Was John Adams’ health care mandate unconstitutional?

Was John Adams’ health care mandate unconstitutional?.


15 thoughts on “Was John Adams’ health care mandate unconstitutional?

    • One of the difference is that Obamacare does not give you an option. The Adams act gives you an option, pay the tax or find another job. That is just one of the huge differences.

  1. Comply or quit isn’t an option. And let’s stop pretending about Obamacare, it’s a plan written by Republicans almost 20 years ago, and enacted by Republicans in Massachussets under the guidance of a Republican governor. If the objective is to increase access and hold down costs it’s a step in the right direction, but there are no magic bullets.

    • Mass had a Democrat majority in their state legislative branch when Romney enacted his healthcare plan, and that plan was written up by the Democratic majority. What Republican wrote any bill like Obamacare 20 years ago? I would love to see that source listed.

      Obamacare will not hold down cost. It may hide that cost in the form of subsidies, but it will not hold down costs. As for increase access, access to what level of care? Many doctors are deciding to either not accept insurance payments or are retiring early from practicing. So Obamacare is going to lead to higher cost and fewer doctors, good work there Barry.

      • Sorry to disappoint but Greg is right. That the Massachussets legislature was majority democratic has nothing to do with the facts that Massachusetts’ health care initiative was a Romney initiative, and that it followed an outline written by Senate Republicans in the early ’90s. Since you seem to need some history lessons, it was sponsored by GOP Senator John Chaffee and had 19 GOP co sponsors and two Democratic co sponsors.

        Health care reform will save the government billions, and will saved billions more when expanded more toward where we need to be, but that isn’t politically possible at this time given the obstruction of the rudderless, planless party of no.

      • Sorry to disappoint you but…

        “In November 2004, political leaders began advocating for major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, the Governor, Mitt Romney, announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all of the uninsured.” Robert E. Travaglini was the Democrat leader of the MA state Senate.

        “Attention focused on the House when Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, speaking at a Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation Roadmap To Coverage forum in October 2005, pledged to pass a bill through the House by the end of the session.” Salvatore DiMasi, another Democrat.

        And speaking as someone that has friends living in Mass I can tell you that even the GOP politicians are more RHINO than Pachyderm, see Scott Brown for an example. They also tell me of the out rages tax hikes to pay for that medical insurance, so much for cost control.


        If you could provide me with a link to that vote tally I would appreciate it, I was unable to find that information.

      • Not sure how you think supporting my contentions is supposed to disappoint me. The Democratic leadership identified a problem and the Republican governor responded by announcing his intention to propose a plan that went far beyond what the Democratic leader envisioned.

        As for the US Senate bill, Kaiser Health News provides a nifty table of comparison between 2009 and 1993 here: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx and a summary of the 1993 bill here: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

        As far as the RINO accusation goes, the harsh reality is the Democrats are a center right party and the GOP has jumped the shark. The country would be better served by a GOP with a grasp of history, the Constitution, and a modicum of statesmanship.

      • “the harsh reality is the Democrats are a center right party” that is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time. Ok, I’ll give you that they are center right compared to Stalin.

        To be serious though, you can not be center right of a political ideology when all you do is find ways for a central planning committee (federal department of whatever) to be involved in directing the lives of citizens. That is socialism, that is left of center.

      • I’m sure he’s happy to serve if you amuse that easily, but he’s right in that the American political center has been caught in a relentless rightward drift for several decades now, such that policies advocated by GOP stalwarts like Eisenhower and Reagan would be denounced as socialist by today’s GOP, who don’t even understand what socialism is other than a naughty sounding name to call people with whom they disagree.

        Whether or not that’s a good thing is entirely subjective – Canadian conservatives are hoping they can accomplish the same thing there over time – but the net result is we have no true liberals in a major role on the US political scene these days.

        With luck, that will change as the rightward drift takes us farther and farther into the weeds.

      • Greg, don’t mistake a Republican for a conservative. Every since Teddy Roosevelt moved the GOP to the left of center there has not been a big moved back to the right, until recently. I would agree with you that a lot of the programs of Ike and Ronny leaned left, but I think that was more to appease the corporatocracy than socialists.

        Just because the GOP has been on the right from the DNC does not make them center or center right of political ideology, it’s hard to see the center from how far left the DNC has moved.

        And be assured that I do not use the label of socialism or socialist as an insult, it is a political ideology. Why do those that support socialism always feel insulted when it is pointed out that they are backing socialist agendas? If the shoe fits, wear it.

        If you want some information on the political ideology scale of left-right: http://neprimer.com/ePress/articles/2008/5000YearLeapFreedom101.html

  2. If I want information I will seek information, not propaganda from a discredited whackamadoodle like Skousen.

    It is true GOP hasn’t always equaled conservative, though the terms are relative and shift about a lot through history. The Republican party was founded as an opponent of slavery and polygamy which it called “twin pillars of barbarism” and after the civil war was quite populist. However, since the early twentieth century it has been the party generally associated with conservatism. That you find it insufficiently so says more about you than about them.

    Throwing around socialism as you do is telling, and what it tells isn’t pretty. You really don’t know what you’re talking about, nor is it likely that you’re educable. I’m happy to talk, but banging my head against the wall for no purpose isn’t productive.

    • Gregg, it is obvious that you only feel comfortable throwing around ad hominem attacks and avoiding answering real questions. You ignore any data that does not support your conclusion, a very common tactic.

      If you feel I am misusing the term socialism, then please enlighten me to what definition you accept?

      • Disregarding non credible material is not ad hominem, it is common sense. Skousen never was mainstream even with conservatism and his world view has been discredited several times over. I’ve addressed every real issue you’ve brought up, and the only factual material you have provided supports my positions. And then somehow I’m the bad guy because you don’t know your stuff. Sorry, that doesn’t fly.

        Your “those who support socialism…” crack would make more sense if I or anyone participating here, or for that matter anyone of relevance in US government actually were socialists or supported socialism. As a political term, it is meaningful only with reference to those who favor it as an economic theory. In economic terms it is of course an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, often though not always through the state. In general terms it is frequently characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels. If you really think there is any desire among major leaders that the government control industry, investment, etc., of the economy as a whole you are sorely and sadly misinformed. All parties, including the tea party, are solidly dominated by business and corporate interests. The danger is not socialism at this time, but plutocracy.

      • I guess you don’t consider sitting US congressmen “anyone of relevance in US government”. You may want to listen to Berny Sanders or Maxine Waters, they are two people who have openly called themselves and their plans socialism.

        Pointing out that there are people in our government that support socialist ideas is not a “crack”, it is a fact. Just because you choose to ignore the evidence of that because you feel socialism is a dirty word does not make the facts go away. The big difference between the modern socialist and the socialist of the past is that they have learned to take their time and take over things slowly and without violence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s