The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute Many would argue that *Universal Healthcare* or Federally mandated healthcare is convered under the Equal protection clause which is it not see above. The clause is only intended for the equal application of LAWS among the poeple not to make everyone equal i.e. healh and financially. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " U.S. Const. amend. X. As a textual matter, therefore, the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941). By its terms, the Amendment does not purport to limit the commerce power or any other enumerated power of Congress. Legal Definition of Tenth Amendment Many have tried to say the 10th Amendment is also reason enough to provide for Nationalized Healthcare, however, this Amendment is quite clear, if such laws are NOT in the constitution they are reserved for the people or the states i.e you and me or the States. So we can make our own health contracts or the States or locals in which we live can provide them for us. A 3 Judge panel from the 9th Circuit recently head a case about Universal Health Care that requires employers to pay for those who canot proide health coverage for themselves. This is fully within the framework of the 10th Amendment as it is a local matter and Justice Kennedy was correct in not hearing the case as it it is reserved for the States or the people. The city expanded its health care program six weeks ago after winning a ruling from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. That court allowed city officials to require large and medium-size companies to provide insurance to their employees, at spending levels set by the city, or pay a fee to support care for the uninsured at 22 hospitals and clinics. Top U.S. court backs S.F. health care Another telling case decided by the Canadian Supreme Court which may eventually have telling implications as to what a looming court battle here might look like; The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down Quebec's ban on using private insurance for services covered under medicare. Four of the court's seven judges involved in the decision wrote that the ban was in violation of the province's Chart of Rights: "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care." "The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness." CTV.ca | Supreme Court strikes down Que. medicare law In Conclusion here our constitution and the eveidence is quite clear that if Americans desire Universal Healthcare coverage it is clearly a State and local matter and is not one reserved for the Fed. Govt. Further, One can see clearly in the Canadian example how such a system would clearly violate several clauses to the US Constitution and any such Law given Justices that are not there to set an agenda would be compelled to strike it down. Under the 8th Amendment as a result of Farmer V. Brennan the only group of Americans entitled to healthcare under the U.S. constitution are prisioners. a) Prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to provide humane conditions of confinement. They must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. However, a constitutional violation occurs only where the deprivation alleged is, objectively, "sufficiently serious," Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, and the official has acted with "deliberate indifference" to inmate health or safety. Pp. 5-7. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). So my suggestion to All my friends who wish mandated healthcare upon thier neighbors and wish them further to pay for it, I have a suggestion. Work within the framework of our form of Govt. and require a constitutional Amendment that 2/3rds of the states must ratify in order to become law.