First of all, the article mentioned immunotherapy. It'd help if people actually read articles before criticizing them. Second, the stakes are extremely high wh

First of all, the article mentioned immunotherapy. It'd help if people actually read articles before criticizing them. Second, the stakes are extremely high when we choose a particular economic path, so extensive discussion about every facet of economics, including the economic effect of regulatory intervention, is warranted. The population is not widely aware of the consequences of regulatory intervention, or even the fact that the economy is becoming more regulated over time (how often do you hear about the "since Reagan, we've tried neoliberalism" trope). The reason the number of healthcare administrators has increased 3,200 percent since 1970 (compared to an increase of 150 percent in physicians) is the growing number of regulations in healthcare: https://www.athenahealth.com/insight/expert-forum-rise-and-rise-healthcare-administrator https://www.athenahealth.com/insight/expert-forum-rise-and-r... Or take the example given from the article, of the cost of clinical trials increasing 12.2 percent per year (inflation-adjusted) in the 1980s, up from 7.3 percent in the 1970s. These are important enough issues to warrant extensive critical discussion. Libertarians may be wrong (though I don't think they are), but the discussion that has been had around these subjects is not commensurate with the stakes involved, so it's good thing if libertarian polemics attract more attention and discussion to them.