Let me start out by thanking our listeners for tuning in and participating in this very important public debate about health care.

After the program last week, I spent a great deal of time thinking about the listeners that called in on the subject of health insurance coverage. Fortunately, it was three to one for the creation and passage of a program that must cover all Americans. One of the most compelling of commentaries was from a young woman who was on her way to work on Saturday morning. She was a single mom who very eloquently stated that all she wanted was simple insurance coverage and not a handout. She in my opinion is a true American.

Many times I’ve ask for all of us, especially our elected officials, to consider and contemplate in greater depth the question: what kind of America do we want to end up with, an America that includes or occludes people? Only after answering this question can we install the institutions necessary to get us to continue the process of creating a uniquely American experience that must contain a healthcare system for all.

When we evaluate current events in contrast to historic ones it becomes clear that in the past we had individuals moving this country forward who were more concerned about the creation of environmental conditions that benefitted the greater good rather than personal enrichment and self-aggrandizement. We also need to admit that what and who got us to where we are in recent history is not going to get us to where we need to go. It cannot be the same approach nor will, or can, it be the same composition of individuals. As someone once said, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is the true definition of insanity.”

There were two things that I think came through loud and clear in last weeks broadcast. One, we don’t think that our elected representative can do the job - essentially a vote of no confidence was cast.  Two, we need an insurance program but we don’t want the government, our currently elected officials to run it.

If we just focus on the insurance issue alone, without contemplating the bigger picture, the question of whether or not to provide insurance on a national scale simply comes down to our own personal disposition and sense of empathy. This then begs the question, "Are we sufficiently empathetic to give more of what we have to others so that they too can enjoy the security of being insured against the devastating aftermath of an illness that can leave them penniless?"

By extension, the passage of any insurance program that would benefit others, less fortunate, would depend on the percentage of individuals on a national scale and their sufficiency of empathy. Additionally, we would have to consider the representation and interpretation by their elected representatives in Washington.

But, this is not just about being empathetic and philanthropic. It’s about the greater good of the nation. If the rich want to keep getting richer they need to give us a reason to keep working for them by giving us a piece of the proverbial pie.

Most of us want to work to get a piece of the American Dream. That dream must contain a better than average chance that hard work will leave you with something that you can either take to the bank or give to your children. What we don’t want to experience are the nightmares that so many experience. Even though they work hard, they either spend their earnings on insurance premiums or in the bankruptcy court.

Here is the big picture and it is only one sentence long:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That’s it, after that there are seven “how to” Articles, including their respective sections, and twenty-seven Amendments to support that one sentence.

You will notice that “People” is capitalized, suggesting that everyone, not just the privileged and powerful, the “haves vs. the have-nots”, have access to the promise of the Constitution. Then it goes on to establish a progression when it capitalizes “Order” in the establishment of a Union. That order is as follows:

1.)  Establish Justice.
2.)  Insure domestic Tranquility.
3.)  Provide for the common defense.
4.)  Promote the general Welfare.
5.)  Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

It closes by stating the reason for which the constitution was established, and that is for the United States of America, not individuals, but the aggregate of our society.

In my opinion, health, like our basic protection against the devastating effects of fire and violence (as does general education for the betterment of our society), falls under the same heading of coverage under “general Welfare” and should not be subject to racketeering practices.

Let’s analyze that on an elementary level and in more detail. If you have a fire, the fire department extinguishes the fire and leaves. After that you have several choices, depending on the severity of property damage. You can repair the portion of the property that was damaged, provided you have the skills and the money for the materials necessary, you can sell the property and relocate, or, if you purchased insurance, the insurance company will then give you the amount for which you are insured. Everyone shares in the initial cost through a publically funded fire department of providing for the common defense of a devastating event and in the promotion of the “general Welfare” of “the People” and the right to “Justice” if someone maliciously caused the fire.

Let’s take the case of a burglary or some other perpetration against our person. Again, depending on the severity of the damage that was done, the perpetrator is arrested or pursued to be brought to justice. Similarly, you can replace stolen or vandalized items if you have the money and the skills, or, if you purchased insurance, the insurance company will reimburse you up to the amount for which you are insured. Therefore, everyone shares through a publically funded police department in the initial cost of providing for the “common defense” of the initial devastating event and in the promotion of the “general Welfare” of “the People” and the right to “Justice.”

What about in the case of an illness? Here we are differentiated and discriminated against depending on our income. If you’re employed and your income precludes you from purchasing health insurance, or your employer can’t afford or elects not to provide health insurance, you’re out of resources. Additionally, if certain income guidelines are not met then you’re not eligible for free-care or state sponsored income appropriate Medicaid Programs.

Neither of the initial two scenarios is predicated upon our income, in both cases there is primary protection offered by the state and federal governments and subsequently personal responsibility is assumed for anything outside of the basic tenant of the institutions.

Therefore, they are not discriminatory and protect the “general Welfare” of “the People”. What is missing in the case of health care is the base of a protective element of an institution that instigates the initial “common defense” and the promotion of the “general Welfare”. For that purpose there must be brought into existence a state and/or national institution that mitigates the initial impact that an accident, illness, or any other series of chronic diseases place upon the individual and/or his/her family. Subsequently, the individual can, depending on their financial position, elect to have additional services that would be available through supplemental insurance programs, such as cosmetic or elective surgery.

Therefore, the “Institution of Health Care” must be created for the same purpose and reason that the institutions for education, police protection, fire protection as well as public health and national defense were established. They are all fundamental to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” of a “People” that came together some 220 years ago to form a “perfect Union”, which has since been seriously interrupted.

As set forth in the Constitution, it is the responsibility of our elected officials in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to stop the predatory practices of special interest groups upon those that have encountered the unfortunate circumstances of ill health or chronic illness. This is the time to set personal gains aside for the greater good of “the People of the United States”.

This is also the time to show the world that we’re intent to set a new direction just as the American people have done so many times before, be it the new direction that this country took with the abolition of slavery or the granting of civil rights and women’s rights. In retrospect we now recognize that these were all fundamental rights to begin with, as is the right to have access to health care, regardless of our socioeconomic status.

This is simply one more new beginning that will allow this nation to gain access to a higher plateau upon which we truly recognizes the equality of all Americans.