I am browsing in Go »
Add content

The Role of the Constitution in the Current Debate on National Health Care

It goes without saying that there is a momentum that has built up over the years that is now culminating in the pending implementation of some form of national health care. It appears we as a nation are going to succumb to an endless barrage of propaganda on how we are somehow "entitled" to some form of "free" medical care.

How does the Constitution speak to this subject? First of all, it is quite clear there is no specific enumeration of powers given to the federal government to be involved in health care. This is also true of such subjects as agriculture, energy policy, and education. For over one hundred years, the federal government abided by the Constitution and the people were protected from the dictates of the federal government in these areas.

As I have discussed in previous newsletters the founders were justifiably concerned that if power were allowed to re-accumulate in the federal government in non-enumerated areas, those with the most power would end up controlling policy. This would enable the powerful to command obedience from the people in ways that favored their particular interest group.

The FDA, for example, now functions as an arm of the pharmaceutical companies. Despite the fact that we the people are told that the FDA is there to protect our interests, evidence shows that officials ignore scientific findings about serious side effects of drugs they are asked to give their seal of approval. It is only after hundreds of thousands of people suffer extreme health problems and death that the FDA might intercede and "withdraw" their support for a particular drug.

The problem with a "national health care" system that is mandated on employers, self employed individuals, and private citizens, is that no one knows what "health care" will receive the seal of approval by the government bureaucrat. Do you believe for a minute that powerful interests will not be seeking to have their "preferred" medical treatments sanctioned for acceptance in this system, while also seeking to disallow their competitors? What if you were facing a serious medical problem and, after extensive research, wanted to employ an "alternative" solution to your problem? Would you be forced to pay into the system that the government says is legitimate, and also pay for the treatment you prefer?

We have seen a dramatic increase in the cost of medical services, AFTER the government became involved. Obviously, very few question invoices that are going to be paid by "insurance" or the "government." A true free market based on an informed and self-responsible citizenry would be vastly superior to any "government" mandated program.

These are many of the reasons why the founders (and the people) were adamant that the federal government should play no role in these most important areas of life. In future newsletters I will continue to discuss how the involvement of the federal government (against the prohibitions of the Constitution) have dramatically decreased the quality of life in America, all as predicted by the founders of our nation. I will also discuss how easily we could implement non-government ("bottom-up") solutions that would dramatically improve the lives of Americans, while saving us billions in tax dollars.

Post under:

comments: 0 so far

add your comment