Science & Technology

Asks ten crucial questions regarding the proposed law; examines what the proposed legislation actually says with respect to these questions; and evaluates the bill accordingly, showing that, if passed, it would massively expand government power over the health-care industry, virtually eliminate the remnants of freedom left in this market, and thus increase the U.S. government’s violations of individual rights by orders of magnitude.

Provides an illuminating view of the pharmaceutical industry, showing that industry executives have advocated and continue to advocate rights-violating legislation through which the companies gain revenue taken coercively by the government from American taxpayers—and further showing that the pharmaceutical industry’s advocacy of such legislation is killing . . . the industry itself.

Canadian Lin Gilbert tells of the wait she endured for over two years for her MRI and spine surgery, and the toll it took on her life: http://www.youtube.com/embed/9Kyoxy1ufhg In Canada, health care is never truly a "right". She was repeatedly told that she hadn't suffered for long enough to receive…

In the November 4, 2009 Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby outlines the best option for the public. (Hint -- it's not the "public option".) From his article, "An option for public: less government, more choice": A government-run health insurer would radically tilt the health-insurance playing field. It would amount to a…

I'm a second-year student in the Objectivist Academic Center, and the class is currently working through the difference between the metaphysically given (such as the law of gravity) and the man-made (such as traffic laws). The man-made is the result of choice, and as such is subject to praise or…

A person who is in the pay of the government is not always free to speak publicly about the most pressing issues he confronts. Administrators who are appointed to perform specific tasks are generally not free to contradict or even to challenge policies. They often cannot advocate for specific proposals,…

The major impetus behind the Democratic health care plans is not economic—it is moral. The claim that health care is a moral right has motivated enormous government coercions against the medical industry for nearly fifty years. But this moral claim has blinded people to the fact that huge price increases…

Daniel Wahl reviews The Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants, by Jane S. Smith.

Shows that, contrary to proposals being put forth by Republicans, a genuinely free market in health insurance is not only moral, in that it respects the rights of producers and consumers, but also practical, in that it enables businessmen to solve problems for profit—which leads to more and better products and services at lower prices for consumers.

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, has an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal, in which he outlines several market-oriented changes that would substantially improve the quality of health care in America, multiply consumers’ options, and decrease health-care costs. Among other things, Mackey advocates the following: Remove the legal…