A response to the Tuesday letter “Lots of stuff we can mandate” is a necessity. I am growing weary of the “experts” who misuse the Constitution and its contents. First, this is not 1787.
Life has changed. There was no health insurance issue at that time.
Another simple fact is what the Constitution covers in its opening statement: “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure 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 the Constitution for the United States of America.”
Insuring and demanding health care coverage for all citizens of the United States is promoting the general welfare of its citizens. I would add to that health care bill (which is not likely) that if an individual deems this demand is against his/her rights he may choose not to purchase health care insurance. That individual would also not be eligible for any coverage for costs incurred should a serious illness or accident occur, or specialized medical assistance be necessary.
Any debt incurred would not be carried by the taxpayers, which is basically what happens now, and that would also include any members of his/her family. That would be a harsh reality and I do not think that is the intent of the health care bill or any element of the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States is a document in flux. Otherwise there would not be 27 amendments to the contents. The letter writer needs to take notice of the gravity of the situation regarding health care in the United States. It is part of the general welfare of its citizens.
Lee Walmsley
Oak Harbor
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
