Looks like Humana is next to go

[dblack]

So the cashier in your supermarket is a slave? The bus driver who takes you across town is a slave? The waiter who serves your meal is a slave? Anyone in any job who interacts with other people is a slave? Wow.

Not unless I claim their services as my "right".

Arianrhod, I hope you'll give this some thought. When say something is your right, that means it can't be refused to you. Claiming a service as a right means someone must serve you, potentially against their will.

Well, there's that annoying business of "life and liberty." (I won't trouble you with "pursuit of happiness.")

I don't know your position on contraception and abortion, but I do know it's always fun to challenge the Save the Fetuses!!! (but they're not my problem once they're born) crowd to show how life and liberty can be preserved in the absence of food, clothing, and shelter.

You can't see how forcing someone else to serve you violates their life and liberty?

Who's the "you" in that question?

They first is you - Arianrhod - the second is the hypothetical person claiming a service as a "right".

Does a newborn have the right to life and liberty? What about someone with disabilities so profound they're unable to support themselves? Do you (dblack) presume to create categories of who should live and who should die? For one thing, you'd be very busy. For another, you're providing an excellent explanation for why RWs believe in "death panels."

I suspect the issue here is the misappropriation of the phrase "right to life". It doesn't mean other people are obligate to keep you alive. It means they must refrain from killing you.

 

[Arianrhod]

I suspect the issue here is the misappropriation of the phrase "right to life". It doesn't mean other people are obligate to keep you alive. It means they must refrain from killing you.

That's probably the most honest assessment of the "pro-life" side ever. "We DEMAND that these fetuses be brought to term and born. After that, fuck 'em."

 

[dblack]

I suspect the issue here is the misappropriation of the phrase "right to life". It doesn't mean other people are obligate to keep you alive. It means they must refrain from killing you.

That's probably the most honest assessment of the "pro-life" side ever. "We DEMAND that these fetuses be brought to term and born. After that, fuck 'em."

Well, I wasn't really referring to the abortion debate.

It sounds like that you interpret "right to life" as an obligation on government - and implicitly on society - to keep you alive.

 

[Arianrhod]

I suspect the issue here is the misappropriation of the phrase "right to life". It doesn't mean other people are obligate to keep you alive. It means they must refrain from killing you.

That's probably the most honest assessment of the "pro-life" side ever. "We DEMAND that these fetuses be brought to term and born. After that, fuck 'em."

Well, I wasn't really referring to the abortion debate.

It sounds like that you interpret "right to life" as an obligation on government - and implicitly on society - to keep you alive.

Either "life and liberty" apply to all Americans or you have to explain why you think it only applies to some Americans. And it seems to me that starting at the beginning - i.e., with a newborn - helps to clarify what you believe.

 

[dblack]

I suspect the issue here is the misappropriation of the phrase "right to life". It doesn't mean other people are obligate to keep you alive. It means they must refrain from killing you.

That's probably the most honest assessment of the "pro-life" side ever. "We DEMAND that these fetuses be brought to term and born. After that, fuck 'em."

Well, I wasn't really referring to the abortion debate.

It sounds like that you interpret "right to life" as an obligation on government - and implicitly on society - to keep you alive.

Either "life and liberty" apply to all Americans or you have to explain why you think it only applies to some Americans. And it seems to me that starting at the beginning - i.e., with a newborn - helps to clarify what you believe.

Of course they apply to everyone. The question is what they mean. Do you think government has an obligation to keep a person alive, to make sure they have what they need to live?

 

[Arianrhod]

I suspect the issue here is the misappropriation of the phrase "right to life". It doesn't mean other people are obligate to keep you alive. It means they must refrain from killing you.

That's probably the most honest assessment of the "pro-life" side ever. "We DEMAND that these fetuses be brought to term and born. After that, fuck 'em."

Well, I wasn't really referring to the abortion debate.

It sounds like that you interpret "right to life" as an obligation on government - and implicitly on society - to keep you alive.

Either "life and liberty" apply to all Americans or you have to explain why you think it only applies to some Americans. And it seems to me that starting at the beginning - i.e., with a newborn - helps to clarify what you believe.

Of course they apply to everyone. The question is what they mean. Do you think government has an obligation to keep a person alive, to make sure they have what they need to live?

As well ask whether a government has a right to invade other sovereign nations. That puts a much bigger drain on your wallet.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Having retired from my career of 50 years in the health insurance business, I can state that when Humana leaves ANY market, it is because they are not able to maximize their profit from their normal predatory practices. Humana is like the Walmart of Health insurance. They have been swallowing up smaller insurers for decades. They bought four companies that I worked for, and put them all out of business. They are not interested in putting their resources into anything that does not contribute to their overall business plan of total market domination. Now, however, they are playing with the big boys, Aetna and United, and they are doubling down on growth of market share. Marginal enterprises are not in the business plan.

 

[dblack]

I suspect the issue here is the misappropriation of the phrase "right to life". It doesn't mean other people are obligate to keep you alive. It means they must refrain from killing you.

That's probably the most honest assessment of the "pro-life" side ever. "We DEMAND that these fetuses be brought to term and born. After that, fuck 'em."

Well, I wasn't really referring to the abortion debate.

It sounds like that you interpret "right to life" as an obligation on government - and implicitly on society - to keep you alive.

Either "life and liberty" apply to all Americans or you have to explain why you think it only applies to some Americans. And it seems to me that starting at the beginning - i.e., with a newborn - helps to clarify what you believe.

Of course they apply to everyone. The question is what they mean. Do you think government has an obligation to keep a person alive, to make sure they have what they need to live?

As well ask whether a government has a right to invade other sovereign nations. That puts a much bigger drain on your wallet.

???

 

[Arianrhod]

That's probably the most honest assessment of the "pro-life" side ever. "We DEMAND that these fetuses be brought to term and born. After that, fuck 'em."

Well, I wasn't really referring to the abortion debate.

It sounds like that you interpret "right to life" as an obligation on government - and implicitly on society - to keep you alive.

Either "life and liberty" apply to all Americans or you have to explain why you think it only applies to some Americans. And it seems to me that starting at the beginning - i.e., with a newborn - helps to clarify what you believe.

Of course they apply to everyone. The question is what they mean. Do you think government has an obligation to keep a person alive, to make sure they have what they need to live?

As well ask whether a government has a right to invade other sovereign nations. That puts a much bigger drain on your wallet.

???

Iraq: $1.7 trillion.

How does that compare with providing pre- and post-natal care in America? More importantly, what do you get out of either?

 

[dblack]

Well, I wasn't really referring to the abortion debate.

It sounds like that you interpret "right to life" as an obligation on government - and implicitly on society - to keep you alive.

Either "life and liberty" apply to all Americans or you have to explain why you think it only applies to some Americans. And it seems to me that starting at the beginning - i.e., with a newborn - helps to clarify what you believe.

Of course they apply to everyone. The question is what they mean. Do you think government has an obligation to keep a person alive, to make sure they have what they need to live?

As well ask whether a government has a right to invade other sovereign nations. That puts a much bigger drain on your wallet.

???

Iraq: $1.7 trillion.

How does that compare with providing pre- and post-natal care in America? More importantly, what do you get out of either?

Listen, you're getting weird and evasive again. I'm curious about your position that health care is a right. I'm asking about it specifically because most people who say "health care is a right" don't really mean it. What they really mean is that health care is an important service that government should provide. But they wouldn't say that a person's rights are violated whenever they can't get health care. I'm just wondering which side of that you fall on.

 

[Arianrhod]

Either "life and liberty" apply to all Americans or you have to explain why you think it only applies to some Americans. And it seems to me that starting at the beginning - i.e., with a newborn - helps to clarify what you believe.

Of course they apply to everyone. The question is what they mean. Do you think government has an obligation to keep a person alive, to make sure they have what they need to live?

As well ask whether a government has a right to invade other sovereign nations. That puts a much bigger drain on your wallet.

???

Iraq: $1.7 trillion.

How does that compare with providing pre- and post-natal care in America? More importantly, what do you get out of either?

Listen, you're getting weird and evasive again. I'm curious about your position that health care is a right. I'm asking about it specifically because most people who say "health care is a right" don't really mean it. What they really mean is that health care is an important service that government should provide. But they wouldn't say that a person's rights are violated whenever they can't get health care. I'm just wondering which side of that you fall on.

I believe life and liberty are rights. If you can explain to me how you can have either without food, clothing, and shelter, please do so now.

I'm not the one being evasive.

 

[Pete7469]

This is what happens when political parties don't cooperate. A pox, once again, on both parties.

Obozocare was designed to fail. The point was to usher in single payer. It would be no better if republicrats helped. It is because they "cooperated" in the first place that doctors have to keep a regulation compliance lawyer on the payroll.

When democrooks and republicrats "get into bed" the people get fucked. It isn't an issue of compromise. It's a matter of right vs. wrong.

Liberals are wrong.

Period.

Regardless of party, liberalism will never lead to the promised result, but will create consequences the same political whores will insist only more government can solve, until it snowballs into the sort of goat fuck we see with obozocare. The solution is to stop "compromising". Roll back regressive policies, return the power back to the states, keep the borders secure and leave people the fucked alone.

 

[Ravi]

Not unless I claim their services as my "right".

Arianrhod, I hope you'll give this some thought. When say something is your right, that means it can't be refused to you. Claiming a service as a right means someone must serve you, potentially against their will.

Well, there's that annoying business of "life and liberty." (I won't trouble you with "pursuit of happiness.")

I don't know your position on contraception and abortion, but I do know it's always fun to challenge the Save the Fetuses!!! (but they're not my problem once they're born) crowd to show how life and liberty can be preserved in the absence of food, clothing, and shelter.

You can't see how forcing someone else to serve you violates their life and liberty?

Who's the "you" in that question?

They first is you - Arianrhod - the second is the hypothetical person claiming a service as a "right".

Does a newborn have the right to life and liberty? What about someone with disabilities so profound they're unable to support themselves? Do you (dblack) presume to create categories of who should live and who should die? For one thing, you'd be very busy. For another, you're providing an excellent explanation for why RWs believe in "death panels."

I suspect the issue here is the misappropriation of the phrase "right to life". It doesn't mean other people are obligate to keep you alive. It means they must refrain from killing you.

If you don't feed a baby you aren't killing it if it starves to death?

 

[dblack]

Of course they apply to everyone. The question is what they mean. Do you think government has an obligation to keep a person alive, to make sure they have what they need to live?

As well ask whether a government has a right to invade other sovereign nations. That puts a much bigger drain on your wallet.

???

Iraq: $1.7 trillion.

How does that compare with providing pre- and post-natal care in America? More importantly, what do you get out of either?

Listen, you're getting weird and evasive again. I'm curious about your position that health care is a right. I'm asking about it specifically because most people who say "health care is a right" don't really mean it. What they really mean is that health care is an important service that government should provide. But they wouldn't say that a person's rights are violated whenever they can't get health care. I'm just wondering which side of that you fall on.

I believe life and liberty are rights. If you can explain to me how you can have either without food, clothing, and shelter, please do so now.

Well, you need to understand what rights are first. They're not things you "can have". They're just freedoms. All anyone has to do to respect your rights is leave you alone.

I'm not the one being evasive.

Well, you weren't answering my question (though you did just now, so thanks), and you were trying to divert the discussion to abortion or military policy.

 

[Arianrhod]

Well, you need to understand what rights are first. They're not things you "can have". They're just freedoms. All anyone has to do to respect your rights is leave you alone.

That's a child's rationale. "You're not the boss of me! Leave me alone!"

Not too much of the reality outside your screen fits under that hypothesis. How, for instance, would a newborn or someone severely disabled benefit from "being left alone"?

 

[Greenbeard]

First of all, this would not have been "giant structural change". All of the pieces and systems are in place, they're working, and the task would have been scaling them up. Re-assignment of policies. New provider contracts. Probably a couple of years. It would be in place and humming by now.

Of course it's a giant structural change. Your selling point for it is that it would "Replace our current 7-system fucking joke of a 'system.'" Indeed it would! Upending the entire system that exists is not a small thing.

The majority of privately insured people aren't even insured by insurance companies, their employer directly finances the costs of their medical claims. If you want to move everyone in the country into a system where the federal government pays insurers to cover them, that's going to be a big change. Not just for families and employers, but also for health care providers since Medicare Advantage plans tend to pay them roughly the same thing Medicare does.

Simpler, yes. Potentially less expensive, yes. Those are always the arguments for Medicare-for-all. But it's no small thing and that's part of why it hasn't happened.

Second, I don't care if they didn't have the votes at the time. There was not a clock ticking or a deadline. The GOP was going to be no help, but the Dems could have scaled this up and presented it.

Please. Even an optional Medicare buy-in aimed at people 55-64 couldn't get through (Flashback to 2009: Sources: Medicare buy-in likely to be dropped from health care bill). Yet mandatory enrollment of everyone would've gotten through?

Single-payer has failed to get through Congresses with significantly larger Democratic majorities than the 111th.

 

[dblack]

Well, you need to understand what rights are first. They're not things you "can have". They're just freedoms. All anyone has to do to respect your rights is leave you alone.

That's a child's rationale. "You're not the boss of me! Leave me alone!"

Who are you arguing with? I didn't say anything like that.

Not too much of the reality outside your screen fits under that hypothesis. How, for instance, would a newborn or someone severely disabled benefit from "being left alone"?

What are you even taking about? Do you know?

Rights have nothing to do with helping people in need. The things you're describing are moral and social obligations, which are actually more important than rights. But they're not the same thing.

 

[Arianrhod]

Rights have nothing to do with helping people in need. The things you're describing are moral and social obligations, which are actually more important than rights. But they're not the same thing.

So rights exist in a vacuum and, as such, they're a fun intellectual exercise, but not much else. Get back to me when you can figure out how anyone who lacks food, clothing, and shelter can, in real terms, have rights.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Of course they apply to everyone. The question is what they mean. Do you think government has an obligation to keep a person alive, to make sure they have what they need to live?

As well ask whether a government has a right to invade other sovereign nations. That puts a much bigger drain on your wallet.

???

Iraq: $1.7 trillion.

How does that compare with providing pre- and post-natal care in America? More importantly, what do you get out of either?

Listen, you're getting weird and evasive again. I'm curious about your position that health care is a right. I'm asking about it specifically because most people who say "health care is a right" don't really mean it. What they really mean is that health care is an important service that government should provide. But they wouldn't say that a person's rights are violated whenever they can't get health care. I'm just wondering which side of that you fall on.

I believe life and liberty are rights. If you can explain to me how you can have either without food, clothing, and shelter, please do so now.

I'm not the one being evasive.

That's simply stupid.

Liberty is the right to provide for yourself unfettered by government or anyone else.

Food, in no way provides, liberty.

A lack of food does not remove your freedom.

The same with others.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Rights have nothing to do with helping people in need. The things you're describing are moral and social obligations, which are actually more important than rights. But they're not the same thing.

So rights exist in a vacuum and, as such, they're a fun intellectual exercise, but not much else. Get back to me when you can figure out how anyone who lacks food, clothing, and shelter can, in real terms, have rights.

They've always had them.

You could lack those three things because of a natural disaster and your liberties have not been removed.

Stop being foolish.