If medical coverage is not a necessity, what is it?

[Zappykins]

richardhutnik said:

Zappykins said:

richardhutnik said:

In the discussion of what the government should or shouldn't do, medical coverage is said to not be a necessity.  If it isn't a necessity, what is it?  

Cato Instutite argues that necessity is futile:

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2001/7/morreim.pdf

This will pop up from time to time.  And comes up when people say stuff like, "Why you complaining, you have an emergency room!"

 

The Cato Instutuide is just a front for the Koch brothers. They would be about as credible as McDonalds recomending nutrition.

Not quite, but Cato and the Koch brothers have similar beliefs, and Koch does fund them.  

Technically true, but they pretty much are just another front for them, and they got the last director fired.  Along with American's for Prosperity, Liberty Institute, and I forget how many things they control.  All under the guise of 'freedom' and 'liberty' but it's mostly just to make life easier for them, the two brothers and their businesses.

Heck, even their own sponsored 'global warming is a lie' researcher ended up saying, yup, man made pollution is a major problem for climate change. (aka global warming.)

Why they need so much power and control is something I'll never understand.  How many billions do you need to make before you are happy?

Starting their complete take over of Cato: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/freedomworks-koch-brothers-cato-institute-takeover_n_1420918.html

Then installed someone that will do the things they want, without the official title of 'takeover' but effective enough:  http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/25/nation/la-na-nn-koch-brothers-cato-institute-20120625

Anyway, my point is still valid: having them decide health care is credible as McDonald's setting the terms national nutrition levels.