It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Early America - Militias benefit from first USA social welfare and medical care law passed in 1792

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
The Uniformed Militia were the first to benefit from "socialized" medical care and welfare programs provided at the public's expense. I know we can't compare our current health care bill, to the 1792 version by any stretch but it is telling of what our Constitution allows on a limited basis when the welfare of people is needed for the betterment of all.



The First National Conscription Act called for some of the following:


This act provides that "...every able-bodied white male citizen...of the age of 18 years and under the age of 45...be enrolled in the militia...Every citizen so enrolled...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or forelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt"and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..."

The act also provided "that if any person, officer or soldier...called out into the service of the United States, be wounded or disabled while in actual service, he shall be taken care of and provided for at the public expense."

This legislation creating the young nation's first National Conscription Act was passed by the Second Congress, and signed in script type by President George Washington on May 8, 1792.


Source

-------------------------------------------

Discussions on this are encouraged. We cannot say any type of government spending welfare or medical needs are against the Constitution. Arguments of degrees to which spending and taxation are required are appropriate. I certainly do not agree with the exact health care government plan that was recently passed, but I do think some measures for health care can occur and be in line with the Constitution. When our founding fathers were around socialized medicine and welfare programs began coming into existence. Ironically, the first of such programs were designed to benefit the same group of people that currently are against the expansion of government...Militias.

Don't flame the messenger


[edit on 3-4-2010 by ExPostFacto]




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
No need to flame - I have no problem with "promote the general welfare" although I must confess to a bias on the subject. The international health care system for our military has been long established precedent. So I must agree, the concept seems constitutionally sound and the issues we face are primarily funding/taxation as opposed to whether the concept benefits society - or what the individual's circumstances are.

gj



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ganjoa
 


Good so we agree. These programs are within the scope of the Constitution, however, the method used to tax and implement are what remains to be sorted out as to how Constitutional a program is. When a program monies go directly to corporations at for-profit rates I think it is unconstitutional. When program monies go directly to assisting the person in need at no profit rates then the public interest is at heart. To me, like you stated, it is the degree to which a program operates that makes it Constitutional or not.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Mandates and socialism

very interesting


I will expand later



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I believe that the first healthcare bill in this country was a very good thing. I am all for reform of the medical sector in this country. I believe all people deserve some sort of medical coverages. I believe the pharmacutical industry to be a bunch of crooks that need some checks and balances to keep them in line.

With that said, I would be completely for healthcare reform.

However, what Obama pushed is pure socialistic,corporation loving, garbage, and he needs to be shut down.

Had Obamacare been about helping people, I would have been behind it fully.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
This is a little different than what we have going on today. First, this early bill was to help those in the service of the United States. It was felt an obligation of the American people to help those who have sacrficed so much to protect the average Joe. It is no different than the medical care we offer our troops today.

But this wasn't a form of defacto socialized health care reform. It probably wasn't 2700 pages long, and it didn't fundamentally alter healthcare for everyone in the country. This was seriously a poor comparison and very poor spin job.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Happyfeet
 


It is good to hear this reasoning from people. I stick up for health care reform and have people yelling at me that it is not Constitutional. I care about our country enough to support medical care for all under some workable solution. Hell if we just had government nurses that could issue us a pill when we needed it or give us an excuse note for work, I would be all for it. I definitely though am not behind corporate socialism. This health care bill recently passed is socialism for the corporations.

Who was it that said America = socialism for the rich; free markets for the poor? They might be right on that.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


It wasn't a spin job. I was making a point to all those that say government ran health care is socialism and against the Constitution. I think I stated it cannot be compared, except to say that not every type of government ran social service is against the Constitution.

The purpose of the thread is really to educate myself on what types of laws were created when our founding fathers were alive, that so many quote as references on how the Constitution should be interpreted in regard to general welfare items.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Most people are just angry that they have to pay taxes. They wouldn't be so angry if their wages were a littler higher, I imagine, and instead of taking that up with their employers (whos wages do go up every year) they blame the govt for "stealing" too much of their money; the same people turn around and talk about needing a robust military and this and that, and I never heard any of these dudes complaining about spending when bush decided to invade Iraq/Afghanistan. Although, bush also said the war would pay for itself, so I guess we shouldn't worry about the humongous debt those wars have put us in.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


It is a spin job. It is clearly meant to justify what is happening now. Health care reform is constitutional, I've never argued againstthe idea, MANDATES to purchase insurance, and stepping over 10th amendment rights without the input of the states is unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


You're mischaracterizing my position on the matter. I was no more for anything Bish did. Except letting the AWB expire. You paint with an awfully broad brush.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


So what's your beef with the healthcare reform?

No matter how it works, you'd have to pay into the insurance pool -- unless you're very poor, in which case you're exempt.

The two sides of the debate were: Should the government be responsible for providing insurance, and collect premiums via taxation (in which case, the rich would pay the majority of the costs, btw)

Or do we keep insurance in the hands of private, for profit insurance companies who make money by not treating....

And somehow, for some reason, there was a huge outcry on the right, by conservatives, to keep it in the hands of private, for profit insurance corporations who make money by not treating.

Now, in order to provide healthcare to people, instead of having your taxes go up slightly, you have to buy into a corporate, for profit, insurance program, which makes money by not treating you.



I would have preferred the single pay option.. but that was called a "government takeover," and then there was some crap about the govt setting up death panels, etc etc.. so we went with the private, corporate, for profit approach, where they make money by not treating.

Cest la vi.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


I think I have made my position on HCR very clear in post after post. I believe managed care in general is wrong and it's creation is what lead to the mess insurance companies created. If we had a real free market system insurance wouldn't even exist. I don't believe replacing on bureucracy with another is productive, I believe that minimizing it is the best way to go. We should help take the need for insurance out of the equation by incentivising direct care. Let the market set the prices and they will reduce costs on their own.

There is no government intervention in the computer market and they double in power and capability while cost continues to go down. It seems everywhere the government is prices go up. And by all accounts, being madated to cover 300 million people can only bring up costs over time as those who do not pay in bring up costs for those who do.

The rich, since you have no problem taxing them out of existance, are the ones who hire, they are the ones who already pay most of the taxes in this country, you can expect that they'll leave and take those contributions with them. Or there will be tax revolts. The rich always pass the cost onto the consumer, it is a misnomer to assume that taxing the rich won't affect the poor.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by projectvxn]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


We did tax the rich, for a very long time, and we had a thriving middle class while we did it.. Not so sure that's still the case, but that's besides the point.


Why do you dislike insurance? What if a medical procedure costs, lets say, 20,000 dollars? What if you can't afford to pay that..

Ahah, that's why insurance was invented. It's simply a financial tool, if you will, which is used to hedge against large, unexpected costs. It's the same reason you buy fire insurance: You can either not buy it, and save money. Or you can buy it, and lose money. But if your house burns down, the lost revenues will be worth less than the money saved on affording a new home (or repairs), leaving you with a net gain, or no loss at all. If you don't buy insurance, and your house burns down, the cost of repairing/rebuilding will be more than what the man with insurance had to pay, in total.


Your anger is seriously misplaced if you're mad at the concept of "insurance." There's absolutely nothing wrong with insurance, and it's been around forever -- even in the Romans had coffin insurance.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Kaytagg]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   

The ancient Romans believed that anyone who was wrongly buried would become "an unhappy ghost." This idea of a "forlorn and shivering spirit in an agony of loneliness" so bothered the Romans that they tended to invest large sums in elaborate burials.

Although the belief in the importance of "correct" burial reached through all levels of society, resources did not. Roman society suffered a rather large gap between the rich and the poor. Those on the lower socioeconomic strata, including many soldiers, lacked the requisite resources for a proper Roman burial.

These factors led to the creation of burial clubs. Groups of individuals formed and all members were required to regularly donate to a common fund that was used in the event of a member's death to fund his funeral. A Roman military leader, Marius, created a burial club among his troops in approximately 100 B.C. and many similar organizations came into being in this era. Eventually, the practice grew to include providing a stipend to the survivors of the deceased.

The Roman burial clubs represent the beginning of life insurance as we know it.
ezinearticles.com...:--The-Origin-of-Premiums,-Policies,-and-Plans&id=146330



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Solidarity we have. It's all about the funding and implementation issues and of course the emotive elements of the pubic. Lots of posters make really good points here. IMHO the capitalistic elements of power must become in balance with the general public welfare and of course the machinations of polictical power aren't going to let their patrons suffer.
How far the society goes in promoting general welfare and what methods are employed are another area - not every program leads to evil ends or disruptive adjectives. But we have been misled for years that there are only two paths down the road, different roads to choose, and we must choose only one. I think the realization that our choices are our own and not merely dictated by limits imposed on our viewpoints (by others and ourselves) is primary.

Not that I have any great insight into funding, but we might consider that the FICA limit be eliminated. If you make over like $140K you "pay out" and don't have to pay in anymore FICA - my cut on this is that if you have wages as earned income you should pay regardless same percentage as poorer people. Certainly for the self employed there isn't any payout top end on self-employment tax, is there?

Implementation is another area. I have an old background in insurance, pensions, annuities and actuarials. Basically, when it comes to health insurance the same attitudes about costs and investment growth and profits cannot be ethically applied in people's health care. So the model for the health care industry needs to change drastically from typical insurance based to fee-based item processing. They handle the paperwork, policy is mandated, one payer per claim to the insurance company, no incentive to restrict treatment or impact service delivery. A system like the V.A. is a bit more on the British model since the docs work for the government and it is a self contained system in that it's a one stop shop unlike consumer health care. Big Pharma is the real beast in my opinion, medical suppliers is another with their forced replacement policies which cost billions, but has the advantage of forcing charitable contributions to medical missions around the world by hospitals getting rid of their out-of-date sterile products and drugs. One wonders how much of that actually makes it to the intended instead of the black market in third world countries.

The path is worthy, but strewn with many dangers and pitfalls.
Shall we stride boldly and swiftly or cautiously and surreptitously?

gj



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I am not sure why you think it's a spin job. I agree with you on your points of our current HCR. Either way, it's not meant as a spin if you are reading it that way I could rephrase it to match your needs so that you would discuss the topic rather than accuse me of spinning it.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
This is an obvious attempt to justify the health care BS. It has nothing to do with such non sense and is not socialism. So if you want to try and justify this then you're going to have to explain what direct taxes were individuals forced to pay against their will in 1792? The answer is NONE!

Next the idea that caring for the nations wounded soldiers is anywhere near like unto stealing my money and paying for the welfare slobs down the streets runny nose at the emergency room is laughable. Socialism steals from one and gives to others who did not earn it. To bad the socialist in this country have no clue about the history of the founding of this nation.

The main reason the Union was formed was for common defense, caring for the wounded who defend the country is a given, just common sense, and agreed to. The revenue that funded government in those days was mainly tariffs as there was no authority to take the fruits of an individuals labor, and there still isn't, it is done unlawfully today. So no it was not socialism, it was part of the common defense and did not steal from the men and women on the land to fund it!

End of thread!



[edit on 7-4-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
The distinction of providing a benefit to those that have served their nation with the possibility of their lives and the everyday citizen who is just living their life doesn't add up.

While I never excepted to be treated any different for my service to this country, it was presented by countless people. There are also those that presented a different picture because of their disdain for those that have chosen the profession of arms.

Those that serve in the military (including any State's guard unit) have vowed themselves to protect the nation in a way that a citizen has not.

I will say that a large majority of military personnel do not wish to be held in such a limelight and would rather be seen as an everyday citizen.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
I think you are confused, that is not socialized medicine that is a job benefit associated with hazards of the job.

In war people get shot get injured and killed that is expected as a soldier, it is not unreasonable for an army to provide medical care to those injured in the militia service.

Now if im just walking down the street and a figure jumps out at you from the alley with a weapon and says hey you pay me 2% of your income for the rest of your life and i give you the healthcare i think you need and if you disagree you have no say because we have black helicopters and guys with guns that will come to ur house.

Socialization is the using the force of a gun to dominate your life by those to weak to ever pick up a weapon and fight for themselves.

Basically its just a way to steal your money, then victimize tax payers for housing the ones who react by making them pay to hold men in cages for acting like men.

There is no greater tyranny than paying a tax on your life to the government by gunpoint, you might as well take us all to a field now I can promise you people will be left out there will be atrocities your medical services will decline and 90% of you won't even know it and will argue for the gov to steal more from you.

What is left of this country if not freedom?You are walking through history and you have no idea the power you hold.

After what im seeing, i think it might be best to not put a fence on the border or the military, Some might want to escape.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join