« An Open Letter To Max Baucus | Gettysburg's Blog | No Surprise: Government Coerced B of A to Acquire Merrill »
Constitutional Amendment Before Health Care Reform
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?
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?
Advertisement
I think your premise is slightly misconstrued.
First: health care cannot be a "right" from the common sense point of view, because health care is not a single phenomenon, like either right to life or right to vote, but rather a collection of specific services and products. There were plenty of discussions on this topic at TPM.
Second: having said that, there is NOTHING to stop the American people collectively to reserve the right to a "minimum standard of living and well-being", inasmuch as it relates to health care, minimum level of education, etc. That would be in line with the UN declaration on human rights, in line with the constitutional principle of reservation of any rights the American people may pick in the future, etc.
Third: provided such right applies to all citizens equally and without any exception whatsoever, there will not be a need for any constitutional amendment. The Constitution does not require to spell out and enumerate the rights on a piece of paper. A statement to that effect in any appropriate law would be enough.
Fourth: none of the above would obligate the Government to "PROVIDE A SERVICE" directly. It would only obligate the Government to ensure such right is not violated (think of it as oversight of standards).
In conclusion: it wouldn't really do much in the context of the current reform debate if all of the above were implemented, except make it easier to stop patient dumping by health insurance companies and other such things. Because for all intents and purposes, we already de-facto assume we have a formal right of that kind and that's the reason the 30 million uninsured are a real problem.
September 10, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
And just to add one more point:
I think the issue of whether or not health care is a right is used somewhat disingeniously by both sides to argue about the "method" of reform.
The same aim can be achieved with or without government providing a direct services, such as an insurance plan - as Obama himself said yesterday.
My personal opinion is that it would be better for individual liberty if we continue to limit the role of the government in our lives as much as possible; and that we can achieve the same aims without the public option and without coops.
At the same time, however, I support universal mandate, because it has equal impact on every individual without exceptions.
And I think a strong and compelling argument can be made that it is to the benefit of every individual to live in a society where nobody encounters health care that's below a certain level or that's out of reach.
September 10, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me add to Lalo's concise response Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the right to legislate. And then there is section 8 of said article.
( emphasis added )
Taking care of the financial burden that healthcare creates in these United States, both on the US and the individual I would say falls under the general welfare clause.
September 10, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
As citizens have the RIGHT to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you're wrong. It's as simple as that. How can you pursue life, liberty and happiness when you're sick? I'm sorry, your premise holds no water.
September 10, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitutional Amendment is exactly what is needed to rectify the fundamental flaw in the current system. This is a moral issue that can only be addressed with a single payer solution. There is NO REASON 44,000 people die a year* for lack of health coverage! A Constitutional Amendment that in clear decisive language establishes a single payer system to ensure the protection of our constitutional right to life. Furthermore, this amendment should be proposed utilizing the constitutional convention method called for by 2/3rds of the state legislatures (Art V). This is how we the people can take back our country from the corruption in our republic caused by corporate greed. We need 33 state legislatures to propose this amendment be added to the Constitution. Let us take democracy into our own hands.
*http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
October 9, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink