Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Foxfyre]

When a government is allowed power to overturn the social conract, it will always be applauded by those who benefit financially. Those receiving subsidies, at the expense of others, for their healthcare are the ones who of course are more supportive of Obamacare.

The AMA represents less than 15% of all doctors, and does not depend on membership dues to sustain itself, but rakes in huge government dollars with its deal with the government to manage the codes necessary for billing of medical charges. So of course it approved of expansion of government healthcare even though most doctors opposed it.
Why the AMA Endorses Obamacare But Your Doctor Does Not TheBlaze.com

The AARP has raked in almost $3 billion in the first years of Obamacare and stands to make much more. A pretty good incentive for throwing its collective weight behind the government program. But AARP doesn't get a substantial percentage of its income from membership dues either but rather gets big bucks from its own healthcare insurance company. So the fact that senior citizens were the group most opposed to Obamacare didn't bother the AARP in the least.
How the AARP Made 2.8 Billion By Supporting Obamacare s Cuts to Medicare - Forbes

These are the stories neither the government nor its surrogate media told us when the public was being forced to swallow that monstrosity of legislation. And there are many more.

Social contract does not include using tax payer dollars as bribes to gain support from special interest groups. And the rank and file citizen should be outraged when it happens most especially when that support is used as 'evidence' that the legislation has widespread support when it doesn't.

 

[PratchettFan]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

No Republicans voted for it because it was being put forth by a Democrat. If McCain had won the election and presented the very same bill, it would have been the Democrats who would not have voted for it.

I have no doubt. I was just saying I found the claim that the compromises to the claimed goals of Democrats were because of Republicans. The Democrats, as a party, made their own bed when it came to ACA.

What other means of financing was available prior to ACA which is not available now?

Anything anyone wanted to try.

The compromises were an attempt to get the Republicans involved. Initially they were going for single payer. It just didn't work.

Do you know of anything anyone wanted to try and how are they prevented from trying now?

 

[Foxfyre]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Do you not think an insurance companies ability to charge more for pre-existing conditions or to turn down the high risk patient so they can keep rates lower for most is not the same thing? What incentive is there for somebody to buy insurance if it only costs him $99 not to have it, but if he needs it, he can buy it when he needs it and they won't be allowed not to sell it to him. (And the government will pick up the insurance company's loss at our expense when it does)? That is what the ACA has accomplished.

As the penalities increase that will help some, but the penalities are still less than the cost of insurance in most cases so there isn't that much incentive built in to buy insurance.

Meanwhile, as the ACA is forcing more and more contraction of available doctors and other healthcare providers and facilities, it is becoming increasingly difficult to see a doctor when you need one. As a result the emergency rooms and urgent care facilities are more crowded and stressed than ever. At the urgent care center closest to my house, the one where my husband volunteers, and the one in the big hospital down town, all the healthcare workers tell me their work load has more than doubled since Obamacare went into effect. They are understaffed, under funded, and overworked. The healthcare system is being forced to accommodate much more with far fewer resources.

And that is the result of broken social contract. Let the government force a law on the people that they see as hurtful to them and force the same law on the people who have to accommodate the provisions written into the law, and it cannot possibly end well.

 

[PratchettFan]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Not by my estimation. In my view, it was the element of deceit involved that qualify it as public fraud. The flim-flam regarding whether or not it was a tax increase was designed to give the Democrats who voted for it "cover", and the ability to convincingly lie and claim they weren't voting for a tax hike.

I don't see that as a violation of the contract - merely meeting the standard requirement of the American citizen that they be told what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. Overall, I'd say the thing has been pretty successful.

 

[PratchettFan]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Do you not think an insurance companies ability to charge more for pre-existing conditions or to turn down the high risk patient so they can keep rates lower for most is not the same thing? What incentive is there for somebody to buy insurance if it only costs him $99 not to have it, but if he needs it, he can buy it when he needs it and they won't be allowed not to sell it to him. (And the government will pick up the insurance company's loss at our expense when it does)? That is what the ACA has accomplished.

As the penalities increase that will help some, but the penalities are still less than the cost of insurance in most cases so there isn't that much incentive built in to buy insurance.

Meanwhile, as the ACA is forcing more and more contraction of available doctors and other healthcare providers and facilities, it is becoming increasingly difficult to see a doctor when you need one. As a result the emergency rooms and urgent care facilities are more crowded and stressed than ever. At the urgent care center closest to my house, the one where my husband volunteers, and the one in the big hospital down town, all the healthcare workers tell me their work load has more than doubled since Obamacare went into effect. The healthcare system is being forced to accommodate much more with far fewer resources.

And that is the result of broken social contract. Let the government force a law on the people that they see as hurtful to them and force the same law on the people who have to accommodate the provisions written into the law, and it cannot possibly end well.

Yes, I've heard all of that. So far it has turned out not to be true.

It is not a broken social contract - not even slightly in sight of the perimeters of the city in which lies the ballpark. The social contract does not mean you get your way.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Not by my estimation. In my view, it was the element of deceit involved that qualify it as public fraud. The flim-flam regarding whether or not it was a tax increase was designed to give the Democrats who voted for it "cover", and the ability to convincingly lie and claim they weren't voting for a tax hike.

I don't see that as a violation of the contract - merely meeting the standard requirement of the American citizen that they be told what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. Overall, I'd say the thing has been pretty successful.

It has been pretty successful in expanding the power of government and dismissing all concepts of individual liberty and social contract.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Do you not think an insurance companies ability to charge more for pre-existing conditions or to turn down the high risk patient so they can keep rates lower for most is not the same thing? What incentive is there for somebody to buy insurance if it only costs him $99 not to have it, but if he needs it, he can buy it when he needs it and they won't be allowed not to sell it to him. (And the government will pick up the insurance company's loss at our expense when it does)? That is what the ACA has accomplished.

As the penalities increase that will help some, but the penalities are still less than the cost of insurance in most cases so there isn't that much incentive built in to buy insurance.

Meanwhile, as the ACA is forcing more and more contraction of available doctors and other healthcare providers and facilities, it is becoming increasingly difficult to see a doctor when you need one. As a result the emergency rooms and urgent care facilities are more crowded and stressed than ever. At the urgent care center closest to my house, the one where my husband volunteers, and the one in the big hospital down town, all the healthcare workers tell me their work load has more than doubled since Obamacare went into effect. The healthcare system is being forced to accommodate much more with far fewer resources.

And that is the result of broken social contract. Let the government force a law on the people that they see as hurtful to them and force the same law on the people who have to accommodate the provisions written into the law, and it cannot possibly end well.

Yes, I've heard all of that. So far it has turned out not to be true.

It is not a broken social contract - not even slightly in sight of the perimeters of the city in which lies the ballpark. The social contract does not mean you get your way.

Well, I hope you will understand it when I say I put more faith in those who are living the nightmare to tell it like it is than I do in the opinion of those who think more and more government power and authority over the most personal aspects of our lives is a good thing.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

There is no external cure for it.

And if the individuals who practice it realized just how much they are damaging the process (by driving people out of the process thus leaving more power in the hands of fewer individuals), they might consider disciplining themselves.

I can't stand the self-righteous attitude of people like Rachael Maddow or Sam Brownback.

What about Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity (just include most all of FOX News) and MSNBC?

I can't stand Rush or Sean......they are terrible commentators.

However, they are not as smug as the other (from what I've seen.....it's not like I waste a lot of time on them).

I enjoyed Greta when I watched her show.

Just to be clear....I REALLY can't stand Rush or Sean.....I think they do nothing for positive discussion.

Maddow used to be pretty good about talking a hard look at issues. But her attitude really went downhill. She spins with her show...not her stories.

I also think Ann Coulter is pretty bright (she has slipped as of late).

If Maddow and Coulter razored up both sides with equal vigor, I think they'd be we wonderful.

Rachel has succumbed to the power that is bestowed upon her by her dwindling fan base. She used to be a big fish in a little pond and is returning to what she knew best.

Ann is brilliant and a species of human that should be out out of their misery. She is a broker of hatred and her vitriol is surpassed by few

 

[PratchettFan]

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.
I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Not by my estimation. In my view, it was the element of deceit involved that qualify it as public fraud. The flim-flam regarding whether or not it was a tax increase was designed to give the Democrats who voted for it "cover", and the ability to convincingly lie and claim they weren't voting for a tax hike.

I don't see that as a violation of the contract - merely meeting the standard requirement of the American citizen that they be told what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. Overall, I'd say the thing has been pretty successful.

It has been pretty successful in expanding the power of government and dismissing all concepts of individual liberty and social contract.

That is just nonsense.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people who lack such power to influence Congress and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

Are you suggesting we can somehow "nullify" Obamacare on the basis (that you claim) that we were lied to in order to pass it ?

If you are making that claim, I would be very interested to know you think that is supposed to work.

We can nullify any law just by repealing it. The reason for doing this could be on whatever basis we choose. The current trend in the legalization of marijuana is a case in point.

I don't see that happening with the ACA though. I could be wrong, of course, but the primary argument against it is not that something like it wasn't needed (both parties were claiming it was needed at the time) but that it was created in an environment of partisan politics. All attempts to repeal so far have been done in such a way as to insure failure. Insisting on repeal while carefully making sure it isn't repealed. Personally, if there was any violation of the social contract in the ACA was in the fact that it didn't go far enough.

I agree that no more than a handful of the Republicans in Congress actually want to repeal ACA. But the "not far enough" defense always perplexes me. In my view the problem was never with how far ACA went, but what it did. How far would we want to go in giving the insurance industry control over our health care spending?

solution: single payer system

case closed

Yep. The best shot at that was when Democrats were in control, but they didn't want it. So, the case is closed indeed. We're stuck with a corporatist feeding trough.

Too much influence and people favored it but were easily manipulated into not supporting it when the time came. The GOP and the Dems can still change things.

Where are our leaders who posses a profile in courage? They must be out there somewhere (it certainly isn't Christie the pretender, the self appointed tribune of the people)

 

[PratchettFan]

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.
I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Do you not think an insurance companies ability to charge more for pre-existing conditions or to turn down the high risk patient so they can keep rates lower for most is not the same thing? What incentive is there for somebody to buy insurance if it only costs him $99 not to have it, but if he needs it, he can buy it when he needs it and they won't be allowed not to sell it to him. (And the government will pick up the insurance company's loss at our expense when it does)? That is what the ACA has accomplished.

As the penalities increase that will help some, but the penalities are still less than the cost of insurance in most cases so there isn't that much incentive built in to buy insurance.

Meanwhile, as the ACA is forcing more and more contraction of available doctors and other healthcare providers and facilities, it is becoming increasingly difficult to see a doctor when you need one. As a result the emergency rooms and urgent care facilities are more crowded and stressed than ever. At the urgent care center closest to my house, the one where my husband volunteers, and the one in the big hospital down town, all the healthcare workers tell me their work load has more than doubled since Obamacare went into effect. The healthcare system is being forced to accommodate much more with far fewer resources.

And that is the result of broken social contract. Let the government force a law on the people that they see as hurtful to them and force the same law on the people who have to accommodate the provisions written into the law, and it cannot possibly end well.

Yes, I've heard all of that. So far it has turned out not to be true.

It is not a broken social contract - not even slightly in sight of the perimeters of the city in which lies the ballpark. The social contract does not mean you get your way.

Well, I hope you will understand it when I say I put more faith in those who are living the nightmare to tell it like it is than I do in the opinion of those who think more and more government power and authority over the most personal aspects of our lives is a good thing.

You are free to put whatever faith you please in whatever you like. I'll stick with reality.

 

[Foxfyre]

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Not by my estimation. In my view, it was the element of deceit involved that qualify it as public fraud. The flim-flam regarding whether or not it was a tax increase was designed to give the Democrats who voted for it "cover", and the ability to convincingly lie and claim they weren't voting for a tax hike.

I don't see that as a violation of the contract - merely meeting the standard requirement of the American citizen that they be told what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. Overall, I'd say the thing has been pretty successful.

It has been pretty successful in expanding the power of government and dismissing all concepts of individual liberty and social contract.

That is just nonsense.

Perhaps nonsense to you and others who are very supportive of Obamacare. But none of you can rebut the statement.

--You can't show how it did not increase the power of government.

--You can't show how it did not take away some of our liberties.

--You can't show how it constituted social contract or how it did not violate the concept of social contract.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Certainly a fundamental difference. Rancor is one of the reasons I think I am right and they are wrong. If there was no rancor, then we would probably be able to work together to develop a society which did not require government. But people are going to act like people no matter what.

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

I think there has always been disagreement--a free people given unalienable rights to express their opinions and convictions freely will always disagree on this or that. But there is healthy and unhealthy disagreement. Social contract does not require all to agree on every point, but only that compromise be achieved so everybody feels they were heard, reasonably accommodated, and can live comfortably with it. It took the Founders eleven years of airing their strong disagreements and working out compromises all could live with to achieve the Constitution that we have. Had one side or the other seized the power and forced it on the others, it would not have resulted in the magnificent document we got.

The unhealthy rancor I see these days is a direct result of government overreach and violation of the social contract. But overindulgence of democratic power? Is that what you meant by that comment? If not, could you elaborate on what you meant by that?

The level of rancor today is no greater than it has been in the past. What is different today is the technical capacity to express that rancor.

There is no government overreach, no violation of the social contract. We are living in one of the highest levels of personal freedom in our history and certainly the highest level of ability for the individual to make himself heard.

I strongly disagree. I think we are living with the worst violations of social contract since the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

I agree. And, to repeat myself, it IS a direct result of expanding the scope and reach of democratic power over our lives. When we eliminate limits on government power, democracy becomes unstable. The more power government has to dictate how you live, the more important it is to control it. And the more frightening it is to see those who don't share your values gain control.

I disagree in part and agree in part. I disagree with part 1 (the tyranny nonsense), yet agree with most of your statement except when you mention 'democracy' as being what becomes unstable. Our system was NOT set up as a popular democracy.

 

[Foxfyre]

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Do you not think an insurance companies ability to charge more for pre-existing conditions or to turn down the high risk patient so they can keep rates lower for most is not the same thing? What incentive is there for somebody to buy insurance if it only costs him $99 not to have it, but if he needs it, he can buy it when he needs it and they won't be allowed not to sell it to him. (And the government will pick up the insurance company's loss at our expense when it does)? That is what the ACA has accomplished.

As the penalities increase that will help some, but the penalities are still less than the cost of insurance in most cases so there isn't that much incentive built in to buy insurance.

Meanwhile, as the ACA is forcing more and more contraction of available doctors and other healthcare providers and facilities, it is becoming increasingly difficult to see a doctor when you need one. As a result the emergency rooms and urgent care facilities are more crowded and stressed than ever. At the urgent care center closest to my house, the one where my husband volunteers, and the one in the big hospital down town, all the healthcare workers tell me their work load has more than doubled since Obamacare went into effect. The healthcare system is being forced to accommodate much more with far fewer resources.

And that is the result of broken social contract. Let the government force a law on the people that they see as hurtful to them and force the same law on the people who have to accommodate the provisions written into the law, and it cannot possibly end well.

Yes, I've heard all of that. So far it has turned out not to be true.

It is not a broken social contract - not even slightly in sight of the perimeters of the city in which lies the ballpark. The social contract does not mean you get your way.

Well, I hope you will understand it when I say I put more faith in those who are living the nightmare to tell it like it is than I do in the opinion of those who think more and more government power and authority over the most personal aspects of our lives is a good thing.

You are free to put whatever faith you please in whatever you like. I'll stick with reality.

Well, if that 'reality' doesn't meet what others know to be the 'reality, then I hope you will also understand why some do not accept as 'reality' your definition of it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Not by my estimation. In my view, it was the element of deceit involved that qualify it as public fraud. The flim-flam regarding whether or not it was a tax increase was designed to give the Democrats who voted for it "cover", and the ability to convincingly lie and claim they weren't voting for a tax hike.

I don't see that as a violation of the contract - merely meeting the standard requirement of the American citizen that they be told what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. Overall, I'd say the thing has been pretty successful.

It has been pretty successful in expanding the power of government and dismissing all concepts of individual liberty and social contract.

That is just nonsense.

Perhaps nonsense to you and anybody who has said they are very supportive of Obamacare. But none of you can rebut the statement.

--You can't show how it did not increase the power of government.

--You can't show how it did not take away some of our liberties.

--You can't show how it constituted social contract or how it did not violate the concept of social contract.

I don't need to. Nor am I willing to be drawn into a pointless debate over silliness. You are free to think what you like and say what you like, because of the incredible level of personal liberty you have and don't appreciate.

I have come to realize you really don't understand what the social contract is.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

The insurance companies were brought on board by promising them a mostly100% guarantee that they would only benefit and would not be hurt by Obamacare at least for the first few years. What company would not jump at the chance to acquire millions of new policy holders required by law to have the more expensive insurance policies along with a guarantee by the government to cover almost any losses they might incur in the process?

If that is not a violation of social contract I can't think of a more flagrant one.

Not even vaguely a violation. If you kept the insurance companies in you couldn't require them to accept pre-existing conditions if you did not also require the coverage for everyone. Otherwise, I would simply not have health insurance until I got sick. It would be like requiring auto liability carriers to accept claims that happened before the policy was written. That was a rational solution to the problem short of a single payer system. And while such a system would be more effective, it wasn't politically viable.

If your purpose in this thread was to attempt to show the ACA is a basic violation of the governments duty to the citizenry, you are failing.

Do you not think an insurance companies ability to charge more for pre-existing conditions or to turn down the high risk patient so they can keep rates lower for most is not the same thing? What incentive is there for somebody to buy insurance if it only costs him $99 not to have it, but if he needs it, he can buy it when he needs it and they won't be allowed not to sell it to him. (And the government will pick up the insurance company's loss at our expense when it does)? That is what the ACA has accomplished.

As the penalities increase that will help some, but the penalities are still less than the cost of insurance in most cases so there isn't that much incentive built in to buy insurance.

Meanwhile, as the ACA is forcing more and more contraction of available doctors and other healthcare providers and facilities, it is becoming increasingly difficult to see a doctor when you need one. As a result the emergency rooms and urgent care facilities are more crowded and stressed than ever. At the urgent care center closest to my house, the one where my husband volunteers, and the one in the big hospital down town, all the healthcare workers tell me their work load has more than doubled since Obamacare went into effect. The healthcare system is being forced to accommodate much more with far fewer resources.

And that is the result of broken social contract. Let the government force a law on the people that they see as hurtful to them and force the same law on the people who have to accommodate the provisions written into the law, and it cannot possibly end well.

Yes, I've heard all of that. So far it has turned out not to be true.

It is not a broken social contract - not even slightly in sight of the perimeters of the city in which lies the ballpark. The social contract does not mean you get your way.

Social contract does mean that I get my say, however. Obamacare allowed no say at all, or even any input, from those who opposed it. It shut them out of the process entirely and their concerns and complaints were ignored. That is NOT how social contract is accomplished.

Obamacare was the exact opposite of social contract. It is a dictate of an authoritarian government imposed on the people whether they want it or not. It is the very sort of legislation that the Constitution was designed to prevent the federal government from doing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not by my estimation. In my view, it was the element of deceit involved that qualify it as public fraud. The flim-flam regarding whether or not it was a tax increase was designed to give the Democrats who voted for it "cover", and the ability to convincingly lie and claim they weren't voting for a tax hike.

I don't see that as a violation of the contract - merely meeting the standard requirement of the American citizen that they be told what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. Overall, I'd say the thing has been pretty successful.

It has been pretty successful in expanding the power of government and dismissing all concepts of individual liberty and social contract.

That is just nonsense.

Perhaps nonsense to you and anybody who has said they are very supportive of Obamacare. But none of you can rebut the statement.

--You can't show how it did not increase the power of government.

--You can't show how it did not take away some of our liberties.

--You can't show how it constituted social contract or how it did not violate the concept of social contract.

I don't need to. Nor am I willing to be drawn into a pointless debate over silliness. You are free to think what you like and say what you like, because of the incredible level of personal liberty you have and don't appreciate.

I have come to realize you really don't understand what the social contract is.

What I think or what I appreciate or what I understand is not the topic of this thread and is off limits per Rule #1 for this thread. What I have specifically argued is fair game for criticism or critique if you have the ammo to do it.

So either explain why my argument for the definition of social contract is wrong and why it is silly or don't comment on it at all. Or make your own argument that is better than mine if you can.

 

[dblack]

The rancor is a direct result of the overindulgence of democratic power.

I think there has always been disagreement--a free people given unalienable rights to express their opinions and convictions freely will always disagree on this or that. But there is healthy and unhealthy disagreement. Social contract does not require all to agree on every point, but only that compromise be achieved so everybody feels they were heard, reasonably accommodated, and can live comfortably with it. It took the Founders eleven years of airing their strong disagreements and working out compromises all could live with to achieve the Constitution that we have. Had one side or the other seized the power and forced it on the others, it would not have resulted in the magnificent document we got.

The unhealthy rancor I see these days is a direct result of government overreach and violation of the social contract. But overindulgence of democratic power? Is that what you meant by that comment? If not, could you elaborate on what you meant by that?

The level of rancor today is no greater than it has been in the past. What is different today is the technical capacity to express that rancor.

There is no government overreach, no violation of the social contract. We are living in one of the highest levels of personal freedom in our history and certainly the highest level of ability for the individual to make himself heard.

I strongly disagree. I think we are living with the worst violations of social contract since the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

I agree. And, to repeat myself, it IS a direct result of expanding the scope and reach of democratic power over our lives. When we eliminate limits on government power, democracy becomes unstable. The more power government has to dictate how you live, the more important it is to control it. And the more frightening it is to see those who don't share your values gain control.

I disagree in part and agree in part. I disagree with part 1 (the tyranny nonsense), yet agree with most of your statement except when you mention 'democracy' as being what becomes unstable. Our system was NOT set up as a popular democracy.

I was referencing representative democracy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think there has always been disagreement--a free people given unalienable rights to express their opinions and convictions freely will always disagree on this or that. But there is healthy and unhealthy disagreement. Social contract does not require all to agree on every point, but only that compromise be achieved so everybody feels they were heard, reasonably accommodated, and can live comfortably with it. It took the Founders eleven years of airing their strong disagreements and working out compromises all could live with to achieve the Constitution that we have. Had one side or the other seized the power and forced it on the others, it would not have resulted in the magnificent document we got.

The unhealthy rancor I see these days is a direct result of government overreach and violation of the social contract. But overindulgence of democratic power? Is that what you meant by that comment? If not, could you elaborate on what you meant by that?

The level of rancor today is no greater than it has been in the past. What is different today is the technical capacity to express that rancor.

There is no government overreach, no violation of the social contract. We are living in one of the highest levels of personal freedom in our history and certainly the highest level of ability for the individual to make himself heard.

I strongly disagree. I think we are living with the worst violations of social contract since the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

I agree. And, to repeat myself, it IS a direct result of expanding the scope and reach of democratic power over our lives. When we eliminate limits on government power, democracy becomes unstable. The more power government has to dictate how you live, the more important it is to control it. And the more frightening it is to see those who don't share your values gain control.

I disagree in part and agree in part. I disagree with part 1 (the tyranny nonsense), yet agree with most of your statement except when you mention 'democracy' as being what becomes unstable. Our system was NOT set up as a popular democracy.

I was referencing representative democracy.

okay

"When we eliminate limits on government power, democracy becomes unstable. The more power government has to dictate how you live, the more important it is to control it."

I agree with the statement, but I disagree that we have lost control. The House reflects that. People have voted in Representatives who are representing local attitudes. The problem may be one of gerrymadered districts, but that is an old effect of our system. Wee will survive it all as we have in teh past.

we just need more people to stop listening to alarmists

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't see that as a violation of the contract - merely meeting the standard requirement of the American citizen that they be told what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. Overall, I'd say the thing has been pretty successful.

It has been pretty successful in expanding the power of government and dismissing all concepts of individual liberty and social contract.

That is just nonsense.

Perhaps nonsense to you and anybody who has said they are very supportive of Obamacare. But none of you can rebut the statement.

--You can't show how it did not increase the power of government.

--You can't show how it did not take away some of our liberties.

--You can't show how it constituted social contract or how it did not violate the concept of social contract.

I don't need to. Nor am I willing to be drawn into a pointless debate over silliness. You are free to think what you like and say what you like, because of the incredible level of personal liberty you have and don't appreciate.

I have come to realize you really don't understand what the social contract is.

What I think or what I appreciate or what I understand is not the topic of this thread and is off limits per Rule #1 for this thread. What I have specifically argued is fair game for criticism or critique if you have the ammo to do it.

So either explain why my argument for the definition of social contract is wrong and why it is silly or don't comment on it at all. Or make your own argument that is better than mine if you can.

I really see no point in continuing with you on it.