All levels of government face growing pressures to restrain spending. One downside to the rapid growth in tax-financed health spending that I have documented in several prior posts is the vulnerability of the health system to measures taken to curb government spending. But the degree of such vulnerability varies dramatically across different components of the health sector.

Poverty rates should go down. But does that mean it's the government's responsibility? Maybe the answer is yes. But if it is, the burden of proof should fall on those who, in effect, want the government to win the future by "investing" in shoes--rather than on those of us who are open to the idea of turning back the clock.

Atrue public health solution to inadequate care would focus resources on improving the quality of care and self-care regardless of race.

A true public health solution to inadequate care--one that seeks to maximize the health of all Americans--would more properly target all underserved populations, irrespective of group membership.

Many experts today insist that race profoundly affects how the medical-care system deals with patients and that a black patient will get inferior care. Is this true?

The medical profession has suffered some serious self-inflicted wounds, and a new book by Carl Elliott focuses on how he thinks medicine has gone wrong but is short on solutions.

The real threat to medicine and the public interest is suppression of freedom of university-based researchers to interact with their scientific colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry.

The U.S. Preventive Task Force's recent recommendation that women should not begin routine mammograms until age fifty has sparked controversy.