Senator Grassley (Repugnant from Iowa) has suggested that requiring citizens of the United States to buy health insurance (a key piece of the Baucus bill now being debated in Washington) could be a violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
But there's another part of the Constitution that could be used to argue that the government of the United States has an obligation to provide at least cursory health insurance to its citizens.
Join me below the fold.
So what's Grassley talking about? Well, the Tenth Amendment says this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Basically, this sets the boundary between federal law and the laws of individual states. Grassley is suggesting that the federal government cannot force any of its citizens to buy a commercial product. But the states can: we all have to buy auto insurance, don't we?
Grassley might have a point...albeit one not likely to lead anywhere. The Supreme Court has only twice declared laws unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment. The fact is, the Tenth Amendment is obscure, and many legal scholars believe it's vague and unclear. (Read all about it here.) Thus it's unlikely that the Supreme Court would rule similarly on any such healthcare reform act, simply because having health insurance (like having auto insurance) is inarguably a good idea.
But Grassley citing an obscure Amendment to the Constitution got me to thinking about another part of the Constitution. It's a part most of us had to memorize in elementary school. It's the part that lays out the ideals, goals and aspirations of our Founders: The Preamble.
The Preamble To the Constitution of the United States:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Granted, the Preamble to the Constitution is a mere introduction. It does not assign official powers to the federal government. But it does clearly reflect the intentions of the Founders.
Let's break it down:
Establish Justice: to create a legal system whereby citizens can have fair access to the law.
Ensure domestic Tranquility: to create a system of laws and a police/judicial force to uphold them.
Provide for the common defence: to create a military to defend our country when necessary.
Promote the general Welfare: this is the crux of my argument here. What do you suppose the Founders meant by "promoting the general welfare"?
Maybe some word definitions would help:
General (adj.) 1. of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category; 2. of, pertaining to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual; 3. not limited to one class, field, product, service, etc.
Welfare (n.) 1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being; the physical or moral condition of society.
It seems fairly obvious that the Founders were intending for the government to take care of its citizens. Now, in the 21st Century, we may interpret this to include not just protection from injustice, not just protection from outside attack, but also protection from natural or biological dangers. The federal government already helps its citizens after a natural disaster. Why? Because it has a duty to promote the general welfare. So why shouldn't the federal government also provide protection against biological dangers?
After all, isn't that what "health care" really is?