Thread: Media`s new big lie:Founders mandate health insurance in1798

.
See: Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798


Just for the record, I addressed this very issue back in 2009 when another progressive tried to pretend our Founders MANDATED health insurance in 1798. But like a vampire which can't be killed, the same big lie returns over and over again and is panhandled by our big progressive loving media.

To begin with, An Act for the relief of sick and disable seamen which Rick Ungar refers to was directed at licensed American flag ships engaged in commerce among the States and/or with foreign nations, and also directed at our Navy and its personnel. It had nothing to do with the kind of despotic intrusion our federal government is now attempting with regard to the American People’s decisions and choices regarding their health care needs.

In spite of the actual limitations of the act, the crackpot at forbes, Rick Ungar, writes: [b]â€

I'm not sure even that law was constitutional. And Adams wasn't actually the author of the US Constitution, Governeur Morris actually wrote it. Far too much attention is paid to Adams with regards to the US Constitution. Far more attention needs to be paid to Morris who actually wrote it and debated its provisions more than any other member of the Constitutional Convention.

In any event, I wouldn't worry about Ungar. It was a bad reach on his part as his "update" shows. What the law does clarify and what would be important for this forum on its prior existence, is that the US Congress has the right to regulate people who enter our ports of entry. Many of these sailors weren't even Americans, they were from all over the world, carrying all types of strange illnesses and diseases that threatened not only them, but other seamen, and citizens they may come in contact with.

The clear successor was US immigration law and the medical tests for certain diseases that are required under it for people to migrate to our nation and enter through our ports of entry, seamen or not.

The law looks constitutional to me. Its regulating liscenses and not purely people as the new healthcare law does. One could argue at this time the liscense made the ship a defacto US Vessel with some control of the US Government. Thus one would establish right to regulate through the liscense. The business gets tied heavily to the government through the ports of entry and government harbor use. Don't see anything in the Constitution against that.

However the difference is between regulating a liscense in a specific business that is tied Heavily to the government, and regulating peoples everyday lives saying just to be able to be a lawful American one must have health insurance matter what part of life you come from. I don't find that Constitutional but it may be a different story if they simply regulated Business Liscenses where Business's had to by law provide health insurance to all employee's.... thats a 50/50 arguement. I wouldn't agree with that either of course but far as Constitutional... maybe. But def bad for business... very bad.

What would be Constitutional is to remove medicaid and medicare as they are Unconstitutional as well. Remove the requirement that hospitals treat anyone in the ER even if they cannot pay as its Unconstitutional requiring another person to pay for someone else's care and Unconstitutional to hurt a business by demanding they serve someone w/o repayment in full.

If the US wanted to provide free healthcare they should have thought of that before dumping nearly every *Public* hospital into private hands. Public hospitals would be a totally different story.