(12-30-2015 05:07 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There are any number of reasonable interpretations of "general welfare" that include no concept of a "social compact."

Exactly.


My interpretation is what I posted earlier. I pay taxes that go towards a major hospital and several regional medical centers. My taxes also go towards a professional emergency medical service. In my mind THAT is general welfare, not paying taxes so that dawg gets to keep more of his income because of his family's high medical expenses.

And when you asked me why I gave you my reasoning which I am entitled to. You and I see it differently but instead of respectfully disagreeing with me you attack me. I don't see the need for that sort of thing. I've done nothing to you. Just done ask me next time if you don't want me to answer or if you feel like you have to insult me when I do.

So you consider facts to be an attack? Maybe that should be the first clue that you are on the wrong side of this argument.

It should be my decision what amount of my income I want to dedicate towards health insurance, not my neighbor's, not yours, and certainly not some socialist bureaucrat in Washington, DC. I make this decision based upon what I need and what I can afford. I should be on the hook only the medical costs that I and my family accrue, not the guy down the street, not yours, not anybody else. It's called personal responsibility and it's obviously foreign to you.

(12-30-2015 05:22 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 05:07 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There are any number of reasonable interpretations of "general welfare" that include no concept of a "social compact."

Exactly.


My interpretation is what I posted earlier. I pay taxes that go towards a major hospital and several regional medical centers. My taxes also go towards a professional emergency medical service. In my mind THAT is general welfare, not paying taxes so that dawg gets to keep more of his income because of his family's high medical expenses.

And when you asked me why I gave you my reasoning which I am entitled to. You and I see it differently but instead of respectfully disagreeing with me you attack me. I don't see the need for that sort of thing. I've done nothing to you. Just done ask me next time if you don't want me to answer or if you feel like you have to insult me when I do.

So you consider facts to be an attack? Maybe that should be the first clue that you are on the wrong side of this argument.

It should be my decision what amount of my income I want to dedicate towards health insurance, not my neighbor's, not yours, and certainly not some socialist bureaucrat in Washington, DC. I make this decision based upon what I need and what I can afford. I should be on the hook only the medical costs that I and my family accrue, not the guy down the street, not yours, not anybody else. It's called personal responsibility and it's obviously foreign to you.

The attacks I am referring to were posts 268 through 272 by you, blunderbuss and JMUDunk. I believe yours was 271.

(12-30-2015 10:37 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 05:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 11:32 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 10:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 09:04 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Help me out, please. What part of that says that it is my responsibility to foot the bill for anyone beyond my immediate family?

The concept of a Social Contract (Compact).

So help me out some more, please, what part of that says anything about a social contract/compact?

Do your own research if you don't grasp the connection.

You're talking to a Rice grad with a law degree. Lol.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(12-30-2015 10:44 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 03:43 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 11:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 11:41 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 11:32 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The concept of a Social Contract (Compact).

So you're just making **** up now to push your agenda. If that was an honest post it's sad that you've taught for 30 years.

We get it, you're one of the winners in this boondoggle.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I didn't make up the concept of a social contract, and it isn't an agenda. We just have different opinions regarding the issue. I can't help it if this makes you angry.

This is embarrassing. And some wonder why our public skools are failing so spectacularly.

My very own Mother and both grandmothers would be horrified.

Wow.

It is always interesting when discussing a topic and the response becomes personal. I'm sorry if you don't like my response but wouldn't it be more productive if you offered insight into why the social contract wouldn't apply in this situation?

There is no social contract. That just some theoretical bull**** libs cling to to justify their handouts.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(12-30-2015 09:20 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 10:44 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 03:43 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 11:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 11:41 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  So you're just making **** up now to push your agenda. If that was an honest post it's sad that you've taught for 30 years.

We get it, you're one of the winners in this boondoggle.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I didn't make up the concept of a social contract, and it isn't an agenda. We just have different opinions regarding the issue. I can't help it if this makes you angry.

This is embarrassing. And some wonder why our public skools are failing so spectacularly.

My very own Mother and both grandmothers would be horrified.

Wow.

It is always interesting when discussing a topic and the response becomes personal. I'm sorry if you don't like my response but wouldn't it be more productive if you offered insight into why the social contract wouldn't apply in this situation?

There is no social contract. That just some theoretical bull**** libs cling to to justify their handouts.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison?

(12-30-2015 09:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 09:20 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 10:44 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 03:43 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 11:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I didn't make up the concept of a social contract, and it isn't an agenda. We just have different opinions regarding the issue. I can't help it if this makes you angry.

This is embarrassing. And some wonder why our public skools are failing so spectacularly.

My very own Mother and both grandmothers would be horrified.

Wow.

It is always interesting when discussing a topic and the response becomes personal. I'm sorry if you don't like my response but wouldn't it be more productive if you offered insight into why the social contract wouldn't apply in this situation?

There is no social contract. That just some theoretical bull**** libs cling to to justify their handouts.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison?

Be more specific. The only social contract is that those who chose to who in the United States have by default accepted the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that health insurance is a right.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Check out this article. It would appear that the longer term prospects of the ACA suck worse than they do now.

It will be "Oh joy, health insurance that 40 million won't participate in" - in other words - right back to square one before this
boondoggle started concerning non-insured with everyone else paying far more......

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20.../77795370/

Yeah, I know - it's an opinion piece. It is however done by someone in the academia world the left loves so much....

(12-30-2015 11:39 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  For those that question my use of the concept of the "social contract" and in fact attacked me for it, here is some information regarding it. It isn't something I pulled out of the air. It isn't BS. It is basic history. I would hope you would appreciate that. The argument isn't IF the social contract is BS, but IF the social contract should be applied to the health law. So don't attack me, attack the application in this particular case.

Quote:Whenever the federal government expands its capabilities, it changes the nature of the social compact. Sometimes the changes are small, but sometimes, as in the New Deal or the civil rights era, the changes are big. And when the changes are big, courts are called on to legitimate the changes and ensure that they are consistent with our ancient Constitution. In this way, courts ratify significant revisions to the American social contract.

Quote:When the judiciary is staffed by people more or less allied with changes in governance, courts legitimate them fairly easily. But when the federal judiciary is staffed by people hostile to a new president's program, it often casts a skeptical eye on the innovations. Then there can be a protracted struggle over the terms of the new social contract--a struggle waged not only in the courts but also in the court of public opinion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...ct/259186/

Quote:What do Americans want from their health care system? Four fundamental goals have shaped our system. First, we want high quality health care that can provide the greatest benefits. Second, we want freedom of choice so that we can decide the “who, when, and where” for our health care. Third, we expect our health care to be affordable so that we have resources for all of the other things we need or want. Fourth, we want our fellow citizens to share in the costs and also benefits of health care (American College of Emergency Physicians, 2011).

With these common goals for our society, why is reform of the American health care system such a controversial issue? One probable reason is that there are significant differences in the priorities that Americans assign to these goals and important differences in beliefs and values. Social injustice occurs when all people are not treated with equal moral concern (Grace & Willis, 2012). The philosopher John Rawls (1971), in his book A Theory of Justice, placed our rights to liberty and justice on a new foundation of reason. His work revived the disciplines of political and ethical philosophy with his argument that a society in which the most fortunate help the least fortunate is not only a moral society, but a logical one (Knadig, 2011). He described the concept of a social contract, in which liberty is carefully balanced with individual rights and the overall good of society, with special emphasis on making the worst off as well off as they can be.

http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCate...tives.html

Quote:VI. CONCLUSION
The effort to re-negotiate the American notion of a social contract to include
universal health care and to structure a template for achieving social justice
through the distribution of health care resources are noble goals. However,
rather than imposing a federal standard that restricts state autonomy in managing
health resources, the better position is to allow the states—through co-operative
federalism—to serve as laboratories to “try novel social and economic
experiments.”282

http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewconte...xt=scholar

And that is FAAAR different than governmental overlords forcing people to "provide" for others. That's called something a lot different than an innocuous sounding "social contract".

(01-01-2016 06:08 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 11:39 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  For those that question my use of the concept of the "social contract" and in fact attacked me for it, here is some information regarding it. It isn't something I pulled out of the air. It isn't BS. It is basic history. I would hope you would appreciate that. The argument isn't IF the social contract is BS, but IF the social contract should be applied to the health law. So don't attack me, attack the application in this particular case.

Quote:Whenever the federal government expands its capabilities, it changes the nature of the social compact. Sometimes the changes are small, but sometimes, as in the New Deal or the civil rights era, the changes are big. And when the changes are big, courts are called on to legitimate the changes and ensure that they are consistent with our ancient Constitution. In this way, courts ratify significant revisions to the American social contract.

Quote:When the judiciary is staffed by people more or less allied with changes in governance, courts legitimate them fairly easily. But when the federal judiciary is staffed by people hostile to a new president's program, it often casts a skeptical eye on the innovations. Then there can be a protracted struggle over the terms of the new social contract--a struggle waged not only in the courts but also in the court of public opinion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...ct/259186/

Quote:What do Americans want from their health care system? Four fundamental goals have shaped our system. First, we want high quality health care that can provide the greatest benefits. Second, we want freedom of choice so that we can decide the “who, when, and where” for our health care. Third, we expect our health care to be affordable so that we have resources for all of the other things we need or want. Fourth, we want our fellow citizens to share in the costs and also benefits of health care (American College of Emergency Physicians, 2011).

With these common goals for our society, why is reform of the American health care system such a controversial issue? One probable reason is that there are significant differences in the priorities that Americans assign to these goals and important differences in beliefs and values. Social injustice occurs when all people are not treated with equal moral concern (Grace & Willis, 2012). The philosopher John Rawls (1971), in his book A Theory of Justice, placed our rights to liberty and justice on a new foundation of reason. His work revived the disciplines of political and ethical philosophy with his argument that a society in which the most fortunate help the least fortunate is not only a moral society, but a logical one (Knadig, 2011). He described the concept of a social contract, in which liberty is carefully balanced with individual rights and the overall good of society, with special emphasis on making the worst off as well off as they can be.

http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCate...tives.html

Quote:VI. CONCLUSION
The effort to re-negotiate the American notion of a social contract to include
universal health care and to structure a template for achieving social justice
through the distribution of health care resources are noble goals. However,
rather than imposing a federal standard that restricts state autonomy in managing
health resources, the better position is to allow the states—through co-operative
federalism—to serve as laboratories to “try novel social and economic
experiments.”282

http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewconte...xt=scholar

And that is FAAAR different than governmental overlords forcing people to "provide" for others. That's called something a lot different than an innocuous sounding "social contract".

Read some of the enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Rousseau to gain a better understanding of the concept of a social contract. They were major influences on our Founding Fathers.

Where do you draw the line? When is it too much to expect for people to wipe their own ass?

(01-01-2016 06:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Where do you draw the line? When is it too much to expect for people to wipe their own ass?

I'll wipe mine, you wipe yours.

(01-01-2016 06:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 06:08 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 11:39 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  For those that question my use of the concept of the "social contract" and in fact attacked me for it, here is some information regarding it. It isn't something I pulled out of the air. It isn't BS. It is basic history. I would hope you would appreciate that. The argument isn't IF the social contract is BS, but IF the social contract should be applied to the health law. So don't attack me, attack the application in this particular case.

Quote:Whenever the federal government expands its capabilities, it changes the nature of the social compact. Sometimes the changes are small, but sometimes, as in the New Deal or the civil rights era, the changes are big. And when the changes are big, courts are called on to legitimate the changes and ensure that they are consistent with our ancient Constitution. In this way, courts ratify significant revisions to the American social contract.

Quote:When the judiciary is staffed by people more or less allied with changes in governance, courts legitimate them fairly easily. But when the federal judiciary is staffed by people hostile to a new president's program, it often casts a skeptical eye on the innovations. Then there can be a protracted struggle over the terms of the new social contract--a struggle waged not only in the courts but also in the court of public opinion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...ct/259186/

Quote:What do Americans want from their health care system? Four fundamental goals have shaped our system. First, we want high quality health care that can provide the greatest benefits. Second, we want freedom of choice so that we can decide the “who, when, and where” for our health care. Third, we expect our health care to be affordable so that we have resources for all of the other things we need or want. Fourth, we want our fellow citizens to share in the costs and also benefits of health care (American College of Emergency Physicians, 2011).

With these common goals for our society, why is reform of the American health care system such a controversial issue? One probable reason is that there are significant differences in the priorities that Americans assign to these goals and important differences in beliefs and values. Social injustice occurs when all people are not treated with equal moral concern (Grace & Willis, 2012). The philosopher John Rawls (1971), in his book A Theory of Justice, placed our rights to liberty and justice on a new foundation of reason. His work revived the disciplines of political and ethical philosophy with his argument that a society in which the most fortunate help the least fortunate is not only a moral society, but a logical one (Knadig, 2011). He described the concept of a social contract, in which liberty is carefully balanced with individual rights and the overall good of society, with special emphasis on making the worst off as well off as they can be.

http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCate...tives.html

Quote:VI. CONCLUSION
The effort to re-negotiate the American notion of a social contract to include
universal health care and to structure a template for achieving social justice
through the distribution of health care resources are noble goals. However,
rather than imposing a federal standard that restricts state autonomy in managing
health resources, the better position is to allow the states—through co-operative
federalism—to serve as laboratories to “try novel social and economic
experiments.”282

http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewconte...xt=scholar

And that is FAAAR different than governmental overlords forcing people to "provide" for others. That's called something a lot different than an innocuous sounding "social contract".

Read some of the enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Rousseau to gain a better understanding of the concept of a social contract. They were major influences on our Founding Fathers.

I taught Political Science for a couple years, pretty well caught up on my Locke and Rosseau. Pretty sure you may want to brush up on your Rousseau here...

(01-01-2016 06:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 06:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Where do you draw the line? When is it too much to expect for people to wipe their own ass?

I'll wipe mine, you wipe yours.

So answer my first question.

(01-01-2016 07:08 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 06:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 06:08 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 11:39 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  For those that question my use of the concept of the "social contract" and in fact attacked me for it, here is some information regarding it. It isn't something I pulled out of the air. It isn't BS. It is basic history. I would hope you would appreciate that. The argument isn't IF the social contract is BS, but IF the social contract should be applied to the health law. So don't attack me, attack the application in this particular case.

Quote:Whenever the federal government expands its capabilities, it changes the nature of the social compact. Sometimes the changes are small, but sometimes, as in the New Deal or the civil rights era, the changes are big. And when the changes are big, courts are called on to legitimate the changes and ensure that they are consistent with our ancient Constitution. In this way, courts ratify significant revisions to the American social contract.

Quote:When the judiciary is staffed by people more or less allied with changes in governance, courts legitimate them fairly easily. But when the federal judiciary is staffed by people hostile to a new president's program, it often casts a skeptical eye on the innovations. Then there can be a protracted struggle over the terms of the new social contract--a struggle waged not only in the courts but also in the court of public opinion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...ct/259186/

Quote:What do Americans want from their health care system? Four fundamental goals have shaped our system. First, we want high quality health care that can provide the greatest benefits. Second, we want freedom of choice so that we can decide the “who, when, and where” for our health care. Third, we expect our health care to be affordable so that we have resources for all of the other things we need or want. Fourth, we want our fellow citizens to share in the costs and also benefits of health care (American College of Emergency Physicians, 2011).

With these common goals for our society, why is reform of the American health care system such a controversial issue? One probable reason is that there are significant differences in the priorities that Americans assign to these goals and important differences in beliefs and values. Social injustice occurs when all people are not treated with equal moral concern (Grace & Willis, 2012). The philosopher John Rawls (1971), in his book A Theory of Justice, placed our rights to liberty and justice on a new foundation of reason. His work revived the disciplines of political and ethical philosophy with his argument that a society in which the most fortunate help the least fortunate is not only a moral society, but a logical one (Knadig, 2011). He described the concept of a social contract, in which liberty is carefully balanced with individual rights and the overall good of society, with special emphasis on making the worst off as well off as they can be.

http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCate...tives.html

Quote:VI. CONCLUSION
The effort to re-negotiate the American notion of a social contract to include
universal health care and to structure a template for achieving social justice
through the distribution of health care resources are noble goals. However,
rather than imposing a federal standard that restricts state autonomy in managing
health resources, the better position is to allow the states—through co-operative
federalism—to serve as laboratories to “try novel social and economic
experiments.”282

http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewconte...xt=scholar

And that is FAAAR different than governmental overlords forcing people to "provide" for others. That's called something a lot different than an innocuous sounding "social contract".

Read some of the enlightenment philosophers like Locke and Rousseau to gain a better understanding of the concept of a social contract. They were major influences on our Founding Fathers.

I taught Political Science for a couple years, pretty well caught up on my Locke and Rosseau. Pretty sure you may want to brush up on your Rousseau here...

Rousseau wrote The Social Contract and was an important influence on Jefferson and other Founding Fathers. I know his work well enough. A governments legitimacy comes from the social contract agreed upon by all its citizens for their own preservation. The sovereign (the people) should vote for the common good as opposed to individual benefit.

(01-01-2016 08:00 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 06:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 06:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Where do you draw the line? When is it too much to expect for people to wipe their own ass?

I'll wipe mine, you wipe yours.

So answer my first question.

I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn. Obviously some feel that it was crossed with the ACA, others, like me, disagree.

(01-01-2016 10:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 08:00 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 06:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 06:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Where do you draw the line? When is it too much to expect for people to wipe their own ass?

I'll wipe mine, you wipe yours.

So answer my first question.

I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn. Obviously some feel that it was crossed with the ACA, others, like me, disagree.

But before wiping others' asses. You callous bastard.

The "social contract" is nothing more than a flowery term used to justify theft and income redistribution. The second I hear the term used the hair raises on my neck. I know I am getting ready to be fcked.

(01-02-2016 09:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The "social contract" is nothing more than a flowery term used to justify theft and income redistribution. The second I hear the term used the hair raises on my neck. I know I am getting ready to be fcked.

Yep. A nice term used when they are about to spend someone else's money.

(01-02-2016 09:17 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The "social contract" is nothing more than a flowery term used to justify theft and income redistribution. The second I hear the term used the hair raises on my neck. I know I am getting ready to be fcked.

Yep. A nice term used when they are about to spend someone else's money.

They actually think that they are entitled to your money(for the public good) and use it to justify the theft. They never stop look at alternatives to theft. That would actually take some thought and innovation. It is in fact the lazy mans way to do things.

(01-02-2016 09:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The "social contract" is nothing more than a flowery term used to justify theft and income redistribution. The second I hear the term used the hair raises on my neck. I know I am getting ready to be fcked.

Exactly.