Healthcare Unconstitutional

On of the arguments being made against the American health care reform is that it is an unconstitutional act by the Federal Government. It is argued that the Constitution does not explicitly grant the Federal Government authority over health care. It is true that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government authority over health care just as it does not give the Federal Government authority over a host of matters such as the transportation and telecommunication system or over employment and safety practices.

Hence, federal authority is non-existent to regulate regarding mine safety changes that have literally saved hundreds of lives a year, pollution of the water and air, the air transportation system and funding of roads. It also means that the federal government has overstepped its authority to set mandatory standards regarding automobile safety. I for one would not travel by air or even feel comfortable driving my vehicles above 30 mph without the assurance of Federal regulations and processes from air traffic control, aircraft maintenance, and safe automobiles.

We must remember that there is a distinction between that which is prohibited versus that which is not explicitly addressed. Involvement and regulation of health care is not prohibited the Constitution.

Advocates who argue that health care reform by the Federal Government is unconstitutional are by extension arguing against the Federal Government’s involvement legislating regarding the airwaves and Internet content. Many of these same advocates are calling for the Feds to put in place regulations to put further limits upon things such as pornography. Many of those who are using the unconstitutional argument also call upon the same government to outlaw abortions. If we accepted their unconstitutional argument then they are calling upon the government to do an unconstitutional act, albeit on a different issue, as the Constitution is silent on the pro-life vs pro-choice/abortion debate.

We must remember that the Constitution was penned in one age and in what the authors could envision happening in the future. No one has advocated that the authors of the Constitution were prophets or clairvoyants who foresaw a society far beyond their own. They could not foresee the abortion debate. Abortion was rare and very dangerous in the 18th century, so much so that it was known only to a small handful of people. They saw the world within the national and international political realities of the day and the technology that they could envision of the horizon. They knew of health care, but it was a crude undeveloped system. Hospitals were rare. People lived and died in their homes using home remedies. They did not foresee the modern transportation and telecommunication processes.

That said, they did understand that society and the world evolves. Hence, they empowered a process that encouraged debated and a process of designing laws and regulations to address new challenges. They designed a government that is called to be flexible and creative in addressing modern issues based upon the founding principles.

One of the other arguments that some grasp to argue against the current legislation is that it has passed because of add ons that were done to secure a person's votes. The American political system is not a Parliamentary system where legislation is focused and rarely includes special riders. From the beginning the American system is about trading of favors whereby one member of Congress will support another in return for his/her support for their proposals or for a rider to be included. Hence in the United States to gain a vote it is it not uncommon for a rider to a transportation bill to have a special grant for a company or public work in a particular district. What happened in getting the 60 Senate votes to prohibit a filibuster is such a common event that rare is a bill passed that does not have several riders, a good number of which have little to do with the particular bill.