ptatc

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.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 01:14 PM) Greg, how can you POSSIBLY hold this worldview having JUST witnessed the Cubs and Astros turn from total embarrassments into powerhouses by following this exact process? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but do you literally only pay attention to the White Sox and Royals? Also, are you actually just angry that we "statniks" are trying to find a way to enjoy our team during this period? Is THAT what this is about? You are upset because we aren't acting miserable? Tell me that isn't it greg, because that is some of the most childish s*** I've ever heard. Powerhouse? The cubs are barely a .500 team. /green

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 01:10 PM) "Giving states more authority" means a fun race to the regulatory bottom (see: why all of your credit cards come from SD or Delaware) for large employers in multiple states and people living in a waiver state getting screwed, and block-granting Medicaid means massively cutting Medicaid. Different states have different medical issues to some extent, but it's not like some states don't actually have a need to cover pre-existing conditions or maternity or for insurers to make sure they spend a certain minimum percentage of premiums on actually paying for medical care. These are the Essential Health Benefits that Republicans would like to allow insurance companies to not provide: In what state would these not be routine and necessary services? on that same note: It's not that they don't need to offer it but can reallocate where needed. for your examples, alaska may want to put more in the the alcohol and drug rehab issues more than another state. States with an older population may need it more in chronic diseases etc. each state has different needs and they should have more say in it. I agree with the regulatory bottom.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 03:53 PM) It's looking more and more like the Senate bill will actually be even more harmful than the House bill, surprisingly. It might make too many changes and fall victim to Byrd Rules, though. I'm all for giving the states more authority on these issues. different state have different medical issues and should have leeway on how they are allocate resources.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 11:02 AM) This is a great example of how to make statistics lie. How an incident like this gets filed totally influences how people in the future go back and count this as a statistic in the future. By not attaching the term "terrorism" to this, the government gets to keep citing stats that show terrorism isn't happening. good point. I think people are starting to think of terrorism as large group participation. Incidents like this and Timothy McVeigh qualify as well.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 10:32 AM) White people arent terrorists and we dont want to start a discussion on whether or not the man should have been legally able to obtain these weapons. Well just chalk this one up to a lone gunman who we could have never stopped. From what I've read, I don't think there was really anything in his past that anyone one could have predicted this. The only significant thing are his extreme political views but I don't think that would indicate this level of violence.

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Jun 21, 2017 -> 01:09 AM) Even though I saw a quote from someone close to the situation who said he didn't appreciate the idea that this was made up, and it's a serious health issue for Marian, I really do hope it was made it up. It would suck to see a legendary player like Hossa suffer and have to wimper in to retirement before he wanted to call it quits. I'm all for the cap space, but I hope it was Hossa's decision, not an actual health issue. There have been some serious cases of the "gunk" over the years but I think they are exaggerating it a bit. It is nasty stuff. This and the smell of hockey locker rooms are the worst part working the sport.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 09:02 PM) He broke the plate collision rule. The punishment is clear. He was out. The end. MLB didn't feel a fine was warranted and the Padres let it go. Doesn't mean it was right. The umpire has the right to eject a player or the league can issue a fine or suspension if the play is deemed flagrant. Going out of the baseline to collide with the catcher is not just a casual hit at the plate. His intent was to hit the catcher to knock the ball loose and he went out of the line of the plate to do it. That should be flagrant. But obviously that is not Joe torre's definition so it will be interesting how future hits are handled.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jun 19, 2017 -> 07:21 PM) Not sure I'd say Avi was out of shape . He tore his labrum and came back rather quickly. Now all reports we have heard say he worked very hard to come back ahead of schedule. Let's think about how that happens. I would have to surmise that the key was strengthening the shoulder. How does one do that ? Most likely a lot of it is weight lifting. It's likely he strengthened that shoulder , but possibly bulked up too much through his upper body perhaps neglecting flexibility. He ended up losing mobility in the outfield and in his swing . I 'd say he was muscle bound more than out of shape. Once he lost the weight in his upper body he loosened up his swing and improved his speed and agility. Now granted we have also heard he improved his diet as he matured so yes, he was probably carrying some excess fat too. In conclusion it's possible the post injury Avi wanted to feel less vulnerable to injury and stronger so ate and bulked up to achieve that. The weight loss was just getting him back to pre injury conditioning. Not to mention that maybe it just took awhile to get the strength back and adjust his swing to it.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 08:38 PM) Your unhealthy dislike for a cancer survivor and strong advocate for pediatric oncology studies is your problem. My presence here has nothing to do with it. The whole situation was well handled by everyone. No it wasn't. He clearly broke a rule with a cheap shot and everyone decided it was just fine. Why put a rule in place to protect the catcher and decide not to enforce it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 06:47 PM) Fully expect this to happen. It will be interesting since MLB ruled he broke the rule but there will be no punishment.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 02:15 PM) This. The White Sox BY FAR have the worst travel schedule in terms of exciting destinations. Baseball will never eliminate the DH. The pitcher batting in the NL is a blemish in an otherwise universal adoption of the DH. Also, you are never, ever going to get the players union to agree to eliminating the DH as the long term DH's strengthen the union and the position extends careers. This would be a bargaining point between the union and the league. If there was an increase in travel due to the elimination of the the division, the DH would be a bargaining point. i don't ever see the league eliminating the divisions just for this reason. The travel would drive the players and the union nuts. There are enough complaints now. At least they eliminated the goofy two day series. working in the MLB was a blast except for the travel. that's the part that makes baseball such a physically and mentally draining sport.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 01:43 PM) They still had AL and NL and only one team made it from each league. right they had two leagues but no divisions. The league played every other team in the league evenly instead of divisional play. As far as only one team, that's why I added the X number of teams. Play would return to that format only more teams would make the "playoffs" and there would be the multiple rounds instead of just the World series.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 11:53 AM) that is one of them, yes. If you look at the label it says Guacamole -flavored-, lol. Tried to slide that in all slick in the background If you need to do the packaged stuff, the Wholly Guacamole is pretty good.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 08:10 AM) Really interesting stuff. I agree with the dissolution of the leagues. If that were to happen, we're talking league-wide DH. I would be interested in seeing the data regarding on-jersey advertising. I'm a soccer fan but I'm not convinced that I will go buy a jeep because Juventus wears Jeep on their uniforms. Or eliminating the DH. This all implies going back to the 1950 and 60's prior to division. Have the top X number of teams make the playoffs. What's new is old.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 07:33 AM) He doesn't know what he's talking about. Rizzo is one of the best people in the game right now. lol. okay. It's a violation of the rule but it's not particularly dirty. He started sliding and bailed Watch the replay. The catcher isn't in front of the plate.