(originally posted to: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=252970315161 )
A friend on my facebook list posted a valid comment about the nature of lack of health care to his facebook status the other day. I say the comment is valid as it expressed fundemental truths any of us could agree with such as “no one should die because they can’t afford health care” and “no one should go broke because they had to seek health care”.
I commented on it because, although I can agree with the sentiments, I think the reason he posted it and the lack of further details was suggestive as to what to do about it. My main comment being, ‘good sentiment but that does not pre-suppose that government needs to (or should) try to fix it’
This of course spawned a long debate, but one particular topic came up in the debate that reminded me of something. I of course continued to challenge the notion that it was ‘government’s job’ to provide ‘services’ and ‘benefits’ to people such as health care. I also pointed to the Constitution and asked “where in there does it say they should?”
One of the responses came back that the current health care plan would essentially ‘pass supreme court scrutiny’. My immediate reply was that at one point in our history the notion that one man could own another man as a slave once passed as law and underwent supreme court scrutiny – but that does not make it ‘right’.
This notion has stuck in my brain and has caused me to reflect on a great many prior ‘social’ programs dating all the way back before FDR and to the present. Items that I personally think are not only outside the role of government, but outside the specific roles as defined in the Constitution itself.
So thank you for reminding me that, just because Washington has passed it, the supreme court has examined it and the courts and their policing agencies enforce it, does not mean it’s “right” and does not mean that sooner or later, the country still has a chance to come to it’s senses and reverse it.