Free Health Care, Treaties and a Fictitious History

by Rob Natelson, Electric City Weblog

Government agencies and pressure groups campaigning for more taxpayer money can create a fictitious “history” almost overnight. First, they make some claim about how something has been recognized since (whenever), and before you know it, journalists are uncritically repeating it, and it is plastered all over the Internet.

Recently I’ve seen a burst of allegations that the U.S. government assumed a treaty obligation in 1787 to provide reservation Indians with free health care. If you Google “health care treaty Indian 1787,” you will find a long list of sources – including supposedly objective news stories – making that assertion.

Here’s a sample from Montana’s Lee newspapers: “A treaty dating to 1787 requires the government to provide tribal members living on reservations with free health care.”

Now when presented with such a claim, a journalist’s crap-o-meter should start sounding like a fire alarm, because the claim is so inherently improbable.

First, the reservation system as we know it didn’t exist in 1787.

Second, the cash-strapped Confederation Congress would not have had the resources to meet such a commitment. (Remember that shortage of funds was one reason Congress called the constitutional convention.)

Third, a treaty is a bilateral document – even if the Confederation Congress had committed itself to provide health care to the Delaware tribe, for example, it wouldn’t follow that the government had committed itself to provide health care to all Indians for all time.

So I checked into the claim and found that — sure enough — it is flatly false. Here are some details:

* According to Charles Kappler’s authoritative collection of treaties between the U.S. Government and Native American tribes, there was no such treaty in 1787. In fact, 1787 was a year in which no U.S.-Indian treaties were signed at all!

* There were over 20 U.S.-Indian treaties before 1800, but none obligated the federal government to provide Indians with health care, free or otherwise.

* The last U.S.-Indian treaty was signed in 1868. Some of the later ones provided that the government would pay annuities to some Indians – but often even this term was left discretionary with the government. Neither my own search nor the Kappler index of all treaties disclosed any reference to a treaty obligation to provide free (or any) health care.

We can’t blame the myth wholly on activists and inattentive journalists, however — the U.S. Government bears some responsibility as well. The journalist who authored the story quoted above referred me to a PR webpage from the U.S. Indian Health Service.

It states: “The provision of health services to members of federally-recognized tribes grew out of the special government-to-government relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. This relationship, established in 1787, is based on Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and has been given form and substance by numerous treaties, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and Executive Orders.”

Now, this statement certainly does not say that any treaties created an obligation to provide free health care. But it has problems of its own.  It repeats the false 1787 date.  And by stating that the Indian-federal “relationship” has been “given form and substance” by . . . treaties,” it implies that treaties created an obligation to provide health care, although they have not.

The website refers to Article I, Section 8, a part of the Constitution that creates congressional powers (not treaty obligations). Clause 3 of that section provides in part that “The Congress shall have Power . . . to regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian tribes.” It is true that Congress claims this “Indian Commerce Clause” gives it plenary authority to regulate Indian affairs. But as I have shown elsewhere, the only authority this provision actually granted to Congress was a power to regulate trade between tribes and non-Indians.

It certainly did not confer authority to turn tribes into wards, to meddle in internal tribal affairs, or to put tribal members on the federal dole.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

, ,

Leave a Reply

26 Responses to Free Health Care, Treaties and a Fictitious History

  1. larry July 9, 2009 at 6:31 am #

    Yes,
    My Crap-O-Meter went off too,
    I haven’t researched it, But I’m pretty sure healthcare wasn’t standardized enough to even implement a program back in 1787. unless they are calling the three second rule of dropping food on the floor healthcare.

  2. Michael Boldin July 9, 2009 at 8:07 am #

    I think this serves as yet another example of how bureaucrats will parrot just about anything as long as it serves their political goals.

    Personally, I can’t understand how anyone would want to trust their health to this awful federal government…

  3. Bryce Shonka July 9, 2009 at 12:54 pm #

    I don’t trust this awful Federal Government to do anything of value correctly. When money rules, the people lose.

  4. Ivan Gamble July 9, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    Interesting article. The plenary power assertion by Congress has created the basis for SCOTUS to remove the responsibility of its relation to first nations while not relinquishing its authority (US v. Navajo Nation II). However trying to assume each of the recognized 562 first nations in the US is the same follows the same lack of logic the federal government utilizes.

    The Navajo Nation has two treaties, one in 1849 and another in 1868, with the USA, something many larger nations cannot claim. The Treaty of 1849 has provisions in Article 8 & 10 that allow for mutually beneficial entities to be built on Indian land that allow for ” military posts and agencies… at such time and in such places as the said Government may designate.” The US interaction with Eastern tribes in the nation’s early history is different than what transpired after the Indian Wars ended in 1868 and the treaty provisions with Western tribal nations. While there might not be constitutional authorization Indian Health Services, there does exist treaty provisions that govern certain special circumstances with certain nations. The US Constitution does state that treaties are equal with the Constitution as laws of the land.

    That said, please do not assume one approves of the level of service provided by the government bureaucracy or champion the mediocrity of socialized medicine. One wishes to educate and ask others to understand that there does not exist a magic formula to pigeonhole all relationships between the federal government and the first nations.

  5. Carol Elk Nation July 9, 2009 at 3:43 pm #

    O yeah well your ancestors should have stayed on the boat and we wouldn’t have to have suffered the “government’s” attempt to get rid of all the Indians so they could have the land.

    For your information not every tribe has a treaty with the US Gov’t. Just the ones who were smart enough to insist on some conditions even though they barely underestood the whiteman’s language.

    Also, FYI we didn’t need hospitals or have all the diseases, including alcoholism before the non-indians invaded our country. You guyz brought all this misery to this country including the government. So yeah we do deserve free health care (such as it is) so that you guyz could call youselves American. Lol. The Jokes on YOU. Hahahahaha.

    You and your crap o meter are in your own lil world. All you are is a hater.

  6. WTHawk July 9, 2009 at 3:53 pm #

    It’s sad and shameful that many people in our Native homelands which is called America, are still ignorant about treaties between the U.S. and Indian tribes. Hundreds of treaties were initiated by the U.S. to keep peace with the tribes, treaties which have been declared the Law of the Land by Congress and the U.S. Constitution, that ceded lands to the U.S. (and the whining settlers) in exchange for medical, education and other services. These services are available to all U.S. citizens today even though the other population groups dont have to enter into any treaties. The Indian tribes are under a unique status called “domestic dependent nations” by Congress, a nation-to-nation status much like that of between the U.S. and a foreign country. Today, the Indian Nations have their own embassy in WashDC. Nothing is free for Indians. Millions upon millions of acres of land, including those national parks were ceded in exchange for those services which the white Europeans in our homelands refer to as being “free”. These treaties are still in effect, even though hundreds were broken by the U.S. Indian tribal members are citizens of the U.S., of states in which they live, and citizens of their tribes. We are sovereign nations and we still call Amerrica our natural and original homelands.

  7. 713 July 9, 2009 at 6:56 pm #

    I would like to point out that americans made every attempt to kill native americans. American history is full of eamples of brutality against indians. Anyone stupid enought to even consider Americans would even have compassion for them is obtuse. Health care in the 1787 was amputation with un steril knives mixed with bandages. More americans used indian treatments than colonial treatment.

  8. Jeff Matthews July 9, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    What an interesting pow-wow (pun intended).

    That part of history is not unique to America. The plundering of nations has occurred repeatedly throughout history. It’s just one of those things that happens.

    I suppose reparations are in order? Right?

  9. Jeff Matthews July 9, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    Hey, Elk and Hawk, I have some questions. They’re real questions, and not to set up an argument.

    On a reservation, is there taxation at the tribal level? If so, what types and how much?

    Can you own a piece of the real estate, or do you rent?

    How is it decided who lives in what home? Just wondering if it’s sort of a communal thing, or if market forces play a role.

  10. larry July 9, 2009 at 8:53 pm #

    Carol,

    Anytime I read the word “deserve” it conjures up visions of people standing in line for handouts. Sounds like you are willing to trade your dignity in for entitlement.

    oh, and just so you know, My ancestors didn’t get off the boat until 1927, Long after the Indian treaties.. sorry to interrupt your victim status.

    Thank you for reading, you may now return to your pity party.

  11. larry July 9, 2009 at 8:58 pm #

    713,
    This is absolutely correct, Americans had contempt for the Indians. Just as the Canadians did, just as enemy Indians did for each other..on another note, Canadians didn’t take their land by force, they sweet talked them out of it. Indians are quietly paying the white man back.. at the Casino’s

  12. Lou July 10, 2009 at 2:41 am #

    From the IHS website:
    “The Indian Health Service (IHS), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for providing federal health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The provision of health services to members of federally-recognized tribes grew out of the special government-to-government relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. This relationship, established in 1787, is based on Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and has been given form and substance by numerous treaties, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and Executive Orders. The IHS is the principal federal health care provider and health advocate for Indian people, and its goal is to raise their health status to the highest possible level. The IHS provides a comprehensive health service delivery system for approximately 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to 562 federally recognized tribes in 35 states.”

    http://www.ihs.gov/PublicInfo/PublicAffairs/Welcome_Info/IHSintro.asp

  13. larry July 10, 2009 at 5:24 am #

    “The IHS is the principal federal health care provider and health advocate for Indian people, and its goal is to raise their health status to the highest possible level.”

    Okay, so the federal Government has raised it to it’s highest possible level..obviously the recipients are not happy and have never been happy with the level of “care”… now what?..it just proves governments inability to meet the expectations of a group of people.. nothing new here. Time to strike out on their own and provide for themselves instead of beating a dead horse..the feds have had 222 yrs to get it right.. RIGHT? at what point does one admit the obvious?

  14. Sterling July 10, 2009 at 6:14 am #

    Carol, I have Indian blood in me (1/3 Cherokee). What you just typed is pathetic and disgraceful. It’s people like you who are the joke. Keep walking around with the ‘Victim” logo on your t-shirt.

    That’s exactly what Obama and the Libs want you to do so they can control you.

    Very sad indeed…

  15. mtt bird July 10, 2009 at 9:31 am #

    I have to correct the author of this article where he states that he couldn’t find anywhere that the government is to provide health. He had better read the Fort Laramie treaty of 1868 where in Article 13 the U.S. Government agrees to provide a physician annually in this treaty. Now back in that time that was the maximum health care that any one could get so they were provided with the best health care that was available.

  16. Terry Morris July 10, 2009 at 11:02 am #

    Sterling wrote:

    Keep walking around with the ‘Victim” logo on your t-shirt.

    That’s exactly what Obama and the Libs want you to do so they can control you.

    Actually, that’s what Hussein and the leftists want so that they can control US. Independent, self-governing producers are the only people that present any kind of threat to the left and its agenda. And the left knows it. I’m an independent business owner; I can work and produce as much as I want. Or not. If they keep mucking with me, I’ll simply turn down the spicket. And you can quote me on that.

  17. Bonz July 10, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    Wow, so much to cover here. I work at an IHS facility and also a member of a federally recognized Tribe. My viewpoint comes from being a patient as well as a caregiver. It appears to me that Rob N. is upset with Indian people for recieving ‘free’ healthcare and that said healthcare is not warranted. Hey Rob come sit in the waiting area of any IHS facility for a week and perhaps your view will soften. We are after all talking about people with a huge array of health needs that at best are being met at the most basic level. I’ve seen people slowly dissappear, first a toe, then a foot, then a leg, soon a funeral. Anger over perceived injustices amount to misspent energy. It is sad that you can look up your facts but fail to mention that prisoners have more spent annually on their care than any Indian being ‘given free’ healthcare.

  18. larry July 10, 2009 at 2:25 pm #

    Bonz,
    This just goes to show that Government should not be in the health care business, if toes,feet and legs are missing, people are unhappy with the level of care they receive, and the general opinion is that the level of care is poor. It only serves to prove the obvious point.

  19. Elk Nation July 10, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    Sterling:

    Everyone who wants to say “I’m native american” says they’re part cherokee. The jokes on you.

    Keep your panties on.

    The health care that is provided through IHS is what’s disgraceful.

    Also, we own real estate and etc. We don’t all live in one big teepee or anything. Lol.

    later – gater

  20. Terry Morris July 10, 2009 at 6:18 pm #

    The health care that is provided through IHS is what’s disgraceful.

    Of course it’s disgraceful, it’s social medicine. What else do you expect?

  21. Terry Morris July 10, 2009 at 6:22 pm #

    Bonz wrote:

    I work at an IHS facility and also a member of a federally recognized Tribe. [...]

    Witness excused. Conflict of interests.

  22. Terry Morris July 11, 2009 at 7:57 am #

    Let me ask everyone, including the Indianz, involved in this ‘conversation’ a fundamentally important question:

    Do you think that I, as an individual and a family man, am in any way obliged to provide for your healthcare at the expense of my own wife and children? By extension, do you think that I owe you healthcare assistance above my obligation to my local community? If so, what do you think ought to be done with people like me who absolutely disagree and will not comply with your demands?

  23. larry July 11, 2009 at 10:04 am #

    Terry,
    Of coarse not,
    But you are arguing this with the assumption that Health care is a personal Issue. Allow me to play devils advocate here.

    Health care as it is being argued,has less to do with the individual health and well being of you and your family, and has everything to do with the health and well being of the community. When statistics come out that 2/3rds of Americans are obese, the issue of health is no longer about the individual, it now becomes a social issue. Who can deny that the majority of Americans are at an unhealthy weight?, who can deny that the majority of Americans do not have Health insurance.. ( prob because they are healthy ).. who can deny that because the majority of Americans do not have coverage that this now becomes a national issue?

    Now on to your punishment!
    You will comply, if not you will be fined, up to one thousand dollars..But don’t worry we will make sure that paying your health insurance is efficient, easy and quick, we will attach it to your income tax, it will just be another withholding.. of coarse, if you fail to file your income tax with the proper with holdings, you will be audited by the IRS and we all know whats down that road!..
    there will of coarse be those who resist, much like the the folks who claim income tax is unconstitutional, but they will be seen as radical extremists.. and will be dealt with appropriately.
    Now Mr. Morris, please get back in line, hold out your right hand, for your bar code…

  24. Terry Morris July 11, 2009 at 10:29 am #

    Ha, ha.

    The illegitimate “federal authority” has no influence on me. If the rest of you think so, that is your own problem. Hang yourselves by your own rope. I’ll not be involved.

  25. Sterling July 13, 2009 at 6:45 am #

    Elk, excuse me for being 1/3 Cherokee. I guess you’re more Indian than me. WOW I’m impressed. NOT!!!!

    I really don’t give a rats *&^ if you believe me or not.

    I guess you have a big “Victim” t-shirt on as well.

    The disgraceful service you get at the IHS is what socialized medicine is all about. Imagine a post office experience every time you want to see a doctor. That’s what this Marxist regime plans on doing.

  26. redgyrl September 22, 2010 at 7:12 pm #

    actually health care in an IHS facility rendered to Native Americans, is not entirely free, that's a false statement and but beleived my many. Nor is there free education, there are public school just like in any community. There are imposed taxes — the issue with the word "free" is a deception — the word was created merely to "sucker" us into believing that the govt really wants to help us, when indeed, they fed us horrible foot, rallied us to lands where agriculture was not viable, for us to fend for ourselves — in hindsight, it was genocide, unsuccessful, nonetheless — Native Americans lives for longer than the governemnt expected —even now, there is no such thing as free health care. The IHS does however seek monies from external resources to offset the costs, so my advice is that, if you're employed take advantage of the company's health insurance, it does pay off in the long run — and if you are not, take care of yourself to the best of your ability —