You're all hot to point out that the Constitution requires the government to provide for the common defense. But you seem to want to gloss right over the promote the general welfare part. Why is that, do you suppose?
See my other post in this thread about the General Welfare clause.
You have to take that as it was meant when written...it means more of the welfare of the UNION of the states, and the ability of the Feds to lay taxation for that purpose. Defense is enumerated and the general welfare of the union was in large part for enumerated limited federal responsibilities for such things.
The union was to be kept strong, and then the states could then be responsible for the citizens in each state. If the states want to do healthcare, etc...sure feel free to do it.
But it doesn't mean "welfare" in the same way that people in this century try to translate it.
he ACA didn't give health care to anyone. It required the freeloaders who weren't buying insurance and driving the rest of our rates up to be adults and finally buy insurance. Maybe you didn't like the subsidies that the poor got, is that what your gripe was? Let me ask you, do you call yourself a Christian? Ask yourself, would Jesus have helped the poor? Should he have helped the poor? Would he have wanted you to help the poor? Is there a reason you don't think the poor should get help with buying the insurance they need? And want to buy?
There already is a safety net for the poor....Medicaid.
But for everyone else, I think we should all have more free HSA type pre-tax savings accounts for routine health needs, not tied to any insurance. If families budget for food, why not budget for routine health needs? Insurance should only be for catastrophic emergencies (hit by a bus, etc).
If this were the case, people would once again shop around for medicine and drs....like they did 40 years ago and prices would be lower.