My issue is that it could all be just semantics, which isn't ignoring the trend people are observing - but to "fix" the problem requires specificity. A completely "free market" - Or freeish - where all players are on an even level field is nothing like the neo-liberal reality many describe.Subsidisation was born out of the "neo-liberalism" following FDR's wake where States wanted control of markets, but subsidisation, in modern times, is now largely a symptom of corporate cronyism - "Stripping" regulations can be useful when there is excessive regulation. Restrictive occupational licensing laws, for example, have a fall on effect on consumers and prohibitive for those wanting to start a business. Add to that building restrictions, regulations even covering landscaping, hundreds of regulations that are frustrating for small business owners, which ironically, cements the market dominance of corporations.
Glad you mentioned health, I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere... the excessive regulatory practices at the FDA have had nasty consequences for the consumer. Mylan enjoyed a monopoly on Epi Pens because it had no competitors - the sluggishness of the FDA in clearing its backlog has had the unintended consequence ( some public choice theorists would say the intended consequence) of enabling monopolies to thrive while killing competition. We need regulatory reform, involve the input of independent experts, stop Pharmaceutical companies hording and preventing access to their patents ( it may seem reasonable for companies to protect their patents to the hilt but in the case of HIV medicine or other life saving drugs like Insulin, locking off access to certain patents , even to develop investigational drugs, is a prohibitive practice that again kills competition, raises prices and is inhumane). But as soon as regulatory reform or loosening up reforms are mentioned the spectre of "neo-liberalism" raises its head.
= new reply since forum marked as read