History lesson: 1792 law madated private purchases

[one-eyed fat man]

I would like to point out with regard to statements that the current health care bill is the first to require citizens to purchase something, the 1792 Militia Act required every male of military age to have a musket and ammunition, which was roughly equivalent. So indeed it is not unprecedented, although I would bet a dollar to a donut most of its backers would not want to invoke a requirement that every male of military age prove they had at least one gun!

I am ready for the gang of usual suspects to come screaming.................

[shadowrider]

1. Me too

I'm gonna grab some popcorn and wait for the screaming. :popcorn:

[Bluerthanblue]

2. you should post this in GD- it's an excellent point that I've never

heard before!

:hi:

[ellenfl]

3. great point. how can the rw argue that? eom

[shadowrider]

4. The point is

HRC is mandatory now, and precedent exists for every militia aged man to own a weapon. The anti-gunners will support HRC, but NOT support a gov't requirement every man own a gun.

It has little to nothing to do with the "RW".

[ellenfl]

40. hrc is NOT mandatory and the rw IS the gun happy wing. eom

[shadowrider]

42. That's right. It's not mandatory

You just pay a fine to the IRS if you don't have it. But it's not mandatory, no siree.
And there are plenty on the left who feel about guns the same way people on the right feel. The RW does not have a monopoly on gun rights and concealed carry.

[ellenfl]

44. may be, but i have not yet heard of any left wing militia groups. eom

[tburnsten]

46. Not sure I've heard of any militia groups on either side personally

I mean, there are those Minute Man dudes, I guess they are probably more right-wing than left, being that amnesty for illegal immigrants is something that's a little more associated with the left wing, and border security is more of a right-wing strength.

Otherwise I can't think of a single group of militiaish people.

[ellenfl]

49. perhaps if you got out from under that bridge occasionally . . .

the militias have been re-organizing since obama got elected . . . but you won't hear about that on faux.

ellen fl

[tburnsten]

50. I've been out of the news loop for some time

and that is still too vague for me to put any credibility on it. Give me the name of even one group I can verify is a militia, and then I will see if they are a right wing militia.

And that's a pretty weak dig against me by the way. Try harder next time you want to flame someone on here, I'm a veteran and knew to wear my asbestos long johns.

[ellenfl]

53. ok, here , catch up . . .

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/11/white_power_usa_the_rise_of

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-13/why-the-white-militias-are-back/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gM22IQrmZnGbPyby5gfBqH_2rIaQ

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/racist-rightwing-militias_n_259605.html

http://www.propeller.com/story/2010/02/05/resurgent-right-wing-militias/

http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2009/08/13/the-rise-of-right-wing-militias-%E2%80%9Crevolution-is-brewing%E2%80%9D/#axzz0jLQBfxRr

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/04/US_rightwing_groups_militias_surge_report/

http://flagofconviction.com/2010/right-wing-militias-surge/

there are plenty more. google is your friend.

ellen fl

[tburnsten]

54. I gotta say, I'm reading the Democracy Now transcript,

And it's a very valid look at that type of person, however, estimated 30,000 aryan-white power! types wworks out to, oh, three million is one percent of the population of the country, 30,000 is one percent of three million, so in other words, the most accurate estimate they came up with was that one percent of one percent of the population is a member of these groups? That means that for every one of them, there are 10,000 non-white power! types. Kind of underwhelming for a premise that those people are spreading and are on the rise, isn't it? Interesting links though, I'll keep reading through them.

I'm just very hesitant to get alarmed at things, it seems to be the MO of media and also people looking to push through things that are not a good idea. I have a hard time getting worked up over the fact that there are only thirty thousand dirtbag white supremacists in the nation. If anything, I'm relieved that there are so few. Kind of fits with my observations of people in the US, which is that the great bulk of them are decent and civil people.

[ellenfl]

57. but it only takes a couple of dirtbags to cause serious trouble. eom

[ellenfl]

58. seems to be a lot of activity regarding the militias today. did you see the stories? eom

[Katya Mullethov]

5. Oh ! That reminds me .......

Happy belated Stamp Act Day !! The dates are just coincidental , settle down .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/O!_the_fatal_Stamp.jpg

[shadowrider]

6. Damn

And I got all excited. Now I have to calm down? :)

[Birthmark]

7. Nice try, but your example is different

1. The law required that every male of military age HAVE a musket, not that they need purchase one. They could inherit a musket, find a musket, get a musket as a gift, even steal a musket; so the law wasn't a requirement to purchase a musket.

2. They need only buy ONE musket. They didn't need to buy a new musket every month or even every year.

3. A musket is an object; health insurance is a "service."

4. The requirement was for the physical protection of the State. In essence, it can be viewed almost as a Draft Law. It certainly wasn't the State deciding what an individual needs to own for personal purposes, though.

That'll do for starters. Your 1792 law is no precedent.

[shadowrider]

9. Fail

It's government mandated regardless of a "service" or an "object". It doesn't matter that you bought your musket or inherited it. It's still required by the government each militia aged man have one.

[Birthmark]

13. There is a fundamental difference between...

...an object and a service. Even if I buy the musket, when I am no longer of militia age I can sell that musket and recoup part or even all of my outlay. I cannot do that with a service.

So your limited rebuttal fails.

This is simply a different animal from the 1792 Law.

[LiberalFighter]

10. There is no requirement for everyone to buy insurance.

Just to have insurance.

If an employer pays for their employee's insurance.

If an employer pays for part of the insurance and the employee pays the remainder.

For those that are unable due to financial reasons it will be provided.

Or pay a fine in lieu of having insurance.

[Birthmark]

14. Paying a fine is what makes it a mandate.

If there were no fines, then I would agree that it isn't a mandate.

[shadowrider]

16. Come on

You pay for insurance one way or another. An employer that "pays" for an employees insurance withheld that amount from the employees check in order to cover the cost.

Example:
Let's say an employer wants to hire an individual and has budgeted $60k. They deduct out of that 60k the amount due for unemployment insurance, health insurance, fica, social security etc. etc. Once those are deducted, the CASH offered to the employee may be $45k (or less dependent upon the total deductions required). In other words, regardless where the check comes from, the employee is paying for it out of his/her total package.

Don't take my word for it. Ask any business owner and they'll tell you this is the way it works.

[one-eyed fat man]

23. OOOOOH NOOOOOOOOOOES

the next thing you will be saying is that business owners do not pay taxes, they collect them! That every tax levied on business is ultimately paid for by whoever buys the service or product. It's all part of the overhead. THE ONLY advantage is that by levying a tax at each level of production and distribution it is not all itemized at the end for the consumer to see. Like those idiots, who, when you ask how much they paid in taxes this year say, "I didn't pay anything. I got 3800 bucks back!" The 10 or 12 thousand bucks the government KEPT out of the withholding is clean under their radar.

[shadowrider]

27. Now that you mention it

:)
That's EXACTLY what I'd say.

[Birthmark]

24. The same holds true for taxes, btw.

OT, but you've hit on an interesting point.

But you don't pay one way or another. Many, many employers don't offer health insurance, or it is optional to join. If you are employed by such a company that doesn't offer or include HI, you are under no obligation to buy it privately. So, it's not as cut and dried as you seem to believe.

[shadowrider]

25. you are under no obligation to buy it privately.

With this HCR, you ARE required to get it under penalty of a fine (enforced by the IRS).

[Birthmark]

37. Exactly

And therein lies the rub. I don't believe that Congress has that power under the Constitution. Now, I expect that the Courts will rule that they *do* in fact have such power, but I strenuously disagree. Just as I strenuously disagree with corporate "personhood."

Btw, have you considered what this Power means as precedent? If the mandate holds up, what else will Congress force me to buy under penalty of Law? Where does it end? Does it end? If there is no logical end to this Power can we not be economically enslaved?

[tburnsten]

47. My first serious job had a healthcare plan I could buy into

I was making about eight dollars an hour, I think I started at 7.50, and the plan would have cost more than half my biweekly paycheck. I also wasn't getting a forty hour work week. Guess what a healthy 19 year old chose, between homelessness with healthcare or my very inexpensive apartment betting on my youth and fitness to carry the day?

That's right, I didn't take the plan, because I would not have been able to afford to eat or have any lights on after dark. So going from that situation, where I had the option to either have healthcare or save my money, to a situation where I had to choose between food and an IRS fine and insurance with no fine or anything to eat, do you think I would have been worse off with this bill?

I am pretty out of the loop, it's been about a year since I gave up trying to follow it, but as I understand it, the final bill established a fine for anyone without some form of healthcare. Some "universal healthcare" that is. Now a whole bunch of young people who can't possibly afford healthcare are going to have to pay fines to the IRS for no reason at all other than their income level and youth. Trust me, young men have a VERY hard time getting any sort of unearned benefit that would ordinarily be based on income. It's a cold world for a young dude.

[Zynx]

11. That was so crappy I'll just assign it a letter grade with no comment: D-

[Birthmark]

15. So you have no response but your feelings.

That's fine, I guess, if you don't mind being ruled by your ductless glands. ;)

[SteveM]

17. I'm taking issue with your arguments...

Using your same numbers:

(1) One can gain health insurance without buying it (family policy, unrecognized "partners").

(2) So what's the point? You can buy more policies beyond the "base model," and make a Cadillac.

(3) A musket is necessary for you to be in a militia "service."

(4) If I recall correctly, when you are drafted you are provided with weapon, suitable for "service."

The OP has a novel example of a precedent.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. "(3) A musket is necessary for you to be in a militia service."

And the constitution explicitly grants congress the power "raise and support Armies".
That is why this mandate IS constitutional.

Congress is only granted the power to TAX for general welfare and those taxes/duties shall be levied uniformly.
The requirement to buy something or face penalty is not explicitly is certainly questionable and should be addressed by SCOTUS.

[Birthmark]

29. Obviously, we disagree.

1. You cannot gain health insurance through family or partners. You can access it. The moment you stop being part of (or eligible for) that family or partnership you are left with precisely nothing. In contrast, if I inherit a musket I have a musket until such time that *I* deem fit to get rid of it. So it is very much a different situation.

2. I'm not sure what your point is trying to say. I said that you need buy only one musket, not a continual line of muskets.

3. The fact that you can apply one word (service) is a long stretch since the way that you and I are using those words is completely different.

4. In 1792 the government probably lacked the wherewithal to provide weaponry. Standing armies were viewed with suspicion. So requiring one to provide oneself with a weapon for the defense of the State is probably as close as one could come to the Draft in that day and age. (Interestingly, the institution of the draft in the US Civil War led to some rather intense domestic unrest. OT)

[tburnsten]

48. Read American Rifle by Alexander Rose sometime

it's a great book, a biography of the American service rifle from pre-U.S. days to the present, with lots of information on the way we ended up with whatever rifle we used, and yes, we did have the capability and stocks to outfit a standing army with weaponry if it was neccessary. Armies tended to be raised as needed, but the capability was there pretty early in our nations existence.

[one-eyed fat man]

18. It's not that big a stretch.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years ... be enrolled in the militia,...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder....and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Seems like the Congress even meant for the militia member's arms to be safe from confiscation and sale to discharge debts. Yes, the law is still the basis for the the draft, and why only your son has to register for Selective Service and not your daughter.

But in the end Congress required an individual to provide himself with "something". If your employer, parents, or the government already provide you with healthcare insurance, fine, but otherwise, you gotta cough up and buy your own. And if you don't you get fined.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial

[Birthmark]

26. Again, there is a fundamental difference, no?

After age 45, you are perfectly free to sell your musket and recover the cost of this one-time outlay. Whereas, with health insurance, every single penny is gone with no hope of recovery. And again, I point to the differing purposes: The Musket Law (if I may) was for the physical protection of the State. Health insurance is strictly individual. Any benefit to the State is indirect and due to the large number of people, not the individual.

Your section 5 quote is out of place since it refers to the actions of what we would call active duty officers and not the populace generally. I have no general problem with, for instance, Article 15 provisions in UCMJ.

[tburnsten]

52. That isn't a fundamental difference, it is a difference in execution

of the exact same principle and law.

And Section 5 applies to all Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Privates of the militia, in other words, EVERYONE under the age of 45 and over the age of what, 17?

The forfeiture of pay for one month to one year is because the only way someone would be nailed for not having the proper equipment is if they were called up for militia duty, meaning they were going to be active for a period of time where they had pay to forfeit.

[tburnsten]

51. One months pay, where have I seen that before?

Oh yes! UCMJ Article 15s! That's still the going rate for punitive measures in the military today. Interesting to see how far back it goes isn't it?

[The_Commonist]

8. That does not sound like it required people to "purchase" a gun...

...but to "own" a gun.
There is a difference.
Once you owned the gun and the ammo, you were done.

Now we are required by law to spend thousands of dollars every year, whether we use the service or not.

Apples and oranges...

[LiberalFighter]

12. Anyone that doesn't have insurance is a fool.

Anyone that doesn't have insurance their whole lifetime is a leach on the taxpayers. They only care about themselves and don't care if their selfishness cost others.

Anyone that doesn't have insurance for their family risks the health and safety of their families.

[The_Commonist]

20. Health insurance is not health care.

I've probably paid 130-150 thousand dollars over the years in premiums.
I've gotten a couple of tests and a couple of shots.
I'm very lucky and very healthy, and I realize that I could get hit by a bus tomorrow.

The amount of my premiums that didn't cover the 5 or so thousand dollars that actually went to my health care goes to cover costs for other people who get expensive health problems, which I don't have a problem with, salaries for clerks and the people who do all the real work, which I don't have a problem with, and for

HUGE SALARIES, BONUSES AND STOCK OPTIONS FOR CORPORATE WEENIES WHO DON'T ADD ANY VALUE TO THE SYSTEM AND WHO ARE LEECHES ON SOCIETY BY DOING NOTHING MORE THAN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO TO DENY SERVICE TO SO THAT THEY CAN INCREASE THEIR PROFITS EVEN MORE!

Apparently, I have a big problem with that part of the system...

[eqfan592]

30. On this we are in total agreement (nt).

[tburnsten]

56. I really wish I could rec individual posts

[SteveM]

21. Well, I'm one of the tens of millions who are fools...

Please be advised that my lack of coverage is not a choice: it is too expensive (if you have been following the debate, this is the major reason why so many people have no coverage, and millions more have crappy coverage).

The rest of your moralisms about "selfishness" and "leaches" are meaningless.

I am curious about "...doesn't have insurance their whole lifetime is a leach...:" If someone had individual insurance for, say, 20 years (as I HAD), then has to drop coverage because of cost, and consequently gets seriously ill and runs up a huge bill, is he/she more moral (under your scheme) than someone who has never had coverage and suffers the same fate?

[tburnsten]

55. It's L-E-E-C-H

and sometimes people decide they can afford to not have health insurance. See my post from earlier in the thread where I share my experience as a young man with a new job, learning that I do in fact have a health insurance plan available.

Gotta tell you, it wasn't a desire to be a leech or greed that prevented me from taking that plan. It was the fact that if I took it, I would have to find someone who would let me live with them for free.

And I never once used any medical services while I worked there, or even for some time after. I don't think I have ever used medical services as an adult except that service I received while on active duty status. That hardly counts. I actually was fired from that first job because I came down with the flu, and they wanted a doctor's note or they would not let me have the day off to recover. Guess who couldn't afford a visit to the doctor's office out of pocket, or the health plan they had?

Oh and it was a job as a prep cook for a busy restaraunt, so not going in was the responsible thing to do, in my eyes.

[eqfan592]

28. And the health insurance law also doesn't require people to "purchase" health insurance...

...just have some, even if it's through a family member or partner.

And to be perfectly frank, people attempting to opt out of health insurance is downright socially irresponsible. Sure, maybe you didn't need it YET, but at some point, chances are very good that you WILL get seriously ill and require medical assistance, and if you've decided to go uninsured, then you've basically placed the bill at the feet of all your neighbors.

This of course does NOT include people who simply can't afford it. I'm speaking of people who can afford it but choose not to.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. The constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to "raise and support Armies"

To "support armies", congress required all the members to be armed - if you are part of the organized militia, you need a gun.
Congress never said to people "go out and buy one"... just that you need to have one available for use. :shrug:

The constitution only grants congress the power to TAX for the general welfare.
Not to require people to buy products for their general welfare.

I think SCOTUS needs to take a look at it's constitutionality.

[sharesunited]

31. Point taken. But guns injure and health care heals. Support Healing Not Injury.

[jeepnstein]

32. I support the Constitution.

[sharesunited]

33. Including harmful misinterpretations? That is unwise.

[jeepnstein]

38. Misinterpretation?

I think not. Like it or not the law of the land is the law of the land. You're free to fight to change it just not to ignore it.

[Katya Mullethov]

34. Ahahahahahaaa

tell that to Murtha !!

[sharesunited]

35. Medical mistakes are a reason not to push for affordable access?

Ok, I will put those words in your mouth and quote you.

[Katya Mullethov]

41. If that is the level of service that you feel entitled to

I invite you to seek it out .

[slackmaster]

36. Thanks to Native Americans, US citizens also had popcorn in 1792 - K&R

:popcorn:

:kick:

This is really an excellent point IMO. It's not perfect - Firearms were essential survival tools to those people. Being without one would be equivalent to not owning a pair of shoes or a shovel or a knife.

[Hoopla Phil]

39. I'm going to disagree with you a little. I still say that it is not constitutional

for the government to force an individual to engage in commerce. But with regard to arming the unorganized militia, the US government should be issuing arms to people on their 18th birthday. I point you to Article 1 Section 8:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[ileus]

43. If only it was still the case today...

[happyslug]

45. Duplicate subject, been on Du since at lest Wednesday.

The Wednesday 3/24/2010 thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8005170