---
fund your own charities w/out our tax dollars
On Jan 24, 9:47 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798
>
> The ink was barely dry on the PPACA when the first of many lawsuits to
> block the mandated health insurance provisions of the law was filed in
> a Florida District Court.
>
> The pleadings, in part, read -
>
> The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate,
> either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and
> legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.
>
> State of Florida, et al. vs. HHS
>
> It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. Upon
> passage of the law, ships were no longer permitted to sail in and out
> of our ports if the health care tax had not been collected by the ship
> owners and paid over to the government – thus the creation of the
> first payroll tax in our nation's history.
>
> When a sick or injured sailor needed medical assistance, the
> government would confirm that his payments had been collected and
> turned over by his employer and would then give the sailor a voucher
> entitling him to admission to the hospital where he would be treated
> for whatever ailed him.
>
> While a few of the healthcare facilities accepting the government
> voucher were privately operated, the majority of the treatment was
> given out at the federal maritime hospitals that were built and
> operated by the government in the nation's largest ports.
>
> As the nation grew and expanded, the system was also expanded to cover
> sailors working the private vessels sailing the Mississippi and Ohio
> rivers.
>
> The program eventually became the Public Health Service, a government
> operated health service that exists to this day under the supervision
> of the Surgeon General.
>
> So much for the claim that "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the
> United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of
> penalty…."
>
> As for Congress' understanding of the limits of the Constitution at
> the time the Act was passed, it is worth noting that Thomas Jefferson
> was the President of the Senate during the 5th Congress while Jonathan
> Dayton, the youngest man to sign the United States Constitution, was
> the Speaker of the House.
>
> While I'm sure a number of readers are scratching their heads in the
> effort to find the distinction between the circumstances of 1798 and
> today, I think you'll find it difficult.
>
> Yes, the law at that time required only merchant sailors to purchase
> health care coverage. Thus, one could argue that nobody was forcing
> anyone to become a merchant sailor and, therefore, they were not
> required to purchase health care coverage unless they chose to pursue
> a career at sea.
>
> However, this is no different than what we are looking at today.
>
> Each of us has the option to turn down employment that would require
> us to purchase private health insurance under the health care reform
> law.
>
> Would that be practical? Of course not – just as it would have been
> impractical for a man seeking employment as a merchant sailor in 1798
> to turn down a job on a ship because he would be required by law to
> purchase health care coverage.
>
> What's more, a constitutional challenge to the legality of mandated
> health care cannot exist based on the number of people who are
> required to purchase the coverage – it must necessarily be based on
> whether any American can be so required.
>
> Clearly, the nation's founders serving in the 5th Congress, and there
> were many of them, believed that mandated health insurance coverage
> was permitted within the limits established by our Constitution.
>
> The moral to the story is that the political right-wing has to stop
> pretending they have the blessings of the Founding Fathers as their
> excuse to oppose whatever this president has to offer.
>
> History makes it abundantly clear that they do not.
>
> UPDATE: January 21- Given the conversation and controversy this piece
> has engendered, Greg Sargent over at The Washington Post put the piece
> to the test. You might be interested in what Greg discovered in his
> article, "Newsflash: Founders favored government run health care."
>
> More:http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socializ...
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment