As for the “general welfare” clause, James Madison wrote, and I tend to agree:

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

As a nation we have allowed those who would promise a minimum standard for the masses to give them exactly the minimum, no more and no less. But those chains of restraint also prevent them from achieving their full potential.

Do you honestly believe that, if government were not involved in health care, people would be allowed to suffer if they had a legitimate need and asked for help? I think that because the government is so heavily involved but does things in practically the least cost-effective way that the poor actually suffer worse than they did before.

As another anonymous wit has said, “if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.” I’m not sure if the expense is greater in monrtary terms or with regard to our liberty.

Regarding the Constitution you write, “. . . I can’t find anywhere in the document where it says health care is a right.”

How about that whole “promote the general welfare” clause?