bmags

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:52 PM) Any 22-35 year old (young working adult) that is not obese is probably enjoying an active lifestyle: playing basketball, softball, tennis, s*** maybe baseball and pick up hockey) and guess what, in that span that young working adult is probably going to break something or tear ligaments. And with costs the way they will be, those injuries/surgeries would be enough to put a person on the streets homeless. Fix healthcare, America! We shouldn't all be homeless someday because we are tossed on the street after a broken leg or illness. What's it going to cost to have a baby if there are any complications at all??? Greg I totally agree with this first paragraph. Wasn't so long ago that when friends got door'd on their bikes or broke their arm in football we'd be sitting there calling nursing major friends trying to figure out how we'd fix it without taking them to ER where they'd get a 10k bill.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 25, 2017 -> 08:49 AM) The Dems that stand in the way of single payer are going to get run over...the lesson Of Obama's first election and Sanders is to get thousands of small donations instead of owing allegiance to Big Pharma and the insurance industry. The takeaway I have is that the worst thing Bernie sanders did was make his followers believe that the DNC and DCCC are powerful institutions. The same people donating to DNC/DCCC were donating privately to Quist through DailyKos or SwingLeft. The continued b.s. that they are the only ones doing anything just poisons the well. Parallel there between bernie sanders groups and the millionaire who believes they earned everything through sheer force and never had a helping hand.

I am really angered over this Gianforte assault. The assault is crazy, the audio when I listened last night was worse than I imagined. But the response, where they lied and basically justified that he was a liberal journalist is just too much the playbook right now. ANd right away Ingraham goes on to justify it. And right away the MRC head justifies it. The National Review team and many republican ops came out against it. But the unchallenged platform *from republican politicians* that people like Bozell and Ingraham get after crap like this is ridiculous.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 24, 2017 -> 04:29 PM) There's so much outrage today about this new health care plan. Look, it hasn't passed yet. If it's not reviewed closely and rejected by the House then that is as bad as Trump proposing it. Just reject it if it's so bad. Why would it pass into law? It was passed by the house.

Clearly the worst thing you can do is give Jose Quintana run support.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ May 24, 2017 -> 04:12 PM) Not a great start for Q but on the bright side following on Game Day it seems like only a couple of these balls have been hit hard. I'm also not that concerned about ERA, peripherals are much more important IMO. 3 doubles and a home run were hit softly?

QUOTE (yesterday333 @ May 24, 2017 -> 04:08 PM) if its not overwhelming its not worth it... I remember this tough talk too, when unless we were getting Benintendi and Moncada, you weren't getting Sale. Something negative worth saying on Q, his best games have come against some truly terrible offenses.

Wellp.

Among other bizarre things this doesn't do just based on previous GOP history, it did not fix the Medicaid cliff, where making enough to leave medicaid is extremely disincentivized compared to ACA

The CBO also makes clear that it is paying for the tax cuts that fund non-coverage provisions with 880 million dollars worth of cuts to medicaid.

SO basically argument in waiver states: You can be charged based on health status if you do not have continuous coverage (when you lost and reapplied, health is a factor). Creates incentive for healthy to drop and reapply for coverage to pay lower premiums. Healthier people paying less puts pressure to raise premiums on those with CONTINUOUS in the community rating groups, pricing out those with pre existing conditions. Those people cannot shop around, as soon as they drop they'd be at the whims of being charged for their medical status. Pretty brutal.

Holy crap I didn't think about that. My wife had BCBS through Tennessee because her company was in Nashville.

Bill is great if you can guarantee you will be healthy and can guarantee you can live in a state that won't waive benefits.

Man I always miss good Q.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 24, 2017 -> 03:02 PM) How can the Bulls get Deaaron Fox. I would like him on our team. On an unrelated note, what are the odds that Bosh is a Bull? Ha, I'm on same page. I think he would be perfect. Would take sacramentos 5th at least, and I dont' see how we get that. Assets: Lopez Portis Zipser Valentine Grant Mirotic ...yuck. Maybe Lopez could get you a 15-30 first round pick if you are lucky, and then you trade 2 firsts this year and a first next, along with Grant. Really hard.

What is Leury now, 3rd in homers on the team? What a crazy year. Reminds me of that crazy AJ power surge in 2012.

I thought I was getting "in case you missed it" tweets on Quintana. Took me a while to realize we were playing.

I'm kinda surprised Leitao is overseeing this major push, just since he's not really "new" and wouldn't have any fresh new angle to sell. Wonder if school really opened up some purse strings to coordinate with the new stadium. Did they pay the La Lumiere guy a lot for an assistant?

I mean, I don't know. On the soxtalk end, I think we got drunk on thinking top prospects were always available because of Sale/Eaton. I think Q will get a haul of prospects. But I think it's more likely we see a Cole Hamels type return than a Sale/Eaton with two top 20 prospects.

Honest opinion is sox are going to get way less than we expected on Q.

Classic.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 24, 2017 -> 01:01 PM) Jesus, DePaul could have a good team for the first time since I was in elementary school. That is crazy. They weren't that bad in thru 90s/early 2000s. Still made tourneys and had interesting pro prospects.

Increasingly likely if not certain Jontay Porter will be a part of the 2017 class. He is a 4 who can pass and shot 40% from 3 in AAU. Started to really rebound this year. 1: Terrence Phillips/Blake Harris/Jordan Geist (used to be a starter) 2: Robertson/CJ Roberts/Cullen Van Leer (played 30 mpg sometimes last year) 3: MPJ/Jordan Barnett/Van Leer 4: JPorter/Kevin Puryear/MPJ/Barnett 5: Tilmon/JPorter/Puryear/Nikko/Smith Crazy.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ May 24, 2017 -> 10:21 AM) That makes sense. I read the original post as catastrophe policies were purchased on the private market. If it was catastrophic Medicare for all with a dental like model for ordinary care, that's a much more interesting idea to me. Yeah, I think one thing is the California bill goes too far imo, it would be incredibly expensive and have an unclear disruption to many people employed by health care. I thought public option would be the only thing politically possible after 2010 but it seems like there is more support even from insurance industry for a form of single payer. I think it needs to be vetted.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ May 24, 2017 -> 09:53 AM) Doesn't that model ultimately restrict access to healthcare for people? My understanding of the concept of concierge medicine is that you pay an annual fee to your doctor in exchange for certain services. It's basically like paying a retainer to a lawyer. And as you use the services, the doctor eats away at the retainer. That model, it seems to me, would lead to fewer people having access to healthcare, because fewer people would be able to afford to put their doctor on retainer. Health insurance would exist literally for catastrophes. How, under this model, does someone living paycheck to paycheck access a doctor when they get strep throat, or for an annual physical? Well, you can look at Canada for a model of more limited service but with a 30% private insurance industry still there. I would be supportive of this. It, after all, would not be so different than dental, except people would have the government insurance to fall back on for surgery. Americans consume more healthcare than other nations for often elective things. Concierge could let them pay for more services, but ultimately for most getting insurance for 3-4 scheduled checkups per year plus the governmental insurance. Is that *worse* than what we have now? I'm not so sure. 1 it would encourage some decrease in the use of excess healthcare. We've seen such sluggish growth and some of it has to be due to going to such a service heavy industry like healthcare which has shown very little ability to scale in a way that decreases pricing. (i.e. we are a 2017 hospital, we all have machinery for MRIs and CT scans paid for many times over, we should see competition that decreases the price we ask for these machines, except actually we will charge same amount or increasing amount to hide the costs that we incur from our inefficient health care system) I would be open to it. I think there are better options, but universal, full stop, coverage so that nobody gets bankrupted from pregnancy or disease would be a big step. Would like to see mental health also covered.