Strictly regulating an industry with high demand, like healthcare or vaping, often backfires. Instead of eliminating risk, it pushes consumers and providers into a "parallel" gray market that is less regulated, less coordinated, and ultimately more harmful. The intended consumer protection fails because the regulated system becomes too difficult to operate within, forcing activity outside the "kingdom walls."
Related Insights
A paradoxical market reality is that sectors with heavy government involvement, like healthcare and education, experience skyrocketing costs. In contrast, less-regulated, technology-driven sectors see prices consistently fall, suggesting a correlation between intervention and price inflation.
Unlike its reputation, the healthcare sector faces substantial challenges from regulation, pricing pressure, and difficulties in passing on costs. This makes it a deceptively risky area for credit investors who must perform careful selection rather than treating it as a defensive play.
Policies like price caps (e.g., for insulin) or price floors (e.g., minimum wage) that deviate from market equilibrium create distortions. The economy then compensates in unintended ways, such as companies ceasing production of price-capped goods or moving to under-the-table employment to avoid high minimum wages.
Regulating technology based on anticipating *potential* future harms, rather than known ones, is a dangerous path. This 'precautionary principle,' common in Europe, stifles breakthrough innovation. If applied historically, it would have blocked transformative technologies like the automobile or even nuclear power, which has a better safety record than oil.
When a service like public transit is made free, it removes the financial incentives for efficiency and innovation. Without the pressure to compete for customers, bureaucracies swell, quality degrades, and problems like safety issues increase, ultimately making the service worse for its intended beneficiaries.
Widespread cancellation of medical debt, while well-intentioned, may remove consumer pressure on providers. If patients don't need to shop around or question prices because they anticipate forgiveness, it eliminates a key market force needed to control escalating costs.
By aggregating millions of users, ZocDoc acts as a collective bargaining unit for patients. It uses its marketplace power to reward providers for patient-friendly behavior (e.g., price transparency, better hours) with better visibility, proving more effective at driving change than punitive government regulations.
Regulatory capture is not an abstract problem. It has tangible negative consequences for everyday consumers, such as the elimination of free checking accounts after the Dodd-Frank Act was passed, or rules preventing physicians from opening new hospitals, which stifles competition and drives up costs.
Entrepreneurs often see the kids' market as less crowded and thus easier to enter. The reality is the opposite: it's less crowded because it's significantly more complex, with far more laws and regulations (like COPPA) that founders must navigate successfully to survive.
Government subsidies within healthcare systems like the ACA create a perverse incentive for providers and insurers to inflate prices. This triggers a toxic flywheel: higher costs demand more subsidies, which in turn fuel further price hikes, making the underlying problem of affordability worse over time.
