Yes the Locke letter was a distinction between church and state . However ,the part I quote he makes it clear that he doesn't see it as the role of government to force the individual to live under a health care plan the sovereign decides .

Hobbes believed in the benevolent ruler... The subject's are serfs. I think that is a perfect description of what Obama and the entitlement state have in mind. F.A. Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom'
Argued that if a democratic society pursued central planning despotism would inevitably emerge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes the Locke letter was a distinction between church and state . However ,the part I quote he makes it clear that he doesn't see it as the role of government to force the individual to live under a health care plan the sovereign decides .

Hobbes believed in the benevolent ruler ....The subject's are serfs. I think that is a perfect description of what Obama and the entitlement state have in mind. F.A. Hayek’s 'The Road to Serfdom'
argued that if a democratic society pursued central planning despotism would inevitably emerge.

---

Hi Tom,

You are assuming ( as did Hobbes) that we have to give up our freedoms and liberty in exchange for living under a benevolent ruler. Locke has already pointed out the error in Hobbes thinking.

I may be dependent of government for welfare, to pay my medical bills and even help me with paying the rent. Yes, we are a benevolent society ( perhaps too much so). If this were the case I don't forfeit my liberty and freedoms just because I am almost completely dependent on the state.

I still have freedom of speech, I still have due process under the law, I still have the right to protest against government legislation etc etc.

You are assuming that living under a benevolent equals loss of liberty.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ryan sees the obvious ;that the entitlements are unsustainable and has offered a plan of modest adjustments that would not affect those in the plan or those near entering the plan. However ,his plan would empower the individual again, as the Locke and the founders envisioned.

---

Hello again, tom:

Yes, the people IN the plan or about to go into the plan won't be affected... But those 54 and younger will have NO plan, and they'll be "empowered" to buy insurance that nobody will sell them... Sounds good, huh? Empowered to starve and die.

I wonder WHY those right wing people, who purportedly understand business, don't understand that if an insurance company doesn't have to sell insurance to old people, they won't. I also don't understand WHY they don't understand that medical insurance for old people would be VERY expensive IF they COULD get it... If the insurance companies weren't FORCED to insure them, they wouldn't.

Ryan wants to go back to that UGLY past... I don't know why.

excon

Ex no problem , If the insurance companies can't offer a better deal to the consumer than the traditional government plan,the consumer is free to stay with Medicare.
But you know as well as I that the insurance companies freed of the nonsense government imposes,and playing in a competitve environment ,will be able to offer a better deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If the insurance companies can't offer a better deal to the consumer than the traditional government plan,the consumer is free to stay with Medicare.
But you know as well as I that the insurance companies freed of the nonsense government imposes,and playing in a competitve environment ,will be able to offer a better deal.

---

Hello tom:

Well, no wonder you support the Ryan plan... You haven't a clue what it says...

Those 54 and younger will have NO Medicare to stay with.. IT WILL BE GONE. It will be DISMANTLED (a word YOU used). It will be replaced by a voucher, and if the voucher doesn't provide enough money for a poor sick person to pay his medical bills, or buy insurance, then the poor sick person goes WITHOUT.

Your second statement is equally bizarre. As a right winger you really DON'T understand business... At some point in our lives, an insurance company can't charge enough to cover the anticipated costs, and BE profitable... Insurance companies KNOW this, and that's why insurance for the old and sick is NOT, and WON'T be available WITHOUT the government FORCING the companies to make it so...

But, if you MISS these features, which is WHAT the Ryan plan is about, then I guess you could tout it... I don't know why you WOULD, but you could.

excon

Yes and no . Yes the Ryan plan does not give those under 55 the choice to stay in Medicare. Instead it gives them what is mistakenly being called vouchers equal to the premium that Medicare would otherwise have to spend directly on care adjustments upward for inflation.

I am 100% correct in my claim that interstate competition will lower premium costs.

What you and the President fail to say is that regardless what plan is adopted ,the current unsustainable system will change .Obamacare "guts" Medicare and Medicaid and replaces it with greater dependency on the nanny socialist state and no choice. The Ryan plan still provides medical care for seniors and allows them choice .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I am 100% correct in my claim that interstate competition will lower premium costs.

---

How can you be 100% correct on a result of a speculative action that hasn't occurred??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I am 100% correct in my claim that interstate competition will lower premium costs.

---

Hello again, tom:

Let's pretend you're an insurer... You've got a 65 year old applicant with an oxygen thing in his nose. He has HIGH blood pressure, and HIGH cholesterol, and hasn't been feeling well lately...

In the very FIRST instance, why would you COMPETE to get HIS health insurance business?? What business model would prompt you, or any other insurer, to try to get THIS business?? I suggest, there's none.

Are you telling me that insuring THIS guy is going to be PROFITABLE for you?? Are you going to tell me, that even IF every insurance company in the world COULD compete for his business, that they WOULD?? Are you THEN telling me, that because they COULD compete, that the price for THIS guy's insurance would come DOWN??

Really??

You say the vouchers, I mean, coupons, OK let's call 'em checks... You say they'll be based on what the average 65 year old would spend... But, OUR sick guy isn't average. Who pays THAT difference for him? Nobody, I guess.

You also say the vouchers would be adjusted for inflation... Didja know that health care costs are rising FASTER than inflation?? Who pays THAT difference?? Him, I guess. Or, he goes without.

I know, I know what you're going to say... If he's spent his voucher money, but is still feeling poorly, he can drag his oxygen tank down to the nearest emergency room, and they'll take care of him just fine...

Really??

excon

Holy crap, I feel sorry for the older generation in the US.

Ex I guess that senior you speak of could be presented his case to the Independent Advisory Panel to decide his fate. We already know Obama thinks he should take the red pill instead of the blue pill and shut up and die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

We already know Obama thinks he should take the red pill instead of the blue pill and shut up and die.

---

When did he say that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

YouTube - Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill

---

I watched the video and he said absolutely nothing of what you wrote. He said nothing of red or blue pills or that people should 'shut up and die'. Geez can you lie any more, I don't think so.

He made reference to the blue and red pills on another quote. I just combined them . Get lost !

Caught you yet again. <sigh>

NK, why don't you troll some other site for real offenses instead of nitpicking around here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Tom,

You are assuming ( as did Hobbes) that we have to give up our freedoms and liberty in exchange for living under a benevolent ruler. Locke has already pointed out the error in Hobbes thinking.

I may be dependent of government for welfare, to pay my medical bills and even help me with paying the rent. Yes, we are a benevolent society ( perhaps too much so). If this were the case I don't forfeit my liberty and freedoms just because I am almost completely dependent on the state.

I still have freedom of speech, I still have due process under the law, I still have the right to protest against government legislation etc etc.

You are assuming that living under a benevolent equals loss of liberty.


Tut

---

Tut ,what about your property rights ? The benevelent ruler is being benevolent off your dime. Oh I'm sure he feels real righteous picking your pocket and deciding which of his other serfs deserve it. But where is the virtue if you are compelled to be charitable ?

For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it, between him and his fellow subjects, if he who commands those subjects, have power to take from any private man, what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good. (Locke Second Treatise, Chapter 11).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

NK, why don't you troll some other site for real offenses instead of nitpicking around here.

---

He's the perfect example of the op. The left throws that word 'lie ' around frequently .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut ,what about your property rights ? The benevelent ruler is being benevolent off your dime. Oh I'm sure he feels real righteous picking your pocket and deciding which of his other serfs deserve it. But where is the virtue if you are compelled to be charitable ?

---

Hi Tom,

I agree and I almost said as much in my last entry.

However my question still stands. How does benevolence equate to loss of freedoms and liberty?

I don't see the argument for a person being rendered a serf because they are dependent on the state. They still have their liberty and freedoms.

Perhaps I need to read the book you mentioned in an earlier post or can you outline the main argument for me?

Tut

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison

You see the answer in the responses I get. The system is in jeopardy and the only answer is ever more extraction of wealth from others. If they take the total wealth of the top 2% of the nation they could not fix the long term solvency issues of the nanny state . It promises more than it can ever get from the confiscation of private wealth. What kind of majoritarian system survives by this perscription ? History has discarded more than one majoritarian system .

Yeah ,I recommend F.A. Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom ',as well as 'Liberty and Tyranny ' by Mark Levin .