Alex, I'll take Article V for 317 million please

Here's an idea: Article V of the US Constitution states,

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." [Emphasis mine]

Americans began amending the Constitution before its ink first dried, inscribing on that document in clear form and making sacrosanct certain rights of the people necessary for the preservation of a free society. The Framers who met in Philadelphia knew that they had drafted an imperfect document; a mechanism for its later perfection — if possible — was consciously included in the constitutional process. 

Limiting and clearly defining the power of a central government over the states and the people was a integral part of the discussion that took place over the summer of 1787. Debates on the proposed Philadelphia Constitution were widespread and heated. The science of polling wasn't anything like it is today, but it is safe to say the people of the various states were firmly divided on the issue of ratification.

The country today seems pretty divided on healthcare. Honest Democrats say we — all 317 million of us — need to be on a single-payer system, or at a minimum that the Federal Government should play a much larger role in healthcare, including expanding Medicare coverage. Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents — the other 60% of population — are not happy with that idea at all.

Is there a way forward? Yes. 

How about we petition our various legislatures to propose a Convention, of delegates chosen by the people of the fifty states, in the most democratic and representative manner possible, to decide the matter once and for all?

We could debate an amendment to the Constitution that would strictly forbid the Federal Government from interfering in the peoples' healthcare decisions. Care would have to be taken on its exact wording, of course, but that's what lawyers are for. For now, we'll call it simply the Healthcare Freedom Amendment.

Is this discussion too much to ask? What would be the result?

Leftists will howl that the matter is closed, and the debate is over. (They do love to make such declarations, don't they?) The Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, they'll say — the rest of us should sit down and shut up.

The trouble is, the Supreme Court is not the final authority. We, the People, are the final authority. That's precisely why an amendment process exists: to provide a legal avenue for popular, constitutional change. If the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, and We, the People, amend the constitution to say otherwise, that is the law of the land — black robes be damned.

It's far from certain how this debate will unfold. Politics is uncertain, at best.

If the amendment passed out of the Convention as proposed, it would become Congress's job to send it to the various state legislatures or State Conventions — depending on which "mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress". It would then be debated at the state level (which is certainly closer to where the debate belongs). Should three quarters of the states give it a thumbs-up, it becomes Amendment XXVIII. If not, we're no worse off than we are now.

One possibility is that "progressives" might hijack the Convention and pass a proposed amendment calling for a single-payer system. Great! Finally they would be exposed, their real intentions laid bare for all to see. Given the number of Americans unhappy even with Obamacare, it's safe to say they won't want anything at all to do with a fully socialist system. 

A lot of changes would certainly take place, should a Healthcare Freedom Amendment pass. Lawsuits would be filed challenging existing federal healthcare laws, and the Supreme Court would be legally bound to hear these cases and carefully determine if existing laws and agencies were consistent with, or in violation of, the new amendment. If the latter, then it's bye-bye time.

Getting the Federal Government out of the healthcare business would not create a free market — it would, however, create fifty separate laboratories in which different healthcare experiments could be tried. That isn't too much to ask, is it? We're constantly lectured about the "more enlightened" people of Europe and their socialized healthcare systems. But there isn't one system for all 740 million of them. As the Left steadily chips away at healthcare freedom, we should take bold steps to insure that we don't end up with one system for all 317 million of us.

Democrats can't be trusted with our healthcare, and Republicans can't be trusted to stop them. Maybe we should take our chances with Article V.