PDA

View Full Version : Mandated health care passed in 1798



Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 01:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The history lesson

In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance.

This legislation also created America’s first payroll tax, as a ship’s owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor’s monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.

This historical fact demolishes claims of “unprecedented” and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty...”

Perhaps these somewhat incompetent attorneys general might wish to amend their lawsuits to conform to the 1798 precedent, and demand that the mandate and fines be linked to implementing a federal single payer healthcare insurance plan.

The other option is to name Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison et al. in the lawsuits. However, it might be difficult to convince a judge, or the public, that those men didn't know the limits of the Constitution. </div></div>

News! Health care mandate signed into law 212 yrs ago (http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2010/03/24/news_pres_signs_h-care_insurance_mandate-212_years_ago)

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 02:01 PM
A little slow on the draw here, aren't you? Gromulan posted this a couple of days ago over on AZ.

But, you knew that, didn't you?

Steve

sack316
02-04-2011, 02:40 PM
I read the original bill (which was surprisingly easy considering it is about 1 1/4 pages long) and don't see anywhere that it mandates individuals to purchase any type of private good. Said act is more like Medicare than anything else.

Sack

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 02:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A little slow on the draw here, aren't you? Gromulan posted this a couple of days ago over on AZ.

But, you knew that, didn't you?

Steve </div></div>

No, I didn't know that. I don't go to AZ so I have no idea what anybody does over there whatsoever.

He(/she?) probably saw it when I did quite independently, a couple days back?

cushioncrawler
02-04-2011, 03:10 PM
But what about all of the fighting and debate in and around congress at that time.
I heard that the Pro-Lifers insisted that the bill be amended so that pregnant seamen koodnt uze the seamens hospitals for abortions, or to recover from abortions.
And the NRA insisted that the hospitals koodnt be uzed to treat gunshot wounds or cannon wounds.
And, that the Tea-Party (the original) spat on Adams, koz hiz policy woz "big gov".
mac.

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 05:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But what about all of the fighting and debate in and around congress at that time.
I heard that the Pro-Lifers insisted that the bill be amended so that pregnant seamen koodnt uze the seamens hospitals for abortions, or to recover from abortions.
And the NRA insisted that the hospitals koodnt be uzed to treat gunshot wounds or cannon wounds.
And, that the Tea-Party (the original) spat on Adams, koz hiz policy woz "big gov".
mac. </div></div>

Heh!

LWW
02-05-2011, 04:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I read the original bill (which was surprisingly easy considering it is about 1 1/4 pages long) and don't see anywhere that it mandates individuals to purchase any type of private good. Said act is more like Medicare than anything else.

Sack </div></div>

Don't confuse the issue with things like reading the bill.

Please.

LWW

eg8r
02-06-2011, 02:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This historical fact demolishes claims of “unprecedented” and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty...”
</div></div>Pretty weak. The precedence thing we can deal with, precedence has been overturned in the past, but the part about "the Constitution nowhere authorizes" bullcrap is completey false. Just because it was passed then does not mean it was Constitutionally sound.

eg8r

Qtec
02-06-2011, 04:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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 <u>and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.</u>

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.

During the early years of our union, the nation’s leaders realized that foreign trade would be essential to the young country’s ability to create a viable economy. To make it work, they relied on the nation’s private merchant ships – and the sailors that made them go – to be the instruments of this trade.

The problem was that a merchant mariner’s job was a difficult and dangerous undertaking in those days. Sailors were constantly hurting themselves, picking up weird tropical diseases, etc.

The troublesome reductions in manpower caused by back strains, twisted ankles and strange diseases often left a ship’s captain without enough sailors to get underway – a problem both bad for business and a strain on the nation’s economy.

But those were the days when members of Congress still used their collective heads to solve problems – not create them.

Realizing that a healthy maritime workforce was essential to the ability of our private merchant ships to engage in foreign trade, Congress and the President resolved to do something about it.

Enter “An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”.

I encourage you to read the law as, in those days, legislation was short, to the point and fairly easy to understand.

The law did a number of fascinating things.

First, it created the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up.

This is pretty much how it works today in the European nations that conduct socialized medical programs for its citizens – although 1% of wages doesn’t quite cut it any longer.

The law was not only the first time the United States created a socialized medical program (The Marine Hospital Service) but was also the first to mandate that privately employed citizens be legally required to make payments to pay for health care services. </div></div> link (http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/)


ie, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>for the general Welfare.</span>

Where have I heard that before?
Q

LWW
02-06-2011, 05:10 AM
From moonbat crazy leftsists who pimp the naive with one out of context quote.

LWW

LWW
02-06-2011, 06:39 AM
Can you cite the section of this law that mandates that the sailor purchase insurance?

What's that?

It doesn't say that?

Then what was your point?

LWW