UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE AND CONSTITUTIONALITY. What's worrisome these days is that Scalia can compare offering universal health care coverage to all as forcing people to buy broccoli, as if health and welfare were not constitutional concerns, and could be blamed on the eating habits of people. The costitution is our guarantee to welfare, and what should be questioned is why universal health care has not been a reality, much like education. What's even more worrisome is that there are unrealistically low income levels determinining whether someone qualifies for Medicaid, which, when the costs of health care are taken into consideration, is also discriminatory, by turning a blind eye to economic realities in the twentyfirst century. Scalia's comments, along with Ginsberg's, about "us" having to pay for those who aren't covered by health insurance are calloused reminders of how, even within the court, there is an erosion of constitutional right guarantees extended to a vulnerable class of people, those economically disadvantaged. Not protecting them is not a matter of opinion, it's a constitutional violation. The individual mandate is anticonstitutional because it expects people who can't afford to pay for health insurance to do so; for the law to be constitutional all it would take is to insure that those who cannot afford the payments are assisted by the government, including small businesses which could not afford to cover their staff. People who refuse coverage out of conviction and not financial necessity should be fined, much like those who don't pay their income taxes are fined.And discriminating against preexisting conditions can be equiparated to a death sentence, which, much like the rest of this, is outrageous enough.