Founding fathers liked taxed government health care

[Riot]

These are two interesting op-ed columns currently making the rounds, regarding the "constitutionality" of health care, involvement of the government, etc:

Forbes Business: "Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798"
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/20...rance-in-1798/

And further examination of contentions within the above column:

"Newsflash: Founders favored "government run health care""
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu...red_gover.html

[Cannon Shell]

They also liked slavery

[Riot]

If Congress wants to re-establish slavery, we can use the founding fathers as a reference.

[dellinger63]

Yea requiring a payroll deduction of 1% from merchant seamen allowing treatment from a federal run hospital is exactly the same as ObamaCare.

Only a few differences come to mind including the exclusions of certain ships/ports because of back-room union deal making Obama has in his and the founding fathers left out. The fact the current plan calls for 'all' not just people in high-risk jobs purchase insurance from private entities and agents. (The seaman law required the deduction to be paid to the government.)

I'm sure if the founding fathers thought this was such a grand idea farmers, buggy whip makers, etc etc would all have been included. But perhaps they knew that wouldn't be constitutional?

[SOREHOOF]

MRI's were a lot cheaper back then. So were prescription drugs. The Medical treatment usually involved a saw. They were cheaper back then too. I guess this is the 1'st documented case of Govt. out of control that the Libs could come up with to justify themselves.

[Clip-Clop]

This sounds like it was for workers though? Big difference here.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

This sounds like it was for workers though? Big difference here.

How so? They were private ships and private employees and private owners of those ships.

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. Via a tax on their employers (the employee had to pay - no choice - out of their pay, and the employer forwarded it to the government)

Private business had to pay a tax to the government, which then provided health care. Pretty simple.

The point is: the founding fathers were far more "liberal" than not. They were "elite", "over-educated", "European-influenced", and didn't think much of the bible (to paraphrase Bill Maher). No matter what the Tea Baggers selectively try to co-opt.

Quoting the second article:

Adam Rothman, an associated professor of history at Georgetown University .... "It's a good example that the post-revolutionary generation clearly thought that the national government had a role in subsidizing health care," Rothman says. "That in itself is pretty remarkable and a strong refutation of the basic principles that some Tea Party types offer."

"You could argue that it's precedent for government run health care," Rothman continues. "This defies a lot of stereotypes about limited government in the early republic."

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

How so? They were private ships and private employees and private owners of those ships.

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. Via a tax on their employers (the employee had to pay - no choice - out of their pay, and the employer forwarded it to the government)

Private business had to pay a tax to the government, which then provided health care. Pretty simple.

The point is: the founding fathers were far more "liberal" than not. They were "elite", "over-educated", "European-influenced", and didn't think much of the bible (to paraphrase Bill Maher). No matter what the Tea Baggers selectively try to co-opt.

Quoting the second article:

Except the merchant sailors were treated at Fed hospitals and before they were treated the payments via-worker-employer-government were confirmed. No exemptions. Again how is this remotely close to ObamaCare? How do you think the founding fathers would deal with illegals? Terrrorists? Those who simply weren't merchant seaman with current policies?

You may be finally may be on to something.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Again how is this remotely close to ObamaCare? :

Nobody said it was anything like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That's not why it was posted.

Try to keep up.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nobody said it was anything like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That's not why it was posted.

Try to keep up.

I’m all good with insuring a merchant seaman a health insurance policy for 1% of his income. Especially considering the terrorists threats we face from muslim ship workers and his possible role as eyes.

Your original post has nothing to do, even remotely, close to ObamaCare. What did the founding fathers think about pre-existing conditions, spouses and dependants? Not to mention neighbors, area bums, illegals etc, etc etc...........:
eek:

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

How so? They were private ships and private employees and private owners of those ships.

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. Via a tax on their employers (the employee had to pay - no choice - out of their pay, and the employer forwarded it to the government)

Private business had to pay a tax to the government, which then provided health care. Pretty simple.

The point is: the founding fathers were far more "liberal" than not. They were "elite", "over-educated", "European-influenced", and didn't think much of the bible (to paraphrase Bill Maher). No matter what the Tea Baggers selectively try to co-opt.

Quoting the second article:

It seems to me the theory here was to make sure a certain area of our commerce that was deemed to be imperative would not fail as a result of lacking health care. Which is absolutely fine with me and probably everyone else too. The issues that today's plan are trying to address are just so very different.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Your original post has nothing to do, even remotely, close to ObamaCare.

That's right. That's what I just said. If you read why I posted it, when I posted it, it's not because it's like the PPACA.

[dellinger63]

BTW what was the tax % of income that caused our country to fight for independency? Wouldn't that have been a far more appropriate statement regarding the founding fathers rather some BS about a 1% tax on sailors? Good actually lame effort though. Landslide LMAO

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

BTW what was the tax % of income that caused our country to fight for independency? Wouldn't that have been a far more appropriate statement regarding the founding fathers rather some BS about a 1% tax on sailors? Good actually lame effort though. Landslide LMAO

Wow. You still don't understand why this thread was posted. Did you read the first post? You are unable to comprehend the words?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wow. You still don't understand why this thread was posted. Did you read the first post? You are unable to comprehend the words?

You're a fool. You titled the thread "Founding Fathers liked taxed Government Health Care." and then post a story about a 1% tax on private seaman because of the risks involved in their jobs, bringing in diseases etc. If they 'liked' it so much they would have surely expanded the program to include all? No?

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, if in fact they did like it, they didn't after trying it with the seaman.

Nice try again though.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You're a fool.

No, Dell, you're the fool. The subject of the thread was the constitutionality of government involvement - as seen from the point of view of the founders - in health care.

Not how the details of 1% tax on seamen compares to the provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, Dell, you're the fool. The subject of the thread was the constitutionality of government involvement - as seen from the point of view of the founders - in health care.

Not how the details of 1% tax on seamen compares to the provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Yea always in the details. BTW the private sailors were treated at Fed run hospitals not private. So again all in the details. Keep trying...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Yea always in the details. BTW the private sailors were treated at Fed run hospitals not private. So again all in the details. Keep trying...

Tell me, Dell - do you think it's constitutional for the government to mandate health care and collect money to pay for it?

Some Tea Bagger types scream it's unconstitutional, and the founding fathers never would stand for it. In fact, lawsuits have been filed against the PPACA.

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.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Tell me, Dell - do you think it's constitutional for the government to mandate health care and collect money to pay for it?

Some Tea Bagger types scream it's unconstitutional, and the founding fathers never would stand for it.

Sure you can mandate health care and collect money. The problem lies in the fact private, for-profit, entities are the insurer and care giver. Unless the Fed takes over the entire system then no it's unconstitutional IMO.

Would it be constitutional for the government to mandate savings and require say 10% of income go into privately invested mutual funds approved by the Fed or face penalty?

Those who either don't have the means or are severely in debt will be subsidized by those who have been paying their bills and will be given contributions? I think the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves and spinning faster.

[Riot]

Sure you can mandate health care and collect money.

So you think it is constitutional?

The problem lies in the fact private, for-profit, entities are the insurer and care giver.

So you are in favor of public hospitals, not private for profit? Or you think there should be a single payer option?

Unless the Fed takes over the entire system then no it's unconstitutional IMO.

Sorry, that makes no sense at all to me. You think a National Healthcare (like the VA) would be constitutional, but allowing private hospitals to be for profit isn't?

Would it be constitutional for the government to mandate savings and require say 10% of income go into privately invested mutual funds approved by the Fed or face penalty?

That's Social Security, except it's not mutual funds.

Those who either don't have the means or are severely in debt will be subsidized by those who have been paying their bills and will be given contributions?

What do you think happens right now? We are paying for the uninsured right now. In our insurance premiums and hospital costs, we pay for them.

I think it's a good idea for those folks to become insured, and off my dime.

I think the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves and spinning faster.

I think they are appalled at the complete lack of social conscience shown by many today. Especially as they, themselves, have done the same.

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 ... , 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.

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.

Let's pretend this happened today: the government says sick citizens are bad for our economy. So they force every employed citizen - private citizens employed by private companies - to pay a payroll tax. The employer has to hold it out of the paycheck, it's the law. When the citizen gets sick, they get a voucher, and they can go to either a VA hospital or a private hospital. No voucher if you didn't pay into the system.

That is far above, and more strict, than what the PPACA mandates.