The Supreme Court of the United States is deliberating on the constitutionality of Obamacare. One angle being considered is that if everyone does't have insurance, it distorts the market and thus adversely affects interstate commerce. As we all know, interstate commerce is within the purview of Congress to regulate, per the Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court has so loosely defined what can be included in "interstate commerce", that nearly anything which takes place in this country could possibly be regulated by Congress. To wit, the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn.

In that case, Filburn was growing what the government at the time considered an "excess" amount of wheat, but doing so for his own personal consumption. In other words, the excess would have had no effect on interstate commerce. But in summary, the Court found unanimously that, because he would therefore purchase less wheat from others on the open market, his activities did, indeed, affect interstate commerce.

I don't believe Congress should have stuck its nose into commerce to that degree. The free market should be just that, free. In this same vein, I believe Congress has no business mandating every American citizen, by the mere fact that they're breathing, must buy insurance. I understand the argument that requiring insurance would save taxpayers from covering the medical care for those unable to pay for it, but let me present an alternative solution.

While I consider myself a Conservative, I do have Libertarian leanings. I'm a big fan of personal liberty, and the personal responsibility that must go along with it. For instance, take motorcycle helmet laws. When I was first dating my first husband, his only mode of transportation was a motorcycle, so I spent plenty of time on the back of it. I know how uncomfortable it can be to wear a helmet. I also know how hot it can be during the height of summer to be sitting astride a running engine. But I also knew what a wreck could mean if I wasn't wearing a helmet, and what would happen to my skin if we ever had the bike go down. With that in mind, we always wore our helmets, always wore long pants and closed-toe shoes with heels. It was just smarter that way. Helmet laws came into existence, at least partially, because the healthcare for a helmetless rider surviving a motorcycle accident could fall to the taxpayer via Medicaid or Medicare.

But rather than interfere with individuals' rights to wear or not wear a helmet, here's what should have been done instead: Pass a law that says if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and are injured, Medicaid will only pay for immediate first aid. End of story. We'll resuscitate you, stop bleeding, set broken bones, etc., but if you're severely brain damaged and need long-term assistance, the onus is on you to pay for it. You made the decision to ride without a helmet, knowing that increases the danger to you in an accident. You bear the responsibility for that decision. And this leads to my solution for healthcare in general.

I've heard liberals justify the need for Obamacare (Bob Beckel on Fox News Channel's The Five comes to mind) by asking who will pay for someone who becomes a quadriplegic after a ski accident. The argument is that Obamacare saves the taxpayer from paying for all those people who don't have insurance. I say the same thing should apply to these cases. If you choose not to pay for (or can't afford) health insurance, all you will receive on the taxpayers' dime is immediate first aid care. Now before you start screaming that I'm heartless, you need a history lesson.

Health insurance is a fairly new product. In 1929, a health plan was offered by Baylor University Hospital to teachers in Dallas, TX, covering 21 days of hospital care for a fixed price. Other hospitals jumped on the bandwagon, creating their own plans. Smaller community hospitals started to join forces to do the same. They eventually organized under the American Hospital Association and operated as Blue Cross, offering plans nationally. Blue Shield started in 1939, offering pre-paid plans for physicians' services from specific medical service bureaus. It wasn't until World War II and the age of wage controls that employer-sponsored health plans started to take off. Because employers where limited to what they were allowed to pay in wages by the federal government (again, government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong), employers found offering benefits like sick leave and health insurance enabled them to attract more employees. Medicare and Medicaid didn't come into being until 1965.

So how on Earth did people get healthcare prior to all this? Well, to be honest, many didn't. Those that did either paid for it directly, bartered for their care, or relied on charitable institutions for assistance. As insurance plans became the norm, many of these charitable organizations went by the wayside. (One well-known one that still operates was created in 1920 -- the Shriners Hospitals for Children). If we drastically alter how healthcare is paid for as I've suggested, I believe more charitable organizations will fill the void. As part of this overhaul, I'd improve the incentive for people to financially support such charitable organizations through tax deductions.

I know there will be those who scream I'm being heartless, but it's not my responsibility to provide you healthcare. And if you're asking the government to provide healthcare, you are, in essence, asking me as a taxpayer to pick up the tab. Medicaid is crippling state governments all across this nation and a good portion of this goes to long-term care. To survive, the reimbursement rates for Medicaid coverage keep dropping, leading more and more practitioners to cease accepting Medicaid patients. How is this good for the uninsured?

Let's touch on Medicare, too. We need to consider how we can fix it before it goes bankrupt. In the old days, the family took care of elderly relatives. These days with Medicare, we use the nursing home model. But unless you're paying for a quality nursing home yourself, the care your elder loved one receives may be truly horrible. Why don't we rejigger the system, so it pays the family to care for their loved one at home. It would be much more affordable and more compassionate for the senior as well. They would much rather be surrounded by family than an overworked, underpaid staff.

Sure it would be nice if all our healthcare were provided for free, but that simply isn't feasible. There's a reason why Canadians come to American for testing and surgery. There's a reason why dental care in the U.K. is so poor. There's a reason why the rich and powerful all over this planet come to the U.S. for healthcare. Our market-driven healthcare system provides incentives to develop newer and better treatment options. There are ways to bring down the cost of healthcare, and I believe changing the reliance on insurance is one way. By reducing the demand for healthcare (high when someone else is paying for it), the prices will come down.

All the above is designed to lower the price of health care by lowering the demand for health care. But there are other factors which drive up the price of health care as well. For example malpractice insurance premiums are artificially high because lawyers are on every corner, ready to sue doctors for malpractice. This causes doctors to practice "defensive medicine", ordering all sorts of expensive tests up front to ensure that they can't readily be sued for malpractice. The answer to this problem is tort reform, something Congress and state legislatures (composed mostly of lawyers) seem particularly reluctant to engage in.

But that's another story for another day....