If a health insurance mandate is unconstitutional, why did George Washington sign one in 1790?
Why are conservatives (and even some DUers) saying there has been no precedent for the Supreme Court approving a health insurance mandate?
Because -- while Congress has legislated such mandates in the past -- such a case has never come to the Supreme Court . Because, until recently, no one ever challenged such a mandate. Suddenly, a type of regulation that has existed since the earliest days of our Republic is now claimed to be unconstitutional.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act
By Einer Elhauge (a professor at Harvard Law School, who joined an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the mandate)
If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?
In making the legal case against Obamacare’s individual mandate, challengers have argued that the framers of our Constitution would certainly have found such a measure to be unconstitutional. Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases. The framers, challengers have claimed, thought a constitutional ban on purchase mandates was too “obvious” to mention. Their core basis for this claim is that purchase mandates are unprecedented, which they say would not be the case if it was understood this power existed.
But there’s a major problem with this line of argument: It just isn’t true. The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.
SNIP
= new reply since forum marked as read
Maybe it will make a difference.
It was a mandate for employers to provide insurance for a singular industry. Quite a bit f choices existed to opt out as running a business is wholly a choice as is the employees choice to work for you in that industry. It's a regulation of an industry. Nearly every industry has federally mandated regulations... it's congress' job to regulate commerce and industry.
Mandating that every citizen be forced to buy insurance for merely existing & breathing is an entirely different matter because there is no personal choice in the matter. Making purchasing choices for private citizens is not akin to regulating industry... private citizens are not industry. People choosing not to buy health insurance is categorically choosing not to participate in commerce... by definition not participating in commerce is NOT commerce. Having the power to regulate interstate commerce does not give congress the power to force people to purchase private products. You can't legislate demand. It's a massive overreach of powers and introduces a slippery slope.
Perhaps the next auto or bank bailout will be congress mandating that people buy an American car or refinance a mortgage. 
It was a completely personal preference to participate in a maritime industry therefore the requirement to purchase hospitalization insurance was not unavoidably compulsory.
As to the citation of The Militia Act of 1792... Yes, there has been a law at one point in time mandating the purchase of goods. Possibly more than one instance. However the mere fact that such a law once existed, written largely by the Framers nonetheless, does not automatically mean that a latter similar law is constitutional. There are two reasons it's a poor direct comparison.
A) It is now repealed and prior to repeal I don't believe it was ever constitutionally/judicially challenged. Pointing to the existence of a previous law as grounds that a subsequent law is valid implies that the previous law was, in fact, constitutional. It does no good to reference an old law as a 'character reference' if it happens to be unconstitutional. Typically, this is why established case-law is referenced and not just untested prior legislation. There's alot of shitty legislation that has long since been repealed you would NOT want modern law based upon simply because the past law that existed was never challenged. Was the 1792 MA ever judicially vetted/tested? My quick Google search turns up no instances, although I DO think it would stand as constitutional (see "B"
. Nevertheless, a lack of constitutional-veracity greatly diminishes The Militia Act of 1792 as credible proof of the HCR constitutionality.
B) Despite any law passed, one thing must remain true... it must be within the realm of Enumerated Congressional Powers. What constitutional power does the HCR mandating the purchase of private services depend on to maintain it's constitutionality? Because it is VERY clear cut what power the Militia Act of 1792 uses:
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;
So it all comes down to ONE question... what specific authority (power) does congress have to force individuals to purchase health insurance? As I stated in my other post above, I think justification under the commerce clause is specious at best. Perhaps the, "...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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" may be used... but the HCR penalty-tax would not levied uniformly against all people since it's actually a fine nor is the initial requirement to purchase private healthcare a tax in and of itself.
