If that's true, it's of no surprise. I knew Congress was exempted but didn't think about the Pres. About par for the course.
Printable View
If that's true, it's of no surprise. I knew Congress was exempted but didn't think about the Pres. About par for the course.
In addition to the POTUS and Congress being exempt, so too are the staff members of Congress.
Sounds a little like.... "let them eat cake"!:innocent:Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Beware the ‘jobs killer’
http://www.bostonherald.com/business...ome&position=0
"Gov.Deval Patrick shot back at Timothy Cahill yesterday, saying the state treasurer never warned him about the escalating cost of Massachusetts’ universal health-care program."
http://www.bostonherald.com/business...th-care_costs/
So good to know that the current health care reform law was modeled after Massachusetts. What is is that MA called it? Oh, yeah. Unsustainable.
News: Pres. Signs H-Care Insurance Mandate-212 Years Ago!
A Lesson in American History, Healthcare and the Constitution for 14 State Attorneys General
Let’s begin today’s history lesson with the following news:
(CNN) -- Officials from 14 states have gone to court to block the historic overhaul of the U.S. health care system that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, arguing the law's requirement that individuals buy health insurance violates the Constitution.
Thirteen of those officials filed suit in a federal court in Pensacola, Florida, minutes after Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The complaint calls the act an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" and asks a judge to block its enforcement.
"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states.
The history lesson
In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance.
This legislation also created America’s first payroll tax, as a ship’s owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor’s monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.
This historical fact demolishes claims of “unprecedented” and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty...”
Perhaps these somewhat incompetent attorneys general might wish to amend their lawsuits to conform to the 1798 precedent, and demand that the mandate and fines be linked to implementing a federal single payer healthcare insurance plan.
The other option is to name Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison et al. in the lawsuits. However, it might be difficult to convince a judge, or the public, that those men didn't know the limits of the Constitution.
Because the attorneys general research is obviously lacking a comprehensive review of history and the Constitution, I’m providing a copy of the 5th Congress’ 1798 legislation.
CHAP. LXXVII – An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled -
That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship
or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any
port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be
admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the
number of seamen, that shall have been employed on board such vessel
since she was last entered at any port in the United States,-and shall
pay to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every
seaman so employed; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out
of the wages of such seamen.
SEC2. . And be it further enacted, That from and after the first day
of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose
enrolment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a
new enrolment or license before the master of such ship or vessel shall
first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen,
and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or
vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and
pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such
seamen have been severally employed, as aforesaid; which sum the said
master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.
And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is
herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.
SEC3. . And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the
several collectors to make a quarterly return of the sums collected by
them, respectively, by virtue of this act, to the Secretary of the Treasury;
and the President of the United States is hereby authorized, out of the same, to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or
disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established
in the several ports of the United States, or, in ports where no
such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct:
Provided, that the monies collected in any one district, shall be expended
within the same.
SEC. 4. .And be it further enacted, That if any surplus shall remain
of the monies to be collected by virtue of this act, after defraying the
expense of such temporary relief and support, that the same, together ,
with such private donations as may be made for that purpose (which the
President is hereby authorized to receive) shall be invested in the stock
of the United States, under the direction of the President; and when,
in his opinion, a sufficient fund shall be accumulated, he is hereby
authorized to purchase or receive cessions or donations of ground or
provision for buildings, in the name of the United States, and to cause buildings,
when necessary, to be erected as hospitals for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen.
SEC5. . And be it further enacted, That the President of the United
States be, and he is hereby authorized to nominate and appoint, in
such ports of the United States, as he may think proper, one or more
persons, to be called directors of the marine hospital of the United
States, whose duty it shall be to direct the expenditure of the fund
assigned for their respective ports, according to the third section of this
act; to provide for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen,
under such general instructions as shall be given by, the President of
the United States, for that purpose, and also subject to the like general
instructions, to direct and govern such hospitals as the President may
direct to be built in the respective ports: and that the said directors
shall hold their offices during the pleasure of the President, who is
authorized to fill up all vacancies that may be occasioned by the death
or removal of any of the persons so to be appointed. And the said
directors shall render an account of the monies received and expended
by them, once in every quarter of a year, to the Secretary of the Treasury,
or such other person as the President shall direct; but no other
allowance or compensation shall be made to the said directors, except
the payment of such expenses as they may incur in the actual discharge
of the duties required by this act.
APPROVED July 16, 1798
http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_or...-212_years_ago
Didn't get through the entire thing, however let me make it very clear. What the federal government does with federal employees, (military personnel work for the federal government) can not be used as acceptable treatment of the masses and is in no way an argument FOR fining civilians for not obtaining healthcare.
You're confusing driving a car and auto insurance with health insurance. Let me explain to you the difference between the two:
Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege which is governed by those who license the driver. The regulations are in place, not to protect YOU, but to protect citizens that may be harmed or obtain property damage from your lack of skill.
That's why auto insurance is necessary. When you're driving a car that has a loan on it, the insurance is there to protect the interest of the bank. When you crash into a house or another car, the insurance is there to protect the victim. These measures are reasonable.
When you decide that you do not incur enough medical expenses to warrant purchasing healthcare insurance for yourself, the government does not have the right to tell you're wrong. Healthcare insurance for YOU, does not protect anyone else. This is the land of the free and you are free to succeed or fail and I'm free to watch you fail. If you choose not to protect your financial future that's YOUR choice. When the government makes a YOU problem a ME problem I have every right to be upset about it.
Not so fast, cowboy. Read todays news. Seems in their haste to push this illegal bill through, they broke some rules. Now they have to fix the rules and must vote on it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case
ha! You have the boots and hat to match?!
You're correct, but it's the law to protect the other drivers insurance from paying your extensive medical bills when you go flying through the windshield. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case
Ah...so you DON'T know what this bill is all about. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case
This bill will actually screw insurance companies. Forcing them to take more financial risk than they receive in premiums.
If you get sick and have no insurance, insurance companies don't fail. If you pay for your policy when you're healthy and THEN you get sick, they pay out, but still make a profit. If they accept your risk, knowing you're ill, you do not pay a sufficient premium (or this bill will prevent that from happening) to pay for your draw.
If this bill were to have passed in it's current state our private insurance companies would fail in less than 5 years.
Gotta run though...talk to you in a bit.
I don't know the current status of that Maritime law. It may have been overturned or repealed. It may still be law.
We've seen similar acts regarding health insurance for Native Americans, VA, Medicare, and a host of state laws on mental health. I fail to see the connection to today's legislation.
I'll say it directly - that news article was inaccurate. That is why I posted two accurate links. Deliberate delay of information is misinformation. Other news sources updated with the AP release, that one did not. Perhaps because it turned a positive light on the situation? Surely not. If that makes a cheeseburger out of anyone's sacred cow, then perhaps less faith should be put in media.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Right, which is why the post's original title made certain to point out Democrat-led Congress. From where I'm reading, it is only political when one speaks against the flow here. As long as all the replies to a blatantly one-sided political post are in support, then it is just peachy. I'm not going to get into an argument with a mod, though, so whatever you say boss. I'll just lurk these political . . I mean, non-political threads from now on.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
If it is such a great thing, why won't Obama and Congress be implementing it personally???
Which is why I edited it and had a discussion with the poster. Would you like me to just edit your posts as is needed to keep the politics out of it?Quote:
the post's original title made certain to point out Democrat-led Congress
Quiet on the set.
Queue patriot background music.
And.....take one.
Politicians know what a burden the American taxpayer is strapped with. Increased taxes, a slow economy, and so many Americans out of work. Adding to that burden by asking for America to pay for Congressional health care would be unconscionable....
Cut! Don't they already pay for it? It's just a different program, right?
Maybe we should say we deserve something better.
Uh, no. I don't think that will work either.
Nah, when a mod decides to step into the ring the fight is over. Save the mod-hammer for the next chump.
Uncle.
You've been tricked into believing a lie of the incremental adgenda. They started with cars and driving. Calling it a privilege when it is indeed a right. Just as owning and riding a horse was. You have the right to transport yourself anywhere and in anyway you want. A right is something that someone has to do that has a coresponding responsibilty and inpeeds no one else in its exercise. You have the right to drive, you have the responsibility to do so soberly with care and in order to keep your liability to a reasonable level you'd be doing yourself a favor to be insured. That is how it should be anyway. They took that right and made us all believe it was a privilege. So now the only unregulated and taxed transportation method, for the most part, is walking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trabitha
This Health Care Law is more about controling the People of the United States that insuring us. All that has happened over the past decades about so called health and safety, political correctness, welfare, affirmative action, just about everything out of Washigton is meant more to control us and make us dependent on Washington from cradle to grave. Thus empowering the elected to overlordship of the the governed.