In general, economists are okay with regulation when it corrects a market failure, or, in other words, a situation where transactions or features that would be efficient to offer don't happen. Therefore, it's important to ponder when learning about new regulation is whether a market would have reached the same place on its own.
In related news, Minnesota recently passed legislation that requires smartphone manufacturers to equip all phones with "kill switch" functionality that would enable owners to render their phones inoperable if they got stolen. On the surface, it is a bit perplexing that manufacturers wouldn't want to offer this feature on their own, since it clearly has a good deal of consumer appeal. That said, it also reduces the incentives to steal a phone...which, if it decreases the repurchase rate of stolen phones, gives manufacturers an incentive to not offer the feature.
Economists, even when sometimes trying too hard to play devil's advocate, aren't technically wrong when they state that the market for healthcare could function like the market for most other goods and services. (Steve Levitt uses cars as an example in the linked article.) The thing about the market for, say, cars, however, is that people who are not willing and able to pay for a car don't get cars. Therefore, until we as a society are cool with people who aren't willing and able to pay for healthcare not getting healthcare (which I'm not recommending), the market for healthcare is in fact a different beast than most other markets.
It's also important to distinguish between the market for healthcare itself and the market for health insurance- the latter, as with most unregulated insurance markets, is subject to the market failures of adverse selection and moral hazard if left to function on its own. In this sense, Levitt is in fact correct when he points out that inefficiency is created when buyers don't bear the full cost of what they are buying. but the right question should be whether this inefficiency is a tolerable side effect of regulation or a deal breaker.
The John Bates Clark Medal, awarded by the American Economic Association to who they feel is the most promising economist under the age of 40, is often referred to as the "baby Nobel" due to its high correlation with future Nobel Prize awards. This year's medal goes to Matthew Gentzkow of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business for his work in analyzing and understanding bias in the media and its effect on society.
In case you're curious, here's a good roundup of many of the favorites to win the prize.