Jenksismyhero

Lol

Pathetic

Cutler who?

He's been treated like a star for years now, and it's clear he loves the attention. And why shouldn't he? I'd be living it up if i were him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 4, 2013 -> 10:09 AM) The only way it makes sense is for a guy who wants to be the "man" and the savior all at the same time. Look at a guy like Rose who won't lower himself to recruiting other guys. He'd be that guy at Illinois with a decent group surrounding him though.

Also: Taylor Rooks Sports @ImTaylorRooks Speaking with Cliff Alexander now about the "choosing between Illinois and DePaul" rumor. Says that it is "not true." @humblekid11 He also said the no unofficial visit to MSU rumor wasn't true....and then he didn't make an unofficial visit and dropped MSU from his list.

DePaul makes no sense for Cliff. Illinois will at least be in a win-soonish mode. DePaul will still be terrible.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 4, 2013 -> 09:24 AM) I find it silly when people complain about Bush's vacations or Obama's golfing. It's the 21st century, I'm sure the President is in constant contact with all important people. At a moment's notice, he can jump into a plane and fly to DC or wherever be needed. It's not like Bush is out on a ranch where the closest contact is a post office 5 miles away via horseback. Let them have a little time to relax their mind, I'm sure the job is a 24-hour s***show. And didn't Bush use his ranch as a place to conduct business and host world leaders? I always thought he used that ranch as his personal camp david. But I agree, the 21st century president is 24/7, 365 no matter where he is.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 01:07 PM) when was ben gordon SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO good at shooting that he could cover things up. By sooooooooooooooo good Zoom meant "possibly the best pure shooter since Reggie, and likely better" Ray Allen says hi.

I'm excited for tonight. The wifey and I can catch up on the last episode of Homeland, Masters of Sex and Boardwalk.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 02:10 PM) I got a letter from Blue Cross that my plan is no longer being offered. Either switch to this similar plan with a 15% premium increase, or switch to a cheaper plan with much less benefits. My wife's plan at work is getting blown up too, can't way to see the numbers on those. Hey man, just shop around.

http://gawker.com/documents-reveal-the-ter...re-g-1456675306

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 10:12 AM) Partners at my law firm pay nothing. Staff and associates pay... a lot. BCBS' model is admirable and one I wish more companies followed... They're paying a lot more than you for your coverage though. And maybe they get their insurance through a spouse? Or do you know for certain what they pay?

And i'm sure insurance companies could do that, but I doubt they break things down by cancer type. I'm sure it's just cancer treatment as part of your coverage.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:50 AM) So women are payng for coverage for men illnesses? So it balances. I'll bet insurance companies are sophisticated enough to know that the only man needing OB/GYN services was Arnold Schwartzenager (too lazy to look up the correct spelling). Nope. There are 10 basic requirements for each healthcare plan in this country. Pregnancy/maternity/newborn care is the only gender-specific one. The "substance abuse" services is sorta bulls*** too. Why should I have to pay more because you chose to do heroin?

Also there's this, for controlling costs: http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/econo...octor-payments/ Just stop paying doctors what you had promised. That'll surely lower costs for the rest of us.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:38 AM) Individual states do this differently but many states still allow different prices to be charged for males and females on account of this fact. How? That's a requirement of Obamacare.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:28 AM) You're 100% right..."Some people" will see their plans change. However, it continues to be a small minority - and it is again offset by people who will spend less because they have also received improved coverage. Some of which they will never, ever use or need, like a male being covered for a pregnancy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:19 AM) I work for one of the largest employers in the world. Our group health plan does not depend on how much you make. I've honestly never heard of that anywhere. You are, oddly, arguing in favor of socialism here. You're arguing for progressive pricing for the same service based on your income level. Really? Every employee pays the exact same rate? The CEO making 5 million a year pays the same as the mail clerk making 15/hour?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:16 AM) I have to point out, again, that this is a pretty odd view of why people frequently need health care. It's not irresponsibility or moral failures that make you predisposed to getting cancer or catching the flu or just needing routine health care. No, it's not totally. But my point was we should be designing a system whereby if you do choose to do those things (smoking, drinking excessively, eating horribly) and develop the known associated illnesses because of it, in general sense, I don't agree that the rest of society should just pick up the tab. We have excise taxes on those types of things, why can't we do the same when it comes to healthcare? In fact, don't we already? Especially with smoking?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:13 AM) I think his basic point is, is that if they're being heavily subsidized to buy this insurance, we're still paying for their bills anyway. Perhaps this is a better method of doing so, but in the end, it's still being paid by the taxpayer. Yep. We shifted the pile of money from one place to the next. At a significant cost.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 09:04 AM) The effect, seemingly, will be a large stimulus. Didn't we just discuss how this claim is bulls***? And that some people who have an employer-sponsored plan are having options taken away, and price may go up?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 08:33 AM) Well first of all, I think I meant pre-PPACA. Second, if what you are saying is true... then before PPACA, those costs were NOT going to the taxpayers. The hospitals had to take them as collection items like any other business does, try to recover as much as they can, and write off the rest. But now with PPACA, the hospital can pass that cost onto Medicaid, or just keep doing the same thing? So in other words, for states that TOOK the expansion, we are now charging the taxpayers, when we weren't before? And for the other states, we will continue to NOT pass it on to the taxpayers? If that person was poor enough to be covered under Medicaid, they have employees at hospitals who literally fill out the paperwork so the hospital/clinic can ask the state for the money. They'll get paid 30 cents on the dollar, but it's something. Of course, chances are that person who doesn't have insurance is going to be taken to a public health facility anyway, which means it's paid for out of our pockets whether they can pay or not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 06:20 PM) Jenks, is it fair to say (based on your previous posts) that you don't even really believe that there's a significant number of people out there who lack access to affordable health care? You seem to be arguing that we should do something to address that problem, even if you don't know exactly what that would be*, but my impression in the past has been that you don't accept that it's even actually a problem. *you don't need to have some fully developed substitute or anything in order to criticize existing systems and structures, I hope that was phrased neutrally enough. I think it's a problem, I don't think it's a LARGE problem that was worth the cost of what we're going to spend and what we've spent already. At the end of the day you're still talking about a small minority of people that will get a great benefit from this (going from unaffordable coverage to more affordable coverage). Yet directly or indirectly, everyone else has to pay more for that. I also question the claims that this will actually curb costs. I don't think there's been an adequate prediction of how these people who never had insurance (or adequate insurance), but now have coverage at incredibly cheap rates, can now go to more expensive hospitals and get all ranges of treatment. Yes, there will be a benefit of screenings and routine check ups and all that to prevent future health issues, but will that really curb the cost of someone going to the ER for a cold because they don't have to worry about the cost? But really, my main issue with Obamacare (and I've voiced this repeatedly) was that we should have been focusing on the economy instead of this half fix (if you want to even call it that). Blame that on the GOP if you wish, but Obama could have put that on the back burner and he chose to make it his signature piece of legislation during his presidency at a time when the country was hurting.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 06:17 PM) So you want to provide BCBS with your tax return every year so that they can adjust your policy costs appropriately every year? This would effectively eliminate the entire concept of group plans (i.e. what a majority of americans have). I'm struggling to understand what your envisioned policy here is and why it should be that way. Your insurance company already knows, directly or indirectly, what range of salary you make. That's why people making more at a company pay more for their insurance than people that make less (at least they do in my plan). Why would that result in the end of group plans?