Wayne Root: Is Obamacare Willing to Sacrifice the Lives of Women?

Obamacare: Is It Cold, Calculating, Ruthless & Audacious…or Truly Evil?

Is Newest Ruling on Women’s Health & Breast Cancer Tied to Politics?

Is the Obama Government “Cooking the Books?”

Will the “Death Panels” Start Early for Women- at Age 40?

By Wayne Allyn Root, Author
The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts

I really hate the fact that Obama and his minions have lied to us so many times that I no longer am willing to believe anything they do or say. But at the risk of being called a conspiracy theorist, don’t you find the timing just too much of a coincidence that the same week that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is having the CBO “score” the cost of his health care bill, the government’s cost/benefit panel (which has no breast cancer doctors on it) says it is no longer necessary for most women under the age of 50, or over the age of 74, to have mammograms, and for those from 50-74 to have them only every other year.

Could it be that this very strange ruling (out of the blue) refuting years of advice regarding annual mammograms for every woman over the age of 40 – advice that has saved hundreds of thousands of women’s lives has nothing to do with proper medical care, and everything to do with lying to the American people and misleading congress regarding the costs of government-run universal healthcare (aka Obamacare).

Let me just run some rough numbers. Assume there are seventy million women over the age of forty, thirty million of whom are in their forties or over the age of seventy-four. My wife tells me a mammogram with the office visit costs about $200. This ruling would eliminate fifty million mammograms annually. If my math is right that works out to be ten billion dollars per year or ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS over ten years. That is a very conservative calculation.

Since this decision certainly doesn’t make medical sense, is it possible this was done solely so the CBO could cut the cost of the health care bill by $100 billion dollars? I’d hate to think Obama and his minions would be willing to sacrifice the life of your mother, wife, or daughter for political gain. Is it possible they have become that desperate and arrogant? Are they that cold, calculating and ruthless? Or is it just pure evil that would allow big government bureaucrats to sacrifice the lives of women to accomplish their goal of redistributing wealth and socializing the medical system?

I would put nothing by this group. Remember the “radical rules” of socialist and Marxist community organizers like Obama mentor Saul Alinsky: the ends always justify the means. Obamacare isn’t about healthcare- it’s about higher taxes, bigger government, more power for bureaucrats, more government control over your life, and redistribution of wealth. It will be achieved by any and all means possible.

Public outrage is already forcing a reversal of this decision and the administration is supporting that reversal. And, why not- if this was done as an unconscionable way to “cook the books,” they already got what they wanted. You can bet the CBO estimate won’t be recalculated with the correct numbers. More importantly, it is merely the start of the healthcare rationing that will be necessary to pay for universal healthcare. You can only add 50 million new people to the healthcare system by rationing care for the other 250 million.

Liberals, intellectuals, and the biased, Obama-loving media scoffed at the notion of government-run “death panels.” Well this incident is proof they are coming. But it’s even worse than we imagined- government panels will not only allow you to die in the last stages of your life…because the costs to try to save you are too expensive…now it appears the decisions of cold, calculating government bureaucrats will hasten your death in the first place.

Wayne Allyn Root was the 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate. His new book is entitled, “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.” For more of Wayne’s views, commentaries, or to watch his many national media appearances, please visit ROOTforAmerica.com.

44 thoughts on “Wayne Root: Is Obamacare Willing to Sacrifice the Lives of Women?

  1. Michael H. Wilson

    Wayne needs to check some facts.

    What is the probability of a woman between the ages of 40 and 50 getting breast cancer?

    What is the probability of a false positive from a mammogram?

    What is the probability of a injury or death from that false positive once the biopsy or surgery happens?

    What is the impact of ten years of radiation from mammograms that take place between the ages of 40 & 49?

  2. me

    Wayne does need to check his facts, the upping in age between 40 to 50 is coming from the US Preventative Service task Force, which DOES have physicians on its panel, it’s not coming from Obama or Congress. Wayne always does this throws out generalizations that are poorly researched: he blames teachers and unions for the education system.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=avCzjxTItXU8

    and here is the link for the US Preventative Service Task Force

    http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstfix.htm

  3. Scott Lieberman

    “Michael H. Wilson // Nov 22, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Wayne needs to check some facts.

    What is the probability of a woman between the ages of 40 and 50 getting breast cancer?

    What is the probability of a false positive from a mammogram?”

    *********************************************

    me // Nov 22, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    Wayne does need to check his facts, the upping in age between 40 to 50 is coming from the US Preventative Service task Force, which DOES have physicians on its panel, it’s not coming from Obama or Congress. Wayne always does this throws out generalizations that are poorly researched: he blames teachers and unions for the education system.

    and here is the link for the US Preventative Service Task Force

    http://www.ahrq.gov/

    *********************************

    It might seem easy to require that Mr. Root “check his facts.”

    However, Mr. Root is 100% correct. The Federal Government’s decision to not fund mammograms for 40 to 50 year old woman is for one reason only: to save money when they implement politician run health care for everyone.

    I read mammograms in the early 2000’s. Take a look at the link that “me” quotes – you will see that there were ZERO doctors on that panel who actually read mammograms, or who treat breast cancer with radiation or chemotherapy. The vast majority of the panel’s doctors are public health types – the ones who think they have the right to figure out if someone’s life is worth saving or not, based solely on how much money saving those lives will cost the politicians in money that could be better spent bribing people who are healthy to vote for them in future elections.

    I don’t have the time to do a literature search to answer all of the above questions, but this article is a good start…

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gurley/detail??blogid=114&entry_id=51917

    Scott Lieberman, M.D. (board certified in Diagnostic Radiology)

  4. Tom Blanton

    It seems to me like Mr. Root is saying that government should pay “breast cancer doctors” to give women between 40 and 50 mammograms. Wait a minute, that’s SOCIALISM!!!!

    Root must be a SECRET MARXIST!!!! Has anyone seen his birth certificate? For all we know, his father, the butcher, could be STALIN!!!! How do we know he wasn’t born in the USSR????

    Also, Root is using MARXIST math. To save $10 billion a year, assuming mammograms are $200 each, it would take eliminating 50 million tests per year. Why would he assume that if there are 70 million women over 40, that 50 million of them would be between 40 and 50 years old????

  5. d.eris

    Root: “I really hate the fact that Obama and his minions have lied to us so many times that I no longer am willing to believe anything they do or say.”

    Is Root really so naive as to have actually believed what they said at some point? To continue to pretend that any Democrat or Republican has any credibility with respect to the truth undermines any coherent notion of truth.

  6. Michael H. Wilson

    Scott why don’t we pay for mammograms for women age 30 to 39. There is also a chance that they will get breast cancer as per this url.

    Percent of U.S. Women Who Develop Breast Cancer over 10-, 20-, and 30-Year Intervals According to Their Current Age, 2004–2006†
    Current Age 10 Years 20 Years 30 Years
    30 0.44 1.86 4.15
    40 1.44 3.75 6.83
    50 2.39 5.57 8.62
    60 3.40 6.65 8.59

    http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/age.htm

  7. Michael H. Wilson

    Okay Scott I read that url and here is one obvious error; 14) “What no one is discussing (much) in the media is the fact that these new recommendations are similar to European guidelines. The massive problem with that approach is that Europe has universal healthcare. We don’t. Unless you have universal healthcare coverage to guarantee easy no-cost access to doctor evaluations, timely treatment, and in-depth counseling and education about risks, you can’t adopt their screening practices. They have a safety net (and possibly bigger issues around over-screening and over-diagnosis). We don’t. ”

    I am guessing what Doc Gurley means by universal healthcare. If she means that it is paid for by the government she is wrong and that seems to be the common understanding in the American press.

  8. Solomon Drek

    Lieberman@3: “The vast majority of the panel’s doctors are public health types – the ones who think they have the right to figure out if someone’s life is worth saving or not, based solely on how much money saving those lives will cost the politicians in money that could be better spent bribing people who are healthy to vote for them in future elections.”

    And I suppose you don’t care when private insurers think they have the right to figure out if someone’s life is worth saving or not, based solely on how much money saving those lives will cost them in profits for shareholders and investors and bonuses for corporate CEOs.

    Root simply echoes the same Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity talking points that he thinks will make gullible libertarians nominate him as their candidate because he has access to rightwing media and talk shows that other libertarian candidates don’t have.

    It didn’t work for Bob Barr and it won’t work for Root either.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    Solomon,

    Actually, it did work for Bob Barr. Or at least something worked for him. He got the nomination.

    Private insurers have the right to offer any policy conditions/terms they want to offer, at any price they care to set. And the customers have the right to buy the policy they prefer, or no policy at all.

    In terms of mammography coverage, the only question is whether insurers accurately inform the customer in advance of any change, and keep the existing coverage until the current premium period has ended with such notice.

    To the extent that government gets involved with the “individual mandate,” we’re probably going to see a quick convergence toward insurance policy adherence to government “guidelines,” with those guidelines aimed at protecting the insurers’ bottom line on the back end while the government makes a lot of noise about regulating premiums on the front end.

  10. John C

    If Obama wants “the publis” to pay for shit, he’s a socialist. If Obama wants to control costs, he’s a socialist. Wait, what? Meanwhile modern “conservatives” don’t mind unlimited spending as long as it’s subsidized by uninsured workers.

  11. John C

    Not an expert, but my point was costs have to be controlled somewhere. Unlimited publis spending won’t work, but neither is ignoring the problems and/or pretending we have anything resembling a free market option.

  12. George Phillies

    For an abortion opponent like Root — a man who would allow individual states to ban abortions, if you believe his book — to complain about government endangering women’s lives is the height of absurdity. His further implied assertion here

    OBAMA’S WELFARE PROGRAM IS TOO SMALL AND IT SHOULD SPEND MORE MONEY

    is the height of hypocrisy.

    The claim that adding mammograms will cut medical care for other people is also inobvious.

    Mind you, complaining that Democrats are thinking albeit briefly of not spending enough money on welfare is a truly unique contribution to Libertarian thinking, one unparalleled in the history of our Libertarian Party.

    What will it be next?

    Obama too weak on banning guns?

    Obama too soft on persecuting the War on Drugs?

    Obama — too chicken to conscript all young people and ship them to Afghanistan?

    Root’s position on this issue is so far from Libertarian that he defines a new meaning of “opposite”.

  13. Tom Blanton

    Awww now Libertariangirl, I’m not a tool – I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a hysterical right-wing lunatic shouting nationalistic hyperbole. You know, sort of like Root does sometimes.

  14. Robert Capozzi

    gp, yours seems a pronouncedly uncharitable interpretation of Brother Root’s words. It seems plain enough to me that he’s lending his voice to stopping ObamaCare, a front-and-center issue if ever there were one. Imputing all these other tangents you use seems contra-indicated.

    As for federalizing choice, a L would be hard-pressed to support Roe v. Wade on *procedural* grounds. Personally, I think it’s pretty good law, arrived at in an entirely inappropriate manner. The Supremes shouldn’t make law, only interpret it and sort out contradictions. One can easily be pro-choice and anti-Roe, which, in the short term, WOULD send the matter back to the states, yes?

  15. Robert Capozzi

    jc, yes, costs ARE controlled elsewhere. Markets control costs best. The more the government meddles with the market, the less efficient the market is in driving down costs and driving up quality.

    For evidence, look at relatively UNmanipulated medicine, plastic surgery, for ex. Not covered by government and most insurance, prices have come down and quality has improved. Imagine that for oncology!

  16. Michael H. Wilson

    Unfortunately Mr. Root had a real opportunity to offer some ideas as to how the reform should have been done but failed to use it.

    We should be talking about increasing the number of midwives by repealing the laws and regualtions that prohibit, or make it difficult them from working in many state. That one step alone would save the lives of a number of mothers and thei children as well as cut costs.

    He should call for the repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act which allows the states to regulate insurance and results in 50 small fiefdoms of regulation. Basically the system has been balkanized.

    He could call for the repeal of the certificates of need program that some thing like 26 states still have.

    And there are a number of other ideas that he could be suggesting but he isn’t interested in ideas and getting thru to him is impossible.

  17. Michael H. Wilson

    I seem to be mangling more words these days . The above is an excellent example.

    One issue that we should be focusing on is that midwives have better outcomes with fewer maternal deaths and fewer infant deaths than MDs do according to the information that is available and they deliver children at lower costs but the laws and regulations make it difficult for them to practice in a number of states.

  18. Robert Capozzi

    MHW, I dunno, looks to me like Root’s focusing on a hot-button issue that might be helpful in turning back ObamaCare. At this late hour in the process, stopping it seems most important vs. offering obscure reforms, valuable as they may well be and likely are.

    The form of Root’s column is such that expansive subjects like you suggest are appropriate in a different form.

    IMO.

  19. Michael H. Wilson

    RC I have doubts as to whether anyone will even listen to what Mr. Roots says in any forum.

    However while I do find fault with his comments I also think that most of the fault is with the failure of the LP to develop adequate literature on the issue of health care over the years. Had we been able to hand Mr. Root a couple of brochures or even a small booklet on the isue maybe he would have taken a different stand on the issue. Let’s hope the LP will finally make an effort to improve the literature and the website at the upcoming meeting next month.

  20. Susan Hogarth

    LG, Blanton has a point. All these anti-Obama ‘conservatives’ act like having the government NOT PAY for something is that same as forbidding it. Not so! Shouldn’t they be in favor of having the government spend LESS on testing? It’s not like anyone is proposing that mammograms be forbidden or anything. I see this over and over again from rightists. Really, their support for socialism is embarrassing.

  21. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Why is anyone insuring for an annual $200 expenditure? A woman should listen to her doctor and make a decision. If her insurer won’t cover it, then she needs to pay herself, take a chance and forego the procedure, or get over to the nearest charity mammogram facility.
    I’m also sick of hearing conservative opponents talk about “death panels.” Patients and their families need straight talk about “end of life” situations where it will cost tens of thousands of dollars to add another week or month to one’s life. The entity paying for this needs to have a mechanism for saying “no.” If that is the government (Medicare, Medicaid) or an insurer,
    they need a “death panel” to clearly show when coverage is no longer going to be paid for. Again, if one’s family wishes to spend their assets for non-covered treatment, that’s their right.

  22. Solomon Drek

    I think Wayne Root is becoming just another Glenn Beck wannabee. If the LP wants to become just another fixture in the rightwing political landscape than I suppose the Root/Beck approach is the way to go.

    If the LP wants to stand on principle then it needs to differentiate itself from Republicans and Democrats. Echoing the same talking points that we hear from GOP leaders and other rightwingers will not accomplish that.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    around, hmm, yes, there likely IS a need for people to have more straight talk about end of life situations. The concern with death panels is that the GOVERNMENT will start to make those decisions of those who MAY or MAY NOT be at their end of life. That’s a slippery slope, one that Ls would find disturbing.

    Liberal intellengsia have long held that “society” spends “too much” on heroic medical procedures that rarely extend lifespans appreciably. While I hear their point, I surely don’t want the GOVERNMENT making those decisions. OTOH, they are making them NOW with Medicare.

  24. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Medicare either has to ration medical services, including having the government decide when “free” treatment ends, or we have to end Medicare so patients, family and charitable endeavors can made the decision. If you don’t like government rationing or an open-ended budget for Medicare, then one has to advocate the abolishment of Medicare. I think too many conservatives are afraid of the third rail and cowardly support (or seem to support) unlimited Medicare expenditures while demanding smaler government control and less spending.

  25. Tom Blanton

    What’s wrong with death panels? It seems to me that minarchists that cling to the Medicare program should welcome death panels.

    Why should society pay to keep a flat-lining, drooling vegetable alive?

    Especially when a family who isn’t paying for it bases their wish to keep the living corpse alive based on some crazy ass religious belief.

    Aroundtheblockafewtimes has it right at #27

  26. me

    It’s downright scary that an M.D., in this case, Dr. Scott Lieberman, is basing his analysis of the situation on his own personal ideology and not fact: most of Lieberman’s post, like Root’s is empty rhetoric: “politician run health care”.

    Please, this public option is a bailout of the insurance company, pure and simple. Would I put it pass either of the two political parties to put womens’ health in danger to appease BIG PHARMA?

    Hell no, they are already doing this with the “Hyde On Steroids”-Stupak in the House and its counterpart in the Senate, but this does not appease BIG PHARMA, only the far right loons in this country.

    and Dr Lieberman gives us this nice ditty: “The vast majority of the panel’s doctors are public health types – the ones who think they have the right to figure out if someone’s life is worth saving or not, based solely on how much money saving those lives will cost the politicians in money that could be better spent bribing people who are healthy to vote for them in future elections.”

    But until there is EVIDENCE that every person on this panel is in cahoots, with Obama, Baucus and the other Blue Dogs, and the HMO’s them these rants are nothing more than unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, regardless of initials after those who are espousing the rhetoric.

    Here is a list of the actual board, that Dr Lieberman dismisses as “public health types” who, in his mind, only care about costs, and keep in mind, these are RECOMMENDATIONS from this board, RECOMMENDATIONS:

    http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/USpstfab.htm#Members

    So all of these people are in one accord politically and are conspiring with Obama and co??? Obama, Baucus, and HMOs could only wish that this was true.

    I am not defending the panel, I am pointing out that this did not come from Obama or Congress as Wayne Root would have you believe, and if it did, then they had better show us some proof.

    Root does not cite any evidence, just crazy generalizations, wild accusations, and having an M.D. does not give one special permission to repeat such nonsense. The only insight that Dr Lieberman gives us is that there are no oncologists on the board, a fair criticism, but certainly not evidence of this great conspiracy.

    The below passage is the most amount of “proof” that Root can come up with.

    “and Liberals, intellectuals, and the biased, Obama-loving media scoffed at the notion of government-run “death panels.” Well this incident is proof they are coming.”

    Oh, this is such a scientific argument (not!)

    Gentlemen, show us some proof: either put up or shut up with these Palin-esque proclamations.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ildbrmUDwz7FhuHTA9YQwvNSs5pgD9C4L2BG0

  27. me

    PS

    “The Federal Government’s decision to not fund mammograms for 40 to 50 year old woman is for one reason only”

    This quote from Dr Lieberman is false: no government official has not stated at all anywhere that they will not fund mammograms for women 40 to 50 (except Repubicans who are trying to spread this conspiracy). Please cite your source for this, Dr Lieberman.

  28. me

    “Would I put it pass either of the two political parties to put womens’ health in danger to appease BIG PHARMA”

    Should Read: “Would I put it past either of the two political parties to put womens’ health in danger to appease the FOR-PROFIT HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY?”

    Long day.

  29. Michael H. Wilson

    Hope this puts an end to this story.

    “Dr. [ Susan]Love noted that not all medical groups agreed with the cancer society’s guidelines. Some recommend no screening for women under 50 or over 70, and some advise mammograms only every other year. In European countries that screen every other year, she said, the breast cancer death rates are no higher than in the United States.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03second.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Dr.%20Otis%20Brawley,&st=cse

  30. Robert Capozzi

    Around 27: If you don’t like government rationing or an open-ended budget for Medicare, then one has to advocate the abolishment of Medicare.

    Me: Has to? This is an imperative? Wow! What if, for ex., you had a time machine and you could test your theory.

    Scenario A: Advocate abolition of Medicare today. Flash forward 30 years, and find nothing changed.

    Scenario B: Advocate unwinding government from health care. Flash forward 30 years, and government is largely out of health care.

    With those results, Around, would you STILL hold to your imperative? If so, why so?

  31. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Yes, because one has to avoid “bait and switch” tactics. (Obama is a master at this.)

    I see nothing wrong with Libertarians taking a realistic position: “We have to get government out of providing health care issues in the long run and here are our concrete doable ways of winding it down over the next generation…”

  32. Robert Capozzi

    around, surely the “switching” part is contra-indicated. Advocating more liberty on net and then promoting more coercion is not something I care to be party to.

    However, the Grand Conversation between Ls who are absolutist, abolitionist, anarchists and those who are not very much revolves around 2 keys issues:

    – How specific must an L vision be?
    – Is someone NOT L if he or she advocates (or opposes) the “doable” over a certain timeframe?

    For ex., if an L candidate criticizes ObamaCare (as Root and Kennedy are doing now) and, say, advocates increasing HSAs, if he or she NOT a L?

    Or, put another way, is it IMPERATIVE that a L candidate MUST have an X-year plan to abolish Medicare and Medicaid, for ex.?

    If not, why not?

  33. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Always must be advocating in the direction of less net coercion. How fast, when to stop, etc. are all debatable but the direction isn’t. I’m sure you’ve heard the Liberty Train analogy.

  34. paulie Post author

    I remember thinking of the liberty train analogy independently. That is, before I read it anywhere. I know I wasn’t the first to do so, though.

  35. Carolyn Marbry

    My read of Mr. Root’s article is admittedly canted in a more Libertarian light than perhaps even he intended. It seems to me that he is pointing out the fact that this program is a failure before it’s even out of the gate, having to resort to cutting obviously life-saving screenings in order to be financially viable, and that it should be abandoned wholesale.
    The simple truth about government-run medical care is that yes, if the program doesn’t pay for it, in some cases, it IS prohibited, of not because the cost for a private citizen is too high, because a doctor caught stepping outside the system is penalized.
    True story: My father was a heart surgeon (before he became an attorney), and he invented a procedure in the 80s that used a tiny blade to scrape out the insides of arteries. They’d been using a laser to do so, but the laser tended to burn through the arterial walls. This little blade cleared arteries and gave a lot of people the ability to walk again.
    Medicare said no, you can’t do that procedure because it’s cheaper to simply cut off the limb. Cheaper operation to cut off the leg, resulting in lower mobility (meaning less likelihood of further injury) and earlier death according to their tables, which further reduced their costs. As they put it in one letter to my dad, “If you clear the arteries now, you are likely to have to do it again later.” Gee, not if you cut off the leg. How frugal of them.
    They tried to stop him from being able even to offer the procedure to patients who could pay for it because he was a “participating physician” and could lose that status if he stepped outside “procedure.”
    Fortunately, he retired from medicine after that and went to law school.

    That, my droogs, is what you have to look forward to with government run health care. Am I saying they should spend more money? No, I’m saying they should let doctors and patients decide what is appropriate care, not bean counters. It’s bad enough to do this to our elderly and our poor. It’s quite another thing entirely to mandate DMV-style care for everyone.

  36. Susan Hogarth

    I’m curious (mildly, not passionately, curious) as to whether Root gets yearly mammograms for his daughter. After all, even very young women get breast cancer, and I know Root wouldn’t be so callous as to ‘ration’ healthcare costs for his family…

  37. Susan Hogarth

    Carolyn,

    No, I’m saying they should let doctors and patients decide what is appropriate care, not bean counters.

    This discussion was provoked by a *recommendation*, which is just that – letting ‘doctors and patients decide’.

  38. Carolyn Marbry

    Susan,

    Indeed, that seemed to me the point Root was trying to make. Between all the bickering over statistics about breast cancer and whether or not mammograms are effective at early diagnosis and treatment, people seemed to have lost sight of the fact that he used this as an example, so it seemed appropriate to reinforce at least THAT aspect of what he was saying.

    That point is worthy of debate on its own, and the point about insurance companies — whether government-run or private — making decisions about people’s care is also worthy of discussion. It’s one thing to discuss the problems with the present offering. It’s quite another to consider ways outside the box of fixing those problems.

    Health care CANNOT BE a free market because the market is not rational on the demand side. That’s a critical element of the whole supply-demand balance — rational evaluation of any transaction. When the buyer may lose his life if he does not buy, he will pay any price the supplier asks. That’s why we can’t simply turn the whole ruddy business over to the free market. At the same time, the opposite extreme will have us all living with a medicare-like system or worse. I applaud any attempt at compromise and recognize readily that there can be no perfect solution. But we have to try.

  39. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Ms. Marbry, we will all die if we don’t eat and drink. But I don’t see any lack of free market in those commodities. What makes health care so different?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *