Um, you did. When you said “You can’t just say ‘fuck them’ because you don’t like some of their practices.”

Try to get a sense of humor, D62.
I come for the politics. I stay for the snark.

I love how you qualify that.–Duros62

Try to get a sense of humor, D62. Good lord, do you come here to get MORE depressed?

Yes I can. It’s my opinion. Who says I can’t have that opinion?–D62

No one. So then what’s wrong with me saying your opinion’s fucked up?

Sorry about your friends’ job.Give him a TFJ from me next time you see him. –D62

Thanks, Duros. I will next time I see him. The last couple of years of the Bush term almost pushed him off the deep end.

By the same standard, you can’t just say ‘praise them’ because they have some good people employed.

The health insurance industry needs major overhaul and if that comes at the cost of some decent people losing their jobs I, for one, could live with that. Because I think more people would benefit from significant changes in the system than will be harmed.

I love how you qualify that.

You can’t just say ‘fuck them’ because you don’t like some of their practices.

Yes I can. It’s my opinion. Who says I can’t have that opinion?
It is my opinion that health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are in collusion to defraud the public in the biggest racketeering operation in human history.
Am I wrong? Maybe. But it’s my firmly held opinion.

Sorry about your friends’ job.Give him a TFJ from me next time you see him.

Much like “provide for the common defense” can be stretched to cover and justify just about anything the gov’t decides to give away or pay for — only to large multi-national defense contractors?

It comes down to national priorities which are set, ultimately, by the people and, as citizens, the people we elect to represent us.

Jay Tea was trying to make the argument that a certain set of national priorities which a certain set of citizens care about — such as health care — are not even a valid function of government from the start. He based this on the language used in the preamble to the Constitution and the distinction between “provide” and “promote”. This is, of course, such a hackneyed right wing talking point I wouldn’t be surprised if Jay Tea had a macro set up for it.

What it fails to take into consideration is that in the section of Constitution that deals specifically with the powers of Congress, “promote” doesn’t even enter into it. See the quote above. If “provide” is the operative word here, the Constitution most definitely empowers Congress to provide for the general welfare in the same way it is empowered to provide for the common defense.

Now I’m no Constitutional scholar and if someone wants to make the argument that the general language of the preamble should be given more weight than later clauses in the Constitution that deal with the specific powers of the specific branches, fine. Go for it. Love to see it.

But as far as I understand it, Congress has the authority to PROVIDE for the general welfare. Arguing about how and how much it should provide for what, is what democracy is all about. To suggest, however, as Jay Tea tried to do, that such a discussion is de facto unconstitutional or extra-constitutional is, again as I understand it, either flat out wrong or something far more complicated than Jay Tea’s facile quoting of the preamble allows.

To put it simply, if you have a problem with national health care, fine. Make the argument. But these kinds of arguments are ultimately settled by elections and the legislative process.

You can bitch all you want about it, but quite frankly, our side is winning the argument with the American people.

Just that you can dislike the profession, and believe me, I have my issues too, but to say ‘Fuck them’ ignores the plight of a lot of people in them that have nothing to do with the crappy things those insurance companies do and get away with.

Just this afternoon as I’ve been on this thread one of my best friends in my business sent me a Bloomberg message letting me know of his dismissal from a large insurance company. Great guy, smart guy, degrees, CFA, everything- doesn’t matter. Managed a particular type of investment class and had performed very well through the crisis that happened because he had foreseen many of the problems that we’ve endured. The company has taken huge hits to its inv. portfolio and his job was eliminated. Huge Obama supporter, huge Bush hater. Despite that, he is a great guy. And he knows now and knew even long before this that his company was nowhere near perfect; it’s just business.

Things suck out there. But that’s the point I was making to Duros. You can’t just say ‘fuck them’ because you don’t like some of their practices.

I honestly figured you had another ten of those in your hip pocket.

Wow. I wouldn’t even try that. At least not without a cup.

OK, but then you lost me on what point you were trying to make with responding to criticism of the insurance industry with “I’m sure there’s nothing wrong with anything about what your profession is.”

Sean, no, but that’s not the point I was making.

But since you ask, isn’t that the whole chickenhawk argument at least some of the posters here love to make?

As to the photo industry, I don’t have anything negative to say about it. I hope good things develop soon, and hopefully we can see a clearer picture for its prospects, or at least they come more into focus.

The broadcast spectrum belongs to the public, not the government. By switching over to all-digital, the government is reallocating the spectrum and auctioning parts of it off to corporations that will pay billions.

In the process, my TV becomes a doorstop. Why shouldn’t the government give me a tiny portion of the auction proceeds to upgrade my set?

No, I’m just trying to point out how “provide for the general welfare” can be stretched to cover and justify just about anything the gov’t decides to give away or pay for.

I agree with you, providing the digital converters was a bad idea the gov’t shouldn’t have to pay for

I think it is. According to estimates, only 13-15% of TV viewers actually depend on over-the-air TV. What percentage of those 13-15% truly can’t afford to spend the $40-50 required for a converter box? I wasn’t aware of any means or income testing for people submitting requests for coupons.

I feel for those people, not Blue Cross.

Is that the standard to go by? Unless an industry is as pure as the driven snow, nobody who works for it can cast stone?

Bah.

Of course there are issues that can be taken with any industry. Bravo for making an obvious point that nobody was disputing.

But do you really want to stack up the examples that can be given about the health insurance industry against those of, for example, photo processing? There aren’t many other industries where the bottom line is directly improved by letting people suffer.

You’re trying to sidestep the issue with a straw man. “If we provide medical care where will it end? Why, we’ll have to provide free TV and make sure everyone gets their own copy of the He’s Just Not into You DVD.”

I agree with you, providing the digital converters was a bad idea the gov’t shouldn’t have to pay for. But just what’s it got to do with providing health Care?

Of course you do. That example indicts everybody that works for an insurance company and everyone who depends on them. Fuck them, they should know what kind of a racket they are working for and go stand in line to put their application in somewhere else.

What industry do you work in Duros? I’m sure there’s nothing wrong with anything about what your profession is.