I disagree. There is also nothing in the Constitution that states the Gov't cannot assure that every single individual has equal access to health care. I think it's part of the "happiness" factor in the constitution. To me , the Constitution is like the Bible, Koran, Talmud and so forth. They all have grey areas and beg for interpretation, though all should be taken as is, for their writers, I'm sure, did not want anyone to interpret them. Writers of such documents, and this to me is pretty much all of them, did not take evolution of time, its advancements in science, medicine, the arts, the customs, families, etc.<quoted text>
I have to disagree with you on this. There is nothing in the constitution, unless you twist its intent, for the Federal Government to interject itself in the private affairs of the individual and their relationship with their doctor. The constitution was intended to limit the federal government and it's roll in our private lives. It also is clear that the politicians are never to exempt themselves from the laws they bind the rest of us, making them a special elite class above the rest of us, and that all laws are supposed to be fairly and equally enforced on us all. Both of our parties have become quite comfortable thumbing their noses at that document, not to mention their reckless lack of budgeting to insure economic stability and growth. I know that you are likely to point to medicaid and medicare, and the need to care for the less fortunate in our society, and I agree we have a social obligation to meet those needs in some manner. The problem is they abandoned market principles and all common sense with the non solutions they force on us all. I really don't care what the rest of the world does with their socialism, but I care a great deal when it is forced on me and compromises all of our personal liberty.
The Constitution, therefore and to me, says nothing about health care, as it did not then exist, any more than it talks about TV, computers, and all that has been invented since then and impact on the citizens' rights. I think, for example, that for the president to be a U.S. citizen born in the US from US parents made sense in 1800. Not today, as there are no British infiltrators around. That was aimed at the Brits. Same for the 2nd Amendment. It mentions members belonging to a militia. Made eminent sense in the late 1700s. No more. And so forth, and that is why there have been amendments. How many to deal with the way things have evolved? Certainly not enough.
We remade our entire constitutin in 1982. 32 years ago. It's already out of date. Goes to show.