The Legal and Economic Arguments for the Free Market Economy as the ONLY Acceptable Alternative to Government-Run Healthcare

The ONLY good, solid healthcare system that works for the most people AND is constitutional, is the market economy free of government interference. Nothing in this world is perfect and nothing will completely satisfy everyone, but freedom and the free market is way ahead of whatever’s in second place.


Legal argument: The Constitution does not authorize the feds to meddle in healthcare at all. The Constitution did not create a central government to satisfy everyone. The Constitution created a central government to protect God-given individual freedom to pursue life and happiness as each individual saw fit. Why has freedom from government become such a radical idea in America which was founded on the idea of individual freedom?


Economic argument: Why would anyone want to trade the best healthcare in the world which we had until the feds began interfering in the 70’s, for the DMV or the Post Office running healthcare? “Take a number, maybe we’ll get to you.” Who wants some stupid bureaucracy inserting itself between you and your doctor? No one would trade freedom for tyranny unless it crept in very slowly and gradually without anyone really noticing. Creeping socialism. That is the only way we’ve reached the point where we are now.


When did the feds start unconstitutionally meddling in healthcare? When did the cost of healthcare become a problem? Both the meddling and the problems began in the 70’s and it was causal, not coincidental. Everything in the free market the feds touch turns to dust and ashes. Common sense tells you that when a third party (the feds) inserts itself into a transaction, the transaction will cost more because you’re also going to have to pay the third party. In this case, the third-party interference of the feds requires massive skyrocketing costs in the creation of more new, bloated, useless, and unconstitutional federal bureaucracies. Common sense.


Repeal Obamacare (“Obamabuse”) with the goal of getting the feds out of the healthcare business altogether. Although certain protections may be necessary for a one-or-two-step repeal, the repeal should be speedy followed by a quick divestment of ALL federal government involvement in healthcare. I don’t really care how or what it takes to get there and/or what kind of political maneuvering will be necessary.


My concern is that so few understand the goal itself – that healthcare must be in the market economy free of government interference. If we don’t have the right goal, we’ll never reach it.


God, by your grace, restore our Free Constitutional Republic.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share This

One Response

  1. Daniel Hunt

    I couldn’t agree more with every point mad in this Article except repeal. Repeal is premised on the condition that which passed Congress was constitutional and therefore legal in the first place. As noted in the Article, “The Constitution does not authorize the feds to meddle in healthcare at all.” This is based on the fact neither Article I or Article II expressly delegate to either the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch the power to regulate healthcare and is therefore a Power reserved to the States or to the People per Amendment X in the Bill of Rights.

    Any act in violation to the U.S. Constitution is repugnant to the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall commented in the landmark Supreme Court Case of Marbury v Madison(1803) “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle,
    supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void.”

    The result is Obamacare has never been never Law precisely because it violated the U.S. Constitution, is repugnant to it for the reasons stated above. The People only need not comply with an unconstitutional Act of the Federal Government. The former is bound to uphold the U.S. Constitution by not complying.

Leave a Reply