No matter how liberal your interpretation of the Constitution might be, there is no way anyone can reasonably argue that it guarantees the right of adequate health care.

If the Democrats insist on spending trillions of dollars on a drastically overhauled health care industry, they should first put their money where there mouth is and propose a constitutional amendment which DOES guarantee adequate health care to all U.S. citizens and legal residents.

This way, all 50 states will be able to meet and discuss the merits of said proposals.  If 2/3 of the states agree with what is being proposed, then the amendment will be ratified and all critics will be marginalized if not silenced.

It's the right thing to do.

On the one hand, it will forever guarantee the government's obligation to ensure that the nation's health care system is not gamed by deviant private businesses.  It will also put an end to the long standing question of whether or not all Americans have a RIGHT to adequate health care.

But even on a more practical level it should be noted that health care ultimately boils down to the individual and their health and well being.  This is not like social security.  Not even close.  If the federal government is truly serious about reforming health care for all Americans, should not these desires and actions be backed up in the Constitution?

Dear Senator Baucus,

I feel compelled to pass along a few words in light of your health care proposal which, among other things, compels every single American to purchase insurance or face significant penalties. This misguided proposal is disappointing for several reasons.

First, the segment of the population currently lacking health insurance is proportional to the segment that lacks the necessary income to afford it in the first place. Hence, struggling individuals or families would be unjustly coerced into re-allocating precious dollars away from essential elements such as food and shelter in an effort to satisfy the demands of this proposal. The tax credits and adjustments contained within the proposal may amount to a pseudo-reimbursement, but that is only on the back end and does not take into account the strife which would be thrust upon those who must first come up with the money at the outset.

Second, unlike the requirement on the part of all motorists to possess automobile insurance (in effect a contract in which each motorist agrees to purchase auto insurance in exchange for access to public roadways maintained through tax dollars), the federal government cannot guarantee or even know whether all participating individuals will ever require or seek applicable medical treatment or care.

Finally, the Constitution of the United States does NOT guarantee the right of quality health care to any citizen or legal resident of this country regardless of how one's political leanings cause him or her to interpret said document. Consequently, any attempt on the part of the federal government at Washington to browbeat the citizenry of this country into forced participation in this plan must be deemed unconstitutional. Indeed, if this proposal ever graduated to the president's desk for signature into law, would he not instantly recognize its legal shortcomings and acknowledge that at some point it must find its way to the Supreme Court for ultimate consideration and rejection?

In closing I would politely and respectfully request that you, Senator Max Baucus, take into account that your proposal fails to serve not only your own constituency in the great state of Montana, but also places an injurious burden on those portions of the population that can least afford to have yet more hard earned money ripped from their clutches under the threat of the political bowie knife. Common decency decries this coercion while the Constitution expressly prohibits it. As you are a valued member of the United States Senate, I implore you to simply do your job.

Very Respectfully Yours,

Christopher Virnig