Socialized Health Care Before There Was Socialism
Who would have thought that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Socialists!
Teabaggers around the country are eating crow tonight. They just found out that our Founding Fathers, those gentlemen who teabaggers place on a pedestal and worship every night before going to sleep, mandated that private citizens purchase health insurance.
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.
Surely you jest. How could Congress do something that Frau Bachmann and the House Crier call unconstitutional? Well, because it wasn’t unconstitutional.
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.
Holy Stethoscope, Batman. I can’t believe this. You mean that Rush and Glenn and Sarah have been lying to us about this?
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.
And for those teabaggers who still think this is balderdash, think about who was running Congress when this law was enacted.
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 5th Congress while Jonathan Dayton, the youngest man to sign the United States Constitution, was the Speaker of the House.
Don’t you just love it when facts (and history) prove teabaggers wrong?
Tags: Health Care, Teabaggers
Excellent find, MJ!
MJ for the win
I did not know this. It made my day.
Um, this was the same crew that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. Just because the Founding Fathers did a thing doesn’t make it right. Perhaps the individual mandate is something that needs to be prohibited by amendment too.
Well, Anon, where do you stand? “Original intent” or “we only like the parts of the Constitution that we agree with”.
I only like the parts of the Constitution I agree with. You have to admit, the original intent of the slavery thing kind of sucked. I tend to agree more with the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery.
The fact that the Founders passed an individual mandate has no bearing on whether it is constitutional or not. The 1798 Act was five years before Madison vs. Marbury.
The “lie” — misunderstanding is more like it — is that the Constitution is anything but a framework for government. It was not intended as a rulebook. Those who take it as a rulebook are revealing their own insecurities and craving for authority.
Well, it IS a rulebook, but where people go wrong is when they try to invent their own rules between the lines. Or ignore the rules that are already clear.
You are wrong about that. A rulebook spells out rules for every potential situation. A framework allows the people to work out their own solutions within boundaries.
Study the Constitution at an actual school instead of in your living room. Then get back to us.
Geezer we just said nearly the same thing. Don’t be a mean SOB.
Geezer is absolutely correct–astute in fact about the constitution. That the constitution is a “framework” for government is clearly shown by the 9th amendment. Its discussion of unenumerated rights possessed by the people indicates that the constitution doesn’t present itself as an exhaustive list of rules but as a frame in which rules/laws can be instantiated.
It’s interesting that the sailors were charged 1% of their pay. I’ve read that it would only require a 1% income tax to fund a superior single-payer universal health care system in the US.
Sorry, you’re right, I was being a mean SOB.
No you weren’t, Geezer.
Hey, I usually know when I’m being a dick. Mostly after the fact.
You don’t have to apologize to an anon. No name, no pain. This civility stuff takes some getting used to, doesn’t it?
There’s nothing wrong with trying to be a smaller dick. Of course, at my age, it happens without even trying… (rim shot)
So can I have my Frisbee back from your lawn?
“It’s interesting that the sailors were charged 1% of their pay. I’ve read that it would only require a 1% income tax to fund a superior single-payer universal health care system in the US.”
Dana, in response to a comment on the article, the author states that France’s single payer system in funded by a 14% payroll tax. Given what we all know about our incomes and the cost of our health insurance, that sounds closer to the mark to me than a 1% income tax. But then income taxes include all kinds of income that payroll taxes don’t so who knows.
Thanks for the article, MJ. It’s really good information. In the comments there’s a link to another interesting article on the subject:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/10/our-socialist-founding-fathers.php
France’s single payer system in funded by a 14% payroll tax. Given what we all know about our incomes and the cost of our health insurance, that sounds closer to the mark to me than a 1% income tax.
Yes, except that the US is already footing the bill for a lot of healthcare out of current tax revenues (can’t remember how much).
Not only that, the government is funding health care in horridly inefficient ways, which would be addressed in a national single payer system.
So using the French as a benchmark, we wouldn’t need a new 14% tax. Maybe something between 1% and 7%.
And if the tax were made progressive, it would be even more bearable.
For the historical record, a couple of observations:
First, both Adams and Jefferson were out of the country when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. Neither took part in the constitutional debates, although Jefferson did correspond with Madison. Jefferson, of course, famously (but secretly) wrote the Kentucky Resolution that claimed states could nullify congressional acts, and was against judicial review, so I’d be especially cautious in citing Jefferson for any claims about what the Constitution means.
Having said that, methinks this post and historical evidence claims too much. Of course the national government can impose a tax! It imposes taxes for roads, the military, etc.
But, of course, that’s not what Obamacare does at all. In fact, if you’ll remember back to the debates a year ago and more, democrats went out of their way to say Obamacare and the mandate of insurance purchases was not a tax! Interestingly, in defending the law, one of the arguments that the justice department is now making is that the mandate is really just a form of tax. So, I guess the president and proponents lied when they said it wasn’t a tax.
Ironicially, if the feds simply imposed a national health care tax, it probably would be legal. But means matter. I personally think the mandate will be upheld, but it is hardly a slam dunk, and the act you cite in support is much less persuasive than you claim.
I STILL do not understand what the issue with healthcare is? I simply do not get it – our taxes already pay for forms of it, VA, Medicaid, medicare, WIC etc
I was raised under government healthcare, educated under government education etc listened to semi-state owned media and wonder of wonders, I had and have good health, excellent teeth, and an amazing education that surpasses what was existant in the States at the time.
The tax rate was higher and goods had a VAT (Value Added Tax) on them, but society at large was better off.
Some might call that socialism, but no one ever said we could not speak our minds, ir tried to stifle our expression.
So why is the idea of socialism and socialist ideas bandied about like its a boogey-man?
Why do’t we take from other thoughts and idealologies what is good and fits with our society and adopt them to our use and benefit?
why all this carping over a WORD?
I studied your constitution – its really cool and the case law that has for the past 250 years defined it more so – these constitutionists are doing just what MJ said – using it to fit their narrow needs and to make narrow points
it is a framework – not a rule book. That is very clear, and therein lies its brilliance, Just as the framers knew their society was different for the society that preceeded them, ours would be different too, but they gave us something to guide us – an idealology.
Charity to your fellow humans was a big part of what they where about.
So what again is the agnst against national healthcare really about?
Pubby, they were still in government and, though I wasn’t around to witness it (as neither were you or the other teabaggers), I’m sure their counsel was sought and taken during the drafting of the Constitution.
If you have a problem with the scholarship of the article, I suggest you take it up with the gentleman who wrote the article.
MJ,
Adams was in England the summer of 1787 as minister to England and Jefferson was in France that summer. They played no role in the Constitutional Convention (go and do a little research if you don’t believe me–it’s not all that hard). There was some correspondence between Jefferson and Madison, but basically that correspondence consists of Jefferson taking potshots at Madison’s ideas. Remember, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were all sworn to secracy during the course of the convention (a pledge that was almost universally upheld); and, even during the ratification debates Adams and Jefferson were absent.
As to taking issues with the “scholarship” of the article, you’re the one who quoted it chapter and verse here, without really thinking through the issues or the conclusions.
In fact, no one should ever really point to Jefferson or his thoughts when it comes to the Constitution. He really did advocate for states’ rights/nullification, and he always thought judicial review was wrong. The Declaration of Independence is a masterpiece, as is the Virginian legislation on freedome of religon, but overall Jefferson is a very mixed bag at best, and in this instance, his presence as Vice-President really doesn’t mean all that much.
Moreover, the statute was, in essence, a tax bill. It charged seaman a payroll tax. That’s not what Obamacare does with the individual mandate. Apples and oranges; and, as I said earlier, proponents of Obamacare went out of their way to say it wasn’t a tax! So the analogy is flawed on many levels.
Having said all that, I still think the constitutionally of Obamacare will ultimately be upheld, even as it has the reverse effects of what was intended (i.e., it will raise costs, increase the deficit and lead to longer waiting times for treatment, and rationed care).
Pubic, I do know that Jefferson and Adams were out of the country. Yet, they were still in government and I’m sure that their counsel was sought. Now, if you have something from your latest time travels that disputes that, by all means, present your facts. Barring that, you have only your teabagger supposition.
Yours is a typical teabagger response. When faced with facts, you immediately begin to refuidate what you hold so dear, i.e., the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.
As for Health Care Reform, please offer proof that costs are going to go up, people will have to wait longer for treatment, and that health care will be rationed. And I’m asking for facts, not teabag talking points from St. Sarah and the other talking heads on FAUX News.
“And I’m asking for facts, not teabag talking points from St. Sarah and the other talking heads on FAUX News.”
And i want to go home and find season tickets to the phillies, kiera knightly, and world peace in my appartment.
anon, I didn’t mean to imply that I thought a 14% paytoll tax was necessarily a bad deal. I know that health insurance for my family, which was a very good plan and which luckily was paid for by my employer, cost considerably more than 14% of my salary.
As you pointed out, our system is inefficient so costs could be lowered. And income taxes and payroll taxes are apples and oranges since income taxes cover a lot more types of income than payroll taxes. But a 1% income tax covering all health care costs just sounds too good to be true.
Dana, do you remember where you saw that 1% figure?
This Affordable Health Care Act won’t be in complete effect until 2014. Meanwhile blue cross and other for profit companies are pushing their rates up to 59%. This is what happens when insurance companies steal the money without providing the services. Under the new bill, 80% of YOUR premium must be spent on health care. The repukes want to go back to 20% of your premium goes to your health care and 80% goes to CEO’s and their shareholders. Vt’s governor is asking for waivers so they can pass their own single payer bill. Mass, New Hampshire and California will follow suit. It aint over till the fat lady sings. Once one state gets it, and the others see the cost in savings others will follow suit.
C’mon MJ, don’t give me that “oh you’re just a teabagger who doesn’t know their facts” kind of elitest BS. What a crock. My facts are, in fact, more accurate than anything you’ve said or pointed to.
Given that the Constitutional Convention ran for, essentially, 4 months, and given the time it took correspondence to cross the Atlantic, and given that the members of the Constitutional Convention were sworn to secrecy, just how much “input” do think Adams or Jeffeson could have had (to the extent they had any). In fact, if you were to study the Constitutional Convention (it seems to me that you have not), you’ll find no mention of Adams or Jefferson. Nor are they credited with any role in any of the standard histories you might read. Of course, most people (yourself included it seems) don’t seem to realize that Jefferson and Adams were out of the country at this time, and some seem to treat Jefferson, since he wrote the Declaration of Independence, as involved in everything that happened during the period; but, the facts, however inconvenient for you, are what they are. In fact, if you were fair and honest, you’d have to admit that Saint Jefferson is one of the most unreliable and wrongheaded of any of the early “founders.” As I say, he drafted the Kentucky Resolution and thought judicial review was wrong. My point was simply that the article, which you appear to accept completely uncritically, is flawed to the extent it wants to point to Jefferson or Adams as proof of the what the drafters and ratifiers intended with the Constitution.
It must also be inconvenient for you when, upon closer reading of the article you cite, it turns out that the Act in question was really a tax act. Contrary to what the article states at the beginning, it did not require seaman to puchase insurance or anything else for that matter. There was no individual mandate. It required workers to pay a tax! So, citing the statute as support for a private insurance mandate is simply flawed logic and intellectually dishonest.
Now, if Obamacare taxed everyone, and then provided that everyone got free healthcare, well, then I think you’d have a decent analogy. But, unfortunately for you and the author of the article, that’s not what it does.
Nor am I repudiating either the Constitution or the Founders. My point is simply that the views of neither Adams nor Jefferson (especially Jefferson) count on this question. When someone is out of the country, and when, in the case of Jefferson, that person expresses crazy views like nullification and opposition to judicial review, that person hardly qualifies as a founder, let alone authoritative.
As to higher costs, rationed care, and the many other unintended consequences, neither you nor I can know the future. But we can both make our predictions about it. I am not relying on “Saint” Sarah (hardly a saint in my book, she endorsed Christine O’Donnell for pete’s sake) in any way; there has been plenty of good analysis done about the probable effects of the law. Why don’t you cite me facts that say it won’t lead to higher costs or rationed care? And why are so many companies seeking a waiver if Obamacare is such a wonderful thing? Let’s just agree to check back in in 5 years and see who’s right…
Publius, I’m still waiting for you to prove what you said on the Charter School thread.
I realize you’re busy over here, but, hey… when you get a chance.
Interesting, but that hardly is a mandate upon citizens in general. The federal government actually had authority in the Constitution to give Maratine licenses and had police power jurisdiction over the high seas. It does not within the states. The states cannot license you for operation in international waters, nor can the federal government require you to purchase a private product based merely upon your living. It would be a warping of the interstate commerce clause to require engagement in commerce not the regulation of it.
Could it require say Interstate truckers as a condition of a CDL in the name of public safety, yes in my judgement. Could it require a local transit bus driver, no. That is out of federal jurisdiction. Police Powers were reserved powers in the tenth amendment except in the territories, D. C. military/government installations, and the waterways.
Gee David – based on your reasoning above – Arizona does not have the authority to pass laws on Immigration as it is the sole pervue of the Federal government – not a state right to determine who is admitted into the United States.
Interesting. As this IS the premise fo the Federal suit against AZ SB1070 –
So you DO understand the seperation of powers and the limits of State and Federal authority.
Good to know