As Republican presidential aspirants Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney slug it out in South Carolina, it’s worth remembering that they have been in lock step on at least one issue: the individual insurance mandate in the 2010 health care reform bill.
They were both for it before they were against it.
Romney was governor of Massachusetts when he led that state’s 2006 health-care reform effort, which included the controversial individual mandate.
Gingrich, meanwhile, lavishly praised Romney in his personal newsletter back then for his innovative approach to reform.
In fact, in the early part of the past decade, the individual mandate was praised by various Republicans as a worthy way to force personal responsibility upon irresponsible people.
According to T.R. Reid, author of the widely read book “The Healing of America,” an individual mandate exists in “every nation that relies on health insurance” to fund medical care — except the U.S.
But the mandate has become the lightning rod in the health care debate, and nearly two dozen states (including Maine) plan to challenge the law in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The nine justices will be asked to decide whether the mandate is unconstitutional and try to divine what the framers would have thought of the idea.
Interestingly, history has left us a clue.
In 1798, Congress adopted an “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.”
The problem at the time was that sailors often returned from voyages with injuries or exotic diseases which were expensive to treat.
The solution was simple. The Seamen Act created the Marine Hospital Service and built a series of hospitals in port cities.
And the law featured what looks for all the world like an individual mandate: a 1 percent tax on each sailor’s wages, to be withheld from his pay. No options, no exceptions.
Ships were not allowed to enter or leave ports unless this tax, the first payroll tax in our nation’s history, was paid.
Later, the tax was extended to commercial vessels on the nation’s rivers and lakes.
John Adams was president and signed this mandate into law. Thomas Jefferson was president of the Senate when it was adopted, while another signer of the Constitution, Jonathan Dayton, was speaker of the House.
All were present in that hot summer of 1787 in Philadelphia when the Constitution was written, and Adams and Jefferson were among its chief architects.
Their reasoning for supporting the new law is as clear today as it was then: If society is compelled by its collective humanity to provide medical care to sick people, those people have an individual responsibility to help pay, if they can, for the cost of that care.
By the way, this historical anecdote was first uncovered by Rick Ungar, a health care consultant who also writes for Forbes magazine. At least one historian has suggested the “Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” shows the founders had no qualms about government-run health care plans.
Of course, the current Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of the mandate issue. In a way, the court will be ruling on whether the founders themselves understood the Constitution they wrote.
The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and editorial board.

Founders began the first national health-care plan
All 4:30 pm hst •
Let's see , the founders began the first one , FDR the second and our current sitting President the third √ †hank goodness
ref : http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform
Romney started a good one , also , although it only applied to one State , the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of which Maine was once part of
Tom Jefferson and U S Ambassador Ben Franklin started the first lending libraries , didn't they ? My memory escapes me . ...
Alo'ha from Pahoa , Steve http://www.pnhp.org/ows/index.php
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mr. Rhodes, Funny how you
Mr. Rhodes,
Funny how you drop a nugget of history like this and not discuss the eventual outcome of the legislation – it was forth with corruption.
Our founding fathers, like us, are fallible. We cannot assume all decisions they made were wise. After all, Thomas Jefferson did vote to uphold slavery. Was that wise?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Founders began the first national health-care plan
Right √ 12.01.15 1 pm Sunday
Every civilized coutry i've been to or lived in provides for the adequate health care of their citizens and many others , such as immigrants who actuslly choose to be in their countries . Raise your hand is you are not the daughter or son of immigrants . Are we wrong here in our assumptions ? We all consider it a basic human right , the right to live a dignified , honest , and respected helathfull liƒe . Should it be other wise ? A; No , say s John Admas and evry other President since √
Like this editorial emphasises , ƒreedom ain't ƒree Americans
We constantly pay for it in many ways both material and not
Welcome home from Iraq all Maine National Guard and Canadian troops , both female and male http://www.pnhp.org/ows/index.php /s, Dr. Dosh and ohana , Hawai'i
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Disagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.all, . .
all,
. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko i kan spel . .rully !
Happy MLK jr. Day y'all <3
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It is interesting that the
It is interesting that the biggest objective of President Obama is the Affordable Health Care act, which despite irrational objection from ALL republicans it is the only legislation that benefits the majority of Americans. We all have to wonder why they feel that Americans getting health care is so objectionable. Perhaps they feel that those that get afforable health care would vote Democratic, but really, even if that's true why should republicans want people to DIE for want of health care? The only answer is Power, and that's dispicable!!!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Disagree (8)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The majority of Americans
The majority of Americans agree with all Republicans that ObamaCare is a disaster that will bankrupt the country - that there's nothing affordable about it. What's despicable are folks who don't care about that as long as they keep getting their free bennies that they have "earned".
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.When asked about 'Obamacare'
When asked about 'Obamacare' a slight majority oppose it, mainly because of the way the radical right have vilified it. HOWEVER, when the the parts of the Affordable Care Act is polled, people are much more approving it. When asked which part they would want abolish, they failed to designate any one part.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4)
Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Their Objection???
Perhaps that insurance companies would no longer reap obscene profits......?
Nah....Republicans couldn't go THAT LOW, would they Dan...... ;)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Disagree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You are okay with replacing
You are okay with replacing private insurance companies with another centralized agency (i.e. Obamacare) due to your implied assertion of greed?
Hmm! So Congress will be pure at heart, and they will do what is best for us? Perhaps this is an example of delusional behavior.
Remember, greed is a human behavior for which the private sector holds no monopoly.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.All you have to do is run the numbers......
We pay a significantly higher percentage of our GDP for health care (including insurance) than all other 1st world countries, and get a lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rate than any other.
We're not exactly reinventing anything here, Mark.
Simply taking Guido, the Insurance Racket Man out of the equation.
You're delusional to believe we should continue upon that path of folly.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ah, the first mistake you
Ah, the first mistake you make is to assume I want to continue with business as usual. The second mistake you make is believing that Congress will not succumb to lobbying interest that direct where healthcare are spent.
While a 4 minute mile has been demonstrated, it does not mean that I can accomplish a 4 minute mile. Likewise, just because other countries provide a single payer system, does not mean it can be achieved here, nor does it mean it is the best solution.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So
The Six Minute Health Care Mile has been demonstrated....
That you do not want to be dragged, kicking and screaming, from your Ten Minute Luddite Mile is your business.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ronald, This information is a
Ronald,
This information is a bit dated, but in 2009 profit margin of Health insures ranked 35th at 2.2 percent[1]. Compare this with Pharmaceutical companies, which had a 19.3 percent profit margin in the same timeframe.
So imagine you got your wish and all Health insurers disappeared from the planet tomorrow and consumers pocketed the difference, that savings is insignificant compared all the variables driving healthcare costs. So instead of going after health insures or turning the system upside-down for Obamacare , which will and has created a new set of problems, why not first surgically attack the top 3-5 variables that are driving healthcare cost. This approach is more manageable and therefore easier to measure results, as compared to the new mess Obama created.
For example, why should we protect the drug markets for U.S. based Pharmaceuticals? Why not open our drug market to Canada or other industrialized countries that have similar levels of quality control as a starting point. Perhaps the competition will drive down drug costs.
Other things we can do an measure before gutting the system:
a. End-of-life care – Insurance companies and Medicare can limit the amount it pays for end-of-life expenses, which are much higher than other industrialized countries.
b. Cap punitive damages in malpractice lawsuits.
c. For the medical industry to use a standardize method of record keeping.
1. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/09/how-profitable-...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Apples and Oranges
Your comparisons are completely illogical. We are the only first world country that do it the way we do, spend a significantly larger percentage of our GDP, and get a worse result.
1. You claim only an alleged industry profit 2.2%; you must actually discount the cost of the entire industry. In research I performed years ago, I discovered an SEC filing ref a retired Anthem Exec who was receiving 'Consulting Fees' of $400K per annum for 50 hours of consulting per year. Not a bad deal. You gotta dig dip.
2. Lawsuits?? See - http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm
"The evidence suggests a much smaller effect. Study after study shows that costs associated with malpractice lawsuits make up 1% to 2% of the nation's $2.5 trillion annual health-care bill and that tort reform would barely make a dent in the total."
3. So we standardize record keeping. This is 'Rocket Science?'
4. End of Life Care? - So people live longer in the countries that supposedly ration health care. Go figure.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.1. Bloomberg, Newsweek, Wall
1. Bloomberg, Newsweek, Wall Street Journal all report approximately the same profit margin for 2009 – about 2.2%. While I don’t like people sucking off the system, like the example you give, it is still peanuts even if you double or triple the data I presented. The takeaway is that eliminating healthcare insurers is not a panacea. While I’m unable to find supporting data as to the magnitude, healthcare insurers have driven the industry as a whole to be more efficient and thereby, reduced overall cost. So it makes it harder to say Healthcare insurers provide no value whatsoever.
2. Although you have a point about lawsuits, unnecessary tests are stated to be one of the top five cost drivers in healthcare costs. Doctor’s surveyed say they will schedule unnecessary tests to avoid potential lawsuits. So when you factor in unnecessary tests and the cost of malpractice insurances to cost of lawsuits, it starts to become significant.
3. Correct, not rocket science. If you consider filing insurance forms as record keeping, as I do, and the amount of man hours spent on filing these forms, there is measurable room for improvement. Having a filing system based on something like a HUD-1 settlement form used in Real estate for example could standardize the practice.
4. On the one hand, you may be right. On the other hand you may be assuming a faulty cause and effect relationship between single payer and longer life expectancies. There are cultural and lifestyles differences that are in play as well. For example, you frequently hear that the US worker is the most productive amongst developed economies. Perhaps this comes at a cost. U.S. workers work longer hours (hence increased productively). We don’t know whether stress associated with this circumstance contributes to decreased longevity? While access to health is an ostensible factor, it is not the only factor; that being said, you cannot make the connection that all will be well in a single payer system.
The real crux of this issue comes down to philosophy. Do you believe the free market can solve the problem or do you not. While I would not assert the current healthcare system is operating in a free market environment, it is much closer to being a free market system than a socialized system. In 2010 Taiwan’s healthcare system was rated best at providing care for the largest percentage of their population, and the lowest per capita cost. There healthcare is based on a free market system – go figure.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Etc...
1. Insurers' have but one responsibility - to their stockholders. They are an unnecessary cost factor added entity.
2. We exist in an 'Equity Law' environment. Want rationed 'testing?' Go to a govt system.
3. Standardized record keeping exists within many healthcare systems - including Taiwan's.
4. This statistic proves that our system of health care is not, as many claim 'the best in the world'
Taiwan has a National 'Single Payer' System - it does not have a free market system as we do. This has also standardized the medical record keeping while keeping costs low at 6% of GDP.
Health Care Abroad: Taiwan
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So Ronald, you now see there
So Ronald, you now see there are other alternatives to a single payer (me too) system, which comes with its own set of problems. Moreover, you may be falsely assuming that a single payer (me too) system will, in fact, produce the same outcome, such as longer life expectancy or lower infant mortality rates without considering other factors such as lifestyle.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Sorry Mark
The example which you provided as acceptable to you (Taiwan) is a 'National Health Insurance' system with the government being the single payer.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.WTFO???
Single Payer = Us Too; Not 'Me Too'
We are all in the same boat there, Mark.....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Will you object, Ronnie, ...
... when ObamaCare swallows Tri-Care? The stuck-pig squeal will be heard in Togus.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You know that....
Tri-Care doesn't fly at Togus. Two entirely different programs.
Are you aware the Founding Fathers instituted "Government Mandated Taxpayer Supported Healthcare," aren't you.....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I have no problem with the healthcare program
until it says that I, WORKING taxpayer, have to pay for not only my own employer subsidized healthcare package, but that of Johnny Unemployed/Welfare recipient as well.
I want Johnny here cleaning my house and mowing my lawn one a week if he/she's going to use my tax money to collect welfare/SSI/medicaid/unearned unemployment benefits.
Surely at least 5 hours a day at 5 different homes a week is worth all of the money people get to sit on their asses while I actually work. They work for me and I won't complain about paying for them.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.They'll
They'll clean out your house all right......
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Link?
Mike, do you have a link where I can read this? Or is this just your opinion?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mike is just screwing around....
He doesn't know squat about what he is talking about.....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.