Great. I take you word on Mr. Roberts being such a great man. I have no reason earth to doubt he is. That said, in that case, is not “to ever seek political office with any chance of winning” sort of having Mr. Roberts pushing the rope? How else do we have a future if we do not try to make it go wherever we feel it should? Are you a fatalist? Let the bad politicians take over and ride the waves?

If every person seeking elected office is of questionable character then isn't it a problem with how we've set up our political system? Is it possible in your mind to set up a system that would elect and attract men of character?

See this is the difficulty I have with your position because it's a position that seems to consider economics in isolation of any political system. We live in the real world not in an economic text book and there has to be some room to consider the political needs of an economy.

You wonder what would happen to my affection for politics if Russ Roberts ever became a candidate for political office: They'd not change.

Russ is far too decent a human being – a man deeply decent and honest – a man with both self-respect and respect for others – a man for whom the charades and shenanigans that every politician must perform would be disgraceful – to ever seek political office with any chance of winning.

What does that say about our friend Mike Munger – the man currently running for Governor of North Carolina – and frequent guest on Econ Talk?

I seem to remember that the number one reason given for voting for Jimmy Carter was that he seemed like a nice guy. Great.

You wonder what would happen to my affection for politics if Russ Roberts ever became a candidate for political office: They'd not change.

Russ is far too decent a human being – a man deeply decent and honest – a man with both self-respect and respect for others – a man for whom the charades and shenanigans that every politician must perform would be disgraceful – to ever seek political office with any chance of winning.

— Jay Leno, The Tonight Show

The history of that insurer, and its role in providing insurance to defray the expenses of that single dread disease Cancer is less well known.

Beginning in 1958, when practically all insurers excluded (or limited) coverages for the occurence of Cancer, American Family Life (Columbus, Ga.) provided specific coverages for procedures related to dealing with that disease. The only requirement for claims was a pathological determination of the existence of cancer.

Many State insurance departments attempted to limit the offering of that coverage; N.Y. being a prime example. Other insurers attempted to limit the value of the coverage through "coordination of benefits" (reducing payments under their own (usually group)coverages by the amounts individuals received from their persoanl policies for this disease – and its high costs of treatments).

As a result of attempts by the IRS to apply adverse tax treatment to American Family, that company developed a cancer morbidity table which defeated the IRS assertions and provided invaluable, previously unavailable statistics.

During the course of facing severe challenges,falsifications and political opportunisms, the value of the cancer coverage from American Family was recognized in Japan where none of the domestic companies were willing to provide that coverage.

A comparison of the provisions for Cancer Coverages in the U.S and Japan will show what can be advanced by the private sector – even over bureaucratic opposition and "parentalisms."

Once again, governments (state and federal) are the problem, not the solution.

This writer has no present connection, other than shareholdings, with AFLAC, but was a great admirer and supporter of its founder, the late John B. Amos.

As President, I pledge to make our public funding of research as effective as possible rather than listening to the loudest voices.

As President, I pledge to keep my nose out of cancer research, because I don't have a clue.

Milton Friedman often argued that Type II deaths were much greater than Type I. He reffered to Type I as the number of people we save from not allowing them to take medicine that could potentially hurt them.
However the number of people (Type II) that are willing to try the medicine is much larger, and they often tend to pass away prior to having a chance to fight the disease they are facing.

I don't understand why the government feels like they have a right to tell us what we can and can't do in terms of OUR OWN HEALTH!!!

Most people know that if they are taking a drug that hasn't hit the public market that there could be a high risk involved. What the FDA should do is allow all these medical firms to provide the drugs if and when they explain the possible risks. This way we allow the individuals to make up their own decision based upon the information provided.

Most of these individuals that face a terminal disease would rather pass away knowing they went down with a fight, as suppose to just sitting around, waiting for some medical breakthrough that has to be in accordance with the FDA.

I love how neither of the two candidates ever seem to mention "deregulation" of the pharmaceutical industry as a method of improving health care in America. Pandering, indeed.