Balta1701

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 10:06 AM) I thought you were asking about a net effect, not whether any one particular individual will be adversely affected? He's very used to expecting the entire economy to turn on the behavior of a very small group of individuals and treating them as the only ones who matter at all. (/rimshot).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 10:05 AM) I'm sure the people seeing their health plans cancelled agree. And I'm sure you'd have been quite happy paying higher hospital fees when they went to the hospital and found out that they had no coverage for such incidents, thus again leaving it to everyone else to cover it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 10:00 AM) Here's what I am interested in... I wonder what the drag on the economy is going to be when all of these millions of people get hit with all of these new costs? The effect, seemingly, will be a large stimulus.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:55 AM) Why the f*** are you wasting time and money conducting the study if you aren't going to use a sample size large enough that the results can be statistically significant???? Because lots and lots of people reported their results. (There were also a few parts of the study where there was the possibility of statistically significant results - depression, financial security, self-reported health status...and in those cases there was solid improvement at a statistically significant level).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:54 AM) If Ptatcs initial guess at his timetable is right, they would be borderline negligent not to do so. If I were, I dunno, a team like the Dodgers I might take that chance. Team that could be in the playoffs but you could easily understand how they could find a reason why they'd need an extra starting pitching option in the 2nd half of the season. I think Floyd though, barring a team offering him actual major league money, probably would be very likely to be willing to stay in the ChiSox org for another year or two based on everything he's said publicly in the past.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:52 AM) Timelines may have been too short to show the long-term impacts of healthcare access, but as far as I've read, the study didn't find decreased overall expenditures for people on Medicaid, statistically significant or not. BUT AGAIN IT COULD NOT DO SO.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:44 AM) I thought it showed that Medicaid did a great job of providing these people with health care access, that they used this access for preventative care and reduced catastrophic illness costs, but that there were no clear results (statistically significant, as you said) about it actually reducing overall health expenditures. Which, don't get me wrong, a program that would be a wash financially but gives millions of more people improved health care would be a fantastic program. I just don't know that we have the data to expect a fairly substantial drop in overall healthcare spending from those who currently (or previously) lacked access to routine health care. Exactly - but the key point is that it was literally impossible for the study to show that result. The study actually did show improvements but they were not statistically significant because of sample size. The people on Medicaid showed an average 10% drop in blood pressure, 17% drop in bad cholesterol, compared to the control group - but the sample size was small enough that this result was not "significant". And that's just those 2 terms; presumably not everyone in the Medicaid group went in with high blood pressure. Basically...if the results of the study were that "absolutely no one in the Medicaid group had a heart attack or cancer during the time of this study", it would not have been a significant result (but extra people would be alive).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:39 AM) Didn't that Oregon Medicaid study show mixed results in that regard? No. That study actually showed improved results but the study did not have a large enough sample to be "improved results that are scientifically significant with a 2-sigma margin of error". It was simply incapable of showing positive results in that regard because it was not designed to do so. That's not mixed. That's "why does this box not have apples in it" - "because it's a box of oranges".

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:36 AM) So, the "taxpayers" were picking up part of the bill before through increased prices for Medicare/aid patients, and the rest was being picked up by people with private insurance. It's the same now. The real difference, just so it's noted, should be that if the people who were on Medicaid who might have had heart attacks do things like "see a doctor" and "get on a regimen of appropriate drugs and exercise as recommended by that Dr." then the bills should fall substantially overall.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:33 AM) Well first of all, I think I meant pre-PPACA. Second, if what you are saying is true... then before PPACA, those costs were NOT going to the taxpayers. The hospitals had to take them as collection items like any other business does, try to recover as much as they can, and write off the rest. But now with PPACA, the hospital can pass that cost onto Medicaid, or just keep doing the same thing? So in other words, for states that TOOK the expansion, we are now charging the taxpayers, when we weren't before? And for the other states, we will continue to NOT pass it on to the taxpayers? I guess I see where you're going here...but man, "hospitals raising their prices for everyone" sure seems like a cost associated with a law (you must treat people at ERs) getting passed on to everyone else who uses health care. I guess I just used taxpayers as a shorthand there although for the reason that it's being charged by the hospital and not the government I guess I can see where you're going.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 11:07 PM) http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=9909389 So Aldon Smith might escape any suspension because he voluntarily put himself in rehab. Actually...I kind of would understand and maybe even like that rule.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:21 AM) I want to hone in on this point for a moment. Please explain to me, mechanically, how it is that if someone racks up a $100k hospital, and the taxpayers pay for it if the patient cannot? I feel like I'm a piece of the puzzle here. Isn't that basically how it happens right now? If a person has no insurance and has a heart attack, they're not going to let the person die if they reach an ambulance. Afterwards, they'll try to get whatever they can from the person, but if the person is uninsured and on minimum wage because they work at the nation's largest employer, the hospital won't be able to recoup anything near the amount spent on the person. That cost gets passed on to whomever it can be passed on to. Under the PPACA, that cost is going to be paid by Medicaid in the states that took the expansion. It's going to continue to be paid by the hospital in the other states, who will of course continue to push their prices higher to everyone else in order to cover those costs.

QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 11:23 PM) Rick is trying to change that. Abreu is a step in the right direction. Do we really know that?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 08:04 AM) Unless Gavin signs a minor-league deal (which I don't see happening), he can't stay in the minors until June. He's long since been out of options and there's a time limit on how long a major league player can rehab in the minors. I'd be surprised if he signs anything other than a minor league deal this year, the only question is whether the team could get an option for the next year.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:16 AM) Alexei would be a huge upgrade for Cards. They might come calling. If so, Hahn will have the edge in the negotiation process and will not have to give up much else. Trouble is, we don't need Adams as much as we did two weeks ago, and Wacha is probably off limits, and they probably don't have a catcher that can step in and play. Maybe they will take Dunn off our hands. Now that the Sox really don't need Adams immediately unless, as you said, they also take Dunn for some reason, the Sox also are in a position where they could take their main return as a guy who is a year away from the big leagues.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:11 AM) I posted it last week, but in 160 professional games at 3B, Viciedo's fielding percentage is about .905. That means, given about 350 chances and even allowing a .015 error margin, Viciedo would likely make about 28 errors at 3B - at the minimum. He might make as many as 40. I am not an error and fielding percentage guy for the most part, but Viciedo can't get to balls and can't field the ones he gets to. At some point, you have to be able to field the ball cleanly. To be 100% fair...it's 162 innings, not games there, and most of those innings there were in 2011 when the Sox had already moved him to 1b in the minors then he was called up and put back at 3b after spending most of the year playing 1b, so literally with no practice or preparation before playing there. That said, people should indeed stop trying to put him at a different defensive position. He's got a good enough arm that even if he doesn't get to a ton of balls he can be a tolerable corner OF if he's on a team that doesn't deserve to have the Benny Hill theme played every time there's a ball hit to a fielder.

QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 08:44 PM) That's interesting. Can Garcia be any worse in CF than ADA? Yes. He could also be better. De Aza could also be better.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 07:08 PM) I edited out that line since it is drawing some wrath. My bad. What's really sad is that really isn't the only recycled slogan in the post, it pretty much all is.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 06:24 PM) Floyd is a notoriously slow starter. His April and May career splits are Axelrod-esque, and that was when he was relatively healthy. Missing a year and coming back, he might even be worse. He seems like a good guy, but there are better ways to fill a roster spot. Clearly no one is suggesting he deserves a roster spot. Most of us are following ptatc's statement that his rehab will take longer than the usual TJS and expecting that when January rolls around, the best he might get is a minor league deal with an expectation he could be ready later in the season. A veteran on a minor league deal for very little money who might be able to either contribute if a young guy struggles, fill in late in the season for someone who is injured, or be trade-bait if he can prove effective...sounds like it would be a great fit for the White Sox.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 06:18 PM) Is she STILL the liberal media's choice to replace Obama? Just stop.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 05:56 PM) That you should be responsible for yourself as much as possible and once you can't society should help out? Yeah, SO contradictory. I can already read your "you shouldn't be eating at McDonalds 5 days a week" complaint when someone has a heart attack with no insurance and sticks the taxpayer with a $100k bill for the emergency room.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 06:14 PM) I meant having Beckham as the utility guy and starting Semien at 2B every day. I don't want Beckham on the team at all. I was just saying if we have to give him another chance, I'd rather he be a backup 2B and 3B. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 10:50 AM) If he's on the big league roster opening day (and just so it's said...that'd be rushing him)...he needs an obviously cleared spot. You can't have a guy in hist 5th year in the league making $4 million sitting there on the bench and expect Semien to get regular playing time.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 06:03 PM) Floyd is as big of question mark than anyone. Which is why he's a great fit for a team that doesn't have enough innings to go around.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 05:44 PM) A little more time at AAA for Rienzo, Beck and Johnson would not hurt anyone. Rienzo needs to work on being more efficient and Johnson and Beck are in no hurry. And you don't see the problem where say, putting a guy who needs to be more efficient would completely fail to learn that skill when facing a series of AAA-ballers who are beaten by his stuff alone?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 05:39 PM) I want a system where first and foremost, if you have the means to pay, and you have issues with your health, YOU pay for it out of YOUR pocket, because it's not the rest of societies responsibility to pay for YOUR mistakes of smoking, eating McD's 5 days a week, not exercising blah blah. If you lost the life lottery, tough titties. It's still on YOU, the individual and/or your family to deal with it. That's how we operate in just about every other area of life, and I don't see why healthcare should be any different. That doesn't mean you pay dollar for dollar the cost of that health care, that means you can buy a product (insurance) of your choosing which you think is adequate to cover the ifs and maybes of life. And the government should make sure that insurance companies provide adequate choices (i.e., allowing for pre-exisiting conditions, providing catastrophe policies for those without the means to pay for a large policy they'll never use, etc.) and play fair in what they offer. Now, as that as a baseline, no one in this country should die or lack treatment because they don't have the funds to pay for it. No one should go broke because they have serious health issues. We're better than that. We're prosperous enough for that. I have no problem creating a system designed to help people in need. I just don't know if forcing everyone to be covered and then forcing everyone to share the costs is the right way to go about this. Reducing costs by some means, getting people to see nurse practitioners and walk-in clinics, opening up the borders for cheaper prescription drugs, etc. Can someone just note how deep the contradiction between the first and 2nd paragraph is here?