Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 08:52 PM) I have a question. With the high cost of health care, what happens if you are diagnosed with a terminal disease and you have no insurance and no money? Does the medical system have the right to kill you? Refuse to provide you meds and treatment? Isn't that involuntary manslaughter? Secondly ... if you have a terminal disease, no insurance and no savings, can you deny treatment to avoid going into debt for your survivors? In effect you'd be killing yourself and I thought suicide was illegal. Hmmm... 1) you'd be able to get emergent care whether you can pay or not 2) if you're poor enough, you can sign up for medicaid. if you're old enough you can use medicare 3) any medical bills you incur will die along with you. no issues for survivors to deal with. I mean technically they could be a creditor and try to make some claim against the estate, but if you're that poor you have nothing in the estate to go after.

QUOTE (shipps @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 05:09 PM) I have to say I really cant stand Derrick Rose. Its not that meatball sports fan type of hate either. Its the "I know a dumb ass and bad dude when I see one" type of hate. Based on? I mean I don't think he's smart, but why the "bad dude" opinion?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) Is there any other product in the world where the prices are hidden from you? Is there any other product that is not paid by you directly in 99% of cases, but is instead paid by some intermediary? End of the day, what's it matter what the actual cost of X is? It's a made up figure. The true figure is what the insurance company has contracted to pay with X provider. Also, if you really want to know what X, Y and Z "costs," go look up the fee schedules on the workers' comp website. That'll give you an idea of what the state requires insurance companies to pay for X procedure. It's not easy, since you'll need billing codes, but it can be done.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 10:56 AM) I've had DirectTV for almost 2 years now. I've been pretty happy with it but for some reason we lost the signal for AMC within the last week. We were able to watch the last episode of Fear the Walking Dead but it didn't record the season opener of Walking Dead. Of all the hundreds of channels we get, it is literally the only one that won't come in. Called customer support and they had me try a bunch of things but couldn't fix it. Paying $50 to have a technician come to the house. Of course they tried to sell me the "insurance plan" for $7.99/month which meant I wouldn't have to pay for the service call. Wait, did you pay the $50? Tell them to go f*** themselves with that fee. If you're paying for a service and the service isn't being provided, it's THEIR responsibility to fix it. Tell them to reinstall the cable, provide a new dish, provide new receivers, etc. until it's fixed. You shouldn't pay a dime towards that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 04:52 PM) yeah, my father retired as an attorney a few years back. He did quite well, but he was clear with me in my high school / college years that he wouldn't recommend the field, and it only got worse later. He would tell me in the last decade or two that it was nearly impossible to make partner anywhere anymore, and even just getting a job in private law was very tough. Which is odd when you think of how litigious society has become, but apparently (as you said) there was just a huge wave of law school grads added to the system. A lot of lawyers find corner market jobs now. Like FBI, or contract work with firms that specialize in surge needs. I keep praying that once my loans are paid off (2030ish!) i'll see the "value" of having gone to law school. We'll see. The guys that really make it (1) go to top level schools and get the big firm jobs, (2) network like crazy, (3) have their own book of business that provides value to the firm. Unless you're lucky, that takes years to develop enough relationships to do that.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 04:37 PM) Student loan debt is a huge problem for lawyers and doctors. There are jobs out there, but the top maybe 5% of law school graduates get the big firm jobs that pay a lot (and have plenty of other downsides). I make a solid wage, but the effective rate of the income is significantly reduced because of the law school debt I'm carrying. Sounds familiar!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 04:43 PM) There's actually a pretty big glut of lawyers out there right now. There was a big boom of law school openings and enrollment in the 2000's. Sometimes, what's the "hot new field" when you start college isn't looking so great 5-10 years later and you can struggle to find work. And it's also somewhat of a zero-sum game; if everyone goes and gets a STEM degree, the job market will be flooded with people looking for STEM jobs, depressing wages for everyone and leaving some unable to find a matching job at all.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 04:30 PM) I worked at Wal-Mart when I was in Engineering school. You wouldn't believe how many of my coworkers there had history, chemistry, poli sci, music, art, (none of which wanted to be teachers) etc. degrees. So many people think that just because you have a degree that somebody is going to hire you and pay you a good salary. Go into a strong field, do well in school, work hard and you will find a job. Just don't have a sense of entitlement just because you have a degree. And now people want to add XX tens of millions to those numbers of people with worthless degrees and few jobs to fill them. And neither Clinton nor Sanders have really explained how they plan to pay for it.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 02:41 PM) Bernie just comes across like a regular joe schmo. I think that will start to resonate with people more as the election goes on. The guy should be our next president and if congress pull their shenanigans, I hope the people for once in their goddamn lives do something positive (i.e. booting the sorry asshats from office) for the sake of our country. This isn't about free s*** being given out, it's about the US being allegedly once of the greatest countries on the planet. People shouldn't be in poverty when this place has more money than god. When I was younger, my dad asked me what I would expect from politicians. I replied, "A good job, clean water, and a stable roof over my head." That is not too much to ask for. Noone is b****ing about rich f***ers having yachts or big houses, they just want to be able to live comfortably and enjoy their f***ing lives. Am I f***ing crazy here? The problem is how you define these terms.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 01:11 PM) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_...ail_controversy There is also no actual evidence at this point of Clinton doing this deliberately to avoid public disclosure laws or anything like that. She did it because she's a power-hungry, above-the-law career politician who didn't want to be open and transparent about her work for fear of what the public might find out. I'm positive this happens on both sides, but that doesn't excuse what she did. It shows she has extremely poor judgment and frankly isn't very trustful as a public figure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 12:47 PM) I remember when Republicans were equally upset with many in the Bush administration using RNC servers and deleting most of the records specifically to get around public records requirements. eta assuming that her drop in the polls is due exclusively or even mainly to the dumb email thing is a little dubious. Were those individuals high ranking officials like Sec of State? Were they submitting themselves to be considered for President?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 12:21 PM) It wasn't stupid. It was a calculated attempt to hide correspondence from the American public. Clinton may be a lot of things, but she isn't stupid. She didn't want stuff getting used against her that was in the public domain. Nixon-esque. And people do care btw. Her polling of Democratic women over the last few months have dropped by like 30%. It's an issue to average voters, and more importantly Democratic voters. That's what it's dumb that these candidates aren't using it as ammo.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) Sanders was right to point out how stupid the never-ending email server drama is, and good for him for doing that rather than making dumb and pointless political attacks out of it. He'd rather go after her on economic issues. On the other hand, I think he's also right that most people are sick of it/don't give a s***, so it's not a useful line of attack anyway. Well, disagree on the email mess. It shows incredibly poor judgment, an opinion Dems and Repubs hold. I can agree that it's played out at this point, but it's still an issue to talk about when you're debating why she's not a good fit for President and you are. You don't win campaigns by being the "good guy," especially when the person who should be attacked/criticized is the favorite that everyone knows.

I saw bits and pieces and "followed" it on Twitter. It doesn't seem like any of the candidates went after Clinton. Sanders made a stupid mistake but saying everyone is sick of the email scandal. He essentially supported Clinton on it and now cannot use that against her. Is he trying to win an election? That's the point of campaigning. All of the candidates seemed incredibly afraid of disagreeing with her or speaking out against things she has done. I thought Cooper offered up some softballs to elicit those types of responses, but no one took the bait. Seems like they all are conceding defeat and are playing for the VP spot.

Anyone else stick with the Leftovers? The wife and I caught the first 2 episodes last night. I gotta say, it's basically Lost 2.0 with a few less characters. The opening 10 minutes was a total WTF, "guys, where are we?" type scene. Not sure i'm crazy about the subject matter/main story really (the departed thing is kinda hokey), but holy crap is the writing/filming/editing/everything done SO well.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 13, 2015 -> 07:25 PM) This didn't happen in 2003 did it? I don't think so.

Seriously? Live coverage on every network channel for a first round win?

QUOTE (BamaDoc @ Oct 12, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) I have a slightly different take. I think this is in part a unintended consequence of replay. In the past, umpires allowed the phantom touching of second on double plays in part to protect the infielders. With replay the phantom is dead. This puts more infielders in harms way than before so the odds of this happening increase. It is old school to bust up the dp anyway you can and I am not advocating hurting a player at all. They will change the rule this off season because owners don't want millionaires/assets getting hurt just like the Posey rule. To a point. This crossed the line. He literally slid right onto the guys feet/shins. If it wasn't a broken leg, it could have very easily been a torn up knee (or two).

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 12, 2015 -> 10:56 AM) No one is cool with it; they were just oblivious. My sister is constantly babied because she is an emotional trainwreck. The whole situation just went completely bizarre yesterday. Gotcha. Different standard for a sibling. I can relate to that.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Oct 12, 2015 -> 07:44 AM) If you slide into second base and make contact with the fielder without making any contact with the base, it should be an automatic ejection. I totally get the hard slide trying to break up the DP but it needs to be reined in. Utley's slide was nowhere near the base and so late it resembled more of a football play than a baseball one. He hit Tejada's leg before the ground. That was a tackle, plain and simple. He should have been called out, he should have been ejected, and that should have been that. The suspension is dumb, and the league looks stupid for not being able to handle it properly at the time of the review. How can you say in real time that it's a legal slide and then suspend the guy afterwards?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 12, 2015 -> 07:05 AM) So let me tell y'all a story. Yesterday my sister, who lives in bumf*** Wisconsin, basically forced me to bring my kid to her home to meet her 5 week old. My child (7 months old) hadn't met her daughter, and OH MY GOD IT'S A HUGE PROBLEM. Not wanting to have my kid in the car for 4 hours (there and back), I asked her to meet at my parents so I was only driving for 2 hours. She's 30 minutes from their house, but declined despite the fact that she happily drove her kid to some friend's house the day before. My wife's in DC for work, so there's that little tidbit, too. I'm a highly functioning father, so nbd. Ok, that's the annoying lead-in. Yesterday, I get to their house and the first thing I notice is that I smell pot. I call my pothead brother-in-law out on this and thank them for making me drive 2 hours so my kid could get a contact high. My parents were there and hadn't realized it (no idea how, pot smells like pot). I took the kid outside and fed her and had to stay, because she'd just been in the car seat forever. That said, hello, I should have just left. Of course, I alert my wife to all of this, and she goes HAM texting my brother-in-law, who keeps denying pot use. Finally, I leave about an hour and a half after arriving and get a frantic call from my sister saying she smoked pot because she didn't want to take her Xanax that morning (lol wtf) - and here's the kicker... she's breastfeeding! Suddenly, I'm in a text conversation with my brother-in-law who's basically demanding an apology, because I accused him of smoking pot before my kid arrived to their house. I told him to get his house in order and next time I ask why it smells like pot, someone should be honest. He doubles down on wanting an apology (what planet am I on?) so I tell him to go f*** himself. To this he responds that I am a typical, suburban, uninformed douche and to share any medical journal regarding marijuana and newborns/infants (again, what planet am I on?). Unsurprisingly, there's a ton of studies on the effects of THC on babies and how it can stay in their system for 2-3 weeks from one contact! Anyway, I already hated my sister, and now I have an excuse to not bother to see her at all. Obviously she needs some sort of help, but I'm not going to be the one to give it to her. She has a system filled will enabling idiots who think she's the greatest person on the planet, so I'll let one of them figure it out. /weekend How/why were your parents cool with that? And specifically cool with your sister smoking with a newborn?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 12, 2015 -> 09:25 AM) No, the Bears are not going to tank for three years in order to get high picks, especially after dropping a hefty dime on this coaching staff. Come on, how many trades happen in the NFL every year? The Bears made two trades a few weeks ago and everyone was astonished. The Bears aren't going to "trade every decent asset" for picks because it doesn't happen like that. You build through the draft, right now the Bears have 9 picks next year and they can still make trades after the season in order to acquire more. You aren't getting anything for Forte. You aren't getting anything for Young. The Bears are Trying to figure out which players are worth keeping for the core going forward, stop wishing for something that is not gonna happen So you see no detriment to picking 15th versus 5th? That's my argument here. Winning isn't a good thing. Playing well and developing is a good thing, but winning games is not.

Lol, nah, i'm out. I couldn't get through more than the pilot of the new walking dead show. Last night made me officially done with the walking dead. I'm bored with it. Every story is played out at this point. There are just too many other good shows to try.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 12, 2015 -> 09:17 AM) Baseball team strategy is not the same as football team strategy. You arent dumb, you know that There's no reason the same strategy can't work. This team isn't a player or two away from being a contender. They need picks. They need lots and lots of picks. Trade every decent asset and look towards making a run in 3 seasons.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 12, 2015 -> 09:14 AM) Sorry but nobody on that team or coaching staff is going to try and lose games. Hurting the draft position is not something that anyone but fans and media thinks about. Look towards the north side of town for a pretty great example of that strategy working out swell. Players and coaches shouldn't be losing. The front office should.