Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Federal Judge Rules O'BomberCare Unconstitutional (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 3 pages long:   1  2  3 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Federal Judge Rules O'BomberCare Unconstitutional
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3699
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 13, 2010 12:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As has been stated several times, if the federal government can require individual citizens to purchase health care insurance under the Interstate Commerce Clause...then, there is nothing whatsoever the government cannot require of US citizens.

Under this mistaken belief, the government could require all citizens to purchase a Ford, a Chevy, purchase guns, buy spinach or, on the flip side of that coin, refrain from purchasing consumer items which are part of everyday life and not in any way illegal.

This federal judge has just ruled that the US has not devolved from a Constitutional Republic into a petty little tyranny ruled over by 535 petty tyrants in Congress and a petty little wanna be dictator in the White House.

We'll see, when this case is appealed to the US Supreme Court whether the Constitution is still alive and well OR whether it's time to break out the pitchforks and frog march the tyrants out of Washington D.C.

Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law
By LARRY O'DELL, 20 mins ago

RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.

The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3699
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 13, 2010 06:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
FLASHBACK: When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'

CNSNews.com originally published this story in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the question of whether Obamacare was constitutional on Oct. 22, 2009.
Monday, December 13, 2010
By Matt Cover

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-when-asked-where-constitution

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6563
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2010 01:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
so far THIS judge is alone in such finding. i'm not surprised you did not bring any news regarding OTHER judges decisions, but there have been others. onesuch below, from october...

http://my.firedoglake.com/somethingthedogsaid/2010/10/08/judge-declares-affordable-health-care-act-constitutional/

IP: Logged

AbsintheDragonfly
Knowflake

Posts: 2314
From: Gaia
Registered: Apr 2010

posted December 14, 2010 02:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AbsintheDragonfly     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well I'm gonna constitutionally mandate that you all must make me chocolate chocolate chip cookies!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3699
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2010 03:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yep, two nutty putty federal judges have ruled otherwise. However, it should be noted that one said not purchasing something was "economic activity". Never mind that the Interstate Commerce clause was written for consumer commerce by those living in different states AND there in no Interstate commerce involved in buying health insurance since health insurers are more of less monopolies within the various states.

What a dumb ass that federal judge is.

In the other instance, the issue of standing to sue the federal government over the issue was invoked by the jerk sitting on the elevated toilet seat in a black robe.

There's another case coming up in Florida on...I believe Dec 18th and that case was brought by 18 Attorney's Generals on behalf of their states citizens.

AD, you mandate we make you chocolate chocolate chip cookies...in contravention of the 13th Amendment, i.e. Slavery and Involuntary Servitude?

Aw hell, why don't I just volunteer! Constitutional problem solved...but you have to supple the chocolate chocolate!

IP: Logged

AbsintheDragonfly
Knowflake

Posts: 2314
From: Gaia
Registered: Apr 2010

posted December 15, 2010 10:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AbsintheDragonfly     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Making Cookies is NOT slavery! Cookie Monster would be appalled Jwhop It's Tasty Treat Making!

Deal. I make you some awesome cologne for your Leo self, and you can make me some cookies! I actually think you'd like Lumberjack Man...

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3699
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 19, 2010 08:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's a deal AD....however, since you're making up a scent for me, I prefer something along the lines of "Old Sweat".

State of Florida, et al. v. Obamacare
December 17, 2010

Yesterday, United States District Court Judge Roger Vinson heard oral arguments in the case brought by Florida and nineteen other states challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare’s requirement that all obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. Of course, the federal government is now calling it a tax, not a penalty when arguing its constitutionality, but that is beside the point here.

I thought you might be interested in some of the judge’s remarks during the argument. On the issue of whether Congress had the power to legislate this mandate under the interstate commerce clause, the court said,

It would be a giant leap for the Supreme Court to say that a decision to buy or not to buy is tantamount to activity…

Certainly the federal government can regulate when someone decides to engage in interstate commerce, but it seems that the judge has a problem with calling the simple decision of whether or not to engage in interstate commerce “an activity”.

An even more interesting discussion happened when the federal government’s attorney argued that the uninsured don’t pay for their health care, so that cost is spread among those who are insured. Thus, requiring everyone to have insurance solves this problem. The judge took issue with this by explaining that,

he was uninsured in law school when his son was born, and joked that the delivery bill came to about $100 per pound. “I paid it,” [said the judge].

Ouch, be careful you know the judge’s background before you advance an argument.

And, when Florida’s attorney argued that if it was constitutional for the federal government to require that all buy insurance, what else could they do, the judge said,

[i]f they decide that everyone needs to eat broccoli,” then the commerce clause could allow Congress to require everyone to buy a certain quantity of broccoli…

A decision is expected early next year.

What will be very interesting, though, is how the court deals with the severability issue. Absent the individual mandate, Obamacare will mean the death of private insurance on a much faster pace than will otherwise most assuredly occur.
http://radioviceonline.com/state-of-florida-et-al-v-obamacare/

IP: Logged

AbsintheDragonfly
Knowflake

Posts: 2314
From: Gaia
Registered: Apr 2010

posted December 20, 2010 01:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AbsintheDragonfly     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Since you didn't get here in time Jwhop, I had to make the cookies myself. I'd be willing to share though. That's constitutional!

All tasty cookies MUST be shared.

I really do think you'd like lumberjack man, Jwhop.

Review of Lumberjack Man by Carol from WAFT: http://waftbycarol.blogspot.com/2010/11/ambivalent-outlaw-esscentual-alchemy.html

Ambivalent Outlaw - Esscentual Alchemy Lumberjack Man

Some of us do not care for which gender the scent is intended . We play it both ways ...Lumberjack Man is one of those . Love this !!

My scent memories surrounding the forest , the trees, the exhilarating smell of freshly cut wood , all revolve around chopping wood for the home fires. As a hard core back to the lander during the 70s and 80s , my home in Northern Idaho and later Washington State , was warmed solely with wood . Some winters we collected ten cords ( and burned it all ) !!
There is nothing more satisfying than pure snow covered forest , frosty air and the sharp crack of the axe as it cleaves the grain of a perfect piece of firewood . This scent brings it all back ... wood warms you twice : once when you cut it and once when you burn it !

Notes: Tobacco, Labdanum, Agarwood, Ylang ylang, Ginger, Lime, Wormwood, Saffron, Black Pepper, Rosewood

(what someone said about it:
One word, wow! Thank you so much. I think your men's scents are especially beyond amazing. )

I feel like a Pimp...

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3699
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2011 08:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Judges sharply challenge healthcare law
By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
June 8, 2011, 4:24 p.m.

Skeptical questions from three federal judges in Atlanta suggest they may be ready to declare unconstitutional all or part of the healthcare law promoted by the Obama administration and passed last year by Congress.

Reporting from Atlanta—

If the Obama administration had any doubt that its signature healthcare law faces a severe challenge in court, it was erased soon after Chief Judge Joel Dubina opened the proceedings here.

"I can't find any case like this," Dubina said. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government?

Judge Stanley Marcus chimed in: "I can't find any case" in the past, he said, where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market.... Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"

After nearly three hours of argument Wednesday, the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed prepared to declare at least part of last year's law unconstitutional.

The law's requirement that nearly everyone buy health insurance by 2014 is the question at the heart of the constitutional challenge. The argument that the mandate exceeds Congress' power initially was waved aside by many legal commentators, but it has now sharply divided the federal courts.

Three federal district judges have upheld the law and two have ruled it unconstitutional. Three cases have reached appeals courts, with a fourth appellate panel scheduled to hold a hearing in September.

The current case has gathered the most attention because it involves 26 state attorneys general — all Republicans — who jointly challenged the law. In addition, the 11th Circuit is considered among the most conservative of the federal appellate courts. If any of the appeals courts strikes down the law, the case almost certainly would land at the Supreme Court, perhaps during the election year. The 11th Circuit has been seen by legal experts as one of the more likely to rule against the administration.

The questions from the bench quickly confirmed that advance billing, as acting U.S. Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal faced off against former Bush administration Solicitor Gen. Paul Clement. Katyal argued that healthcare was unique and unlike the purchase of other products, like vegetables in a grocery store.

"You can walk out of this courtroom and be hit by a bus," he said, and if an ill or injured person has no insurance, a hospital and the taxpayers will have to pay the costs of his emergency care.

Katyal argued that Congress could reasonably decide that because everyone will probably need medical care at some time in their lives, everyone who can afford it should pay part of the cost. And he said the courts should uphold the law under Congress' broad power to regulate commerce in this country.

Congress could clearly require that a person who shows up at a hospital without insurance buy it on the spot, he said, and requiring the purchase in advance should not be the decisive difference.

Clement said, "In 220 years, Congress never saw fit to use this power, to compel a person to engage in commerce."

Judge Frank Hull, the third member of the appellate panel, repeatedly asked the lawyers about the possible effect of striking down the mandate while upholding the rest of the law. She said the government had exaggerated the importance of the mandate because other provisions of the new law would mean that most of the 50 million people currently without insurance would be covered after the law took effect.

Usually, when passing a complex law, Congress includes a provision known as a severability clause that says that if one part of the law is struck down, the rest can stand. The House included such a provision in its healthcare bill, but it was not included in the Senate version. And in the last-minute scramble, the House adopted the Senate's version.

Both sides agreed that the court faced an all-or-nothing decision.

Katyal called the individual mandate the cornerstone of the law's aim to regulate and reform the insurance market. The law requires insurers to take patients with preexisting conditions. That rule could not work if people could wait to buy insurance until they had a heart attack or were diagnosed with cancer, he said.

Clement also said the judges should strike down the entire law. "You can't separate out the mandate. We take the position the whole thing falls," Clement said.

In addition to the argument over the law's individual insurance mandate, the appeals court also considered a challenge by the states to the requirement that they pay more in the future for healthcare for low-income people under Medicaid. That part of the new law amounts to an unconstitutional burden foisted on them by Congress, Clement argued.

Clement said Congress gave the states "no choice" but to go along with the expansion of Medicaid. He said Florida estimated it would spend $574 million more in 2019 because of the expanded rolls.

The Medicaid claim has not won any support from other federal judges, but Dubina said the states had "a pretty strong argument" they were being forced to pay millions of dollars more to enroll low-income residents.

Administration lawyers say the law calls for the federal government to pay 90% of the added costs of enrolling additional Medicaid patients. They also note that the Supreme Court has never struck down a law on the grounds that it forces states to do something in exchange for federal funds.

Judicial rulings on the health law have largely been along partisan lines. Dubina, from Alabama, was first appointed to the bench by President Reagan and was elevated to the appeals court by President George H.W. Bush. His daughter, Rep. Martha Roby of Alabama, is a conservative Republican who ran for office on a pledge to repeal the healthcare law.

Hull, from Georgia, was appointed by President Clinton. The third member of the panel, Marcus, from Florida, was first appointed as a district judge by Reagan, but Clinton appointed him to the appeals court.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-healthcare-court-20110609,0,1457877.story

IP: Logged

Ami Anne
Moderator

Posts: 12441
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted June 09, 2011 09:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ami Anne     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
THANK GOD Jwhop
I just read the thread name
Thank God there is still some sanity left in this world

------------------
Enlightenment doesn't result from sitting around visualizing images of light, but from integrating the darker aspects of the self into the conscious personality
Jung
You must lose your life for My sake in order to find it .
Jesus

He who controls his Spirit is greater than he who controls a city
Proverbs

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3699
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 09, 2011 09:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The easy way to get this unconstitutional O'BomberCare law off the books is to have federal courts...and the Supreme Court declare O'BomberCare unconstitutional.

If they don't do so, then there's nothing whatsoever the federal government cannot do through extensions of the "Commerce Clause" and the federal "taxing authority".

This is the opposite of what the Founders, state legislatures and citizens intended when the Constitution was written and ratified.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6563
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 10, 2011 03:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
interesting precedent for this case involving one of the signers of the constitution, president john adams

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-p asses-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

The law was not only the first time the United States created a socialized medical program (The Marine Hospital Service) but was also the first to mandate that privately employed citizens be legally required to make payments to pay for health care services. Upon passage of the law, ships were no longer permitted to sail in and out of our ports if the health care tax had not been collected by the ship owners and paid over to the government – thus the creation of the first payroll tax in our nation’s history.

When a sick or injured sailor needed medical assistance, the government would confirm that his payments had been collected and turned over by his employer and would then give the sailor a voucher entitling him to admission to the hospital where he would be treated for whatever ailed him.

While a few of the healthcare facilities accepting the government voucher were privately operated, the majority of the treatment was given out at the federal maritime hospitals that were built and operated by the government in the nation’s largest ports.

As the nation grew and expanded, the system was also expanded to cover sailors working the private vessels sailing the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.

The program eventually became the Public Health Service, a government operated health service that exists to this day under the supervision of the Surgeon General.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5411
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 10, 2011 04:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The crux of the argument revolves around the fact that everyone will, at some point or another, require healthcare services. That's what differentiates this "product" from other products. This "product" saves the taxpayer from the bill of the uninsured.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3699
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 10, 2011 10:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The crux of the matter is that O'BomberCare is an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause and the federal government taxing authority.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6563
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 10, 2011 11:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
precedent appears to be on the healthcare act's side.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3699
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 11, 2011 09:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Precedent does not appear to be on the side of O'BomberCare.

It's a very far leap from requiring a segment of the population...mariners...to purchase health care and requiring the entire population to do so.

Further, the fact sailors go from port to port, may need medical services, may skip out without paying and be impossible to find later or have insufficient funds on hand..on board ship..to pay for medical services is a possible justification for the old law.

AND, how about foreign sailors? What's the chance of ever finding them if they skip out without paying their doctor's bill?

One other thing...and the most important thing it is!

Those employed in maritime occupations...transportation of goods on the high seas...are subject to maritime law..Admiralty Law.

Lots of things are possible under Admiralty Law which cannot be done under Constitutional law or state laws.

I'm not surprised to see Rick Ungar working at Forbes Magazine.

I'm also not surprised to see that O'BomberCare cheerleader Ungar, didn't mention the basis for the health care law he wrote about...Admiralty Law.

Steve Forbes is a notorious RINO establishment insider who has run for President and got nowhere fast.

As stupid as O'Bomber, his little coven of administration Marxists and congressional demoscat Socialists are; they didn't attempt to assert that everyone in the United States is covered by Admiralty Law.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6563
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 11, 2011 12:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
the bill was signed by the president. it is landlubber law, not maritime. it was also if you read the piece, applied to inland freshwater boatworkers as well.

supposedly even foreign ships were required to comply with the insurance if they were to dock here.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3699
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 11, 2011 02:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ummmm katatonic. Did you miss this little footnote appended to the the "Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen Act"?

1 Curtis, George Tickner. A treatise on the rights and duties of Merchant Seaman, According to the General Maritime Law, and the Statutes of the United States. Boston: Charles C Little and James Brown, 1841), 407-409

Maritime Law/Admiralty Law is a seperate body of law within the jurisdiction of the United States...as is the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Maritime Law/Admiralty Law comes under the jurisdiction of our Admiralty Courts and is definitely NOT for landlubbers who are covered by US Constitutional law.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6563
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 11, 2011 03:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
no, nor did i miss THIS part

"and the statutes of the United States"...

if you are trying to get into a real legal debate, i don't have really have time. i decided NOT to be a lawyer because the kind of nitpicking necessary is extremely distasteful and boring to me...and makes their fees more than understandable to me, considering the time consumed doing research

but as i understand it Maritime Law becomes part of Federal Law "when it has been declared to be law by Congress, the President, or the courts." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6785/is_1_4/ai_n28523554/pg_9/?tag=mantle_sk in;content

and the surgeon general is a member of the Federal Government and the FEDERAL dept of health and human services. he is not working just maritime law and health issues though i believe that is where the position originated.

as was this insurance bill.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3699
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 11, 2011 04:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Give it up katatonic. This was enacted under Maritime Law...as the footnote spells out the authority.

Maritime Law IS part of the statutes of the US...as the law relates to maritime shipping...and those who are seamen, ship owners and maritime insurers.

This is not difficult. It's not confusing.

AND, O'BomberCare is still unconstitutional as it relates to US citizens who are under the jurisdiction of the US constitution..instead of the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice OR Admiralty/Maritime Law.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6563
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 11, 2011 06:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Further, the fact sailors go from port to port, may need medical services, may skip out without paying and be impossible to find later or have insufficient funds on hand..on board ship..to pay for medical services is a possible justification for the old law...

just as the fact that PEOPLE travel, get sick, may not have money for medical emergencies is justification for this one. living includes the risk of illness and accident, jwhop. as AG has pointed out. in fact most people need some treatment at some time in their lives.

and since i already said i am not about to get into the meat of a legal argument, telling me to give it up is a little tardy..?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3699
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 11, 2011 09:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, I am making a "legal" argument. And that argument is backed up by the footnote in the 1798 law alluding to "rights and duties of seamen...according to the Maritime Law....".

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6563
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 12, 2011 01:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
be my guest!

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6563
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 12, 2011 03:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
in the meantime don't forget that george washington managed to pass the Militia Act which REQUIRES EVERY FREE ABLE BODIED WHITE MALE CITIZEN to buy guns and accessories to equip himself for required militia duty.

". There was spirited debate in Congress as to whether the state ought to subsidize the purchase of arms for men too poor to afford their own, so that everyone could serve his country..."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/25/militia

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5411
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 13, 2011 11:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would recommend at least a once over of the article before putting your foot in your mouth any further, Jwhop.

Newsflash: Founders favored "government run health care"

By Greg Sargent
Forbes writer Rick Ungar is getting some attention for a piece arguing that history shows that John Adams supported a strong Federal role in health care. Ungar argues that Adams even championed an early measure utilizing the concept behind the individual mandate, which Tea Partyers say is unconsittutional.

I just ran this theory past a professor of history who specializes in the early republic, and he said there's actually something to it. Short version: There's no proof from the historical record that Adams would have backed the idea behind the individual mandate in particular. But it is fair to conclude, the professor says, that the founding generation supported the basic idea of government run health care, and the use of mandatory taxation to pay for it.

Here's the background. Ungar points out that in July of 1798, Congress passed "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman," which was signed by President Adams. That law authorized the creation of a government operated system of marine hospitals and mandated that laboring merchant marine sailors pay a tax to support it.

Ungar argues that this blows away the argument made by many opponents of the individual mandate: That it's unconstitutional to mandate that all citizens purchase health coverage, or that this violates the founding fathers' view of the proper role of government.

Is this true? In some ways it is, according to Adam Rothman, an associated professor of history at Georgetown University. He argues that it's a "bit of a leap" to compare the 1798 act directly to the individual mandate, because the act taxed sailors to pay for their health care, rather than "requiring that sailors purchase it."

But Rothman says that it's perfectly legit to see shades of today's debate in that early initiative.

"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."


Also: Some have argued that the individual mandate is, in effect a tax, but one that cuts out the Federal government as middleman. In this reading, everyone will eventually participate in the health system anyway, and the mandate means the Federal government is merely directing people to buy insurance, rather than collecting a tax and using that money to purchase that same insurance for them.

We will never know whether the founding generation would have agreed with this concept or not. They didn't agree on much even among themselves. But in Rothman's view, they are already on record supporting government run health care, financed by mandatory taxation. So there!

UPDATE, 3:29 p.m.: To be clear, the system of government-run hospitals was established for laboring merchant marine sailors, whose very dangerous work in trade was crucial to the young republic. The history is right here. I've edited the above to clarify.

By Greg Sargent | January 20, 2011; 2:35 PM ET http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/founding_fathers_favored_gover.html

IP: Logged


This topic is 3 pages long:   1  2  3 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a