Obamacare is not unconstitutional

[Kal'Stang]

I actually wouldn't be that opposed to that mandate.

But then again I also think that before someone gets a gun license they should be forced to shoot a living animal and then watch it die and then bury it so they fully know well the consequences of using of gun.

I wouldn't agree with a mandate to buy guns. But for the sake of arguement just following along your lines here...if they were to shoot an animal then they should eat it...not bury it. Waste not want not.

 

[Temporal]

Sorry to break it you but mandating that people give a private business money is against the constitution. It is arguably against the commerce clauses and I think SCOTUS has its work cut out for it in sorting through the travesty that is the health care bill. The government is allowed to offer services but you are free to exercise choices. That is why the government funds post offices, but you can still use couriers or any other provider. How outrageous would it be if we HAD to use the public mail system by law? Or if we HAD to buy all our food from one company only? Yet it's okay to do that to Americans on the health care front.

All the health care bill did was play into the hands of private industry - the same industry that is the reason why Americans pay more for health care than any other developed nation. When Hilary Clinton tried to push for socialized health care in the 90's, she was eventually defeated by industry and a slew of other lobbiests. Who would have thought that it could have gone from bad to worse the next time the health debate came around? We're being forced to pay the same dogs that were ripping us off in the first place. I wanted to see more regulation of the private sector to curb the corruption, but the watered down crap that came out of congress looked nothing like what was necessary to restore sanity to our health system.

I support a push for a sane public health care system; I do not support the piece of crap that it ended up being.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You are correct in that there are different rules for military personnel than there are for civilians. However, both are citizens (or nationals) of this country. As such, unless military personnel are in a combat status and Congress authorizes such, both members of our Armed Forces and civilians alike are subject to pay taxes. In short, both are subject to the "rules" Congress establishes. And that brings me back to my argument at-hand.

Congress established a "rule" on how to deal with ensuring our nation's citizens have and/or acquire health insurance. Only a small segment of the population would be subject to the tax penalty - those who can afford to purchase health insurance but refuse to acquire it (or don't obtain a waiver). In the grand scheme of things, one's military status is of little consequence. The fact remains that at one time in our nation's history, Congress required of a certain segment of the population to purchase something they might not have ordinarily purchased for themselves. Granted, in the case of the Militia Act, the cause could easily be justified - in defense of the nation - but those draftees were still required to pay for materials out of pocket because their government told them to.

Bold part: I would have to disagree with this. The very fact that military personnel are not subject to the same rights as civilians is a major thing. For example a Private could not just up and tell an Admiral that the Admiral is a self rightous Ahole without some sort of legal negative consequence...yet a civilian could. IE thier free speech is limited at best...fully removed in certain situations. Sure a civilians free speech can be limited also...IE the fire in the theater bit. But those situations are only reserved for situations that can cause physical harm to others. Another example would be juries. AFAIK no military tribunal has juries, particularly the ones held on the front lines? (if they are still doing that). Yet civilians are gaurunteed them. Granted I may be wrong on that part as I honestly don't know much about it. But I am sure that I could come up with other examples of various other rights being restricted (at best) if given enough time.

Lastly while both are subject to Congress's rules both are not subject to both sets of rules. Because esentially one has more rights than the other.

Since your arguement hinges on the bolded part the rest of what you said is null based on the above paragraphs.

 

[ksu_aviator]

You are correct in that there are different rules for military personnel than there are for civilians. However, both are citizens (or nationals) of this country. As such, unless military personnel are in a combat status and Congress authorizes such, both members of our Armed Forces and civilians alike are subject to pay taxes. In short, both are subject to the "rules" Congress establishes. And that brings me back to my argument at-hand.

Congress established a "rule" on how to deal with ensuring our nation's citizens have and/or acquire health insurance. Only a small segment of the population would be subject to the tax penalty - those who can afford to purchase health insurance but refuse to acquire it (or don't obtain a waiver). In the grand scheme of things, one's military status is of little consequence. The fact remains that at one time in our nation's history, Congress required of a certain segment of the population to purchase something they might not have ordinarily purchased for themselves. Granted, in the case of the Militia Act, the cause could easily be justified - in defense of the nation - but those draftees were still required to pay for materials out of pocket because their government told them to.

I will be subject to the tax penalty because I have reasonable health insurance. I'm covered, but not enough by this administration's standards. So, I either have to pay an extra $300 a month for the Cadillac plan they require or pay the penalty.

But even that is academic. The very fact that some are required to purchase a plan is a violation of the Constitution and no where in the Constitution is there a provision that rights must be recognized unless only a few suffer the loss of their rights.

 

[Deuce]

I will be subject to the tax penalty because I have reasonable health insurance. I'm covered, but not enough by this administration's standards. So, I either have to pay an extra $300 a month for the Cadillac plan they require or pay the penalty.

But even that is academic. The very fact that some are required to purchase a plan is a violation of the Constitution and no where in the Constitution is there a provision that rights must be recognized unless only a few suffer the loss of their rights.

So why did the Republicans propose this?

 

[ksu_aviator]

So why did the Republicans propose this?

Republicans are not void of bad policy. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

 

[Kal'Stang]

So why did the Republicans propose this?

Republicans are not void of bad policy. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

I agree with ksu here. But had to ask...why the heck does it always come down to republicans vs democrats? Does it really matter? Shouldn't violations of the Constitution be what matters?

 

[heckgunderson]

ok, if its not unconstitutional it doesnt matter. it is a job killing bill that will kill 800,000 jobs according to the congressional office and if we dont repeal it we will lose money it costs too much billions of dollars

 

[Objective Voice]

I agree with ksu here. But had to ask...why the heck does it always come down to republicans vs democrats? Does it really matter? Shouldn't violations of the Constitution be what matters?

It matters because it takes BOTH chambers of Congress to pass "meaningful" legislation. And since the Republican party choose to be more obstructionist than they did to cooperate, we ended up with what we got.

I know, I know..."Democrats drafted health care legislation behind closed door and locked Republicans out," heard this argument dozens of times before, but it's untrue. There are many provisions in the PPACA that were Republican ideas, such as paying a tax on "cadillac plans" and even the individual mandate itself, not to mention forming the state-sponsored health insurance exchanges themselves. It's just unfortunate that too many people who oppose the law have bought into the hype.

Now, I would have much rather had a bill that did alot more to bring down health care costs rather than get a bill they tinkered with the problems within the health insurance industry or change health insurance policies - because that's what we got ultimately - but if both sides were unwilling to work together toward affecting meaningful change within the overall health care system, then what we got is as good as it's going to get...for now anyway. Regardless, I will continue to advocate for meaningful changes in the new law as oppose to scrapping it altogether. Why? Because it took over 100 years before any President was able to sign any changes whatsoever in health care reform into law - this after two recent Presidents in U.S. history tried and failed to do it, one Republican (Nixon) and one Democrat (Clinton).

It's not the best reform law, but it was our elected official determined the nation should (or "could") have at present. And frankly, some of the changes are actually good ones.

 

[Paschendale]

Clearly we should have avoided all this nonsense and just had the public option. That was, after all, what everyone actually wanted in the first place, would not force anyone to buy anything they didn't want to, and would have actually achieved universal coverage, which the current law does not.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Clearly we should have avoided all this nonsense and just had the public option. That was, after all, what everyone actually wanted in the first place, would not force anyone to buy anything they didn't want to, and would have actually achieved universal coverage, which the current law does not.

Expanding government coverage does something similar to forcing a purchase. It incurs greater costs which taxpayers have to absorb.

 

[Gladiator]

"Judge George Steeh’s ruling centers on the idea that health care is distinct from other “products” in such a way that the act of not purchasing it constitutes involvement in interstate commerce.


"Jay Stevens at Left in the West isn’t buying Somin’s point. “For starters, unless non-insurance-buyers are some kind of genetic Supermenschen, they, as a group, will experience sudden and catastrophic injury or illness at the same rate that insurance buyers do — at best,” he writes. “Of course, that’s only considering the statistical case. In reality, the uninsured are much more likely to rack up higher long-term medical costs because they are much less likely to seek out preventative or early medical care. But, more simply, everyone gets sick and dies eventually. No one ‘maintains their health.’ Healthcare is inevitable for all … So, under the commerce clause of the Constitution and Congress’ power ‘to tax and spend providing for the general welfare,’ the bill is legal.”





Obamacare Passes Its First Test - NYTimes.com

//

 

[Prof. Peabody]

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year. If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.

Health Care | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team

That was 2008. What are you saying now Barry?

 

[Boo Radley]

That was 2008. What are you saying now Barry?

Wasn't that in connection with the public option? :coffeepap

 

[GreatMisdirect]

The big argument I've seen is this thread when looking at it from a legal perspective is whether you listen to the Framers who drafted the Constitution, or whether you listen to the judges who have upheld laws or, through their decisions, "clarified" the meaning of the law.

If you're thinking about this logically and you start from the beginning, I strongly believe that Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional, along with many of the laws that we currently have in place. Let me elaborate on that reasoning.

When looking at a legal document, it is always a good idea to determine its meaning based on the definition of the words used by the time they were written. If you look at the Constitution that way, you'll discover that it's actually very clear.

For example, let's take a look at the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Two words need to be clearly defined in that phrase before we understand what the Framers meant: regulate and commerce.

In looking at regulate, the definition of the word at the time was "to make regular." This is a far cry from how we define regulate today, which Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines today as "to govern or direct according to rule." Had our early countrymen known that the government had the authority to control all commerce between the foreign nations, the several states, and the Indian tribes, they'd scream bloody murder!

The word "commerce" is much more interesting. In 1996, Dr. Robert Natelson, Professor of Law at the University of Montana, wrote a paper called "The Legal Meaning of 'Commerce' in the Commerce Clause." In it, he examined thousands of instances of 'commerce' used in documents written around 1776. His conclusion:

If we read 'Commerce among the several States' to mean 'all gainful economic activity among the several States,' then the clauses by which Congress is empowered to regulate commerce with 'foreign Nations' and the 'Indian Tribes' become either largely redundant or nonsensical. Even more seriously, if the Commerce Clause grants Congress power to regulate all economic activities, then some of Congress' other economic powers become surplus.

In reading Federalist Paper #42, James Madison writes:

...the defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience... it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export.

The power that Madison is talking about is to keep each state from implementing import/export tariffs against other states, not to give the federal government control over any and all gainful economic activity.

Going back to the original phrasing, when you take into account the fact that the states aren't the only parties listed, it just doesn't make any sense.


If you're looking at any other phrases that aren't the specific enumerated powers given to Congress, the same type of illogical thinking follows. For example, what's the point of listing ANY enumerated powers given specifically to Congress if you could just argue that the Necessary and Proper clause covers all the bases? Or the General Welfare clause? Frankly, any single "clause" that's mentioned to give the government the authority to basically do whatever they want can get a million holes punched through it in just the time it takes me to research and write a new post.


To close, here are a few more quotes from Madison, mostly regarding the General Welfare clause:

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

 

[Boo Radley]

I'm not a consitutional scholar, but we have hundred years of history along with the orginal intent. We can't erase any of it. The door for mandating something was opened long before auto insurance became mandatory.

 

[cpwill]

auto insurance is at the state level - whose powers are numerous and undefined. as opposed to the federal level - whose powers are few and defined.


there is a bit of a difference.

 

[Boo Radley]

auto insurance is at the state level - whose powers are numerous and undefined. as opposed to the federal level - whose powers are few and defined.


there is a bit of a difference.

Not as large a difference as you like to think. It establishes that government can make such mandates. But like I said, the closed before that.

 

[GreatMisdirect]

I'm not a consitutional scholar, but we have hundred years of history along with the orginal intent. We can't erase any of it. The door for mandating something was opened long before auto insurance became mandatory.

Sure, we can't erase it, but we CAN learn from it. If we all do our best to understand why certain policies failed/succeeded or lack of policies failed/succeeded, we can create a better future for our country. Misinterpretation of historical facts has arguably been the biggest detriment we've experienced over the past 100 or so years. For example, being taught in school that FDR's New Deal policies helped get us out of the Great Depression is completely false. Government lacks the power to improve the economy except for temporary periods by printing money and "creating" jobs (jobs that private citizens have to account for through taxes, otherwise it's just inflation). In their effort to help, they only make matters worse by decreasing the purchasing power of the dollar, making goods and services more expensive over time. Only through deregulation and staying out of the economy can the government help improve its condition.

 

[Boo Radley]

Sure, we can't erase it, but we CAN learn from it. If we all do our best to understand why certain policies failed/succeeded or lack of policies failed/succeeded, we can create a better future for our country. Misinterpretation of historical facts has arguably been the biggest detriment we've experienced over the past 100 or so years. For example, being taught in school that FDR's New Deal policies helped get us out of the Great Depression is completely false. Government lacks the power to improve the economy except for temporary periods by printing money and "creating" jobs (jobs that private citizens have to account for through taxes, otherwise it's just inflation). In their effort to help, they only make matters worse by decreasing the purchasing power of the dollar, making goods and services more expensive over time. Only through deregulation and staying out of the economy can the government help improve its condition.

I don't disagree that we can learn, though I suspect we might disagree on those what those lessons actually are. The economy is not something the government controls. Those complaining that our leaders ahven't provided jobs don't understand, IMHO, that the government can only create jobs by hiring people.

However, deregulation is a different matter. We have often gotten into trouble by deregulating. And while I won't go into your historical revisionism, I wouldn't argue FDR got us out as much as war did. Still, that has nothing to do with much of what we are talking about. We're talkng about health care, something that doesn't respond like a widget in the economy, something that is a public good, not unlike the fire department, that makes the most money if you're really sick, if medicines don't cure, but prolong death, needing constant treatment. All market transactions can lead to someone cheating someone, but with medicine, health, (educatins as well), market forces work contrary to the public good.

The question you were dealing with is can the government do this. The courts will rule. But until then, I think it is important to note there are educated and learned people who view it differently than you do. Like I said, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but you cannot offer the benefits most want without a plan to pay for that most seem to think they don't want. This disconnext must be fixed before any reform can really gain traction.

 

[GreatMisdirect]

However, deregulation is a different matter. We have often gotten into trouble by deregulating. And while I won't go into your historical revisionism, I wouldn't argue FDR got us out as much as war did.

While I know this is off topic, how did the war get out us out the Great Depression? And if it did, why don't we constantly fake wars and blow stuff up so we can receive the benefits of war without the death that goes along with it? I urge you to look up the Broken Window fallacy by Frederic Bastiat, which explains the logical fallacy in thinking that war or disasters can actually help an economy.

Back on topic, it would really help for all of us to understand how exactly health care got so expensive in the first place. I've written on this before, but don't have the time to write about it now. I'll come back later with some more information.

 

[Boo Radley]

While I know this is off topic, how did the war get out us out the Great Depression? And if it did, why don't we constantly fake wars and blow stuff up so we can receive the benefits of war without the death that goes along with it? I urge you to look up the Broken Window fallacy by Frederic Bastiat, which explains the logical fallacy in thinking that war or disasters can actually help an economy.

Back on topic, it would really help for all of us to understand how exactly health care got so expensive in the first place. I've written on this before, but don't have the time to write about it now. I'll come back later with some more information.

We don't do wars the way we do them back then. Wars today we borrow and say that don't have to sacrifice for them. Back then, we asked peopel to give, put people to work making planes and other war neccessities. Soldiers had left the homefront, getting a government check. This effectively put money at the bottom so it could trickle up, and all doing so with us aiding to government to limit the cost of the wwar itself.

Christopher J. Tassava
For the United States, World War II and the Great Depression constituted the most important economic event of the twentieth century. The war's effects were varied and far-reaching. The war decisively ended the depression itself. The federal government emerged from the war as a potent economic actor, able to regulate economic activity and to partially control the economy through spending and consumption. American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production (for example, aerospace and electronics) or completely dependent on it (atomic energy). The organized labor movement, strengthened by the war beyond even its depression-era height, became a major counterbalance to both the government and private industry. The war's rapid scientific and technological changes continued and intensified trends begun during the Great Depression and created a permanent expectation of continued innovation on the part of many scientists, engineers, government officials and citizens. Similarly, the substantial increases in personal income and frequently, if not always, in quality of life during the war led many Americans to foresee permanent improvements to their material circumstances, even as others feared a postwar return of the depression. Finally, the war's global scale severely damaged every major economy in the world except for the United States, which thus enjoyed unprecedented economic and political power after 1945.

The American Economy during World War II | Economic History Services

World War II brought an end to the Depression everywhere. Industries had been ignited for the production of arms and resources to equip fighting forces.

"The man behind the man behind the gun" helped win World War II. People on the home front built weapons, produced food and supplies, and bought war bonds. Many historians believe that war production was the key to Allied victory. The Allies not only mobilized more men and women in their armed forces, but also outproduced the Axis in weapons and machinery.

Scientific inventions and discoveries also helped shorten the war. The United States organized its scientific resources in the Office of Scientific Research and Development. That government agency invented or improved such commodities as radar, rocket launchers, jet engines, amphibious assault boats, long-range navigational aids, devices for detecting submarines, and more.

World War II

This is the way it was taught to me when i was in school so many years ago. Today, we have a lot of people revising history to fit political angendas, sadly.

 

[Boo Radley]

Back on topic, it would really help for all of us to understand how exactly health care got so expensive in the first place. I've written on this before, but don't have the time to write about it now. I'll come back later with some more information.

I'm not sure we'll agree on that. The major cause of it becoming expensive was technological advances. It was much cheaper when we did most of our care at home. And as we moved forward, away from from the home, people we having to trade fruits and vegetables for care. Seeing this problem, and wanting soem standards of care, forces went to work (AMA and Insurance industry) to fine a way to make care available to many. It has been ad hoc, but as far back as FDR there has been a call for a national health care system. We shold have moved that way back then.

 

[GreatMisdirect]

We don't do wars the way we do them back then. Wars today we borrow and say that don't have to sacrifice for them. Back then, we asked peopel to give, put people to work making planes and other war neccessities. Soldiers had left the homefront, getting a government check. This effectively put money at the bottom so it could trickle up, and all doing so with us aiding to government to limit the cost of the wwar itself.

Christopher J. Tassava
For the United States, World War II and the Great Depression constituted the most important economic event of the twentieth century. The war's effects were varied and far-reaching. The war decisively ended the depression itself. The federal government emerged from the war as a potent economic actor, able to regulate economic activity and to partially control the economy through spending and consumption. American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production (for example, aerospace and electronics) or completely dependent on it (atomic energy). The organized labor movement, strengthened by the war beyond even its depression-era height, became a major counterbalance to both the government and private industry. The war's rapid scientific and technological changes continued and intensified trends begun during the Great Depression and created a permanent expectation of continued innovation on the part of many scientists, engineers, government officials and citizens. Similarly, the substantial increases in personal income and frequently, if not always, in quality of life during the war led many Americans to foresee permanent improvements to their material circumstances, even as others feared a postwar return of the depression. Finally, the war's global scale severely damaged every major economy in the world except for the United States, which thus enjoyed unprecedented economic and political power after 1945.

The American Economy during World War II | Economic History Services

World War II brought an end to the Depression everywhere. Industries had been ignited for the production of arms and resources to equip fighting forces.

"The man behind the man behind the gun" helped win World War II. People on the home front built weapons, produced food and supplies, and bought war bonds. Many historians believe that war production was the key to Allied victory. The Allies not only mobilized more men and women in their armed forces, but also outproduced the Axis in weapons and machinery.

Scientific inventions and discoveries also helped shorten the war. The United States organized its scientific resources in the Office of Scientific Research and Development. That government agency invented or improved such commodities as radar, rocket launchers, jet engines, amphibious assault boats, long-range navigational aids, devices for detecting submarines, and more.

World War II

This is the way it was taught to me when i was in school so many years ago. Today, we have a lot of people revising history to fit political angendas, sadly.

While you're at least looking at the right picture, you're missing a large portion of it.

Before we get into it, though, let's agree on this: the government cannot create wealth. Period. This is because the government cannot exist unless it takes wealth from the private citizen via taxes. In effect, the government is only capable of taking away, it is not capable of creating wealth itself, unless you count debt or printing money. Both of those, however, have negative consequences, such as interest on the debt and inflation.

Moving on, let me quote Henry Hazlitt and his re-imagining of Frédéric Bastiat's original Broken Window fallacy, which explains my reasoning perfectly:

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sun. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace the window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

To argue that industries were "ignited" by the production of arms and resources ignores what that wealth would've gone towards had a war not been going on. For example, a man decides to buy a war bond, instead of a TV, to help support the war. The TV shop has just lost their business to the government, who uses the man's money to build a bomb. The bomb gets shipped to Europe, where it blows up a German building, destroying even more wealth. There is absolutely nothing positive about this equation.

Here's a graph illustrating this even further (source):

The more the government takes away from the private sector, the less wealth the private sector is capable of creating.

 

[GreatMisdirect]

I'm not sure we'll agree on that.

Well, I'll do my best to try .

The major cause of it becoming expensive was technological advances.

False! Technological advances have always led to lower prices. Otherwise, what's the point of technological innovation? Can you prove any of what you're saying?

To test out your assertion, let's say a hypothetical machine costs $20,000 to produce, but makes most simple surgeries take three times less time to perform. Considering the cost of labor vs. the cost of the machine, the cost of labor continues indefinitely at about the same rate of X amount of hours for Y surgery and so on. Meanwhile, the cost of the machine is a one-time purchase of $20,000. If it takes three times less time to perform most surgeries, that's two hours of labor saved for what used to be a three hour procedure. Continuing logically down this path, how quickly does the machine pay for itself? Would it be smarter to have not invented the machine and keep performing surgeries the old way or buy the machine?

What's Really Wrong with the Healthcare Industry from the Mises Institute illustrates the four major causes of the increase in healthcare costs over the past 50 years or so. I can only quote so much, due to forum rules, but I really recommend reading the whole article. Here are the four causes the author lists:

1. Employer-provided health insurance - If you're on a business trip, are you more likely to incur more expenses than if it were paid privately? Same idea translates to health insurance.

The most important economic consequence of the existence of the employer-provided health insurance is that consumers are much less likely to discriminate on cost. Beyond the deductible, the employer pays the cost of medical procedures through an insurance company. As anyone who has gone on a business trip knows, if the company is paying, then the employee is likely to purchase a more expensive ticket and accommodation. Where an economy ticket may have sufficed for a personal budget, a business-class ticket becomes far more attractive.

Not only are consumers less likely to discriminate on cost, but providers of healthcare services have greater incentive to provide medical treatments that are only marginally more effective at much higher cost. This is the opposite of how the price mechanism works in a free market, where consumers (who are paying out of their own pocket) search for the cheapest prices and providers work hard to provide services that are equally efficacious but less costly.

2. Licensure - The American Medical Association, AMA, restricts the supply of doctors by limiting those who can practice medicine via licensure. This ensures that labor rates stay high.

It is clear that licensure is the key to the medical profession's ability to restrict the number of physicians who practice medicine. It is also the key to its ability to restrict technological and organizational changes in the way medicine is conducted.

3. The obesity epidemic - Not so much due to the free market as it is the government subsidizing corn. Think "high fructose corn syrup."

4. Intellectual property - Example: government-granted monopoly on a drug, drug company charges whatever it wants due to no competition. Generic drug eventually comes out and drastically reduces the price. There is nothing free market about patents.