"In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care 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.
Here’s how it happened..."
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/ … e-in-1798/
Glad to see you are finally able to admit that government run health care is the goal.
Other than that bit of news who cares?
The post did not say anything about 'the goal'. We keep trying to hep you with reading comprehension. It said that the founding fathers in Congress passed a law, which John Adams signed which required that merchant - that means civilian - we are trying to help your comprehension- MUST -as in mandate - buy into a government health care plan. The law provided for government-run hospitals for these civilians.
Kinda puts a hole in the theory that the 'mandate' is unconstitutional.
I read the law and it did not mandate seaman buy insurance.
"..and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.
from 'An Act For The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen' It's in the first paragraph, Jimmy.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act- … -July-1798
"..and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen."
What did the money go to? A private insurance company? No it went to the federal government as a tax.
This tax was levied against a specific type of sailor not all sailors.
"of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States"
We are still in the first paragraph, Jimmy. The 'specific type of sailor' is EVERY seaman on EVERY ship or vessel of the United States engaged in international trade. Pretty select group of sailors.
Yes it was a very select group, glad you finally noticed.
I commend you for trying to reason with people who don't have reading comprehension even though they accuse you of not having it. That law does pertain only to private merchant vessels. In addition they can't seem to tell the difference between a tax and insurance. You're very patient.
His comprehension is fine, but his desire to be right beats it every time.
No, I think he actually can't understand anything that's not part of his world view. That the founding fathers endorsed government-run health care with an individual mandate might cause his brain to explode because it contradicts what he has been taught about the 'founding fathers' all of whom were staunch conservatives. - NOT.
That's what I mean. He understands the words - he reads them correctly. But his anger and fear prevents him from acknowleding even the most obvious truth. Even if he KNOWS it is true, he will reject it. We have a smal, handful of them here with the same behavior.
Jim: The GOP Should thank the tea party for the victory in the house.
That was sort of rude, jim. It is a history lesson at least even if you disagree with current political similarities.
I fail to see how this is germane insofar as those insured were indispensable to the fledgling and needy American economy rather than a class of willing parasites who provide nearly nothing but a monstrous drag on an economy waiting to explode if unburdened by government interference. For those who want the government to force them to purchase insurance perhaps they should become merchant sailors.
That law covered a narrow and specific profession that entailed real physical risks and was indispensable to the economy. These conditions are very narrow. Perhaps, if Obamacare covered cellar dwelling computer nerds with carpal tunnel than I could support it rather than force everyone who can pay to pay for those who are a drag on the economy.
"class of willing parasites who provide nearly nothing but a monstrous drag on an economy..."
That may be the most hateful diatribe I have heard from any teabagger in months. Including Lady Love.
ANYONE with non-group insurance coverage can and probably will have his policy canceled if he comes down with an expensive ailmant. Anyone with a pre-existing condition probably can't get insurance that will cover any recurring problem related to the original condition. These are not situations caused by 'parasites'.
I do not participate in either tea bagging or belong to any T.E.A party related organizations. I am not a Republican, a Libertarian or a Democrat. I am, however, a republican.
I stand corrected and apologize. The hateful diatribe was from a republican.
Take note it is a small "r." Just like the "i" individual or the "c" in conservative.
Really, really - what are you? Eight and using granddads picture for your bogus profile. Really?
Are you suggesting an 8-year-old can best you at verbal volleyball?
Hardly, I am suggesting that to degenerate to name calling and genital scale references is foolish and juvenile. But if you think mommy should come up and get your trophy for it then continue. I will not be participating just as I no longer participate in tic-tac-toe or hopscotch.
Okay, this is interesting. I do see a difference - the Mariners Insurance (whatever it was called, it doesn't matter!) was paid through a tax, while the current health care bill requires citizens to purchase health insurance through private insurers.
If the current health care bill had stated to pay through a new tax, that would have made much more sense. For some reason, I think it'd be more affordable too, but that's just something in my head, I'm sure! lol
um, I'm also wondering what happened to this law?
You are arguing that the founding fathers would have approved the 'public option.' An interesting point.
In the Health Care debate, the 'public option' was a not-for-profit government agency which would have been one of the insurance options an individual could select. Since it doesn't pay for million-dollar executives or shareholders profit, it would have been less expensive than any for-profit company. The 'Public Option' did not make it into the law.
huh, interesting. does that mean Medicare would no longer be available?
No - It wasn't going to replace Medicare (for seniors) or Medicaid - (for adults below the poverty line). The Health Care Law allows working adults who can't get insurance through their employer to sign up from a selection of insurance companies who would offer a menu of options at different prices with different features (that meet a minimum standard).
The debate was whether or not to include a totally optional government-run option. There was a lot of republicans talking out both sides of their mouth. They claimed a government-run system could not work at the same time they claimed that the private sector could not compete with a system that couldn't work. The only thing that was clear is that the GOP was whorin' for the insurance industry - and still is.
If one wishes to see a system that is a failure and has eliminated all of its competition one need only open their mail box.
Gee, I see Fed-X and UPS trucks every day when I deliver mail.
First Class Mail? That is the sole province of the USPS. It took Fed-X to break open the parcel delivery service - an excellent demonstration that the private sector will bury the public where it is allowed to compete - consequently, the exact same reason why First Class Mail is losing out to email.
I use first class mail all the time and thank God for it. Have you ever tried to send anything via fedex or UPS so darn expensive like most privately owned things.
Of course then when you work for a private company they don't pay you much.
Not everything is done through email and there is something about receiving a card in the mail that really connects you with the sender. I suppose if you are an angry person such simple things give you no pleasure.
sounds way tooo complicated!
so, why didn't the 'health care law' expand Medicare/Medicaid to include all citizens? The only detail that would have been necessary to discuss would have been how to finance it - best option, through a medical tax. (imho)
Of course, private insurance could still be available - only for those who can afford it (someone making over $100,000/yr) and then they wouldn't be required to pay the tax.
With unerring common sense, you just defined what's called the 'single-payer' system. With no other changes, the single payer system would cut 15% of the current and future costs of providing medical care. But it would deprive the vultures who prey in the sick of their profits. It wasn't even seriously considered.
hmmm - guess we can't do things in this country that make sense. Gotta keep the rich rich and the poor poor!
WHEN the people are allowed to choose between private and public insurance, the vultures will be on the way to extinction.
I am NOT against free enterprise or innovation. The insurance companies do neither. They don't provide any medical service that couldn't be done for less by the government. Please note that those who disagree with me want to use the laws to prevent you from having a choice. That's temporary.
Again - please note - the evil liberals would let YOU decide.
um, decide between what? insurance or no insurance? private vs public insurance? I don't see choice as evil.....
What these people always forget is that WE are the government. We will decide what is necessary, affordable and possible. All of us. We will argue, but WE will reach decisions.
But they cannot see that is the right path. The reason? Because the Left proposes it. Automatically, that makes it wrong.
"They claimed a government-run system could not work at the same time they claimed that the private sector could not compete with a system that couldn't work."
And then that one new congressman (Representative Michael Grimm [R, NY]) who campaigned on an anti-government healthcare agenda discovered his congressional health plan wouldn't kick in until 30 days after he took office got all indignant that he'd be without healthcare for 30 days, so he asked if he could buy into the congressional plan in the meantime, thus inventing the public option.
I had hoped that he'd introduce legislation to make congress's plan available for all Americans to buy into, but so far I've been disappointed.
The public option is the end game of this whole debate - total government control of health care. Great Britain and others are exploring ways of unwinding their hugely expansive and expensive public health systems, bit by bit trying to recapture their freedom. Hope it never takes hold here.
IMO - the question will be in a few years whether INDIVIDUAL citizens in this country will be allowed to choose between public or private medical insurance. Right now the insurance companies want a 'public option' as a dumping ground for expensive patients they don't want. Then they will point at the high cost of a government system that ONLY insures high-risk patients as 'proof' that the government can't do it.
What I want is for ALL citizens - a fair cross-section including high-risk patients to be free to make up their own minds. Something 'freedom-loving' teabaggers will forbid.
IMO - I think you want the state to run everything, but that is just an opinion and we know what opinions are like.
"The public option is the end game of this whole debate - total government control of health care."
That line has been very effective in frightening people to oppose healthcare reform.
Unfortunately, it just ain't so.
A public option, alongside the existing private insurance options, would hardly be "total government control" of healthcare.
Take a look at the post office. It's the 'public option' of the shipping industry. FedEx and UPS haven't exactly been destroyed by the USPS, have they? Is there 'total government control' of moving objects and documents from place to place? Nope.
But the question is moot: there isn't even a public option anymore (which is why most of the people who want to change the new law want to change it, I believe).
Let's take a look at the USPS. It requires constant injections of taxpayer funds as it loses money every year. It requires a monopoly over First Class Mail to have a purpose at all. In parcel delivery it has real competition with UPS and Fed-Ex but again has the taxing authority of the federal government to continue supplementing its insufficient market income. If left to the free market mechanism alone it would not survive.
This is a harbinger of the public option. A vast growing system draining more and more funds from the taxpayer and ever declining efficiency and service. The number one employer in the UK is the public health system not because of the crying need for so many people but that the law of bureaucracies. "Large bureaucracies will grow without bounds."
Every couple of years the USPS goes begging for an injection from Congress and being populated with good labor, democrat, quasi-government employees congress supplies billions. Residential delivery of mail is a miracle in that it takes a modest expenditure to send a letter from Florida to Alaska. Marvelous. The insulation from market forces, however, has resulted in a system that appears efficient but cannot be because it cannot function without constantly injections of tax money.
"It requires constant injections of taxpayer funds as it loses money every year."
That's funny, I thought the goalposts were over there with the Total Government Control chimaera you were conjuring. In spite of the competitive advantages you mention, the USPS has not taken total control of the document and parcel delivery, has it? No, it hasn't. Since you seem to have ignored my point that the USPS hasn't achieved Total Government Control in spite of the aforementioned advantages and a 120-year head start (at least for UPS), I'll assume that you concede that at least one government service has not been used to enforce some totalitarian socialist freedom-killing dystopia onto the American people.
I don't reckon you'd consider the possibility that another government agency providing a service might also not be used to enforce some totalitarian socialist freedom-killing dystopia onto the American people, would you?
"Residential delivery of mail is a miracle in that it takes a modest expenditure to send a letter from Florida to Alaska. Marvelous. The insulation from market forces, however,..."
That insulation from market forces is what allows the USPS to charge a mere $0.44 to send a letter anywhere in the country. That means that practically anybody, regardless of their means, can send mail to anybody else. If we were to let market forces drive the price of postage, then the USPS would be charging more for mail delivery, and the price of a first class letter would go up such that lower income folks would not have access to document shipping.
Of course, the proponents of the unregulated free market will either pretend that some other service will spring up to deliver mail cheaply, or that FedEx or UPS will offer a dollar-or-less slow rate for folks who can't afford their usual delivery charges, or else (and more honestly) say, So what? If someone can't pay the price to ship a document, then they don't get to have a document shipped. Screw 'em.
But it's important (at least to folks who think that everyone deserves a voice in government) that anyone in the US should be able to send a letter to their congress rep, senators, and president. The USPS keeps their fees low in part to ensure that everyone can afford to send a letter. If the USPS goes away, the low-income sector of the population won't be able to communicate with their elected leaders; these folks don't have the same access to the internet that you and I do, so email isn't a viable substitute. Neither is a long-distance telephone call.
Interestingly, this is kind of a similar argument to the one about why the health system needs reform.
When the issue of the 'mandate' finally hits the Supreme Court and arguments are made about the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers, I expect this first instance of socialized medicine will play a part in the decision and be quoted in the majority opinion.
Especially so because of what you mentioned in your original post:
Which OUGHT to shut up certain folks here but of course will not.
Yes, the pretend constitutionalists will continue to offer up their "expert" opinions on what is and is not constitutional.
I have ALWAYS said that the founding fathers had divergent views but the ability to compromise for the common good. The Tea Party conservatives think their brand of conservatism is the direct inheritance of the philosophy of the founding fathers. If you actually study what they founding fathers wrote and the laws they passed, there's an unmistakable streak of liberal thinking, as this Act of Congress shows.
What I find equally disturbing is that Tea Parties believe that their will should be imposed on all citizens when I can find several instances of the founding fathers labeling that sort of ideology as tyranny. I do not want to live in the Tea Party version of this country.
Once we give this country over to private owned forces we will not get it back. As Jesus says- a house divided cannot stand.
"What I find equally disturbing is that Tea Parties believe that their will should be imposed on all citizens when I can find several instances of the founding fathers labeling that sort of ideology as tyranny."
But you don't find it disturbing that your will should be imposed on me?
The silence from the usual suspects is quite telling. My guess is they just want this example of 'socialism' from the founding fathers to go away! Was there a series of emails between wingnuts agreeing not to discuss what they cannot refute?
They always steal way when they have been beaten.
But it is Whack-a-mole. They will be back and they will not have learned anything. They never do.
You two are a great comedy team.
The silence is because some of us are not quite as interested in this bit of history as you seem to be.
This law required no mandate to purchase insurance.
This law was a tax, a specific tax on a specific group.
The Health Care Reform Act gives you an option -
You can buy insurance OR you can pay a tax.
The Act passed in 1798 required the owner of the vessel to pay the tax, which the owner was allowed to deduct from the pay of the sailors. So if you were a merchant sailor, there was a mandate.
What was the PURPOSE of the tax, James?
(aside: can anybody else not see what Pcunix was quoting? All I can see is white space.)
Little known fact: 1798 was also the year that Jefferson finally outlined the logic behind the idea of Nullification.
Using Adams to argue for any sort of public measure is one of the dumbest things you can do. He and his congress actually outlawed "insulting the president and his political party" in the "Alien and Sedition acts".
Many states were about ready to secede right then and there, but instead Jefferson outlined the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 which reaffirmed that the 10th Amendment exists.
by fishskinfreak20087 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_ … h_overhaul"President Barack Obama accused insurance companies of placing profits over people and said Republicans ignored long-festering problems when...
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 months ago
Obama "care" for the most part has been a disaster. Premiums keep rising & for many, it has become exorbitantly expensive. According to the latest news, steps to repeal...
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
What does one expect of a piece of legislation that was voted on, and passed both by the Senate and Congress, signed into law by Pres. Obama, and certified by the Supreme Court as being constitutional? High...
by Don W9 months ago
Donald Trump said he will deliver:- "good coverage at much less cost"- "a much better health care plan at much less money."He also said:- "I'm not going to leave the lower 20% that can't afford...
by My Esoteric13 months ago
One of the first things conservatives want to do is repeal the ACA individual mandate designed to get healthy people into the insurance exchanges. Without them, premium costs WILL skyrocket ... meaning "if...
by rhamson8 years ago
The congress seems determined to pass some healtcare legislation whether good or bad depending on who you ask. With costs skyrocketing as much as 100% in the last three years for some, can we afford to say no and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.