‘Health Care Reform Not Socialized Medicine’

To The Editor:
In his column of Sept. 8, Publisher Art Hall cites what he and other strict constructionists believe are the primary powers that the Constitution allows to the federal government: national defense and war; minting money; a postal system; regulation of trade between states; foreign policy; immigration; and a national court. At the same time, opponents of health care reform base their opposition on a similar reading of the Constitution, contending that the federal government is not empowered to be involved in health care.
I believe both Hall and health care reform opponents are overlooking a critically important power granted to the federal government by the Constitution. I am not a Constitutional expert, but it seems clear to me, upon examining the Constitution, that the federal government is in fact empowered to do the following: to secure the health and welfare of the American people.
The Constitution addresses such power in at least two places. The Preamble explains that one reason for creating the federal union was to “promote the general welfare.” It has been argued that the word “promote” limits the government to a role of encouragement or advocacy, that to interpret promotion of the general welfare in a broader sense constitutes “spin” on the language of the Constitution. The dictionary defines “promote” as “to help bring about or further the growth or establishment of.” Therefore it can also be argued that anything the government does to help bring about or further the growth or establishment of the general welfare, beyond a mere cheerleading role, is constitutionally authorized.
The second reference to such power, Article 1 Section 8, is more explicit. It reads, in part, “The Congress shall have power provide for the general Welfare of the United States.” There is no ambiguity here. Just as Article 1 Section 8 grants to Congress the power to declare war, it also grants to Congress the power to provide for the general welfare. And by any reasoning, the general welfare includes the health of the populace (as well as other concerns such as the education of the populace or the health of the environment). The corollary is also true: the healthier the population of the United States, the stronger we are as a country. This reality is especially crucial today as we battle terrorism. Resources lost to a wasteful and inefficient health care system are resources unavailable to fight terrorism.
Those who demand strict interpretation of the Constitution will point to the 10th Amendment, which states in essence that those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. But Article 1 Section 8 renders this amendment irrelevant with respect to health care.
Some opponents of health care reform contend that it is socialized medicine. According to Webster’s dictionary, socialized medicine is “Any system supplying complete medical and hospital care, through public funds, for all the people in a community, district, or nation.” The new law fails to meet that definition in any way. Under the law, health care is still supplied by the private sector; the federal government does not supply health care at all, and therefore it obviously does not supply it to “all the people”. Those who willy-nilly throw around terms like “socialism” and “socialized medicine” without knowing their real meaning need to educate themselves.
The success of health care reform can be debated. The constitutionality of the federal government’s active role in health, and the fact that health care reform is not socialized medicine, cannot be debated.