And in my case, since no one can actually force me to provide you with my services against my will, you will, in fact never, ever, have a right to my services as a physician.

I have come to the conclusion that the issue of regulation of health care and licensing of physicians is ultimately an important part in the debate.

 We can parse the constitution and the bill of rights forever, but we rank 37th in the world regarding healthcare.

If we aren't smart enough to understand the moral and practical elements of providing affordable healthcare and drugs to our citizens we will begin to become  irrelevant as a  result of capitalism gone beserk.  

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

the more i dwell upon it i'm utterly delighted by how they sneak "pursuit of" in there before happiness.  But that leads me to actually side somewhat with Salm on this.  

first of all let's break it down...  what's the goal?  a more perfect union.

basically when it comes to happiness, you have the right to pursue it but don't show up at Jefferson's door if you're not happy.  people can be unhappy in a more perfect union.

This leads me to believe that a brilliant distinction was made if only sub-consciously.  in contrast, if you are denied life or liberty then america is failed in it's goal to form a more perfect union.

I still think it's wrong to impose this current debate onto the constitution because I think the declaration of independence was written to address the possibility of foreign invaders from other countries.  it makes sense to me that they wrote "right to life" because they wanted to give people the reasonable expectation that if they were attacked and their lives were threatened by agents foriegn or domestic that government was formed with the primary objective of protecting them and preserving their right to life.

same with liberty for that matter.

i can't argue right to health care is in the constitution.  what I can say is I think Jefferson and the framers of our constitution would have a negative perspective about someone who believes all men are not created equal in the eyes of a health care system.

it doesn't say:  "... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the pursuit of Life, the pursuit of Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

it says what it says: " ....certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

in a more perfect union everyone would have the same access to life saving medicine.

The author traveled the globe to get to know the 4 or 5 major health cares in the world.  England, France, Germany, Japan, India, etc.  He also had his war injury looked at by each form.  The advice he got from each different country was very interesting.  From a complete shoulder replacement to learning how to live with a not so perfect shoulder.

Taiwan became a wealth country in 15 years.  They felt since they had become so well off it was an moral obligation to have health care for all.  Their were politicians very much against it but the overwhelming majority were for it so it was passed.

I did not know that the Canadian health care system was called Medicare.  Johnson borrowed the name for his program.

He claims the U.S. has all 4 or 5 major forms of health care and should have one public one.  The amount of money spent on the administration of the U.S. health care is enormous while most other countries use only 2 to 3 percent to adminster their program

1.  life.
   
2.  liberty.
   
3.  pursuit of happiness.

so here's my question.  was slavery unconstitutional??  apparently the people who wrote the constitution didn't think so.  so that's about as much as i value those "what did the framer's think?" debates.

Now we have a tool on the web that will count words in the constitution and related documents. I used it for some randomly selected words.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

One can't even worry about their healthcare if they can't feed themselves and find a place to sleep.

One need only go to work and pass a homeless person to figure out that our constitution doesn't garuntee food and shelter.

Why would it skip those essentials and move onto healthcare?

For the sake of arguement lets say it does garuntee healthcare.   What kind?  

However, the framers really weren't huge human rights proponents or many amendments would never have had to be written (slavery abolishment, etc).