Noncompulsory government health care

Government insurance of medical care promotes the general welfare and to establish domestic tranquility. Nothing like the fear of sickness and death to bring people to the streets in violence. No one says that the government has to administer it or give away freebies, but loosing or switching health care from sudden, massive unemployment is quite nerve-rackingly untranquil (if that is a word). Imagine a world where company benefits are paid in salary and medical care is administered directly by third-party health care companies who are barred by law against obtaining employment information. Imagine companies who are barred by law from learning about your health care plan, administrator, etc.

Obviously government sponsored/subsidized health care promotes the welfare of the wolves who find their lunches in the hands of the others (non-wolves or sheep, if you will). I strongly echo your argument. Government can promote the general welfare without the entitlements by increasing free market competition, benefit transparency and carry-over between jobs, and medical benefit privacy. Government must by the preamble promote the general welfare (i.e. of medical care and education) without slaves or inequality through forced labor or wealth distribution. I believe that Ricco intended as much, or else hopefully by our arguments now intends it. Such is my mission, anyhow, and it appears quite doable to me.