Saving your health from the government

Boy, ain't this the truth:

The U.S. government alone spends about $5 billion a year just on cancer research. Let us suppose that you have a serious portion of that budget to spend. What will you do?

... I have performed this exercise a number of times myself. No matter how often I reconsider the issue, I just do not see people arriving at something like this:

I have it; I see the key principle. What we need to do first is to make it impossible for anyone to take a drug that might kill him. That is where we should start. Then we need to construct a list of cures that have been proposed but probably won't work. We will make sure to prevent such scams.

The idea that sensible people might come to such conclusions strikes me as completely preposterous. Yet as you know, these are the policies that are now in place, supported and mandated by government and the health care establishment. The result is predictable: Our ability to provide medical technology to patients in need is dramatically constrained, and the cost-benefit analyses that underlie all business decisions, and should underlie all practical decisions about health care, are heavily skewed to reflect the costs of conforming to regulatory requirements.

Read the rest of Ross Overbeck's article here.