Balta1701

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:49 AM) My first post in the Buster in months... I've said all along, the nomination of Roberts has never bothered me as much as Alito. I don't agree with all of Roberts' decisions (Citizens United in particular), but Roberts has always been methodical and disciplined in his interperetations (unlike Scalia who is an unabashed partisan, and Alito who has always been a windsock and just takes the Republican view on things). So while this is a surprise, it isn't as big of one for me as it appears to be for others. I was 50/50 on Kennedy and Roberts on this. I still don't agree with the overall wisdom of the law and the way it was engineered - I think there were better ways to handle this and do some good. And I've said all along if this was simply paid for as a tax, it would stand up just fine - as it did. I just wasn't sure the court would see it as a tax, because it sort of is and sort of isn't. That is what made the whole thing a question. I'm glad the parts of PPACA that are positive are upheld, but skeptical of what doors may have been opened for required purchase of a private product. It will be interesting to see if Congress ever tries to push the door open further on that, and how far the court will stretch the limits of what a tax really is, versus required commerce. As for the Presidential election, I think this helps Obama, but only a little. The economy at large is still far and away issue number 1, particularly in the area of jobs (or lack thereof). Obama is in the poll position at this point, but if the economy's growth stops or regresses as the summer and fall go on, I can still see Romney pulling off a victory. Just to add for completeness, I still disagree with the concept that this bill opens the doors to "required purchase of a private product", on the grounds that any tax credit can be described as that based on the standard applied in this law.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:53 AM) Forgive me, I am neither a legal or health care expert: could this ruling pave the way to a potential single payer system in the future? A state could choose to use the funds from the PPACA to enact a single payer system on their own. In fact, Vermont is already experimenting with th at. However, this law is written specifically because a single payer system was judged to be politically impossible. There's no obvious reason why Medicare for all couldn't have passed constitutional muster 20 years ago, but there's no political will for that. Given how hard fought this step was, I'd be surprised if you saw a major advance in coverage expansion in the next decade or more.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:54 AM) Lyle: The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition. This is only true as long as the current court remains as it is constructed, which likely won't be the case no matter who winds up as the next President.

QUOTE (Wedge @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:18 AM) Maybe the better question is something like "How LOOGY-ish can your LOOGY be?" To my surprise, Ohman actually had decent numbers against lefties: .186/.250.305/.555 but was horrendous against righties: .286/.375/.595/.970. Considering that most teams have a decent RH hitter on the bench in the AL, the situations you can actually bring Ohman into are extremely limited. For his career, his numbers against righties were .267/.782, with .221/.659 against lefties. So it's the fact that his splits have gotten even more extreme that really got him here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:30 AM) Lyle: In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." The minority would have struck down the entire thing. After some reading...it's worth wondering whether the thing that pushed Roberts into the "uphold" side was the fact that the other 4 wanted to overturn the entire act and not just the Mandate section.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:40 AM) Badger, The point of a playoff is to get the best 4 teams in, it does not matter what conference they are in. Last year, are you telling me that LSU and Alabama weren't 2 of the best 4 teams, and you should hold Alabama out because they lost a game? The regular season is not the playoffs. So had that loss been against someone else, you're OK with putting them in? You just want to see different games and conferences, I want the best 4 teams, and that's the point. Illinilaw, Of course there's bias. Herbstreit talks about the eye test. There are a lot of numbers and things you can look at, but eye test should factor in. Last year, eye test says LSU/Alabama were 2 of the 4 best teams in the country. Bias is how they create the top 25 in the first place. If Alabama had 1 loss to LSU and there were 4 other undefeated teams, then Alabama would not deserve to be in. However, that wasn't the case. Alabama had that one loss and there were a bunch of other 1+ loss teams. In that case, pick the best team out of that group, with some weight attached to winning your conference and some weight attached to the quality of the team that they lost to.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 22, 2012 -> 03:30 PM) $15 billion would be a lot of cash to hold on to if you were only expecting to have to cover a $2-$3 billion hole. QUOTE (Cknolls @ May 22, 2012 -> 09:04 PM) Well to be fair. The 15 billion repurchase is probably to be executed over a couple of years. These are not done in one year. Making that number make more sense:

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:30 AM) Lyle: In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." The minority would have struck down the entire thing. Literally the only thing that doesn't stun me from this decision.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:28 AM) This is for people who dont get insurance thought an employer, correct? It doesn't matter where the insurance comes from. If you have a qualifying health insurance plan, you receive that rebate. if your employer somehow purchases an insurance plan which does not meet the minimum standards, then I believe you would still be subject to the tax (although it would be really stupid of your employer to do that, especially given the fact that the bill helps employers out with buying qualifying plans).

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:23 AM) Ok, so let me get this clear. People are not REQUIRED to buy insurance, but if you do not, you'll be taxed and you still wont have insurance, correct? Just understanding the semantics. Think of it as: 1. A tax of $700 or so applied to everyone. 2. Minimum requirements applied to insurance plans 3. A tax rebate of $700 or so given to anyone who purchases an insurance plan that meets the standards in 2. You can still choose not to purchase insurance, but you will pay a small additional tax that reflects the mandate penalty/fact that you're able to receive health care anyway/fact that if you get sick you can go and buy insurance at that time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:21 AM) CORRECTION: THE SUPREME COURT BACKS ALL PARTS OF OBAMA'S SIGNATURE HEALTH CARE LAW they will not live that down soon. I only realized to get that screenshot thanks to you .

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:15 AM) So it's unconstitutional to require people to purchase health insurance, but it's constitutional to levy a tax on people who choose to not do so? Sounds like a loophole, albeit a legal one. Kinda like how congress couldn't force states to have a 55mph speed limit, but could withhold highway funding to those who didn't. I'd say yes. Because "Buying health care" is an economic activity, you can put a tax on everyone and give a tax rebate to people who purchase a product that meets a standard that the feds decide upon. I don't see it as any different than tax credits for any other purchase except in the choice of language.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:12 AM) lol@CNN CNN.com's homepage right now says in bold print "Mandate struck down"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:10 AM) Mandate is found to be a tax, which is a power of Congress Roberts joins the liberals of the Court. Wait, so all those times I said it was a tax...I wound up right?!?!?!? I'm almost more excited about that. The Chief Justice agreed with me!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 09:42 AM) Interesting note from the SCOTUSblog coverage: To answer another question, the provision requiring insurers to let young adults stay on their parents' insurance could get struck down if the mandate is invalidated and the Court decides that that the rest of the law (or some part of it) must go too. But some major insurers have announced that they will continue to allow the young adults to stay on even if the law is invalidated. It's actually good business to do so...people aged 23-26 don't get sick all that often.

Just to point out...whoever comes up, this means the Sox bullpen will include: Jones Reed Santiago Axelrod Whoever is called up. In addition to: Crain Thornton Bruney. That is one f***ing young bullpen.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 04:11 AM) Roy Oswalt vs AL, regular season, career 31 GS, 206 IP, 3.63 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, .281/.326/.440/.765, 2.27 BB/9 7,3 K/9, 0.87 HR/9 Roy Oswalt, regular season, career totals 341 G (327 GS), 2160.2 IP, 3.21 ERA, 1.195 WHIP, .254/.301/.386/.687, 2.01 BB/9, 7.4 K/9, 0.76 HR/9 And, if you wanted to do a little bit of arithmetic, you could quickly deduce how much more of his success has come from pitching in the NL compared to the AL. He's going to be, at the very, very best, a #2 for them, and more likely a #3-4 guy who eats inning and gives a pretty consistent performance. Expecting him to keep his ERA below 3.75 at this point is asking too much, and in that park, below 4 will be a minor miracle. Adding a #2-#3 starter midseason isn't a good thing?

QUOTE (balfanman @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) Just to play devils advocate, and I'm not a Guillen fan, especially with the stuff that he pulled in his last few years here, but is this not what K.W. did in Ozzies first season or 2 here? Was not most of the moves between 2004 - 2005 along the lines of transforming from a power laden, slow team to the more versatile, faster, pitching / defense type team which we won a World Series with. That was what Ozzie wanted, albeit he didn't get the speedy, slap hitting leadoff hitter (Pierre) that he wanted until later. We all know how this turned out in later years and I hope that K.W. & R.V. are truly on the same page here. IF, and I mean (wish) IF we win another World Series this year or next, let's hope that another ego battle does not ensue as to who gets most of the credit for it, and we're back infighting with different agendas again. Silly me, I know that K.W.'s ego would never allow that to happen. The counterpoint of course is that the 2005 team was a power laden team that scored a ton of runs using the HR. Hit 200 HR on the regular season, was one of the top power teams in the league. And then the 2006 team which won 90 games was even more powerful thanks to that beast in the DH slot.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 12:52 AM) Rienzo has always been pretty successful and supposedly has a good fastball. He seems to have adjusted to AA pretty quickly, but I don't think it's super surprising. He was sitting 89-92 in the game I saw him, first game at AA post suspension. He had no control that day so I didn't see him doing much dominating at the time, but his fastball was definitely a click below where Castro's was a couple days later. That 89-92 is the minor league gun reading btw.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 09:05 AM) Did I miss it or did someone mention Daniel Hudson was going to have Tommy John I didn't notice it? Crap, terrible for him.

So, I've got dibs on the worst possible outcome, 5-4 vote that not only overturns the entire act but also declares that Medicaid can't be changed from it's original state because states would then have to opt-out of new rules, throwing maybe 100 million people off the insurance rolls. (Edit: oh, and as this gets applied, it dismantles lots of interstate regulations, highway rules, pollution controls, etc.)

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) I'm not really an NBA guy, but if New Orleans drafts Tyler Zeller and Anthony Davis, and Eric Gordon is healthy next year, you have to figure that they'll win at least 35 games next year, right? That's not good by any stretch but much better than the mess they were this past season. Clearly yes, they'd get better if those things happened and all of them were solid contributors.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jun 27, 2012 -> 05:54 PM) Except, that really didn't happen his last few years here. Or do I have to bring out the 82games stats for defense as well as the fact that Ben had the 2nd least shot attempts for someone averaging 20ppg his last year here. He was only 2nd in the league to Dwight Howard. But continue on with your bias...I think I have a good Ben debate in here with me. BTW, even if the Bulls didn't want Ben who is better than Korver and Brewer, that draft pick would've been worth it as they need to stockpile assets and get rid of deadweight. But that would have required the Bulls take on $12 million in additional salary for the 2013/2014 season. Right when Gibson needs extended.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) It amazes me how a team can build an organization from top to bottom with one type of player, and then build a ballpark that does the complete opposite. Hawk keeps saying that Terry Ryan had major influence into the ballpark design too.