Balta1701

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 03:46 PM) Our care, for those that can get it, is pretty damn good here...the only way you get poor quality care here is if you allow it to happen since there are tons of doctors...go find a new one if you feel your care is lousy. That exists over there, too. Some doctors are just bad doctors, regardless of their educations. Our healthcare is so expensive because of bureaucratic nonsense, laws being written and passed by people bought and paid for by big pharm, insurance companies, or other corporate interests. It's not expensive because it sucks, however. It's expensive because our lawmakers helped make it that way. Right there is the key. If everyone could get it, we literally wouldn't need to have this discussion in the first place. When nearly 1/6 of the country at the peak can't get that care, and then another large portion is substantially underinsured...then the system is flat broken.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 12:47 PM) Please don't hit Josh Hamilton. It's probably Marty's plan that we sign him as a free agent after we've traded Viciedo/N.Jones/Mitchell for Greinke. I'm the one who said we could be Hamilton players at the start of the season thanks to all the money we're clearing. That was before we saw the kind of year De Aza was having, though.

If you're parking...see if you can buy the pass beforehand online. It's a ton of money but you're stuck paying that anyway.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) As opposed to the people who were killed without trying to protect themselves? If I give you a 1% chance of being killed if you do not try to protect yourself and a 2% chance of being killed if you do, which do you choose? Are the contents of your wallet worth dying for?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 03:27 PM) It's not a zero sum game which is why you just tried to make it sound like. Something has to help pay for this. IMO, I don't mind it...it's a "TAX" that I don't mind paying. Such taxes do exist...and this is one of them. I'm happy to pay this knowing more people will have access to care -- IF they end up actually having that access. You're right. And there are other taxes built into this bill. The tax on the "Cadillac" plans, the tax on some medical devices, there is a small upper income tax somewhere in there, there's a tax on tanning, etc. The main method of paying for it though is to realize...we already do. When we're spending 1.5 times the fraction of GDP on health care of any other country in the world, and getting care of the same quality or worse...we're already spending the money. We just have to figure out how to spend it more wisely. This bill takes steps in that direction.

Luis Aparacio, hitting .208 at the break.

Jason Varitek got in with a .218 average. Haven't found lower yet.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 11:32 AM) But you're glossing over the major difference - the mandate to be subject to that credit/tax. Regardless of the intentions of the government, it's not the same. The effect both in a legal sense and in a real-world sense is identical. In both cases...if you make the appropriate purchase...your tax rate decreases. If you choose not to make a qualifying purchase, you pay a higher tax rate by not claiming that tax credit. That really is all this is. The only difference here is that there was an increase and a credit tied together, rather than just the creation of an independent credit. That is all the mandate is...a tax that few are expected to pay because of a very substantial and easy to qualify for tax credit.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 11:22 AM) I don't get your point here. Nor do I understand how you are comparing elective purchases resulting in tax credits with a mandate resulting in a tax "credit." Missing out on a credit (benefit) is =/= paying a penalty (tax). The effect is the exact same in both cases. The government believes that there is a positive benefit to society that occurs by using the tax code to subsidize some behaviors and penalize others. The government subsidizes home ownership hugely. The goverment has substantial tax penalties for tobacco use. The government in this case uses the tax code to do exactly that...it creates a tax credit that is cashed in by purchasing health insurance of a certain quality, reflecting the fact that society as a whole benefits from larger insurance pools and reflecting the fact that there is a substantial cost associated with the portion of the population that remains uninsured by choice. That is all the "Mandate" is. People can choose to purchase tobacco, people can choose to not purchase a home, people can choose not to purchase insurance. In each of those cases though, there is a sociaetal cost to people making that choice, and therefore it is logical for the government to use the tax code to reflect that cost and to benefit people who make the opposite decision.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 10:58 AM) In other words, you can choose buy insurance OR you can choose buy insurance. There is no elective choice here. You are buying insurance. Some might note that $700/year comes no where near the cost of actually providing comprehensive insurance. One might instead suggest that it covers the cost of free-riding when you can afford insurance, since as many have noted, a hospital is required to provide emergency care you whether you are insured or not.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 10:07 AM) Yes of course it did. It increased taxes, in the form of a penalty, for the 1-2% of the population that will be without health insurance for a significant length of time, even though they can afford it. One could argue this is a good or bad thing, but it only effects a small % of people. And Balta, you need to get past this idea that this is comparable to a tax credit based on elective commerce. The logical leap you are making is laughably huge. This is entirely elective commerce. You just outlined how you can elect to pay the tax.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 10:06 AM) How does it capture how many lives are saved or how many crimes were stopped? That is a statistic that cannot be recorded unless you interview criminals and ask them if they stopped committing a crime because they saw the victim had a gun. At best you'll have a number of dead criminals but that tells half the story. These studies are limited to SYG situations (which as I pointed out before, is varied from state to state and prosecutor to prosecutor, so whether or not case X really fits in this study or not is questionable) ending in death. Not the total picture of the effect of SYG laws and concealed carry and what that does to prevent crime or deter crime from happening. Your're talking about a statistically significant increase in the total number of deaths recorded by 2 studies and not accounted for by increased deaths of assailants. That means that whatever decrease in deaths there might be associated with actual self defense cases, they are swamped out by an increase in deaths overall from people who unsuccessfully attempt to defend themselves or have accidents. These studies are not limited to SYG situations. They are comparing death rates overall. THat means they're taking into account successful SYG situations and failed ones.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 09:49 AM) These studies are worthless. You can't count events that don't happen. Researchers are not performing interviews with would-be killer assailants asking "hey, if he didn't shoot you first, would you have shot him in the midst of your crime?" So this study says 4-7 more people are killed because of SYG laws. How many were saved? This type of comment continues to show a basic misunderstanding of how you work with data. It means that if 4-7 additional people die per month...then for each life that is saved, another is lost to offset that life. It is done by using comparative data of trends in crime rates,w ithin state lines, within ethnic groups, and across state lines. While you cannot do a double-blind study of it, the fact that different states have different laws, and the fact that the laws change at a specific point in time, gives you a very close approximation of one.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 09:51 PM) does this mean you support it now? Are you accusing me of wanting to kill whitey?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 10:09 PM) The next question is going to be how delicate or fragile is Simon Castro's constitution? Is he going to suffer from being pushed to the big leagues this season, or is he the kind of pitcher who learns from adversity and bounces back nicely with even more determination and moxie? You saw a good example of this with Quintana the other night bouncing back twice and continuing to battle instead of suffering a complete implosion and early knockout. Castro seems quite good at recovering from difficulties. This whole season has been spent recovering from difficulties that really cost him time last year. In the game I saw him throw, he also had to pitch over a couple errors/miscues, one by himself as well. And although his first start in AAA was weak, he killed the next outing before hitting the DL.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 09:14 PM) Noah is not as good of a rim protector as Asik. Noah has his own things he does well. He's a better man defender, a better perimeter defender, a better rebounder, a better scorer. Here's the problem...some games, Noah does fine...those are games where the other team doesn't have a true low-post game. If antoher team has a guy who can overpower Noah, then without a guy like Asik, the Bulls will lose that game because the Bulls can't shut that kind of ball down with Noah. But then, how much are those games worth? The Pacers with Hibbert could hurt the Bulls, but...

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 09:07 PM) Ultimately, the Bulls have to beat Miami. In the 3 games this year against Miami he had a total of 4 points 6 rebounds and 3 blocks. He doesn't help them there. He definitely helped against Miami last year in the playoffs. Losing him for the final game was a big loss. His defense in the lane kept the lane closed off and forced LBJ and Wade to the outside where they were less effective. The Bulls just got no scoring themselves.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 09:03 PM) You're playing 4 on 5 on offense at the end of the game. He can't touch the ball or he's going to the line. Never a non-factor? Really? There's games he plays 3 minutes. The big problem is...if he's on Houston, he's probably a 25 minute player, which means he's a lot more valuable for Houston than for the Bulls.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 08:52 PM) I'm just wondering if its like the NFL where they take the average instead of the yearly total. The Bulls were budgeting $5 million for him. I'm just thinking if its 2 years at $5 million and that's the cap hit, and another where he'll be a $15 million expiring contract, maybe they do match. I personally don't think he's worth $5 million a year. Throw out his huge games against Charlotte last season, games I'm confident the Bulls would have won without his services, his numbers are even worse than they look. No, the tax hit is the amount they get paid that year. If it's 5/5/15, then the cap number is 5/5/15.

Second about to be published study finds that passing a stand your ground law is associated with a significant increase in the homicide rate, particularly amongst white males, and they suggest that the increase is unlikely to be driven solely by killings of assailants, but instead substantially by deaths of the people attempting to defend themselves.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 08:33 PM) How does the cap work on a contract like this? Is it the average or what they make a season? A $15 million expiring contract in 2014-15 would be a pretty decent trade chip if the cap hit the first 2 years is small. If the deal is 3/$25, then the first 2 years would be about $5 million a year. That would probably be enough to push the Bulls over the tax level next year.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 08:37 PM) And if the CBO's estimates are correct, the cost of this will be trillions over what it was initially. So what. False again. To get to anything resembling that, you must compare a CBO estimate covering the years 2010-2019 to one covering the years 2012-2021, thus adding 3 years when the bill is actually in force. The actual apples to apples comparison of the same years actually showed that in the 2012 update, the costs over those years declined by $48 billion.

QUOTE (buhbuhburrrrlz @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 07:58 PM) If Bulls match, which Gar Forman has consistently said the Bulls plan to do, guarantees Boozer would be amnestied for 2014-15 season. - KCJohnson I've got to figure the Bulls will do everything they can to make some sign and trade magic happen here.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 05:24 PM) Phillies are the first team to play 81 games. 36-45. They gawn. I wish we had the chips for Hamels. I'm sure they'd give him up for Sale. Viciedo might well do it too.