Jean-Jacques Rousseau hated the idea of modern governments, so much so that he wrote The Social Contract Theory specifically about how the submission to a government or as he calls it a Political Authority, is never in ones best interest, unless everyone personal has a say in it and you give up as little freedoms as possible. With regards to the somewhat recent law that was passed in the United States, we should consider what Jean-Jacques Rousseau would have thought about Universal Healthcare, but unfortunately I dont feel like we can give an explicit answer on what he would say about this or any other specific example, for that matter. Jean-Jacques Rousseau spent most of his time in this book telling the reader exactly why it is always in ones best interest to be in the State of Nature, and how we can never truly go back to that. This is why he says that a just government should try to be as close to the state of nature as possible. Meaning that people should have to give up as little freedoms as absolutely possible for this society. He talks about this in a very specific way, called the General Will. This concept of General Will is what I think is most important when asking if Rousseau would approve of Universal Healthcare. The General Will, as Rousseau described it, meant that every member of society got a say in the laws that were passed and that the laws were made by the people and for the all people to follow. That doesnt mean everyone agreed, but that the majority always wins in this system and everyone has to follow the ruling made by the majority. This is precisely why I think that we cannot say with any certainty what Rousseau would want other than, the majority to decide. I understand this isnt a very satisfy answer, and perhaps there is a case to be made against this boring assertion, but I think he would have wanted the people to decide if giving up a little more of their freedom in the form of taxes is something that they are willing to consent to. This is the only question that has any pertinence to want Rousseau would have wanted in regards to Universal Healthcare or any law, for that matter. I do think that Rousseau might ask the same question about all of our laws and if the majority had any say over each and every law and tax code that was passed. This is where he might start to attack the size and method of democracy that we have today and the lack of involvement of most people. I think one could argue that Rousseau would say that it is never for the betterment of the people to give up more freedoms, because this would take them even further from the ideal State of Nature, but I think this is really stretching it. The whole collection of books talks about how General Will is how a just society should be governed, not by force or any other method, so to say the anything that impedes individual freedom is un-just, is just not a good defense in comparison. So overall I think Rousseaus answer on the debate about Universal Healthcare, would be to go off of a true majority decision and say that that whatever answer had 51% would be the way that country should be governed for the time that the majority agrees with it. Those two extra condition, about that single country and a continuous majority, are ones that I think are also very important to Rousseau. According to Rousseau there is no overall rules to govern all people, they vary from society to society. This is somewhat profound and Im sure when we read Kant this can be brought back up. The continuing majority is also a very important point about how laws cease to be just if a majority doesnt agree with them. This last condition comes from the fact that he said that States have no right to exist, so if the laws arent to a majoritys liking then they always have the right to revolt.