Not from those companies, to be sure. That's not even a conspiracy-adjacent idea, a decent product manager will point out that a new company would be "counter p

Not from those companies, to be sure. That's not even a conspiracy-adjacent idea, a decent product manager will point out that a new company would be "counter positioned" to the existing palliative companies - for the palliative companies to compete, they'd have to undercut their own product success. (In most cases, they don't, which is one major way disruption happens). That has nothing to do with "the market". The market would start more new healthcare companies, and they'd be doing things like this blog post. The issue we have in many parts of the market is regulatory capture - a few companies have convinced government to make regulations that increase the cost of starting a competitor. Healthcare is definitely one of those places! Sure, a freer market would probably have problems some or even most of those regulations prevent. And at the same time, we've created a problem. I've heard it suggested that government should always shoulder the marginal cost of regulations they create, because that's the only way you avoid a couple of players preventing new entrants.