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

[Bern80]

You can never ever follow the constitution to a T, NEVER!!!

Why exactly?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Nor is there anything in the constitution that authorizes Congress to establish a minimum wage. Nor is there anything that authorizes the establishment or maintenance of an Air Force. The hyper restrictive view of federal government's powers continues to be inaccurate no matter how many times it is repeated.

Article I. Section 8. Clause 1:
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Article I. Section 8. Clause 16:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress


Now neither clause makes any direct mention of the formation of a NAVY, does that mean that the United States is incapable of the establishment and the maintaining of one according to YOUR interpretation? Surely you can put up a stronger argument that that?

The Constitution specifies the Navy elsewhere, as well as the Army. If a hyper restrictive interpretation of the constitution is taken, then the enumeration of some branches of service would rule out any non explicitly enumerated branch of service.

Here is an example of someone pulling desperate examples, because they are incapable of backing their point. In case you haven't figured it out, the Wright Brothers first flight wasn't until 1903. The clauses above CLEARLY states the Federal Government's role in the formation a militia to provide for the common defense. If they wanted to be specific, as you "claim", wouldn't it make sense for them to SPECIFICALLY have included the Navy in these two clauses? Was the United States Government NOT capable of building one? Yet the NAVY was not included in either clause, when stating the Federal Governments responsibility to provide for a militia. They were stated as a "general" statement with regards of the military, not as specific branches of service. If you even FOLLOWED military history, you would also know the Air Force was originally a part of the Army Branch, under the name the "Army Air Corpse". The Army Air Corps did not become it's own branch, as the United States Air Force, until June 20, 1941. Let's face it, you can not back your point and your argument has no validity.

The new Healthcare law is FORCING people to purchase a personal ... SERVICE ... with a "penalty" or "punishment" given to those who don't comply. Now tell me where THAT has ever been done before in our nation's history? I can "choose" to not drive a car, and thereby not be FORCED under penalty or punishment to buy auto insurance. If I don't own a car, I'm also not FORCED to contribute into YOUR insurance policy when YOU decide you'd rather own one.

Your complaint here boils down to the fact that you don't get to opt out. Well too bad. It's against the law to possess cocaine. And you don't get to opt out of that one either. The constitutionality of a law does not hinge on an opt out feature.

Cocaine is an illegal substance, we are talking about the right of Government to FORCE an individual to purchase a "service" -- Healthcare ..... apples to oranges, and completely irrelevant to the topic here.

Is this how you DEFLECT a valid point when you are unable to provide a means to back your argument? Now try and provide me with an answer to the statement below ( This will require some research on your part ... I'm pretty sure you are capable of that, but we shall see ) :
The new Healthcare law is FORCING people to purchase a personal ... SERVICE ... with a "penalty" or "punishment" given to those who don't comply. Now tell me where THAT has ever been done before in our nation's history?


Also "WELL TOO BAD" is not a legal justifiable argument, perhaps you are simply frustrated because you are unable to back up your point ?!?

Where does the United States Constitution mandate: that the Federal Government shall [under penalty or punishment] oppress someone's personal rights, and intimidate its citizens to make a freedom of choice decision for them, to buy a ... "personal service" ... like Health Care?

Just stop with all this misrepresentation of the facts. First of all, there is no question of oppressing someone's personal rights here. If requiring people buy a product infringed on people's constitutionally protected liberties, then car insurance laws would be illegal, regardless of whether you choose to drive a car or not.

FIRST. There is a big difference between being "required to have" ... and ... "forcing someone to purchase" a service through THREAT OF PENALTY OR IMPRISONMENT. I'm sure you are intelligent enough of an individual to know the difference. On the other hand, you have a "choice" to purchase auto insurance if you "choose" to drive a car. You are simply DODGING this fact that that I have provided, a valid point, to which you have no answer to. If this FACT alone ... is too much of a thorn in your side, I can't help you with that.

SECOND. How is "choosing" to buy car and having to purchase auto insurance infringing on someone's Constitutional rights? If you want to purchase a car, then auto insurance to help cover possible liabilities and damages is required. The FACT you can't stand is: there is a "choice" that still exists on whether of not you want to own a car, or find other means of transportation and never have to pay for the insurance. There is absolutely NO INFRINGEMENT of rights here. Try providing a bona fide point.
The New Healthcare law, however, allows the Government to FORCE you to purchase a personal service. When a GOVERNMENT takes away an individual's personal "choice" to purchase Health Insurance, and FORCES you to comply [through penalty or imprisonment] that IS an infringement of a person's Constitutional liberties.

Explain to me gekaap: how this ENFORCEMENT the Government has enacted with this new Heath Care law, is NOT an infringement of someone's Constitutional rights?

I can show you all kinds of things. But until you adopt a rational state of mind, and stop ranting like a child who wants more birthday cake, you're not going to be willing to listen to anything.

How old are you? You can't handle someone presenting thoughtful points that disagrees with your position, so you have to call them names? Sound familiar? Perhaps you can try losing the "childlike" behavior, and bring in some ADULT substance to the debate.

 

[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.

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.

Fear mongering at it's worse. Tell that to someone who do not have healthcare. Personal responsibility is paying for your own healthcare. And we live in a country where we provide for those who do not have. That make us the greatest nation in the world. We not only take care of our own, but give aid to 150 other countries. $30 billion in 08. And we don't want to provide healthcare for all americans?

 

[LilOlLady]

MANDATED TAXATION TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE?
If it is unconstitutional to mandate every one to buy healthcare then mandate taxes be paid to provide healthcare for all. They can use it or they can buy into private healthcare but still have to pay taxes to pay for healthcare for all. That is not unconstitutional mandate everyone to pay taxes to pay for healthcare for all.??????

 

[Bern80]

MANDATED TAXATION TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE?
If it is unconstitutional to mandate every one to buy healthcare then mandate taxes be paid to provide healthcare for all. They can use it or they can buy into private healthcare but still have to pay taxes to pay for healthcare for all. That is not unconstitutional mandate everyone to pay taxes to pay for healthcare for all.??????

Now that actually might be constitutional with a loosser, Hamiltonian interpretation of the general welfare clause.. And the reason government can't sell that one is because they would have a mutiny on their hands if they actually taxed everyone what it would take to pay for everyone's health care. Almost assuredly most tax payers would have over half their income taken by government at that point. Keep in mind there are only a little over 100 million people who actually pay taxes in this country who will be responsibile for the the health care of everyone.

 

[30x90]

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.

Pointless speculation.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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 they wouldn't. Another leftist lie.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Of course but the left as always will twist it to fit their socialist purposes.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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?

Liberals don't like the constitution so they don't read it. It goes against their socialist beliefs.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

You assume lawyers and judges follow the constitution all the time. Wrong. How many time has the u.s supreme court alone has quoted eu law in cases?

 

[Bern80]

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 they wouldn't. Another leftist lie.

There are a lot of interesting things about this article actually. First the original bill as written wasn't terribly hard to find. I think I linked it hear somewhere. What was interesting was it's brevity. It would maybe take up 2 pages 8.5 x 11 paper today.

Secondly if one were to actually read this they would see that the purpose of the bill was not to actually set up state run hospitals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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
.

Yes. Based on the same power that allows Congress to require freight companies to carry cargo liability insurance, and similar to the power that allows Congress to require members of the militia to obtain a rifle, bayonette, etc.

Does this mean that Congress can require -everyone- to carry cargo liability insurance?
Does this mean that Congress can require -everyone- to obtain a rifle, bayonette, etc
No. It doesn't.

And thus, that Congress can force merchant seaman to purchase health insurance in no way supports the idea that Congress can force -everyone- to do so.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

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.

True to form, the article picks and chooses what excerpts to use in order to attempt to make its point. Also, I have to ask why is this liberal using the founding fathers to try to sway people towards communism? Any other time the founders are brought up by the right to make a point the founders are called racist biggots and it goes down hill from there.

 

[Charles_Main]

The author of this thread is so far off base it is laughable.

Not only did they not support Welfare, they were completely opposed to ANY direct tax on the people.

As I said if this view reflects what people are learning in our schools today, the Constitution is dead.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Two Things:

1. Everyone know Liberals love sick semen

2. People as stupid as the author should be chemically castrated so they cannot breed even by accident because no sane adult could ever fuck them