ptatc

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 08:06 PM) Whether or not insurance companies are the sole problem, they are clearly, based on the real-world experience of many other countries, an unnecessary added cost. Health care access can be and is subsidized directly by the government in almost every developed country in the world, and even a lot of developing countries. Alot of this however is a continuous circle pretty much exclusive to the US. Much of it is the legal system. Unlimited tort and lawsuits force the medical practitioner to have highly priced insurance for protection. Insurance companies payout far too much on some cases. These are the same insurance companies which own many of the health care insurance companies. They take loses in one area and make it up in others. One sure way to lower insurance costs in the US and where it all should start is tort reform. I've been an expert witness in many cases where the lawsuits where absolutely stupid yet insurance companies had to pay. There are many legitimate ones as well but too many stupid ones.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 04:52 PM) There are plenty of doctors, but our current system discourages people from becoming primary care physicians. It is well known that fixing our immigration system and the way the medical industry looks at foreign medical training would easily fix this, as there are lots of doctors from across the world that want to be primary care physicians in the USA. We generally treat all foreign medical training as null and void, requiring any doctor that can manage to immigrate here to then go to school for several years to receive American certification. Part of the reason nobody in the USA wants to become a primary care physician is because we don't help people go to college, so they must choose their specialty based almost solely on the most lucrative thing they could possibly be allowed to do since they are forced to take on an ungodly amount of debt to perform such an essential service. This is only true because of the accreditation and quality management in the US. Most other countries producing the health professionals (MD and PT from my experience) do not monitor the quality of these educational programs. I have many physician's from countries such as India and Egypt where this takes place, who cannot apply to our program because they are not qualified. For example all of their basic sciences that we would accept here (bio, chem physics) are taken at the undergrad level for entry into the DPT or MD program. In these countries the same courses are accepted from high school. These are not equvilent to US standards. Medical schools in these countries are basically trade schools and I don't want them treating my grandmother.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 09:32 PM) Of course, you could also give money to people. As far as all that goes though, it was much, much cheaper for me to go to Harvard than UIUC. My parents made almost double the median income of the USA and that was the case. I didn't end up going to Harvard since an undergrad education there is a borderline scam, but the LAC that I ended up attending was always much cheaper. I also love how I had earned a Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship from the federal government...then Robert C. Byrd died and it was mere months before that was defunded. Thanks, I'm glad we can build some more tanks now This is a common theme. Private schools have a great deal more money to spend on aid than state schools. I lose a number of highly qualified applicants, particular underrepresented groups, to private schools because in the end it's cheaper. Our tuition is 30% of Northwestern. However, because of the aid they provide it is cheaper for the student to go there.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Oct 4, 2013 -> 03:26 PM) Hell, Reinsdorf can adopt me. I'll change my last name and gladly take the White Sox helm. Seriously thou... how in the hell could his son not want to run the Sox. Blasphemy. Because he has a larger stake in the Bulls and they make a lot more money.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 1, 2013 -> 08:59 PM) I would like to regress number of stressful innings (we'd ultimately define it multiple ways, but loosely 25 pitches in an inning) and significant pitching injuries. I think you will see far more correlation there than you will if comparing to innings pitched We have done basically that with young pitchers. There are still too many variables. Its more like jake was implying, alot relies on how the pitcher is handling it and when the signs of fatigue show. The number of pitches is a guidline however how the pitcher is handling is the end variable.

QUOTE (Jake @ Sep 30, 2013 -> 08:08 PM) Anything based on innings pitched was always going to be doomed. Correct. It kis too difficult to be accurate with the variability of pitches thrown in an inning. You can "ballpark" it but its never going to be reliable.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Sep 25, 2013 -> 05:05 PM) In general, there's probably a bit too much stock put into matchups. Don't overplay matchups. You play your best guys. Bring matchups into play when guys are closely ranked/expectations are relatively the same. All of this is relative to who else you have, but I don't see any way you have so much depth that you're sitting Lynch, a sure-fire top 10 RB, if not top 5. You can't over think those types of decisions and get too cute. Sure, Lynch and Moreno may not get much if their team is up big, but they could have been the ones to have 2 tds to get them to that point. You just don't know. I'd rather play my studs and hope for the best even if it's just 3 quarters. You can never expect/assume a blowout situation anyway. Thanks. Maybe it's the fact that it's only a 10 team league. But my RBs are Lynch, Gore, Moreno, Lacy and Bell. The WR are Johnson, T. Smith, Shorts, Royal and R. White. There just seems to be enough talent around and trying to come up with a philosophy on who to play is difficult.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 25, 2013 -> 04:43 PM) You just jinxed Dave Gallagher. He's not dead yet, is he? Or maybe I was thinking of Joe DeSa or one of the other relievers of that time period, Ernesto Escarrega or something was his name? I don't think Gallagher is dead he was a young outfielder in the late 80's and had a hitting aid called the Stride right or something like that. According to wiki he is alive and living in Trenton NJ.

Ivan Calderon, Dave Gallagher and SALOME BAROJAS!!!!!!

I learned a great lesson for newbie players this week. Don't have all matchups with good teams against bad teams. Marshon Lynch and Knowshon moreno got me nothing as RB because the respective teams got so far ahead they were benched by the third quarter. It's difficult to pick different matchups. I'd like to hear other philosophies on how people pick which players to play not just advice on who to play.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Sep 19, 2013 -> 09:57 AM) I picked up Rainey too but then dropped him minutes later in favor of McGahee. Hopefully he passes his physical. I'd go Woodhead in a PPR. With Stephen Jackson out who should I play at flex? Right now I have Julius Thomas starting there but I also have Eddie Royal and Coby Fleener(Dwayne Allen is out). I feel like I should wait a week to consider McGahee there. Would you guys start Royal over Garcon/T. Smith/Shorts? I have pretty much the same problem. My 4 WR are Calvin Johnson (start) and Royal, Shorts and T. Smith. I think I'm going with Royal for a boom or bust week.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 04:41 PM) Moreno That's where I was leaning but so far the raiders have kept running backs to the lowest fantasy total of any team in the league, so I am way over thinking it.

Shorts, Royal or Knowshon Moreno for the flex in a PPR. (assuming Gronk doesn't return)

QUOTE (ptatc @ Sep 11, 2013 -> 10:02 PM) It is a PPR. Thanks. Sorry for all the questions but I'm new at this for this season. Wouldn't the fact that Oakland held Luck to 120 yards scare people off Shorts with Henne at QB?

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Sep 11, 2013 -> 10:00 PM) I would be starting Shorts over White in a hearbeat, even if White "plays." I'd start Shorts over Gore, and slam dunk if it's PPR. I think Shorts will get a lot of targets, and they may be in his zip code now that Henne is in instead of Gabbert. It is a PPR. Thanks.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Sep 11, 2013 -> 09:41 PM) I've got both as well, luckily I have some other options right now. I wouldn't automatically pencil in White to that WR1 slot. Per White's twitter, he said if he doesn't practice, red flag, don't start him. Well, he didn't practice today. As of this moment, I wouldn't be starting him. Definitely starting Johnson. I'd still start Gore at Flex. I'd actually go Givens or Moore over Simpson, if you don't play White. I don't think he can get anywhere near a good game against the Bears instead of the Lions. Givens should be targeted much more in this game than last game, and you never know when Moore is going to have the roulette wheel stop on him to have his day for the Saints. If it was my team I'd probably go Moore. Your D's a tossup, I'd lean Baltimore just because I feel better getting turnovers off Weeden at home than Dalton and Co. on the road. Thanks for the info on White. I didn't see that. I was going to start him because my other WR was Cecil Shorts. So here's the question Shorts or Gore for the flex. My WRs are Calvin Johnson and Torrey Smith.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 11, 2013 -> 03:11 PM) I didnt mean he would be available in FA, I meant its a good time to trade for him while his stock is low. I got a grand total of 13 points from Calvin johnson, Roddy White and Marshon Lynch last week so Shorts is going in as the flex this week.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 10, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) This reminds me a ton of the discussion about high/low ceiling pitchers. In 2005-2006, KW was drafting pitchers that were "low ceiling" guys, guys like Broadway, who had long college careers but didn't have the kind of stuff Chris Sale brings to the table. The idea was to get them up to the big leagues fairly quickly and possibly have them set up as trade bait. People got mad because the Sox were taking "baseball" guys rather than drafting guys with big time talent and trying to develop them. This strikes me as people being mad over precisely the reverse. Going after toolsy, high-risk, high-reward players is exactly what people spent years demanding the Sox do. I was going to post the same thing. I guess if you've been around long enough the pendulum swings all the way to the other side. I guess the underlying theme is that whether you pick the "baseball" guy or the "athlete" you need to pick the right ones or develop them properly. Maybe it's the development piece.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Sep 5, 2013 -> 04:10 PM) Skin was also stitched together I heard. My sources said stapled. Yours must be idiots or LIARS.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 08:36 AM) seriously. No admission of guilt, and this pittance of a settlement(comparatively). They really did win this Some of the settlement may that that there was a new study in JAMA that found the incidence in brain changes was no different in a control group of 60 year old males than in the experimental group of ex-NFL players of the same age.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Aug 28, 2013 -> 09:19 PM) Both Garcia's bring so much to this team with their energ. Energy doesn't matter in baseball you meathead! Only OPS,OPS+and EIEIO matter in this game. Signed, Keith Law

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) It increases concentration (it changes the way your brain goes into and out of "concentration mode"; the way your brain acts when you're focused is different from when you're not, and ADHD people have a higher threshold for activating that functionality) but it also absolutely functions as a stimulant, at least in adults who are heavily on the "AD" side and not the "HD" side. This is why you need to choose the client carefully. An AD only or ADHD. The true ADHD is the student who cannot sit still and is disrupting everything. What sense would it make to give this person a stimulant?. Its because thiese certain drugs act as a calming effect for this population. Its also why it increases the hyperactivity for those who dont truly have it. This is where it can be a stimulant and can help or hurt a players performance.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2013 -> 01:37 PM) Well, it also definitely functions as a powerful stimulant regardless of whether or not it helps you concentrate. Not for the true ADHD. For them it acts as a calming agent. This is why it's prescribed. For the people faking it, it does add a stimulant effect but can "overdo" it to the point of loos of focus.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 03:13 PM) I've read multiple times over the years that the rate of diagnosis for ADHD among MLB players is way higher than the general population rate. The belief is that they seek this diagnosis so that they can take the various highly stimulative drugs used to treat it. A modern, completely legal alternative to amphetamines. It's not for the stimulant, it's for the increased focus component that works with ADHD. If you have ADHD the drugs decrease the hyperactivity and allow the student to focus. The problem is with people you don't truly have the ADHD it can cause increased hyperactivity (similar to the stimulant) however, it cause many to lose focus and just be hyper. So many try but many also stop because it doesn't help.

QUOTE (TheBigHurtIsBack @ Aug 24, 2013 -> 08:09 AM) Sure, it was illegal. My point is it was in no way related to his production on the field, at least in terms of raising his ceiling. PED's can do that, gambling can't magically make you better than you are. Pretty simple concept. I am pretty hefty on morals, believe it or not. But in my opinion it's irrelevant. Granted, and I meant to say, "supposedly" when referencing him being clean, but as long as he's been around there's been no proof so we can't hold that against him, otherwise by that logic no big hitter would be above suspicion. It may be worse to intentionally throw a game because of wagering or in the case of managing wear out a pitching staff because you have to win the bet on the game today. PEDs can alter your ceiling physically. Changing the way you play because you placed a bet is a mental way of changing the performance. Either way you changed the way you would normally play. Both are really bad for fair competitive based sports.