I'm not a proponent of blind regulation, and actually, I prefer less regulation, generally. But, do you have evidence to back up your implicit claim that less regulation yields better results?

I ask that with complete curiosity and humility - my perception is of experts telling me for decades that awesomeness is attainable with more deregulation. And, when awesome doesn't come, they say that it's because we didn't deregulate enough. Then, they ask for more.

But, I truly want to know if my perceptions are off - i.e. changes could be happening slowly enough that I don't see the immediate results.

There are scenarios in game theory (which I have not studied myself, only read about indirectly) that regularly occur in the market, that can only be solved by regulation enforced by a non-participant. Many of those scenarios relate to externalized costs (e.g. pollution) and information asymmetries.

Health care in countries that have the best results are also heavily regulated. Regulations can be very beneficial, but only if they're well developed and well protected from regulatory capture.

Citation?

For what?

You made the following statement `Health care in countries that have the best results are also heavily regulated` give a citation backing up your statement.

I mad a set of statements, so I was asking which you wanted cited. The one you're interested in is pretty much like citing evidence that the sky is blue, but if you'd like to see it, here's a ranking.

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information...

The reams of regulations for the health care systems of other country's health care systems are mostly not hard to find. You can start there, and then check here for more details:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/f...

You don't know how governments works then.