Quotes of the day
posted at 10:44 pm on August 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
“There are dozens of these, altogether. They are Obama’s ‘shadow cabinet,’ with the advantage over his more presentable official cabinet that they can avoid congressional scrutiny in almost everything they do. They didn’t need to face the Senate confirmation revelations that lost Obama so many of his earliest cabinet appointments. A mere Internet search for quotes reveals that many of them are capable of great candour, at least in the radical leftist environments from which most of them came.
The mainstream media focus is nevertheless not on them — rich and easy pickings had they been Republican appointments — but instead on Sarah Palin’s appalling characterization of Obama’s health-care agenda as not merely ‘socialist’ but ‘evil’; and on her use of the term ‘death panels’ to describe proposed bureaucratic arrangements for deciding who should be entitled to medical treatment, and how to advise the old, seriously handicapped, and ill on euthanasia options.”
***
“The main reason that the bill isn’t sold as civil rights is that most Americans don’t believe there’s a ‘right’ to health care. They see their rights as inalienable, and thus free, which health care isn’t. Serious illness is an abstraction (thankfully) for younger Americans. It’s something that happens to someone else, and if that someone else is older than 65, we know that Medicare will take care of it. Polls show that the 87 percent of Americans who have health insurance aren’t much interested in giving any new rights and entitlements to ‘them’—the uninsured…
The core principle behind health-care reform is—or should be—a combination of Social Security insurance and civil rights. Passage would end the shameful era in our nation’s history when we discriminated against people for no other reason than that they were sick. A decade from now, we will look back in wonder that we once lived in a country where half of all personal bankruptcies were caused by illness, where Americans lacked the basic security of knowing that if they lost their jobs they wouldn’t have to sell the house to pay for the medical treatments to keep them alive. We’ll look back in wonder—that is, if we pass the bill.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Bullsh*t.
They have no free speech. No right to peacefully assemble and protest. No right to bear arms.
The laws coming out of the EU are made by APPOINTED commissioners who answer to no one. Even the elected representatives cannot make laws, only vote on them.
In Germany, if you deny the Holocaust you can be imprisoned (I think Holocaust deniers are asses, but they have a right to their opinion without persecution); homeschooling is banned (relic from 1930′s when Hitler decided the State is the only authority in educating children).
I can go on and on.
So get your head out of your ass and wake up, idiot.
atheling on August 18, 2009 at 12:41 AM
The authors’ research showed that roughly 50 percent of the bankruptcies they studied had some sort of health issue as a contributing or associated factor. However, the research did not support the conclusion that these bankruptcies were “caused” by medical issues, let alone that they were “caused” by medical debts.
No indication of causation. Second, the fact that a health issue was associated with a bankruptcy does not indicate causation. The authors declared that any bankruptcy with one of these health issues present constitutes a “medical bankruptcy.” This is a highly misleading characterization.
Instead, the authors could have asked households if they had tax liens over $1,000 within the last two years, or credit card debts over that amount. Would they then have defined those bankruptcies as “tax bankruptcies” or “credit card bankruptcies?” Would households reporting a divorce or separation within the last two years have been declared “marital bankruptcies?”
The authors never demonstrated that a health issue was the primary cause of bankruptcy rather than simply one factor associated with it. They failed to examine other critical factors that could lead to bankruptcy — such as lack of savings, divorce, over-spending, other family needs, or unemployment unrelated to health — and they did not ask respondents to rank the relative contribution of various factors to their bankruptcy.
The authors noted that even people with health insurance had so-called “medical bankruptcies.” Then they made another unjustified logical leap: that inadequate health insurance must be the cause of these bankruptcies. Yet the authors also noted that debtors’ “out-of-pocket medical costs were often below levels that are commonly labeled catastrophic.”
Of course, if the real reason for many of these bankruptcies was a sudden loss of income and lack of savings, it really doesn’t matter whether a household had health insurance — their debts were still going to pile up.
______________________________________________________
What causes personal bankruptcy?
I was going to cite job loss as a major cause of bankruptcy in the previous post, which is the conventional wisdom. But this paper argues it isn’t true:
This paper utilizes the population of personal bankruptcy filings in the state of Delaware during 2003 and finds that household expenditures on durable consumptions, such as houses and automobiles, contribute significantly to personal bankruptcy. Adverse medical conditions also lead to personal bankruptcy filings, but other adverse events such as divorce and unemployment have marginal effects. Over-consumption makes households financially over-stretched and more susceptible to adverse events, which reconcile the strategic filing and adverse event explanations.
According to Zhu, having a serious medical condition makes you 50% more likely to file for bankruptcy, but not because of medical bills; medical bills are only a very small percentage of the overall debt of bankrupts, and are not significantly correlated with higher credit card debt, which one would expect if people were keeping down their medical bills by charging them to Visa. Presumably it’s the income effect of disability or caretaking responsibilities.
MB4 on August 18, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Mark Steyn agrees with Palin and McCarthy. Death Panels baby.
V15J on August 18, 2009 at 12:49 AM
O.K.,let’s assume healthcare is a right. Does that mean government has an obligation to pay for it? Apparently not, according to the Supreme Court:
Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977)
So if healthcare is a right, it must be a right in the sense that the government cannot interfere with your access to it, by like…I dunno, having a cost effectiveness panel decide you can’t have treatment that you are willing to pay for, or access fee for service medicine outside the sanctioned system. A right is not something that the government forces others to provide for you, it is something that the government cannot prevent you from pursuing in exercise of your own liberty.
z9z99 on August 18, 2009 at 12:50 AM
OT, but a huge story, please check out this post about the Rifqa Bary story at AtlasShrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/08/rifqa-bary-before-her-escape-beatings-brutality-subjugation.html
Unbelievable! This girl’s life must be preserved!
sanantonian on August 18, 2009 at 12:58 AM
That Supreme Court case doesn’t assume health care is a right (which it isn’t, of course). A better analogy might be our system of public defenders.
RightOFLeft on August 18, 2009 at 1:01 AM
The czars must be exposed.
True_King on August 18, 2009 at 1:14 AM
Actually I think this argument is very good. Everyone has a right to SEEK healthcare (10th amendment), and not be interfered with in their individual pursuit of life(DOI). Government has not been granted the power to PROVIDE healthcare.
Fighton03 on August 18, 2009 at 1:16 AM
Maybe I wasn’t clear. My point is that even if you assume healthcare is a right, which the Newsweek quote states should be a core principle behind healthcare reform, that still does establish an obligation of the government to provide it. If the Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright had said “The Constitution imposes no obligation on the states to pay for legal representation for indigents in criminal cases” then public defenders would be a discretionary accommodation.
I agree with you: the Supreme Court in Maher did not assume payment of healthcare expenses for indigents was a right; it explicitly stated that states have no such obligation, which I then presumed to be true whether Newsweek thinks healthcare is a right or not.
z9z99 on August 18, 2009 at 1:17 AM
very compelling case.
Fighton03 on August 18, 2009 at 1:17 AM
Oops. The second sentence of my 1:17 AM post should read:
My point is that even if you assume healthcare is a right, which the Newsweek quote states should be a core principle behind healthcare reform, that still does not establish an obligation of the government to provide it.
z9z99 on August 18, 2009 at 1:19 AM
I wish someone would pull the plug on Jonathan Alter and Newsweek.
I’m all for health care reform.
Make everyone buy their own health insurance policy. Like they do in Switzerland. It is a consumer-driven system that passes the employer tax exemption and funding onto consumers, so they, and not the government, controls health-care costs. Universal coverage is effectively achieved without any governmental insurance through this system, this system could lower costs by as much as 40 percent and, unlike the single-payer systems in the U.K. or Canada, provide excellent results for the sick.
Or better yet, institute a Singapore style system of personal health care accounts. Singapore has the third highest average life expectancy in the world. Yes I know, average life expectancy its a largely meaningless statistic that doesn’t take into account American past times like obesity and gun violence.
Still liberals are obsessed with average life expectancy and to advocate reform that doesn’t address that talking point puts conservatives at a distinct disadvantage. Furthermore, I don’t see a downside to addressing the issue of average life expectancy if consumer choice, affordability, and access of medical care are expanded at the same time.
Mike Honcho on August 18, 2009 at 1:20 AM
The libs new strategy is to attack the conservatives by trying to convince the public that Republicans want to take away Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
d1carter on August 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM
Do you just spew what you’ve heard or have you actually read the Founding Fathers? Don’t come here tossing out such total rubbish. Private property is the foundation of American Democracy from Plymouth Rock to this very day.
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet” and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787
rcl on August 18, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Isn’t that the same line of attack as always?
Our bill of rights doesn’t exist in Europe. Read up on what rights are missing there and you’d be surprised.
Article 1. There are clearly defined powers for the federal government. If your state wants to be socialist, more power to it. Get it?
There is no right to food. To have this right, you would have to impose on someone else. You are free to grow your own food to your heart’s content, but if you choose not to nor can’t afford it, that’s really your issue.
lorien1973 on August 18, 2009 at 2:10 AM
Not that I want it to happen, but, as an arguing-back point against Obamacare:
wouldn’t it be simpler and cheaper if the government, instead of setting up new bureaucracies and mandates and red tape and boondoggles galore, just paid for private insurance policies, via existing companies, to cover the “currently uninsured” (the several million, or so, legal citizens who cannot afford it now)?
In the form of a grant (like a Pell Grant), until the people could afford to take over their own insurance payments?
And include Tort reform as part of the agreement, and coverage for pre-existing conditions.
No government running of anything, just a fiscal stimulus to the economy in the form of a capital infusion into the private sector, resulting in a more secure future workforce (healthier, more stable, less anxious).
profitsbeard on August 18, 2009 at 2:29 AM
Allah, this should be a QOTD. Quoted by the guy who photo-shopped the joker poster with Obama.
link
You are savvy so you probably already know about this. It was on drudge.
Geochelone on August 18, 2009 at 3:06 AM
I think I smell a big steaming pile of Jonathon Alter in these quotes. (Who, btw, is one of the biggest racists I’ve ever worked with.)
John the Libertarian on August 18, 2009 at 3:10 AM
I’m looking forward to the stricken look on left-”liberals’” faces when they realize they are well and truly out of resources. One has to get one’s anticipatory pleasures somewhere.
Kralizec on August 18, 2009 at 3:21 AM
Yeah, and maybe you should put down the Jane Fonda and stop listening to James Carville. You must be a complete idiot. “Free?!” Free to do what? Pay for a license to have TV? Free to have a prime minister that represents their country, but isn’t elected by them, nor really even accountable to them? Free to pay for a bunch of fatasses to lay around and try to look relevant on the taxpayers’ dime (“royal” family)? Free to not have civil rights? Free not to have a constitution? There was no civil rights movement in Europe; no Dr. Martin Luther King. There is no real ethnic equality. Oh, and I guess they’re also free in places like the UK not to have dental coverage when they don’t ‘win the lottery’? I guess they’re also free to pay for crappy health care? They’re free to be taxed into nothingness, because they’re still subject to taxation without representation. You absolutely and completely don’t even know what you’re talking about. Shut up, and don’t interrupt the adults, again. If socialist societies are so damned free, why don’t you move your ass out to one? I hear they’ve got plenty of housing in Venezuela.
Virus-X on August 18, 2009 at 3:55 AM
I do want to take away social security, medicare and medicaid. They’re illegal enterprises, and the federal government has no place pissing away my money for them. If they want such institutions, they need to either privatize them (smarter) or break them down to the responsibilities of individual participating states (not as smart). The federal government spends far too much money, as it is. Pissing it away on criminal enterprise isn’t going to make the situation better.
Virus-X on August 18, 2009 at 3:59 AM
And after we settle the shameful American treatment health care we need to tackle the right to car auto insurance and the right to breast implants and tummy tucks.
Where does it end? Isn’t anyone responsible for their own lives any longer?
johnsteele on August 18, 2009 at 4:24 AM
Since NewsWeak wants the taxpayers to pay for everyone to get their rights does that mean they want publicly provided guns? They at least are a right enumerated in the Constitution. I thought not.
johnsteele on August 18, 2009 at 4:30 AM
It doesn’t end. I just got into a big argument with a hard-core socialist, Saturday night, and I had to tell him that if he could take responsibility for his own life and actions, he wouldn’t be looking to live his life with his hand out, always looking to take away from everybody else and force us to provide for him. Obama, like Clinton, got into office by making promises to the undesirables, as a friend of mine (and fellow Army vet) said. Whereas Clinton promised ‘you’ll be able to do anything you want’, Obama promised that he’ll make everything free for them, and we’ll never have to worry about money, ever again. It’s amazing what kind of person listens to these idiotic wish-dreams, and then actually believes them.
Virus-X on August 18, 2009 at 4:32 AM
If you have a Right
To a Service I provide,
I must be a Slave.
Haiku Guy on August 18, 2009 at 5:40 AM
Federalism. It was the states that gave birth to the federal government. Not the other way around. There is a profound sovereignty issue here. An even more blatant Constitutional violation.
Republicanism. It is mentioned, by name, as to what our form of government is and shall be(Article IV Section 4).
I suggest anyone ignorant on these matters should pay careful attention to Amendments IX and X. Learn the difference between reserved, granted, and concurrent powers.
Also, your concepts of socialism and liberty are horribly unfortunate. Unfortunate in the sense that voters who share this ignorance are directly responsible for our federal government getting out of control.
anuts on August 18, 2009 at 6:12 AM
THERE IS NO TRUST!
KILL THE BILL! NO NEGOTIATIONS! NO COMPROMISES!
elduende on August 18, 2009 at 6:13 AM
elduende! right on. what is wrong with just saying “no”.?
think of the money we won’t spend. think of the taxes that won’t skyrocket for that particular handout.
kelley in virginia on August 18, 2009 at 6:15 AM
Its about all of that and much more Kelley. In fact, this is not about health care at all but about power. We are in danger of losing much more than taxes if this goes through on any level.
elduende on August 18, 2009 at 6:23 AM
Of course the big difference here is that in criminal cases the state has placed you into the need for representation by indicting you, therefore has a burden to insure the trial is fair by providing you with counsel. Without consel, the state has the power to railroad you with impunity. So in theory, they are not paying for you to have counsel as much as they are paying to limit their own power.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on August 18, 2009 at 6:26 AM
eld: yes, i recognize that. let’s keep up the pressure.
kelley in virginia on August 18, 2009 at 6:30 AM
You need to listen to Ed’s speech. The ownership of personal and intellectual property as a founding principal makes socialism a tough sell.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/15/video-ed-morrissey-on-obamacare-at-the-right-online-conference/
Cindy Munford on August 18, 2009 at 6:57 AM
This is such bs. People do not die in this country because they are denied health care. My mother was not a rich woman with a bankroll and a great insurance plan when she was airlifted to Dallas for emergency brain surgery.
And the reason the precondition issue is there is that the insurance companies would raise everyone’s rates to pay for these people. Now, the GOP has a plan that would allow affordable access to people with preconditions and that plan does not require a budget busting overhaul of the entire health care system by a bunch of power hungry incompetent civil servants.
As for the bankruptcy thing…well, bankruptcy lawyers will tell you to pay the health care bills last. They can not repo your car or foreclose on your house.
Besides, I see no reason to think a bill like this would change that. A lot of the bankruptcies come about because people can not work due to illness..is it going to automatically pay all our bills if we get sick?
Terrye on August 18, 2009 at 7:11 AM
Government is almost wholly responsible for inflation….not many know that.
Government is almost wholly responsible for price increases….even fewer know that.
Government is the only entity that forces citizens to pay for “services’ they either don’t use or don’t want.
The list is a long one. In the end, government is evil. Did I mention that government killed more of their own citizens in the 20th century than all religions and wars combined…..and the list goes on.
lilium on August 18, 2009 at 7:12 AM
I am assuming this is a sarcastic post…it is isn’t it?
right2bright on August 18, 2009 at 7:35 AM
Don’t get carried away, government is not “evviiiilllll”.
It has it’s faults, mainly who we elect, so the burden is back on us.
Any entity can spin out of control, it is not always the entity, but often the management that loses it’s bearings.
The infrastructure we have, roads, inter-state commerce, order, judicial system, are all from the “government”, without that it would be chaos.
It is not the “government”, but the application of power that is so wrong.
right2bright on August 18, 2009 at 7:40 AM
am assuming this is a sarcastic post…it is isn’t it?
right2bright on August 18, 2009 at 7:35 AM
nope, no sarcasim there, this azzhat is one of the newest trolls.
SHARPTOOTH on August 18, 2009 at 7:50 AM
Having a right (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) doesn’t mean someone has to give it to me. It means noone has the right to take it away. I have a right to life, but not the right to take everything I need to sustain that life. I don’t have the right to walk into stores and help myself to food or clothing. I also don’t have the right to walk into a doctor’s office and demand treatment. Liberty allows me the ability to work and “bargain” for those things I need to sustain me. Hopefully by doing that I achieve that happiness I’ve been pursuing.
texabama on August 18, 2009 at 8:52 AM
It’s 2009 and I am rocketing back on top. Life will be lived to the fullest, and when not necessary, seriousness gets left by the wayside like a passenger that farted in my car. I am living with the restraints off, and going to see what it’s like to REALLY be a scorpio.
Holy shit – you are too good to be true. An ITT Tech graduate and a staunch straight-edge Reagan conservative??
People only conveniently point to the Tenth Amendment as just cause to strike down federal mandates and programs that don’t agree with their political views.
If Congress is given the power, they may exercise that power as long as it does not inhibit the States integrity or ability to work within the Federal framework.
I understand that we’re a representative republic, but where in the founding documents does it say that we need to adhere to a certain economic model?
No way I’m clicking that link…. nope, not going to do it.
Wouldn’t be prudent.
welcome_ghosts on August 18, 2009 at 9:14 AM
You’re not alone. A Jewish friend of mine who grew up in Obama’s neighborhood of High Park, IL wrote me, “Not impressed with Obamacare.” I said it was a scam and everyone sees through it. My friend wrote back, “T-4.” I was horrified when I read the Wiki entry.
alliebobbitt on August 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM
I will assume that that is sarcasm and that since it is a thread from this site that you have already read it. Which makes your original statement that much more silly.
Cindy Munford on August 18, 2009 at 10:00 AM
This sounds like a very common-sense proposal, which both parties could probably agree on. If the main problem is that some people can’t afford health care insurance, let’s not mess up private health care insurance for the 84% who CAN afford it, but provide something for those who can’t!
The idea would be for Government to provide a health-care voucher to low-income people on a sliding scale–for every dollar below a certain income level, low-income people would get a few cents in vouchers which can be used to buy private health insurance.
This could be paid for by raising the income “cap” on which individuals (not small businesses) pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are REGRESSIVE taxes that hit the poor and middle-class harder than the wealthy.
The reform would also have to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, and allow insurance companies to sell low-cost policies that cover catastrophic illness and injuries with high deductibles, so that no one would be wiped out by an illness, but buyers of low-cost policies would have to pay for their own care for minor illnesses. Low-income people would then have the choice of either buying health care insurance, or using the vouchers for something else, and accepting the risk of being sick or injured.
For those who work at small businesses, the reform could allow formation of PRIVATE co-ops, whose only business would be buying group health insurance from major insurance companies, and selling the policies to individuals or small businesses. These could be for-profit entities that can operate across state lines, but would not be allowed to make risky investments in stocks, bonds, or anything other than health insurance.
And, as “profitsbeard” pointed out, “include Tort reform as part of the agreement, and coverage for pre-existing conditions”, so that doctors pay lower malpractice premiums, thereby reducing their own costs, and they can pass along the savings to patients and their insurers.
While such an idea would be a form of “redistribution of wealth” by Government, the Government would not be managing health care, nor making life-and-death decisions, and the vast majority of middle-class people insured through their employers would be unaffected, while providing health care to those who cannot now afford it.
Steve Z on August 18, 2009 at 10:01 AM
What are they talking about? And who the F— is “we”? This isn’t institutionalized. The only reason people are denied healthcare comes down to a lack of funds. Because even those with pre-existing conditions can find health insurance, they’ll just pay out the rear. It’s about insurance access, not voting rights. Get your heads straight.
xax on August 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM
A lack of leadership is evident, particularly to those who really would like to see healthcare reform, such as me. Obama has not shown the will it takes to implement real change.
I’d like a two-tier system, one major medical for those who cannot afford insurance and another one, more fairly priced, that is an expansion of medicare.
Then I’d like to see funding for community clinics, where doctors could charge for basic prevention care and have it be non-profit. Drive down the price for some simple stuff that could relieve the burden off of hospital ER’s.
But that’s my ideal solution. What’s happened is a shame on Congress. Corporate interests are driving the process, from Obama on down.
And, no, I’m not impressed with the GOP on this issue, either.
I can fully understand why most of America gives all of them bad marks. They are earning it. The divisive rhetoric is not proactive or useful.
And this is a very serious issue.
AnninCA on August 18, 2009 at 11:14 AM
It is noteworthy that you conveniently left out Amendment IX. It is crucial in this context. Enumeration is what’s key. And yes, I reserve the right to always invoke the tenth with regards to my political views. The view of mine that our federal government is beholden to the Constitution is absolutist.
My argument is 100% in compliance with the Constitution. Yours is 0%.
anuts on August 18, 2009 at 11:27 AM
This is key. Best bit of news in this piece.
A real right secures the freedom of the individual.
A false ‘right’ only enslaves you.
Davy Crockett’s ‘Not yours to give’ would be a timely story right now. Google it and you’ll see what I mean.
Chaz706 on August 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM
There seems to be a trend in loose thinking, conflating the notion that something is a “right” with an entirely different notion: That this same something must be provided to you at no cost.
These are not the same concepts, nor does one imply the other.
Even if we were to assume arguendo that “health care” was a right, this should not logically lead us to the conclusion that others need to provide it to us gratis.
As was pointed out earlier, this absurdity can be easily illustrated by the Second Amendment. Your right to keep and bear arms is an actual enumerated right within the Constitution, and yet (rightly) no one concludes that this means the government must provide you with weaponry free of charge, or even on a subsidized basis.
Instead, the proper view (IMO) is that it is access to the mentioned “rights” which the government is proscribed from blocking.
In the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” construct, the government is prohibited from arbitrarily taking your life away… this is not, however, an instruction that they must preserve your life at all costs and against all hazards, without respect to what you do. You still have a responsibility to preserve your own life. This includes such basic maintenance as food, shelter, and caring for one’s own health.
There is no edict that, since food is essential to life, that the government must therefore give free food to all. Likewise, there is no edict that, since shelter from the elements is likewise essential, that housing must be provided to all at either no cost or at substantial subsidy.
The same applies to the notion of health care.
We do not have a Constitutional right to slothful indigence. Instead, we have the Constitutional rights to attempt to live, to be free in our persons and effects, and to pursue our own happiness… all largely free from interference from the government.
The Constitution does not guarantee that we must succeed in all of these pursuits. Indeed, we are free to fail in any of them. If “health care” were either subsumed within the earlier mentioned “rights”, or somehow treated as an entirely separate right guaranteed by the Constitution (and I do not hold that it is), it would be access to health care services, rather than affordability or universal coverage, which would be guaranteed. If the government were to declare the practice of medicine illegal, we would see a Constitutional violation
within our arguendo scenario. Ironically, reform provisions being bandied about today which would make “fee for service” healthcare outside the government’s proposed mechanism would seem to fit that bill.
It could be argued that part of the “right to life”, for example, is the right to eat food. This right does not imply that, if you decide that food is not “affordable” for you, that it must be provided to you free of charge. Why would “health care” be any different?
Free speech does not imply free beer.
VekTor on August 18, 2009 at 2:07 PM
+10,000
As P.J. O’Rourke once said, “freedom is its own punishment.”
OlympicLeprechaun on August 18, 2009 at 8:55 PM
In fact, the “death panel” argument (i.e. that the government would actually deny access to medical procedures or medications to some individuals) is one which focuses on the “right of access” to healthcare (but does not imply that someone else is obliged to pay for or provide services for you against their will).
disa on August 18, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2