Saturday, June 25, 2005

Health Spending IS Defense Spending

Sometimes I hear the argument that the federal government should spend money on defense but not on health care. Since this notion seems to reside more predominatley in the young conservative sectors of our population, in which the desire for beer, whooping and hollering far outweighs the need for medicine, I assume it's self-interest that drives this consensus, but certainly, the fingers point to the Constitution to find validation.

Indeed, the Constitution strongly prescribes a military defense while making no mention of health care at all. I suppose that's all that can be seen by those who can only read the words but fail to embrace the soul of the Consitution. For those who think of the Constitution as more than a collection of words or a mere excuse for their own self-interests, there is more to look at.

First of all, there is the core of our doctrine upon which everything else revolves... Life, Liberty and the Pusuit of Happiness. Secondly, there is the time at which the Constitution was ratified... 1781, that's 224 years ago. The military was provisioned in the Constitution because it was the only weapon that our founding fathers had at their disposal to fight the only enemies of doctine that they understood. Since then, we have discovered how to fight more of these enemies, such as disease, which statistically, has always been a bigger threat to our doctrine, especially Life and the Pusuit of Happiness, than any foreign army has ever been.

Heath care was left out in 1781, because it didn't exist back then. The closest thing they had then was leeches and prayers. If the authors of the Consitution were alive today, I bet they would be drafting an amendment right now to include provisions for healthcare, because it serves the same purpose that the military does. To defend us from the enemies of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.