If you live in New York, or were a fan of Seinfeld, you know the value of a rent controlled apartment.  That is, to the renter.  Rent control is a popular drug of choice for the government when it wants to be seen as 'doing something' to protect the people when the price of something gets too high.  As is, rent when a gazillion people want to live on the small island of Manhattan.

Unfortunately, economists and practical reality have shown that this type of distortion in the market has many negative consequences.  You would think we would learn.

On a related note, a provision in the Affordable Care Act is kicking in that requires government review if any health insurer wants to raise premiums 10% or more on one of its individual or small group products.  If the state in question does not have enough resources to conduct the review, the Feds will gladly help.

This is not control, per se, but 'merely' a review of premium increases so we can divine those that are related to true medical costs vs. simply padding insurance company profits.  Shining a bright light of transparency, the thinking goes, will help hold down healthcare costs.

We are all for transparency as more informed customers are better customers.  They are the most powerful of forces for change.  Transparency also lets competitors know where there is an incumbent getting greedy and invites them to step in with a lower cost offering.

If you believe this Big Brother review is not a first step toward price control, well, you're an optimistic sort.

Regular readers know we are not generally fans of the Affordable Care Act as we prefer market solutions to governmental ones.  This is just one more specific behind the general objection.