Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare

[JakeStarkey]

The questions are immaterial because of your nonsense suggestion about social compact and statism and individual rights. Until you can build a case worthy of real discussion, your current point is summarily dismissed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The questions are immaterial because of your nonsense suggestion about social compact and statism and individual rights. Until you can build a case worthy of real discussion, your current point is summarily dismissed.

You are immaterial because everybody knows you're a liberal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The question is not of Locke's influence but the extent of that of Rousseau's. As well as where does the legitimate social compact end and the beginning evil of your statist principles. I will aid you, though, in your quest. Go study John Randolph, for you may find an ally in the Founders there. You have not found one elsewhere.

The only social compact is written within the Communist manifesto. I'll stick with the Constitution.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The questions are immaterial because of your nonsense suggestion about social compact and statism and individual rights. Until you can build a case worthy of real discussion, your current point is summarily dismissed.

Only a real answer could hope to "dismiss" anything, not a dictate from you.

Strange how all you "Rousseau types" always regress to some type of despotism......


Just like Woody Allen says (no doubt a supporter of Rousseau), wouldn't it be so much better if one was a dictator



Again your non-answer is the answer

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The questions are immaterial because of your nonsense suggestion about social compact and statism and individual rights. Until you can build a case worthy of real discussion, your current point is summarily dismissed.

Only a real answer could hope to "dismiss" anything, not a dictate from you.

Strange how all you "Rousseau types" always regress to some type of despotism......


Just like Woody Allen says (no doubt a supporter of Rousseau), wouldn't it be so much better if one was a dictator



Again your non-answer is the answer

Don't expect a real answer from starkey.

 

[Foxfyre]

In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:

social contractn.
An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided by the State.

Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves. And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.

But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.

The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights. They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc. But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.

Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others. Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.

And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.

 

[Flopper]

No, 15 states do have high risk pools. Also the coverage available differs widely from state to state. Annual deductibles vary. It can be as high as $25,000 in some states. Waiting periods for preexisting conditions are 6 or 12 months or more. Sometimes the pools are prohibitively expensive, sometimes they are full and taking no new members, sometimes their coverage is hardly worth it. Most of the time getting coverage through a high risk pool will take many months before you actually get coverage and if you are very sick, you'll have to wait many more months before they pay any of your bills.

So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need? That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey. Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.

I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled. I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.

No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs. All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible. Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do. But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.

After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else. What's wrong with that? If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that. I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.

That is true of all people.
That is true of local communities.
That is true of states.
That is true of nations.

Correct. The system started on a downward path the second government got involved with mandates and other nonsense that just gummed up the system and made it monstrously complicated. Before HMO's PPO's and all the other "O's" we had a simple pay as you go system for doctor visits and regular medical needs. Insurance was for large losses....Anyone over the age of 40 must remember "major medical"....That was for surgeries, serious ailments and the like.
My first full time job....My insurance cost me $5 per week through my employer. 80% coverage after my $500 deductible was exhausted. Simple.
When I was a child we had a family physician. He made.........HOUSE CALLS....holy macaroni!!!!!!
Once the government got involved and sent health care down the path of catering to the lowest common denominator, the thing exploded into the pile of shit that exists today.
Obamacare makes it ten times worse.
As I predicted, an entire new bureaucracy would be created, thousands of new government hack employees needed huge administrative costs and of course government regulation of reimbursements( as government is the primary insurer) and the inevitable rationing of care. It's all in the Obamacare law...All of it.
Unfortunately and this is typical, people have become accustomed to first dollar health insurance coverage. This is the result of government handouts that gave people the notion that their medical care should be available free of out of pocket expense in any amount.

I too remember the doctor house calls and office visits that cost less than the cost of an insurance copay today. I also remember my grandfather dieing at the age 56 from heart disease. No $100,000 bypass surgery, no $250,000 heart transplants, and no $300/mo drugs. He just took it easy and waited for the next heart attack because like so many serious diseases, there were no effective treatments.

Government, insurance companies, and greedy lawyers are convenient scapegoats, but they aren’t the major causes of increased healthcare cost. Healthcare cost increases were well underway before Medicare or Medicaid came along. During the period 1950-1965, health care prices increased more than any other major component in the "Consumer Price Index" (66.6%). Insurance companies on average add 15% profits and 10% overhead to the costs but they also lower costs by negotiating contracts with providers that save 20 to 30%. Studies in Florida and Massachusetts show that tort reform would reduce costs less than 5%.

The real culprit is the skyrocketing demand for medical services. We are living 10 years longer today than we were 50 years ago. That 10 years is 10 years of intense healthcare usage. We are also demanding more medical services because there has been a huge increase in available treatments. The other major factor is the way the services are sold. Most healthcare services are sold on a fee for service basis. The more services sold the higher the profits. The customer has neither the skill nor the incentive to put pressure on the prices by price shopping.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:

social contractn.
An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided by the State.

Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves. And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.

But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.

The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights. They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc. But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.

Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others. Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.

And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.

I do not think the Constitution support suha ting as social compact.
social contract, compact
n
(Philosophy) (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties

social compact - definition of social compact by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Criticisms
•English philosopher David Hume and German philosopher Immanuel Kant realized that the social compact relied on participants to be rational and moral, while wondering if people were either. They included social groups and political factions in their criticism. Kant laid out a series of rules in his "Critique of Practical Reason" and other essays to create self-consistent laws that did not favor private groups or interests. Kant argued that large groups would eliminate irrational behavior. Hume and Hobbes both felt that groups, once having created irrational rules, would continue to follow them. Hobbes therefore argued that only a powerful government with rational individuals in charge could control mob mentality.


Read more: Social Compact Theory | eHow.com Social Compact Theory | eHow.com

 

[Foxfyre]

I was working in the industry when Medicare and Medicaid went into effect and I was working in the cost end of it so I know what the costs were. I also saw those costs, that had been stable for years, immediately skyrocket once the government became involved. And as the government has steadily increased its involvement since that time, those costs have continued to steadily rise at the rate of government involvement.

To me that is sufficient correlation to take a good long look at it.

There are far more cars on the road now too, and cars are also more expensive than they were 30 to 50 years ago, but they are just as affordable.

There are far more home owners now than there were 30 to 50 years ago and houses are far more expensive, but they are just as affordable.

The private market will make affordable whatever it wishes to sell and will still accomplish a fair profit. The government lacks the skill to accomplish that.

 

[Flopper]

So how about we all turn over our entire paycheck to the US government and just let them give us what food, shelter, healthcare etc. we need? That hasn't worked well in any country it has been tried, but what the hey. Let's dont' let empirical evidence bother us.

I still say the U.S. healthcare system was working well until the federal government got invovled. I say get the government out of it and it will work well again.

No system works if it focuses on the small minority of special needs. All systems need to embrace the whole in the most economical, efficient, and effective way that is reasonably possible. Then if society wishes to address the special needs that would be its option to do. But let that be done by the states or local communities and not by the one-size-fits-all federal government.

After several of your posts addressing the disparity in systems and between states, you seem to be obsessed that somebody might achieve or have more than somebody else. What's wrong with that? If you afford a bigger house and a more expensive car than I can afford, I don't begrudge you that. I sure don't want anybody forcibly requiring you to provide me with everything you worked to achieve just because I have less.

That is true of all people.
That is true of local communities.
That is true of states.
That is true of nations.

A healthcare system in which 1 in 7 people cannot afford healthcare is not working well.

No, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for their financial success. However, I do not believe that one's access to healthcare should depend on that success. Whether you are rich or poor regardless of whether you live in Florida or Washington, you should be able to go to the doctor if you're sick. You shouldn't have to loose your home and declare bankruptcy because you can't get insurance and a family member is stricken with cancer.

One in seven people "cannot "afford healthcare? Prove it.. 310 million divided by 7 is 45 million..Oh I get it ....the government straw man argument to go down the road of socialized medicine...Look, this number has been moved all over the place.
It includes the 12-20 million illegals living the US. It also includes the 10 million young people who earn in excess of $40k per year but refuse to buy coverage from their employer or the private market. And it also includes the several million workers who are contractors and do not have employer provided coverage but do supply their own Worker's Comp insurance.
The fact that number of those who cannot buy coverage can be skewed any way one wishes. The democrat party which until this year controlled the congress and of course the executuve branch, has a vested interest in creating dependency for political purposes.
That is what the basis is for Obamacare. To create dependency on government.
I agree we should not have a system where we must decide between financial ruin or getting needed life saving care. However, this (Obamacare) does not come close to addressing that issue.
Government needs to get out of the way and allow the marketplace to function.
Let us decide what coverages we want. Let us buy health insurance from the vendor of our choice without regard to state boundaries. Let us choose catastrophic coverage. Let us open medical savings accounts.
If health insurance was available as a consumer commodity similar to other items, competition would increase and that alone would lower premiums. Consumer protections could b e put into place to safeguard the insured from being dropped by the insurer except for a tightly regulated for cause criteria.
In other words an insured could not by law be summarily dropped by their insurer simply because they filed a claim.
This would take about 10 pages of double spaced type to write such a law.

If government got out of the way entirely and allowed the marketplace to function freely, how is a person of average means with a serious health problem going to be able to buy insurance. No insurance company is going to insurance a person that will need a half million to a million dollars worth of healthcare at an affordable price.

We have millions of people in this country that are seriously disabled both physically and mentally with loads of preexisting conditions who cannot earn enough money to support themselves much less buy health insurance. How do you propose we handle this with a free market and no government intervention.

If you want to buy insurance across state lines, then you need to get the states to change their laws that regulate the sale of insurance, which is not likely to happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

A healthcare system in which 1 in 7 people cannot afford healthcare is not working well.

No, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for their financial success. However, I do not believe that one's access to healthcare should depend on that success. Whether you are rich or poor regardless of whether you live in Florida or Washington, you should be able to go to the doctor if you're sick. You shouldn't have to loose your home and declare bankruptcy because you can't get insurance and a family member is stricken with cancer.

One in seven people "cannot "afford healthcare? Prove it.. 310 million divided by 7 is 45 million..Oh I get it ....the government straw man argument to go down the road of socialized medicine...Look, this number has been moved all over the place.
It includes the 12-20 million illegals living the US. It also includes the 10 million young people who earn in excess of $40k per year but refuse to buy coverage from their employer or the private market. And it also includes the several million workers who are contractors and do not have employer provided coverage but do supply their own Worker's Comp insurance.
The fact that number of those who cannot buy coverage can be skewed any way one wishes. The democrat party which until this year controlled the congress and of course the executuve branch, has a vested interest in creating dependency for political purposes.
That is what the basis is for Obamacare. To create dependency on government.
I agree we should not have a system where we must decide between financial ruin or getting needed life saving care. However, this (Obamacare) does not come close to addressing that issue.
Government needs to get out of the way and allow the marketplace to function.
Let us decide what coverages we want. Let us buy health insurance from the vendor of our choice without regard to state boundaries. Let us choose catastrophic coverage. Let us open medical savings accounts.
If health insurance was available as a consumer commodity similar to other items, competition would increase and that alone would lower premiums. Consumer protections could b e put into place to safeguard the insured from being dropped by the insurer except for a tightly regulated for cause criteria.
In other words an insured could not by law be summarily dropped by their insurer simply because they filed a claim.
This would take about 10 pages of double spaced type to write such a law.

If government got out of the way entirely and allowed the marketplace to function freely, how is a person of average means with a serious health problem going to be able to buy insurance. No insurance company is going to insurance a person that will need a half million to a million dollars worth of healthcare at an affordable price.

We have millions of people in this country that are seriously disabled both physically and mentally with loads of preexisting conditions who cannot earn enough money to support themselves much less buy health insurance. How do you propose we handle this with a free market and no government intervention.

If you want to buy insurance across state lines, then you need to get the states to change their laws that regulate the sale of insurance, which is not likely to happen.

It will happen if the federal government evokes the anti trust laws that it should have done years ago. When monopolies are against the interest of the general welfare, they are made illegal. That's an easy fix for a Congress motivated to fix it. Take away ability of insurance companies to bribe Congressional leaders and they'll find the motivation.

Everybody has never been able to buy healthcare insurance any more than everybody has been able to buy a house or a car or car insurance or a flat screen television set. The fact that some are unable to do that is not justification for the government to take over any industry including healthcare.

Again, the private sector will find a way to make products and services affordable when the government stays out of it. It always has. It always will because if you can't sell your products and services, you're screwed. If the government buys it when nobody else will, there is no incentive to make it affordable for the private sector.

As for those who can't afford something at all, a moral society does give a hand up to the fallen and takes care of the helpless. But that has never been done effectively by the federal government and should not be a function of the federal government now.

 

[Greenbeard]

I was working in the industry when Medicare and Medicaid went into effect and I was working in the cost end of it so I know what the costs were. I also saw those costs, that had been stable for years, immediately skyrocket once the government became involved. And as the government has steadily increased its involvement since that time, those costs have continued to steadily rise at the rate of government involvement.

To me that is sufficient correlation to take a good long look at it.

There are far more cars on the road now too, and cars are also more expensive than they were 30 to 50 years ago, but they are just as affordable.

There are far more home owners now than there were 30 to 50 years ago and houses are far more expensive, but they are just as affordable.

And yet rides in the space shuttle or stays on a space station--methods of travel and housing not available in the 1950s--are not affordable for the average family. The actual comparison you'd have to do here would be to compare the price of a a medical service available in, say, 1955, with the price of that exact same procedure (assuming you've chosen one still in use) today and see if it has risen or declined in real terms. You can't implicitly compare the cost of a knee tap in 1955 to the cost of an fMRI in 2010 and conclude that, boy, the former sure got expensive.

 

[Flopper]

The best possible thing Congress could do for any of us is to repeal every single bill that costs money that we do not HAVE to spend.

And then not pass a single new bill that costs money for anything that we do not HAVE to have.

And spend their time focused on monitoring whatever entities are likely involved in racketeering that tread on the rights of the citizens. . . .AND . . . .making sure the USA has the best possible playing field in a world market. . . .AND. . . .keeping an eye on those who intend us no good. . . .and creating the best possible business climate for American commerce and industry which, coupled with spending restraints, is the only chance we have to balance the budget and start paying down the debt.

Repeal of Obamacare, being the most expensive, most intrusive, and likely unconstitutional legislation ever passed by a U.S. Congress is an excellent place to start.

With the recent CBO estimate that repealing the healthcare law will cost us 230 billion dollars over the next 10 years, I would think repealing it should be at top of list of what we can't afford.

 

[Foxfyre]

You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper. I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.

 

[taichiliberal]

You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper. I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.

You seem to demonstrate a pattern that is indicative to the Party of NO and it's health insurance backers.....which is denying any FACT based evidence that contradicts YOUR conclusions and beliefs/assertions.

Case in point: it was the CBO that consistently caused the Obama administration to go back to the drawing board before a final proposal was deemed fiscally acceptable. The GOP and neocon punditry had NO problem with the CBO so long as they were complimentary to the anti-healthcare reform mantras. No suddenly, it's the old teabagger confusion about being against the gov't (while wanting gov't to enforce laws that favor corporations...go figure) because they tell you something you don't want to hear.

The fallacy that "all was well" before the healthcare reform bill passed is just that...fallacy. If you doubt that, just check out the Congressional testimonies of Dr. Peeno or Wendell Potter.

And if all the neocon/teabagger/oather/Libertarian/bither concern is about people getting something for nothing off of their tax dollars....they why don't they complain about the healthcare options that members of the House & Senate have?

 

[Flopper]

In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:

social contractn.
An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided by the State.

Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves. And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.

But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.

The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights. They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc. But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.

Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others. Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.

And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.

The ideology of the Left in America is pragmatism. If the poor are starving, the Right will give the rich a tax cut in hopes that they will invest in an American company that will build a plant in the town of the starving poor rather than China, and they will hire the poor, and they will provide a living wage.

The Left will just give them something to eat.

 

[Meister]

In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:

social contractn.
An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided by the State.

Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves. And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.

But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.

The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights. They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc. But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.

Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others. Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.

And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.

The ideology of the Left in America is pragmatism. If the poor are starving, the Right will give the rich a tax cut in hopes that they will invest in an American company that will build a plant in the town of the starving poor rather than China, and they will hire the poor, and they will provide a living wage.

The Left will just give them something to eat.

Yeah....that's it.

 

[The T]

In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:

social contractn.
An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided by the State.

Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves. And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.

But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.

The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights. They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc. But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.

Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others. Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.

And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.

I do not think the Constitution support suha ting as social compact.
social contract, compact
n
(Philosophy) (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties

social compact - definition of social compact by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Criticisms
•English philosopher David Hume and German philosopher Immanuel Kant realized that the social compact relied on participants to be rational and moral, while wondering if people were either. They included social groups and political factions in their criticism. Kant laid out a series of rules in his "Critique of Practical Reason" and other essays to create self-consistent laws that did not favor private groups or interests. Kant argued that large groups would eliminate irrational behavior. Hume and Hobbes both felt that groups, once having created irrational rules, would continue to follow them. Hobbes therefore argued that only a powerful government with rational individuals in charge could control mob mentality.


Read more: Social Compact Theory | eHow.com Social Compact Theory | eHow.com

Liberty is an all-or-nothing proposition that requires personal discipline by the participants...anything else isn't liberty but an exercise in futility.

 

[Foxfyre]

In dealing with leftist theology, it is generally wise to have definitions for the terms you use:



In their writings, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and and all the Founders rejected social contract or compact in which the people surrender personal liberties in return for benevolence from or protection provided by the State.

Social Contract can involve pooling resources to provide shared services (sewer and water systems, police and fire protection, public roads, schools, etc.) that are important to all as more practical and efficient than each person providing such services for themselves. And it can include agreement among the community as to what shall constitute acceptable and moral behavior or environment.

But to a man they rejected the government having power to make choices for the people that they deemed to be unalienable rights of the people and therefore untouchable by government.

The right to choose whether one will or will not purchase health insurance would certainly fall within such unalienable rights. They would say that all should have equal access to available housing, food, healthcare, etc. But, if one rejects say health insurance, they would say that there is no right to demand that others provide healthcare just the same.

Unalienable rights are that which requires no participation by any others. Once it costs somebody else anything or requires their participation in the process, it becomes not a right but rather a privilege.

And THAT is the foundation that we need to start with in reforming national healthcare.

I do not think the Constitution support suha ting as social compact.
social contract, compact
n
(Philosophy) (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties

social compact - definition of social compact by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Criticisms
•English philosopher David Hume and German philosopher Immanuel Kant realized that the social compact relied on participants to be rational and moral, while wondering if people were either. They included social groups and political factions in their criticism. Kant laid out a series of rules in his "Critique of Practical Reason" and other essays to create self-consistent laws that did not favor private groups or interests. Kant argued that large groups would eliminate irrational behavior. Hume and Hobbes both felt that groups, once having created irrational rules, would continue to follow them. Hobbes therefore argued that only a powerful government with rational individuals in charge could control mob mentality.


Read more: Social Compact Theory | eHow.com Social Compact Theory | eHow.com

Liberty is an all-or-nothing proposition that requires personal discipline by the participants...anything else isn't liberty but an exercise in futility.

I have seen that definition Bigreb posted before and I didn't believe it was accurate then and I don't believe it is accurate now. However he is correct that it is incorrect to include Hobbes among those who advocated man's ability to govern himself--and that was an error on my part. (I need to be more careful who I pluck out of the herd to hold up as example. )

Rousseau somewhat and Locke absolutely however, were in more of the 'natural rights' camp that opposed the ability of government to interfere with that.

All three dealt in philosophy of morality and at times interlapped and at times opposed each other on various points. But they did take different approaches to government.

The Founders believed to a man in unalienable rights endowed to all humans by God. But the only way to protect those rights was by neither anarchy nor monarchy. Rather they wanted a government who would secure the people's rights--prevent the people from doing violence (economically, physically, morally) to each other and then otherwise leave them to govern themselves.

Adam Smith illustrated how each, even though looking to his/her own interests, would then serve the whole because it served his/her interests to do so.

That is why I say if the healthcare system is left to those who are looking out for their own interests, they will produce a product attractive and affordable to the whole as it is in their interest to do so.

 

[Flopper]

I agree with more ridge enforcement of antitrust laws. I think you're dreaming if you think private businesses or the good town folks are going to come up with billions of dollars every year to provide healthcare for those who have no way of providing for themselves.

No one needs a flat screen TV or second car to live. If you don't have shelter you can sleep at a homeless shelter or under a bridge, or on a park bench. If don't have food you can get food stamps or panhandle, but if you need an operation to live, there is no substitute.

When this country was founded, treatments for serious problems such as cancer, stroke, and heart disease were rarely successful. In fact healthcare in the 1700's was not considered essential. Today, the availability of healthcare is the difference between life and death. If government is to provide for the general welfare of the people, healthcare must be available to all Americans.