Not only is this argument just flat out wrong, but a dangerous one.

We could apply the author's argument to numerous regulated industries which are regulated because of their impacts to public health and safety.

Would you want an un(der)regulated FAA where the "free market" determines the cost:benefit ratio for seat belts or triple-redundant systems on airplanes? Monetary claims for injury or death surely must be cheaper, even in the long run. Alaska Air paid out $1500 + refund for each passenger on 1282 (granted, no conditionals so it could cost them more if sued, which I'm sure they pass onto an insurance company). That's a lot cheaper than all of the engineering, testing, certification, manufacturing, and maintenance any particular safety device goes through.

The author also makes the incorrect assumption that the FDA only approves "the best" of available treatments -- the FDA's priority mission is safety. If there are no safe treatments, there are also no approved treatments.

> The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.

Safety first.

The FAA:

> Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

Safety first.

OSHA:

> With the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Congress created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for workers by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance.

Safety first, again!

===

This individual hasn't been through an unregulated medical market and it reminds me of parents opting to go vaccine-free -- because measles is rare, so the vaccine must not be required (oops[0]). Remember as you read the author's opinion, they're actively voicing the approval of harming or killing other individuals by the "free market".

The author also knows how stupid people are and how often people are hoodwinked into ineffective solutions for whatever problem they may have, including fictional ones.

The author fails to grasp at a fundamental level that we have these regulations because of the harmful actions of the "free market". The free market that continues, to this day, attempt to peddle both ineffective and dangerous medical treatments, requiring _further_ regulation.

We need to look at a similar case of regulation -- just recently nVidia tried to hoodwink the Dept of Commerce export restrictions on their GPUs to hostile countries. What does nVidia do? Make chips that just skirt the line, so the Dept of Commerce comes back to close that loophole and wacks nVidia upside the head for violating the intent and spirit of the ban.

It's a common game of the free market. If the free market didn't play stupid games, they wouldn't win stupid prizes.

When I see people like the author blame regulators/regulation, they always forget why that regulation exists in the first place. The same people the author is championing for are the same people who won stupid prizes.

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/rise-in-measles-cases-at-...