MuseFox.com

Mistaken Necessity

Whenever a politician campaigns for free health care, he always comes off as the one who takes the moral high ground, even if his intended plans are impractical. Regardless of whether or not national free health care is possible, it is definitely not morally correct, and anyone who campaigns for it is definitely not on solid moral ground. Such a deception does not so easily reveal, and appear immediately obvious to the average person just why making sure everyone is healthy is not moral. In short, health care has very real costs, and these costs can only come from private citizens who in reality have no desire to slave away at their jobs, only to have their rewards taken and redistributed to provide health care for the nation. To put it in perspective, if a thief came to someone’s house and robbed them, but told them that the proceeds would go towards paying his bills, would they not call the police? But it seems as if the government has the right to rob though they condemn the thiefs that would do the very same thing. In fact, this action would seem to contradict the very reason government was established for in the first place. Government was originally established to protect individuals against criminals, whether it be the British demanding undue taxes without representation, or common thieves. Ultimately, a politician strives to get himself re-elected. To do this, a politician will attempt to convince the general public to pass new measures that would ultimately gain him more votes. Such measures, as one can guess, are usually those that give services to the greatest number of people for free. What would get a politician reelected and what is constitutional, however, are not always the same. If one were to compare the original text of the constitution with the proposed health care bill one would find it unconstitutional. The entitlement to medical care and the means of its finance violate the constitution.

Nowhere in the constitution can one find the right to tax in order to secure healthcare for all. The only thing vague enough that could perhaps justify such taxes would be the necessary and proper clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause, however, does not apply to medical care. It gives the government the right to make “all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (Wikipedia.com). Although given this statements vagueness, the restrictions of the necessary and proper clause are so tight that even health care can not slip through. Medical care has nothing to do with the governments foregoing powers or any other powers in the constitution. In fact it is not even listed or hinted anywhere in the constitution. However politicians skew what is necessary for the betterment of society by being “very clever in spreading these benefits all across the economic spectrum so that nearly everyone has some stake in continuing the status quo,”(HawaiiReporter.com). Even so, these benefits do not please all, and some were better off before these benefits were distributed. Obama a day or so ago stated that persons making over $200,000 will be taxed an additional one percent to their existing medical care tax. This promotes inequality to those who work tediously to make money which is rightfully theirs and the government allocating peoples money to those who are less fortunate. In the tax bill in the constitution consisting of “section 8 [nowhere] does it give congress the power to tax people for betterment of others” (ConstitutionUS.com). America still lives with health care as an option and personal preference. Medical care is neither an enumerated or implied power. The only thought to be applied clause left is the commerce clause. However that does not apply, for the following reasons. The constitution defines this clause to give congress the right “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes,” (USConstitution). Health care is not commerce between states. Health care is an individual mandate which has nothing to do with that clause, and thus can not be applied. Also, because not buying health insurance is not commerce then the same can be proved vise versa. A majority of cases “similar to mandatory health care, are in favor of blocking the application of the commerce clause” (Ken Cuccinelli). Because such cases exist and are quite known it does not give 100% chance that health care would have been blocked, but it does indeed have a meaning. This meaning includes that as currently the health care bill goes once again with changes through Congress some democrats may finally see how much damage it would cost America and thus vote against it. The only power of the government left that is thought to apply to the constitution is the power to tax. The power to tax solely consists of the tax bill which is “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” (USConstitution). Government therefore has the power to tax only so it can continue to protect citizens from criminals, whether they be foreign countries or thieves, and ultimately protect their private property. This means that taxing to provide healthcare is actually a violation of the government’s power to tax.

Medical insurance is not a right, but is instead a luxury. Nowhere does the constitution grant an individual the right to medical care. Americans seems to believe they have “much entitlement in todays economy. However, currently Americans are entitled only to social security” (HawaiiReporter.com). Politicians are to blame for leading people to believe in endless entitlements. However this is all part of their plan, in which later after robbing people of all their money, all their so called rights in which they are entitled to will fade away. This cycle has spun for too long. People do not speak up because of the “mistaken belief that such collapse can never happen. “(HawaiiReporter.com). One day when the cycle does fail, probably through massive debt or a lack of incentive to work, even average Americans will see how these proposed rights from politicians are entirely fake and are indeed not rights guaranteed under the constitution. Because medical care is not an entitlement it thus then becomes a personal preference and consequently a luxury. All luxuries come at costs.

Even with current estimates and suppositions, “health care spending costs are bound to increase. Not only will this spending consume the government’s money but families and businesses too. This higher spending would increase our future national budget deficit already projected to total about $9 trillion over the next decade. New taxes will not entirely finance this new spending, however could be “exclusively” used to slowly pay down our deficit” (Newsweek.com).

How can this not be called a luxury, if its costs are so high that the government cannot fully finance it and will cause the rest of America to mainly pay for it? Medical care has been a personal preference for a long time. What causes it to somehow out of the blue become a right and an entitlement? The answer is quite clear; if the government and its politicians keep it up soon Americans will be entitled to everything and shortly after nothing.

The entitlement to Medical care is no where described in the constitution. The government has no business with individual mandate and preference. Since the time of the framing of the constitution, the issue of healthcare has never before been considered a necessity. The entitlement to medical care actually violates the premises on which the constitution was founded, mainly protection against criminals. Will the robbers eventually become the good guys? How can such morals of entitlement to health care be so skewed? In short, if medical care is constitutional than why is it that criminals are sitting in jail and the government is not?