Founding fathers liked taxed government health care

[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.