Founding fathers liked taxed government health care
 

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

They also liked slavery

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

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?

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.

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:

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. :tro:

:zz: 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::D

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.

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.

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?

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, :zz: if in fact they did like it, they didn't after trying it with the seaman. :D

Nice try again though.

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...

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.

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.

So you think it is constitutional?

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

:zz: 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?

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

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

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.

Now you got it!

And no I'm NOT in favor of public hospitals or even the thought of it.

BTW if it was important and timely I'd also use Fed Ex over the USPO.

So you think the health care mandate is constitutional, hospitals should be private, and there should be government single payer?

BTW, Cook County is a public hospital. So are VA hospitals. You think they should be shut down?

No a health care mandate with government hospitals and care is constitutional.

Mixing MANDATE and PRIVATE is where the problem lays. Not constitutional. Since I'm a very anti government-run anything much less healthcare this plan is something I'd throw in the garbage and say I'm happy with what I have.

That's completely, 100% nationalized healthcare. Government-employed doctors, government run hospitals.

The Supremes have already said other mixes of public and private, Social Security and Medicare, are constitutional. And the founders thought it constitutional, too (the articles I posted)

The plan doesn't make you change what you have. Your costs will go down, however. So be really angry about that. The plan gets the uninsured insured. The plan has already gotten many students and young people insured, and lowered prescription drug costs for seniors.

So how come MY insurance company made us change what we already had, and my costs went up by $600 ?? all because of Obamacare also.

Wow there's a suprise. Your insurance had to change and went up because of Obamacare.

There's 8,000 people working for the company i work for.. I will bet you 95% of them will not vote for Obama based on this ridiculous, costly health bill that makes my somewhat decent insurance turn into crap with an outrageously high deductable.

But Riot knows everything, and surely Obamacare had nothing to do with my insurance company changing all its coverage (and citing Obamacare as the reason).

I wasn't misled by Obama's lies in 2008 and wont be misled by this disgrace of a President in 2012. If you dont agree with Riot your deemed to be a hateful person.

GFY

i try to stay away from this discussion because there's so much misinformation passed off as fact. but given that very little in the bill goes into effect before 2014, your company might not be entirely truthful if they're actually telling you the healthcare bill is responsible for all reductions in coverage and increases in employee costs in 2011.

i'm not taking any position on the bill itself. you can like or dislike it. but if someone is telling you that changes taking effect 3 years from now affects the cost of your coverage today you should be skeptical.

According to RIOT "the plan has already gotten many students and young people insured, and lowered prescription drug costs for seniors."

The lowered prescription drug costs for seniors has to be diverted somewhere.

The idea that healthcare will be cheaper because of this bill is preposterous and based on deceptive use of numbers.

Didn't you forget that Riot knows everything.

It is being said on internet that California Blue Cross/Blue Shield is attempting raise rates 59%. Whatever is going to happen, the consumer will take it in the shorts!

Must be true. If it is being said on (the) internet, it has to be true.

Insurance costs have been increasing double digits for several years - it's just more of the same gouging by the insurance companies, and blaming it on something else. The provisions in the healthcare act that would help this won't kick in for another 2 years.

Nonsense and false. Let's be clear: I called your words about hispanics hateful because you're a bigot, and they were hateful words.

Not because you disagreed with me.

Yes, and CA BC & BS famously tried that last year, too, and were prevented from doing it by the Obama administration. And they raised alot the year before. That's not associated with the PPACA. That's insurance companies taking record profits while they kick off customers who cost them money.

That is one of the reasons why the PPACA was passed, however - to help control insurance costs.

I know more than you do about the healthcare bill. That's painfully obvious, that you are clueless about what's in it.

first of all, any claim of the founding fathers would.......fill in the blank, is disingenuous. the founding fathers didnt agree on much of anything individually, but could certainly school all of us on the art of compromise. thomas jefferson has to rolling in his grave at the current state of the bloated fed.

as for the law affecting things now, before its officially enacted....of course its had an effect. ins cos are being forced to expand coverage, they have to raise rates to stay ahead of the upcoming cost they...well, we, will have to pay.