ptatc

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jun 28, 2017 -> 12:09 PM) I'm too lazy to look but is this the dreaded "jones fracture" that Durant, Embiid and Caris Lavert all had? It was previously reported as a stress fracture. A Jones fracture is a true fracture in the 5th metatarsal on the outside if the foot.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 28, 2017 -> 12:20 PM) Been saying that all year, rather he show he can project to be a big league hitter and core piece going forward. If the worst case scenario was that he was a slugging DH, that's better than what we are seeing at this moment. I don't know. A catcher who has an OPS over 800 is valuable no matter how he gets the 800.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 27, 2017 -> 07:17 PM) Why don't you and BMags, the sages that you are, propose something that is more reasonable, so the rest of us can be enlightened. I don't think the Sox will back down from a high price and he won't be traded.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Jun 27, 2017 -> 06:16 PM) I believe Ivan Calderon had one, tried to play through it, eventually had the surgery and came back strong the next year. Whatever happens, I wish the best for Saladino: the guy is a ball player.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jun 27, 2017 -> 05:13 PM) They can with surgery. One guy who came back from it is that real good shortstop who played for Braves and Dodgers ( can't place his name). Todd Helton came back and played a few more years. Both had their back problems in 2009. Surgery is the last option. It's much better to try conservative interventions first. Once the anatomy is altered with surgery it's a flip of the coin. Look at Crede for one on the downside.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 26, 2017 -> 07:00 PM) Just know this...you will soon be at an age where your friends are all getting married and knocking up their wives and raising families...you will hardly ever see them anymore anyways...and you'll end up talking to strangers on sports forums more than your own childhood friends....oh wait...that's me. I resemble this.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 26, 2017 -> 06:28 PM) https://mobile.twitter.com/scottmerkin/stat...459285956210688 What about Sheets? Nevermind. I see it the posts. i just didn't see it in the list at the top.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 11:57 AM) Most of his defensive problems are just a lack of fundamental preparation, especially to his left where he rounds way too many balls off instead of putting the bill of his cap over his bellybutton and the ball. That's very correctable with time and experience. Agreed. that's why the progression isn't linear and he just needs the time to continue to work on it. In relative baseball years, he is still a very inexperienced player.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 25, 2017 -> 10:18 PM) That's not what I was referring to. To suggest that the ACA was "ramrodded" through congress is a complete and utter falsehood. One articles view as to why it was kept from congress for so long and then ramrodded through legislation: The reasons for all this were mostly political, this was supposed to be Obama's signature reform and his legacy. The Democrats weren't interested in negotiating with republicans because the had won big in the 2008 elections and this was also partly their victory legislation. The bill was also getting more and more unpopular as the "debate" went on and got uglier and it started becoming apparent that anyone who voted for the bill that wasn't in a totally safe district would face major challenges in reelection bids, especially for republicans, for supporting the bill, so passing fast there was hope that the public's short memory would forget the worst transgressions. The bill was also passed quickly because it has huge welfare spending in it in the form of medicaid expansions and premium subsidies, which once implemented would be nearly impossible to repeal. The spending in the bill was huge and it needed years of extra taxes being collected to build up a cash reserve in order for the bill to be rated as budget neutral. Now you may not think it was and others may not have but others thought so and still think so. Again when you only look at things from a single point of view, it really colors what you see. This is getting to be like Illinois politics so I'm going to bow out of this "discussion."

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 25, 2017 -> 08:29 PM) it's so weird how ptac is usually a good poster, but this stuff with the ACA is complete, fabricated lies. Not it's not. There is not a single thing that are lies. Every single one of them is from personal experience. I know they aren't lies because they are what I've seen in the clinic. Now as someone else just posted maybe the majority are currently stable but based on what we've seen I don't think you or anyone else could say that they wouldn't go the same way. You again are showing your complete and utter bias with painting everything with a broad brush. I said insurance companies were dropping ACA and some were closing. Those are not lies they are facts. Maybe the majority are doing well but what I said is still true.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 25, 2017 -> 05:31 PM) I mean, the Republicans drafted this bill in secrecy with Lobbyists, not democrats, and they are about to ram it through by any means possible. Hard to point fingers about agreements when that is happening I agree. I said it doesn't work when either side doesn't compromise.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2017 -> 03:24 PM) That is just the most intellectually lazy "both sides" nonsense. Republicans don't care about helping people with health care. Full stop. It has never been and never will be a policy priority for them. This bill isn't intended to help fix anything regarding healthcare. Saying "this probably won't work very well" 1) blithely ignores the tens of thousands of Americans it will kill a year and 2) assumes it's actually supposed to "work" as anything but cutting healthcare to fund tax cuts. Liberals are not guilty of conservatives wanting to deprive millions of healthcare for ideological reasons. Conservatives get to own their own policies 100%. This is the party of cheering on "let them die" aft their own debates. They don't give one s*** about poor people not having health care. Their is nothing to compromise with on that ideology because it's essential become a death cult that worships wealth. You're also ignoring that the ACA itself is a massive compromise and about the only realistic and most conservative way you can approach covering the millions of Americans it has added and maintaining a private market based system. The "extreme left" would, at a minimum, have had a public option. I disagree on both accounts. The ACA was not a compromise it was ramrodded through Congress just as this was is. Neither was a good compromise so I don't see either really working in the long run.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 25, 2017 -> 03:10 PM) To say that it wasn't working well is pushing it, when 75-80% were better off and maybe 20-25% were worse off. Trump admin actively tried to kill it, pulled publicity about sign ups this year...look at insurance industry quotes, invariablybthe uncertainty caused by threatening to not make required payments has "forced" them to withdraw from markets. They know they can use that leverage to improve their position (collectively）with this new repeal bill. Paying both sides against each other, but premiums and markets were actually stabilizing until just the last year or so. Growing costs slower than before, but still high than inflation. It was continually declining though. More and more insurance companies were dropping out and some even folded due to the funding issues. This was all prior to Trump being elected so you can't blame everything on him.

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jun 25, 2017 -> 01:34 PM) No, it's not part of it. Again they didn't trade Panarin for Reaves. Saad is talented as hell. He just happens to be a bigger guy Not sure Vegas would do it but getting Marc Methot wouldn't be a bad thing. He gave Crosby fits in the ECF And plays in front of the net.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2017 -> 12:12 PM) Republicans are trying to kill tens of thousands of Americans a year with this bill so they can give tax cuts to the rich. Spare me pearl clutching about civility. That's their political preference. That's what they're working hard to pass. They are not actually trying to solve any health care issues, just cut cut cut. They need to own the dead Americans they are striving for. It's not about civility. It's about coming up with agreements (not just on healthcare) that works for everyone. No policy set to one extreme liberal or conservative will be the best for everyone. Extremes on either side are rarely good. Of course this one is about cut, cut ,cut. The last one was far too expensive and really didn't work very well. So because there was no way any of the politicians were going to compromise it had to swing way to the other extreme. this probably isn't going to work very well either. but again when people aren't willing to work together, this is what you are going to get. And I mean the willingness to work together on both sides. conservative are as guilty on this as liberals. It just atmosphere of politics today.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 25, 2017 -> 12:45 PM) Seriously? You're talking about tone while Republicans are literally killing people for personal profit. Ok. SMH at those in the healthcare industry (yes, including you) Yes I am. anyone who paints every other person with a broad brush just because they once voted for a Republican is the reason that no one can seem to reach a compromise and get anything substantial done in politics. People in the healthcare field will realize this more than most. I have patients who had a poor standard of living because under ACA they had to stop PT because their insurance stopped all care because they were at a maintenance level and weren't progressing even though they needed help. They may be alive but their standard of living was awful. I'm not saying this version is great either but if the politicians could get off their high horses (as you are currently) maybe they could compromise and come up with a good plan. As long as their is this current attitude there will only be one extreme or the other and that never works well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2017 -> 10:54 PM) If you have voted for a single Republican at the state or national level in the past 10 years, you have openly endorsed families being ruined for someone getting cancer. Or whatever. A single Republican vote was an endorsement of this. They made this 100% clear. Preexisting conditons, lifetime caps, ending Medicaid - they have said this over, and over, and over again. Remember that. This is the reason that nothing can get done in the government. Its if you are on the other side you are the worst thing possible and the cause of all the problems. There can be no compromise and no deals because the other side is so wrong that we can even meet. Look at how messed up Illinos is from this attitude. There is too much polarization in politics today. Too much animosity.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 24, 2017 -> 10:41 PM) Sure. It's a utopian view that is almost impossible. Making those companies who are having record profits go back to being a non profit service to the people is a huge obstacle. I just believe the for profit model for things like this seem to work out for the very fortunate only. And a large part of me feels it's wrong. I'm a social liberal and a fairly conservative person financially. But I do not think systematically keeping care from the poor is right. There has to be a better way than what we are doing. I've seen cancer treatments ruin families. That's something that should never happen. If you child gets sick and you are on the hook for millions, that's a pretty clear sign we aren't Doing this correctly. Imo. This is your only option and I would agree with it. It would be unfair to the companies or owners to just take it over. The government or someone would need to compensate them for it. the insurance companies are having difficulties like all other companies world wide. My wife's company just laid off 20% of their North american and European work force. Being in the medical field I appreciate the debt a person or family would go through in your scenario. The primary question remains though, who should pay for that millions of dollars for healthcare? In an ideal utopian world, your right everyone would get the care and not need to worry about it. However, in the real world someone will need to pay for it. That is the cost of healthcare not the cost of an insurance company. The only way to do it is to run a version of socialized, government run single payer where the cost of healthcare can be controlled. however, there are many issues with that as well.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 03:40 PM) You're never going to have 100% of people on the same page at the same time. Even 9/11, there were probably a sick few that thought we deserved it. I'm not sure what your definition of come together. This is true. Even when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, there was one congressional vote against going to war. It was by the first woman elected to Congress. She stuck to her values as a pacifist.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 24, 2017 -> 02:32 PM) That depends if you thinks its a human right to be cared for if you are ill. So they can be the same thing actually. Again, healthcare and profits for insurance companies are not the same thing. You can care for people, you can take control of healthcare without saying to insurance companies, "you can only have a 10% profit margin."

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 06:39 PM) Love the doofuses saying the Hawks got Saad back because they needed more toughness. Christ people, they traded for Brandon Saad, not Cody f***ing McLeod. That is part of it though. Panarin is like Kane they need space to work and mostly work the edges of the ice. They Hawks have lacked the player who will get infront of the net and put in the rebound shots. You can play the edges in the regular season but need the "tough" goals in the playoffs when the game changes. The NHL more than most sports has a totally different game in the post season. look at the Hawks last year. They had one of the best records in the league but get swept in the first round and only 3 goals in 4 games doing it. They didn't need the "toughness" as in fighting but needed the players who can play in the middle.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 08:25 PM) Not sure Healthcare and human rights fit into the same category as computers. Lawyers do have non-profit and court appointed arms already. These are not the same thing. Human rights are very different from insurance companies. Limiting how much profit a company makes is not in the same category as limiting human rights.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 06:55 PM) The economic system should serve humanity, not the other way around. In utopia, I would agree. however, in reality it will not happen.

QUOTE (Jack Parkman @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 06:30 PM) This is the same surgery that John Danks and Johan Santana had. If their recoveries (or lack thereof) are any indication of what is to come, the Dodgers had a guy go from top overall prospect to non prospect Is it a capsular repair? i can't seem to find any information on it. If so, it's a tough one. One major advantage is age. He is quite a bit younger than either of them were at the time of surgery. edit: i found it. It is the same surgery for the capsule. Much will depend on the extent of the damage to the cuff or the labrum.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 21, 2017 -> 12:33 PM) Do you know anything about the medications that one would take to treat it? The statements that were released specifically talked about the medications and its side effects, maybe that had an extra negative effect on him? oh yeah. the meds can definitely have an adverse effect. They are pretty strong especially if it's a bad case. They need to be on them for a long time during the season.