What does your emotive justifications and emotive judgments have to do with what is or is not covered under the Constitution?
Are you quite sure that isn't backwards? It absolutely can be covered under the constitution.
I'm not discussing whether it can be added or not, (added because no matter which Amendment you or politicians and lawyers try to spin it doesn't currently exist), I'm discussing what is there without personal judgment.
I don't need an amendment for it. It can be done within the constitution.
Dear
Disir
A. if you are talking about the duty to promote the general welfare
1. the arguments for general welfare and commerce clause already failed when attempted to use these for ACA
2. what passed the SCOTUS was arguing as a tax bill,
but if you notice, ACA was not passed through Congress as a tax bill but as a public health bill.
so it never passed Constitutional procedures through both legislative (and executive) and judicial.
it was actually a DIFFERENT reading and/or revision of the bill
a. the public health bill version passed through Congress and presumably would have FAILED had it been presented as a tax bill
b. the version passed and approved by SCOTUS was revising it as a TAX bill that was argued as abuse of judicial power to overreach into legislative this way
B. since half the nation believes in STATES RIGHTS and also right of the people to free market
you would have to pass an Amendment authorizing Federal Govt to manage regulate or mandate health care
This step was skipped when Obama and Congress passed ACA and that's why it is contested to this day as Unconstitutional and violation of states' rights.
Two other Constitutional arguments being made
1. passing a law such as ACA mandates *without citizens consent* basically DEPRIVES
law abiding citizens of liberty without due process to prove they have committed any crime
2. requiring labor or income to pay for costs or services of health care
*without citizens consent* would essentially constitute "involuntary servitude"
so both of these arguments require *CONSENT of the taxpaying citizens*, ie
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, in order not to violate other
existing Constitutional rights and principles.
C. Now some people believe that Statists who believe in using Govt to establish beliefs
such as "right to health care" by just making and passing laws by majority rule
DO have this right to make and pass such laws, REGARDLESS of other people's Constitutional beliefs in LIMITS on federal govt that otherwise require a Constitutional Amendment to change
I don't believe that is Constitutional, to impose one political belief over the other.
As a Constitutionalist myself, I treat political beliefs equally as religious beliefs,
and these should require a Consensus on law and process so there is no imposition
of one creed abusing govt to dominate, impose, exclude or discriminate against another.
Others argue with me, saying the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not
apply to political beliefs. I say that is discrimination to treat religious beliefs
differently from secular, political or other personal beliefs. To me these are
inherent as part of people's spiritual identity, and should be respected regardless
if these are expressed using religious political or secular terms.
So this is how I treat "the right to health care"
as a political belief covered Equally by the First Amendment,
where govt can neither establish nor prohibit the exercise of this belief.
If people agree to a political process, that's fine,
but that means including ALL OTHER "political beliefs"
including states' rights and "due process of laws before
depriving citizens of liberty"
You cannot simply pass a law that deprives citizens of free choice
in a matter when they have committed no crime, or it's violating
other Constitutional laws and principles. 
