The Legal and Political Justification for National Healthcare

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to eliminate the conflict between those states that had a commercial advantage as a result of their access to a major harbor, and the interior states that did not. That economic disparity was the source of many fights between individual states.

Health care currently takes up one-sixth of our economy. We are now seeing some states take action to guarantee their residents access to health care, while poorer states resist it. While health care is not limited to states that have major seaports, it is limited somewhat by wealth. Isn't it ironic that the wealthiest states -- which would have to pay higher taxes to provide health care -- are the bluest ones?

It is my assertion that health care, taking up such a large part of the U.S. economy, is too important to the unity of the country to be left to individual states. We cannot afford to have rich states with residents having guaranteed access to health care and poor ones where its residents do not.
Intro
You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to eliminate the conflict between those states that had a commercial advantage as a result of their access to a major harbor, and the interior states that did not. That economic disparity was the source of many fights between individual states. Health care currently takes up one-sixth of our economy. We are now seeing some states take action to guarantee their residents access to health care, while poorer states resist it. While health care is not limited to states that have major seaports, it is limited somewhat by wealth. Isn't it ironic that the wealthiest states -- which would have to pay higher taxes to provide health care -- are the bluest ones? It is my assertion that health care, taking up such a large part of the U.S. economy, is too important to the unity of the country to be left to individual states. We cannot afford to have rich states with residents having guaranteed access to health care and poor ones where its residents do not.

Now I realize that nowhere in the Constitution does it expressly state that every American has the right to access to health care. I am also aware that for the first 200+ years of our Republic that we have not had it. But it is also true that for much of our history, health care did not take up anywhere near one-sixth of our Gross Domestic Product.

I would suggest that access to health care today is just as important to our national unity as access to ports was back in 1789. It is for this reason that we need a national universal health care program now.

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party.

Some are arguing that we should accept some piecemeal plan because we don't have the votes to override a Republican Senatorial filibuster. I disagree. I don't think we have the time to wait. Health care takes up too much of the American economy to handle this piecemeal. The whole purpose of the Commerce Clause was to create a nationally integrated economy. It was designed to prevent "rich states" and "poor states."

I don't doubt that Bill Kristol's strategy will be employed by all Republicans. That just means that next year we will have to work harder than ever to gain the 60 votes needed to cut off the debate ("cloture"). In the meantime, we need to speak out and make this a national issue. This needs to our "Contract With America." Any Democrat running for any national office needs to promise that, when elected, they will support the creation of a national universal health care program. Fully 70% of the American public supports the idea. Probably even more will after seeing SiCKO.

Besides, even Bill Kristol says that it will "give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party." If national healthcare scares the Republicans that much, you know it has to be good.

Cross-posted to Daily Kos.