Balta1701

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 03:14 PM) Has that ever been proven? How do you define "Proven" in this case? positive tests? Personal admissions? Saw them inject the needles yourseft?

Fat chance.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 03:04 PM) Anyone thinking that Mirotic is going to be any good is being kinda silly. I think his best-case scenario is Ersan Ilyasova. And if he's slightly better than your guess, that makes him a legitimate starter doesn't it? He could certainly be a total bust. He's a lower 1st round pick who won't be here for a few years. But c'mon man, your own comparison weakens your statement.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 02:51 PM) Unless the people you are adding are the most expensive... In which case we're better off letting them die. (Edit: yes, I know, that's unfair. It just is amazing how many posts of yours lead directly to the conclusion that the U.S. is better off if 15% of its population are too broke to receive health care).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 02:45 PM) It doesn't necessarily mean it would get cheaper, it could just be cheaper for the companies to accept the fines and let the subsidies and the people burden the load of expense... The only case this is true is if companies become highly willing to let their workers walk to places where they're not required to take large nominal paycuts. Even with 9% unemployment, we haven't seen much of that. Otherwise, we'd be seeing genuine deflation (which we avoided thorugh the stimulus and QE1).

The House today massively voted down a bill that would have authorized the military action in Libya and then less strongly voted down a bill that would have restricted funding for the Libya war. Now that's what I call being against the war before they were for it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 02:07 PM) I saw it Wednesday at the game. He was inconsistent with it, but he seemed to be making changes, which I see as a positive. I dunno, right now it seems like he's changing something different every week. That can be bad too.

Yeah, found a garage less than a mile away that'll charge me like $10 for the day and I can reserve a spot online. Gracias everyone.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:41 AM) Look, everyone here has some very valid points...including Balta (and you ). You're right when you say they won't dump insurance coverage en masse...that's just an intelligent thing to say...here we agree. But over time, some WILL. And if those that do it somehow figure out a way to continue being a viable choice for employment and actually saving money in the process, others may steal that idea and implement it...it's called dominos falling. There could be any number of flaws, or ways to move money or get deductions elsewhere that could supersede the loss of the insurance deduction...if/when they find it, believe me, some WILL use/abuse it. The point is, and the point I tried to make from the start of this...is that regardless of study after study, or through the use of macroeconomic templates, if companies find a way to save money by dumping insurance...they will. That's my only point. There's one more thing that hasn't been brought up here just yet. If a significant number of companies wind up dumping insurance and shunting people into the exchanges, presumably this means that the exchanges have become cheaper than privately purchased insurance to the point that it is worth paying the fines and taking away the tax credit. This would, if it happened, be the most successful health care cost control effort in history. You'd take a market that on average refuses to insure 45% of the population and costs vastly more than large group purchases and suddenly have it insuring almost everyone and being cheaper than large group purchases. That would be an incredible cost control victory. That would be an incredible human victory. That would be a huge economic boon to just about everyone. Which, of course, is why it won't happen.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) That only works for a small subset of health issues. You can't treat chronic diseases or practice preventative medicine in the ER. The ER is also massively expensive for minor health issues.

Don't make me rejoin, please. I bypassed the B post this morning.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:27 PM) A few teams who hold training camp on a college campus have moved their training camps if/when the 2011 season starts. I wouldn't be shocked if Bears made similar announcement soon since if the start of season is delayed and school has to get ready for students to get back, can't have Bears running facility. That won't be announced until they know when TC starts.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) AJ is 7 years older than Zack. He was a senior in high school when Zack was in 5th grade. I doubt they crossed paths too often. I don't think their hometowns have anything to do with it... AJ's going to yap in the rare event he hits a bomb off a guy who's plunked him, had he grown up in Orlando, Florida or Hong Kong, China. AJ has quite the Guy Fieri vibe going on in your sig.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:58 PM) And I think Beckham seems to have figured out what was getting him with his hands. Before his 2 days off and on Wednesday, I didn't see this at all.

Interesting article

QUOTE (MAX @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:44 PM) If konerko hits 50 this year, more talks of this will come. Trying to delete topics about it won't help that. As southsider2k5 said, the blame lies on baseball's poor management of the issue. If PK14 suddenly hit 50 this year...yeah, I'd start doubting him too, no matter what else the logic is. He's a 35-40 HR hitter at best and we all know that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) I think the most bizarre part of this argument is the people who are usually claiming how evil and greedy corporations are, are now banking on the fact that the same corporations won't be making business based decisions, when history shows they did exactly that with the pension plans over the 20th century. Ok, fine, I'll start saying what you keep insisting I'm saying. Corporations will stop making business decisions. Corporations will stop taking the employer tax deduction because they want to screw the government and they're going to lose money to do so. No corporation makes business based decisions. Therefore, a plan that jumps through an enormous number of hoops to make sure corporations continue making the same decision they're making right now won't work because they're going to make decisions that lose them money out of spite.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:17 AM) You mean the medicare system that less and less medical facilities are even willing to accept? We would just move into an insurance program that less and less providers would accept? 100% absolutely. Just because doctors can make more money by catering to a richer and richer class of people doesn't mean that it's a good thing for health care.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:13 AM) Sure, because our existing system is a gigantic, expensive mess that f***s over individuals. Supposedly the exchanges will offer cheap, affordable insurance. It won't do that...opening up Medicare to everyone would have but that's Socialism. What it will do is at least make individual plans somewhat closer to competitive by effectively taking all the individuals and turning them into a group themselves.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:09 AM) Or, in opposite to what you said, they could wind up not making mistakes and doing things that make them money. Which is exactly what you'd predict they did if you did a large scale study, as has been done repeatedly but which you've told me can't be done.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:06 AM) Yes, you could apply a blanket study to multiple companies, but it would have no actual baring on what they actually end up doing. Of course, they could wind up making mistakes and doing things that lose money. Of course, you could even factor that in based on previous precedents.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:06 AM) If companies, over time, begin giving much bigger salaries to employees and tell them they have to get their own insurance benefits, people may not care about this being part of their overall compensation package. They will if they lose the employer health care tax deduction.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:06 AM) Or making out with Juan Pierre. Really?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) It's IMPOSSIBLE for you or anyone else to take a single study and apply it across multiple privately or publicly held companies, as you are not their CFO, and have no regard for what they are willing to spend money on, or lose money on (ie, benefits), so applying such a study is flawed from the beginning. You could do this, if you had inside information on what the company was planning to do, on a case by case basis...and only if you fully understood 100% of the health law as accepted by courts, how the tax write-offs would work, what penalties would be incurred, etc. And these are things that are entirely tractable and have been done repeatedly. It's not something I'm going to do...because I'm not paid to do it. If you put me on a team of 20 people and asked me to get it done in 2 weeks, I could probably get it done. This is not an impossible problem. The law isn't that complex.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:59 AM) I never made such a statement. Hence why what you said is completely stupid. You don't care what methodology anyone uses, it's impossible to know one way or the other. Your words.