Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?
The New Republic ^ | April 13, 2012 | Einer Elhauge

Posted on 04/14/2012 6:57:07 PM PDT by Kaslin

In making the legal case against Obamacare’s individual mandate, challengers have argued that the framers of our Constitution would certainly have found such a measure to be unconstitutional. Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases. The framers, challengers have claimed, thought a constitutional ban on purchase mandates was too “obvious” to mention. Their core basis for this claim is that purchase mandates are unprecedented, which they say would not be the case if it was understood this power existed.

But there’s a major problem with this line of argument: It just isn’t true. The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

Not only did most framers support these federal mandates to buy firearms and health insurance, but there is no evidence that any of the few framers who voted against these mandates ever objected on constitutional grounds. Presumably one would have done so if there was some unstated original understanding that such federal mandates were unconstitutional. Moreover, no one thought these past purchase mandates were problematic enough to challenge legally.

True, one could try to distinguish these other federal mandates from the Affordable Care Act mandate. One could argue that the laws for seamen and ship owners mandated purchases from people who were already engaged in some commerce. But that is no less true of everyone subject to the health-insurance mandate: Indeed, virtually all of us get some health care every five years, and the few exceptions could hardly justify invalidating all applications of the statute. One could also argue (as the challengers did) that activity in the health care market isn’t enough to justify a purchase mandate in the separate health insurance market. But the early mandates required shippers and seamen to buy health insurance without showing they were active in any market for health insurance or even health care, which was far more rare back then.

Nor do any of these attempted distinctions explain away the mandate to buy guns, which was not limited to persons engaged in commerce. One might try the different distinction that the gun purchase mandate was adopted under the militia clause rather than the commerce clause. But that misses the point: This precedent (like the others) disproves the challengers’ claim that the framers had some general unspoken understanding against purchase mandates.

In oral arguments before the court two weeks ago, the challengers also argued that the health insurance mandate was not “proper” in a way that allows it to be justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause. These precedents rebut that claim because they indicate that the framers thought not just purchase mandates but medical insurance mandates were perfectly proper indeed.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: healthcare; individualmandate; liberallies; obamacare; orwelliannightmare; revisionisthistory; socialism; stalinisttactics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last
There was no room for a barf alert in the title.

Notice that the author did not provide any proof about a law being passed in 1790 making it a mandate that Shipowners had to provide health insurance for their sailors. Like a typical liberal he pulled the lie out of his derriere and expects others to buy the lie hook line and sinker

1 posted on 04/14/2012 6:57:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
When will these losers realizes that this gig is up. They lost.

Then again a reality check for liberals often requires a 2X4 to their head...repeat if necessary.


2 posted on 04/14/2012 7:02:49 PM PDT by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

O.K., so let’s pass a law again mandating that EVERY adult citizen not convicted of a felony buy a firearm (not just men, right?). Let’s see if this liberal pussy is in favor of that.


3 posted on 04/14/2012 7:03:36 PM PDT by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

My BS meter peg so hard it broke ...


4 posted on 04/14/2012 7:03:54 PM PDT by doc1019 (Romney will never get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Medical insurance around in 1790? Who knew?


5 posted on 04/14/2012 7:04:26 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lysandru

Oh, and let me add- the firearm purchase was not designed to regulate commerce— it was a national defense matter.


6 posted on 04/14/2012 7:04:52 PM PDT by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

My understanding is that such a mandate was law.

Still, sailors were already involved in commerce. There was no requirement for people to be come sailors, so that their commerce could be regulated.


7 posted on 04/14/2012 7:05:21 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Tantalus...


8 posted on 04/14/2012 7:07:43 PM PDT by sayfer bullets ("...and if it stops moving, subsidize it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This blog does a nice job of refuting:

http://fosterfriess.com/campfire-blog/2012/04/14/founding-fathers-did-not-back-health-insurance-mandates/


9 posted on 04/14/2012 7:08:16 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

sound good to me


10 posted on 04/14/2012 7:08:16 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The two ‘insurance’ laws were actually requirements that ships keep doctors and provide service to the crew. This is because all ships were involved to some degree in the Barbary war but could also be conscripted into the service of the States and thus were considered a potential military naval asset.

The requirement of owning a gun was a wartime law establishing a militia.

Neither of these laws are even close to the ‘mandate’ of health insurance. Both were part of national defense issues, not commerce.


11 posted on 04/14/2012 7:09:03 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.

Surely Elhauge is sufficiently educated to know that what the Constitution permits is explicit or clearly implied in the document’s language, and that what is left out is explicitly prohibited.

Why, then, his coyness?

We must think it is because he wishes government to be given powers which it has no right to assert.

12 posted on 04/14/2012 7:09:36 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

notice that he didn’t provide any proof, and I bet you if you were able to ask people from that time they would have no idea what you are talking about.


13 posted on 04/14/2012 7:12:06 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Utter nonsense.

Courts have long confirmed that Congress has the general power to determine United States maritime law. The power of Congress to pass laws relating to seaman or other matters relating to maritime jurisdition is not dependent on the interstate commerce clause. Even so, shipping on the high seas can be covered under the foreign or interstate commerce clause by the very nature of the activity.

Congress has explicit power over the organizing and arming of the militia under the Constitution.

These examples the author cites have no legal relevance to the question of the constitutionality of ObamaCare under the interstate commerce clause.


14 posted on 04/14/2012 7:14:35 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
Note, that use of the taxing power to regulate is OLD OLD OLD. That's how they used to regulate Marijuana. The idea there was if they placed a tax on MJ, no one would pay it so they could be arrested and jailed.

The Democrats have kind of gotten this all backwards ~ using IRS to punish people who don't pay their monthly medical insurance premiums for example ~ ......................

Could it be they've been dipping in the "now empty bag of mairjuana".

15 posted on 04/14/2012 7:15:04 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104
"a reality check for liberals often requires a 2X4 to their head...repeat if necessary."

Have you not yet come to understand that such a practice will only produce further brain damage in an already unrecoverable brain damaged individual?

( ^8 }

16 posted on 04/14/2012 7:15:04 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Wow. I don’t even know where to start with this one.


17 posted on 04/14/2012 7:18:59 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (Never borrow batteries out of your smoke alarm!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
The gun law was a misreading of what they'd added to the Constitution. I read it to require the government to provide military grade firearms to constitutional members of the militia, that is, males 16 to 60!

I wanted an Abrams tank, fully decked, and with half a dozen deuce and a halfs tailing along carrying ammunition of suitible caliber!

18 posted on 04/14/2012 7:19:21 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

See, I told you that idiot author pulled it out of his derriere


19 posted on 04/14/2012 7:20:19 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lysandru
O.K., so let’s pass a law again mandating that EVERY adult citizen not convicted of a felony buy a firearm (not just men, right?). Let’s see if this liberal pussy is in favor of that.

No reason to exclude felons, the constitution doesn't.
20 posted on 04/14/2012 7:20:42 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So, if you own a car, you must carry insurance. And if you own a commercial boat you must carry insurance? Obama’s law requires that you carry health insurance if your heart beats. This guys argument doesn’t apply. Really though, I believe this is only more evidence that liberals try to find any reason to talk about seamen and poop decks...


21 posted on 04/14/2012 7:21:00 PM PDT by JohnRand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
These mandates are not for the employees, but for the employers...and in that regard are more akin to workers comp insurance than regular health insurance. As such, it sounds more like the current U.S. Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (USL&H), which requires employers to provide coverage for employees on navigable waterways that wouldn't fall under the worker's comp jurisdiction of a specific state.
22 posted on 04/14/2012 7:22:06 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

These people had the country handed to them I guess we should expect condescention....


23 posted on 04/14/2012 7:25:17 PM PDT by Tzimisce (THIS SUCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

Thanks that was a good refutation.


24 posted on 04/14/2012 7:29:55 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The obvious lie is that the concept of health insurance was not created until the 1930s. In 1798 there really weren't any hospitals in the modern context and drugs were often compounded by the physician or an apothecary for the physician. Again the concept of health insurance covering medications wasn't common until the 1970s.
25 posted on 04/14/2012 7:30:42 PM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Let’s see:
Ships= Commerce
Breathing= Not Commerce

Simple.


26 posted on 04/14/2012 7:32:44 PM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (Well they dare not call us invaders, 'Tis but state rights and liberty we ask; -Civil War Song)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
First of all, ships carried thier own doctors, for obvious economic reasons. You lose the crew, you lose the ship.

Health insurance began in the US during the civil war, and didn't become widely used till the second world war.

27 posted on 04/14/2012 7:34:07 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Is this a parody?

It is so hard to tell these days


28 posted on 04/14/2012 7:34:16 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

LOL as I have thought. I pretty much read everything about pre-American Revolution life in the colonies and I have never heard about an insurance mandate from that era.

I knew this article was full of Michelle Obama


29 posted on 04/14/2012 7:34:26 PM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I am a bit of a student of history, and to my knowledge, the only thing insured in those days were ships cargo. (Ironically, that is the birthplace of the insurance industry and Lloyds of London).

Medical care was cash and carry back then.


30 posted on 04/14/2012 7:35:28 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is called the “grasping at straws” approach for liberal arguments.

The stupid is strong with this idiot.


31 posted on 04/14/2012 7:36:38 PM PDT by princeofdarkness (The Obama Administration is circling the wagons. But the Truth Indians are using flaming arrows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
The obvious lie is that the concept of health insurance was not created until the 1930s.

Good point. The "Health" insurance that began in the 1860's was what we would call Accident insurance today.

32 posted on 04/14/2012 7:41:37 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
Medical care was cash and carry back then.

Much of it was that way into the 1940s from what the old timers tell me.
33 posted on 04/14/2012 7:43:58 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
First congress legislation:

Session 1

  1. June 1, 1789: An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, ch. 1, 1 Stat. 23
  2. July 4, 1789: Hamilton Tariff, ch. 2, 1 Stat. 24
  3. July 27, 1789: United States Department of State, was established, originally named the Department of Foreign Affairs, ch. 4, 1 Stat. 28.
  4. July 31, 1789. Regulation of the Collection of Duties on Tonnage and Merchandise, ch.5, 1 Stat. 29.
  5. August 7, 1789: Department of War was established, ch. 7, 1 Stat. 49.
  6. September 2, 1789: United States Department of the Treasury was established, ch. 12, 1 Stat. 65
  7. September 24, 1789: Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, which created: § 1: Supreme Court, 1 Stat. 73 § 3: District courts, 1 Stat. 73 § 4: Circuit courts, 1 Stat. 73 § 35: District attorneys, 1 Stat. 92 and Attorney General, 1 Stat. 93

]Session 2

  1. March 1, 1790: Made provisions for the first Census, ch. 2, 1 Stat. 101
  2. March 26, 1790: Naturalization Act of 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103
  3. April 10, 1790: Patent Act of 1790, ch. 7, 1 Stat. 109
  4. May 31, 1790: Copyright Act of 1790, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 124
  5. July 6, 1790: Residence Act, ch. 28, 1 Stat. 130, established Washington, D.C. as the seat of government of the United States.
  6. July 22, 1790: Indian Intercourse Act of 1790, ch. 33, 1 Stat. 137, regulated commerce with the Indian tribes.

Session 3

  1. February 25, 1791: First Bank of the United States, ch. 10, 1 Stat. 191
  2. March 3, 1791: Whiskey Act, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 199, which triggered the Whiskey Rebellion

34 posted on 04/14/2012 7:46:02 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

If you are getting a tank and an ammo truck, you might also ask for a fuel truck. An M-1 is a very thirsty beast.


35 posted on 04/14/2012 7:46:02 PM PDT by fini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Hospitals in 1790?......


36 posted on 04/14/2012 7:51:47 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The government does have the right to demand some conditions of a ship using the nations ports. That’s a different thing from requiring all citizens to buy insurance simply because they are alive.


37 posted on 04/14/2012 7:55:24 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (I like Obamacare because Granny signed the will and I need the cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Richard says:

April 14, 2012 at 9:18 am

The seamen mandate was a proper regulation of commerce, and is no different than the government saying lawyers must be registered with the Bar Association to represent clients.

The gun mandate was only for those reporting for militia duty, clearly a very direct and very necessary and very proper use of “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” power that is listed right in the Constitution. It was also more a dictate to the States rather than the individuals, as you must realize the Constitution also mentions the “Militia of the several States.” The States were the ones arming their own militias, so Congress was just saying what the minimum acceptable level was for arming the militia. It would be like Congress setting what the minimum acceptable level of pollution controls on cars for those manufacturing cars, which is a power Congress clearly uses at present and is not on shaky constitutional ground.

Report on the Subject of Manufactures (1790)

Report on the Subject of Manufactures (1790)

Alexander Hamilton Frank William Taussig (editor)

State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff

Harvard University

1892

This treatise, written by the United States' first Secretary of the Treasury, shows the word "commerce" to be a synonym for "trade" and not a catch-all phrase for economic activity. Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong central government and constantly tried to expand the role of the federal government, yet he understood that the word "commerce" did not refer to manufacturing or any other economic activity--it only referred to the trading of goods.

This fact is best shown in this phrase: "And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money."

If the word "commerce" broadly referred to farming, trade, and production, this entire sentence would have been redundant. But Hamilton, as well as the rest of our Founding Fathers, understood that the word "commerce" refers to trade only.

If this analysis is applied to the Constitution, it can be inferred that our modern understanding of the Commerce Clause is not in accordance with the intentions of the authors of the Constitution.

Video: Health Care's Individual Mandate: Not Justified by Commerce Clause

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/video-podcast-media/video-health-cares-individual-mandate-not-justified-commerce-clause

38 posted on 04/14/2012 7:56:54 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK (Any man may make a mistake ; none but a fool will persist in it . { Latin proverb })
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?

For the same reason that the Founding Fathers preferred Apples over PCs, and Glocks over the 1911A .45 caliber: Ease of use.

Okay, okay, I'll be less flippant:

The two 'mandates' he cites are bunkum:

The first, that the able-bodied own arms, is specifically constitutionally authorized in the requirement to establish a civilian militia -- moreover, it did NOT require that someone BUY a firearm. If your uncle Ted had spares, he could give you his. This Obamacare Mandate FORCES you to BUY a policy.

Second: The health insurance he cites was no such thing. It was a straight-on tax for people who engaged in a particular commerce. Not very unusual, and not very spectacular.

Bastard liberals lie and twist.

39 posted on 04/14/2012 7:59:14 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Shut up and drill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Here is the law that he is referring to:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_29


40 posted on 04/14/2012 8:09:56 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.

You know you're in for a wild ride when the argument starts with, "Well, nothing in the Constitution says you can't do it!!"

41 posted on 04/14/2012 8:16:33 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
The germ theory of disease wasn't current at the time either. A ship's doctor would cut off damaged limbs, bandage up cuts, give you dope to stop your pooping, give you other dope to help you poop.

He'd hold your hand while you passed kidney stones.

If you were lucky you'd have a Chinese physician ~ he had more dope and worked from a theory of how the body operated ~ all of them did bones.

42 posted on 04/14/2012 8:20:03 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Hospitals since ancient times ~ depending on general economic conditions they might separate those where you sent folks near death and those where you went for basic repair work.

Rich French noblemen would purchase or build facilities for those near death. One of my ancestors built one in the mid 1400s near Saumur. It's still standing. Today they use it as a church.

It was believed that building such a place would earn you a higher standing on Judgment Day.

43 posted on 04/14/2012 8:23:27 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

OK, then let’s mandate every must buy, own, and maintain a Christian Bible of their choosing and a firearm with ammunition. They must muster with it after every church sermon on Sunday, of which they must attend, and shoot that firearm in qualification matches.

That’ll send the liberals even more batty than they are.


44 posted on 04/14/2012 8:26:11 PM PDT by CodeToad (I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The problem is that a mandate is by far not the worst thing the marxists want to do. They didn’t even really want it. They want single-payer health care. And there is NO constitutional challenge available for that.

The courts are not the end of this problem by a longshot, and they will soon be a useless weapon in the fight. To stop this in the mid-to-long run, we either need to pass a constitutional amendment that would block this kind of government health care or hope that the marxists never again get as many elected officials in the government as they did in 2009-2010.


45 posted on 04/14/2012 8:26:40 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lysandru
Oh, and let me add- the firearm purchase was not designed to regulate commerce— it was a national defense matter.

The draft was constitutional, right? Hard to think of a bigger mandate than that. It's basically slavery to the military. This firearm issue would seem to be analogous to the draft, but far less burdensome.

46 posted on 04/14/2012 8:29:28 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Looks like the Obamateur regime missed a chance to give the justices a history lesson. /sarc


47 posted on 04/14/2012 8:30:22 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Romney just makes me tired all over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Bump


48 posted on 04/14/2012 8:31:52 PM PDT by lowbridge (Rep. Dingell: "Its taken a long time.....to control the people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
Good point. The "Health" insurance that began in the 1860's was what we would call Accident insurance today.

So you're saying bloodletting wasn't covered? Did the government have a "leech panel?"

49 posted on 04/14/2012 8:37:52 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

There are only two places to stand on Judgement Day..........on the left or the right.........it’s gonna be mighty crowded on the left........


50 posted on 04/14/2012 8:39:56 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson