Founding Fathers Would Have Supported Government-Run Health Care Paid By Mandatory Ta

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by LilOlLady, Feb 2, 2011.

  1. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +761
    Founding Fathers Would Have Supported Government-Run Health Care Paid By Mandatory Tax
    Posted in Liberaland by Alan
    January 20, 2011

    Greg Sargent makes the case for the founding fathers support for government-run health care paid for by mandatory taxation. Rick Ungar at Forbes writes how the 1798 Congress passed, and President John Adams signed, “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” that created a government-run hospital system that required privately employed sailors to buy health insurance.

    Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

    And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

    History professor Adam Rothman at Georgetown agrees with the precedent.
    “It’s a good example that the post-revolutionary generation clearly thought that the national government had a role in subsidizing health care,” Rothman says. “That in itself is pretty remarkable and a strong refutation of the basic principles that some Tea Party types offer.”

    “You could argue that it’s precedent for government run health care,” Rothman continues. “This defies a lot of stereotypes about limited government in the early republic.”

    Founding Fathers Would Have Supported Government-Run Health Care Paid By Mandatory Tax Alan Colmes' Liberaland ... atory-tax/

    Healthcare/auto insurance is a service. Brocolli is a product.
     
  2. Anachronism
    Offline

    Anachronism BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Messages:
    2,655
    Thanks Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +231
    Assuming that interpretation is true, then this country is no better than the Soviet Union ever was, and therefore all humanity is nothing more than a virus on this planet which should be eradicated to the very last.
     
  3. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Mr. Colmes managed to gloss over some minor details in interpreting this bill which you can read in its original entirety here.

    http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/1StatL605.pdf

    Government collected a tax only from seaman to defray the cost of medical treatment for them. The taxes had to be used to within the district from which they were collected. IF there was an accumulations of SUPRLUS taxes, the President had the option of using the surplus to build a hospital and appoint a director to it who was NOT paid a salary and only compensated for any expenses incurred. I don't see why anyone thinks this is some amazing precedent for governmetn having the authority to take over heath care. It was taxed from Navy officers, to be used by Navy officers. It doesn't seem any different than VA hospitals of today.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2011
  4. grunt11b
    Offline

    grunt11b VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,649
    Thanks Received:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    In Reality
    Ratings:
    +501
    The founding fathers would not have supported it if it meant the tip of a roman spear in a citizens chest to make them pay for it. You are wrong. When I say this, I mean under the Obama care law, if you choose not to participate, the big bad IRS man will come take you away. No, our founders would not have supported this, they believed in maximum independence for every citizen without coercion from gubment. Take a history lesson from a teacher that is not a communist puke and you will find this out.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2011
  5. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    sorry.....no sale-


    snip-

    Today, the 1798 Act is viewed as the beginning of the creation of the U.S. Public Health Service.

    The Act is very strong precedent for the federal government imposing taxes and dedicating the tax revenue to medical care for the taxed class. Further, the government may provide the medical care directly, or may cooperate with private individuals for the providing of that care. The 1798 Act thus shows that Medicare, while vastly broader in scope than anything from the Early Republic, is generally consistent with constitutional practice of that period.

    The Act certainly did not order seamen to purchase any form of private insurance, nor did it order them to purchase any other type of private good. The Act is a solid precedent for federal involvement in health care, and no precedent at all for a federal mandate to purchase private products.

    The Volokh Conspiracy An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2011
  6. grunt11b
    Offline

    grunt11b VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,649
    Thanks Received:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    In Reality
    Ratings:
    +501
    Although you may be right, but they still did not have an individual mandate to force citizens into paying for it because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Also, incase you didn't notice yet, Obama said it was not a tax, until he figured out it would not fly unless it was, then he changed his mind to follow suite, little did he know that the commerce clause does not mandate that citizens buy a product from the government, so sorry Berry, all that college has gone to waste because you chose to follow the olinsky rule instead. you're wrong. Soon you will find this out.
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    is that why? on what do you base that assertion?n have you looked at the legislative history? have you any idea as to whether such a concept was suggested?
     
  8. grunt11b
    Offline

    grunt11b VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,649
    Thanks Received:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    In Reality
    Ratings:
    +501
    Yes, that is how I know, have you read the constitution and it's amendments latley? All I had to do was read the founding document, the constitution, and it's amendments since it was implemented and wallah!!!!! it's all written in black and white, believe it or not, have you read it lately? Or is it like cryptonite to your agenda?
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2011
  9. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    No where in that bill does it force individuals to buy health insurance. Your arguement falls apart for sooooo many reasons as are listed here >> http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2010/3/29/852042/-.html
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    reading the constitution without reading the caselaw means you know very little. you just *think* you know soemthing.

    no. i have to deal with caselaw on a daily basis and i find pretend constitutionalists amusing. do you understand what a common law system is? do you understand what constitutional construction is? tell me what a precedent is.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page