Thanks for the question. I like the EMH metaphor. I think that the “uncontroversially good” legislative opportunities can generally be viewed as the result of some inefficiency.
You bring up the case of diffuse harm and concentrated benefits. It seems widely acknowledged that lobbyists and interest groups have too much leverage. The inefficiency is that voters can’t keep track of all the small ways they’re being harmed and so donations do not track welfare impacts. But, as you say, these reforms would be controversial to someone, so perhaps I could improve my language. I want a pithy way to say: “Behind closed doors, most politicians would see this as utterly reasonable and good.”
While I’m on it, here are two other sources of inefficiency which I think could be relevant here:
Myopia. In the US, Social Security will be insolvent in 2033. But it seems like politicians (and voters) are not that excited about tackling this one. Pandemic preparedness is another example.
“Laboratories of democracy.” State and local governments should probably try more things than they’re selfishly incentivized to because their experience with the reforms becomes a public good that other governments can learn from and imitate.
Ah yes you’re right, it’s stricter for contacts. I was at least able to get to the purchase page on LensCrafters for a pair of glasses. (Just had to check a box where I promise the values are based on a recent prescription.) Thanks for pointing that out!