It wasn't a particularly new idea, England had the Royal Chelsea Hospital which provided a home and medical care for old or maimed veterans who had served their country. It was set up by King Charles II after his girlfriend Nell Gwynne talked his into doing something for wounded soldiers he also set up the Royal Kilmainham Hospital here in Ireland to take care of old or wounded Irish soldiers who had served him, while France had Les Invalides the home for old soldiers who spent their time helping to make muskets for france. John Adams great idealist and republican and next to Tom Paine one of the best of the founding fathers.
First rate poster man, best of luck.
While it seems I am a few months late on this argument I feel strongly enough to educate people on this matter, no one seems to be using proper terminology.
The best and most accurate definition of socialism was coined by Lien and accepted by economist from Milton freeman to kurgan is when the government controls the commanding highs. People do equate socialism with Marxism correctly. Marxism combines socialism, communism, and class warfare/social justice in to one idea. So the next question would be, is this Marxists. Well...no. The government was only 4% of the GDP back then and was funded by tarfs as there was no income tax. No progressive income tax, no social just. All so Marx was not born yet. I find it hard to believe the man who said, "Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty." is pro wealth redistribution.
You could make the argument that he was a altruistic collectivist, while my studies of John Adams has show him to be an altruist (for example defending the British troops from the Boston massacre when it could ruin his future.) I hardly would call him a collectivist as no self respecting collectivist would say, "Fear is the foundation of most governments."
Now as for the act its self, it was not written by Adams but was created as part of the creation of the US navy, this was not for civilians but more like a veterans hospital. And it was not ground breaking as its practice had been happing in England for several hundred years before and merely grandfathered its way in to the USN. Picking this one thing and saying it make Adams a socialist is like saying Lien was a capitalist because he let peasant farmers sell their crops for money after collectivization had failed.
Oh, and banned, for sheer gullibility. Looks like you drank the whole pitcher of Kool-Aid, dude.
First in the Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
And then in Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States."
Now doesn't Federal Affordable Healthcare, even if it has a Federal Mandate, fall under the category of "promoting the General Welfare of the United States"?
as for Engels and Trotsky... i don't quite rememaber enough about them to comment on it.
The question of the current individual mandate seems distinguishable from this Act for a couple of reasons.
First, the 1798 Act seems to have actually targeted the employers rather than the workers themselves (the employer could deduct the funds from the pay of his workers, but the burden of doing so was on him, and penalties seem to have applied to the master of the vessel rather than the workers thereon directly).
Second, it can be argued that the health of seamen is more directly related to interstate or international commerce than is the health of each and every individual in the entire US.
The first argument is probably the stronger one. Though the Act served to provide health care for certain people, there was no individual mandate that required the workers themselves to purchase health care. Employers were actually required to pay a tax based on the number of seamen on each vessel (Congress basically has unlimited power to tax), and the funds collected were used to create "hospitals" for those seamen. Penalties for failure to pay the requisite tax were imposed upon the master of the ship in question, not upon the seamen themselves. The current health care bill (which will most likely be upheld anyway) seeks to use Congress' Commerce Clause powers to justify a requirement imposed upon each and every individual in the US to purchase, with their own money, health insurance from a private provider. The penalty for failure to do so will be increased income taxes (though not called a "penalty," since Congress can't impose a penalty under their Taxation powers), the rationale for which is to offset the increased burden on the system caused by their failure to have health insurance. There is no precedent for Congress imposing an affirmative obligation upon private individuals as a means of regulating commerce. The closest they've gotten is probably Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich, but both of those cases involved federal prohibition against action that would affect interstate commerce, rather than federally mandated action.
The second argument is a bit weaker, but still significant. It is far more of a stretch to say that the federal government can impose such a mandate upon individual citizens, many of whom may in fact never impose any such burden on the health care system, than it is to say that they can regulate international trading vessels (the Act specifies those that are arriving from foreign ports) and their employees under Congress' Commerce Clause powers.
Now I'm not opposed to better health care for people, but the idea of setting a precedent that Congress can literally tell me how to spend my post-tax dollars is a bit scary. Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause have grown pretty steadily over time, with relatively few instances of the Court restricting their power, and I think that the slippery slope argument is a valid one, ridiculous examples aside.
All that aside, however, the Founding Fathers of this country were pretty evenly divided between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist camps. While I have no trouble accepting the idea that some of them were socialist, that doesn't mean that large scale socialism is therefore built into our system of government in such a fundamental way. I get that this is more of a jab at those who feel that strict adherence to "what the founding fathers would have done" is the only valid way to interpret the Constitution, but the Constitution itself was a compromise, and the viewpoint of individual signers is not nearly as relevant as the reasoning that led to the final compromise.
If the federal government wants to raise taxes and use the money to provide health care for all, that's certainly within their power. I just don't like the idea of Congress telling me where to spend the money that they have ostensibly allowed me to keep any more than I like the idea of Congress telling me who I can and can't marry.
One last point: the title of the piece I posted is sarcastic, and meant to be. None of the Founders was anything remotely akin to a socialist, and anyway, socialism in my understanding, has to do with who owns the means of production, not with who pays for one's health care.
If the government were to actually get rid of private health insurance altogether they may as well conscript all medical personnel into government service, since the effect will essentially be the same. The essence of socialism is that individual needs are subordinate to collective needs, and that the government takes all the benefit of everyone's collective work and then distributes it (ideally) evenly. In theory I like the idea of everyone being provided for, and perhaps in an ideal world such a system would work. I just don't think that our society is quite ready to sustain a social model based on selfless contribution for the greater good.
Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to really do in-depth research on the topic of health care specifically, so it's hard for me to discuss it outside of a general constitutional analysis
I disagree with you in part. My reading of the 1798 Act is that since the ultimate payers were the individual seamen, it is functionally the same as an individual mandate. Just like today, an employer may offer 100% employer paid health insurance, or, more likely, require that his employees shoulder part of the costs, so too were masters of the vessels involved free to pay the entire levy, or, to pass it on to their employees.
I also don't see the symmetry between the abolition of private health insurance and a direct government take-over of the system whereby all providers become government employees. That's the British model, and it surely has its limitations.
Anyway, I really don't want this gallery to become enmeshed with the debate of these issues on their merits. As I said at the outset, if everyone who participated were studious, analytical, and intellectually curious, that would be a different story, but if you read the majority of the posts that have resulted in my blocking/banning the authors, you will see that this is far from the case.
Finally, the reality is that I do not have time to respond to these posts. The good ones I can let stand, even when they take an opposing point of view, but since most fall far short of that standard, or are just outright trolling, I have to respond to them because to fail to do so implies acquiescence, and I will not permit my gallery to become a vehicle for the dissemination of reactionary views, especially those based on fabrications, ignorance, or just mean-spiritedness. It is now almost 1:00 PM here. I have been at this since around 6:30 or 7:00 this morning...far too much time when I have actual work to do, a house to clean, horses to take of, etc. There are plenty of political discussion boards out there, and I encourage people so interested to participate in one or more of those.
It will be interesting to see how the Supremes handle this case, to say the least.
Thanks for your interest, and thanks for respecting my wishes about political commentary in this gallery.
Conservatives: Wah wah, Obamacare is so extremely socialist. We shouldn't be giving aid to university students
Rosa Luxemburg: Down with the middle class! Rise, Dictatorship of the Proletariat! *fires off bolt-action rifle*
Conservatives and modern-day Liberals: Oh... well, crap O.o
I must say, I took an excellent class this semester in history at college. The teacher was fantastic and obviously really cared about what he was teaching. He mentioned dates every once in a while, but dates aren't that important in history. What is important is what is actually happening and why it is happening.
The professor went over what politics was like back in the time of the events, what was happening somewhere else in the world, what was the public opinion, etc. It was.. .I can't even explain how interesting it was.
But they don't do that in public school anymore. I can can hardly remember anything relevant from my high school history classes.
Adams' Presidency is really not a good one to hold up as an ideal founder President who adhered to the Constitution or was totally in the right with what he did. Adams and Hamilton were both known as wanting the President to be fairly King like in power (and the government as a whole). I go with Authoritarian and thin skinned not Socialist.
If you read what the act says it is pretty clearly a tax-tariff not unlike those collected on all goods and ships at the time wishing to port or trade in the United States. It was pretty much the only way the federal government funded itself as there was no federal income tax [link] & [link] I also do not see any talk of insurance in the act, probably because insurance companies were small local companies at the time this act was passed so there would be no rational way of insuring people in various ports. Large insurance companies with a large geographic area did not exist in significant number until the 1830s. This act also uses the monies to build hospitals if there is an excess in the fund and only if there are no other hospitals in that port that can serve and be funded instead, this isn't much different than our current emergency treatment laws and rural hospital services. If the Affordable Care Act was set up the same way as this one and was of a similar length (this law is about 2 pages long, 4 sections each a paragraph), it would hold a much better chance of being held as Constitutional at the Supreme Court. The Roberts court will ignore this act because the key problem with the ACA is it's lack of a severability clause and the forcing of an American Citizen to buy a product from a private company under threat of criminal law. The act you referenced does not require any entanglement under force of law with a private company, only lines out the collection of a tax, in what amount, and what shall be done with those funds.
So not awkward silence.
I am not even going to address the straw man arguments about the Alien and Sedition Acts or your assertion that I am "hold[ing Adams] up as an ideal founder President who adhered to the Constitution or was totally in the right with what he did." I am, however, going to ban you from my gallery. Good-bye, good riddance, and good luck.
And in the end is it really a huge deal? He had his shot and stuff happened, and now he's dead. Alternate character interpretation really isn't worth such a humungous reaction from you or him.
Although people apparently do not read it, in my Journal there is a Policy Statement which indicates in very clear language that I do not want and will not tolerate political arguments about my posts in my gallery. If you want to criticize the art, that's fine. But I am not here to argue with anyone who comes along about anything they choose to say.
I said nothing, nothing at all, about Adams' character. Hellion raised that as an ad hominem attack because he had nothing of consequence to say with reference to the point of my post that there is indeed a rather strong precedent, going back to 1798, that supports the view that the Federal government has the power to enforce an individual mandate -- the central point of contention in the current debate over the Affordable Care Act.
I do not start political arguments with others even when I disagree strongly with their politics. The most I ever do is to ask a question if I feel that someone else's post is based on a false or deliberately misleading reading of the objectively determinable facts. My view is that they are entitled to state their views in their galleries, and that I am similarly entitled to do so in mine, without provoking a verbal brawl. I just refuse to waste any time engaging in endless disputation. Hellion, or anyone else, is perfectly free to say whatever he wants in his own gallery, but not on mine. If you like or agree with the views expressed in my posts, great. If you don't, that's fine also -- but post your views in your own gallery, not in mine.
Every time someone posts false information in response to one of my posts, I have to waste time answering it because not to so implies that I accept it. Silence is acquiescence.
I have better things to do, such as generating and disseminating progressive agit-prop. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Not all points of view are equal. Some are actually fact-based; most are not. I am just not going to permit my gallery to become a troll-fest, and so, if people choose not to abide by my simple request that they not start political arguments, they will then be treated with the same disrespect and will be blocked. I will not change that policy. The alternative is to disable the comments section on every post I make, but that seems unfair to me and to those who want to comment on the art, or, who want to help me in my primary mission of creating and disseminating timely agit-prop. Blocking, or banning from my gallery is not my first choice, but I would rather that than the alternatives. I won't change my policy. It is as simple as that. Thank you for your comment.