Together, we can change the world --- fund your own charities w/out our tax dollars
On Jan 24, 9:47 pm, Tommy News <[email protected]> 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.
