If Obamacare is such a fine and dandy idea, why hadn't the founding fathers figured..

No, the question really is silly. They created a legislature, the fact that the founders didn't create a given law (while they created the system to make it) is an incredibly moot point.

 

The Affordable Care Act was not even a concept that crossed their minds. You have no idea whether or not they would have supported it.

 

There were a lot of things the founding fathers didn't figure out; they were only humans.

Smart people no doubt, nowhere near close to being omniscient though.

 

It really does. There weren't an abundance of doctors and those there were didn't have any real knowledge base at all.

 

Which, again, doesn't have diddly with establishing the underlying principles of the bill, which are not "21st century medical care." The underlying principles of the Bill are not dependent on what century we're in. It's not like they couldn't establish a right to bear arms because they didn't have semi automatic rifles.

I'll note that we don't have "an abundance of doctors".

 

The founding fathers created for us a "Constitutional Republic" which no longer exists because it's been taken over and replaced with a very liberal, Socialist / Marxist Democracy! The founders were about liberties and freedoms for individuals and had no interest in cramming legislation down the throats of Americans whereas today's government system is about majority rule (two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner), therefore the ACA and anything like it would never have been considered by the founders but is rampant today.

 

lol the same founding fathers who felt only rich, white, land-owning, males should have the right to vote ?

 

Actually they were thinking of nationalized, individually-mandated, universal coverage WillardCare when they declared promoting the general welfare as a Constitutional mandate - with as much specificity as they expressed for Social Security, Medicare, and a plethora of other inititiatives.

If they had wished to maintain a barely-solvent union of thirteen static states with a naval complement of 25 battle vessels and nary a flying machine o'erhead, I have no doubt they would have so indicated - and there would still be some who would rage...

​

.

"...and that's the way we liked it!"​

.

 

Yes those very ones! Racism, chauvinism and status was what dominated the cultures and politics of the times in every corner of the globe but the founders created something new that could change that. The U.S. Constitution was a pretty radical document at that time, especially considering that the rest of the people of the world were under a monarchy or some sort of a dictator with ZERO liberties!
At least in the fledgling Republic people were free to decide if they wanted to pay through the nose for something and weren't being forced to by mandate! For their times, the founding fathers were extraordinarily advanced in their thinking and values. Every American citizen today should be very thankful for what they did and the courage that it took to rebel against the most powerful nation in the world in England. The war very easily could have gone quite differently and the signers of the Declaration Of Independence would have all been hung for treason against the British crown.
Instead, they succeeded and laid the groundwork for a great nation that today has been forsaken, taken for granted and trampled upon on a daily basis by IT'S OWN PEOPLE!

 

yeah FOR THEIR TIME they were brilliant - but there is no way they could have seen what America is like today
that's why we shouldn't base everything on what the Founding Fathers did/did not talk about.

 

I agree! They'd be pretty much lost in today's world but their ideals and the foundation that they laid for our freedoms are everlasting and transcend technological advancements or politics.
We as a nation really need to get back to the "Republic" and an emphasis on the liberties of the individual. NO government in THIS country should EVER have the power to say to the people that they MUST buy a product OR ELSE!

 

^^^ TRUTH ^^^

 

The current Supreme Court has upheld the individual mandate - Romney's "ultimate conservative idea" - as being Constitutional.

 

Times change, People change, The world changes.

I'm sure there are hundreds of things we have/do now that our founding fathers would never even dream of.

Weather or not ACA (Obamacare) ends up being a good or bad thing will be for the historians to decide. It's barely just started.

 

There are a lot of people around that are smarter than the founding fathers. Some of 'em are even Republicans. The founding fathers were just men who pee'd and took dumps just like you and me.

 

Yeah, but there was pure laissez faire capitalism in the form of the snake oil salesmen!

 

Historically, progressives have added to the rights of others, not restricted them as the far right would do today. Luckily, the march toward greater freedoms continues, despite all the efforts of extreme conservatives.

 

This liberal, along with the majority, wishes equal treatment under the law in same sex marriage. For any true freedom-loving individual, that's greater liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But it's not the left that wishes to deny those privileges, is it? Easy access to the voting booth is another. One quashed and cloaked in religion or "special rights". The other under the laughable "voter fraud".

So much for the left's "war on liberty" and the other ad nauseum "wars" the left wages, huh? "War on Christmas". "War on Christians". "War on Family Values". For a bunch of supposed peaceniks, we sure wage a lot of wars, don't we?

 

Weapons and medicine...not a thing to do with each other.

People then lived twenty thirty miles from each other. There was no way to get doctors to patients.

Again...you're just being facetious here.

 

^_- not really. Neither was the country that rural, nor was there "no way to get doctors to patients." Nor does that have didn't to do with it.

All you've shown is the obvious, that conditions 225 years ago weren't the exact same as they are now. Again, that doesn't mean diddly in regards to the question asked. Your point is entirely moot. The questions was that, essentially, "if Obamacare is so great, why didn't the Founders create it?" The answer isn't because they didn't have 21st century medicine. The underlying principle of Obamacare isn't that we now have better medical practices, that's absurd. The underlying principle of Obamacare as it was intended was to establish the right to the the services of another. The underlying principle, as it was established, is that you have the responsibility to make arrangements for the future possibility of your own ill health, so as not to place a burden on society.

Your point is entirely moot, and completely besides the point. The correct answer is twofold. First, 225 years ago the failure of an individual to make arrangements for their own healthcare in no way created a burden on the rest of society, the laws that created that circumstance predominantly did not yet exist. Second, and related to the first, is that an individual responsibility to see to one's healthcare for the sake of the community did not exist, BUT that circumstances requiring individual action for the sake of the community did exist. There were many laws requiring individual action, for example requiring individuals TO bear arms. There is still a law on the books in Maine requiring individuals to bring their guns to church in case of an Indian attack.

you're just being facetious here. You really think that considering the underlying principles of laws is just in appropriate humor?

 

Actually, no, they used a pot instead of a toilet, and they did not use toilet paper.

Some intransigent diehards might scoff, "If those were such fine and dandy ideas, why hadn't the founding fathers figured it out?"


Fortunately, their directive "to promote the general welfare" anticipated any number of innovative enhancements to benefit society.

 

Thus, Romney's "ultimate conservative idea" - his individual mandate, championed by Gingrich, the Heritage Foundation, and prescribed by Tea Party favourite Jim Demint who declared that Willard's plan was something that "we should do for the whole country."

Romney, himself, touted his individual mandate approach, recommending it to the President in his 2009 USA Today op ed:

Of course, the Constitutional mandates both promoting the general welfare and providing for the common defense, and both mean that Americans have the right to benefit from the services of others.

Neither means that you are expected to go it alone - not in resisting external military threats, nor in privately bearing the entire burden of medical care costs for oneself and one's family.

Such societal institutions as the Coast Guard, Navy, Air Force and Army, Social Security, Medicare, huge taxpayer subsidies to sustain employer-administered plans, and the Affordable Care Act address those Constitutional imperatives specified by the Founding Fathers, and no Supreme Court has ever ruled otherwise.

 

Yeah, GO FIGURE!!! The checks and balances system is pretty much dead now, the Supreme Court's primary job is to enforce and protect the Constitution and they have failed miserably!!! If we were to clean house in Washington, the Supreme Court would be a great place to start!
We need to get away from the two party system that we have and elect people who aren't bought and paid for by special interests or blindly devoted to a political party instead of the American citizens that they're supposed to be looking out for. Members of Congress and the Senate that are simply voting with their parties and not for the welfare of the American people need to GO and that's almost all of them!!!
I know that it's only a pipe dream and in my lifetime there will never be any real change but if we could just somehow get back to a Constitutional Republic that really puts the rights and liberties of the people first, we would see unprecedented prosperity and happiness in this country. The U.S. is trying to be a global leader when it can't even get it's own house in order and just like in any relationship, if you don't take care of yourself first then you won't be able to effectively take care of or help anyone else either!

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.” (Benjamin Franklin)

 

It's hard to find anyone who does not second-guess the Supreme Court on some hot-button issues, myself included. I thought their equating money with speech was absurd judicial hyper-activism with dire consequences for democracy, giving licence to a few blowhards with megaphones to drown out the majority, and manipulate the politicians who depend upon them to get elected.

As Franklin averred, a participatory democracy demands participation and, as a corollary, Jefferson added, "An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic" - as is amply demonstrated by the disparity of the States in educational achievement and the electoral consequences that ensue.

As some other sage astutely observed, of course, "You can't always get what you want."

 

No, only those that had a dog in the fight. In other words if you didn't employee 3 or more people, if you didn't have a business, if you didn't own property then you didn't pay any taxes at that time (no friend, sales taxes and income taxes has been a thing of the the 20th century. Of course you know who came up with the graduating income tax, right??? If not, here's a hint, Karl Marx, the hero of the left). If you didn't pay any taxes you were more likely to vote for something that wasn't beneficial to the nation but rather for something that was beneficial to you, the individual. You know, like creating a welfare state where you could keep voting yourself more benefits every time an election came up. If your not contributing to the finances of the state why should you be allow to vote on where that money should be spent???