Forbes: Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

From them socialist commies at Forbes:

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.

Good find.

However, "

"Disabled seaman?"

Nowhere does that mandate all,it is specific to commerce and employment...nor is their a tax/fine(whatever they claim it is this week) for not doing so(being a seaman)

Ya might as well cite workmans comp laws

Nowhere does that mandate all,it is specific to commerce and employment...nor is their a tax/fine(whatever they claim it is this week) for not doing so(being a seaman)

Ya might as well cite workmans comp laws

So your point is that the Constitution forbids Congress from passing laws that apply to unemployed people?

Nowhere does that mandate all,it is specific to commerce and employment...nor is their a tax/fine(whatever they claim it is this week) for not doing so(being a seaman)

Ya might as well cite workmans comp laws

Republicans should take note of this part of that FF law...

and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

They already mandate it for employment related injury or illness(workmans comp)

Larry I have proposed a tax funded nationwide clinic system for basic care for yrs...what do you think

That however is a far cry from what we try to provide with Obamacare...the mandate will not pass muster

Larry I have proposed a tax funded nationwide clinic system for basic care for yrs...what do you think

I think that's the winning strategy. Make a minimum level of care a taxpayer-funded universal "right". Let private insurers compete to offer plans that pick up where the government coverage lets off.

Although I think it might have to cover more than basic care. For example, I think it should cover screenings for those medical conditions where it's cheap to fix them if you catch them early, but if you don't, then it'll cost you millions before it kills you anyway.

As a male who recently turned 50, I think a colonoscopy fits that description, for example.

Help cut down on big-ticket items that we could have fixed, cheap, if the patient had been screened.

Clinic level care covers that and even many surgeries in many countries,our problem is trying to extend advanced medical to all.

Our present structure makes that cost prohibitive

We have a state or 2 that do it.

All the feds have to do is threaten road money and stimulus funds... like with changing alcohol from 18 to 21 when i was 18.

Then they are mandating the states do it, and the states can do anything they want.

As long as we're deciding what portions of health care the government should cover, I have another idea:

Anything that the person can get, for free, at the ER, the government should cover.

My reasoning is, if the government's going to get stuck with the bill, anyway, then how about sending him some place where he isn't blocking the ER, the service is quicker, and it's cheaper?

The author is incorrect. The 1798 relief act did not require seaman to purchase insurance. It taxed ship owners for each seaman aboard. The tax to be used for the building of hospitals. It did authorize the ship owners to take the tax out of the seaman's pay, but the burden was placed solely on the ship and not on the seaman.

That is a good find I had never seen that one before. However it will not convince those against the mandate because their stance is not rooted in reason. The US government has all types of mandates and to try to paint the health insurance mandate as some sort of policy that is not like the others is quite funny. So while I think this is another example of the history of government mandates in this country, it will not change anyone's mind who is against it.

However it will not convince those against the mandate because their stance is not rooted in reason. .

Damn ,and I thought I was a condescending ass.......Kudos

Damn ,and I thought I was a condescending ass.......Kudos

I am sorry but I have yet to hear why the health mandate is so unconstitutional yet requiring people to have car insurance is not??

I am sorry but I have yet to hear why the health mandate is so unconstitutional yet requiring people to have car insurance is not??

Well for starters, you only have to have car insurance if you have a car, which you're not required by law to do...

Well for starters, you only have to have car insurance if you have a car, which you're not required by law to do...

Perhaps I did not make my point clear enough, I meant that why they required those to have car insurance if they had a car. The reason for this requirement is what I am getting at.

Perhaps I did not make my point clear enough, I meant that why they required those to have car insurance if they had a car. The reason for this requirement is what I am getting at.

Ah, gotcha. No idea, honestly. I just know the reason there's less ire about that law is twofold: 1-It's been on the books for a long time now (as long as I can remember) so it's not a fresh fight that has people riled up on both sides and 2-It's still optional, even if only slightly so in our society. You can avoid the "mandatory" car insurance by not owning a car, thus there is some freedom there. You can't avoid the "mandatory" health insurance requirement if you're alive....slightly less of a freedom of choice there.

I am sorry but I have yet to hear why the health mandate is so unconstitutional yet requiring people to have car insurance is not??

Have you read any of the dozens of threads?

If you prefer legal arguments(pro+con) you can search here

http://volokh.com/

Barnet,Carpenter,Esenberg and others will be interested to hear they are devoid of reason.

as will the 27 States opposing it.

Ah, gotcha. No idea, honestly. I just know the reason there's less ire about that law is twofold: 1-It's been on the books for a long time now (as long as I can remember) so it's not a fresh fight that has people riled up on both sides and 2-It's still optional, even if only slightly so in our society. You can avoid the "mandatory" car insurance by not owning a car, thus there is some freedom there. You can't avoid the "mandatory" health insurance requirement if you're alive....slightly less of a freedom of choice there.

Right but the reason I make this point is because of something called an insurance pool. Ever since insurance came along companies quickly began to realize that you had to balance your risk by having a pool filled with a spectrum of people from high risk to low risk groups. This applies to car insurance because if not everyone is required to carry it then the insurance companies would fail. Now when this is expanded to health insurance it still holds true. If you want to make sure that insurance covers everyone then everyone must be insured.

The point is raised by some that the difference is you are not required to own a car so it is not the same type of mandate. While that is true, to say that the mandate is unconstitutional because government is making everyone do something is a tough argument to make because there are several instances of government mandates in place that already make everyone do something. One example of this is any type of law. They are called reverse mandates. You cannot kill people is the inverse of being required to not kill people. If you kill someone there will be a punishment. If you decide not to get health insurance their will be a punishment. There is a big debate right now whether "negative mandates" as they are called are the same as positive mandate. What this means is whether being required to not do something is the same as being required to do something.

---------- Post added January-23rd-2011 at 10:36 PM ----------

Have you read any of the dozens of threads?

If you prefer legal arguments(pro+con) you can search here

http://volokh.com/

Barnet,Carpenter,Esenberg and others will be interested to hear they are devoid of reason.

as will the 27 States opposing it.

Like I said earlier I did not make my point clear in that I was not talking about the requirement itself but why it exists.

Perhaps I did not make my point clear enough, I meant that why they required those to have car insurance if they had a car. The reason for this requirement is what I am getting at.

You do not have to have car insurance if you demonstrate the ability to cover the minimum liability set,nor do you have to have it if you do not operate on public roads

The act of driving in the public exposes them to harm,hence the need for liability ins

Simply existing does not...nor do you need to be licensed to do so.

You do not have to have car insurance if you demonstrate the ability to cover the minimum liability set,nor do you have to have it if you do not operate on public roads

The act of driving in the public exposes them to harm,hence the need for liability ins

Simply existing does not...nor do you need to be licensed to do so.

No no no that is not why it exists. It is to cover insurance companies so that they know they are no only insuring high risk drivers. It is also to ensure that drivers and victims themselves are not put at risk financially when there are accidents. That is what many find ironic is that the US government agreed that it was a risk to the economy to have hundreds of thousands possibly become bankrupt because of a car accident and no insurance, yet they seem to have no problem that medical bankruptcies account for over 700,000 cases a year in the US.

Can you tell me how many of those medical bankruptcies were by people that were insured? ..I can tell you from personal experience quite a few had ins

Do you seriously believe having ins will stop them?

added

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness.

Can you tell me how many of those medical bankruptcies were by people that were insured? ..I can tell you from personal experience quite a few had ins

Do you seriously believe having ins will stop them?

added

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness.

Yes that is a serious problem, in that insurance companies can drop you, have caps, and do not cover all procedures. The reform tries to address this by making these procedures illegal and the insurance companies have agreed to stop these practices but they only agreed to them if insurance became a mandate so that they could balance the risk in their insurance pool. The insurance companies argue that they have to drop people and set caps on benefits because too many health people are no insured and their pool is skewed towards higher risk populations.

The insurance agreeing should not be binding on the public....they have no right to make me indentured to them,nor do the feds.

They got too cute with the fine/penalty and it's gonna bite them(and already has)

http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/Opinion.pdf

The insurance agreeing should not be binding on the public....they have no right to make me indentured to them,nor do the feds.

They got too cute with the fine/penalty and it's gonna bite them(and already has)

http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/Opinion.pdf

I completely understand people being opposed to the mandate and I am OK with that. I just do not think the mandate is unconstitutional that is all.