Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare

[Foxfyre]

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.

The federal government was never intended to provide for the general welfare. It was intended to promote the general welfare. Big difference.

Any city can set up and fund a hospital that takes indigent patients. Our hospital here in Albuqeurque that does that is the UNM hospital. It did that long before the federal government got involved in any of the process.

If you are concerned that people won't get health care than YOU take care of them. YOU get out and raise money for them. YOU set up free clinics and do the legwork necessary to arrange for an expensive operation for somebody. I'm sure you can recruit other like minded people who will help you even.

I have personally involved myself in numerous community programs targeted at disadvantaged people and it is a very rewarding thing to do. And far more economical and far more effective than ANYTHING the federal government has ever done in that regard.

Don't think the federal government is the proper vehicle for that kind of thing. Don't close your eyes to the history, to the hard cold facts of waste, corruption, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness of one-size-fits-all mega programs, and the empirical evidence that is there for anybody to see no matter how much you desperately want to believe the federal government is the way to go. Most people who want the federal government to do it are those who don't want to concern themselves about it. I don't know that is the case with you, but it is really easy to be generous with other people's money.

 

[Flopper]

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.

States create regulations, which are different from other states. So the policies have to vary from state to state as do reserve requirements, regulations on ownership, disclosures, etc, etc. So to do business in all states increases cost such that many companies do business only in a selected group states in which their product and business model is a good fit with state regulations. They of course move into states with more difficult regulations but only if there is good business case. When people decry federal regulations and want to leave the regulations to the states, they open the doors to diverse regulations, which make it more difficult to do business nationally as is the case with insurance companies. I rather doubt that antitrust laws could be used to change state insurance regulations even thou they may discourage competition.

 

[Foxfyre]

Insurance companies work it out and adapt to differing regulations and requirements with all other kinds of insurance. State Farm manages to sell life insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance, E & O, work comp, general liability, business owner's, etc. etc. insurance in all 50 states.

There is no reason that insurance companies would not be able to do the same with health insurance. But right now, unlike other forms of insurance, health insurance companies hold virtual monopolies in some states. That was one of Obama's chief selling points for Obamacare. So break up the monopolies. Make it illegal to discriminate in favor of one or two or three different companies.

If there is a profit to be made, somebody will come up with a product and/or services at a price people are able to pay. And healthy, honest competition between profit earning entities never forces prices higher.

 

[Flopper]

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.

The CBO works for Congress, not the administration and is nonpartisan. The CBO's purpose is to give Congress the true cost of proposed legislation. You will rarely find anyone in Congress in dispute with the CBO, however Boehner seems to be the exception.

Incident, I would like to read one of those independent analysis of the cost.

 

[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.

The CBO works for Congress, not the administration and is nonpartisan. The CBO's purpose is to give Congress the true cost of proposed legislation. You will rarely find anyone in Congress in dispute with the CBO, however Boehner seems to be the exception.

Incident, I would like to read one of those independent analysis of the cost.

Spend some time poking around the Hoover Institute, Cato, Heritage Foundation and other think tank operations staffed with PhD ecnomists and other experts. Avoid politcally motivated commentators like the plague if you want the real skinny. But some can be instructive in giving you sources and links to do the research yourself.

I wish I could share your confidence in the CBO, but honestly even they admit their numbers are only as good as those furnished to them by the U.S. Congress. They are not permitted to add any numbers or subtract any numbers, but they have to use the numbers they are given and they have to calculate them according to way they are told that things are going to be. If Congress says that they wil cut Medicare by 20%, that is the scenario CBO is required to work with. Everybody--CBO, every member of Congress, and the janitor in the apartment building down the street know that will never happen. But CBO has to do their calculations as if it will just the same.

And yes, I have heard a high ranking member from the CBO explain this in some detail.

If Congress says tax revenues will increase by X percent, CBO has to take it on its word about that. And so on and so forth.

There is something in the leftist I believe that wants to embrace and believe in a government that is committed to doing good and accomplishing good things.

And then there is the rest of us who are so jaded, skeptical, and untrusting of motives in government most especially when we've done our homework and realize how much our elected leaders are in it for themselves and nobody else.

It makes it even difficult to debate the topic because the emotional attachments get in the way.

It is good and right and necessary for the solvency of the country to deep six Obamacare. And then I hope our leaders have the intestinal fortitude to do what they really can do to make things better and then just stop. Don't do anything else. And let the free market work.

 

[Flopper]

Insurance companies work it out and adapt to differing regulations and requirements with all other kinds of insurance. State Farm manages to sell life insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance, E & O, work comp, general liability, business owner's, etc. etc. insurance in all 50 states.

There is no reason that insurance companies would not be able to do the same with health insurance. But right now, unlike other forms of insurance, health insurance companies hold virtual monopolies in some states. That was one of Obama's chief selling points for Obamacare. So break up the monopolies. Make it illegal to discriminate in favor of one or two or three different companies.

If there is a profit to be made, somebody will come up with a product and/or services at a price people are able to pay. And healthy, honest competition between profit earning entities never forces prices higher.

The state insurance regulations which differ from state to state making it more difficult for a company to offer all of it's products nationwide, however it doesn't prevent it. For example offering temporary insurance in some states is much harder than others.

For a company selling group insurance to be successful in a new area it has to sell a lot of policies. But to sell those policies it must have a large network in order to appeal to customers. No one wants to drive 20 miles to go a doctor. To build that network, they have to have the customer base. If they have a large customer base, they can negotiate favorable contracts and thus offer lower premiums than the completion. It is very difficult for a regional company to expand into a new region. In my area I see, them come and go quite often.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

A social compact since everybody does not have the same views or like the same thing would have to infringe on the rights of someone to maintain a social compact. The Constitution through the bill of righhts protects those right.

Social Compact does not equal the U.S. Constitution.

 

[editec]

Statism is a made up word without realistic application by folks who want to redefine terms. The 3% simply can talk all they want but still have no impact. Such is the case here by the far right reactionaries. Be anti-statist all you want. Go for it.

The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?

That's certainly Ayn Rands spin on the definition of the term.

 

[editec]

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.

No, the founding fathers most certainly did NOT reject the concept of the social contract.

Want proof?


English Common law continued to be part of the social contract post the constitution and continued to be enforced and cited as precident in cases that followed the establishment of the Constitution.

And there is no better example of the social contract than common law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Statism is a made up word without realistic application by folks who want to redefine terms. The 3% simply can talk all they want but still have no impact. Such is the case here by the far right reactionaries. Be anti-statist all you want. Go for it.

The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?

That's certainly Ayn Rands spin on the definition of the term.

I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rousseau writes, ""The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution." THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT, Book One, Chapter 6 (1762).

"The Second Treatise on Government develops Locke's own detailed account of the origin, aims, and structure of any civil government. Adopting a general method similar to that of Hobbes, Locke imagined an original state of nature in which individuals rely upon their own strength, then described our escape from this primitive state by entering into a social contract under which the state provides protective services to its citizens. Unlike Hobbes, Locke regarded this contract as revokable. Any civil government depends on the consent of those who are governed, which may be withdrawn at any time.” Locke: Government

The above reveals that Locke and Rousseau erect no philosophical barrier to the actions of the last Congress regarding the reform of health insurance, but as interesting as their writings may be, they have no effect today. The citizens of 2008 constitutionally elected their national representatives to enact legislation on their behalf. The only issue then is whether the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause permit Congress to pass health insurance reform.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

 

[editec]

The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


What's wrong Fakey? Can't stand to be told what YOU really are at heart?

That's certainly Ayn Rands spin on the definition of the term.

I would more than welcome the opinion of someone who actually lived through and escape from communism. Ayn Rands point of view trumps yours.

Well it's certainly different than mine, I'll grant you that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Origins of the Social Contract
Critics of social contract theory argue that almost all persons grow up within an existing society, and therefore never have the choice of whether to enter into a social contract. Not having a choice, they say, makes any such contract void.

Of Rights Natural and Constitutional
Under the theory of the social contract, those rights which the individual brings with him upon entering the social contract are natural, and those which arise out of the social contract are contractual. Those contractual rights arising out of the constitution are constitutional rights. However, natural rights are also constitutional rights.

The fundamental natural rights are life, liberty, and property. However, it is necessary to be somewhat more specific as to what these rights include. Therefore, constitution framers usually expand them into such rights as the right of speech and publication, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to travel over public roadways, and so forth. The exercise of such natural rights may be restricted to the extent that they come into conflict with the exercise of the natural rights of other members of society, but only to the minimum degree needed to resolve such conflict.

The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics

Duties under the Social Contract
While a constitution prescribes the legal rights of individuals and the powers of government, the social contract also includes certain duties which members assume upon entry. Those duties include the duty to avoid infringing on the rights of other members, to obey just laws, to comply with and help enforce just contracts, to serve on juries, and to defend the community.

 

[Greenbeard]

If there is a profit to be made, somebody will come up with a product and/or services at a price people are able to pay. And healthy, honest competition between profit earning entities never forces prices higher.

In this instance, it can. The reason, of course, is that the actual service you're after isn't provided by your insurance company (unless you happen to be in an integrated care network). Your insurance company is merely a payer; health care itself is provided by the aptly-named providers. The price of those health care services is set through a negotiation between a provider and every payer who seeks to have that provider in its network. So, for example, a hospital will have a chargemaster containing every service available and representatives of payer and provider alike will sit down and agree on reimbursement rates for each one.

These reimbursements (i.e. prices) aren't absolutes, however, as 1) they are periodically re-negotiated and 2) different payers will likely negotiate different rates (this isn't true in Maryland, the only state that currently has an all-payer rate setting system). So what does that imply? Smaller insurers have less leverage in negotiations with providers because they can offer fewer patients; as a result they're less able to get favorable reimbursements, which in turn means they have to pass on their costs in the form of higher premiums.

Similarly, as you dilute the insurance market (er, increase healthy, honest competition between insurers) you're in fact empowering providers relative to payers. Which gives them more power to set the prices of what they're selling. And that's something that will ultimately show up in the premiums of the insurers who have to accept those reimbursement rates.

In picture form:

 

[Neotrotsky]

Rousseau writes, ""The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution." THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT, Book One, Chapter 6 (1762).

"The Second Treatise on Government develops Locke's own detailed account of the origin, aims, and structure of any civil government. Adopting a general method similar to that of Hobbes, Locke imagined an original state of nature in which individuals rely upon their own strength, then described our escape from this primitive state by entering into a social contract under which the state provides protective services to its citizens. Unlike Hobbes, Locke regarded this contract as revokable. Any civil government depends on the consent of those who are governed, which may be withdrawn at any time.” Locke: Government

The above reveals that Locke and Rousseau erect no philosophical barrier to the actions of the last Congress regarding the reform of health insurance, but as interesting as their writings may be, they have no effect today. The citizens of 2008 constitutionally elected their national representatives to enact legislation on their behalf. The only issue then is whether the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause permit Congress to pass health insurance reform.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Jake,

In another poor attempt by you to avoid the question and change the subject, here is the question again:

Do you say that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke?
​

No need to thank me
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course from your "new" material, it does make wonder about what sources you are using? Perhaps yours sources are too one sided or you are just using what fits your "agenda". For you state, "The only issue then is whether the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause permit Congress to pass health insurance reform."

Actually, the question is PapaObama Care constitutional as designed; not health insurance reform in general. Your "question" is nothing more than a statement of defense for PapaObama Care.


First

You state:

"The only issue then is whether the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause permit Congress to pass health insurance reform."

​

Jake, you do know that the General Welfare Clause by itself does NOT allow for legislation. Granted, this is a common call among the extreme left to push for all types of radical legislation; but to see it from you makes one wonder, what sources are you using?

Perhaps because of the bias sources you are using, you did not know that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the General Welfare Clause is NOT considered a grant of a general legislative power to the federal government.

In fact, even Thomas Jefferson has said on this issue:

“The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”


​

So Jake you are wrong on this point as well and on the rather leftist outlook of this point , since no one is questioning the ability of Congress to tax for legitimate purposes only if PapaObama care's mandate is a tax. You know the one that he said was not a tax.


Second

Back to your statement

"The only issue then is whether the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause permit Congress to pass health insurance reform.
​

The Interstate Commence Clause, an enumerated power, is not in question in the cases before the Supreme Court; it is only the legal reference that the gov't is making in defense of PapaObama Care. Again, no one questions the ability of the Gov't to regulate interstate trade where it has legitimate authority. So there is no question here; no doubt the same non-mainstream sources must be influencing your thinking and expectations.

Speaking of the Commerce Cause and PapaObama Care, in the most current case against U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson has ruled that PapaObama Care goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce.

Based on the biased and extreme sources you must be using, it comes as no surprize that you made no mention of the Tenth Amendment. It clearly states that the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Indeed many on the extreme left always overlook or attack this amendment. No doubt the extreme left must feel that holding true and pure to a "Rousseauian" vision requires the gov't to be as large as possible as more important than the Constitution.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Again, after that sidetrack and to refresh our memories let us get back to the real question at hand:

Do you say that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke?
​

Your continual effort to avoid the question and your bias and extreme resources, leaves little doubt to what your answer would be on this question.


It really does come as a surprise that for someone like you who claims to be so "mainstream" , you have such extreme viewpoints.

​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo, your comments are irrelevant. The fact is that the social compact exists, Rousseau and Locke approved of the concept, and our American experience develops what the Founders began.

Your pseudo-intellectual blathering profiteth nothing here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Neo, your comments are irrelevant. The fact is that the social compact exists, Rousseau and Locke approved of the concept, and our American experience develops what the Founders began.

Your pseudo-intellectual blathering profiteth nothing here.

A none answer. you are very predictable jake.

The question you were asked was
"Do you say that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke?"

 

[Neotrotsky]

Jake,

No need to get so defensive and lower yourself again to calling people names.
I say if you are so extreme, be proud of what you are..
So what if the majority of Americans are against PapaObama Care
So what if the majority of Americans don't believe what you do

Man up!



"pseudo-intellectual"? Often the cry of those who don't understand, I never thought that low of you Jake.
I do believe with a little more work you can get things correct like the General Welfare issue. Again
if you used less radical sources, you would get things better.


"Irrelevant"? Jake I have been consistent throughout these thread; it is you who is twisting every way to avoid the question.
I have only addressed each new and irrelevant point of diversion you bring up and then return to the original question.

Let us refresh our memories let us get back to the real question at hand:

Do you say that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke?
​

Your continual effort to avoid the question and your bias and extreme resources, leaves little doubt to what your answer would be on this question.


It really does come as a surprise that for someone like you who claims to be so "mainstream" , you have such extreme viewpoints.
I feel some hostility on your part as well, for shame in our new age of civility. No doubt, your outside the mainstream sources are helping to
fueling this anger of yours as well.

As said before,
I know you like to dismiss this to go away; however 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

 

[Neotrotsky]

Neo, your comments are irrelevant. The fact is that the social compact exists, Rousseau and Locke approved of the concept, and our American experience develops what the Founders began.

Your pseudo-intellectual blathering profiteth nothing here.

A none answer. you are very predictable jake.

The question you were asked was
"Do you say that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke?"

His non-answer is the answer- he knows it was Locke; he just wishes it had been Rousseau.
This is far from mainstream.

If Jake believes the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation then he can believe anything.

I am really surprised by how out the "mainstream" he has become of late.

Sad too how "his types" always get so angry and defensive, seeing a rejection of the manifestation of the "Rousseau way" last election
must have really upset him, poor thing.


I do hope his friend, Maggie, can help him out on this one.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I reject defeatism. Your post implies there is just no way the system can be fixed without a socialized or single payer system. I'd like to warn you that in socialized meds countries the services described in your post are available but largely are denied based on cost aand the age of the patient. Too often elderly people are told "thanks, you had a good spin, but you may want to think about getting your affairs in order. Yes we realize you've paid into the system your entire life ,but keeping you alive will cost just too much"...
They may not use these words, but the message is there. Over 65 = go EF yourself.
Also, in socialized meds countries, medical care is rationed. Waits for routine treatment are unconscionable. Have a friend in Canada who injured his knee to the point where he could barely walk. He goes to his primary care Doc. The Doc schedules an MRI......8 weeks out..TWO MONTHS!!!! This is an example of socialized medicine. Free but unavailable in a timely manner.
Yiu must not think in terms of the current system.
Competition alone would reduce prices. The idea that we are incapable of making the right choice plays to the lowest common denominator. We are not stupid. Americans are among the most savvy of consumers. I refuse to buy into the pat response from the Left that we are all helpless without government making choices for us.
BTW those tort reform studies are without merit. Attorneys groups will always sound the alarm whenever their source of income is threatened. I do not believe tort reform to be a panacea. However, our litigious society has driven up costs for everything.
IMO ther eis no reason for a patient who was misdiagnosed for a bad hip that a doctor could heal with medicine when the hip needed surgery to be on the hook for millions. Or the parents of a birth defected baby file a huge suit against the obstetrician. Like it's the doctor's fault!!! That is wrong.
In any event , major medical care insurance would take care of the heart ailments and cancer patients just fine.
The problem with the insurance market is the demand for first dollar coverage. Get rid off that and the prices tumble.
BTW look up "doctor's hospitals" on google. Before you do, note that Obamacare OUTLAWS these. That's criminal.