1798 Socialized Medicine

[weswilson]

Source: http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

...

The law did a number of fascinating things.

First, it created the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up.

This is pretty much how it works today in the European nations that conduct socialized medical programs for its citizens – although 1% of wages doesn’t quite cut it any longer.

The law was not only the first time the United States created a socialized medical program (The Marine Hospital Service) but was also the first to mandate that privately employed citizens be legally required to make payments to pay for health care services. Upon passage of the law, ships were no longer permitted to sail in and out of our ports if the health care tax had not been collected by the ship owners and paid over to the government – thus the creation of the first payroll tax in our nation’s history.

Why has this never been brought up in any of the Health Care debates around here? Did I just miss it?

Edit:I worked very hard to stay quite informed during the process of debating health reform. So many of the arguments that I heard were that health reform wasn't constitutional, that it was beyond the scope of our federal government, and that our founding fathers would not have dreamed of instituting such tyranny. I think that this historical legislation clearly shows that all three of these things are patently incorrect.

Of all the people here who keep abreast of American history, I don't recall a single person mentioning this during a debate. I'd be interested to know who among the people here knew about this legislation during the last year.

With this information in mind, is there anyone who still thinks that
1) Health reform was unconstitutional
2) Health reform was beyond the prescribed scope of the federal government
3) Our founding fathers were opposed to federally managed health care

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The same reason nobody ever brings up the Whiskey Rebellion in the umpty-dozen circlejerks about the rednecks defeating the US military: reality is only acceptable when it agrees with what people want it to be, not what it is.

[404.livejournal.com]

I see you're only here to troll and try to derail conversations.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

How did he troll? The use of the word "redneck"?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, my point is entirely relevant given that this is one of many aspects of what the Founders did related to UHC that nobody likes to talk about.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Gee, that was ironic.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Fantastic post. This is going to be fun to watch as well.

[bluetooth16.livejournal.com]

Countdown until the Right does this:

(http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/Firewire16/?action=view&current=JA-talk-to-the-hand.gif)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

lol. I think the House should adopt a resolution for restoring the use of powdered wigs in the chamber.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I miss the days when fistfights in the House chambers were regularities. It'd make CSpan more entertaining for sure. The US Congress is so....sedate...by the standard of other legislatures.

[bluetooth16.livejournal.com]

I approve of this! I love seeing the wigs in colonial period pieces and Law & Order UK.

[404.livejournal.com]

I'm curious on how much it would cost for each citizen today to make this nationwide.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Could you expand on your opinion (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/261191.html) in the OP please? 1 hour then? Thanks in advance.

[weswilson]

I would be happy to. I just got home with the kids. Please give me about 30 more minutes to get dinner started and then I'll elaborate.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

No worries man. I just wanted to make sure you got it. High-five, etc.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Well, let's do a little analysis rather than just assume this is relevant to the argument. There's two issues to look at; is this law constitutional and does it apply to the present situation.

First, under what authority is Congress passing this law? I couldn't find anything about that in a quick search, so I'll make a claim based on logic. I would say that it falls under the power in Art.1 Sec.8 that says "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;". It only applies to sailors and there is some overlap between the merchant marine and the official Navy, as well as dependencies both directions, and probably more at that time in history. So, it's not obviously unconstitutional.

However, this does not help prove the constitutionality of the current health care legislation. This law was restricted in scope and did not mandate private companies do anything, the government ran the hospitals. We could have the same thing going on now if the VA hospitals took patients from the general public and we increased the Medicare tax (or something like that) to cover it.

The problem with the current law is the mandate that everyone buy a private product of a particular type or be punished. There is no Constitutional wording granting Congress this power.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sure there is. The regulation of interstate commerce. Oh, wait, I forget-these clauses only mean their Exact Words when it's ideologically convenient they do so.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The commerce clause should be applied to mandate idiots, retards, and other general riff-raff who think that the commerce clause mandates anything under the sun buy a suicide machine and pay a tax for every day they burden America with their trivial inanities.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

There is no interstate commerce going on with health insurance, we're already prohibited from buying from out-of-state. Although, remember that "regulation" means "to make regular", not that Congress can make up any old rule it wants to.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

If by "quite a bit of overlap" between the Navy and the general merchant fleet, you actually mean "absolutely separate and disparate organizations/concepts", then I agree.

This is a first for me.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It doesn't surprise me in the least since the framers of the Constitution had the interest of the public weal as their object of governance. I must say that I have never heard about this until now. It wasn't until recently that I had heard anything about the Paxton Boys either, so I'm not a good benchmark for American history. Since the hospitals were dedicated to those who served in the most dangerous and unhealthful occupation of the time, a modern equivalent might be hospitals for the people who work in chemical plants or nuclear power plants.

Re: This is a first for me.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Actually Sailors still have the most dangerous job in America, specifically commercial Fishermen.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

With this information in mind, is there anyone who still thinks that
1) Health reform was unconstitutional
2) Health reform was beyond the prescribed scope of the federal government
3) Our founding fathers were opposed to federally managed health care

1. The bill passed is unconstitutional. Health reform in general is not inherently.
2. This is the same question as 1.
3. Unknown, and too general. Not all of the founders were of a single mind on anything. And the "intent of the founders" is found solely in the Constitution. Things they did personally after that aren't relevant other than as information that could help explain why they put something in the Constitution and not really much else.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Old meme and it doesn't say what you think it says.

http://volokh.com/2010/04/02/an-act-for-the-relief-of-sick-and-disabled-seamen/

It's much closer to Medicare than Obamacare.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

And the notion of "medicare for all" is the single-payer preference of the liberals of America. It's a pity Obama didn't even begin discussing that as an option.

Obamacare should really be Romneycare. But then the Republicans would have to own up to their ideas. And far be it from reality to impose upon republicans.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I did not know that! Fascinating!