially for the consumer) and they should use markets to figure out what the price of things should be (anything else is still not fair and is subject to special interests).