Either the analogy is messed up or this article is missing something. The author compares proposed federal health deregulation to similar credit card deregulation. I was fairly convinced by the middle of the article that the positives of the latter generally outweigh the negatives.

The positives? More people have access to legal credit when they need it. People have more freedom to make financial decisions. People with the best credit get better rates to make more investments and more purchases. Nobody gets killed by the mob. That's pretty good.

The negatives in the article? Some people make bad decisions or good decisions that turn out unlucky. Every credit card company will settle with you for a portion of the debt if you can't or simply don't want to pay. Debt consolidation will get you lower rates. As a last resort, bankruptcy is very possible to recover from. All of the above beat starving or negotiating with a loan shark.

So, based on the arguments in the article, I'd say letting South Dakota regulate the credit card industry has worked out pretty well.