Balta1701

Have a day, G.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 11, 2009 -> 09:23 AM) The only single way to "cut costs" is to cut services (ration). Period. And that's exactly what they will do. How is that any different from what insurance companies do right now? How is that any different from keeping people out of the system and letting them get sicker and sicker until they have no choice but to go to the ER like we do now? That IS rationing. It's not the only way to cut costs, you're wrong on that also...but that's not the biggest flaw in your argument. You're arguing in favor of a system that doesn't exist...a system where everything you could ever want is paid for happily and easily as long as we exclude 25% of the population, and that is just fiction.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 11, 2009 -> 09:09 AM) Of course, by itself, preventative care is good. However, it will be used as a mechanism to deny services down the road, and that's bad. And that is partly what I'm getting at. The other part is, by mandating "preventative care", costs will go up because you will have a mass flood of people because they will not otherwise get care down the road. See, this is a great example of why our current system is broken...this argument focuses so much with the short term costs that we're willing to pay 5x more down the road to avoid them. The data is quite simple; preventative care saves a crapload of money over the long term. But you're trying to say that because adding in 100 million extra people actually focusing on preventative care would cost a decent chunk of money in the short term, you're willing to ignore the dramatic long-term savings. It's like arguing that no one should go to college because those extra years of school are expensive...yeah they are, but when you get paid back several times over, it's a smart strategy.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 08:31 PM) Question... hasn't the planet been going through climate changes it's whole existence? If so, why should we worry so much about this one? Why do we have to change everything we do if this could be a natural happening? To put NSS's answer another way...basically the issue is not that the Earth can't take changing climate. It's that we can't. Our society is extremely adapted to a particular set of climactic conditions, and there's good reason to think that we've managed to do some primitive form of geoengineering in the past 10k years to keep it that way. It's not just cities being flooded. It's agriculture. It's water supplies. It's extreme weather in general. The Sahel drought in Africa a couple decades ago is a great example. People there were getting by producing a certain amount of food based on the amount of rain that came. But as the planet started warming, that area was one of the first to dry out more, and suddenly we were looking at tens of millions of people starving over 1/3 of Africa. You warm the climate, and all the crops that are currently grown in the U.S. (Corn, wheat) can no longer be grown there because the summers are too warm and dry. The corn growing zone shifts northwards to Canada, and the economy of the central U.S. is wrecked. You warm the climate, and areas that survive based on water from snowfall or glaciers (i.e. California, or places all around the world in mountain ranges) suddenly have less water than their people need, agriculture dries up, and famine sets in. And on top of that, extreme weather in general just isn't something humans do well with. Things change, like 500 year floodplains suddenly being flooded once every 10 years (Hi Iowa). Or you get more common heat waves that kill people. Or you get more tornado-producing storms. Or you get more/stronger tropical cyclones.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 11, 2009 -> 07:07 AM) I'm not Balta, but I can at least partially answer this one. Glaciers and ice caps are currently above water. They melt, they add to the overall volume of ocean water. That also changes the salinity as well, but I am not sure of what impact that has. You're correct. Melting the ice sheet at the north pole, melting the portions of glaciers/ice streams that are already floating has virtually no effect on the volume of the oceans. The issue is the amount of ice sitting on top of Antarctica, Greenland, and all the other spots. Lost, you are correct that Fresh water ice is less dense than fresh water. In Fresh water, the maximum density is reached at about 4 degrees C. In other words, if I put a layer of fresh water at 1 degree C on top of a layer of water at 4 degrees C, they will not mix unless I stir them; the colder water will float on the warmer water. You'll note though that I said Fresh water. When you add salt, you change the structural character of the water and the density maximum moves. In water that's as salty as the ocean; ice is still less dense than the ocean water and will float, but that's in no small part because salt doesn't go in to ice. Salt water that is at 0 degrees C though will still be more dense than water at 4 degrees C: the density inversion point moves out of the field where water is stable when you add a little bit of ice. In terms of eustatic sea level rise that doesn't really matter but it's kinda cool. Fresh water at 0 degrees C will float on warmer water, salt water at 0 degrees C will sink. The other area where your question is relevant is that thermal expansion due to warming of the earth is actually playing a role in the sea level rise we're seeing right now. The earth is on average getting warmer, the oceans are warming, and they're expanding and consuming Pacific Islands.

QUOTE (G&T @ Jun 11, 2009 -> 04:41 AM) I thought he had a chance to walk until Verlander accidentally threw a fastball over the plate and realized Fields had no shot. But Ozzie seems to trying to be consistent in letting the young guys succeed or fail without getting subbed. At the beginning of the season he probably puts someone else in there, but he's letting it play out now. Eh, I'll bet Ozzie would have PH for him had he had any other option. Wise and Nix were the available bench.

Well Josh, you at least get one more chance.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Jun 11, 2009 -> 07:30 AM) I wonder if they'll go after Boozer if the off-season though, he'd be a very good fit for them down low again, especially if Wallace retires. If there's any bridge in the NBA that's been burnt I think it's that one.

You know? That HBP call really cost us the game didn't it?

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 07:20 PM) No way in hell you let Fields face Verlander. Who do you want, Wise or Nix?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 06:54 PM) Seriously? That is utopia at its finest, because medical decisions are taken away from the individual. I cannot see how anyone can be ok with that. EVERYONE can get health care now if they want to make that choice - because mechanisms are in place to make that happen. Do you really and truly think that individuals are currently making health care decisions? That the decision is not being made by 1. the individual's doctor, 2. the individual's insurance company, and 3. at a long distance back, the individual? And frankly, do you really think individuals are qualified to be the ones making health care decisions? I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm not. Trying to scare me with the idea of a bureaucrat making decisions about health care doesn't work when it's already happening...just happens to be done by a person who's job is to do everything possible to make sure that his or her company doesn't have to pay the bill. Furthermore...saying "Everyone can get health care now if they want to make that choice" is a wonderful straw man...because that's not the issue. The issue is that the way people are being forced to get health care is vastly, VASTLY more inefficient than the alternatives. Not going through preventative care is vastly more expensive than having to deal with something major that could have been avoided. Going to an emergency room for care is vastly more expensive than being able to see a regular physician.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 06:53 PM) Well to be fair, not stealing means we need an extra-base hit by Getz (not likely) or two hits in a row (also not likely) or a Getz walk and a hit (unlikely as well). So the SB makes only one hit necessary. If you can actually do it correctly. Verlander has a fairly good fastball.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 06:49 PM) Paulie looks like he hurt his hand. We might be seeing Fields next inning. You are correct sir.

And Beckham's first career CS.

Becksy!

Jim Thome's home run never would have happened had this site not come back.

Shepherd Smith calls out the people who are emailing Fox these days.

No idea why the Yankees would give up on him just yet.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 03:51 PM) I was just thinking along the same lines, but next year you have to have a good insurance policy on your team or in your system for him no matter what he comes back as. Again, if Thome leaves they need a LH power bat, my dream, trade for Dunn and then sign him to an extension, but they do need to address a LH bat if he leaves Both Brandon Allen and D2: the Mighty Danks are LH bats that could give our lineup a lot more balance if they're up next year.

QUOTE (WSoxMatt @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 03:11 PM) I think the Nats have that locked up already In that case we get Strasbourg!

QUOTE (tommy @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) That is my fault. I mean to say torn tendon. Going to have to defer to others on this one...The Plantar Fascia is related/attached to the Achilles tendon in a number of ways...but if he had a torn achilles I don't think there'd be any talk of him coming back and he'd have been on the 60 day DL.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 03:18 PM) I had a hunch that the SOx were going to trade for Randy Johnson a few years ago. Hopefully your hunch is as wrong as mine was, lol. I also have a hunch that we'll see Jordan Danks by the end of August, more likely by July. I'm not going to say your hunch is wrong...I am going to say it's a mistake if we do so.

QUOTE (tommy @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 03:16 PM) In reply to your previous post ya seems like Brian will be playing for now, but we get to deal with Wise too. Talking about the injury, does 'torn labrum' have anything to do with Plantar Fasciitis? No, Plantar Fasciitis is in the foot. Labrum is in your shoulder.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 03:14 PM) Anderson will play in CF until Danks is ready and than at that point, if Anderson still hasn't produced, who knows who our other outfielder would be (I can't imagine it will be Pods at that point, but maybe). I'm in no mood to rush D2: the Mighty Danks until I'm convinced he's significantly cut down on the strikeouts. Right now his numbers are great but he's still riding a .420 BABIP in the minors.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 03:10 PM) Jesus.. ok look first of all you don't release a guy with that much talent. You trade him to get good value. I've said this numerous times now, Carlos is an elite talent but is very injury prone. I would love to see us keep this stud for years to come, but if he's still like this (and mind you he's been like this with injuries for years) in 2-4 years if KW gets a good haul for him.. bye bye CQ. You just don't release him.. AT ALL. An awful lot of guys have grown out of their "Injury prone" phase too. Carlos's body/swing are sort of unique in how much he uses his upper body compared to his legs. His upper body is ridiculously strong. I could see his shoulders or even his wrists winding up being longer-term problems for him because of how he swings...but Plantar Fasciitis...now that just seems darn freaky.