from Hacker News

Congress passed socialized medicine and mandated health insurance in 1798 (2011)

by Bluestein on 6/9/25, 10:01 AM with 27 comments

  • by b_mc2 on 6/9/25, 1:41 PM

    "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."

    "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."

    This seems like a fallacy of composition, and done so to try and persuade the reader. By my rough count, just 6 of the original founders that signed the Constitution were still in Congress at this time, or just 18% of the signers[1]. There's no roll call vote that I can find, but signer Charles Pinckney had voiced general oppositions and thought "it only reasonable and equitable that these persons pay for the benefit for which they were themselves to receive, and it would be neither just nor fair for other persons to pay it"[2]

    "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."

    This just points to the same argument that's always being made between Spirit vs Letter of the law proponents, ~4% of Congress during the 5th Congress were signers of the Constitution and we don't know how they even voted on this. So ~96% of Congress were basically in the Spirit vs Letter dispute that we're in today.

    [1] https://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/constitution/files... [2] https://www.congress.gov/annals-of-congress/page-headings/5t...

  • by eadmund on 6/9/25, 11:26 AM

    Also in 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act, which violated the First Amendment. The simple fact that a Congress included many Founders does not necessarily imply that its acts were all in compliance with the Constitution those same Founders wrote or concurred with years before.

    Guaranteeing things even after people change their minds, and providing an agreed-upon process to change the agreement, is kind of the point of a constitution. Much like a contract between parties, it specifies the rules of the game ahead of time.

  • by ty6853 on 6/9/25, 11:46 AM

    The 10th amendment constrains federal powers to enumerated powers when acting within the states.

    This act passed because in the seas the federal government was not so constrained (yes hospitals and offices are on land but the loophole is they are only requiring them once you go out to sea).

    Congress in 1798 would have never went along with such actions on the inland populace, except perhaps in the territories.

  • by anovikov on 6/9/25, 11:09 AM

    Big question - why doesn't 1% tax cut it any longer? Today's workers are definitely not sicker than those in the XVIII century because workplace safety standards, and understanding of diseases themselves, is so much better. Is it that expectations of care are much higher? Or just that the workers are a lot older?

  • by readthenotes1 on 6/9/25, 4:56 PM

    Socialized medicine as it is meant today has taxpayers paying for non taxpayers.

    That is completely different system than the article is talking about.

    ACA is even broader than what the article is talking about because you don't have to pay taxes in order to receive government funding subsidizing 100% of your medical insurance.