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

[LilOlLady]

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.

 

[Anachronism]

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.

 

[Bern80]

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.

 

[grunt11b]

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.

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.

 

[Trajan]

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

 

[grunt11b]

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

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

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?

 

[grunt11b]

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.

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?

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?

 

[Publius1787]

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.

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

 

[jillian]

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.

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?

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?

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.

 

[Flopper]

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.

I doubt that the founding fathers would have supported government run healthcare in 1700's, not because they were concerned with socialism but rather healthcare was not consider the necessity it is today. Doctors could set a broken leg, give you a tonic for your cough, or a pain reliever, but if you had heart disease, cancer, or most any of the really serious diseases you would die with or without a doctor.

However, I think if our forefathers were able to understand life as it is today and the importance of healthcare, they might have included healthcare in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Flopper]

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.

I doubt that the founding fathers would have supported government run healthcare in 1700's, not because they were concerned with socialism but rather healthcare was not consider the necessity it is today. Doctors could set a broken leg, give you a tonic for your cough, or a pain reliever, but if you had heart disease, cancer, or most any of the really serious diseases you would die with or without a doctor.

However, I think if our forefathers were able to understand life as it is today and the importance of healthcare, they might have included healthcare in the Bill of Rights.

 

[grunt11b]

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?

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?

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.

What case law are you talking about, so I know how to defend my argument?

 

[grunt11b]

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?

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?

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.

Let's be straight here, even Obama was a constitutional scholar and he apparently still has no damn clue about it, please, tell us where you have studied and what case law you are talking about. Because we will back facts up to beat your liberal pretend bob the builder argument all day long.

 

[jillian]

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?

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.

Let's be straight here, even Obama was a constitutional scholar and he apparently still has no damn clue about it, please, tell us where you have studied and what case law you are talking about. Because we will back facts up to beat your liberal pretend bob the builder argument all day long.

the president taught con law. did you?

i asked you first...

who's we? you have a mouse in your pocket? i asked a simple question. on what do you base your assertion. i do not have to disprove it. you have to prove it. maybe that didn't work on your old rightwingnut board, but it's how things work here.

 

[grunt11b]

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.

Let's be straight here, even Obama was a constitutional scholar and he apparently still has no damn clue about it, please, tell us where you have studied and what case law you are talking about. Because we will back facts up to beat your liberal pretend bob the builder argument all day long.

the president taught con law. did you?

i asked you first...

who's we? you have a mouse in your pocket? i asked a simple question. on what do you base your assertion. i do not have to disprove it. you have to prove it. maybe that didn't work on your old rightwingnut board, but it's how things work here.

It took me 15 minutes to read the constitution, and trust me, free healthcare nor the right to healthcare was not in it. You could have a doctorate in constitutional law, and still not provide one fact of evidence that anyone in this country is entitled to healthcare, sorry, you are wrong. Unless you wanna put out the case law backing up your socialist agenda, you should shut your pie hole. I provided my backup, it happens to be the founding document and the law of the land, now what do you have to back your OPINION up with under case law? And dont try to go the commerce clause route, because that is a dead end for you, trust me.
You should start speaking with facts, not assumptions or what you have been told to talk about by you handlers.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

There is Almost no evidence at all to support that claim, and a whole Bunch of Evidence debunking it. The quotes in my sig being just a tiny sampling of it.

Stop Focusing on only those few things that support your ridicules claim and look at the whole picture.


I mean you are so far off it is not even funny. Not only can you not prove they would have supported Government ran Health Care. Your Claim about them Supporting a Tax is a Joke as well. The Founders did not support the idea of Taxing the People at all. The Government was meant to raise funds by Tariffs and Duties only. You are so far off base you appear almost out of your mind claiming the Founders would have supported any Mandatory Tax. WTF do you think we fought the Revolution over. The IRS, and Pay roll Taxes are not even constitutional. Oh I know they have never been declared so, but that does not change the fact that the Constitution clearly did not give the Fed the Power to Tax peoples Income.

My god, if this is the State of how educated people are on our History today. This war to defend Constitutional Government is lost.

 

[Bern80]

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

There is Almost no evidence at all to support that claim, and a whole Bunch of Evidence debunking it. The quotes in my sig being just a tiny sampling of it.

Stop Focusing on only those few things that support your ridicules claim and look at the whole picture.


I mean you are so far off it is not even funny. Not only can you not prove they would have supported Government ran Health Care. Your Claim about them Supporting a Tax is a Joke as well. The Founders did not support the idea of Taxing the People at all. The Government was meant to raise funds by Tariffs and Duties only. You are so far off base you appear almost out of your mind claiming the Founders would have supported any Mandatory Tax. WTF do you think we fought the Revolution over. The IRS, and Pay roll Taxes are not even constitutional. Oh I know they have never been declared so, but that does not change the fact that the Constitution clearly did not give the Fed the Power to Tax peoples Income.

My god, if this is the State of how educated people are on our History today. This war to defend Constitutional Government is lost.

That's just it. They don't see the big picture. They can not place health care in the grander scheme of the role of government and the certainly can't place providing in context with their freedom. Look at how willingly people like the OP and Jilliam argue for having their freedom taken away. Look at how willingly they turn responsibility of their lives over to government.

Jillian thinks those of us who think the constitution must be abided by are silly. I think supposed 'lawyers' like here are funny who think precedent and case law in violation of the constitution make it okay to keep trampling it. Again they don't see the big picture. Let's pretend people like Jillian are right. That there's precedent and case law for what government is doing with Obamacare. Maybe she is right, but is that an argument anyone really want to win? Because in the big picture what people like Jillian are saying is that they are proud to be right about showing the extent to which government has the auhority to control people lives. Congratufuckinglations Jillian. You should be so happy that you made the case for government showing they have the authority to take our freedom away.

 

[gekaap]

John Adams and the 5th Congress. Aren't those the same people who passed that wonderful Sedition Act? Yep, they sure didn't have any problems figuring out the constitutionality of things.

 

[gekaap]

It took me 15 minutes to read the constitution, and trust me, free healthcare nor the right to healthcare was not in it. You could have a doctorate in constitutional law, and still not provide one fact of evidence that anyone in this country is entitled to healthcare, sorry, you are wrong. Unless you wanna put out the case law backing up your socialist agenda, you should shut your pie hole. I provided my backup, it happens to be the founding document and the law of the land, now what do you have to back your OPINION up with under case law? And dont try to go the commerce clause route, because that is a dead end for you, trust me.
You should start speaking with facts, not assumptions or what you have been told to talk about by you handlers.

Just like an idiot infantryman. Think you're so smart, that you have all the answers, and when you're not smart enough you resort to bullying.