Socialized medicine? The founders did it!

[nygreenguy]

Wth July,1798.
CHAP. [94.] An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen.1

§ 1. Be it enacted, Sfc. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

§ 2. That from and after the first day of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose enrollment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a new enrollment or license, before the master of such ship or vessel shall first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen, and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such seamen have been severally employed as aforesaid ; which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen. And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.

§ 3. That it shall be the duty of the several collectors to make a quarterly return of the sums collected by them, respectively, by virtue of this act, to the secretary of the treasury ; and the president of the United States is hereby authorized, out of the same, to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick, or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established in the several ports of the United States, or in ports where no such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct:Provided, that the moneys collected in any one district, shall be expended within the same.

What happened here, is the government directly taxed individuals to fund healthcare and hospitals for private seamen.

Here's the background. Ungar points out that in July of 1798, Congress passed "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman," which was signed by President Adams. That law authorized the creation of a government operated system of marine hospitals and mandated that laboring merchant marine sailors pay a tax to support it.

Ungar argues that this blows away the argument made by many opponents of the individual mandate: That it's unconstitutional to mandate that all citizens purchase health coverage, or that this violates the founding fathers' view of the proper role of government.

Is this true? In some ways it is, according to Adam Rothman, an associated professor of history at Georgetown University. He argues that it's a "bit of a leap" to compare the 1798 act directly to the individual mandate, because the act taxed sailors to pay for their health care, rather than "requiring that sailors purchase it."

But Rothman says that it's perfectly legit to see shades of today's debate in that early initiative.

"It's a good example that the post-revolutionary generation clearly thought that the national government had a role in subsidizing health care," Rothman says. "That in itself is pretty remarkable and a strong refutation of the basic principles that some Tea Party types offer."

"You could argue that it's precedent for government run health care," Rothman continues. "This defies a lot of stereotypes about limited government in the early republic."

Also: Some have argued that the individual mandate is, in effect a tax, but one that cuts out the Federal government as middleman. In this reading, everyone will eventually participate in the health system anyway, and the mandate means the Federal government is merely directing people to buy insurance, rather than collecting a tax and using that money to purchase that same insurance for them.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... gover.html

So, what does all this mean? Is it still unconstitutional, or did the founders just not care?

[nygreenguy]

But i thought this was anti-constitutional?

[micatala]

As I recall, somewhere in one of those founding documents of ours here in the U.S. it says something about "promoting the general welfare" and "ensuring the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."


Now, I certainly won't speak as if I know what the founders would say about our current debate. However, I would say government involvement in health care fits into "promoting the general welfare." In fact, I would offer a general challenge to for members to find anything else that promotes the general welfare more than promoting healthy citizens individually and a healthy population at large.

I think one can say this early health care related act is consistent with my thinking here.


I would also say freeing the health care system from employer sponsored health coverage definitely increases our liberty.

And in fact, the CBO supports this, saying that perhaps a half percent of those now working, maybe 650,000 people, would reduce the amount they work or even quite their jobs because the only reason they are working is to maintain their health care.

This is evidence that these people are freer than they were, becuase they now have additional choices.

Of course, some Republicans dishonestly spin this as "job killing" and say 650,000 people will lose their jobs.



That's like saying if I decide to sell my house and move to another state, that I have been "forced out of my home."