Balta1701

Payback call?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 02:59 PM) As we don't have a bill to go from, the nature of this 'compromise' is not known. If they want to cover everyone, they need to have healthy people paying into the system. Here's another point...they already have healthy people paying in to the system. We just spend that much money on the health care system. The amounts we spend are just ridiculous.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) I hate rookie contracts in general. I dont like that rookies in most leagues... including the NFL... are making more than people that have proven themselves at that position. I know you are paying on potential, but most businesses dont pay their employees 3x more than someone who has been there for years. You earn what you make. Rookie contracts in the NFL aren't bad once you get out of the top 10 picks.

QUOTE (TheHolyBovine @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 03:24 PM) then he shouldn't have fallen apart the past 2 innings. You and I have very different definitions of "Fallen Apart".

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) Danks doesn't look too happy. He gets let down by the others on this team so much...

At least we kept it tied.

Damnit.

Farmer and DJ are insisting he was out and Nix only pulled up because he felt the tag.

Have they explicitly said what happened to Thome?

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) Good job by Rios. I for sure thought that would fall. You're too used to having our former CF out there.

Come on D1...

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 10:45 AM) I don't really give a hoot what program is implemented but I want to see a system where everyone is covered no matter what their socio-economic position and I don't think anyone EVER should go bankrupt because of medical problems. I don't care if you think that's socialism or not. So I guess what I'm saying is... is this co-op thing supposed to cover everyone not already covered? You can make a co-op system where everyone is covered, the problem with the co-op system concept is that it eliminates 2 of the key benefits of a larger public option. First, you eliminate the efficiency of having a large number of people covered in 1 system; you keep the broken system where every system has different forms, different rules, different paperwork, etc. Second, you eliminate the ability of a large organization to negotiate prices; you're always at a price disadvantage relative to a larger company because that company can negotiate better rates. Its also a lot more possible for a co-op to go all AIG on you if they're not set up with sufficient available funds or if they don't have a large enough risk pool. If you mandate that people have to enter something, co-ops will take up a small slice, but you'll lose the cost-savings you'd get with any sort of public option. It's a tactic by the insurance companies basically to make sure that the 50 million people we're going to try to insure wind up with insurance through them, and thus they get that extra trillion dollars without having to really reform anything.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 02:38 PM) I still think you do Peavy, Buehrle, Floyd for (what should be) a 3 game series, but Danks is making it a nice question to debate. Eh, you still put 4 pitchers out there in a 5 game series unless you're forced to run people out on short rest. it's 2 games, day off, 2 games, then day off, then 1 game. Game 4 would be 3 days rest for your game 1 starter.

Ugh, I not like the bunt here.

AJ manages to hit the wall with one.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) Are you serious? He killed that ball. That doesn’t make him a bad ballplayer. That's what, the 5th, 6th ball this series that he's killed to either the wall or the foul pole?

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) We need more players like Beckham. Any team in MLB who isn't saying this?

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) Wait, did something happen to Beckham? No, but if anything did happen to him he'd wind up doubling in the process. Go Pods.

Really, you just can't resist.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 09:53 AM) I suspect you could play a mean game of Edward Fortyhands with that. Could?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 10:00 AM) How is that an "attack"? Balta said that because he's obviously a liberal and he posted something from a well-known libertarian study group that he probably agrees with. ^ this. When I come in this thread and post something that I think might be interesting, I flag where the source is because otherwise people won't pay attention. I post stuff from Fox News in here the same way: I flag where it's from so that you folks might actually see whether there's anything interesting in it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 07:18 AM) That's where you and I differ. Costs are secondary to me. I value individual freedom more than costs. You have no problem turning your life over to the federal government. I do. No, the difference is that you and I have totally different definitions of "Individual freedom". For me, I don't see much freedom in a system where: I have no choice of which insurer to use, it's chosen by my company I have no choice of plans, they're offered by my company I really don't get to choose a doctor; I get a list of 2 or 3 in-network places and I need a referral to go anywhere else. If I lose my job, I have no ability to get insurance at all because the individual market is the worst of the worst, no one can get coverage there My company really has no choice in insurers, since the markets for 80% of the country basically meet the definition of a monopoly If I actually get sick, the insurance company does everything humanly possible to avoid spending money on me There really is shockingly little "Individual freedom" in this system. The only freedom right now is the freedom for insurers to find creative new ways to drop people.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 12:01 PM) I understand your point - and there are ways to solve this. If our (especially current) government weren't so hell bent to make Democrats for life with all this entitlement s***, we would have a much different perspective on this whole thing. If you want serious health care reform, take the political crap out of it, quit paying for illegals, get real tort reform going, and change the regulations of the insurance industry. Problem solved. But will anyone listen to that? Of course not, because we have to try to get massive voting blocks out of all this legislation. That's more important to the parties then getting serious issues resolved. This has all been tried and tried and tried. The costs of illegals are minimal, they're usually too scared to go get health care because they'll be arrested. And heck, when they do need care it's usually in the emergency room anyway; it'd be cheaper to actually give them free insurance than to keep having them go to the ER. The places with serious tort reform show virtually no cost savings. And if you cut down on the regulation of the insurance industry, all that happens is they'll cover less. You might wind up with fewer people "uninsured" but you'll wind up with vastly more underinsured...everyone in the country will be happy with their insurance until they actually get sick and learn that the only thing that is covered is lupus. The insurance companies are the problem here.

QUOTE (bighurt4life @ Aug 16, 2009 -> 01:23 PM) He hasn't been the same since his wrist injury, I wouldn't be opposed to sitting him for the rest of the season to let it heal then play him in the AFL It depends on what's actually wrong with him. There was every reason to expect a slump from him if you looked at his BABIP earlier in the year (Rod Carew didn't put up those kind of numbers). He's against better competition now and he hasn't cut down on the K's. But of course...the wrist could still be bothering him. Or he could just be worn out. These are questions I can't answer.

Flips computer on, checks game...yup, Beckham with a double.