You said it, not me :)

I mean, seriously though, in this case you've chosen an example of an industry that is one of the most profitable in the United States despite the supposed challenges they face (e.g. competing with subsidized medicine) - so there's no evidence anyone is suffering from regulation elsewhere, yet (though I don't know what profits are like for European drug companies, but frankly at 25% I don't expect to hear any whining from American companies, sorry). And, once again, there is evidence in this case of companies BENEFITING from intervention. Finally, the example is predicated on your and Cato's predictions of doom coming true. If American companies are subjected to this regulation and it has a substantial effect, then might be a time to bring the example back up. So right now, it's not a very useful example. And that's just not the economic side of it; again, in this case we've got a good argument - the welfare of patients - to suggest that intervention is a good thing. So I'm missing how all this is unfair to the argument.

Admittedly, you had the misfortune to pick an example I'm particularly sensitive about, and furthermore one with little evidence to back it up. I realize as you say though that is simply an example. So the question remains can you find one that works? I think the badness of this example might be evidence AGAINST your claim. After all, we have so far high profitability and the possibility of industry benefiting from government intervention. I'm open to (though skeptical of) the argument that intervention can have significant negative effects, though, so feel free to keep trying :) Though we do have a problem in that we know that careless intervention can always have bad effects, but that isn't an argument against all intervention - just like occasional bad laws aren't an argument that there should be no laws. So choose wisely.