Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

Here’s how it happened.

During the early years of our union, the nation’s leaders realized that foreign trade would be essential to the young country’s ability to create a viable economy. To make it work, they relied on the nation’s private merchant ships – and the sailors that made them go – to be the instruments of this trade.

The problem was that a merchant mariner’s job was a difficult and dangerous undertaking in those days. Sailors were constantly hurting themselves, picking up weird tropical diseases, etc.

The troublesome reductions in manpower caused by back strains, twisted ankles and strange diseases often left a ship’s captain without enough sailors to get underway – a problem both bad for business and a strain on the nation’s economy.

But those were the days when members of Congress still used their collective heads to solve problems – not create them.

Realizing that a healthy maritime workforce was essential to the ability of our private merchant ships to engage in foreign trade, Congress and the President resolved to do something about it.

Enter “An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”.

I encourage you to read the law as, in those days, legislation was short, to the point and fairly easy to understand.

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.

When a sick or injured sailor needed medical assistance, the government would confirm that his payments had been collected and turned over by his employer and would then give the sailor a voucher entitling him to admission to the hospital where he would be treated for whatever ailed him.

While a few of the healthcare facilities accepting the government voucher were privately operated, the majority of the treatment was given out at the federal maritime hospitals that were built and operated by the government in the nation’s largest ports.

As the nation grew and expanded, the system was also expanded to cover sailors working the private vessels sailing the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.

The program eventually became the Public Health Service, a government operated health service that exists to this day under the supervision of the Surgeon General.

So much for the claim that “The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty….”

As for Congress’ understanding of the limits of the Constitution at the time the Act was passed, it is worth noting that Thomas Jefferson was the President of the Senate during the 5^th Congress while Jonathan Dayton, the youngest man to sign the United States Constitution, was the Speaker of the House.

While I’m sure a number of readers are scratching their heads in the effort to find the distinction between the circumstances of 1798 and today, I think you’ll find it difficult.

Yes, the law at that time required only merchant sailors to purchase health care coverage. Thus, one could argue that nobody was forcing anyone to become a merchant sailor and, therefore, they were not required to purchase health care coverage unless they chose to pursue a career at sea.

However, this is no different than what we are looking at today.

Each of us has the option to turn down employment that would require us to purchase private health insurance under the health care reform law.

Would that be practical? Of course not – just as it would have been impractical for a man seeking employment as a merchant sailor in 1798 to turn down a job on a ship because he would be required by law to purchase health care coverage.

What’s more, a constitutional challenge to the legality of mandated health care cannot exist based on the number of people who are required to purchase the coverage – it must necessarily be based on whether any American can be so required.

Clearly, the nation’s founders serving in the 5th Congress, and there were many of them, believed that mandated health insurance coverage was permitted within the limits established by our Constitution.

The moral to the story is that the political right-wing has to stop pretending they have the blessings of the Founding Fathers as their excuse to oppose whatever this president has to offer.

History makes it abundantly clear that they do not.

UPDATE: January 21- Given the conversation and controversy this piece has engendered, Greg Sargent over at The Washington Post put the piece to the test. You might be interested in what Greg discovered in his article, “Newsflash: Founders favored government run health care.”

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

[Ban Hammer 13,520]

wonderful - if you want free health care, go be a merchant marine!

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Posts containing personal attacks have been removed. Acceptable part of removed posts - edited to remove the TOS violations - returned to the thread below

Steven, . . . perhaps you should read the act itself.

. . ., then you would know that the tax ONLY applied to ships coming in from foreign ports and was not for 'all sailors.'

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Actually Pual the Act starts the tax with ships entering from foreign ports, but part 2 includes all ships plying the coastal trade.

Sucks to fall for RWN propaganda doesn't it?

Edited February 1, 2011 by ready4ONE

[luckytxn 2,265]

Far cry from requiring every citizen to buy insurance or get a huge tax penalty. Luckily a Federal judge agreed today and ruled the health care act unconstitutional.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Great find Steven.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Far cry from requiring every citizen to buy insurance or get a huge tax penalty. Luckily a Federal judge agreed today and ruled the health care act unconstitutional.

Only in terms of scale, and this act is quite telling in the socialist/communist powers it rested in the hands of the President. You now must argue the Founding Fathers didn't understand the Constitution. I know you can do it!

[luckytxn 2,265]

Only in terms of scale, and this act is quite telling in the socialist/communist powers it rested in the hands of the President. You now must argue the Founding Fathers didn't understand the Constitution. I know you can do it!

They understood the Constitution very well and that is why they didn't try to force ALL citizens into paying for something or be penalized. I read where they argued this and there were many against it and the one thing they understood was that if anyone wanted to be a merchant marine then they would be forced to pay for the coverage. They knew beforehand to go and be a merchant marine they would have to have a deduction done. It was also back then that they had laws where every male over the age of 18 had to have a gun and minimum uniform and belong to a defense force. (They stopped this law by every area just financing a armory) They also had deductions where draftees and enlistees had deductions for uniforms and such. Anyone that wanted to join the service knew about this beforehand. There are many instances of the same things throughout our history. It is a far cry from forcing EVERY citizen to have to buy insurance from a industry or to be penalized heavily. This is like us all being forced to buy anything for any reason for whatever. The judge that made the decision today used the example of the Feds forcing us to buy broccoli. It may be good for us. It may help out a industry a lot but it would be unconstitutional and thus illegal. That was just an example but we can imagine just dropping the vegetable and adding a multitude of things.

Now many join clubs that have dues. To join the club we may be forced to wear certain things and/or help pay for expenses that are outside the dues. But these are private clubs and if we wish to join then we agree beforehand to do these things. Is this illegal? Now we have a Government saying that they want us to dress a certain way. They make laws saying we have to do so and pay for this ourselves. If we do not we will pay a stiff penalty. Is this legal? We can go all day and come up with other examples.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Broccoli? The judge used the example of broccoli?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Broccoli? The judge used the example of broccoli?

Yepper. And get this. He also used Obama the Socialist own campaign words against it.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Well, I just don't think broccoli is a very good analogy.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Well, I just don't think broccoli is a very good analogy.

Guess you had to be there.

[Ban Hammer 13,520]

Well, I just don't think broccoli is a very good analogy.

maybe he was comparing it to democrats

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Guess you had to be there.

See, this is why you would get minus ones. Because I didn't say anything nasty at all to you, yet you just want to mouth off.

Tell me why broccoli (something I don't HAVE to have to live) is equivalent to healthcare?

Can you do that? In a civilized way?

maybe he was comparing it to democrats

Do democrats make you fart?

Broccoli makes most people fart.

[luckytxn 2,265]

See, this is why you would get minus ones. Because I didn't say anything nasty at all to you, yet you just want to mouth off.

Tell me why broccoli (something I don't HAVE to have to live) is equivalent to healthcare?

Can you do that? In a civilized way?

Do democrats make you fart?

Broccoli makes most people fart.

Wow. I was just making a joke. Geeeez. But again some here can take jokes and I may have gotten a ton of +1's.

This is where you need to go read and see why he made the comparison. It is actually a pretty good one. Anyone can substitute broccoli for anything and come up with the same pretty good analogy. In fact I did so in another thread.

Edited February 1, 2011 by luckytxn