You may have heard that Raul Labrador, member of Congress from Idaho, recently told a town hall that "Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care."
What these items tend to overlook, is that in that same town hall, Labrador says that the Constitution does not make access to medical services a guaranteed right. Add that thought, and his stance is at least internally consistent. Still toxic, but at least consistent, and understandable as a particular instance of a wider, equally toxic, theory of governance.
Access to astrologers and astrological services isn't a right guaranteed in the Constitution either. No one ever died from lack of astrological services. When the Constitution was written, the same could be said of medicine. In those days there were all sorts of different schools of medicine, each practicing a slightly different brand of quackery that differed from astrology only in this, that what astrologers did for you was much less likely to actively harm you.
But since that document was written, the world has changed. It is still true that no one ever dies from lack of astrological services. But it has become undeniably true that for many people, lack of adequate medical care will cost them their lives. And while there is no right to life guaranteed in the Constitution (though Labrador wants to amend the document to put in such a right for fetuses and embryos only) , life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are defined by the Declaration as basic human rights. And by giving Congress the power to pass laws to promote the general welfare, it also gave Congress the responsibility to do just that. What would promote the general welfare more than providing by law for universal, quality health care?
If there were cosmic justice in this wicked world, the Congressman from Idaho would only ever be allowed those medical services that were current at the time the Constitution was written. He argues that we should not, cannot, recognize any change in the world since 1789 as modifying what the Founders wrote. We are stuck with their wider world as it was in 1789 when we pass laws. We are not allowed to look around to a much changed world when we consider what laws are needed to promote the general welfare. Surely Labrador should be compelled to follow the logic he imposes on others with his votes in Congress.
But I don't wish to be wanting in charity and understanding for Labrador's point of view. In the spirit of original intentionalism and strict construction of the most advanced thinking of 1789, let me offer this medical appreciation of Labrador. He strikes me as being of an excessively sanguine character, and that is probably what led to his intemperate remarks about people not needing medical care as a basic right. Bring forth the leeches! Let the man have dozens of leeches applied to him until they have drained enough of that fiery humour that his opinions are cooled towards common sense and common decency.
And while we're at returning to the world of 1789, let me register my Hamiltonian horror that such a thing as Idaho is allowed to send representatives to Congress. And two Senators! I have searched the document from beginning to end, and I can find not a syllable requiring the US to suffer such a thing as statehood for Idaho. If the US is not allowed to do a thing unless the Constitution requires it, surely we were not allowed to admit Idaho to the Union. And, unlike providing medical care as a basic right, which would be a great benefit to our commonwealth and is thus perhaps allowed under the general welfare clause, letting Idaho send Labrador to Congress is a clear and present danger to our system of govt, and cannot be allowed because it works clean contrary to the general welfare of the United States.