Many people who oppose the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, also known as ‘Obamacare’, say the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have wanted the Government to make health insurance mandatory for private employees.
This is simply not true. In 1798, under 2nd President and Founding Father John Adams, the United States passed a law requiring mandatory health insurance for any private employees working on Maritime vessels. The bill was called “An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”
It’s safe to assume that John Adams, who was the first Vice President of this country, the 2nd President of this Country, one of the Founding Fathers, and was a key negotiator in the peace treaty between the United States and Britain, had a pretty clear idea of what the Founding Fathers would have been alright with.
Via Forbes;
The ink was barely dry on the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] 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.
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 privatelyemployed 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.
Read more at; http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/
Ummm, no. This was no different than requiring automobile owners to buy automobile coverage before driving on public roads. The application was not universal; it didn’t affect women or children, not did it affect the vast majority of men, only sailors. It didn’t even affect all sailors; it did not cover whalers, for example.
So in this case mandatory wasn’t really mandatory.
Ya got nothin’.
In addition to my previous comment, the argument revolves around the commerce clause. In this case, the small number of affected individuals were directly involved with the commerce of a ship entering a US port. I don’t see how my buying insurance will affect a ship arriving into a US port.
Your argument is stretched past the breaking point.
Under the pretenses of a tax penalty, the Federal Government is allowed to levy those against people that fail to uphold that. It is the same as the government giving tax breaks for being married or your contributions to non-profit organizations. It is just on the opposite end. The Supreme Court put your criticisms to bed.
The people exempt from this “tax” are men and women not in the workforce, or individuals making below 133% of the federal poverty level. At the point where the tax penalty under the commerce clause takes affect, all individuals making 133% of the federal poverty should in theory be employed by either a public or private enterprise. So, your argument makes no sense.
Why don’t you ask Mitt Romney what his thoughts for the Michigan mandate was? Seemed to work pretty well there, as less than 1% of Michigan residents are uninsured and pay the tax…
I realize your post is from 2011, but my argument remains the same.
Matthew, you are wasting your time. This isn’t about facts, it’s entirely about who passed the act. The wingers will deny it, they’ll claim whatever reason comes to them and they’re doing it here, but the real reason for the opposition is entirely because it came from a Democrat. If this exact same act was pushed by Republicans (which it pretty much was, since it’s heavily based on Romney’s act), they’d be cheering it on. It’s not about facts, real or imagined, it’s entirely tribal. And no, wingers, liberals are NOT just as bad.
I’ve seen ‘wingers’ used in reference to left-wingers and right-wingers. Taking one of those stupid little political personality quizzes, I’m apparently much more left-wing than Democratic politicians.
Everything you just said, Ebon, sounded like it was coming from a ‘tribal’ viewpoint, too. Why are people so obsessed with labeling themselves Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right? It’s ridiculous and tiresome.
Was it those Vote commercials that used to say to look at the politician’s platform and voting history? All anyone ever talks about is a politician’s voting history and what party s/he is running with. Why don’t we get to the heart of the matter, which is what the politicians actually voted on in the past and compare that to what they’re “promising” to vote on in the future.
I remember learning this in my US Presidents Pol Sci class…it was just after the HCR drama and I couldn’t help but grin…
Leave? What if you are not a competitive type person?
The most ridiculous part of this whole argument is that we already an extremely expensive form of “socialized” medicine in this country. It’s called Emergency Rooms, where they are obliged by law to treat every patient that comes in the door, regardless of their ability to pay.
The people this ends of having the biggest effect on are those of us taxpayers that have private insurance, because we are not only paying for our insurance, and paying a very high price for it, but we are also subsidizing emergency room treatment with our tax dollars.
Worse, people in the Emergency room with non-emergent conditions like the flu, end up increasing wait times in emergency rooms, using up vital services, and in the end, they make medical care more expensive for the rest of us as a huge number of those emergency room bills generated by the uninsured are never paid. Hospitals are like any other business, they make up their losses by increasing costs for those that do pay.
It’s way past time to get a national insurance program. Taxpayers are already funding other services we all use, from the local police, to the roads we all drive on. Sooner or later, every person in this country will need to see a doctor the same way they will travel on a highway, or need police protection.
not true ERs can and will turn u away if your not in life threating state and cant afford to pay and once tehy get you stable they will show u the door! We need a nation heathcare we all ready pay most of walmarts employees why not the rest and then we can pay doctors liek they do in England where the healther your Clients are teh more You get paid. Our system rewards Doctors for letting Smoke and eat your self to death. Time for Some Common sense~!
A better word than ‘Walmart’ would have been ‘minimum wage’ employees. There are also titles that only make, or businesses that only pay, less than minimum, of course.
You could, of course, remove food stamps, disability, welfare, and other such socialist constructs from the system. Allow those of us who aren’t making $20/hour to simply fend for ourselves. Let us protect those who are truly disabled, or depend on the charity of others.
I don’t believe it would work. I don’t trust an American to actually be charitable to those around him (or her). I don’t trust a middle-class individual to care; I damn well don’t trust a rich person. People are selfish; that’s all there is to it.
Government and law are around to off-set the side-effects of that selfish nature. Of course there’s a sense of entitlement to things like health, food, and protection when dealing with laws. It’s what they’re around for. Otherwise, we could just go ahead and tear down the structure, form villages. That would be the only true democracy, when people CAN make decisions as equals.
As an ER nurse I can 100% tell you DeniseL is right, no ER in the US that is given government money (which most are because of Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement) have to accept every patient that walks through the door of their ER. Even if you can’t pay, your care is given to you. Most hospitals are turning to the protocol of waiting until the patient is discharged from the hospital or ER to ask for insurance info or money so patients don’t feel they are treated differently if they can’t pay-because they’re not. Additionally, the un-insured is what is bringing healthcare costs to a premium. Just as Denise said, hospitals have to cover their losses by raising prices for everyone who can pay. Case and point- a saline flush (just 10mL of salt water used with IV’s cost probably about 5 cents, but on a patients bill is shows up as ~$200. Tylenol-$365 for one pill. THIS is why the government has to step in, because people aren’t doing the right thing and paying their medical bills or getting healthcare insurance if they can afford it. It is long past due for universal health care.
I’ll leave the debate to you all, and I’ll instead point out the misleading information the author used to his advantage…
First, he used the phrase “It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.” I take issue with this statement because it insinuates that the Founding Fathers as a whole are being referred to, when in fact, only a total of 8 of them had anything to do with this Act- John Adams, of course, plus only 4 out of 32 Senators and 3 out of 106 Representatives.
The author then went on to say “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.” Sure, if by “many” you mean THREE- John Langdon, William Blount and Charles Pinckney.
And I may just be nit-picking here, but the comment “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” strikes me as ironic, when according to the US National Archives, 16 of the 55 framers wouldn’t even sign the thing once they drafted it…
Oh, and out of those 4 Senators and 3 Representatives who were actually Founding Fathers, without researching a bit farther, it is QUITE POSSIBLE that some, none or all of them voted AGAINST this Act. The point is, without knowing how they voted, it is misleading to assume (and insinuate) that they were all for it.
Not to mention that the Bill was passed between the House and Senate several times and then to the President quietly and secretly while other Bills were being studied and passed.
But a misleading and kaniving person who takes things out of contect would not include that in this message as it would go against their own agenda.
“Quite Possible” means NOTHING..that is your OPINION…LOL…Nice try….Typicial Fake Tea Party Comments….) ;
The fact that many of the Founders, including Jefferson and Hamilton, were not strict constructionists regarding the Constitution is the point of the piece, I think. Hamilton pushed for the Bank of the United States though the Constitution did not explicitly allow the incorporation of a federal bank. Similarly, though they hold Jefferson up as a huge champion, the Constitution did not explicitly allow him to purchase the Louisiana Territory from France. Abraham Lincoln also acted outside the strict constructions of the language of the Constitution. The notion that we should govern ourselves and apply a 200+ year old document to contemporary problems is absurd and would be seen the same by many of the Founders including those mentioned above. Unlike Tea Partiers, the Founders did not think themselves infallible. In fact, when they Constitution was done, most of them were unsure it would even work THEN let alone 220 years later. The Founders were not gods. They were just men who presciently left the door open in the Constitution for succeeding generations to adapt to their own problems and issues. This was a fundamental tenet of Jefferson’s political thought as he once said that each generation should have its own Constitution and should not be bound by the laws of a previous generation, having written in 1824, “Can one generation bind another and all others in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not for the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things.”
So what exactly is workmans comp then?
Some unfortunate and misguided libs have addressed this issue before but is clear to anyone who actually studies this issue that justification for Obamacare based upon this Maritime act and this link is a poor argument based upon a spurious understanding of Adams’ bill. The intent of the bill was to make available through employers/owners of maritime concerns, health coverage for a WORKING class which provided for the welfare of the public. This is nothing like Obamacare. Adams would be appalled by the stupendous boondoggle which is Obamacare.
Daaaaaammmmmmmmmn!! Better’n watching TV … You guys are good … but the LEFT WINS AGAIN … GO BLUE … it’s the left thing to do <3
How does the Left win, when this entry has holes in it?
just the ones that you guys are making up
Ha. The same president that gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts.
They were taking baby steps in democracy.
And Eric, I sacrificed my body and I wake up in pain every day because in 1972 I wrote a blank check to my Government for anything up to and including my life to protect our right to petition our Government for redress of grievances, and to make changes as the majority sees fit. I suggest if you don’t like what America has become it is YOU who should be packing your bags. I am getting really sick of this “love it or leave it” BS-it was wrong during the Vietnam War and is just as wrong now!
Well Sir, if you live ethe hell that the rest of us Veterans live when it comes to Free Medical care provided by the VA, then you for one should not be screaming for more Government run health care.
Semper Fi!
Jeremiah, sir, actually Bajabob is on the right track. Take all you can from the gov while refusing to raise taxes. This bleeds the parasite dry and clears up corruption everywhere, including the hospitals. We see it beginning now.
Did you mean “Semper Fi” as a joke? I can’t tell if you are serious or being tongue-in-cheek.
Sad part is thanks to Max Baucus and some others Mac Donalds, Burger King, Taco Bell WAL MART etc. have special exemptions that allow them to provide insurance with things like a $3,000 deductible so it’s almost like having no insurance at all. This being said, we do at least have a start and hopefully after I defeat Max in 2014 we can correct this.
Are you actually running against insurance company whore Baucus? If so, I would be interested in your positions. I would, after all, be one of your constituents if elected.
well. goodness.
”History is a set of lies agreed upon.”
– Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
Adams had the makings of a pretty good fascist dictator.
Remember his support of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which was invoked for blatantly partisan prosecutions of political opponents and included obvious violations of the Bill of Rights. He served just one term, and set the stage for the election of Thomas Jefferson, an Antifederalist, in 1800 (“The Revolution of 1800″), among other things — just as Obamacare sets the stage for a pivotal election in 2012.
Remember also the Judiciary Act of 1789, declared unconstitutional in 1803. Another Adams legacy.
You really would do better to invoke someone other than Adams. It seems questionable that he “had a pretty clear idea of what the Founding Fathers would have been alright [sic] with.” He embodied all that the Antifederalists feared about vesting too much power in the central government. The dominant faction in the Federalist Party (including Alexander Hamilton) even opposed him.
On the other hand, maybe an apt comparison to Obama.
His cousin Samuel, on the other hand . . .
I love history, When it’s the TRUTH.
@ James Foote
“We on the left don’t give a rats ass if those of you on the right hate socialism, it is here whether you like it or not and it has been long over due.”
This comment clearly shows your just trying to cause some ideological battle which would then lead away from the true problem and topic of this article: governments ability to force an individual (one of the most valued part of Americas identity) to purchase a product. If you truley look into what is happening it isn’t a battle of capitalism and socialism but a battle of how large our government and intrusive it can be. This argument has been going on since the first bullets were shot at the British and this is just another form.
The question is do we really want to set a precedent for our government to be able to force people to purchase some type of product. What next, a certain type of car? Maybe to boost the industry or maybe only certians foods? You know for our health. No, I refuse to go down that path in any form, it’s my body my money I earned, and my right. If you want to be controlled go to Iran, go to North Korea, they do provide “everything” for you, you won’t even have to think just pray to the picture on the wall, and do what your told please go be controlled there and leave our freedoms alone.
If I fail financially, which I have many times, and I’m not able to afford healthcare for me and my loved ones that is the consequence. I just get up, try harder, and learn from my mistakes. That is what America is about and if you can’t compete in that kind of environment, than leave, that is also your right. You see how the system works now?
Oh you just want the govt. to be small enough to fit into every nook and cranny of your lives. But you’ll still have your ‘freedoms’.
Excuse me while I go puke.
Eric, to be fair, I wasn’t crazy about the part of the bill that requires us to purchase health insurance from private insurers. Private insurance is all about profit, and that means profit over everything else…your health included. But your sanctimonious crap about how if you fail then you and your loved ones go without doesn’t really hold much water. I don’t know you, so I suppose it’s possible that you would keep your sick child at home and let them die if you didn’t have coverage or money, but it’s not likely. I know SO many people who cry foul over government subsidized healthcare and how terrible it would be, but they go to the hospital when they’re sick and then don’t pay the bills. You know who does? The government, through funding for indigent patients, or tax write offs for non payment. And you know where that money comes from? That’s right, Eric, from us, the taxpayers. It would be more economically sound to have clinics for sick people to get care at an early stage than to wait until they’re dying and need a kidney transplant. Plenty of studies have shown that. Healthcare is currently sold for profit so that shareholders of insurance companies can make a buck off of cancer victims. Nice, huh? I work in healthcare…I see it all the time. It’s a sick system and it needs fixing. If the damn insurance companies weren’t so greedy and afraid of a public option, then we wouldn’t have needed a bill that mandated purchase of insurance. I suppose you think education shouldn’t be provided either, right? I mean, it’s a privilege, isn’t it? Damn poor people can just leave the country if they don’t like it! Next, you’re going to tell us how you’re a Christian…
Yes Christi, it is a foul smell when it comes to preventative care and how Insurance Companies look the other way until you are really sick, and then denie coverage.
However, if you would have actually read the HC Bill shoved through by Obama, you would have noticed that the way it is set up, there are mandates for us to purchase health care from private companies. but it is also set up so that the private companies would be forced out by several different means so that the Government would be in charge. Yes, a one payer system that Obama said he wanted from the beginning, that was still included in the final draft.
However, the for profit hospitals and doctors offices do great work, especially when it comes to research and developement of new and inovative ways to treat patients be it through treatment or medication.
And also to add to that note, the Insurance Companies contribute to those discoveries and failures as well.
They are not all that bad.
You have it right Christi. I used to be a insurance agent in FL, and I can tell you that the “Law of big numbers”— that insurers take the good risk AND the bad, and it all averages out ad is still profitable has devolved into cherry-picking only the good risks, and the rest be damned— all for profit.
Also, Eric, you balk at mandated health insurance, but you drive a car, right? It is considered a “privilege”, but auto insurance is mandatory! To live a reasonably healthy life should be a RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE, so get over it.
Actually auto insurance is not mandatory. It varies from state to state. It’s required by law in Ohio but not Michigan. At least, Michigan didn’t require it a few years ago. I don’t know if it’s changed.
All states now require some form of auto insurance or proof of financial liability.
Yes. It IS mandatory. There is no way to justify one’s activities with an insurance co. Not even with “big numbers”. I am sure someone drilled that phrase into your head during training so you, a good person who cares, wouldn’t argue with the blatant scam.
“The question is do we really want to set a precedent for our government to be able to force people to purchase some type of product.”
we already do. look up – national highway system, public schools, postal service, the entire military, and social security…just to name a few.
get my drift?
Corporations are even worse, you know.
“”Maybe to boost the industry or maybe only certians foods? You know for our health.”"
Look up what Monsanto does to the food industry.
Their hormones (find out about the tests done in France) injected into cattle can harm people. But Monsanto say it’s OK, and they’ll try to sue anyone who attempts to say otherwise (such as suing a State — Pennsylvania IIRC — for allowing labeling of dairy produts as free of growth hormones).
Monsanto has gained the right to fine soy bean farmers who refuse to give their paperwork to Monsanto — not to the Government — because Monsanto has genetically modified a gene to resist Roundup, a Monsanto-owned herbicide. It’s a way to force farmers to purchase Monsanto beans seeds AND Roundup to do their weed control.
How about putting your claims that attempting to offer better health care to citizens is evil, and start looking at the fact that our government is in the pockets of corporations, which keep killing off small business just to bolster their own pockets.
And try supporting candidates who prefer to help small business, and weaken the power of money in political voice.
What about Auto Insurance? I haven’t heard you guys bitching about that… Also, if you fail, and cannot afford insurance, the government has special programs to help you out until you get back on your feet… At least for now anyways…
You are only required to buy car insurance if ….you have a car. There is anoption. No car, no forced insurance.
You are only required to buy health insurance if ….you are ever going to get sick in your lifetime. There is an option. Never get sick once in your entire lifetime, no forced insurance.
Wrong. You’re only required to buy health insurance if you’re alive.
OBVIOUSLY you couldn’t tell I was being facetious, since EVERYONE gets sick at some point. Get it, now?
No- some just plain die, no sickness, but they would still HAVE to buy the INSURANCE. GET IT NOW?
I hope this is a joke.
i thought americans were compassionate people, i guess not from your comment. as far as i’m concerned if you don’t have any compassion for your fellow americans its time for you to leave. what you are arguing against makes your life and every one of your fellow citizens lives better every day.
I think the Govt. should practice what they preach;
Forbid lobbyists from donating campaign contributions to wannabe politicians – Corporate protection money.
Leave NAFTA !!!
Make white collar crime; A federal offense with mandatory prison penalties voted in by the “jury’s” and not a biased Judge or suggested by a prosecutor.
Limit Political positions too; two year terms in every position and only a once in a lifetime chair
After those two years following tenure; remove their health care; so they can pay for it themselves !!!
A new wage pay scale for ALL public positions; must be taken into consideration and implemented ASAP
Take away all the full benefits every Govt employee has and make them pay for it themselves if they are not willing too; Negotiate with the people !!!
Stop sending money overseas to 3rd world countries; Unless it is donated by the “people” during a catastrophic event.
I think this would go a long way in helping to reduce the blundered “deficit” our politicians have put us in.
Whether the “Act” was initiated in response to possible spread of pestilence or to keep a ready reserve of healthy cannon fodder, or if the “Founding Fathers” actually cared for the health and safety of working people can be debated. But the fact remains: It was the government that decided that it was necessary for the common good and that the private sector was going to pay a tax…….something that should be happening today.
We on the left don’t give a rats ass if those of you on the right hate socialism, it is here whether you like it or not and it has been long over due.
Wanna place bets on the likelihood of the next big pandemic starting in the US?
Limited access to health care, limited worker protections in regards to sick time/leave ESPECIALLY in the service sector, health care facilities run as for-profit corporations, chronically understaffed and the staff overworked?
Shaping up to be a perfect storm and when it hits, it’s gonna be nasty and ugly. Glad I’m out of it.
Well you on the left can get on a boat and take it to China or Russia or any other FAILED STATE that has tried Socialism, Marxism, Communism or Fascism and see that it does not work. Not in the last two or three hundred years has there been a thriving system that used either of those plans.
Capitolism is stronger and always wins.
Socialism, Communism and Facism are all different…Socialism does work in many countries…Denmark is one if them…research Denmark…they are a socialist democracy with a queen. They take care of their people from cradle to grave and it was ascertained that they are the happiest people in the world. Some Americans say well they pay the highest taxes…yes but minimum wage equates to approximately $20.00/hour American dollars. Just about everything is paid for from education to healthcare. Think about all the money we pay in healthcare premiums and tution. I know about this because one of my best friends has lived in Denmark for the last 20 years.
The very real situation we are living with now is fellow citizens going bankrupt over medical costs. Insurance companies are taking unprecedented profits. CEOs are making obscene millions and the incentive is to deny care. Are you really so cold as to like living in a country where your neighbors die and are foreclosed for lack of health care? It could be you.
A very few decades ago, one worker could provide for a family expect a secure retirement, have health care, a good education inc. college for the children, and have good paid vacations. There was much greater social stability and much less fear. To me, that was a better state of affairs, and it was hardly akin to socialism. Corporations were paying taxes instead of buying politicians and propaganda machines.
First, thank you, Maenad, for simply pointing out reality without resorting to any pettiness, unlike a lot of the posters here.
My partner, Sas and I were together 16 years, and during that time neither of us could afford Health Insurance, because the costs were so high we couldn’t pay them and make ends meet. Sas was diagnosed with Lung Cancer, which may or may not have been treatable; but because she had no HC coverage, she died on August 6th, 2009. She was 56 years old. I’ve always been a politically motivated guy, a 4th generation Liberal and proud of it, but her death happened at the same time all the Town Hall HC Debates were going on, so I decided to get involved. This is an issue I’m very passionate about, and one of the lynchpins of the problems we face in this country.
I had a heart attack on January 19th of this year, and was uninsured. I was lucky, I got help in time; a friend forced me to go to the ER, and the Doc there said I was less than 5 minutes from Cardiac Arrest. I was lifelined to a regional Heart Trauma center, and within 4 hours of the attack, I had a stent implanted in an artery in my heart. As *soon* as I awoke from the surgery, I met a really nice lady from a 3rd party firm whose only job it is to help uninsured people get Medicare/Medicaid benefits, so the hospitals get paid. Oh yeah, Sas received her Medicaid too- 2 months after she died. I feel absolutely NO guilt for applying for and receiving these benefits, both Sas and I worked *hard*, and had paid into the system all our adult lives, and if I have any issues with the so-called “ObamaCare”, it’s that it isn’t a single-payer system.
During the ’94 Clinton HC debate, my main question was the basically the same as yours- “How can a country as rich as ours not be willing to share the burden for everyone?” I’ve heard the word Socialist bandied about an awful lot by the Right-wingers that seem to be screaming the loudest, but I honestly believe that our country would do very well to have Socialized medicine like most of the other countries in the industrialized world. We should be at *least* in the top 5 for health care value for money spent, but we’re currently #34. No other “civilized” country would force families into bankruptcy or make elderly married couples get divorced just to try to protect a small portion of the assets they’d worked a lifetime to accumulate, due to an illness or disease. I just don’t understand how the people who would oppose decent HC for all can live with themselves. Of course they use the old tried-and-true “illegal alien” and “welfare queen” straw men to bolster their arguments, but what I really think it boils down to is just plain old greed, and IMO that’s the most obscene thing of all…
The interpretation of the law and how it relates to the current health care bill is skewed in this article. For instance, the bill states, “…render to the collector a true account or the number of seaman that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at a rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman employed,” this indicates that a basic tax is placed on the owner of the ship for the amount of men that ship carried and duration they were to sea. This did not enforce that an individual must buy a certain product from a private or governmental entity as the current healthcare bill provides for. Also, the article lacks historical reference, at the time the U.S. Navy was in it’s infancy and the U.S. government would pay private ship owners and their crews (privateers) to attack foreign vessels and do commerce raiding in times of war. So, in fact the sailors on those private ships were essentially all America had on the seas at the time and it was in the governments interest to keep those sailors healthy and ready to fight as we do with our regular military units.
That doesn’t change the fact that it was a government mandate on the private sector
Interesting. Not sure what it proves, though, since they also passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, and Adams signed those into law as well, even though they were clearly unconstitutional and were considered so by other more respected founders. (See Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, and Madison’s Virginia Resolutions of 1798, all of which called for the states to ignore, refuse to enforce, and/or nullify those federal laws because of their unconstitutionality.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Resolutions
If you read the act itself, you’ll find that the act did not only cover American vessels, but any vessel that made port in the US. History is fun. Read before you bash, idiots!
Nowhere in this act did it force people to pay for a private or government provided health insurance policy or esle be forced to pay an equally expensive penalty. It does not provide free health coverage for lazy deadbeats who refuse to work because the welfare system is their support. It requires that WORKING sailors have 20 cents per month deducted from their wages to provide “relief for sick and disabled seamen”. This act did not apply to Americans alone, it applied to any vessel that used a US port. This was for the protection of the populus against diseases being brought in from outside the colonies. Before you bash me for the truth, go understand a little history!
Re-read the act White.
You are incorrect on the statement you made that the act applies to all ship owners. In the opening paragraph it states, “the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States”.
Then the second paragraph refutes your other statement that no one was force to pay or suffer a penalty from lack of payment. Each ship’s Master is to, “pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such seamen have been severally employed as aforesaid ; which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen. And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.”
The seamen must pay the 20 cents which is to be collected by the ship’s Master. If said Master doesn’t pay the collected fees he will suffer a $100 penalty.
So no the act itself didn’t cover any ship that made port in America regardless of the ship’s ownership, but American ships ONLY regardless of their port of origin.
Don’t skim history White. You can have your opinion, but you can’t change the facts. Some of us study history in its totality.
“…every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States…” This tax didn’t apply to ships that sailed between United States ports, then?
I think the best response to those who claim to know what the founding fathers would have wanted is, “Who cares? That was 200 years ago. Let’s deal with what’s happening in the current century.”
Many of the founding fathers also wanted slavery to remain legal, and didn’t want women to vote. I am so SICK of this crap.
Well said Karen!!!
However we have to have something to base our belief on. We, as Americans, choose the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I couldn’t agree with you more but this is the fact.
What riles me up about people, and that I agree with you in principle on, is that they won’t look at history through its own prism and try to understand the context of history.
I don’t need passages from documents written 235 years ago. I need an understanding of the present and the effect matters today hold. If we must utilize those chosen documents then how do they apply now.
Yet we must understand that it was the deal made with the devil (the health “care” industry) in order to have any such health care act. If we had government officials with balls we’d have a single payer system and not a corporate run governmental health care system, that the average American thinks was only the governments idea of health care.
Wake up sheeple!!
Again, thanks Karen!!
Yes, we have to consider the times, but do we really want to go down that road? I doubt the framers ever conceived that illegal gun use would be so rampant as it is today. But do we really want to start messing with the Bill of Rights? Let’s not change the rules, let’s fix the problems.
Health care is too expensive at retail. But the actual cost insurance companies is WAAAAY different. My recent doctor visit: $200. Insurance company negotiated rate: $5. Yes, $5. They paid 2.5% of what I would have if I were uninsured. What other industry do you know of where the largest customers get that kind of discount?
Fight!
Fight!
Fight!
Fight!
Fight!
Fight!
Hey, White, WRONG AGAIN. This was in the BODY of the article. Pay attention closely, now:
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 privatelyemployed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.
That says PRIVATELY EMPLOYED, not enlisted, conscripted or officers in the U.S. Military.
The interpretation of the law and how it relates to the current health care bill is skewed in this article. For instance, the bill states, “…render to the collector a true account or the number of seaman that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at a rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman employed,” this indicates that a basic tax is placed on the owner of the ship for the amount of men that ship carried and duration they were to sea. This did not enforce that an individual must buy a certain product from a private or governmental entity. Also, the article lacks historical reference, at the time the U.S. Navy was in it’s infancy and the U.S. government would pay private ship owners and their crews (privateers) to attack foreign vessels and do commerce raiding in times of war. So, in fact the sailors on those private ships were essentially all America had on the seas at the time and it was in the governments interest to keep those sailors healthy and ready to fight as we do with our regular military units.
No, but it requires employers to provide for the health care of their workers (in this case, sailors). That’s the point. It doesn’t ban Mom or apple pie either. That’s also a different discussion. Stay on point please.
I’m going to assume that this is a joke. If someone really said something that ironically-stupid, I wouldn’t know what to think…
Or do you just consider “Knowing how to read” and “Knowing how to fully reading things” two different concepts?
LOL. Socialism is an economic philosophy created in the mid 1800′s. Yeah, dude, totally makes sense than John Adams was a socialist in 1798, over a half century before Karl Marx wrote his works.
You conservatives are so dumb, it HURTS.
Wasn’t John Adams a Federalist? Same as Obama, and the other leftists?
Otherwise known as socialists.
Don’t try to pass this crap off the way you’re trying to portray things, this law was an unjust law, and so is Obamacare, I don’t care what John Adams did, he was still a socialist.
John I dont care what Adams was! If not for him and others you would be waving a union jack as the royals made a swing through here!
I am so sick of this BS
Leftist does not equal Socialist does not equal Communist, no matter how much or how often “you” (conservatives) try to conflate them.
If any of you would bother to learn any history or political science you’d understand the differences and maybe stop using these as ridiculous attacks. It just makes you look stupid.
This, this, this.
ooooo a socialist?!?! The great red menace!! Thank you Mr McCarthy.
This is why we Canadians want nothing to do with you crazy right wing asshats!
One simple question: Is there any national health system that really works? One where a person receives proper and timely care, without having to jump through hoops?
Works pretty good in the Netherlands. I pay my premiums, go to the doctor when I’m sick and get referred to a specialist when I need one.
Average wait time to see my GP is 48 hours or less.
we Canadians are doin pretty fine too… silly teabaggers are fighting for the right to be screwed by big insurance companies. There’s stupid and there is STUPID I guess… I’m thinking the cold up here in Canada must help us see when we’re voting against our own interests.
Read “The Healing of America” by TR Reid. He examines many industrialized nations health care – how it’s set up, what it costs, what the pros and cons are. It’s easy to read, very well written.
Is the automobile perfected yet? Why do they keep making “improvements” to the design of last year’s model?
No system is ever going to be as perfect as you demand. Get over it. There are going to be glitches and flaws. Those will have to be dealt with. But we have something… SOMETHING!! to start with, and that’s a great thing!
That means that all those burger flippers, window washers, carwash workers, temp workers, bathroom cleaners and ditch diggers will have access to care. Finally. At last. Instead of suffering with an ear infection or strep throat, or as in my daughter’s case, meningitis… or my son, who had appendicitis… without treatment, they could have died.
I find it appalling that you’d rather see people die than ante up a little chump change for the good of everyone. IN-CLU-DING YOU!!
There are a number of them. For comparisons of our system to six national health systems, read The Commonwealth Fund’s June 2010 report, “Mirror, MIrror on the Wall” How the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally.” The other countries’ national health plans cost roughly half to a third as much as ours and we rank 6th or 7th in nine of the twelve indicators measured. Our best scores were 4th for effective care and patient-centered care. We are ranked 5th in timeliness. It is a damning report. The Netherlands ranks 1st or 2nd in eight indicators, 3rd in two more and cost $3,837 per year per capita, compared to our cost of $7,290 per capita in 2007. It’s well worth a look.
Excellent article, but it should be noted that the 5th Congress President of the Senate was Thomas Jefferson, previously worshiped by the libertarians, who oversaw this maritime hospital service law including a taxation on the wages of the workers. So there should never be any question as to whether or not the government can apply a payroll tax for health care or other services like social security.
This is in no way reflective of the abortion known as Obamacare! This is merely a direct comparison to the healthcare afforded to our military servicemembers! Do you liberal idiots even know how to read?
This ONLY applied to sailors on PRIVATE vessels, not military vessels. Do some research before you leave asinine comments.
I don’t know about the idiots, but the rest of us liberals know how, and what we read above is: “requiring mandatory health insurance for any *private employees* working on Maritime vessels.”
Are all conservatives unable to read? or are you just one of the idiots?
How about getting specific here…
Section one of the Act directed each master of a vessel arriving in the United States from any foreign port to pay to the Collector at the arrival port twenty cents per month from each seaman on board the vessel, which sum he was authorized to withhold from the wages of said seamen.
Don’t even need to read the fine print to see that the framers weren’t forcing Americans to get health care, but foreigners…likely so they WOULD be able to PAY the hospitals and not put the hospitals in debt. Just think if the foreigners had to PAY for the services they receive today…
If it was intended for foreigners, why was that not in the Act’s title?
if it says “arriving from any foreign port”
i would assume its also being directed at citizens, seeing that people often went back and forth.
Do you have any idea of what the healthcare law is? Have you any idea that it wuill save us money? That people will gewt care..that 80 to 85 % of the premiums paid out has to go to healthcare and not ads or in the pocket of the CEO?
That when people need help they don’t get kicked off their plans?
What is it that you do not like, that you will have to be responcible for your care and not sponge off the tax payers if you need care and do not have insurance.
An abortion? Helping babies stay alive and their parents, is not exactly an abortion…twit.
Yes we can read but you folks on the right apparently understand this article the way YOU WANT to understand it .
The people who oppose health care should step back and examine most of the costs of our current system. What is really costing the taxpayers money (indirectly) is uninsured folks using the healthcare system. Preventative medicine and proper use of GP visits instead of clogging emergency rooms with sniffles alone could save countless dollars. The opposition to so called Obama-care is blind to many benefits.
While unwise use is a problem, the biggest chunk of change is the huge increase in premiums relative to claims paid that the insurance industry has asked us to swallow since the Clinton healthcare insurance reform initiative was defeated in the 1990s. None of the other reform measures instituted under the current administration will seriously contain costs until the healthcare insurance industry is introduced to “managed competition” (the way it already has to compete with the VA and Medicare, for veterans and seniors). Congress missed the boat by not depicting the “public option” as an expansion of Medicare to all citizens who decide to opt into it.
I guess the real culprit is an absence of personal responsibility. Most people would not be opposed to a safety net but so many people with no means of support continue to have kids and also have the expectation for a multitude of freebies at the expense of other taxpayers. When someone expresses disdain at the left, it’s usually not out of greed (it’s also greedy to expect for others to pay for your mistakes IMHO) but frustration at the system that is so out of control and rewards irresponsible behavior while punishing hard work and innovation through unfair taxation and redistribution of wealth. Most of those wanting government to cover these costs merely want this to protect their trust funds and to keep from having to surrender their wealth. For some reason, the trust fund makes them feel special and when someone succeeds on their own, they somehow feel disempowered. Insurance or health care isn’t a right; it’s a service that is purchased like hiring a builder, a plumber, or any other contractor. Perhaps time limits and other constraints on these freebies to prevent them from becoming incentives for bad behavior might make some of us feel differently about yet another intrusion into our lives by bigger and bigger government.
Most of the conservatives who scream about the constitution, don’t know what it says or it’s intent… Hell, most don’t even know the difference between the constitution and the declaration.
You are truly clueless! LOL
Care to elaborate, or are you happy with a simple ad hominem?
Mr. Kaufman is right with out a doubt. There is a two word example. Sarah Palin.
Clueless is calling folks that need state assistance especially now “lazy deadbeats that refuse to work” as you did above. That’s clueless White. Income inequality in the US now rivals that of the Ivory Coast. You are falling hook, line and sinker into the lie. That the poor are lazy and the rich worked so hard (most worked hard at fraud and I’m talking the .06% not 2% as I know many hard workers both rich and poor).
Most don’t know that there were the Articles of Confederation before the Constitution. The Articles gave the states more power then the feds…it did not work. But this is what the tea Party and people like Palin and Bachmann want, but have no idea that the Constitution gives the power to that central govornment…the Articles was tried for ten years and failed miserably.
Interesting, but not applicable… making anything a condition of employment (i.e. if you work here you have to do X,Y and Z ) is VERY different then requiring it for everybody, because when you go to work voluntarily for a company, you are… agreeing of your own free will to work under their rules, or be fired. Here it was a condition of working for a Maritime company, people had a choice and could leave employment or not work there to begin with. PLUS maritime trade is CLEARLY covered under the commerce clause (meaning the Feds have the right to regulate interstate commerce). Under Obamacare, you are forced to do something for just existing, even if you are not engaged in Interstate commerce or any commerce at all. Constitutionally, it is very different and intellectually honest people can see that.
No. It’s not “very different” even though you try to morph it into being so. It’s on the same continual line, for starters. Next, it’s a requirement that a person take mandatory insurance on private citizens put forth by the federal government. Then there’s the constitutional element (the main argument being that it’s constitutionally incorrect to require private citizens to buy insurance); Adams was a contemporary and proponent of the constitution and made this law.
And on the subject of being “intellectually honest” about being forced to do something “for merely existing”, I suppose you are out picketing selective service and social security registration requirements, too. Right? You’re railing against them on your blog or wherever you rail against stuff, aren’t you? That would be intellectually honest.
Lastly, I love your nick of Atlas. I assume that is an homage to Ayn Rand, who called people who accepted govenment aid “leeches”, “vampires” and “unworthy of love”. That is, until she took Social Security money and medicaid (for the lung cancer she CHOSE to get from smoking). Then she shut the eff up. A lot.
Kind of stands with my theory that those on the Right are always against helping people until THEY need help. Because they’re huge hypocrites. And stuff.
Why do Lefties always resort to ad hom attacks?
“Lefties”= ad hominem attack of the first degree. Unless, of course, one is of the conservative persuasion. Then, any gross attack against any liberal is justifiable “criticism.”
What do you think your side is doing, Johnny, when the first words out of its mouth is “socialist” or “communist” or “anti-American” or “godless” every time it wants to criticize a liberal.
You can chide my side about ad hominen attacks when you also chide your side and do it first.
Oh and then you can apologize for your ad hominen attack as well.
You know, Atlas, you might have a point if not for the fact that when Bill Clinton tried to reform health care in this country the Republicans came up with an alternative that…
…wait for it….
…included a requirement for everyone in the country to buy health care. Curious how your side wasn’t quite so worried about the Constitution then…
Oh and since health care is an interstate commerce that means that Congress has every right to make requirements regarding it. What? You think the Blue Cross that exists in Minnesota is a completely different company then the one that exists in California?
ANd let me buy you a further clue. If you don’t have health care and you get so sick you end up going to the emergency room. Which costs, on average, three times more then regular health care. And if you need an operation and you can’t pay for it then I and the rest have to make up the difference.
Sorry, its cheaper on my ass to make you do the responsible thing and get health care. But then speaking as a Democrat my first preference would be either to blow the health insurance companies up (not literally) and have the government take over health care like it does in other industrialized countries or set up a public option so the insurance companies have a bit more competition.
So I give you a choice. If you want to get rid of the mandate I’m fine with that…you agree to single payer or a public option instead. Sorry, if you want something you’re going to pay something to attain it. Which will it be?
Oh and have fun trying to argue that the health of the citizens of this country somehow doesn’t fall within the “general welfare” part of the US Constitution.
I am so posting this on facebook …. one of the best statements on healthcare ever