> I don't think there is. I think in many cases, what starts out as a "free market" is ultimately overtaken by a few large corporations (as others fold or get acquired) which then proceed to abuse their position of dominance to engage in monopolistic rent-seeking behavior to maximize their profits at the expense of everyone else.

Yes, that's crony capitalism, not a free market. There is no such thing as a natural, malevolent monopoly (except for governments). They require special government privileges to maintain dominance for long, or they will fall to competition in a free market (or have to become benevolent enough so that they still maintain market share with consumers).

Corruption isn't something you just "solve" in any part of government. Except, maybe, in a government made up solely of AI/programs. But anyway, for now it's fair to assume that it's an eternal problem that plagues government, and in fact it is the problem with our current FDA. So do we just give in? No, let's continuously reset it, be vigilant, and avoid giving the government "privilege-granting" powers that allow it to enable rent-seeking in the first place, so that we don't need to do frequent resetting.

> It's questionable to me if the medical system could ever act like a free market:

Whether healthcare can be a free market is a different issue, and I've heard people even say it's inherently an immoral industry. I think healthcare is perhaps the MOST moral industry inherently, but the idea of medical insurance specifically is terrible to me, because for many people, healthcare is something they access frequently throughout their lives. I don't think health insurance is compatible with a free market, and probably constitutes fraud. The whole business plan of insurance is that people are hedging against risk/accidents, and will end up paying in more on average than they take out, but in reality health insurance is intended to cover WAY more than that as it currently stands. "Accident" insurance makes a lot more sense to me, and it's compatible with the idea of insurance (broken arms/trauma/etc.). But even serious illnesses are not really unexpected, because almost everyone gets them -- it's just a question of when. I think all medical expenses should be paid out of pocket. This is completely unreasonable in our current expensive, heavily and unfairly subsidized system, but if we refactor the system and take health insurance out of the equation, it's hard to imagine just how much costs would come down. Looking at the costs of raw materials and labor, there is absolutely no reason this should be so unattainable, and it's far more "fair." Yes, some poor people who got bad genes all around are going to have a more difficult time than a healthy or wealthy person and will have to pick and choose healthcare options that would be in their body's best interest, but such is life. Scarcity exists, and even the entire healthcare industry cannot keep one person alive forever. Side note: the majority of a person's lifelong medical expenses are incurred in the final two years of his or her life. There is finite medical care, and there is diminishing return (measured in hours/$) for how long you can keep a dying person alive another day. This is not a solvable problem with a socialist system -- there is INFINITE demand, so we need to let the market increase the supply as best it can (which is via competition, freedom, and profit motive).

So I think that answers number 3, where I very much agree with you. Number 1 as well, because you had the option to "shop around" for your accident insurance which should have you covered wherever your insurance is valid. Number 2 is solved by the free market and my additional post on reducing patent lengths. But what if the drug was just invented and they are still the only ones allowed to manufacture it?? Here is the real misunderstanding I think you share with many of my liberal friends. THIS COMPANY JUST INVENTED A LIFE SAVING DRUG -- WITHOUT ITS INNOVATION, EVERYONE WITH THE CONDITION WOULD DIE, AND NOW SOME ARE LIVING WHO CAN AFFORD TO HELP THE COMPANY RECOUP THE R&D COSTS + INCENTIVES OF MAKING A LIFE SAVING DRUG. And eventually, when its protections expire, the price will come down as others enter the market. In fact, it would probably not be in the company's long term interests to price gouge because people will remember that when competitors enter (who hasn't heard Shkreli's name?). Basically, well-intentioned people like yourself would benefit people who depend on this drug in the short term, through government intervention, at the expense of innovation in the long term as fewer corporations are attracted by the riches that await them for furthering the medical field and saving people's lives.

I apologize for the length of this post -- this topic is near and dear to my heart.