I wonder if you've read the Constitutional debates, the Federalist papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers? I've read them at leisure here and there over the years, and again recently, what with all the "return to the Founding Father's intent" sort of talk. I'm not sure where your "we vs. they" argument comes in? OK I admit it - I'm not even sure what your "we vs. they" argument means....?<quoted text>
The whole experiment rested on the belief that we could do better than "they". That we knew what was best for us, not "they". I still believe that. But enough of the people in this country now, and over time, believe that "they" know best, that "they" should lead, that "they" should take over responsibilities, that "they" should dictate, "they" should control, "they" should enforce, "they" should be the final word.
No one in the gov't took over anything in regards to personal health care or choice, in spite of all bluster to the contrary, except to utilize the Heritage Foundation/Republican conception of an individual mandate, seeing as it is a personal responsibility that many people were shirking. Then we had the spectacle of many others of claimed "personal" and "fiscal responsibility" enabling them by screaming about the "liberty" to foist their costs secretly on the rest of us by the least cost-effective means possible.
I'm not sure there's been a more glaring example of blatant mob hypocrisy in my lifetime. The ACA works to end that national hypocrisy. As I feel I walk the talk with standards of personal and fiscal responsibility, for me that's a good thing. It is a shame the government had to be the one to do it, because people couldn't or wouldn't do it for themselves.
It's also a good thing that the gov't institute a program that would help people who would provide for themselves but simply can't due to the crushing cost of commodified sickness and misery. I sure don't mind if the good ol' Doc makes a living, but I think it's a national stain that we are so afraid of the slur of "socialism" that we actually prefer a system that bankrupts entire families into the next generation for the crime of contracting a catastrophic injury or illness. We who aren't ill (yet) are left like the nervous wildebeest watching the lion devour the weak, and secretly glad it was him and not us.
I've said all along - if we pass a law that forbids caregivers from defraying indigent costs among the rest of us, then I agree - the reason for the individual mandate would be moot. Nothing else in the ACA infringes one iota on personal liberty.
Anytime anyone wants to realistically discuss the considerable and concerted efforts by the modern anti-Federalists (read "privatizers") to purposely weaken gov't to make it appear dysfunctional with an eye toward rewarding donors with work previously assigned to gov't, I think that would shed a valuable light on your, unfortunately true, characterization. We can do better, we have done better, but many others are vested in profiting from what we used to do for ourselves >thru our unique representative gov't< and are actively pulling us backward in order to get that work in private hands but still paid FROM the public till.<quoted text>I don't know if you could say the experiment failed, I reckon that would depend on what outcome you were looking for. For the people that used their rights and votes to build and empower a massive, disfunctional Federal government, well, I suppose it was a ringing success. Personally, I believe the experiment has failed, and I believe our country is in dire straights because of it. Time will tell.
Many nations have figured out how to care for their people AND prosper, and they are leaving us behind to quarrel over semantics like "socialism".