The US Supreme Court’s recent ruling on ObamaCare typifies the overwhelming trend of statism that has dominated D.C. politics for nearly a century. This monumental decision upholds a misguided piece of legislation that will result in further bureaucratization and centralization of an already overregulated industry. Rest assured, this is only the beginning of a series of potential legislative blunders, given the state’s nature of metastasizing like a cancerous tumor.

There’s been a lot of talk about the healthcare policy alternatives that the non-Democrat side of the aisle has to offer. Well, don’t get your hopes up. The so-called “free market” Republicans are not be trusted when it comes to crafting market-based policy alternatives, given their abysmal track record in that regard. It only gets worse when you look at the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, who effectively laid the groundwork for ObamaCare while governor of Massachusetts. Can you say “regime united?”

The passing of ObamaCare did not occur in an isolated vacuum. In his classic work, A Critique of Interventionism, Ludwig von Mises was able to eloquently point out how government interventions effectively beget further interventions down the line. The latter interventions generally try to ameliorate the preceding interventionist measures’ effects, but in the grand scheme of things, this only makes matters worse by creating more unintended consequences. Talk about a vicious cycle of statism! Even with the repeal of ObamaCare, the healthcare industry would still be a mess and the majority of the pseudo-free market policy alternatives proposed by Republicans will only re-create this whole interventionist process all over again. It’s time to stop hacking at the branches and start looking at the root causes of this entire mess.

Throughout the 19^th century up until the mid 20^th century, healthcare was readably accessible to just about anyone, irrespective of their gender, economic, or ethnic class. In Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, University of Alabama historian David Beito notes how fraternal societies were able to provide affordable and reliable healthcare services to countless Americans without any form of state intervention. Due to the massive growth of the welfare state and more onerous regulations placed up on the allocation of medical services, civil society institutions that traditionally provided health services have experienced a precipitous decline and soon medical costs would begin to rise. One of the more overlooked consequences of these unfortunate developments is the impersonalization of interactions between people in most economic activities, especially in the medical sector. The wall of bureaucratic red tape that has effectively been put between consumers and service providers has turned these encounters into lifeless, callous interactions between patients and doctors. With the prospects of further bureaucratization and centralization of the medical sector, this trend will only get worse as bureaucrats play a stronger role in administering healthcare. What use to be a heartwarming, community experience of going to get medical services will start to morph into a dehumanizing experience of having to deal with automatonic bureaucrats that do not posses the same genuine concern that mutual aid societies had for their fellow members. This is revelatory of the state’s antisocial nature, which destroys some of the more natural and peaceful interactions between humans that are characteristic of the realm of voluntary exchange.

To truly strike at the root of the current healthcare crisis, one must look at the elephant in the living room that is the American Medical Association (AMA). What originally started out as a professional association whose goal was to enhance medical practices for the benefit of the general public, the AMA has now morphed into another rent-seeking institution that uses the coercion of the State to stifle competition and innovation in the field of medicine. For almost 150 years, the AMA has effectively cartelized the allocation of medical resources, and government involvement in the insurance industry has resulted in the rising costs of healthcare. One of the most egregious examples of AMA intervention was the imposition of regulations on doctors who signed lodge practice contracts. Like any barrier of entry, these measures resulted in a decrease in the number of potential physicians, which naturally led to higher medical fees. The more humble working-class sections of society were hit hardest by this kind of intervention, and with fraternal societies effectively neutered by these regulations, the poor had to turn to the State, through government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Ironic how the same coercive and incompetent institution that created this mess would soon tout itself as the ultimate savior of the common man by concocting more government boondoggles.

To solve this problem, there must be a genuine free market in the healthcare industry. First off, the AMA should be stripped of all its state-sanctioned accrediting and licensing powers. This does not necessarily signify the abolition of the AMA, but to the contrary, the AMA will still play a role as one of many self-regulating certifying agencies that seeks to find the best medical practices and identify the most reputable doctors without having to use statist measures to achieve these goals.  On the drug related side of this issue, there must be a free market in drugs where people can freely choose to acquire foreign drugs and not have to worry about onerous bureaucracies like the FDA preventing potentially lifesaving medicine from entering the market. In a similar vein to medical licensing, the FDA would be replaced by competing drug certification companies on the market that would rely on their reputation for good testing and top-notch consumer advice since they would not be backed by the state. Individual doctors, patients, and insurers will decide which certifying agencies they trust and which they do not. All in all, healthcare must be decentralized and left to market actors such as corporations, nonprofits, and mutual aid societies to decide how services are allocated.

For such ambitious market-based solutions to take place, there must be a intellectual and political climate that favors economic freedom. Yaron Brook lucidly makes the case that there must be a moral and political revolution in order to bring about a true system of free markets. Individual rights are at the very core of this movement and should always be staunchly defended. Ultimately, sovereign individuals are the ones who peacefully come together in the free market to decide what’s best for themselves, their families, and the voluntary associations that they want to be a part of, not government officials who think they know what’s best for the rest of society.

There should be no dilly-dallying around the margins when it comes to securing economic freedom in healthcare, and for that matter, in all other forms of economic activity. It is incumbent upon all libertarians to never capitulate to the short-term whims of politics and compromise at the edges. We must truly be radical in our endeavors and always remember to never lose sight of our objective. Bringing back the Principles of 98 to combat ObamaCare and other federal intrusions in the healthcare sector, forming voluntary organizations similar to those of 19^th century to help provide healthcare to the less fortunate, and informing close relatives and friends about the dangers of government intervention all make up a large toolbox of tactics that are necessary to use in order to combat the government’s economic transgressions. This battle can be won, if only the principled free market warriors follow the straight and narrow path to victory, veering neither to the illusory right or left paradigms of the political spectrum, balancing always on Truth’s razor edge.

Stay radical my friends.