I get where you're coming from, but here's the thing: when you argue for government price regulation, you're actually reinforcing the very system that leads to this "emergency medical" situation you're frustrated about. Why? When the government steps in to cap prices, it often creates shortages because pharmaceutical companies have less incentive to innovate or even produce certain drugs. Ever heard of the insulin crisis in Canada? They capped prices, and guess what—shortages followed, leaving people struggling to access it at all. So while you think regulating prices will help, history shows it just leads to fewer options and longer waits.

And let’s talk about mental health: more government involvement has already caused a bureaucratic nightmare. Look at public mental health systems - they’re underfunded and overwhelmed because when the government tries to micromanage everything, quality drops. Private competition, on the other hand, forces companies to innovate, create better treatments, and lower costs.

If you want people to be noticed before they reach crisis mode, wouldn’t less government involvement and more free-market competition be a better solution? You can't force innovation by regulating it to death. How would you address the issue of innovation drying up if the government has too much control?