I put to you a couple of questions. If a child was ill and the parents did not seek medical treatment would you say the parents neglected the child's welfare? If a court grants someone the responsibility of looking after the welfare of an aging parent wouldn't looking after that parent's health be part of the agreement?
I would say it depends on why the child is ill. If they are ill because I wouldn't let them stay up past bedtime, I don't think they will need medical attention, although they may think do at the time. As for aging adults, it would depend on whether they wanted my help with their "welfare" and what sort of reaction they had to my trying to help, but my first consideration is not going to be to help them regardless of whether they want or need my help. Our fundamental difference is, I believe everyone is an individual, and deserves the right to determine things on their own, as well as dealing with consequences of their actions. I believe it builds character to go through this, and often times, the "help" we perceive ourselves to be giving, is actually detrimental in helping people learn to deal with their problems in life.
When folks say health care was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution we have to remember the Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1789. What could the Founders have possibly written in the Constitution regarding health care at that time? What was health care in 1787?
People still got sick and had to miss work in 1787. There were still doctors taking care of the sick, and getting sick... missing work... was just as awful and undesirable as it is today, if not more so! Your employer didn't have anything called "sick days" where you could not work but still get paid... that didn't exist in 1787... if you failed to work, you didn't get paid, and you may not have a job when you came back. That's just how things were back then.
They did, however, write "promote the general welfare". Is it not reasonable to consider health as part of ones general welfare? When you're ill how do you feel? Does not or would not a serious illness interfere with your job and duties to your family? How can one secure and enjoy the blessings of liberty if they are ill? What is the point of being free, being able to freely move around the country seeking a better job or a better community in which to live if you are too ill to do so?
Again, people got ill all the time in 1787 America, people missed work and didn't get paid, had to find money from somewhere to pay the doctor when they were sick and needed a doc or surgery... People are no different then than today, same creatures... we still get sick, still need a doctor now and then... You've shown nothing to indicate this wouldn't have been something the Founding Fathers would have considered, as the "effects" are the same yesterday as today, if not worse back then! Yet... not a single utterance of anything regarding docs and sickness, anywhere in the entire Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers. The subject never came up... that is how far removed this is from what our Founders thought was a Constitutional "right" to be provided for by the Federal Government!
Denying a person medical care due to their lack of money is denying them liberty due to their lack of money. Does anyone honestly believe that's what the Founding Fathers intended?
People are denied liberty due to lack of money all the time! I would love to have the Liberty to fly to Las Vegas for the weekend, but I lack the money to do so! What did the Founding Fathers EVER say that made you think this was something they were advocating when they formed our nation? Can you possibly get any more insane?
While the Founding Fathers were wise men they were neither psychics nor seers. They could not specify what was unknown at the time.
When it comes to bearing a child one is incapable of looking after properly there are few comparable losses of liberty. In many cases it is a life sentence of poverty and struggle for both the woman and the child.
*SIGH* ...answered THAT question! YES, you can become MORE insane!
Do you honestly think women didn't have children in 1787? Do you believe it was EASIER to provide for a child and raise it in 1787? What exactly did our Founders not "see?" Was it that they didn't see a fucked up generation of retarded idiots like you, who think Government has a big pile of money to spend on whateverthefuck you dream up? Cuz, that's probably true! They probably never dreamed there would be such a pathetic and helpless bunch of nitwits, with enough political power to hijack the government and spend it into bankruptcy! They probably thought that Americans would always have the resolve and appreciation of freedom, as to be able to handle their own problems without the government holding their hand! Because, I am quite sure, if any of them had the slightest idea we would encounter fucktards who thought like Liberals, they would have been MUCH more specific in what the Government is NOT ALLOWED to do! I think they were pretty specific myself, and for most of history, the majority of people agreed with me, but all of a sudden, we see dunderhead morons like you, who think because it is not specifically forbidden for Government to do, by God we ought to do it... and bill the taxpayer! The Founding Fathers woulda wanted it that way!
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your right wing wet dreams about the history of the social programs that you mention. The bottom line is for YEARS you had anti-abortionist rail that they didn't want their tax dollars funding abortions in any way. See, not every abortion is done by privately funded clinics, hospitals and physicians....state funding is there, and subsequently federal funding filters through the states to said institutions (providing your State provides legal abortions). Last time I checked, people pay state AND federal taxes