> "Saving" someone against their will is not a good thing, so even if the FDA had saved more people than it killed, it wouldn't justify its coercive powers
Is it against their will though? People want someone making sure pharmaceuticals and other medical companies aren't doing dangerous things. That's why the FDA was created. People forget that most of these agencies like the FDA and EPA weren't created out of thin air, they were addressing real problems affecting real people.
> but people have much more recourse when they are harmed by an insurance company compared to a government agency
Strongly disagree based on real life experience. If the FDA is blocking some life saving treatment do due to unnecessary red tape I can harass my congressman or senator. Oh sure if it's just me they probably won't care unless my story is particularly poignant, but get a few people writing them and they'll take notice (seriously people underestimate how important writing your representatives is). My insurance company doesn't give a shit. My sister has severe MS. Her doctor prescribed a medication meant for people like her, her insurance company said no, they wanted her on a different medication that had never been studied for MS, much less approved. She appealed, the insurance company denied the appeal. The hospital appealed twice, denied both times. A lawyer advised there wasn't much point in fighting further. There's no recourse against the insurance company beyond being sufficiently wealthy to either not need them, or challenge their lawyers.
I trend pretty libertarian when it comes to people dealing with their own bodies. Want to drink formaldehyde because you think it'll cure your cancer? You do you. But if a company wants to sell it as a cure they should have to do some bare minimum of testing to ensure it works and won't just give you more cancer. That's the FDAs job.