I think I probably agree with something near your point, but I don't think your examples work. This case - where laws block the sale of internet services - isn't a case of not regulating markets in the hope that a free market magically appears. Rather, it's just bad law.
Healthcare is also not an example of not regulating markets; rather, it's one of the most regulated markets in the USA. Some of the regulations are net-harmful, leading to problems like the gigantic prices of monopolized products.
I think you're mistaken about high prices for monopolized pharmaceuticals being a new phenomenon. Are you referring to the EpiPen, Daraprim, Alcortin A, Novacort, and Aloquin price hikes? But high prices are typical in monopolized pharmaceuticals. For example, Harvoni costs $32,000 in the USA, while its generic version costs $900 in India. This kind of price difference between the monopoly price and non-monopoly price is common.
All that aside, I agree that we can often do better than just not regulating industries. Much care should be taken to craft helpful regulations, and perhaps some kind of technology or institution can be developed to inhibit regulatory capture.
The problem isn't monopolized pharmaceuticals, other countries deal with that as well nor is it too much regulation, it's too little.
Other countries simply accept that there is a monopoly and that therefore the prices will be sky high, if they allow the companies to just set the prices to whatever they want, so these governments set prices and negotiate or empower consumers.
The situation in the US would be very different, if you had nationwide insurance agencies and medicare negotiating drug prices and being able to say no to drugs that provide little to no benefit.
I think the framing of regulation as a spectrum of less to more is unhelpful. We don't need more regulation, we need better regulation. Some better is more; sometimes it's less.
> Other countries simply accept that there is a monopoly
There wouldn't be, if not for IP law
> that therefore the prices will be sky high, if they allow the companies to just set the prices to whatever they want
They can only set the prices so high because they have a government-enforced monopoly on those products due to IP law
The US needs to focus on further opening markets. Make the markets more easily accessible to competition. That means reducing the regulatory restrictions to something reasonable and, like you suggest, opening all markets for competition from everywhere.
I would love to be able to just buy catastrophic healthcare insurance for unforeseen or accidental injuries or illnesses, and just paying for healthcare checkups out-of-pocket. But is that option open to me? Not really.
I'm open to considering the idea of implementing a nationwide single payer system but I'd prefer it to be handled on a per-state basis first to test how it would work, and what kinds of unforeseen consequences it would have.
Healthcare is also not an example of not regulating markets; rather, it's one of the most regulated markets in the USA. Some of the regulations are net-harmful, leading to problems like the gigantic prices of monopolized products.
I think you're mistaken about high prices for monopolized pharmaceuticals being a new phenomenon. Are you referring to the EpiPen, Daraprim, Alcortin A, Novacort, and Aloquin price hikes? But high prices are typical in monopolized pharmaceuticals. For example, Harvoni costs $32,000 in the USA, while its generic version costs $900 in India. This kind of price difference between the monopoly price and non-monopoly price is common.
All that aside, I agree that we can often do better than just not regulating industries. Much care should be taken to craft helpful regulations, and perhaps some kind of technology or institution can be developed to inhibit regulatory capture.