Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate."
It is typical Nazi Propaganda as you would expect.
I invoke Godwin's Law, you've lost the argument already.
Quote:
Government and Regulation of Seamen in the Merchant Service. An act for the government and regulation of seamen in the merchant service. June 20, 1790
I will quote for you the relevant portion of the Act.
"Sec 8 And be it [further] enacted, That every ship or vessel belonging to a citizen or citizens of the United States, of the burthen of one hundred and fifty tons or upwards, navigated by ten or more persons in the whole, and bound on a voyage without the limits of the of the United States, shall be provided with a chest of medicines, put up by some apothecary of known reputation, and accompanied by directions for administering the same; and the said medicines shall be examined by the same or other apothecary, once at least every year, and supplied with fresh medicines in the place of such as shall have been used or spoiled; and in default of having such a medicine chest so provided, and kept fit for use, the master or commander of such ship or vessel shall provide and pay for all such advice, medicine, or attendance of physicians, as any of the crew shall stand in need of in case of sickness, at every port or place where the ship or vessel may touch or trade at during the voyage, without any deduction from the wages of such sick seaman or mariner."
Where am I missing the mandate for U.S. citizens to purchase items for healthcare? In short commerce clause regulating inactivity?
Einer Elhauge relies:
Although Barnett acknowledges that the early medical insurance mandates were exercises of Congress’ commerce clause power, he distinguishes them on the ground that they were imposed on actors who were in commerce, namely on shipowners and (in a third example he omits) seamen. His distinction thus means that he admits that these precedents show that if one is engaged in commerce in market A – here the shipping market or the seamen labor market – then Congress has the power to impose a mandate to purchase in market B – here the medical insurance market – even though markets A and B are totally unrelated. This concession conflicts with the argument of the challengers, which claimed that widespread activity in the health care market did not permit a purchase mandate even in the highly related health insurance market. Indeed, this concession seems to make the whole action/inaction distinction collapse because the fact that no relation between the markets is required means that commercial activity in any market – say, the market for employment or food or housing – would permit the Obamacare mandate. Because the Obamacare mandate applies only to those who have income that subjects them to income tax, it is necessarily limited to people who are active in some commercial market and thus his test would be satisfied.
This isn't the same thing, it requires an employer to provide heath coverage, we already have laws that govern health benefits. Plus, this was regulating the maritime industry. That's exclusively the area of the federal government. It would be like the fed requiring everyone in DC who drives a car to buy car insurance. The feds powers are much different when it comes to the lives of ordinary citizens who do not own boats on navigable waters and who do not live in DC.
"The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate."
I think the "fire arms" was a precursor to a more formal army -
raise and support armies clause. It was also selective. They didn't
make women by muskets, for example.
In regards to healthcare - that was not an indivudial mandate.
More like a single payer e.g. Medicare
Those sailors worked on dangerous ships. When they came back to port,
their healthcare was "covered" by the government, moreso
under the war powers clause than that of the general welfare clause.
Have to remember back then, America was totally dependent
on these ships and their crews. Without them, trade could not exist.
Protection of the country would be null.
Even still, the government was not instructing every citizen to
go to a private clinic or doctor. Come to think of it, they really didn't
actually have doctors as we think of them today. Most were self
taught and didn't even attend schools.
"The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate."
And so you want the government to get between you and your Medical Doctor.
You are certainly a glutton for punishment.
But I digress, the truth is, of course, that you are so valuable to society that your government will spend whatever it takes to cure your ills, right?
Laughing at the superior intellect....
Mircea
Good call.
It is typical Nazi Propaganda as you would expect.
Einer Elhauge is a lying sack of runny excrement and gets the Most Likely To Sleep With Stalin Award for this month.The answer to the question is that the Founding Fathers did not support Health Insurance Mandates and no such mandate existed.
The legislation in question is this:
Government and Regulation of Seamen in the Merchant Service. An act for the government and regulation of seamen in the merchant service. June 20, 1790
I will quote for you the relevant portion of the Act.
"Sec 8 And be it [further] enacted, That every ship or vessel belonging to a citizen or citizens of the United States, of the burthen of one hundred and fifty tons or upwards, navigated by ten or more persons in the whole, and bound on a voyage without the limits of the of the United States, shall be provided with a chest of medicines, put up by some apothecary of known reputation, and accompanied by directions for administering the same; and the said medicines shall be examined by the same or other apothecary, once at least every year, and supplied with fresh medicines in the place of such as shall have been used or spoiled; and in default of having such a medicine chest so provided, and kept fit for use, the master or commander of such ship or vessel shall provide and pay for all such advice, medicine, or attendance of physicians, as any of the crew shall stand in need of in case of sickness, at every port or place where the ship or vessel may touch or trade at during the voyage, without any deduction from the wages of such sick seaman or mariner."
Okay, now let's go through this and see what we have.
First this law applies only to those ships that are owned by US citizens.
Second, the ship must have a gross tonnage greater than 150 tons. From this we can see it does not apply to every ship, just those of that tonnage or greater.
Third, it has to be crewed by a minimum of 10 persons
Fourth, the ship must leave the territorial water of the United States.
Now, if the ship happens to meet all 4 of those conditions (owned by US citizens and in excess of 150 tons and crewed by 10 or more and leaves the territorial water of the US bound for Europe, Africa, South America or the Caribbean Islands), then there is something the ship-master must do.
The ship-master must obtain and maintain a chest of reliable medicines from reputable suppliers with proper instruction on how to use those medicines.
What we have here is garden variety Worker's Compensation.
While the Merchant Marines are at sea, should they become ill, the ship-master is to see that the Merchant Marine gets medical attention at no cost to him, and if necessary, when the ship arrives at a foreign port, the Merchant Marine shall have medical attention if necessary.
That is not "health insurance."
For one thing, it only applies to the Merchant Marines on the ship, outside of the US. It does not apply to them when they are at home or not sailing.
Furthermore, should they leave that ship and go to another ship, even if only for a day, they are not covered, unless that ship also meets the same criteria.
So, you asked where were the text of the laws, well every obviously the Nazi liar Einer Elhauge didn't want you to see it, because then you would know what a Nazi liar he or she (what the hell kind of name is Einer Elhauge anyway?) really is.
Hope that helps and kudos for having the common sense to ask the hard questions.
Legislatively...
Mircea
mircea is right. that mandate was limited in its scope.
I appreciate the desire by leftists that the repetition of a lie should convert it into truth. But that stopped working in April of 1945. Were you hoping to repeat that little episode, too?
Obviously it is the same problem : the Congress mandates these people to purchase something they didn't want.
I see you're a little slow.
Sec. 9. And be it [further] enacted, That every ship or vessel, belonging as aforesaid, bound on a voyage across the Atlantic ocean, shall, at the time of leaving the last port from whence she sails, have on board, well secured under deck, at least sixty gallons of water, one hundred pounds of salted flesh meat, and one hundred pounds of wholesome ship-bread, for every person on board such ship or vessel, over and besides such other provisions, stores and live-stock as shall by the master or passengers; and in case the crew of any ship or vessel, which shall not have been so provided shall be put upon short allowance in water, flesh or bread, during the voyage, the master or owner of such a ship or vessel shall pay to each of the crew, one day's wags beyond the wages agreed on, for every day they shall be so put on short allowance, to be recovered in the same manner as their stipulated wages.
Get it now? I don't suppose it's even worth my time to mention context.
And seriously, I hope you're not suggesting people don't want food and water, because Congress mandated that certain select ships operating under specific conditions purchase, in addition to a medicine chest, an adequate supply of food and water and bread, and should the crew be put on short rations for any reason, they are to be paid one day's wages for each day they are on short rations.
Like I've said a dozen times before, what's next, Food Insurance?
Debunking...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
What is the difference?
Uh, wut? Are you serious? You are not able to distinguish between being on the job and off the job?
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
Einstein's Ghost lost quite a few dozen IQ points through the whole body to spirit transformation process.
Summing it up...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
I invoke Godwin's Law, you've lost the argument already.
Godwin's Law does not apply, since Godwin's Law requires a comparison to beliefs held by Hitler or Nazis.
Propaganda, is propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Where am I missing the mandate for U.S. citizens to purchase items for healthcare?
Your reading skills are really atrocious. There is none. The statute only requires US citizens who own ships of a certain size/class with a certain crew complement to provide worker's compensation for the crew when the crew is not in the United States.
If you are sick and docked at a US port, you are not covered. Why? Because the statute clearly says that you must be outside the territorial United States.
And it is not insurance. If I buy a bottle of Advil and a bottle of cough syrup and throw them at you, then I am not insured and you are not insured, but you do have a bottle of Advil and a bottle of cough syrup at your disposal, if you happen to be outside the territorial waters of the US. I don't expect you to understand the difference but I'd certainly expect Einer Liarlauge or whoever wrote that garbage to understand.
Invite the idiot here to City-Data. I'll tap-dance on its head.
Do you even understand the context here?
I don't think you do, and that's not your fault, because this is history that the US does not want to teach to American children.
The Congress of the Articles of Confederation and the the Congress of the Constitutional Government were pacifists.
Their philosophy was to avoid conflict at any cost, and so they paid to avoid conflicts. Literally. The US paid the Barbary Coast States $Millions in annual tribute each and every year for more than 20 years to keep them from plundering and looting and stealing US Merchant Marine and Naval vessels.
The US also bribed France by paying annual tributes to France in the sum of $Millions every year to keep the French from raiding US ships. The French navy would see the US flag, sail right up, force the ship to drop anchor, steal everything, kill the crew or sell the crew into slavery or impress the crew into the French navy. Those of British descent were most likely to be killed or enslaved, while German-speakers, Dutch and others had a chance to be in the French navy.
The British did something similar. They would stop US ships and take British citizens who had emigrated to the United States and impress them into the British navy.
So, now, in light of historical truth, is there some point to Section 8 and Section 9?
Absolutely. The US is trying to prevent US Merchant Marine and cargo ships from being captured? How, by attempting to ensure that those ships have sufficient provisions and medicines, negating the need to make unnecessary and unneeded ports-of-call.
Here is where the US adopts the "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude. You have to choose your battles well. Fighting the Barbary Coast States is out of the question. The US would get stomped into the ground, because they are ill-prepared.
Between France and Britain, which is weakest? France.
Starting in 1795, the US goes on a rampage. Over the next 4 years , the US Navy destroys or captures 90 French ships, with the total number of guns exceeding 700. The US Navy also recaptures several dozen US Merchant Marine, cargo and naval vessels that had been pirated by France.
Since France dumped the 64-gun line ships in favor of the 74-gun arrangement, your French ships had 74, 80 or 118 guns. So out of those 90 ships the US sunk or captured, at least 6 to 9 were warships.
Once Washington is gone, the US ceases paying the annual tribute of $Millions to France in 1798 and goes to war in the Quasi-War (1798-1800).
During the same period, the British destroyed the Spanish navy as well (while also attacking the French navy) and that paved the way for the US to go after the Barbary Coast States, with a force of well-trained Marines (and yes, that's where the "....shores of Tripoli..." comes from in the Marines' Hymn).
And then of course the War of 1812 with Britain (which started about 1810 or so).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
In short commerce clause regulating inactivity?
Commerce Clause?
How?
The statute only applies to those Merchant Marines who are outside the territorial water of the United States.
What the hell gives Congress the right to regulate matters in International Waters?
Both you and Einersteiner are really, really weak on your Admiralty Law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Einer Elhauge relies:
Although Barnett acknowledges that the early medical insurance mandates were exercises of Congress’ commerce clause power, he distinguishes them on the ground that they were imposed on actors who were in commerce, namely on shipowners and (in a third example he omits) seamen. His distinction thus means that he admits that these precedents show that if one is engaged in commerce in market A – here the shipping market or the seamen labor market – then Congress has the power to impose a mandate to purchase in market B – here the medical insurance market – even though markets A and B are totally unrelated. This concession conflicts with the argument of the challengers, which claimed that widespread activity in the health care market did not permit a purchase mandate even in the highly related health insurance market. Indeed, this concession seems to make the whole action/inaction distinction collapse because the fact that no relation between the markets is required means that commercial activity in any market – say, the market for employment or food or housing – would permit the Obamacare mandate. Because the Obamacare mandate applies only to those who have income that subjects them to income tax, it is necessarily limited to people who are active in some commercial market and thus his test would be satisfied.
What medical insurance?
Insurance is based on actuarial science which incorporates risk analysis.
There is no such animal as insurance here, and continually referring to health care coverage as "insurance" when it is not, is fraudulent and misrepresents the facts.
The definition the US Supreme Court will use is this:
Insurance is an agreement in which one party agrees to bear the risk of another party for compensation.
Why? Because Black's defines it as this:
Insurance is a contract whereby for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specific subject by specified perils.
There is no contract.
There is no stipulated consideration here. The seaman/mariner pays nothing, and neither does the master.
No one is compensating anyone for any losses for any reason.
So how these idiots figure it is "insurance" is anyone's guess. Maybe it's like the ******* vision of "free" or something.
Now, who on this forum knows why the US Supreme Court and every judge in the United States would ignore any reference to this statute?
Here you go:
Sec. 7. And be it [further] enacted, That if any seaman or mariner, who shall have signed a contract to perform a voyage, shall, at any port or place, desert, or shall absent himself from such ship or vessel, without leave of the master, or officer commanding in the absence of the master, it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace within the United States (upon the complaint of the master) to issue his warrant to apprehend such deserter, and bring him before such justice; and if it shall then appear by due proof, that he has signed a contract within the intent and meaning of this act, and that the voyage agreed for is not finished, altered or the contract otherwise dissolved, and that such seaman or mariner has deserted the ship or vessel, or absented himself without leave, the said justice shall commit him to the house of correction or common gaol of the city, town or lace, there to remain until the said ship or vessel shall be ready to proceed on her voyage, or till the master shall require his discharge, and then to be delivered to the said master, he paying all the cost of such commitment and deducting the same of of the wages due to such seaman or mariner.
If you all got the impression we are talking about the US Merchant Marines, then you're right, but funny how *******s withheld that very pertinent fact from you.
I don't suppose the title of the statute held any clues, did it?
Government and Regulation of the Seamen in the Merchant Service.
Notice that neither the title nor the body of the statute makes any reference to private sector shipping.
I think the "fire arms" was a precursor to a more formal army - raise and support armies clause. It was also selective. They didn't make women by muskets, for example.
In regards to healthcare - that was not an indivudial mandate. More like a single payer e.g. Medicare Those sailors worked on dangerous ships. When they came back to port, their healthcare was "covered" by the government, moreso under the war powers clause than that of the general welfare clause.
Have to remember back then, America was totally dependent on these ships and their crews. Without them, trade could not exist. Protection of the country would be null.
Even still, the government was not instructing every citizen to go to a private clinic or doctor. Come to think of it, they really didn't actually have doctors as we think of them today. Most were self taught and didn't even attend schools.
Good post. Beat me to it, it was for the military.
"The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate."
2. There was no federal mandate to purchase ANYTHING in 1776
It is amazing to hear and see what liberals "think", as it obviously involves very little thought.
Tell me, my liberal "friends"............ if the Supreme Court deemed it constitutional to mandate the purchase of health insurance by private citizens, what COULD THEY NOT INVOKE PRIVATE CITIZENS TO PURCHASE???
PS- A drivers license is different, in that it is an OPTIONAL priveledge which is purchased. An insurance MANDATE is not OPTIONAL.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
