ptatc

QUOTE (flavum @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 04:54 PM) That's what I thought too. My recollection was that he hated all of that rookie hazing bs. That type of stuff is absolutely hilarious. Of course some go too far but in baseball they have so much time to kill with the amount of travels that it really does make the time go.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 03:06 PM) At what point do we realize those companies should be serving the people instead of shareholders and profits? Never. They are companies created to make money. Someone started those businesses to do just that.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 08:13 AM) Should insurance/HC companies be allowed to be as profitable as they are? Should they be able to conduct themselves in such a way to make them a Fortune 100 company? Should pharma companies be able to charge whatever they want to increase profits on everyday medication? There are so many issues/other avenues to bring down costs for people outside of scrapping the ACA, but we cannot even think about doing that since our politicians are bought and paid for. And Washington is doing a great job having the people fight over a bill that was originally designed to help them, and now only serve as a distraction from the real issues that would help. It's sad. Should lawyers be allowed to be as profitable as they are? How about Apple or IBM? It's not fair to limit one group just because one groups deems it unfair.

QUOTE (Tony @ Jun 23, 2017 -> 11:19 AM) What is happening to this franchise The Cubs ruined it for everyone. Now all franchises know the the fans will accept years of being bad because "rebuilding" is now fashionable. Tear down the team, tell the fans this is the right way to rebuild the team and the fans accept it. In the good old days a bad team was just a bad team. Now the fans "embrace the tank"/ slightly green

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 09:58 PM) https://twitter.com/travellegaines/status/878078236780937218 Read that. It's Jimmy's trainer. Now notice where it was posted from - Paris. Jimmmy is there and saw the tweet before it was posted. We are done for. No player will come to Chicago. Not that they wanted to before. Why would this make a difference. Another article said his agent called him as soon as it happened at around 2am because they pretty much knew a trade was going to happen.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 08:28 PM) What other first world democracies take this same stance with their citizens??? That neither the government nor the rich should subsidize the middle class and poor, at least until Social Security and Medicare kick in...does that about summarize it? That helping them when a person is not working will make families reliant on others, and that the only true path to dignity lies through meaningful work. Republican health care plan: a win-win for the wealthiest http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option...p;jumival=19387 I'm not saying it's right. i'm just saying that the way they look at it. As far as other first world democracies are concerned, the USA has many unique variables that others don't. First off the population. Trying to fund healthcare for the large number of people compared to any other first world country is the primary problem. another is the tax structure. The USA pays less taxes than other countries, in general. You really can't compare the USA to any other country, just like states, countries are unique and what works well in one won't necessarily work in another. I would be in favor of a VAT tax such as the EU uses to fund any of these type of things. I just have a problem in principle of forcing the people who have more to give more just because they have more. Believe me as a college professor in Illinois. I'm not in the group that would have to pay more.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 08:00 PM) Personally, I feel the Republicans believe that poor people have not earned treatment more than anything else. That is their policy. The tax cuts are a side point. They say it explicitly. They believe how well you do in life has nothing to do with anything other than how hard you work, and if you are on minimum wage it's your own fault. If you make the mistake of getting sick while on minimum wage, both of those were decisions you made incorrectly. If you are rich and white and inherited money, you made the right call by accepting that inheritance and you deserve treatment for whatever you come down with. I think it's more that they don't think that people shouldn't have to pay for for other people's healthcare. The whole take from the rich and give to the poor philosophy. The distribution of wealth philosophy is the fundamental difference.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 07:48 PM) They traded Jake Peavy for him, and handed him RF right off of the bat. He did look like he was ready based on his late season and playoff run with Detroit.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 07:45 PM) There are various taxes within the ACA, not a specific "ACA tax." They are cutting taxes for the wealthy and paying for it by taking health care from the poor and middle class. There are widespread effects beyond that, as well. just within the ACA itself? It is by no means as simple as the way you are stating it. They raised taxes for the wealthy to pay for healthcare for the poor and middle class for ACA and it didn't work very well.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 07:36 PM) Yeah I get the bullpen has been overworked but this is unnecessary. He's got a shutout going. He needs to get to 115 pitches or so consistently especially with the way others are only going 80 or so,

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 12:55 PM) His comp remains Alexei 100%. We are basically watching a 23 year old Alexei imo. Rough around the edges, can't walk for s***, but solid raw power and incredible defensive tools. Anybody that says they don't "remember" TAs defense last year is crazy. He made so many crazy plays ranging to his right, including that one incredible play he made on the popup in shallow left where he outran everybody. He was +11 runs by Fangraphs metric for a reason. People seem to think that baseball is a linear progression. You start at point X and steadily climb. There is a reason people refer to a Sophomore slump. Not that is always happens but there is a learning curve for the league. They figured out what he did well last year and they are exploiting his weaknesses this year. He needs to learn to adjust. It's a process. look no further than Schwarber.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 06:50 PM) I've heard and read in different places recently that "the ball is juiced" this year. Heard radio show hosts suggest it. Have read it on message boards and in the comments below articles. Are we falling for this again? Aren't people suspicious of PEDs again? I am. I don't know that I'll ever trust athletic accomplishments again. Until they start doing baseline blood serum levels, you always need to be suspicious of new designer PEDs.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 06:37 PM) The Great Premium Debate Continues http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/the-great...bate-continues/ Average Annual Percent Growth in Health Care Expenditures per Capita by State of Residence http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/a...22:%22asc%22%7D For US as a whole and Illinois as a state, 4.9% increase per year from 1991-2014 8 Charts That Explain the Explosive Growth of U.S. Health Care Costs http://mediatrackers.org/national/2013/10/...alth-care-costs Wow. according to chart 2 in that last group of charts, out of pocket spending as increase almost nothing relative to healthcare costs. Up until 2010 anyway. It would be interesting to see what it is now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 06:19 PM) I know what you're asking. I don't agree with the way you're trying to frame it. It was "just" a tax to pay for health care for millions and now we're giving millionaires a $50k/year tax cut instead. We're cutting a tax specifically for health insurance CEOs. That is the policy preferences of Republicans. There is no other way to phrase it. Either they are only repealing the special tax to fund the ACA or they are cutting taxes beyond it. That's it. I don't see how it's a difficult question to unless you are intentionally trying to bias the answer. The part dealing only with Healthcare CEO's is obviously not tied to the ACA tax. So the answer would be yes they are cutting taxes other than just the ACA special tax.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 06:08 PM) It's a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy so they can gut Medicaid. That's the policy choice being made here. It also adjusts the baseline for when they move on to tax"reform" next so they can make even deeper upper class tax cuts. Let me ask it again as I'm not familiar with the amounts of money in each tax. Was this just the tax to pay for ACA or does it go above and beyond that?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 06:00 PM) You just restated "giving tax cuts to the wealthy." You could rephrase anything as "decreasing taxes to prior levels" that way. Alright let me rephrase it this way. Are the tax cuts to which you are referring ONLY the ones tied to funding ACA or are the cuts different than that?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 05:49 PM) They aren't really trying something else. They're gutting ACA and giving tax cuts to the wealthy. They're gutting Medicaid. No health care economist or independent review seems to think this will make anything better, either. Tens of millions will lose insurance as premiums continue to rise and coverage gets worse. They really didn't have insurance to begin with because the deductibles were so high, it was practically useless. And are they giving tax cuts to the wealthy or just decreasing the taxes to prior levels before they were raised on the wealthy for this program?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 05:38 PM) That's why there has to be some sort of "fairness" involved. Most people do not really have much choice when it comes to health insurance and while the ideas of marketplace etc are good in theory, they still had/have problems. Ultimately the problem is that insurance companies have far more money then regular people. And regular people are too fractured to get together to change things. Even if 99% of American's agree on healthcare, it doesnt matter because there are other issues involved when we vote and so we end up picking people who are going to do whats best for them, not necessarily what is best for everyone else. I really do believe that there is a workable solution, I just dont think its possible with our current style of govt. I think the best hope is that at some point Democrat and Republican parties splinter. I agree with the voting and the politicians. The primary issue in my mind is that what is the basic level of care that is affordable to people? How much will the federal or state government need to subsidize the care? There is nothing wrong with insurance companies making money. That is why they got into the business. They make far more money in their investments than they do in premiums. The bigger issue is how does the industry reconcile the cost of care and the cost of insurance. There isn't a single correct answer. cost of care is high due to many reasons including high medical malpractice insurance, lack of insurance payments, capitated contracts and massive amounts of insurance fraud. The increased paperwork at my clinic decreases the productivity which increases the cost of care. Insurance companies have issues when the economies have downturns. It's a complicated mess and at least there are efforts to change it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 05:31 PM) The ACA has a mechanism requiring insurance companies to spend at least 80% of premiums collected on health care costs. The Republican bills both remove this provision. Rabbit, you're right that this bill was ultimately good for the insurance industry. There has been plenty of criticism of the ACA from the left since the start. However, many still feel that it was better than the status quo ante and that this new bill will harm millions. i really disliked ACA and how difficult it made life in the clinic. However, I do like the fact that it changed the status quo and now they are trying something else. Maybe this will work more efficiently and it will be better.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:57 PM) I guess I don't see any actual value in allowing insurers that don't cover basic things like inpatient care, outpatient care, or prescription drugs i.e. are useless and are "health insurance" in name only. These fields are far to general to be a coverage issue. Is that inpatient orthopedic care, mental, neurologic, emergency etc.? There is no "basic" care for inpatient or outpatient.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:54 PM) I know it wont happen, but a fair compromise for someone like SS is that they should be able to choose the state they work in. IE IF I work in IL and employer chooses FL, I can choose that my plans be governed by IL Law. If I work in FL and employer chooses IL, I could stay with IL or I could choose FL. That way the employee gets some protection. That would a good regulation to allow the states and the individual to have a say in their individual coverage. In my personal example, my insurance is through the state. My daughter is going to school in Colorado. We are in a tiered insurance program and being out of state she cannot get Tier 1 coverage even if the provider is covered as Tier 1.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:35 PM) It works that way in many other sectors of the economy, though. Look how many corporations are registered in Delaware. Look how many credit cards are issued from SD or Delaware because they have the most favorable usury laws. One of the key policy goals of Republicans has been "selling insurance across state lines," which means we'd lose state-by-state regulations as everyone could just base themselves out of the weakest regulatory body and sell insurance nationwide regardless of what IL or TX regulations are. Again, though, that's not what health economists actually think will happen, and from my own personal example, the position you're taking doesn't even really hold up. I live in Illinois, but my insurance is from BCBS-FL. If Florida takes the waivers and guts their state insurance regulations, I've now lost regulatory protections at the federal level and it's instead controlled by a state I have no ability to vote in. Health care needs do vary somewhat from state to state, but not in a way substantial enough that cutting EHB's really makes much sense. We're talking the most basic of care requirements. What state doesn't need hospitalization, prescription drugs, emergency services? Removing these can be a death sentence to people with pre-existing conditions if nobody decides to offer health plans in that state covering more expensive care or only offers them for outrageous sums of money, tens of thousands yearly. That's the outcome that health economists are projecting from this plan. But then if the coverage changes drastically, the company could shop for a different one. They wouldn't need to use that one. Also, your example is a work insurance. Those who go for a private insurance could have more of a variety to choose from for their situation. If they allow more state regulation of medicare and medicaid (which they already do to an extent) this could change even more.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:12 PM) I live and work in IL but my insurance is through FL because my employer chose that. I don't want to be subject to the whims of state-by-state policy and a race to the bottom for the worst legally required health insurance. That doesn't actually benefit anyone but health insurers. What state doesn't have people that would be harmed by the removal of the EHB requirements? Why should that basic level of care be decided on a state-by-state basis? What benefit to citizens gain from that? I don't think it would work that way. If the states don't need to pay for it, they will regulate the heck out of insurance companies to gain favor with the voters. The citizens benefit by having more of their interests decided by people more familar with their situations. The Federal government doesn't need to make a blanket policy for everyone in the entire US when each state can do it much easier.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 03:26 PM) I just don't see how anyone that has medical insurance can support this new healthcare. It's just so bad. If you have ever had to pay thousands of dollars out of your own pocket for doctor visits and emergency services that other countries don't pay as much to get, then you'll understand. Once you have children and start developing medical conditions, you'll also understand. The cost of getting sick is ridiculously high. People don't choose to get sick or injured. Why should they be punished? Being in the medical field, I completely understand this point. However, there is also the other point that others are making is that should others be punished be paying higher taxes for people they don't know. It's a dilemma. no system is perfect. go to canada and wait 6 months for an "elective" surgery such as a meniscus tear or have it here in two weeks but have it cost 3 times as much. Got to Norway where it's a good model but they are far fewer people using the system and where people are taxed much heavily than they are here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 02:22 PM) It's not a question of state funding, though. It's a question of what insurance providers need to offer on private insurance markets. i guess I wasn't clear. If there any regulations place upon the insurance companies to offer any of the services, the state should decide them because each state is different and have a better idea than the federal government. When I said paid, I was referring to what the insurance companies need to offer in relative coverage. more in certain areas than others for specific states. I would prefer there not be regulations but if there are, the states should decide them.