Medicaid and Health Care Reform (Part II)

Kyle McCammon, DO
Article Type: 
Feature Article
Fall 2001
Volume Number: 
Issue Number: 

Part I of this article discussed Medicaid eligibility requirements and regulations and chronicled the extensive growth in Medicaid caseloads and spending. Part I also reviewed how Medicaid is funded and how states have utilized funding schemes to increase the amount that is funded by the federal government. Part I chronicled the federal legislation that has been enacted in response to state Medicaid funding schemes and the subsequent states' responses to this legislation, including the use of provider taxes.

Part II will discuss the detrimental effects that Welfare and Medicaid have on society and the health care system. Part II will also discuss specific proposals for Welfare reform and health care reform.


Medicaid and the Incremental Assault on Health Care


It appears that the incremental Medicaid expansions are sanctioned by those who advocate a government-financed nationalized health care system. In fact, Clinton Health Care Task Force documents reveal that "if they [the Clinton Administration] are unsuccessful in getting the Clinton-style, universal health care, that they should take a kids first approach which would be used as the first step to phase in the full Clinton-style health care plan."(1) As a result, it appears that once again there will be a clash of ideologies between those who advocate government-sponsored universal health care and those who advocate personal liberty and freedom of choice through market-oriented health care reforms.

An example of the expanding role of government in health care is the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This program is designed to bring lower middle to middle income children into a government-sponsored health care program by expanding health insurance to children whose families "earn too much for traditional Medicaid, yet not enough to afford private health insurance."(1,2) This expanded role of government may produce serious unintended consequences. SCHIP expansions may be the precursor of nationalized government-sponsored health care for children, i.e., it may become the "Medicare system for children."(3) Many parents who currently purchase private insurance coverage for their children will be encouraged to switch over to the government-sponsored program. Eventually, private insurers for children may be forced out of the market and parents would have no other insurance alternatives for their children. The personal freedom to make health care choices will be reduced. The system may be more costly, less efficient and may compromise the quality of health care that children receive.(1)

Additionally, Medicaid has expanded into the school system as the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (EPSTD). This program may infringe on parental rights and medical privacy because public schools are authorized to provide medical treatment and psychological and reproductive counseling of children.(1)

In the meantime, the estimated number of Americans who remain uninsured, now at 44 million, continues to grow.(4) However, it is important to note that only one-third of the uninsured are chronically uninsured. Half of the uninsured lapses will last less than six months. Additionally, lack of health insurance is not necessarily associated with being poor. One-third of the uninsured households earn more than $30,000 a year and 10 percent earn more than $50,000.(5) Of the eight to 11 million uninsured children, about 4.7 million are eligible for, but do not participate in the Medicaid program. Over three million uninsured children live in families with incomes of more than two times the federal poverty level. From one to four million children are only temporarily uninsured when a parent is temporarily unemployed.(1)


The Problems with Employer-Based Insurance


The problems with the current health care system are not limited to government-sponsored programs. There is also a major problem with the way the private health insurance market operates. The main reason for the problem is that the federal tax laws discriminate against individuals who purchase their own insurance. Employer-sponsored health insurance is fully excluded from taxation, but individually purchased health insurance is not.(4-10)

As a result, most people rely on third parties such as employers (or the government) to pay their health care. These third parties, not employees, decide which health benefits are covered. Health insurance coverage and choices of health care providers may be limited in the employer-based plan. Still, most people accept the insurance because they think someone else is paying for it.(5,6) However, employer-based health insurance is not a "free" benefit. Health insurance is a fringe benefit which substitutes for wages in the total employee compensation package. Employees ultimately bear the burden of high health care costs in the form of lower wages.(6)

When people rely on a third party to pay for health care, they will often expect to be "fully covered" and will consume more health care services than they would if they were paying for it directly. If the health insurance plan has certain restrictions, consumers often will lobby for their choice of mandated benefits. These additional mandated benefits also drive up the cost of health care. However, it is the employees, having not realized that the "other peoples' money" was actually their money all along, who bear the burden of these third party costs.(5,6) The fact that people are now so willing to use their health insurance, as opposed to other types of insurance, is the consequence of the bad idea of third party intervention in the health care system.(10)

Increased health care costs also affect employers. As a result of increased costs, many businesses are now reconsidering their role in providing health insurance. The combination of increased job mobility, increased numbers of part-time workers and the expansion of small businesses that do not offer health benefits has created a market in which employer-based insurance either is not available or is too expensive.(4,9) This will result not only in increased numbers of uninsured people, but it could provide a disincentive to work and thereby increase unemployment and cause an increased in the number of Medicaid recipients.(6)


The Health Care System and Its Effects on Providers and Patients


In the meantime, health care providers and patients are becoming more frustrated and dissatisfied with bureaucratic controls and third party intrusion into the patient-physician relationship.(11-13)

Patients have become more frustrated and angered with managed care and government-sponsored health care systems that deny them choice and control over their own health care decisions. They have discovered that a system that has such heavy-handed regulations and control over people cannot be a fair or high-quality system.(12)

Physicians' frustrations with the health care system may have been most accurately expressed in the words of Dr. Hendricks, who said in the novel, Atlas Shrugged, "I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything --- except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only 'to serve.' I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to control my work, [and] to force my will. [They] believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Let them discover the kind of doctor that their system will now produce. Let them discover that it is not safe to place their lives in the hand of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it --- and still less safe, if he is the sort of man who doesn't."(14)


How to Reform the Health Care System


Many individuals, associations and organizations believe that the solution to the Medicaid problem (and health care in general) is through the elimination of governmental regulations and third party interference between patients and physicians. They believe that bad health care policy adopted incrementally is still bad health care policy.(15) These groups have offered proposals for health care reform that differ from those who advocate universal government-sponsored health care. A fundamental difference in the approach stems from the understanding that health care is not a right; it is a service that is provided by doctors and others to people who wish to purchase it.(16,17) Instead of continuing to expand entitlements, these groups ask the more fundamental question, "Who lacks health insurance and why?"(1) They then seek more efficient and cost-effective ways to solve the problem without infringing on citizens' personal rights and freedoms.

The efforts to restore freedom to choose health insurance should come through reform of the tax system in combination with new policies that create a free marketplace for consumers.(4-10) This would allow health insurance to be more affordable and more available for consumers, and thus, allow individuals to take charge of their own health care decisions using their own money.(4)

The two characteristics of a successful free market are: 1) on the provider side, a wide variety of providers in competition with one another on the basis of price and quality; and, 2) on the consumer side, consumers attempting to receive the maximum quality and the lowest price.(15) In order to establish free market-oriented health care reform, the tax code needs to be an even-handed and neutral policy that would not influence or limit consumer choices, but should serve to level the playing field for different types of health insurance and health care options. Such a policy would not discriminate between those with or without employee-based health insurance because the cost of health insurance would be tax deductible for all individuals.

This would allow individuals to purchase health insurance in the way that best meets their needs. To restore equity to the tax system, a universal tax credit policy should be created.(4,6,8,15)

Families should be given options to choose from a variety of competing health plans with different benefits at different prices.(7) Rollover flexible spending accounts (FSAs) and medical savings accounts (MSAs) are the cornerstones of market-oriented health care reform.(8-10,18) For individuals who opt for employee-based health insurance, the creation of rollover FSAs offers several advantages over the traditional employee-based coverage. These tax-free accounts allow individuals to save for the cost of services and benefits not covered by their employer-based insurance. Any funds remaining in the account could be rolled-over year after year. Like FSAs, MSAs are tax-deferred accounts that allow individuals to save for medical expenses. FSAs are employer-based and can apply to any type of health insurance plan. MSAs can be employer-based or purchased by individuals. The employer (or individual) would take a portion of the money currently spent on health insurance and deposit it into a newly established MSA. The other portion would be used to purchase a catastrophic policy that covers medical expenses after a deductible is met.

FSAs and MSAs encourage more efficient utilization of health care services and help to control health care costs. They enhance consumer choice over a wide range of medical benefits and services. They enhance the patient-physician relationship by removing third parties from the health care decision-making process. Since individuals are in charge of their own contributions to their FSAs and MSAs, these accounts enhance the portability of insurance. The money, along with the earned interest that is left over can be saved for future medical expenses or it can be withdrawn under specific guidelines and subject to established tax codes. The account funds earn tax-free interest that can be withdrawn at retirement.(8,10)


The Relationship Between Welfare, Medicaid and Health Care Reform


The War on Poverty has failed. Welfare as we know it has not ended; it is still thriving. Federal and state governments currently run over 75 major interrelated and overlapping welfare programs, at a cost of $430 billion in 1999. Medical programs accounted for 53.6 percent of the total cost. The total spending amounts to approximately $5,600 for each taxpaying household in 1999.(19)

Huge costs are only part of the Welfare problem. The dilemma for the Welfare system is that while its function is designed to alleviate "material poverty," its destructive effect on families and individuals through subsidizing illegitimacy and non-work has contributed to our nations' social collapse by causing an increase in "behavioral poverty." Material poverty most literally means having a family income below the official poverty level, which was $16,660 for a family of four in 1998. Behavioral poverty refers to a number of social pathologies that contribute to the breakdown of the values and conduct that leads to the formation of healthy families, stable personalities and self-sufficiency. In the United States, behavioral poverty is much more widespread than is material poverty.(19-24)

The Welfare system has promoted the disintegration of the family. It has made marriage economically irrational for many low-income parents because partners are transformed into net financial handicaps. When the War on Poverty began, 7.7 percent of American children were born out of wedlock. Today, that figure is 33 percent. Illegitimacy is not synonymous with the problem of teen pregnancy. Only 14 percent of out-of-wedlock births occur to girls under age 18. Illegitimacy stems primarily from a breakdown in relationships between young adult women and men. The problem lies in the decline in marriage that is fostered by the means-tested Welfare eligibility rules that insidiously reward illegitimacy. Primarily because of Welfare, illegitimacy and single parenthood have become the norm for raising children in many low-income communities. The decline in marriage also is related to high abortion rates. Nearly half of all pregnancies in unmarried women end in abortion, whereas only 11 percent of pregnancies among married women are aborted.(19,23)

Ultimately, the mind-set of our nations' government needs to be changed from its usual method of responding to problems through new spending and expanding mandated programs to finding ways to address and solve the issues as to why people need assistance in the first place. Because the easiest way of breaking the grip of dependency is to prevent it, new programs must be directed towards correcting the root problems. New programs should also foster incentives for individuals to take charge of their own destinies and become self-sufficient.(19-23)

Outcomes studies have debunked the many myths of the negative consequences of Welfare reform. Rather than increasing child poverty, the decline in Welfare caseloads has been accompanied by a decline in child poverty. Decreases in dependence have been shown to produce beneficial effects on children's long-term development, even when accompanied by lower family income.(19,21)

Consequently, Welfare reform efforts should be focused on work requirements that help secure jobs for the most employable Welfare recipients first. In fact, the determinants of Welfare caseloads are more closely linked to work-related reforms that include immediate work requirements and strong sanctions for noncompliant behavior than to the condition of the economy. Work requirements decrease the number of unnecessary caseloads and help to move Welfare to its originally intended purpose. This allows the system to focus its limited resources and efforts on those who have the most difficulty becoming self-sufficient and frees up resources to deal with the underlying problems that promote dependence.(19-22)

Opponents of Welfare reform argue that efforts should focus on government-sponsored training and education programs. However, these programs have been shown to have little or no effect on the wages of the participants. Opponents also argue that a minimum wage job is just a "dead end job." However, the government does not intend that parents should support a family on minimum wage alone. Low-wage earners are still eligible for food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Their children may still be eligible for Medicaid and the family could receive subsidized day care. A minimum wage job is a step upward and has many benefits over continued dependency on the government.(19-21)

In 1996, Congress enacted Welfare reform through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.19,20 One of the key issues of the Welfare reform act dealt with finally eliminating the funding schemes of state governments. The new law created fixed dollar grants for states to fund their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs. If a state reduced its Welfare caseload, it would no longer be penalized by a reduction in federal matching funds. The state could keep any surplus federal funds and apply them to other efforts to aid the poor. The law contained provisions to decrease long term dependency. It also established mandates for states to reduce their Welfare rolls and to institute work requirements. Finally, it made provisions for reducing illegitimacy a national goal.(19,25)

The Welfare reform legislation contains numerous loopholes and falls short of ending the problems inherent to the Welfare system.(20) Additionally, since its passage, the Clinton Administration passed new legislation that undermined its effects.(26) Future reforms must fix existing legislative loopholes and expand on the success of the current legislation. More attention should be focused on the behavioral poverty ills that are linked to the Welfare system. Multiple steps should be taken to foster and strengthen marriage. Work requirements that utilized mandatory community service on a pay-for-performance basis for "unsuccessful job seekers" need to be strengthened in most states. Empowering churches and other faith-based organizations through the idea of compassionate conservatism and empowering parents through school choice has been proposed as a means to bring about a renewal of the moral culture. Finally, continued efforts should be made towards limiting the growth of Welfare spending.(19,27)

As the problems of behavioral poverty are addressed directly and more people are empowered to become self-sufficient, the Welfare rolls will continue to diminish. Part of their ability to sustain self-sufficiency will then depend on responsible governmental legislation regarding health care reforms that are based on free market ideals, such as expanding the use of MSAs and rollover FSAs, rather than expanding government programs that increase costs, limit choices, impair quality, and foster dependency.




Perhaps the greatest challenge that advocates for health care reform have to address is the concept of an entitlement which dictates that someone else needs to take care of our every need.(15) In order to rescue the nation from itself, these advocates will have to change the political consciousness of the nation. What currently guides the debate is sentiment rather than logic.(1) Advocates for health care reform are not "for rich people." They are not "against poor people." They do not discriminate. Rather than create class envy or animosity among different groups of people, they strive to create policy neutral mechanisms for all to achieve success and become self-sufficient rather than be mired in a cycle of dependency.(6,15,20)

Advocates for health care reform need to go beyond political strategy and better explain the negative outcomes and negative economic effects of the current system.(3) They must help others recognize that government-sponsored universal health care is not synonymous with affordable health care. Costs have skyrocketed because government got into medicine. Costs will not decrease until government gets out of medicine.(28) Advocates must also help others recognize that in America, where citizens have died fighting communism and socialism and to preserve our freedom, government-sponsored universal health care will never be an acceptable solution to our nation's health care system problems.(5)




1. Lopez N. Are American children being lured into socialized medicine? Institute for Health Freedom. Available at:
2. HHS approves West Virginia expansion of the state Children's Health Insurance Program. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HHS News. Available at:
3. Blevins SA. Tell the Truth: It's a New Entitlement. MediaNomics, June 1997. Available at:
4. Frogue J. A guide to tax credits for the uninsured. The Heritage Foundation. Available at:
5. Huntoon LR. Universal health coverage --- call it socialized medicine. Medical Sentinel 2000;5:134-136.
6. Blevins SA. Restoring health freedom: The case for a universal tax credit for health insurance. Cato Policy Analysis. Available at:
7. Gavora CJ. Back to the drawing board: Why tax reform is the key to health care reform. The Heritage Foundation. Available at:
8. Moffit RE. Beach WW. Rollover flexible spending accounts: More health choices for Americans. The Heritage Foundation. Available at:
9. Butler SM. Principles to guide reform of health care for working families. The Heritage Foundation. Available at:
10. Astorino A. Medical savings accounts. Americans for Free Choice in Medicine. Available at:
11. Killing the Doctor-Patient Relationship. Americans for Free Choice in Medicine. Available at:
12. Shore K. Hillary Care --- Is it coming to New York? Medical Sentinel 2000;5:179-180.
13. McCammon KS. Medicine vs. law: Medical malpractice and physician countersuits. Medical Sentinel 2000; 5: 92-95.
14. Rand A. Atlas Shrugged. Penguin Putnam Inc. NY, NY. 1957.
15. Blevins S, Ferrara P, Tanner M. Health Care. Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 106th Congress, Chapter 25. Available at:
16. Sade R. The political fallacy that medical care is a right. New Engl J Med. Dec 2, 1971; in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. Available at:
17. Peikoff L. Health care is not a right. Americans for Free Choice in Medicine. Available at:
18. Blevins SA. Medical savings accounts (MSAs) give patients power. Institute for Health Freedom. Available at:
19. Rector R. Welfare: broadening the reform. Issues 2000. The Candidate's Briefing Book. Chapter 8. The Heritage Foundation. Available at:
20. Tanner M. Welfare. Cato Handbook for Congress. Policy Recommendations for the 106th Congress, Chapter 26. Available at:
21. Rector R. Wisconsin's welfare miracle: Policy review. The Heritage Foundation. Available at:
22. Rector RE, Youssef SE. The determinants of welfare caseload decline. A report of the Heritage Center for Data Analysis. The Heritage Foundation. Available at:
23. Piccione JJ, Scholle RA. Combatting illegitimacy and counseling teen abstinence: A key component of welfare reform. The Heritage Foundation. Available at:
24. Rector R. The myth of widespread American poverty. The Heritage Foundation. Available at:
25. The Urban Institute. A comparison of selected key provisions of the Welfare Reform Reconciliation Act of 1996 with current law. Available at:
26. Rector R. Washington's assault on welfare reform. The Heritage Foundation. Available at:
27. Olasky M. What is compassionate conservatism and can it transform America? The Heritage Lectures. The Heritage Foundation. Available at:
28. Orient JM. Statement of Jane M. Orient, MD, On Behalf of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Before the White House Task Force on Health Care Reform, George Washington University, Washington, DC, March #29, 1993. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. Available at:

Dr. McCammon is an emergency medicine physician at United Hospital Center in Clarksburg, WV, a diplomate of the American Board of Emergency Medicine, and a fellow of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine and the American Academy of Family Physicians. His e-mail is

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2001;6(3):90-94. Copyright ©2001 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (3 votes)
Comments on this post

I disagree. At this point in

I disagree.
At this point in our history government has done nothing but empower more people to be as sorry as they can possibly be.
And as the days draw closer to the upcoming election it is presented more each day .
I visit many blogs and argue politics on a daily basis. I object to the roll "MY" money plays in footing the bills for all the entitlements. And the more Intelligent people argue against those entitlements;the nastier the left becomes.
I've heard wishes of "Death" upon anyone that speaks out against "my" money being used to keep people dependent.

"I" am the Government and 'so are you'!
The socialist supporters in our nation have no conception of who Government is.
It is WE The People.
So when someone wishes death on another because they don't want their entitlements stopped or they wish going out of business on a successful business like ChicFiLA because they have a personal opinion on their lifestyle; Then I become more adamant I want the majority of entitlements to stop yesterday.
So I have no sympathy at all.

And I agree with you!

I too came with the impression that the word "empowerment" has been stood upon its head, so that assisting more people will result in decreasing the welfare rolls in the future, nonsense! Glad to see you here, uneed!

See the article, "Is it Socialism or part of the General Welfare?"

Hello Dido;Yes it's a breath

Hello Dido;Yes it's a breath of fresh air to come here and post with some form of higher intelligence than where I've been the past couple of weeks.

The full intention of the current Administration is to empower more people to remain dependent upon the government (You and Me). And those out here with us that support such idiotic notions have no idea;they are also the Government.

We need to remain vigilant continuing to bring to light the failures of this Administration and the bankrupt nation.
In the coming days we will see more of this picture as it unfolds;and find that Obama and Co. will do all it takes to remove our eyes from the bigger picture; His failed Administration.
And his constituents will pound it to death about racism,sexism,class warfare and the list goes on making all attempts to follow their commands. The left is in trouble supporting all the failures,no budget,increase in taxes. They know they are in trouble. We need to continue to pound that "hard work and diligence" will bring our country out of this depressed state,that it's not OK to continue Lowering our standards. But Obama must be removed or it'll never happen. Four more years will be too late.

Successful "trickle down" economics

Hi Uneed,

As usual, we concur.

I also wanted to add my thoughts here where it is more peaceful, and frankly where a more intelligent discussion can take place, to the conversation that took place a few days ago about how "trickle down economics" doesn't work. I thought of a prime example of just how successful "trickle down economics" can be.

Unlike the liberal posters in that discussion, who are always envious and jealous of personal success and achievement, captains of industry, scientists and inventors perform a great service to humanity with their advances in business, science, and technology. The most recent examples of people who have contributed so much to society are Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. They not only developed new technology, but also created jobs for many Americans. Other individuals took a chance and risked investing in their fledgling companies. When the risk paid off, some of those individuals then became millionaires in their own right.

It seemed so ironic to me that while the liberals in that discussion were going on and on, they were all typing on computers and using technology developed by those two men and others who developed programs, etc. in response to the needs of society and individuals.

"Trickle down economics" is not wealth redistribution as the liberals think it should be. It is a process whereby individuals can attain their niche in society according to their abilities and efforts. It's the chance to create new jobs, new products, new technologies, that will benefit individuals and thereafter society as a whole.

What a great way to clarify

What a great way to clarify that. But Dido,I'm convinced there are so many hate-filled people on the left that simply do not want to hear the truth;even when faced with facts.They can not sway from 'their party politics'. I feel sorry for some of those Democrats because they don't realize their party is actually Socialist. And many of them will never admit it.

I must still contend the majority of people that call themselves democrat will continue to accept lowered standards across the board.
Although I continue to wonder just how much lower can we go?

Had All you mentioned not been 'accomplished' with success and rewarded for success. We could not transmit back and forth at all on a computer. You hit it!
Thanks Uneed

Dependent behavior is being rewarded!

If by "government empowerment" you mean freedom to choose and economic liberty, then I agree. But if you mean subsidizing or providing increasing government assistance to more and more people, as I suspect– I respectfully disagree with that assertion, which goes against human nature. In economics, people behave responding to Pavlovian incentives of rewards and punishment. When government subsidizes something, the more you get of it, and the more the reward increases, the more of the faulty, dependent behavior you will continue to get. Welfare rolls are increasing, not diminishing!

Conversely, negative rewards and economic penalties decrease that behavior. These are basic laws of economics and not just human nature, but the work of psychologist Ivan Pavlov and the experience of nearly half century since the Great Society have proven them to be correct.

The Obama administration has added more people to the SSI disability roles than jobs created. 40% of the wealthy and middle class are paying 90% of all Federal taxes, while 51% are paying no federal income taxes at all.* Medicaid is also going through the roof and ObamaCare, unless repealed, will penalize with extra taxation those who do not have health insurance.

Moreover the CBO reported this spring that the ObamaCare price tag will not be $940 billion as claimed by the White House and the Democrats when the law was passed, but a whopping $1.76 Trillion over a decade.

One only has to study the history of Medicare (1965) to surmise that even the newer estimate for ObamaCare is probably erroneous, and the true price tag will be much higher. In 1967, Medicare was projected that by 1990, it would cost $12 billion. The actual amount was $110 billion, almost ten times the original estimate!

As to the overall economic spending situation, the prospects are dismal because of this malignant cycle of public dependency and profligate government spending. According to Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, as cited by Scott Rasmussen in his latest book, The People's Money, the unfunded liability of Medicare alone is $85 trillion, more than 8 times the total annual output of the U.S. economy! And the deficit is not $15 trillion– but between $60 and $120 trillion, over $400,000 per every citizen, adult and children, in this country. So we are consistently talking about government miscalculations of estimates approaching nearly one order of magnitude (ten times projected costs)! MAF

*According to the Joint Committee on Taxation 51 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009.(1) The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.(2)

(1) Joint Committee on Taxation, "Information on Income Tax Liability for Tax Year 2009", memorandum, April 29, 2011.
(2) Tax Policy Center, "Tax Units with Zero or Negative Tax Liability, Current Law, 2004-2011 (T11-0173)," June 14, 2011

It is now legend the AAPS legally lanced the secret task force and pulled its secrets...into the sunshine. It destoyed the Health Security Act.

The Oath of Hippocrates
and the Transformation of Medical Ethics Through Time

Patients within a managed care system have the illusion there exists a doctor-patient relationship...But in reality, it is the managers who decide how medical care will be given.

Judicial activism...the capricious rule of man rather than the just rule of law.

The largest single problem facing American medicine today is the actions of government...

The lessons of history sagaciously reveal wherever governments have sought to control medical care and medical practice...the results have been as perverse as they have been disastrous.

Children are the centerpiece of the family, the treasure (and renewal) of countless civilizations, but they should not be used flagrantly to advance political agendas...

Prejudice against gun ownership by ordinary citizens is pervasive in the public health community, even when they profess objectivity and integrity in their scientific research.

The infusion of tax free money into the MSA of the working poor give this population tax equity with wealthier persons...

It was when Congress started dabbling in constitutionally forbidden activities that deficit spending produced a national debt!

Does the AMA have a secret pact with HCFA?

The lure of socialism is that it tells the people there is nothing they cannot have and that all social evils will be redressed by the state.

Canada's fatal error — Health Care as a Right!

The Cancer Risk from Low Level Radiation: A Review of Recent Evidence...

...Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of firearms.

Vandals at the Gates of Medicine — Have They Been Repulsed or Are They Over the Top?