So I'm pointing the finger, at least in part, at the regulations here in the USA. By artificially controlling the number of doctors, and/or constraining our acc

So I'm pointing the finger, at least in part, at the regulations here in the USA. By artificially controlling the number of doctors, and/or constraining our access to pharmaceuticals, we're creating the situation where I am unable to get the treatment I need. This has nothing to do with economics or even insurance company policies, really. It's all to do with nanny-state government. I agree with you! Here's some data about how the supply of doctors is constrained by law: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S8p3XotZRpI/AAAAAAAANQ4/9Bn63-6lmgs/s1600/medschool.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S8p3XotZRpI/AAAAAAAANQ... (from http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/04/medical-school-grads-have-been-flat.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/04/medical-school-grads-hav...) For the last 30 years, 16,000 new doctors are let through each year, and this is very carefully regulated to keep guild members rich. There's nothing wrong with that, but the problem is that the government is used as a tool to maintain this monopoly. (Unfortunately, it's been this way since the Middle Ages.) Does it have to be this way? Not if you decide that people should be free to choose for themselves which expert they should seek medical help from, and what qualifications they require. If you own your own body (and I say you do), this is your right to decide. On top of that, new drugs cost somewhere around $1 billion to take to market. When only 300 people in the country have a rare condition, the FDA makes it so that nothing can be done for them because there is no way to recoup a billion dollars from any small group of people.