Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 5, 2012 -> 08:19 AM) Drugs are bad. Oh please. Tell me how many wins Nash is really worth. 5? 8? They're still behind the Thunder.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 5, 2012 -> 08:22 AM) The one constant is Rose, Deng, and Noah not being 100% at critical times. This is because we go for best record in the league each year and ride our horses 40+ minutes and they break down. I don't think any of the injuries this year were due to heavy work loads. Rose played 30 something games and was well rested, Deng injured his wrist early on and Noah just landed on his foot awkwardly on a breakaway. All of those injuries could have happened during training camp.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 4, 2012 -> 09:57 PM) 2nd in the league in assists, 54% from the field, nearly 40% from the line. Now he's got 3 all-stars to play with. let it go. And that equated to how many wins? Not saying he sucks, but this isn't MVP Nash. He'll get destroyed by Westbrook if they make it that far. And with Kobe hogging the ball it won't be the run and gun Suns.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 4, 2012 -> 09:52 PM) You're Roger from angels in the outfield. That's fine. But c'mon. Gasol/Bynum have a massive advantage inside. Kobe is Kobe. Now they've got Nash? It's not close. Nash is 62 years old. I give this a big yawn unless they get Howard. Thunder still the team to beat in the West.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 30, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) My ICS update came through this morning, finally. Yeah mine came through Monday. I like the changes. The menus are a lot cleaner and easier to use.

This would be sweet: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21...o=feeds-newsxml

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 10:50 AM) How about management gives Rose a metaphorical hug and quits f***ing around and gets him some legit help +100000. Anyone have the list of FA's in 2013-2014?

My bill in La Grange just doubled to $82 (sewer service and water) thanks to Rahm's increase. The village had a nice little note on the bill that said words to the effect of "Sorry, talk to Rahm."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 08:47 AM) There are drugs that prevent cancer? I meant preventative as "early detection." http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-0...inancial-advice Edit: I now can't find the article I was reading about a similar drug used to combat melanoma in the early stages. I was interested because I thought it was the same drug my mom was on for a while, and it was crazy expensive. But there are other examples. For people with psoriasis you can take Enbrel at 4k a shot (normally need one per week). I'll go out on a limb and guess that France/the UK aren't happy about paying those prices either.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 10:42 PM) Who are you to tell me what to eat? People are stupid, that is not new. People make stupid decisions all the time, but isnt the point of America that we have the freedom to make our own stupid decisions? What if the govt could prove that if I had been forced to be a scientist or doctor, I could have reduced the burden on the entire healthcare system. Would you think that it would be okay for the US govt to force me to become a scientist or doctor because that would help everyone else? Seems safer that we let people make bad decisions and if they die, oh well. I was just reading a story about this (from a few years ago) yesterday, about how some countries like France, with that amazing healthcare system, have higher death rates for more "preventative" cancers because the costs of the drugs/tests to "prevent" or "control" the cancers early on are way too expensive. So, they don't offer them. Do we really want the government deciding what prescription drugs we can/can't get, especially potentially life-savings drugs, because of cost? Especially once everyone is on-board the "oh the gov't will provide everything I need in life!" bandwagon?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 09:45 PM) here's the giant problem though. people are stupid and make themselves sick because of the foods they eat. THAT puts a burden on the entire healthcare system. If Americans would just f***ing eat better, they wouldn't get sick so damn much. Someone's gotta get america off its high fructose corn syrup addiction. I applaud Bloomberg and Mrs. Obama for getting things going on the right track. You scare me.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 01:06 AM) There is a racial argument in there. When white people are told that they can legally kill someone, they kill more people. When they are told they cant legally kill someone, they kill less people. It really doesnt matter to me, towns/cities/states should be able to create their own gun laws within reason.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 04:10 PM) First of all...none of those should come close to accounting for a trillion dollars of spending per year. Secondly...none of that deals with the fact that 50 million people were still getting left behind inexcusably. And perhaps most interestingly is the other detail buried in your post..."We're an unhealthy nation" but "We undergo more elective procedures", "Seek out more preventative care (I'd be surprised if that were true, especially if you factor in the fraction who have no insurance, but would be happy to see data proving me wrong), and we're "more medicated". If all of those things are true...and yet we're still an unhealthy nation...then those things you quoted are simply failing to produce the kinds of health improvements that the spending on them should produce. That means the money being spent there simply is not working. I'd actually agree with that part that I dragged my way to. We're spending a lot of money on things that don't work, or don't work as well as they can...because, in part, we never do the research to see what works best. That research is funded by the PPACA, which is one of the better things it does. And also, because we treat people not for health outcomes, but to maximize profits. The PPACA has some efforts to shift that system to paying for improving health outcomes rahter than total # of procedures done...but we'll see if those work. Not sure how much medicine/medical care can stop the country from being fat and needing more treatment later in life.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) If the spending were equal and the systems were all universal, I'd say you'd ahve a point here. I think the French/German system works the best, but yes, wait times for elective surgeries for people with insurance are longer there. If we both spent the same amount on the system, and we had better coverage for some drugs than they did, while they had longer/shorter wait times, great. That's just not the case though. If we spent the same %age of GDP on health care as the french, that would save this country somewhere between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year. And we're spending that money and still missing nearly 20% of the population. Yes, our wait times are lower for surgeries...but they're not lower when you factor in the number of people who put off procedures because they're uninsured or because they simply can't afford it. When you add in the people who never get the procedures they need, those averages would shoot up. If we're spending that much more money than everyone else, then we ought to get care that is vastly better than everyone else, not competitive with...and we don't. Solve those issues and I'll agree that there are pros and cons to each side...but these are the 2 things that are simply completely broken about the U.S. system. It leaves a huge chunk of it's population out to dry, and it costs an absolute fortune at the same time...and that is compared to systems that have much more government intrusion than ours. The PPACA is hopefully a big step towards solving both of them and letting the U.S. actually innovate its way to a quality health care system. The spending arguments IMO are weak because the countries are difficult to compare side by side. We're an unhealthy nation that needs more medical care to begin with. We undergo more elective procedures. We're probably more medicated than your average European. And we definitely seek out more preventative care. So there's a lot of your cost difference right there. Again, not suggesting the costs aren't out of control or that the money is justified. But it's not like we're spending 5 times as much for the same level (and amount) of care.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) Why LOL? Really a funny situation to mock here. I'm saying the bill of $997,000 was for the initial surgery of the poor baby. I'm asking a simple question, asking people to educate me on why our system is so great when in Europe a friend of mine walked into a hospital for emergency care, had to stay a couple days and there's no bill. Free. As far as not treating the baby and throwing him on the street to die ... educate me again. If you have no insurance and head to emergency room, a.) will they treat you at all? b.) if you do get treated and they immediately find a brain tumor on the MRI, you mean to tell me they will do brain surgery for free? I don't think so. I think they tell you about free clinics, etc. I'm asking if Europe's system is better; cause it seems so. 997,000 bucks?? For one surgery? Because the two situations aren't really comparable, unless your friend had an incredibly rare emergency procedure. Yes, a million dollars is insane and you won't get any argument from me that our system is crazy overpriced, but putting X millions on the gov't payroll isn't going to fix that problem. That's why this Obamacare is such a joke. It did nothing to address the actual problems with the system, it just created MORE problems with the system. And btw, the middle class will, yet again, pay for this s***. Not the poor, not the rich, but the middle class, who happens to pay for just about everything in this society these days. And i'm tired of comparing the US to other countries. Look at the lifestyles. We live in different cultures. Look at the goods we buy (expect to have) and the things we do. Look at the vast geographic differences and the associated differences in costs of living. Why should we have the same systems for everything? Universal healthcare in other countries isn't some perfect solution either. They have to wait longer for surgical procedures and treatment, most have to buy private insurance on top of their public coverage, they don't have access to the same medications, especially new medications or really expensive preventative care medications, like we do, etc. etc. There are pros and cons for both sides yet everyone thinks the european model is some perfect system. It's not. They pay for it one way or the other, just like you and I do, and in most cases it's inferior care. And yes, unless that baby is cleared to go home he's going to continue receiving free medical care in this s***ty healthcare system of ours. He's going to undergo a free brain surgery if that's what is required. Free because of the many rich people out there that finance huge hospitals and specialized departments specifically for a situation like that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 10:35 AM) The effect both in a legal sense and in a real-world sense is identical. In both cases...if you make the appropriate purchase...your tax rate decreases. If you choose not to make a qualifying purchase, you pay a higher tax rate by not claiming that tax credit. That really is all this is. The only difference here is that there was an increase and a credit tied together, rather than just the creation of an independent credit. That is all the mandate is...a tax that few are expected to pay because of a very substantial and easy to qualify for tax credit. If they had created an independent credit it still wouldn't have been the same because people would have the alternative to not buy any insurance and therefore not receive the credit. You're granting people a credit as if it's money that is owed to them despite the fact they've done nothing to earn it. You can't count that as a loss which is equal to a tax.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 10:28 AM) The effect is the exact same in both cases. The government believes that there is a positive benefit to society that occurs by using the tax code to subsidize some behaviors and penalize others. The government subsidizes home ownership hugely. The goverment has substantial tax penalties for tobacco use. The government in this case uses the tax code to do exactly that...it creates a tax credit that is cashed in by purchasing health insurance of a certain quality, reflecting the fact that society as a whole benefits from larger insurance pools and reflecting the fact that there is a substantial cost associated with the portion of the population that remains uninsured by choice. That is all the "Mandate" is. People can choose to purchase tobacco, people can choose to not purchase a home, people can choose not to purchase insurance. In each of those cases though, there is a sociaetal cost to people making that choice, and therefore it is logical for the government to use the tax code to reflect that cost and to benefit people who make the opposite decision. But you're glossing over the major difference - the mandate to be subject to that credit/tax. Regardless of the intentions of the government, it's not the same.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) Some might note that $700/year comes no where near the cost of actually providing comprehensive insurance. One might instead suggest that it covers the cost of free-riding when you can afford insurance, since as many have noted, a hospital is required to provide emergency care you whether you are insured or not. I don't get your point here. Nor do I understand how you are comparing elective purchases resulting in tax credits with a mandate resulting in a tax "credit." Missing out on a credit (benefit) is =/= paying a penalty (tax).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) This type of comment continues to show a basic misunderstanding of how you work with data. It means that if 4-7 additional people die per month...then for each life that is saved, another is lost to offset that life. It is done by using comparative data of trends in crime rates,w ithin state lines, within ethnic groups, and across state lines. While you cannot do a double-blind study of it, the fact that different states have different laws, and the fact that the laws change at a specific point in time, gives you a very close approximation of one. How does it capture how many lives are saved or how many crimes were stopped? That is a statistic that cannot be recorded unless you interview criminals and ask them if they stopped committing a crime because they saw the victim had a gun. At best you'll have a number of dead criminals but that tells half the story. These studies are limited to SYG situations (which as I pointed out before, is varied from state to state and prosecutor to prosecutor, so whether or not case X really fits in this study or not is questionable) ending in death. Not the total picture of the effect of SYG laws and concealed carry and what that does to prevent crime or deter crime from happening.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 07:51 PM) Second about to be published study finds that passing a stand your ground law is associated with a significant increase in the homicide rate, particularly amongst white males, and they suggest that the increase is unlikely to be driven solely by killings of assailants, but instead substantially by deaths of the people attempting to defend themselves. These studies are worthless. You can't count events that don't happen. Researchers are not performing interviews with would-be killer assailants asking "hey, if he didn't shoot you first, would you have shot him in the midst of your crime?" So this study says 4-7 more people are killed because of SYG laws. How many were saved?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 11:01 AM) you lost, get over it. This isn't a competition. We're all f***ed based on this law. Enjoy your "penalty" increase.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 30, 2012 -> 01:23 AM) I know a young couple whose child was born at 2 pounds and needed some surgery early on. The bill? $997,000. Conversely I know of a guy who was in Europe traveling and needed some emergency procedure in the hospital. The bill? $0. Please, tell me about our healthcare system and tell me why what we have is better than Europe? Educate me, please. Lol, incredibly rare situation involving a pre pre term baby needing round the clock care from specialists =/= some emergency procedure. Oh, and since this country is so morally and ethically bankrupt when it comes to healthcare, i'm assuming this baby is now dead because if you can't pay medical bills you're just thrown out on the street to die. I see that happen all the time.

Great, so next season he'll land on it awkwardly or get hit hard and it'll be 2011-2012 all over again.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 29, 2012 -> 10:02 AM) <!--quoteo(post=2635613:date=Jun 28, 2012 -> 05:05 PM:name=Rex Kicka**)-->QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 05:05 PM) <!--quotec-->At least 17 people on Twitter decided to escape Obamacare "socialism," they will be moving to Canada. Which has socialized medicine. http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-movi...se-of-obamacare This was my favorite tweet of the day: Because those types of people are really concerned with finding affordable health insurance.