Large companies e.g. Google/Apple are just inherently untrustworthy in this regards, smaller overseas ones are no better (little to no regulation).
So please, no, stay the ** out of my health, thanks.
In the U.S. you already have relatively minimal rights in healthcare. Your stability and legal guarantees are already compromised compared to your worldly neighbors. I too distrust tech companies in healthcare due to their differing motivations and organizational cultures.
I want the red tape to go away, but I also want strong regulations and safety nets to ensure the drugs and devices we are prescribing to people are effective and safe.
I'm not certain those goals can be both met. You can have innovation, but some red tape is necessary.
Of course you could get into arguing that "not all red tape is made equal", but deterring cheap "innovation" from a tech shop trying to make a quick buck is absolutely necessary and useful. The barriers exists for very good reasons, not only as you said they have a different motivation and organizational culture, but they have different qualifications.
Personally, I consider big pharma companies the absolute least trustworthy, and I would never choose to purchase anything from them if I would not literally otherwise die. Regulations are not fundamentally bad, but the current situation is obviously a case of regulatory capture.
Wider competition with less control/accuracy will often mean that fads get more profitable: for instance "gluten free" sells enough that it makes sense for random makers to slap the label on their product even if they don't really care to follow the most rigorous rules.
Letting the market decide will result in the minority (those actually affected by the products) to get shafted, as more and more companies will move to the lower standards they can get by, instead of keeping high priced products that don't sell as well.
That doesn't mean that the status quo is great, but at least we need to be pretty cautious on the direction we want to go. "Let's just do something and see how it goes" isn't a desirable strategy when people are at risk.
Competition does not mean getting rid of or even lowering standards, just that if those standards are misaligned with real people's needs we're not stuck with them.
Maintaining a known-flawed status quo is not being cautious. People suffer severely every day from inaccessible medical care. We can always return to the current system if we don't like a change, but until we actually try it we don't even know how much damage the status quo is doing.
It's been 4 years and Phillips has yet to replace them. They also don't answer any kind of contact about it. I'm glad the local authority gave me a resmed but I still want those Phillipses replaced.