1791/1798 First Efforts At Federal Health Insurance

12 posts / 0 new

Thanks Chuckles8 for finding this. I'm starting to follow my own advice by not pushing up threads of those who are clearly trolls.

Quote chuckle8 in another thread...:George Washington required maritime sailors (civilians) to buy health insurance from a third party.

Actually it was to purchase insurance from the government... funded by a tax on a seamen's wages.

I've posted, perhaps here, that Madison was trying to get federal funding for hospitals for disabled seamen as early as 1791. This must have been the effort to fund those hospitals... that is if Madison's proposal ever passed.

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/xen/index.php?threads/our-founding-fathers-were-in-favor-of-socialized-medicine.656994/

Text of act: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Comments

chuckle8 is wrong, frankly you should already know that.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Capital.0:

chuckle8 is wrong, frankly you should already know that.

Let's see if I understand your "logic" such as it is... you present nothing as evidence, and we're supposed to take your word for it,,,,,,, OH, I remember... of course, Cap need not present any credible sources. We must beeeeelieve. Either that or you have so much of a life outside this forum... even though you came back with a new user name, you didn't have time. Which is it Einstein?

Do note, I did not say this act forces citizens to pay a third party. I haven't fully researched it. But it's clearly a redistribution of wealth to serve a social purpose.... you know... that troublesome General Welfare clause you righties hate so much.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

What that act said and did was take a small percentage out of the workers pay and save it till he needed to go to the doctor at which time they gave him back his money so he could pay the doctor.

People that did not work on the docks did not get the plan and did not get the money.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:What that act said and did was take a small percentage out of the workers pay and save it till he needed to go to the doctor at which time they gave him back his money so he could pay the doctor. People that did not work on the docks did not get the plan and did not get the money.
That seems to be a misreading of the act. It's not a medical savings account.. it's INSURANCE paid by a tax on wages:
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 anyone district, shall be expended within the same.

And you're leaving out the part about using the surplus to construct hospitals. #4 of

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798

That if any surplus shall remain of the moneys to be collected by virtue of this act, afterdefraying the expense of such temporary relief and support, that the same, together with suchprivate donations as may be made for that purpose, (which the president is hereby authorized toreceive,) shall be invested in the stock of the United States, under the direction of the president;and when, in his opinion, a sufficient fund shall be accumulated, he is hereby authorized topurchase or receive cessions or donations of ground or buildings, in the name of the UnitedStates, and to cause buildings, when necessary, to be erected as hospitals for the accommodationof sick and disabled seamen.

There are two issues here... whether it was a government effort to provide health insurance, and whether the early Congress ever mandated a citizen purchase something from a third party. Combined, they seem to negate the criticisms of Obamacare.. since they both are legal precedents. The mandate to buy happened with The Militia Acts of 1792 mandated that all militia members arm themselves.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

chirp chirp chirp...

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The military act was in direct association with the second amendent. It was setting up the regulations for the militia.

The health insurance or savings account was set up for those working in the sea shipping industry. It would be like the feds saying the dock workers at the port have to havd insurance and they used the extra money to build a hospital for the sea port workers.

If you want to impliment something like that what are you going to do with the unemployed people and thosd who pay no taxes? Niether are eligible under the plan to medical care.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

One other point of reference ports back then were government controlled si on government land property they csn dictate the terms you wirk under so obama care is fine for government employees and contractors un constitutional for everyone else.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

@Pierpoint From your first source: "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."

I wonder if it was an open-ended voucher? If it was for a fixed sum i.e. (the taxes collected) where sailors who contracted long term illnesses released when the funds ran out? This appears to me to be, for the most part, a specific tax on a specific class to be collected AND spent in a specific location not an exercise of "general welfare" through insurance.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm

Quote workingman:The military act was in direct association with the second amendent. It was setting up the regulations for the militia.
I don't want to get off topic, but a quick note: you're putting your cart before the horse. The Militia Acts have to do with setting up the Militia of Article 1 Sec 8 in the original Constitution.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.......

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The Second has nothing to do with the operation of the Militia. It just restates that the federal government has no power to disband these state-based militias or disarm the militia members. The Militia Acts are clear that the Militia never meant everyone... even if "the People" sounds all-inclusive. It only included able-bodied white males from 18 to about 44.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote mjolnir:

@Pierpoint From your first source: "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."

Sorry, I was in a hurry and didn't even read the source. The text of the legislation, if accurate, doesn't get into that detail.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote workingman: The health insurance or savings account was set up for those working in the sea shipping industry. It would be like the feds saying the dock workers at the port have to havd insurance and they used the extra money to build a hospital for the sea port workers. If you want to impliment something like that what are you going to do with the unemployed people and thosd who pay no taxes? Niether are eligible under the plan to medical care.
You're missing the point. It's clear from these two laws... an early health insurance mandate AND a mandate for Militia members to own a weapon, that those closest to "Original Intent" would NOT agree with today's Right wing the government can't mandate citizens to buy something from another private party. Hell, a health care mandate, suggested by the Heritage Foundation, was the GOPs counter-proposal to HillaryCare back in the 90's and Mitt Romney's plan for Mass included such a mandate. I just heard on NPR that when that was passed in 06, someone from Heritage was there for the signing. The GOP got what they wanted, but have since so moved to the extreme, they now reject it.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system