The Health Insurance Mandate and the Founding Fathers

[Keith Wilson]

God help us, this reminds me of Christian Fundamentalists or Wahabi Muslims arguing about interpretation of scripture, or Mandarins quoting the Analects of Confucius. Those who founded the US were men, not demigods; intelligent but all-too-fallible upper-class white men. The founding documents were as much a result of political haggling, self-interest and expedient compromise as any law passed today. At that time, knowledge of the physical world was very limited, communication was slow, the economy was primitive, most people were farmers, and medicine was essentially useless. Why the bloody hell are we talking about what Hamilton or Jefferson would have thought about how to provide medical care to a population of 300 million?

[Y Bar Ranch]

God help us, this reminds me of Christian Fundamentalists or Wahabi Muslims arguing about interpretation of scripture, or Mandarins quoting the Analects of Confucius.

I didn't know the bible had an amendment process written directly into it. Or the Koran, for that matter. Not to mention the Analects of Confucius.

[Peerie Maa]

I didn't know the bible had an amendment process written directly into it. Or the Koran, for that matter. Not to mention the Analects of Confucius.

All three books of the Bible are being argued about and reinterpreted by the scholars of each religion. Some aspects of those religions are capable of recognising the need for change, and do work to accommodate them.
There are some posting here who are Fundamental Constitutionalists, in the same vein as the fundamental Muslims that they would probably condemn.

[Y Bar Ranch]

All three books of the Bible are being argued about and reinterpreted by the scholars of each religion.

Well of course, since they are in fact otherwise 'dead' documents, i.e., unamendable, pure captures of the Word of God.

There are some posting here who are Fundamental Constitutionalists, in the same vein as the fundamental Muslims that they would probably condemn.

Eh?

Fundamental to the Constitution is its amendment process, from which probably the most important aspect of the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) emerged. Better to have the contents of the Bill of Rights directly codified than to have it emerge through years and years of evolving interpretation, no?

[Peerie Maa]

Eh?

Can you not see that some here venerate the Constitution, and demand that its 200 y o provisions be religiously adhered to no matter what?

Better to have the contents of the Bill of Rights directly codified than to have it emerge through years and years of evolving interpretation, no?

No, better to have a system capable of rapid change to keep pace with society's changing needs.

[Y Bar Ranch]

Can you not see that some here venerate the Constitution, and demand that its 200 y o provisions be religiously adhered to no matter what?

No, better to have a system capable of rapid change to keep pace with society's changing needs.

Eh? You kidding?

Instilling the Bill of Rights in one fell swoop was far quicker and less painful than a slow process of repeatedly executing Act X, getting arrested or charged or otherwise inconvenienced, lose the case, appeal, have it work its way through lower court through appeals through higher courts and finally to the Supreme Court to get some narrow ruling, and repeat in order to get the whole system to move.

Similarly, better to abolish slavery through an amendment than to have repeated rulings through the courts establish it.

In the same way that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, extraordinary interpretations should require plain, simple amendments. Being able to force people to buy things as regulating commerce is extraordinary. Make it clear that is what we mean, if that is in fact what we mean.

[SaltyBoatr]

You can not dismiss the Articles so quickly. You seem to take the Hamiltonian side in the argument quite readily. Moreover the revolution is not over after the fighting and Because lawyers draw up a questionable document. Dont forget that each State is an independent entity. Shays and the Whiskey Rebellion are really reactionary to these Federalists. ...

I am not dismissing, rather I am just observing.

I am just observing the all the states, unanimously, rejected the Articles of Confederation and ratified the Constitution of 1789.

And yes, the Shays' Insurrection of 1787 was a huge issue, that is why the Founders unanimously created a new centralized form of government in 1789 powerful enough to crush insurrections, as they did with to the Whiskey Insurrection of 1791.

It would be comical, if it wasn't so sad, that the Tea Party is still contesting the unanimous decision from 1789.

And stating the obvious here, while they don't like to admit it, many of them with their 2A secret agenda are preparing for another insurrection.

[Concordia 33]

No, better to have a system capable of rapid change to keep pace with society's changing needs.

Though this (like Libertarianism) is true in theory, it leaves you vulnerable to tyrannical leaders. The Constitution was all about limiting the actions of government, and I think the minimum necessary is always the best approach. The trick is for everyone to agree on what is the appropriate "minimum necessary". Socialism (having never lived under it) seems to me a maximum necessary centralized government approach, so I guess you could view the Constitution as anti-socialist.

[Concordia 33]

It would be comical, if it wasn't so sad, that the Tea Party is still contesting the unanimous decision from 1789.

And stating the obvious here, while they don't like to admit it, many of them with their 2A secret agenda are preparing for another insurrection.

Where does that come from? My understanding of the Tea Party (and I have heard some of their leaders talk on the radio) seems more about limited government and fiscal responsibility - it seems like you have an entirely different understanding. Can you cite any statements from Tea Party leaders that supports your premise?

[SaltyBoatr]

the Tea Party...seems more about limited government and fiscal responsibility

Limited government and "fiscal restraint" are the exact same values held by the anti-Federalists (the losing side) of the Constitutional debates of 1789.

[Osborne Russell]

An excellent discussion all around. Thanks to Ted for the Thomas Paine.

It's true, this health care business does lead us back to what is the proper role of government, which for America includes 200 years of experience with the constitution.

The constitution is in turn based on certain conceptions of natural rights, which by definition are independent of time, place and circumstances. So it's good to come to understanding of what they are.

Also important to remember that by definition, no constitution can be the perfect protector of those rights; but at the same time, things should not be changed for light and transient causes as TJ put it.

The constitution with its so-called balance of powers between states and the feds wasn't put forward as the ideal solution but as a compromise. It has a built-in conflict. So to speak of it as some kind of optimized instrument for carrying out the founder's intent as if that intent was a consensus is just wrong. It's an instrument designed to contain a compromise. There are good arguments on both sides, all of the original ones plus some new.

The problem is as some point out, where, on principle, can you draw a limit on the power of the federal government? It's a vital question. Many liberals are unconscious Hamiltonians, i.e. they would be happy to see the states lose the last of their sovereignty. That is a judgment that all the anti-federalist arguments are wrong; I'm a long way from being convinced of that. In any event it would be unwise to do it suddenly.

Many conservatives trivialize the whole deal by setting up their mythological action figures and their holy writ, when it suits them, so they can get into government and get the money, e.g. the "Bridge To Nowhere", contracts to supply bottled water to the troops in Iraq, etc. Their ancestor isn't Patrick Henry, it's the contractors who sold salt horse and blankets to the Army to fulfill treaties with the Native Americans. Conservative leaders spout the line, the mass buys it, the leaders get the money, and the mass gets an identity, however fake. And the all-important jobs, jobs, jobs -- working for the contractors.

[Peerie Maa]

Eh? You kidding?

Instilling the Bill of Rights in one fell swoop was far quicker and less painful than a slow process of repeatedly executing Act X, getting arrested or charged or otherwise inconvenienced, lose the case, appeal, have it work its way through lower court through appeals through higher courts and finally to the Supreme Court to get some narrow ruling, and repeat in order to get the whole system to move.

Similarly, better to abolish slavery through an amendment than to have repeated rulings through the courts establish it.

In the same way that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, extraordinary interpretations should require plain, simple amendments. Being able to force people to buy things as regulating commerce is extraordinary. Make it clear that is what we mean, if that is in fact what we mean.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. Our laws are not made in the courts, we have a representative democratic government to do that. It does require a new law to be interpreted in the court, which may indicate that it was badly drafted. Should that be the case it may be amended. However the process is a lot less tortuous that that you describe. Our "Bill of Rights" is formed by the body of laws preserved in the Rolls, and added to or repealed at need.
Being forced to buy insurance may be strange to you, setting aside car insurance, which I suppose you have no problem with.
However the USA is so locked in to its worship of Mammon, that you have not been able to "nationalise" the funding of health insurance by making it universal through an arm of State or Federal government, which would reduce the cost to all, so that it would be affordable by removing the immorality of making profit out of peoples misfortunes. "Forcing" everybody to buy insurance will go part of the way to reduce the cost, as it spreads the risk further, but it still does not address the profit issue.

[Peerie Maa]

Though this (like Libertarianism) is true in theory, it leaves you vulnerable to tyrannical leaders. The Constitution was all about limiting the actions of government, and I think the minimum necessary is always the best approach. The trick is for everyone to agree on what is the appropriate "minimum necessary". Socialism (having never lived under it) seems to me a maximum necessary centralized government approach, so I guess you could view the Constitution as anti-socialist.

I think Cromwell beheaded our last tyrannicle leader. Our constitutional democracy has managed quite well ever since.
Your constitution has socialist clauses written in to it, but you have allowed money to prevent them being implemented fully.

[Concordia 33]

Limited government and "fiscal restraint" are the exact same values held by the anti-Federalists (the losing side) of the Constitutional debates of 1789.

Yet the constitution set limits on the government's ability to tax its citizens......

Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3:
“…direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states…according to their respective Numbers…”

Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein directed to be taken.”

[Concordia 33]

I think Cromwell beheaded our last tyrannicle leader. Our constitutional democracy has managed quite well ever since.
Your constitution has socialist clauses written in to it, but you have allowed money to prevent them being implemented fully.

So what would you consider socialist, and what proportion is that to those that recognize the sovereignty of the individual?

[wardd]

wasn't there health care set up for early sailors?

[Concordia 33]

An excellent discussion all around. Thanks to Ted for the Thomas Paine.

It's true, this health care business does lead us back to what is the proper role of government, which for America includes 200 years of experience with the constitution.

The constitution is in turn based on certain conceptions of natural rights, which by definition are independent of time, place and circumstances. So it's good to come to understanding of what they are.

Also important to remember that by definition, no constitution can be the perfect protector of those rights; but at the same time, things should not be changed for light and transient causes as TJ put it.

The constitution with its so-called balance of powers between states and the feds wasn't put forward as the ideal solution but as a compromise. It has a built-in conflict. So to speak of it as some kind of optimized instrument for carrying out the founder's intent as if that intent was a consensus is just wrong. It's an instrument designed to contain a compromise. There are good arguments on both sides, all of the original ones plus some new.

The problem is as some point out, where, on principle, can you draw a limit on the power of the federal government? It's a vital question. Many liberals are unconscious Hamiltonians, i.e. they would be happy to see the states lose the last of their sovereignty. That is a judgment that all the anti-federalist arguments are wrong; I'm a long way from being convinced of that. In any event it would be unwise to do it suddenly.

Many conservatives trivialize the whole deal by setting up their mythological action figures and their holy writ, when it suits them, so they can get into government and get the money, e.g. the "Bridge To Nowhere", contracts to supply bottled water to the troops in Iraq, etc. Their ancestor isn't Patrick Henry, it's the contractors who sold salt horse and blankets to the Army to fulfill treaties with the Native Americans. Conservative leaders spout the line, the mass buys it, the leaders get the money, and the mass gets an identity, however fake. And the all-important jobs, jobs, jobs -- working for the contractors.

I agree with most of what you say here. Looking back on the Constitution, it was an attempt on the part of individual States to come together for the common good while maintaining as much independence as possible (state's rights). For that reason they wanted to limit the centralized government to only the necessary things so that each state could individually decide how it would handle everything else. They never intended to abdicate all authority - just the necessary ones such as (but not limited to)a common defense.

[wardd]

Thomas Jefferson Also Supported Government Run Health Care

In response to

my earlier piece on “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”

, the 1798 law revealing that a number of our founders were more supportive of the notion of mandated health coverage and a government run hospital system than some may have imagined, many have noted that it is not surprising that such legislation would have been signed into law by President John Adams, a noted Federalist who serves as a model for much of what today’s Tea Party finds objectionable.Their point is not wholly unreasonable. After all, it was John Adams who brought us the highly objectionable Alien & Sedition Acts.However, Washington Post blogger, Greg Sargent, today reports that it wasn’t only John Adams who supported the notion of government run health care. According to Georgetown University history professor and noted historian of America’s early days, Adam Rothman, Thomas Jefferson –the iconic hero of the Tea Party – also supported the legislation.Sargent reprints the following email he received from Prof. Rothan on the subject –

Alexander Hamilton supported the establishment of Marine Hospitals in a 1792 Report, and it was a Federalist congress that passed the law in 1798. But Jefferson (Hamilton’s strict constructionist nemesis) also supported federal marine hospitals, and along with his own Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin, took steps to improve them during his presidency. So I guess you could say it had bipartisan support.
Via The Plum Line

Ezra Klein adds to the debate pointing out that “…it was a payroll tax that all sailors on private merchant ships had to pay, and in return, they were basically given access to a small public health-care system. But it was, in essence, a regulation against a form of inactivity: You were not allowed to not do something, in this case, pay for sailor’s health insurance.”There are those who will continue to argue that these indications of how the founders viewed these issues in their own time do not necessarily resolve the issue as to how we may, Constitutionally speaking, proceed with reforming the health care system of today.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...n-health-care/

[Concordia 33]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...n-health-care/

Yes, sailors as a condition of their employment had a 1% payroll tax to cover their healthcare. At the time there was in the Nation's interests to have able bodied seamen which meant that they needed to keep them healthy in a dangerous job as well as to induce others to enter into the merchant marine trade. That's a far cry from a system that requires all Americans (even those not employed) to enter into a private contract with an insurance company of face a fine. Jefferson also said...

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

[SaltyBoatr]

Yet the constitution set limits on the government's ability to tax its citizens......

So? You could also say the Constitution creates broad authority of our government to tax citizens.

[Concordia 33]

So? You could also say the Constitution creates broad authority of our government to tax citizens.

Actually it doesn't give them broad authority. For example it doesn't allow for capitation tax and only allows a direct tax unless it is apportioned equally to the states and excise only if uniformly distributed throughout the entire United States

[SaltyBoatr]

Actually it doesn't give them broad authority. For example it doesn't allow for capitation tax and only allows a direct tax unless it is apportioned equally to the states and excise only if uniformly distributed throughout the entire United States

So far at least the SCOTUS has strongly disagreed with your RonPaul logic. Maybe soon, the 5-4 Clarence Thomas judicial activism will repeal the IRS, then we can really have a bankrupt government, just like in an Ann Rand dreamworld.

[Y Bar Ranch]

setting aside car insurance, which I suppose you have no problem with.

(* sigh *)

So all those million people living in Manhattan without a car are forced to buy car insurance? My 18 year old without a license is forced to buy car insurance?

There's a reason why the Solicitor General didn't use that argument before the Supreme Court the other day. It is a bad one.

[SaltyBoatr]

(* sigh *)

So all those million people living in Manhattan without a car are forced to buy car insurance? My 18 year old without a license is forced to buy car insurance?

There's a reason why the Solicitor General didn't use that argument before the Supreme Court the other day. It is a bad one.

And the reason is the people without cars don't have a need for car repairs. All living people have a need for healthcare, obviously that is the difference.

What I find hard to explain is why the Solicitor General didn't point to the Militia Act of 1792, which required citizens to purchase things from the private marketplace. Clearly the Founding Fathers in 1792 thought it Constitutional to mandate purchases, hence it is not unprecedented.

[Concordia 33]

So far at least the SCOTUS has strongly disagreed with your RonPaul logic. Maybe soon, the 5-4 Clarence Thomas judicial activism will repeal the IRS, then we can really have a bankrupt government, just like in an Ann Rand dreamworld.

First of all that is not Ron Paul Logic and secondly I do not like Ron Paul.


I cited specific points in the Constitution that support my premise and your best response to that is to be sarcastic without any factual statements to counter what I said. Maybe you will want to read the Constitution Article 1 Sections 2,8, 9 then lets talk - but only if you can tone down your hostility a little.

[Concordia 33]

And the reason is the people without cars don't have a need for car repairs. All living people have a need for healthcare, obviously that is the difference.

What I find hard to explain is why the Solicitor General didn't point to the Militia Act of 1792, which required citizens to purchase things from the private marketplace. Clearly the Founding Fathers in 1792 thought it Constitutional to mandate purchases, hence it is not unprecedented.

Again, a lame argument that has been pretty well discredited. The Solicitor General knew that it would be a ridiculous tactic that's why he didn't pursue it. Though the Commerce Clause really doesn't apply either, it was his best shot and he knew it. Just because he botched his defense of the AHCA in the Supreme Court doesn't mean that he is stupid enough to invoke the Militia Act.

[SaltyBoatr]

First of all that is not Ron Paul Logic and secondly I do not like Ron Paul.


I cited specific points in the Constitution that support my premise and your best response to that is to be sarcastic without any factual statements to counter what I said. Maybe you will want to read the Constitution Article 1 Sections 2,8, 9 then lets talk - but only if you can tone down your hostility a little.

Sorry for being hostile. Still, my point that the SCOTUS has supported the IRS collecting federal taxes like it does, and that fact strongly trumps any layperson reading of the Constitution by your or me.

[SaltyBoatr]

Again, a lame argument that has been pretty well discredited. The Solicitor General knew that it would be a ridiculous tactic that's why he didn't pursue it. Though the Commerce Clause really doesn't apply either, it was his best shot and he knew it. Just because he botched his defense of the AHCA in the Supreme Court doesn't mean that he is stupid enough to invoke the Militia Act.

You misunderstood me. I get it that the SG didn't use the Militia Act argument, and presumably for good reason. I just don't know the reason. You say it is lame, but don't say a reason either.

Honestly, I don' think any argument of the SG could change the mind of the five ideologues on the SCOTUS. If they want to kick Obama in the b@lls, then they will do so. And they have proven already that they can rationalize their judicial activism in any way they so choose, twisted logic not-withstanding.

[Ted Hoppe]

I believe this is the onramp road is about single payer - universal healthcare. No matter what happens now - it will nearly be impossible to take the proposition off the table. It is the only way business can remove these costs off their books. I would believe that Hamilton, Paine and Jefferson would approve.

[Y Bar Ranch]

You misunderstood me. I get it that the SG didn't use the Militia Act argument, and presumably for good reason. I just don't know the reason. You say it is lame, but don't say a reason either.

The Militia Act only applied to certain males between certain ages, many were exempt, and most importantly its justification is due to

an enumerated mandate to regulate the militias under Article One, Section Eight in support of the defense. Quite a bit different from the Commerce Clause.

[Concordia 33]

You misunderstood me. I get it that the SG didn't use the Militia Act argument, and presumably for good reason. I just don't know the reason. You say it is lame, but don't say a reason either.

Honestly, I don' think any argument of the SG could change the mind of the five ideologues on the SCOTUS. If they want to kick Obama in the b@lls, then they will do so. And they have proven already that they can rationalize their judicial activism in any way they so choose, twisted logic not-withstanding.

Fair enough - There have been several threads on this topic (I don't' want to repeat them all), but the gist of it is that there are provisions in the Constitution for the "common defense" and that under this clause it necessitated this action. Also, the Militia act of 1903 superseded this act and the Milia act of 1903 created a National Guard where soldiers were no longer required to purchase their own weapons, they were provided by the Army.

[Peerie Maa]

Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.

I like the bit about taxing to provide for the general welfare. If you could pry the sticky hands of the insurance companies shareholders off of health provision, you could levy a tax to pay for a better and cheaper version.

So what would you consider socialist, and what proportion is that to those that recognize the sovereignty of the individual?

I have to admit that I am having difficulty getting my head round your form of words.
If you want to know what is socialist, look to the dictionaries and Wikipedia. I think that the dictionaries are far too narrow, since they only concern themselves with state ownership of manufacture and distribution. I believe that welfare is equally important a part of the philosophy. Wiki does recognise that there are many different shades of socialism.
As to the sovereignty of the individual, I do not think that humanity is made that way, we are social animals, we evolved to live in societies, either of extended families, clans, tribes, or nations, and as such must cede sovereignty to the collective.

[Concordia 33]

I have to admit that I am having difficulty getting my head round your form of words.
If you want to know what is socialist, look to the dictionaries and Wikipedia. I think that the dictionaries are far too narrow, since they only concern themselves with state ownership of manufacture and distribution. I believe that welfare is equally important a part of the philosophy. Wiki does recognise that there are many different shades of socialism.

In an earlier post you stated that the Constitution had sever Socialist clauses. I was asking you which ones you referring to?

[SaltyBoatr]

Fair enough - There have been several threads on this topic (I don't' want to repeat them all), but the gist of it is that there are provisions in the Constitution for the "common defense" and that under this clause it necessitated this action. Also, the Militia act of 1903 superseded this act and the Milia act of 1903 created a National Guard where soldiers were no longer required to purchase their own weapons, they were provided by the Army.

There is also a key clause that describes "provide for...the general welfare", so I don't see the distinction. And the important thing about the Act from 1793 is that it describes the mindset of the Founding Fathers who at the time clearly believe that the role of Congress included mandating purchases by citizens as being Constitutional.

[Peerie Maa]

In an earlier post you stated that the Constitution had sever Socialist clauses. I was asking you which ones you referring to?

You quoted it yourself.
Originally Posted by Concordia 33
Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.