President John Adams signed a bill for government healthcare w/mandatory tax

[Tx4obama]

Greg Sargent makes the case for the founding fathers support for government-run health care paid for by mandatory taxation. Rick Ungar at Forbes writes how the 1798 Congress passed, and President John Adams signed, “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” that created a government-run hospital system that required privately employed sailors to buy health 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.

Full article here: http://www.alan.com/2011/01/20/founding-fathers-would-have-supported-government-run-health-care-paid-by-mandatory-tax/

ALSO

Thomas Jefferson Also Supported Government-Run Health Care And A Tax To Pay For It
Article here: http://www.alan.com/2011/01/21/thomas-jefferson-also-supported-government-run-health-care-and-a-tax-to-pay-for-it/


So, there is precedent for mandated healthcare!
Spread the word and send the links to your congresspeople :)

[pnwmom]

1. Interesting. Thanks! n/t

[KansDem]

2. Well, where are the f***ing Tea Baggers now?!!

C'mon, you corporate whores, isn't Adams one of your heroes?

[Bluenorthwest]

3. So what private company ran the hospitals? None.

How much profit was built into the system? None. Do you have precedent for mandating the universal purchase of a private, for profit product? No other nation that mandates the purchase of health insurance allows for profit taking in providing those mandated products. Not one.
So do you have precedent for that?

[Gravel Democrat]

4. for the 9 millionth time

“An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” that created a government-run hospital system that required privately employed sailors to buy health insurance."

did the feds require everyone alive to become "privately employed sailors"

Do they teach the Constitution at all anymore?

Here's a radical concept: The Constitution establishes the powers of the Feds.

If the Feds want to change that, all they have to do is Amend the Constitution.

Like when the Manufacture, Sale and Transportation of booze was made illegal.

Edit for clarity

[Tx4obama]

6. I'm sorry but your arguement doesn't wash

The bill Adams signed required 'privately employed sailors to buy health insurance'
OUR new healthcare law required 'privately employed folks' to buy health insurance.
Same thing - both laws stipulate a portion of the society.

Your comment: "Did the feds require everyone alive to become "privately employed sailors"
has nothing to do with the issue - our new HC law doesn't require anyone to go out and get a job.

The bill Adams signed limited the purchase to 'privately employed sailors'.
Our new bill limits the purchase to 'folks that don't have insurance' (excluding those that already have it, and excludes folks on medicare and medicaid.

[Fumesucker]

7. So people who aren't employed won't have to buy insurance? n/t

[Tx4obama]

8. That is not what it said in my previous comment.

I said that the new law doesn't make you go out and get a job.

Btw, unemployed folks and depending on income will either be 1) eligible for medicaid or 2) qualify for a subsidy depending on income

[Fumesucker]

9. Your words verbatim..

""OUR new healthcare law required 'privately employed folks' to buy health insurance.""

That's what I was responding to, you certainly made it sound as if those who are not privately employed do not have to buy insurance.

There are plenty of people who don't have a job that nonetheless have an income, indeed only about half of working age adults are actually employed.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. So I assume you have no precedent that actually fits.

Oh, well, thought I'd ask....

[TorchTheWitch]

10. Why does anyone give a crap what the "founding fathers" intended?

It was a long time ago, and back then they wanted slavery, women as property, and a class divide as steeped in birthright and money as the British society they came from. The framers of the Constitution intended it to be a living document that could be changed as society and its needs changed.

It doesn't MATTER whether or not the framers of the Constitution did or didn't like the idea of government healthcare or slavery or gender equality or public education, etc. because they knew that society would change in the future and what was acceptable and appropriate then may not be in the future, and they made it a point that the Consitution could be changed by future generations to make those decisions as they saw fit.

Two hundred plus years after the writing of the Consitution and people still think we should be designing our laws around what society at that time thought was acceptable and appropriate??? No fucking thank you!