caulfield12

Of course, Rabbit doesn't think like a parent or someone with a wife and family...he thinks like a 30 year old in good health, which is MOST DEFINITELY not the majority of people in America today https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/proposals-for-insurance-options-that-dont-comply-with-aca-rules-trade-offs-in-cost-and-regulation/ In 2018 the Trump Administration proposed a new draft regulation that would promote the sale of short-term, limited duration health insurance policies that offer less expensive coverage because they are not subject to ACA market rules. Short-term limited-duration health insurance policies (STLD), sometimes referred to as limited-duration non-renewable policies, are designed to provide temporary health coverage for people who are uninsured or are losing their existing coverage but expect to become eligible for other, more permanent coverage in the near future. Historically, people who have used these policies include graduating students losing coverage through their parents or their school, people with a short interval between jobs, or newly hired employee subject to a waiting period before they are eligible for coverage from their job. Because these policies are not intended to provide long-term protection (they generally cannot be renewed when their term ends), they are lightly regulated by states and are exempt from many of the standards generally applicable to individual health insurance policies. They also are specifically exempt under the ACA from federal standards for individual health insurance coverage, including the essential health benefits, guaranteed availability and prohibitions against pre-existing condition exclusions and health-status rating. These differences can make them considerably less expensive (for those healthy enough to qualify to buy them) than ACA compliant plans. STLDs are similar to major medical policies in that they typically cover both hospitalization and at least some outpatient medical services, but unlike ACA-compliant policies, they often have significant benefit and eligibility limitations. STLD policies often either exclude are have significant limitations on benefits for mental health and substance abuse, do not have coverage for maternity services, and have limited or no coverage for prescription drugs. Policies also generally have dollar limits on all benefits or specific benefits and may have deductibles and other cost sharing that is much higher than permitted in ACA-compliant plans. Insurers of STLD policies typically use medically underwriting, which means that they can turn down applicants with health problems or charge them higher premiums. Policies also exclude coverage for any benefits related to a preexisting health condition: a backstop for insurers in case a person with a health problem otherwise qualifies for coverage and seeks benefits. Because STLD policies are not renewable, people who become ill after their coverage begins are generally not able to qualify for a new policy when their coverage term ends. Due to their lower premiums, some people have been purchasing STLD policies instead of ACA compliant plans. This has happened even though STLD policies are not considered minimum essential coverage, which means that people who purchase them do not satisfy the ACA mandate to have health insurance and may be subject to a tax penalty. In 2016, CMS expressed concern about these policies being sold as a type of “primary health insurance” and issued regulations shortening the maximum coverage period under federal law for STLD policies from less than 12 months to less than three months and prescribing a disclosure that must be provided to new applicants. The intent of the regulation was to limit sale of these policies to situations involving a short gap in coverage and to discourage their use a substitute for primary health insurance coverage. The rule took effect for policies issued to individuals on or after January 1, 2017. In February 2018, the Trump Administration issued a new proposed regulation to reinstate the “less than 12 months” maximum coverage term for STLD policies. The preamble to the proposed regulation specified that this would provide more affordable consumer choice for health coverage. For more information about STLD policies, see this issue brief. Extending the coverage period for STLD policies back to just under a year is likely to make them a more attractive choice for healthier individuals concerned about the cost of ACA-compliant plans. This is particularly true beginning in 2019 when the individual mandate penalty ends and purchasers will no longer need to pay a penalty in addition to the premiums for these policies. Under the ACA framework, STLD plans may provide a lower-cost alternative source of health coverage for people in good health. With ACA policies as a backup, people who purchase STLD policies and develop a health problem would not be able to renew their short-term policy at the end of its term, but would be able to elect an ACA-compliant plan during the next open enrollment. It is possible, as one estimate concluded, that more healthy individual market participants may switch to short-term policies as a result. Such “adverse selection” would raise the average cost of covering remaining individuals in ACA-compliant plans, leading to further premium increases in those policies. For people with pre-existing conditions who do not qualify for subsidies, the rising cost of ACA-compliant coverage could challenge affordability, especially for people with pre-existing conditions who have incomes that make them ineligible for premium subsidies.

They're also waiting on Greg Bird to get healthy and for Gardner's contract to expire (this year)...Ellsbury, too.

Theo's legacy in Boston was those two World Series titles (and putting a large number of players in place for the 3rd)...but also a TON of bad/expensive moves in Free Agency. They were able to sign the exact right mix of 4-5 veterans on favorable contracts for their 3rd title, but they had some really bad seasons mixed in there, overall. The same thing's playing out in Chicago. Heyward and Darvish. We'll just have to wait and see what happens if they go "all in" with Machado or Harper. Let's revisit all of his big mistakes in BOSTON: Signing Julio Lugo (character issues, too), letting Damon go to the Yankees, Edgar Renteria, JD Drew, Carl Crawford, extending Josh Beckett (leading to the chicken and beer clubhouse fiasco that cost them a great manager in Francona), Dice-K and John Lackey were all terrible moves. He hasn't made THAT many mistakes in Chicago, YET. The ones that stand out the most so far are Edwin Jackson (even that wasn't a huge contract, $52 million), Miguel Montero, Heyward and now (possibly) Darvish. Of course, you also have the Quintana trade, Jeimer Candelario/Wilson and Avila, letting Christian Villanueva go and the increasingly controversial Torres/Chapman move.

Or let's just call something a DISASTER over and over and over again. That will only serve to make it MORE popular when you try to take it away. That's when people will scream and holler and their sad stories will end up bombarding us day after day in the national media. It's the exact SAME lesson the Democrats are learning about trying to undo some of the Trump tax cuts (or even bringing up the irresponsible nature of exploding the Federal Deficit even more and more for a future generation of Americans to deal with in 2025 or 2030).

This, of course, has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with Trump trying to completely sabotage the ACA for two years now...in a myriad of ways (such as cutting the enrollment period in half and creating utter chaos in the insurance industry in terms of looking for future policy certainty/predictability). He hasn't tried to hide it. He's admitted it, many many times. It's like someone is teaching your kid from K-10th grade...they suddenly change to a teacher who just sits there and teaches nothing (just babysitting) for two years and then parents wonder why his SAT/ACT score wasn't that great in the end? Which teacher are you going to blame for the final sub-par result?

So instead of complaining or totally throwing it out, wouldn't it be better TO FIX OR IMPROVE IT? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/12/02/367837115/obamacare-glitch-puts-subsidies-out-of-reach-for-many-families Most Democrats will acknowledge its flaws, the controversial nature of the mandate (and penalties for not insuring)...the number of working poor (see story above) and especially those middle class families (independent contractors or small business owners) in the $50-100,000 income range hit hard by the law. We also would argue that pushing all the most expensive to insure people into the high/est risk pools...while taking away the money that was coming from the mandate, is simply going to redistribute the solution away from the government in the direction of MAKING EVERYONE STILL WITH INSURANCE PAY MORE...and having MORE AND MORE people coming into hospitals for emergencies without the ability to pay, CAUSING PREMIUMS to skyrocket even more to subsidize those who go without insurance. ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, COSTS ARE GOING UP. It's just a matter of redistribution from the upper middle class and rich via government policy or creating a regressive situation where the the middle class continues to be the one that bears the brunt of the very real financial pain. Or do you prefer the solution of taxing huge multinational corporations like they're doing in Seattle with Amazon...because the "negative externalities" (lack of affordable housing/increased homelessness) are taking a very real toll on the social fabric of that city? Shouldn't corporations that are making profits in the billions (and were just shielded by government tax policy) bear some of the responsibility for finding a solution?

He even tried to blame separating children from their parents (in the quasi-concentration camps) on Democrats. Of course! Or Obama. Or Clinton. Or it's all just fake news. Or it's McCabe/FBI/deep state conspiracy not to let him be the legitimate president, etc. Of course, he always blames Democrats but conveniently forgets that he has control of the House, Senate (barely) and SCOTUS. But he did FINALLY call the decidedly-non white WAFFLE HOUSE HERO, weeks later. After the media kept bringing it up, over and over again.

The same thing would happen if most of us who post at SoxTalk entered Ayn Rand chat and tried to argue for Bernie Sanders Socialism. The fact of the matter is that MOST of the mods here are to the center-right...except for Balta. I don't assume they agree (in fact, I was a bit surprised to see one saying they were de-registering as a Republican) with LOTS of things that Trump does, but they also (like most Americans) want to put country over party. They're smart enough to realize you can't win these online arguments, any more than Dems could have convinced Tea Partiers in 2012 or Gingrich acolytes in 1994 to change their positions. I can even see how "shaking things up" has had some positive effects on the country...but, I go back to "the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans" argument and I fail to see how having friends and relatives refuse to talk to each other, go to Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner, de-friending or blocking acquaintances on social media...how any of that is a GOOD/POSITIVE/CONSTRUCTIVE thing. Since he came into office, Trump's policies have been 90% aimed at his base...and deliberately undoing/vetoing/annulling/blocking everything his predecessor did while in office. Do you honest expect that we can go in that direction in our politics and not suffer the consequences or repercussions? That if the Dem's win in 2020 they'll just quietly reconcile with their past bitter enemies in Congress and "let bygones be bygones"? Maybe this bi-partisan effort to turn things away from McConnell and Schumer in the Senate (to Collins and Bennett) will actually work, but don't count on it. Some will argue that people putting their "REAL" beliefs out there without fear of repercussion or reprisal is a great or good thing...that political correctness deserves to die...we shall see. America has gotten through worse times, assassinations in 1968, mass riots in the 60's, Watergate, Vietnam. This too shall pass. MAYBE!

Let's ask Rabbit this: And I'm sure we won't get a response. How many of Trump's "core" supporters (those who agree with 95%+ of what he does, and would happily shout "lock her up" almost two years after an election)...would be able to distinguish that Trump is referring ONLY to MS-13 and NOT to all those from "non-white" countries seeking to gain entry into the US? Only violent cartel members and not just "any ordinary non-rapist" Mexican? What about his comments about "caravans" of thousands from Central and South America where the actual number was in the hundreds that reached the San Ysidro/US border crossing? Shithole African countries? Positive words for Norwegians...they should send more, why don't they? When has he ever said a single positive thing about ANY immigrants who were not from Asian countries (and, even here, he's more likely to cite Chinese or Indians taking away tech and IT jobs/working for lower salaries...fwiw, the Trump Administration did side with Asian groups in suing Harvard for "biased" admission processes that favored blacks and Hispanics over whites and Asians, but that was just as much about protecting whites from "political correctness/affirmative action.") In Trump's idea, apparently, the only good immigrants are Eastern European models AND/OR anyone from the finance industry willing to loan him money or co-partner on a real estate/golf/development project around the world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/trump-undocumented-immigrants-animals.html The meeting was a lot more nuanced than simply applying this "animals" label to MS-13. https://www.vox.com/2018/5/16/17362870/trump-immigrants-animals-ms-13-context-why No matter how Trump is portraying his policy, his administration is not focusing on deporting people who have committed particularly heinous crimes; gang members; or people with criminal records. From Trump’s inauguration to the end of 2017, ICE arrested 45,436 immigrants without criminal records. To be sure, ICE arrests of immigrants with criminal records ticked up slightly from the last year of the Obama administration (in which immigration enforcement was subdued compared to previous years) to the Trump administration. But arrests of immigrants without criminal records have also spiked. During President Obama’s last year, about 16 percent of ICE arrests were of noncriminal immigrants; each month since July 2017, between 32 and 40 percent of arrestees have been noncriminals. The Trump administration is still deporting fewer noncriminal immigrants than the Obama administration did circa 2011, and the proportion of deportees who are noncriminals is usually smaller than the proportion of arrestees who are. But the Trump administration is aiming not just to ramp back up to the deportation peak of Obama’s first term but surpass it, and that’s going to require arresting and deporting a lot of immigrants without criminal records. If Donald Trump understands his own administration’s policy, he’s never acknowledged it in public. He sticks to the same rhetorical move every time: refer to some specific criminals, call them horrible people and animals, say that their evil justifies his immigration policy, and allow the conflation of all immigrants and all Latinos with criminals and animals to remain subtext. This is who Donald Trump has been for his entire political career. The worst-case scenarios about his dehumanizing rhetoric — that they would foment large-scale mob violence or vigilantism against Latinos in the United States — have not been realized. But neither have any hopes that Trump, as president, might ever weigh his words with any care at all, especially when encouraging Americans to see human beings as less than human.

Yeah, let's see where the Cubs, Yankees and Dodgers are after this season. They go after Harper or Machado HARD, it's going to be difficult to run up our risk tolerance to where we can outbid them when the Cubs are already generating $250-300 million more (per year) than the Sox just opening the gates. That said, Heyward/Darvish and trying to keep Bryant/Baez/Contreras all in the fold is going to become prohibitively expensive...they're eventually going to have to make some tough choices (they've been pretty fortunate with being able to obtain closers as well, that string of luck won't continue.) As far as relievers go, I'm not even sure how confident I would be throwing a $50-75 million contract at Andrew Miller with where he is at this point in his career, and how much hard usage he's undergone the last half decade. It feels like Kimbrel or bust on that front. Or we go after someone who falls out of favor, which is quite possible with Ken Giles' future in Houston (obviously, that's the lesser choice.)

Obama TRIED to fix a broken process and ran into entrenched interest groups that have only become harder to move in the days since Citizens United. The final ACA was actually to the right of the Romney Massachusetts plan. The fact of the matter is there were many “holes” in that particular law...but that it makes a heckuva a lot more sense to fix those holes (and spend a little more money, mostly for those couples earning $50-100,000 per year) rather than blowing the whole thing apart. There are going to be just as many, if not many MORE...coming out with Tea Party-ish stories and articles in media that show just how bad the system has become now after Trump (CNN had a really top-notch story about a woman fighting for her life and who was denied a transplant over and over again and how hard it was to get insurance companies to work together proactively with the doctors instead of instinctively denying any procedure that would hurt their bottom line and then daring someone to go to court while the clock ran out on their life)...but I’m not necessarily for Medicare for All unless they can figure out a way to cut down/negotiate the drug costs or push out the insurance/health care industrial complex AND control rising hospital costs/tests. Good luck! But I’d rather do that STILL than fight wars in the MIddle East and Asian Pacific. Somehow, I have a feeling a moderate/centrist health care plan would just be an incremental improvement...but the idea that corporations making billions in profits and recent recipients of huge tax cuts shouldn’t be at least 50% responsible for their employees’ health just doesn’t fly with me (and probably most Americans). To me, the legacy was not apologizing too much, but not using his first two years of political capital to make the RIGHT changes...flubbing or punting on a lot of important foreign policy areas (due to lack of interest or better solutions)...and running the national party into the ground with huge losses in the House, state legislatures, governors, local elections, gerrymandering, etc. His ego and aloofness/coolness kept him from being a great president, but he was in a terrible position on race relations because anything other than taking an alt-right stance would have caused him to be perceived as a member of BLM to conservatives. In the end, he thought his cool factor and popularity could run over Republican resistance...and his choice to be reasonable and attempt bi-partisanship turned out to be a disaster on many fronts, from not getting Merrick Garland onto the Supreme Court but also basically having his agenda hijacked by the Tea Party movement from 2010 onwards. And he probably was too comfortable with Wall Street to really be in touch with those same voters who originally supported him in 2008 in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. They mostly felt he wasn’t really looking out for their best interests, especially on the trade policy front. They were taken for granted, that they would continue checking the Dem box during elections, and that was a huge tactical mistake, to confuse popularity on the coasts, in Hollywood and Europe with being a leader for ALL of the US, especially flyover territory.

https://www.milb.com/milb/news/san-diego-padres-fernando-tatis-jr-homers-twice-for-san-antonio/c-276891566

https://www.yahoo.com/news/thwart-trump-progressives-democrats-show-willingness-bury-hatchet-224636441.html In order to thwart Trump, progressive Democrats show willingness to bury hatchet with centrists/moderates/DLC

Of course, this completely flies in the face of the "Trump (No) Plan" for preserving the environment and EV industry. It doesn't help that Elon Musk isn't doing himself any favors with his relationship with both Trump AND the press...along with some of the recent high-profile accidents involving Tesla and/or autonomous drivers. Individual states like CA can obviously do their part, as well, but they still need to move beyond 9 states to get closer to "critical threshold" level.

Good recap...you're obviously following the international scene more closely than nearly everyone here. Looking to Asia just makes (extra) sense if we're locked out of signing Latin American players until next summer. Supposedly, Seibu doesn't really draw well and could really use the expected $15-20 million posting fee to subsidize their franchise into the future. https://friarsonbase.com/2018/03/13/san-diego-padres-yusei-kikuchi/ Why the San Diego Padres should NOT go after Kikuchi... According to those who closely follow the NPB, Kikuchi was expected to become the first Japanese player to forego the NPB draft and sign with a Major League Baseball team. He ultimately decided to hone his craft in Japan. I’m not going to deny that he is a fantastic pitcher. Kikuchi features a four-pitch mix (fastball, slider, change, and curveball). He holds the NPB record for fastest pitch by a left-hander, just over 98 mph. His slider is the strikeout pitch that has commanded the most attention. Injuries have routinely held him back from reaching his full potential since his NPB debut in 2011. He missed his entire rookie season with a shoulder injury. The shoulder issues returned in 2013, causing him to miss two months. Injuries aside, in 2017 Kikuchi showed the world what he’s capable of. He allowed a career-low 5.9 hits/9 innings, and cut the number of walks allowed in half compared to 2016. Current Fangraphs contributor Sung Min Kim said last year that the Seibu Lions will post Kikuchi after the 2018 season, should he record double-digit wins in ’17 and ’18. If Kikuchi is posted after this season, he will be 27 and in the prime of his career. The international bonus pool system rules won’t apply, meaning an unlimited bidding war is sure to break out. If he posts a similar, or even better, season than he did last year in Japan, the winner may find themselves paying well-above the $100 million mark. A large portion of Padres’ fans have been adamant about “sticking to the plan” since the signing of Eric Hosmer. Don’t be tricked into thinking that the Friars are instant World Series contenders in 2019 with Hosmer and one big starting pitcher. Dedicating more than $100 million to Kikuchi, plus $15-20 million posting fee to the Seibu Lions (depends on final contract amount) just isn’t worth it. San Diego has numerous pitching prospects that the organization believes will be major league contributors. Let’s give these guys a shot and hope they live up to the hype. Giving a unknown pitcher $100+ million (plus posting fee) doesn't seem to fit into the White Sox playbook, but they almost did it with Tanaka...and this guy would be 27 and fills a need as a LH starter. (The usual caveat is that he would have to pass all the medicals to even be considered for the first $100+ million deal in franchise history.) That's why Rick Hahn makes the big bucks, right? Personally, I would rather give out $300-350 million to AJ Pollock, Kikuchi, Kimbrel/Miller and Moustakas than putting it ALL into the Harper or Machado basket. That kind of move would make or break the franchise for a decade...so Hahn's going to take the measured approach IMO and spread the money around. In that sense, it's like buying a mutual fund vs. "going for it" with one particular high growth stock.

Are we talking Miles or Mikal Bridges? Because both of those guys are looking like #6-12 picks. Have seen the likes of Jaren Jackson, Bamba, Porter Jr, Carter in that space...Bagley Jr. as low as 4th. Will be interesting to see what happens when/if Trae Young ends up with that Cavaliers team.

Take the best hitter available and just stick him in the line-up at 3B, CF, LF...it doesn't really matter. From all reports, Madrigal is an incredibly dedicated practice player and will do whatever it takes to be the best at his position. Alex Gordon, for example, impacted tons of games from LF with his defensive abilities. He's got some of the fastest hands ever tested at the OSU training facility, so he'd do fine at 3B as well. Why do we have to settle for two so-so corner outfielders when we can have Madrigal and Luis Robert paired with the best all-around outfielder to emerge from Winston-Salem (or we target AJ Pollock this coming off-season)?

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/2017-world-baseball-classic-top-10-prospects/ Time to start signing some Japanese/Korean players...throw EVERYTHING at the wall and hope some of it sticks.

At least Cubs' fans can quit freaking out about Yu Darvish for 5 days...

Lopez owes Beck a steak for bailing him out tonight. Beck, fwiw, has his fastball into the 96 mph range.

Call has passed Rutherford in OPS. W-S's offense has hit a bit of a lull. Zack Collins 2/2 in k's again tonight. Jimenez 1 for 2, an ordinary single.

The week of skyrocketing ERA's. Lopez, Kopech and Cease.

Dylan Covey has a 2.37 ERA in AAA...never thought that would be possible. (No ER in 5+ IP tonight.) At least we do have SOME options (Volstad/Santiago, etc.) to protect the young starting pitching down the line.

Well, the long-debated Lopez "regression to mean" is taking place tonight. Now what? Just tune out except for Moncada at-bats I guess. Meanwhile, Williams has a lower average velocity than Giolito but can't do anything with him.