Government Health Insurance = Reparations???

[S55inPA]

i heard this tonight on the Mark Levin show. does government run health care/insurance = reparations? here is the article he sited. Reparations By Way Of Health Care Reform " http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=483402 "President Obama is on the record as being officially opposed to reparations for slavery. But as with other issues, you have to sift through his eloquent rhetoric and go beyond the teleprompter to get at what he really means. His opposition to reparations is based on the fact they don't go far enough. In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work." Never mind there are those who thought we apologized at Gettysburg and that an African-American president is a recognition of the hard work that has been done. At a press conference with minority journalists last fall, candidate Obama was pressed for more detail on his reparations position. He said he was more interested in taking action to help people who were just getting by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would benefit from reparations. "If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionally affect people of color, because they are disproportionally uninsured," Obama said. This may be a goal of Obama's health care plan: the redress of health care disparities on the basis of race and the punishment of those believed to be responsible, such as greedy doctors who perform unnecessary tests and procedures and greedy insurance and drug companies lusting for profits. oh and don't count on the Blue Dog Democrats. they should be called the Blue Ball or No Ball Democrats. completely spineless. "Blue Dogs:All Bark, No Bite" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...496220036.html "So far this year, the House has seen at least four major spending bills. Here’s how the Blue Dogs voted: • The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip). One of the first things the Democratic leadership wanted the newly inaugurated President Obama to sign was a huge expansion of Schip. Democrats have been trying to pass the expansion for over a year, with some bipartisan support. President George W. Bush vetoed the legislation twice, and Congress sustained his veto both times by a hair. Schip was created for low-income uninsured children not eligible for Medicaid. Under the old bill, children whose family incomes were 200% of the federal poverty level were covered. With the new bill, Democrats increased funding to cover children whose family incomes are up to 300% of the federal poverty level—or $66,000 a year for a family of four. The Bush administration and most conservatives thought it should remain at 200%. Did the Blue Dogs agree? Only two voted against the expansion. • The $787 billion stimulus. The next major spending package was Mr. Obama’s stimulus bill. Not one House Republican voted for the bill. The Blue Dogs? Only 10 of 52 voted against it. • President Obama’s 2010 federal budget. In April, Congress took a vote on the president’s $3.5 trillion budget for 2010—by far the biggest spending package in history. Again, not one House Republican voted for the bill, but only 14 Blue Dogs joined them in opposition. • The cap-and-trade energy tax. In June, the House took an enormous step by pushing through the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax. The legislation will stifle economic growth by imposing huge new costs on every business and each American household. Eight House Republicans voted for the bill. Twenty-nine Blue Dogs voted against the legislation. and Rove breaks the numbers down to expose the insanity of ObamaCare. "Obama's Great Health Scare" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...081271414.html "At his news conference last week, he said “Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage, or lose their job. . . . If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction.” A Fox News Poll from last week shows that 84% of Americans who have health insurance are happy with their coverage. And because 91% of all Americans have insurance, that means that 76% of all Americans will be concerned about anything that threatens their current coverage. By a 2-1 margin, according to the Fox Poll, Americans want coverage from a private provider rather than the government. Facing numbers like these, Mr. Obama is dropping his high-minded rhetoric and instead trying to scare voters. During last week’s news conference, for example, he said that doctors routinely perform unnecessary tonsillectomies on children simply to fatten their wallets. All that was missing was the suggestion that the operations were conducted without anesthesia and ..."The Pelosi Jobs Tax" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...688201934.html Even many Democrats are revolting against Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 5.4% income surtax to finance ObamaCare, but another tax in her House bill isn’t getting enough attention. To wit, the up to 10-percentage point payroll tax increase on workers and businesses that don’t provide health insurance. This should put to rest the illusion that no one making more than $250,000 in income will pay higher taxes. To understand why, consider how the Pelosi jobs tax works. Under the House bill, firms with employee payroll of above $250,000 without a company health plan would pay a tax starting at 2% of wages per employee. That rate would quickly rise to 8% on firms with total payroll of $400,000 or more. A tax credit would help very small businesses adjust to the new costs, but even a firm with a handful of workers is likely to be subject to this payroll levy. As we went to press, Blue Dogs were taking credit for pushing those payroll amounts up to $500,000 and $750,0000, but those are still small employers." with all of the irrefutable evidence that most people are happy with their current health insurance and that our completely f'ed federal government cannot only not afford to supply health insurance...let alone try to manage it properly. why is our moronic president pushing it so hard. getting even?...or just pure stupidity? why are we messing with the best health care system in the world? oh...and is there a "RIGHT" to health care? here is a fantastic article that addresses that point "Is There a "Right" To Health Care?" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...677645070.html "The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world. Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so. The government-run health-care system—which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care—has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given"

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by S55inPA

i heard this tonight on the Mark Levin show.
does government run health care/insurance = reparations?
here is the article he sited.



Reparations By Way Of Health Care Reform "
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=483402

Some stupid, stupid s--t had been said about healthcare reform. But I think this is the stupidest I've seen. It's unbelievable that this would even occur to anyone. It takes a special kind of racist to think up this kind of s--t.

Originally Posted by S55inPA

oh...and is there a "RIGHT" to health care?
here is a fantastic article that addresses that point

"Is There a "Right" To Health Care?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...677645070.html

"The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.

Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.

The government-run health-care system—which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care—has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given"

And this? It's a flat-out lie. Admittedly, there are better places to be ill - France, with an even-more-socialised healthcare system springs to mind - but Britain is one of the better places in the world to be sick.

[Spartan]

I don't see health care as reparations but rather, a broad based social program that will put the burden on a disproportionate small segment of society.

Here is a bit of reality.....

$1,000,000,000,000.....can ONLY be divided by the number of FAMILIES that have the ABILITY to pay? .

Approximately 110,000,000 families in the US. Only 1/5 of the families in the US have a high enough income (about $90,000) and pay the lion share of the taxes. So, a trillion dollars divided by 22,000,000 is $45,500 of ADDITIONAL tax burden to every middle class family and above. TWO TRILLION is $90,000 more debt for those families in ONE year.

The US debt stands at 11.6 TRILLION. The top 1/5 of the US families has a CURRENT debt of $528,000 and will rise to $600,000 by the end of the year.

So when obami reads his TelePrompter and says that "all Americans" will share the burden, what he really means SOME Americans will pay almost ALL of it.

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by hkmb

Some stupid, stupid s--t had been said about healthcare reform. But I think this is the stupidest I've seen. It's unbelievable that this would even occur to anyone. It takes a special kind of racist to think up this kind of s--t.

a lot of s--t has been said about government run healthcare. However the only people to bring up race is again the race hustlers:


"Obama and Biden will "challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care by requiring hospitals and health plans to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding them accountable for any differences found."

[Kaz]

btw government run healthcare got pushed back to October he tried to do his rush it without reading because its supposedly a crisis charade and failed. It will have even less support in October after people learn whats actually in the thing. poor guy missed his chance.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[Glasgow Gold]

Originally Posted by S55inPA

Reparations By Way Of Health Care Reform "
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=483402

This may be a goal of Obama's health care plan: the redress of health care disparities on the basis of race and the punishment of those believed to be responsible, such as greedy doctors who perform unnecessary tests and procedures and greedy insurance and drug companies lusting for profits.

As much as I hate the socialized medicine plan and like IBD, I thought this opinion piece was pretty weak and this paragraph in particular makes no sense to me. Reads too much into Obama's motivations and takes the debate on unnecessarily emotional tangents.

Socialized medicine stinks because the health care will be awful and will cost a fortune. But, it's common in Europe and very popular with the liberal elite that wouldn't have to deal with the system.

That's all there is to this issue IMHO.

[Kaz]

isn't the government great at simplifying things?

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Glasgow Gold

Socialized medicine stinks because the health care will be awful and will cost a fortune. But, it's common in Europe and very popular with the liberal elite that wouldn't have to deal with the system.

.

Ohh please, the liberal elite mantra is to "do as I say, not as I do".

Here, obami is asked if HE will rely on his system for health care when it comes to HIS family or will he try to get the best heatlh care. He spins on and and on...until the last second when he says that he wants to get the BEST care for HIS family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-fISN-Df0Y

[MG]

Originally Posted by hkmb

Some stupid, stupid s--t had been said about healthcare reform. But I think this is the stupidest I've seen. It's unbelievable that this would even occur to anyone. It takes a special kind of racist to think up this kind of s--t.

I completely agree, Hopefully that racist will be a one termer and we can put this sordid administration behind us in three years.

And this? It's a flat-out lie. Admittedly, there are better places to be ill - France, with an even-more-socialised healthcare system springs to mind - but Britain is one of the better places in the world to be sick.

When compared to Slovinia, sure, Britain is indeed one of the better places in the world to be ill, however, when it takes an act of National parliment in 2000 to do something as basic as allow for gynecological treatments invented and commonly practiced for more than 30 years, one can surely see the stupidity of allowing the government to run more than a low grade fevor.

The US system is undoubtedly the best, the most efficient and the most innovative health care process in the world.

[Eldritch]

Originally Posted by Spartan

Ohh please, the liberal elite mantra is to "do as I say, not as I do".

Here, obami is asked if HE will rely on his system for health care when it comes to HIS family or will he try to get the best heatlh care. He spins on and and on...until the last second when he says that he wants to get the BEST care for HIS family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-fISN-Df0Y

That video clip is wanting.

Firstly, the doctor asking the question should have been more direct - Will you participate in the new system yourself, yes or no?

If you ask anyone if they would prefer to get the "best possible", only a raging idiot would say no, and that doesn't preclude someone like Obama from paying extra out of pocket for special care (as opposed to the unspoken alternative of public-funded congressional super care they currently have).
Also, he did bring up the example of his near death gramdma needing a hip replacement, but I didn't hear the decision. Did she get the hip or not?

[Chucky300]

Originally Posted by Spartan

I don't see health care as reparations but rather, a broad based social program that will put the burden on a disproportionate small segment of society.

Here is a bit of reality.....

$1,000,000,000,000.....can ONLY be divided by the number of FAMILIES that have the ABILITY to pay? .

Approximately 110,000,000 families in the US. Only 1/5 of the families in the US have a high enough income (about $90,000) and pay the lion share of the taxes. So, a trillion dollars divided by 22,000,000 is $45,500 of ADDITIONAL tax burden to every middle class family and above. TWO TRILLION is $90,000 more debt for those families in ONE year.

The US debt stands at 11.6 TRILLION. The top 1/5 of the US families has a CURRENT debt of $528,000 and will rise to $600,000 by the end of the year.

So when obami reads his TelePrompter and says that "all Americans" will share the burden, what he really means SOME Americans will pay almost ALL of it.

...to add...was it not Obami's promise that only the top 5% of Americans would absorb this burden? Your figures are taking into consideration 20%.

LOL

Its not even funny, but SCARY, that there are Americans that either believe what Obama says, or don't do the general math themselves.

Sort of like how Joe Biden was tasked to watch the stimulus dollars so the taxpayer money doesnt go to waste. Fox News is reporting that some of that cash is going to public pornography sites and stage shows.

Astonishing.

[MG]

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...rpc=22&sp=true

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday ramped up her criticism of insurance companies, accusing them of unethical behavior and working to kill a plan to create a new government-run health plan.

"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Chucky300]

Originally Posted by MG

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...rpc=22&sp=true




Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I especially liked Obama calling the doctors out on how they treat their patients...his example of taking the tonsils out so to be able to charge an arm and a leg when perhaps just some vitamins or antibiotics would have been sufficient.

Love it. My mother, a brain surgeon, especially liked it.

[benz rider]

it's off topic

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by Kaz

a lot of s--t has been said about government run healthcare. However the only people to bring up race is again the race hustlers:

Mark Levin and the heroically-anonymous poster of the original article?

[Eldritch]

Originally Posted by Chucky300

I especially liked Obama calling the doctors out on how they treat their patients...his example of taking the tonsils out so to be able to charge an arm and a leg when perhaps just some vitamins or antibiotics would have been sufficient.

Love it. My mother, a brain surgeon, especially liked it.

Your parents are really smart. What the hell happened with you??

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by Glasgow Gold

... it's common in Europe and very popular with the liberal elite that wouldn't have to deal with the system.

Originally Posted by Spartan

Ohh please, the liberal elite mantra is to "do as I say, not as I do".

Here, obami is asked if HE will rely on his system for health care when it comes to HIS family or will he try to get the best heatlh care. He spins on and and on...until the last second when he says that he wants to get the BEST care for HIS family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-fISN-Df0Y

Gosh, so it's popular with the liberal elite who, as members of the upper stratum of society that Spartan claims is terribly hard done by, will have to pay for the system even if they don't plan to use it.

Well, that's jolly nice of them. The liberal elite must be lovely people.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by MG

I completely agree, Hopefully that racist will be a one termer and we can put this sordid administration behind us in three years.

Hmmm..... this quote seems to suggest that you actually agree with the original assertion that government healthcare is reparations by another name. That was the assertion that it takes a special kind of racist to think up, and a special kind of racist to agree with.

I'm sure I've just misunderstood you, though.

Originally Posted by MG

When compared to Slovinia, sure, Britain is indeed one of the better places in the world to be ill

When compared with pretty much anywhere outside of a few places in Northern and Western Europe with significantly higher socialisation of medicine. That's what I said. That's what I meant. And that is, indeed, the case.

Originally Posted by MG

, however, when it takes an act of National parliment in 2000 to do something as basic as allow for gynecological treatments invented and commonly practiced for more than 30 years, one can surely see the stupidity of allowing the government to run more than a low grade fevor.

What? What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by MG

The US system is undoubtedly the best, the most efficient and the most innovative health care process in the world.

Well, let's see:

- Your spending on healthcare as a proportion of GDP is the highest in the developed world.
- The proportion of the population covered by your healthcare system is the lowest in the developed world.

That's efficient like a North Korean tractor factory is efficient. Well done!

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by hkmb

Mark Levin and the heroically-anonymous poster of the original article?

nope, people from the Obama camp who will be discriminating based on race:

"Obama and Biden will challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care by requiring hospitals and health plans to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding them accountable for any differences found."

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by hkmb

That's efficient like a North Korean tractor factory is efficient. Well done!

it is VERY efficient to the people who pay for it. there are no long wait times compared to other places with socialized healthcare. tell those countries to reform their healthcare system to make it more efficient.


and prevent cases like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLplLzys-yg

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by Kaz

nope, people from the Obama camp who will discriminating based on race:

"Obama and Biden will challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care by requiring hospitals and health plans to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding them accountable for any differences found."

So this is a bad thing? They shouldn't be checking to see whether there are such disparities?

Are you saying there should be inequities in the quality of healthcare according to race? Or are you saying that - even where government money is involved - there should be no monitoring of the quality of healthcare?

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by Kaz

it is VERY efficient to the people who pay for it.

No, it's massively overpriced. As I've said before, you're paying more as a proportion of GDP than any other developed country. Way more.

Originally Posted by Kaz

there are no long wait times compared to other places with socialized healthcare. tell those countries to reform their healthcare system to make it more efficient.

and prevent cases like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLplLzys-yg

Yeah, because your system is faultless.

http://www.pri.org/health/ira-glass-...rance1517.html

The problem, according to the House subcommittee's investigation, is the amount of people who were rescinded who weren't trying to deceive the insurance companies at all. They found that when a client became ill -- especially with an expensive illness -- the insurance companies looked for a way to cancel their policy.

The subcommittee found a man in Virginia who lost his coverage because the insurance agent who sold him the policy incorrectly wrote down his weight on the form. There was also a patient in Utah who needed surgery, but lost their insurance because of an omission on their spouse's application.

Schakowsky was referring to Robin Batin, a 59-year-old woman who was a registered nurse for 30 years. In June 2008, she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer and needed a double mastectomy immediately. In the subcommittee hearing, she testified that her insurance company refused to pay for her surgery.

"The Friday before I was to have my double mastectomy, Blue Cross and Blue Shield called me by telephone and told me my chart was red-flagged," said Batin.

Schakowsky explained what the insurance company found, "There was something on her chart earlier about a dermatitis that they took to mean pre-cancerous, and even though the dermatologist called and said 'please, this is acne, do not deny her the breast cancer treatment,' they said no.

"It took months for her to finally get the surgery that she needed, by which time the tumor had doubled," said Schakowsky.

Wow. So your system certainly stops people from having to deal with those pesky waiting lists.

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by hkmb

So this is a bad thing? They shouldn't be checking to see whether there are such disparities?

Are you saying there should be inequities in the quality of healthcare according to race? Or are you saying that - even where government money is involved - there should be no monitoring of the quality of healthcare?

nope, that is a clever ruse by people who think by saying they are "pro" something, anyone who disagrees with them is against it.

the dismal results of affirmative action and the community reinvestment act show otherwise. interfering with something as housing brought down an economy, who knows what would have happened if they interfered with healthcare.

Originally Posted by hkmb

No, it's massively overpriced. As I've said before, you're paying more as a proportion of GDP than any other developed country. Way more.

It costs more because its the greatest healthcare system on the face of the planet. For example, there are more MRI machines in the tiny city of Pittsburg than all of Canada.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...s-than-canada/

Yeah, because your system is faultless.

If you are aiming for faultless, I'm afraid the government won't be able to deliver that vision.

Wow. So your system certainly stops people from having to deal with those pesky waiting lists.

nice examples, not lets compare tradeoffs with examples of government insurance in healthcare. medicare insurance and medicare insurance for example.

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by Kaz

nope, that is a clever ruse by people who think by saying they are "pro" something, anyone who disagrees with them is against it.

The proposal appears to be monitoring to ensure that there's no discrimination. If you're against that, then you're for allowing discrimination to slide.

Originally Posted by Kaz

the dismal results of affirmative action and the community reinvestment act show otherwise. interfering with something as housing brought down an economy, who knows what would have happened if they interfered with healthcare.

This isn't affirmative action. It's not saying you have to treat one race better than another. It's saying that you have to treat them all the same.

Originally Posted by Kaz

It costs more because its the greatest healthcare system on the face of the planet. For example, there are more MRI machines in the tiny city of Pittsburg than all of Canada.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...s-than-canada/

Oooh. A statistic. Mind you, it's only in the headline: there's nothing related to this in the text. Still...

Are they efficiently used? If the whole of Canada can get by with fewer MRIs than the tiny city of Pittsburgh, there must be a great deal of duplication in Pittsburgh. Resources are wasted that could have been better used elsewhere.

Or could it be that, in a profit-driven system, it's worthwhile putting people through unnecessary MRIs - even if, as the article in your link suggests, this may carry health risks - because the patient or his insurance company can then be charged more? In that case, more MRI machines would be a good financial investment, even if they're not a good investment from a healthcare provision point of view. The extra spend would be good for the hospital, but bad for the insurance company and the patient.

Hmmmmm......

Originally Posted by Kaz

If you are aiming for faultless, I'm afraid the government won't be able to deliver that vision.

nice examples, not lets compare tradeoffs with examples of government insurance in healthcare. medicare insurance and medicare insurance for example.

You brought up a single case of an alleged failure of the system in Canada, and seemed to suggest that this was reason enough to dismiss the idea of state healthcare. I pointed out that your private system has plenty horror stories of its own. We could play horror story tennis all day and achieve nothing: as far as individual patient care is concerned, both systems have their faults. But your system is overpriced, inefficient and inequitable. That's the difference.

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by hkmb

The proposal appears to be monitoring to ensure that there's no discrimination. If you're against that, then you're for allowing discrimination to slide.

that is good and very important. However you always have to keep in mind that anti-discrimination laws are a paradox, they are discriminatory in nature.

the best way to prevent discrimination is a free market, not government. Milton Friedman uses a pencil to explain how the operation of the free market promotes harmony and world peace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

Are they efficiently used? If the whole of Canada can get by with fewer MRIs than the tiny city of Pittsburgh, there must be a great deal of duplication in Pittsburgh. Resources are wasted that could have been better used elsewhere.

its not just MRI machines, its lots and lots of other machines as well.

there's nothing trivial about taking the best action preventative or otherwise when it comes to the health of your family. people can voluntarily to pay for services and the technology if they want to, not so in countries with socialized healthcare.

You brought up a single case of an alleged failure of the system in Canada, and said that this was reason enough to dismiss the idea of state healthcare.

here are some more then

"Free" government run Canadian healthcare = fail

depending on the government for services that are crucial and scarce like the video from post #20 is what is really a failure.

I pointed out that your private system has plenty horror stories of its own. We could play horror story tennis all day and achieve nothing: as far as individual patient care is concerned, both systems have their faults. But your system is





overpriced,

LOL its the countries with socialized healthcare that are the most overpriced.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat...-just-aint-so/

http://jr2020.blogspot.com/2009/05/c...riced-and.html

competition and innovation brings prices down.

inefficient

if you think its inefficient now, wait till you have to deal with unionized hospital staff. dealing with the DMV or the post office is bad enough, its disastrous when it comes to something as crucial as healthcare.

inequitable

actually trying to force equality has led to more inequality in healthcare, not at all surprising. intentions are not results.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2.../health.health

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=5871


"A society that tries to put equality before freedom will have neither equality nor freedom, a society that puts freedom before equality will have a great deal of both."
-Milton Friedman

"The manner in which the benefits and burdens are apportioned by the market mechanism would in many instances have to be regarded as very unjust IF it were the result of a deliberate allocation to particular people. The absence of personal intention in a spontaneous order such as our cosmos and the laws of nature means an absence of either justice or injustice. Only if we mean to blame a creator does it make sense to describe it as unjust that somebody has been born with a physical defect, or been struck with a disease, or has suffered the loss of a loved one."
-Friedrich Hayek