Healthcare for everyone UnConstitutional? Which Constitution are you reading?

A lot of the hue and cry against the recent healthcare legislation is tied up in the claim that such legislation is unconstitutional. Personally, I am disappointed with the just passed legislation because I wish it had gone further and established National Health Care. One set of rules for the whole country. One insurer. One payer. Same set of rules from MA to CA. Call me a commie and a socialist (sticks n stones, etc) but that is what I believe is the only answer to the quagmire that is our current health care.
Back to the issue:  I only went to high school (but it was a good high school) and even I can find some stuff in the constitution that might speal directly to nationalized healthcare:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Hmmm - "form a more perfect union". We have the only developed union (i.e. country) that allows its people to go bankrupt caring for sick family members. The United States stands alone as the only developed nation that does NOT nationalize its health care. So all of the other teams are wrong and we have it right? How bloody arrogant. We can do better. In my opinion our union of states would be more perfect if the high cost of getting sick and/or well was something we addressed collectively as a nation with nationalized healthcare.

"insure domestic tranquility" - my life and the lives of many of my friends would be more tranquil if we didn't have to worry about life savings, nest eggs, and homes being lost to the battle of trying to pay for sick people. We like to jump all over this part ot justify the 663.8 BILLION dollar defense budget, but I would ask to apply the same kind of money to helping the sick recover without draining entire families of their life savings.
"promote general welfare" - jeez, don't have to take this one very far to justify national healthcare do we? One does not need to twist the rhetoric here IMHO. What is more general to welfare than being cared for when sick? Why do we have to fear the devastating FINANCIAL effects of disease/sickness in addition to the devastation of the disease/sickness itself? How bloody stupid to live in a country with some of the best health care on the planet and not use it to promote the general welfare in a serious way.
Guess it is all in how you wanna INTERPRET these words. Current interpretation says while it is okay to spend billions insuring domestic tranquility via billion dollar bombers that don't fly or bomb anything and $640 "military grade" toilets, it is NOT okay to spend that kind of money keeping people from dying and/or ease their suffering. In addition to being unconstitutional, that is arguably moronic and possibly immoral.
"Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
There is that pesky "general welfare" thing again. Why did the Founders put that kind of liberal, socialistic language in there if they didn't want us to act on it? So we can spend tax bucks on tanks and NOT spend them to learn about and defeat the ravages of cancer, AIDS, diabetes....(pick your killer of choice)? We can help military defense contractors like Blackwater/Xe roll in money and yet we worry about some one getting health care who can't pay for it? I cannot follow or buy into that line of thinking.
Personally I think it is unconstitutional to think that the Founders would want anything less than Nationalized Health Car
3 comments

Popular posts from this blog

Olive oil and lemon juice gallstone cleanse works!

The Kent County Youth Fair is Moving and I am PUMPED for Lowell.

A review of Terro ant bait vs Raid - Terro wins big time.