bmags

WHERE AM I

Had she said that, AND it had actually been deliberated in darkness, then it would be an unforgivable statement. But, the bill was out there for all to see. It was a response to the overwhelming coverage that was taken over by republicans that this would end humanity, and her response was that once enacted people will see the benefits.

30 million guaranteed would make me hurl.

Pelosi's response was accurate. It took a year to pass that bill. During that ENTIRE TIME the only thing discussed was false bulls*** like death panels, and accurate discussions weighing costs and risks with the insured, costs of premiums. But - the positives weren't discussed. It's assumed that a health care bill should, you know, cover more people. That it was, but wasn't covering all, was another knock. "Is it covering enough?" There was no positive coverage of what the bill was achieving. Now, now that it's actually at risk, wow suddenly isn't it so nice that there are no longer pop-up clinics in oklahoma with 500 people wrapped for half a mile trying to get free care? Wow, isn't it great that these people who happened to get cancer and are freelancers aren't bankrupt? Yes, it is great. It isn't perfect, but not perfect >>>>> people randomly being bankrupted due to chance, or dying because they are poor. ACA had a slow-ass pace as health care plans including public option had to handle a separate group of moderate Sens (Baucus) who tried for. months. to court Susan COllins and Snowe. That bill had to then be combined with the significantly more leftwing house bill. That there was no deliberation on that bill was a fallacy. It started in February, wasn't even out of the house until after November, then the senate reconciliation had to happen. During that time, Scott Brown was elected and threw it into chaos, Then they found a way to pass with "only" 59 senators. That was in late march, nearly 14 months later. Meanwhile, the house just suddenly clobbered a bill together in 2 weeks, is putting it into committee before the CBO, and plans to pass it in the senate before the next recess. But, yeah, Pelosi once said something.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 8, 2017 -> 11:48 AM) The NFL is only surpassed by the NBA in terms of bad money for bad players. No way, NFL players are so underpaid when you take into account long-term health and non-guaranteed contracts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 8, 2017 -> 09:11 AM) What makes people think this was available? Secondly, how long would you have been willing to wait out the Red Sox to try to get this? It essentially took from the trading deadline to the GM meetings to arrive at this deal. I can't tell if this board underrates how valuable a top 5 and top 20 prospect is to a team, or if its the underrating of prospects in the 50-150 range, where because of the anchoring of the top talent suddenly seem like "throw-ins"

That will be fun. I've decided my fulcrum for Glennon is 10.5 million, anything over and I will dislike to strongly dislike, anything under I think is a fairly benign risk on a FA QB.

I think the most startling thing out of this bill is the benefits to middle-aged, healthy and urban people over young, elderly, and rural. For a GOP whose base is much more rural, it is weirdly disconnected. Rural hospitals will get crushed.

Also - if Bradford was some deal completely influenced by circumstance...he's not the only QB of a playoff team that will get injured next year. I know his contract will make it a bit harder to compare, but the Pats unfortunately are never actually in a bad position.

Methinks Glennon's new agent was talking to lots of reporters.

I hope this isn't what I think it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/footbal...m=.43e6d7d6eba4 Really drives home how terrible addiction is, where someone so talented in a position so cool can still get dragged down.

GA-6 becomes a much more fascinating race now.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 7, 2017 -> 12:29 PM) They haven't exactly had great QB play though. I'd be interested in Patterson from the pure sense that we lack speed and our special teams has been mediocre. He helps fill the void in both departments and potentially has some (albeit limited) upside as a receiver. As long as the price is right, I'm open to the play. Pryor is a guy I'd be all over (if the price was right). I think there is real potential upside if we were to sign him. Bears will improve that for him I think there is something to the lack of speed in Bears WR core. It's nice to have a wr fly guy, and the end around guy. If the price is right, great. We've had crap returners for 5 years.

Actually now that I think about it, this looks exactly like a bill that would be created by someone who is only focused on taxes (and not even deficit). Paul Ryan does not care about healthcare, so you get a ridiculous billl that literally only cares about gutting the revenue, and then rewarding higher earners. Paul Ryan ladies and gentleman! He is really going to destroy himself as speaker if he forces a vote here for a DOA bill.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 7, 2017 -> 11:41 AM) Patterson is kind of Hester-lite, right? Awesome return guy but has trouble grasping an offense? Yes. Incredibly fast and dynamic in open field, incredibly dense and cannot learn a playbook.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 7, 2017 -> 11:50 AM) What's most striking is how derivative and unimaginative the whole thing is with 7-8 years to study the weaknesses of ACA. This is very true. There were conservative think tanks that for years reported on health care policy and none of their interesting ideas seem to be included except state lines and block granting. But the block granting is insane as it betrays one of the core conservative critiques of programs for the poor as it is designed to incentivize making less and staying on Medicaid.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Mar 7, 2017 -> 11:27 AM) I'm still very confident in Moncada and Kopech to perform this season Moncada only played 45 games at AA, and should get plenty of time at AAA to develop. He is not mlb ready just yet. Kopech needs reps at high A or AA and should stay there most of the season. 100+ innings pitched is a great goal for him 100%. I love Moncada/Kopech. I loved Robles too, just because the reports on his baseball acumen was so gushing and his position. But I'm trying to take to heart the "prepare for Moncada to have Buxton like route", that will be really nervewrecking to watch him go up and down. Kopech is going to face his first full year and the fatiuge that will go with it. The struggles will be pretty nervewrecking but I'm pretty confident we got two stars here.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Mar 7, 2017 -> 11:06 AM) I haven't seen much written about it so if it's only for the first year that is slightly better. But the fact still remains that you are paying a private company more money simply because you didn't previously buy their product. I don't see how that helps anyone but the insurance companies to make more money. It's goal is a stick to keep people insured even when healthy, which, the more healthy people insured the better the insurance marketplace. However, after the ACA challenges of yore, it is very legally questionable. The ACA mandate passed because it was a "tax" which government had unquestionable authority to do. This is mandating that private companies charge more for behavior. Is this going to be seen the same as a price floor? The commerce clause was narrowed so it would be interesting to see the verdict.

I would imagine Patterson is not going to get much, so I don't mind if he's just for special teams. Hard to keep a receiver as limited as him when we've been so killed by injuries there the last few years.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 7, 2017 -> 11:07 AM) What's funny now? The admiration for a trade proposal that was basically what was reported prior (I don't think Dunning was offered, I think people are just assuming he was a part of it because he came over the next day, the rumored deal was Giolito/Lopez/Robles), when just 3 short months ago this was a very polarizing offer for Sale. We are leaving the romantic period where we could have had any prospect, and every prospect will be perfect, to now the scary period where the ones we picked could falter and ones we passed on will succeed. It would be really nice if Moncada and Kopech out of the gate just destroy their levels.

This is funny now. When a deal surrounding Robles/Giolito/Lopez was being discussed immediately preceding the trade, people were very against trading for a 19 year old who had not shown much power as the prime position player.

Ha, I saw that and made me actually LOL

I'd really like Wagner, and cut massie.

I'm hoping what's happening is: Bears have called on Glennon, because they will need some QBs Reporters see bears have lots of cap Reporters infer that bears will spend a lot.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Mar 7, 2017 -> 09:21 AM) I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention. I've read a few articles about the new plan and only 1 mentioned it. So if you go for a year without insurance for whatever reason, they can literally penalize you for the rest of your life. I don't think that's right, it's just a 30% surcharge your first year. This is also a bad idea because it is a somewhat light, one-time penalty, so there is no incentive to have insurance when not sick. It will very likely destabilize the markets and cause everyones premiums to go up.