Health care is dramatically less expensive in nearby Canada. Moreover, health care costs are increasing in the USA
faster than any other country.
It is true that some US regulations do drive up costs -- you mentioned one. There are lots of other perverse incentives in the US system, because there are so many powerful players looking out for their own interests -- HMOs, hospital networks, drug manufacturers, politicians.
I would hate to see the usual libertarian/socialist debate ensue here on HN. I would like to challenge people who participate in this thread to not react reflexively, but go look up the actual data and understand what you're debating.
In the USA, many people who criticize single-payer health care don't have the first clue about it. They believe it's more expensive than the USA, there's more bureaucracy and paperwork, that there's less choice of doctors... all of which are false. False, as in not true. It doesn't matter what Milton Friedman says the world is supposed to be like. Or if you have to have a theoretical foundation before you'll believe data, go check out the foundational paper in health economics, "Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care", by Kenneth Arrow.
That said, back to the original post, which is about broadband regulation -- again, I urge people to go look at what happens in other countries, or indeed what happened in the USA in earlier times, when economic policies were based on data and the overall good of the country, instead of ideology.
I'm not sure if I would have classified broadband as a "right" (it seems to cheapen other rights, IMO). But faced with industries that often create natural monopolies or oligopolies (telecom is the textbook example) regulation with the goal of universal service can have good effects.