The Democratic National Convention has continued the implantation of the universal health care mantra in the consciousnesses of Americans. Those advocating such a construct are good-hearted, well meaning, compassionate people. I too wish the fear of physical pain and the anxiety of unscripted mortality could be abolished, or the expense of their avoidance apportioned equally between the beggar and the billionaire. What I question however, is if a legal constitutional formulation has been devised to translate this from a desirable benefit to an unalienable right. Is it the duty or within the power of our government, in its incarnated principles and enumerated powers, to give to everyone what it may be good for them to have? Yes, under the General Welfare Clause it has been determined that government has acted properly to build roads for the general benefit of society, and establish schools for universal education, and appropriate public funds for police and the military for mutual protection, among other things. I can see how universal health care could similarly be construed, by some, to be as public a benefit as any of the aforementioned, if it is ignored that none of them is a "right", an unlike universal health care, all have long pedigrees and precedent in the annals of human society, and all are subject in quantity and quality to changing fiscal realities. My concern is that making universal health care a "right", in our lust to satisfy our desire to assuage some of the unpleasantness of mortal life, by obscuring it with money from our increasingly delicate view, may cause us to conceive, in the passion of immature thought, an entity of cherubic visage later found to have a satyric appetite. It must be remembered the call for this program is not to address shortages in the convenient availability of care; it is only to shift the source of payment for this expensive commodity from private pockets to public coffers.

We must give due consideration, as well, to the methods used to attach the public will to this course of action. The leading proponents of this initiative always appeal to those most vulnerable instincts within us all by portraying the dire fate that awaits children if the measure is not passed. I will not dispute that children, being the most helpless and dependant members of our society must be given consideration requisite to their need of the attention to their prospects and requirements by those who might otherwise configure society solely to the advantage of strong, independent adults. But this appeal to passion must not override reason, as children are only being used as stalking horses to extend a benefit “universally”; which is different in intent and magnitude to other “social” programs such as Social Security and Medicare which were targeted at particular demographically limited segments of society, whose needs could be addressed by the fruit of their own past contribution or small portions of the surplus wealth of the nation; which is to say, that amount of the reward of labor that was conscripted for public charity rather than private use. And yet we presently find an inability to sustain these abovementioned programs by way of their current methods and sources of funding. Medicare, presumably a template for the contemplated plan, now requires its recipients to purchase with their own private funds, supplemental policies, of varying costs and quality, to gain access to those presumed necessities of modern medicine that the Medicare benefit doesn’t afford. In effect, those who contributed to the program over the course of a lifetime, by way of a payroll tax, must still purchase their own private coverage to get the rudiments of modern medical care. This state of affairs leads me to believe, that universal health care, in a nation with a nine trillion dollar debt, which must “borrow money from China to purchase oil from Saudi Arabia”, will be heavily dependent on a substantial, onerous general tax increase to fund the public program, together with private obligation for supplemental insurance to meet more than rudimentary or short term needs. This is what the appeal to the fate of children disguises. My objection is with the disguise. If the people desire and agree to this contribution to, and distribution of the commonwealth, upon due consideration of the fundamental change this will make in our economy and social philosophy, the transfer of socialistically collected dollars to the capitalist- for profit medical establishment, the effect it will have on disposable income, and the veto power it will give the central government over areas of life and lifestyle that had always been wholly under the purview of the individual, then let the people’s will be done. Just let the conversation be honest. Many people willing to spend a sentimental dollar for the care of orphaned wolf cubs would unhesitatingly shoot a grown wolf. The appeal to the fate of children is nothing more than a device “to stifle the ordinary diversity of opinion”.

I also question how this “right” will be brought into existence. In the past whenever a “universal” right was discovered or acceded, it was felt to require universal acknowledgement by way of a constitutional amendment. The Fifteenth and Nineteenth amendments extended the right of political enfranchisement. There was no guarantee of material support from the universal population of future generations. If such a right is now to be found and a commitment forged binding all present and future citizens, not only to a new political right but a new apportioned birthright entitlement to a commodity that is sold by vendors for profit or gain, paid for out of a common fund, and partaken of with need being the only criteria, it would seem fitting to have the popular consent to formally establish such a program under the General Welfare Clause: not only to firmly cement its meaning and elements in the body politic, but to delimit those components contained in the understanding of “ the general welfare” to specified and enumerated areas, to assure there is appropriate public discussion and assent in the future “whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government”. I think the size, scope and expense of what is being proposed, the shift from a traditional marketplace to a socialist presentation of an essential industry that touches each and every citizen, the conversion of vast private wealth to public use, and the concentration of more power over medical and individual decisions and lifestyles in the hands of the central government, is worthy of a public discussion of equal, possibly constitutional, dimension. This is about more than the temporary majority of a particular political party. This will determine the character of our social, commercial, and economic environment forever. We will be rewriting our views of the individual and the group, and rethinking if the former or latter gets first consideration. This is more than a question of subtleties. It is a fork in the road. Many will say the society already has made similar socialist bargains with, for example, defense contractors. Public dollars are paid to private corporations who in turn return dividends to their shareholders. How is this different from what is being proposed as universal health care, with various manufacturers and providers of medical technology substituting for the makers of weapons? First providing for the common defense is an enumerated duty in the constitution, and is broadly understood and accepted. Second, relations with defense manufacturers are contractual, and can be altered or terminated. And what constitutes “the mutual defense” is a constantly fluid political decision. If the body politic prefers a horse cavalry to a tank brigade, then public expenditures will change accordingly. But if universal health care is admitted, undefined, under “the general welfare” clause, what will it mean? Will it mean that all citizens will be guaranteed treatment only for those afflictions that are construed not to be subject to human volition, or does society have the same obligation to mediate those health annoyances charged to “lifestyle”? Will people have a ‘right’ to deliver one child, or more, with predetermined chronic afflictions if the public is providing for their care from the commonweal? Will the right to life be absolute or will an arbiter of the public monies impose pecuniary restrictions upon what today is the sole province of the mother? If water truly is the staff of life will dehydration treatment be provided for those whose water service has been terminated for nonpayment of their monthly utility bill? Or will potable water, the most essential component of physical well being, be a universal right as well, as it could possibly be prescribed as part of a medical regimen? Will there be a limit to the number of offspring any one man or woman can enlist on the public roll? Where does personal liberty end and public responsibility begin?

I have no socio-pathological desire to deny anyone the benefits of modern medicine or technology. I think universal health care would be wonderful to have, but I think we have to give deep consideration to what is good and what is wise. The experience of mankind and the example of some of our contemporary neighbors, particularly in Scandinavia, shows that generous gifts can produce ephemeral individual happiness but can also serve as a disincentive to long term societal wellbeing. This is not to say a formulation balancing personal responsibility and public cooperation cannot be arrived at if conscientiously pursued. But if only the exigencies of the moment and the tantalizing spin of a pseudo-utopian fix to eight hundred dollar MRI’s, and ten dollar per tablet Lipitor, and the specter of bankruptcy if accosted by a one week hospital stay, are used to fearfully truncate the consideration of any alternatives to the socialist model, it may denote the triumph of ideological dogmatism rather than a true intellectual and pragmatic approach to a problem so intertwined with the natural world, human mortality, the profit motive, the constitutional responsibility of the government to the people, and of constitutional citizens and private individuals to each other. There are many questions besides to whom the bill is sent. And the answers may not be in Washington D.C.