> The last thing anyone needs when caring for their pet is a government bureaucrat handing out human-medicine style hospital monopolies to a "partnered provider" knighted by the government which will force a 100x billing charge to bill the govt and make it illegal to not have pet insurance while driving your premiums up 100x over the next 30 years.
Do you really think this is what people want when they call for increased government regulation?
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Government regulation can take many forms, not all of them dystopian, and many of them leading to better outcomes. Sadly there are a lot of people, even here in the comment section, for whom, when you say "government regulation," their imagination jumps to the worst possible form of government regulation they can think of, and they project that imagined scenario on the person who said it. There are no doubt many ways the government can rein in the excesses and abuses of private equity without leading to hospital monopolies and forced purchases of pet insurance.
Do you really think this is what people want when they call for increased government regulation?
Government regulation can take many forms, not all of them dystopian, and many of them leading to better outcomes. Sadly there are a lot of people, even here in the comment section, for whom, when you say "government regulation," their imagination jumps to the worst possible form of government regulation they can think of, and they project that imagined scenario on the person who said it. There are no doubt many ways the government can rein in the excesses and abuses of private equity without leading to hospital monopolies and forced purchases of pet insurance.