Was the First Congress Socialist?

This is on par with the car insurance argument and holds about the same amount of water - none.

No car - no car insurance requirement.

No ship - no medical insurance requirement for sailors.

 

No comparison. One is regulating commerce and the other is regulating people's lives. This is a commerce issue. The health care law is not. One is regulating the other is mandating even where there is no commerce. Actually the big problem with the healthcare law is not the requirement, but the door it opened for future lose of liberty. If they had made all the requirements like no life limits, no refusal for pre-existing and things of this nature and left it up to the individual if they wanted to have the insurance that would have been fine, but when they made it a mandate with a fine/tax that was the unconstitutional part. It opens the door for greater infringements on the liberties of the people.

 

No one could possibly be that obtuse unless it is deliberate.

 

Look at what I wrote;
"No comparison. One is regulating commerce and the other is regulating people's lives. This is a commerce issue. The health care law is not. One is regulating the other is mandating even where there is no commerce."

Under the law in that article only those who were involved in that commerce were effected. Only those who were working or in commerce. Under Obama care everyone even those who are not working are forced to comply. That is why this is not the same as what Obama care is doing.
If Obama care only covered those who are making a wage then it could claim the commerce law, but as you know the court ruled that because everyone was required, even those not working, it was unconstitutional if pushed under the commerce law.
My point is for the court to say it is legal under the tax laws makes even less sense since the same people who are not working are being taxed when they are not receiving anything and that is a first! So both are unconstitutional in my opinion.
That being said the thing is we now have it as law and I do not believe that it will not be repealed as the republicans are claiming. Some things might change in it but repealed, no. In fact I see no reason to repeal it if the costs can be brought into line as the real damage this law has done by being allowed to stand has already happened and will not be reversed.

 

No. The first congress was not socialist.

There are a lot of folks who throw this "socialism" word around so much, yet I doubt they know what it is. It's just a way to frame the other's argument.

This is the lamest thread, ever.

 

April Fool's Day was three months ago.

 

from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance

Health insurance in the United States

Accident insurance was first offered in the United States by the Franklin Health Assurance Company of Massachusetts. This firm, founded in 1850, offered insurance against injuries arising from railroad and steamboat accidents. Sixty organizations were offering accident insurance in the US by 1866, but the industry consolidated rapidly soon thereafter. In 1887, the African American workers in Muchakinock, Iowa, a company town, organized a mutual protection society. Members paid fifty cents a month or $1 per family for health insurance and burial expenses.[20] In the 1890s, various health plans became more common. Group disability policy was issued in 1911.[21]


Commercial insurance companies began offering accident and sickness insurance (disability insurance) as early as the mid-19th century.[21][22] The first group medical plan was purchased from The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States by the General Tire & Rubber Company in 1934.[21] Before the development of medical expense insurance, patients were expected to pay all other health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the fee-for-service business model. During the middle to late 20th century, traditional disability insurance evolved into modern health insurance programs. Today, most comprehensive private health insurance programs cover the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures, and also most prescription drugs, but this was not always the case.
During the 1920s, individual hospitals began offering services to individuals on a pre-paid basis. The first group pre-payment plan was created at the Baylor University Hospital in Dallas, Texas.[21][23][24] This concept became popular among hospitals during the Depression, when they were facing declining revenues. The Baylor plan was a forerunner of later Blue Cross plans. Physician associations began offering pre-paid surgical/medical benefits in the late 1930s Blue Shield plans. Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans were non-profit organizations sponsored by local hospitals (Blue Cross) or physician groups (Blue Shield). As originally structured, Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans provided benefits in the form of services rendered by participating hospitals and physicians ("service benefits") rather than reimbursements or payments to the policyholder.[21][25]


Hospital and medical expense policies were introduced during the first half of the 20th century. During the 1920s, individual hospitals began offering services to individuals on a pre-paid basis, eventually leading to the development of Blue Cross organizations.[21] The Ross-Loos Clinic, founded in Los Angeles in 1929, is generally considered to have been the first health maintenance organization (HMO).[23] Henry J. Kaiser organized hospitals and clinics to provide pre-paid health benefits to his shipyard workers during World War II. This became the basis for Kaiser Permanente HMO. Most early HMOs were non-profit organizations. The development of HMOs was encouraged by the passage of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. The first employer-sponsored hospitalization plan was created by teachers in Dallas, Texas in 1929.[26] Because the plan only covered members' expenses at a single hospital, it is also the forerunner of today's health maintenance organizations (HMOs).[23][26][27]


Employer-sponsored health insurance plans dramatically expanded as a result of wage controls during World War II.[26] The labor market was tight because of the increased demand for goods and decreased supply of workers during the war. Federally imposed wage and price controls prohibited manufacturers and other employers raising wages high enough to attract sufficient workers. When the War Labor Board declared that fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance, did not count as wages for the purpose of wage controls, employers responded with significantly increased benefits.[26]
Employer-sponsored health insurance was considered taxable income until 1954.[26]

 

No! These farmers just did not like seamen. :smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin: Obama doesn't like anyone!

 

I have another question. According to what I am finding there was not such thing as this insurance offered that is being spoken about in that artcile so how were they suppose to get it. Here is one link with date;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance

 

I'm agreeing with Bro. Curtis

Go to the constitution and notice how many times the phrase

"Congress shall make no law . . . " occurs

 

What do you know? Now we find out Obamacare only applies to seamen.

 

Good response. No, they were not socialist. The question on this thread is framed in the usual, boring, out of context left-right mindset.

This is the real difference. Regardless of liberal or conservative, the first Congress had two purposes in mind, to govern by the Constitution and serve the people. They even had integrity and honesty added in.

Compare that with the Congress today. They are also focused on two purposes, to govern in any manner other than by the Constitution, and serving themselves. Instead of honesty and integrity, they are driven by greed and self indulgence. They are nothing but a gathering of liars and thieves.