The ink was barely dry on the PPACA when the first of many lawsuits to
block the mandated health insurance provisions of the law was filed in
a Florida District Court.
The pleadings, in part, read -
The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate,
either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and
legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.
State of Florida, et al. vs. HHS
It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.
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 5th 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."
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment