Under the "general welfare" clause of the U.S. Constitution, is it possible that not having universal health care coverage in the United States is unconstitutional? I understand that the "general welfare" clause is part of the preamble and not in anyone of the articles or amendments, but does that make it any less legitimate?
I think it is a crime that the least of us doesn't have proper access to health care, especially preventative health care. Maybe its time to start using the cudgel of the "general welfare" clause to force states into properly funding their Medicaid obligations.
The preamble of the Constitution clearly states "promote the general welfare", not "provide".
ReplyDeleteqpidoug,
ReplyDeleteThen I posit this: Does not "promotion" of the "general welfare" also require the states to meet their obligations toward even the poorest?