Is universal health insurance constitutional?

If the government cannot proscribe -- or even "unduly burden," to use another of the Supreme Court's analytical frameworks -- access to abortion, how can it proscribe access to other medical procedures, including transplants, corrective or restorative surgeries, chemotherapy treatments, or a myriad of other health services that individuals may need or desire?

This question about whether the government's role in deciding who gets which medical treatment is constitutional is the subject of this interesting essay in this mornings Wall Street Journal. Read it here.