caulfield12

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketbal...pId/7/teamId/77 Beat Wake and Dayton, as well as at Nebraska and at PSU. Sitting at 42 in RPI. No bad losses, maybe Minnesota at home will look worse later. Lost by only 2 at Butler.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 10:51 PM) Wait what? Those examples don't make sense, and even if they did, wouldn't be in the same universe as what Jenks mentioned. Renewables had astronomical growth under Obama. And Solyndra is just a terrible Republican talking point. Republicans used Solyndra to argue the loan program was terrible...but 98% of the loans administered through that program were repaid. Solyndra was one of the few failures. It'd be like arguing that Reagan did terribly in the '84 election because he lost Minnesota. I was just joking. Republicans ALWAYS bring up Solyndra, school choice/labor unions, e-mails, Benghazi, birth certificates....the same talking points. Now, all things considered, we're not really close to going electric with automobiles in mass production, but that's largely attributable to much cheaper gasoline prices, and partially related to the fracking argument, where the US is now a net exporter of energy. It's not like Obama could force everyone to put up solar panels, anyway...like in the late 70's when Carter was president. And the budgetary resources (and customer demand) for high speed rail and magnetic levitation trains just isn't there. At least not YET.

Astros started out with something of a bang as well this off-season...

Iowa sucks again. ISU's glory days are gone. Meanwhile, Greg McDermott and Creighton have a secret juggernaut in the Midwest. http://www.omaha.com/creighton/blog/greg-m...2581422f46.html And the big question, will Northwestern FINALLY make the NCAA Tourney?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/whi...aith/index.html White nationalists losing their faith in Trump already

https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-vice-chan...-085837447.html Europe/EU/NATO/BMW vs. Trump, who blinks first? http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/01...anks-devos.html Liz Warren questioning Devos for Secretary of Education should be high theater.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/us/polit...iness.html?_r=0 Anyone care to defend Jared Kushner still having a key role in the White House after reading this article? http://www.theatlantic.com/international/a...es-trap/406756/ Well, guess it really doesn't matter since there's only a 12/16 (75%) probability of going to war with China. Bigger fish to fry.

How many Q threads have been closed/relocated so far? Is this the 3rd or the 4th? Can't even keep track anymore. Maybe we need to barrage all the Denver sports media with theoretical Rockies/Sox trades, lol...because this current dynamic of the Astros, Pirates and Braves doesn't have that OOOMPH to get negotiations over the top.

There's no reason to think that: 1) Rodon won't improve with better catchers and finally feel at home as the "ace of the staff" with Q's departure. In many ways, it will (at least for the time) feel like his team, as well as Anderson and Moncada. In that role, he becomes even more valuable to other teams, at least the perception that he's growing into that projected "ace" or TOR role. 2) That the White Sox won't be able to run competitive teams out there in 2019-2021, especially the latter two years. So unless you're deathly afraid of a TJS situation with Rodon and also scared to death of his mechanics, or feel he'll never have enough control of his offspeed stuff or cut his walk totals, then there's just no reason to trade him for 50-75% of what he'll be worth in the future. There's always a risk that Rodon and especially Anderson will backslide, but that's true of all young players. We've experienced it firsthand in recent years with Quentin, Beckham and Viciedo, to name just three.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 11:19 AM) lol. Yeah, poor guys fleeing murderous dictators. I wonder why we ever tried to protect them as special versus other people who were just fleeing for better opportunities that the Dems are saying they won't send back. Will they be doing the same to Syrians? You know, so no one gets "special" treatment, and all get treated like every other immigrant? Read about Batista's Cuba in the 1950's. Arguably even worse in terms of civilian deaths. In the end, Trump was going to upend this policy anyway, since he's pretty much doing the opposite of Obama on nearly everything. Would it have been better if Obama extended the eligibility period until the middle of the day next Friday? Isn't it better to pick a date ahead of time and give (the majority of) those who are planning to leave some advance warning? Granted, there will always be some "caught in the middle" of transit, but waiting until noon next Friday is basically as logical as replacing the leader of the DC National Guard in the very middle of Inauguration Day (which is always considered an honor for military personnel to participate in), out of political spite. Yet another unprecedented Trump action. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public...ba6b_story.html Does that make any sense?

The Republican members of Congress have to be pretty livid with Trump about now...especially Ryan and Price (well, theoretically the future head of HHS if he survives the nomination process with allegations of "insider trading" hanging over his candidacy). On the other hand, it's giving Rand Paul some "open water" to present his own plan, which definitely has some positive things going for it.

Well, he already took MLK Day off and skipped doing a community service/volunteer project. Does meeting with a member of MLK's family make up for? NAH. The damage has already been inflicted. Now we're up to around 24 representatives refusing to go to the inauguration for various reasons.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/tom...x.html?adkey=bn Price's nomination looks to be in trouble now with all the smoke around his candidacy...but who knows anymore what is disqualifying, if anything, when you control Congress.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 10:59 AM) Bill Clinton was treated the same way by his opponents. As was Bush. As is every President. And frankly, Obama has been given serious passes for major f*** ups too, like the VA scandal (still ongoing!), Fast and Furious, Libya, the continuation of Gitmo and the drone program, etc. etc. Yeah, he had to deal with the birther nosense, and that's fair, but I think that's about the only race/religion specific crap he had to deal with. Don't forget Solyndra and the green energy/clean tech revolution not exactly taking off as planned in the US.

I guess. But Miller, Chapman and Betances are closer to elite. There's really no guarantee that Robertson, Holland or Jones will increase their value...and I have a feeling the White Sox will be outbid on Holland by a contender if he's at least 85-90% healthy. That said, there is no guarantee with Derek Holland as well, but can they get this Holland for roughly the same price?

In case you just woke up, we're getting closer to war with China/Mexico/Germany and continuing to cozy up to Russia. Oh, by the way, that little NATO deal is obsolete (AGAIN). Despite everything we've heard from his Cabinet choices on the matter. Quoted in German by Bild from a conversation held in English, Trump predicted that Britain’s exit from the EU will be a success and portrayed the EU as an instrument of German domination designed with the purpose of beating the U.S. in international trade. For that reason, Trump said, he’s fairly indifferent to whether the EU stays together, according to Bild. WHAT? It's the darned Nazis all over again, secretly planning global economic hegemony!!! The Times quoted Trump as saying he was interested in making “good deals with Russia,” floating the idea of lifting sanctions that were imposed as the U.S. has sought to punish the Kremlin for its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and military support of the Syrian government. “They have sanctions on Russia -- let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia,’’ Trump said, according to the Times. “For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it.’’ (Great, didn't he just wipe out the entire department and leave it without a chair/director for the first time in modern history?) https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/5f3214a9-0b49-...ny-have-it.html https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles...&yptr=yahoo

This is a pretty logical summary of the problem, in one long paragraph. Avatar Thomas 15 hours ago WrongFreedomHawk. Your assertion that the government caused the escalation of college tuition and the fees charged by physicians i simply not true. College tuition has increased, because universities and colleges are treated as a business, there to make money, and the government has systematically reduced its contribution to school aide, grants, and scholarships, resulting in more and more students having to rely on high interest loans to pay their college tuition, which continues to escalate faster than inflation. The single most important factor in the rise of physicians fees, was the eventually acceptance of assignments of benefits and third party payments by doctor's offices back in the 1960's and 1970's. Prior to this period, patient's had insurance, provided by employers, but few if any doctors offices accepted the insurance. The patient would pay the doctor his established officer fee, and the doctor's office might help the patient complete the insurance forms, so that the patient could get reimbursed by the insurance company for the payment to the doctor. However, in the 1960's and 70's there were many medical and professional lecture series dedicated to teaching doctors how to bill insurance companies for their fees, and the advantages of doing so, in expanding the patient pool seeking medical care. Many doctor's offices began accepting insurance assignment of benefits permitting them to bill the insurance company directly for their services provided insured patients, sparing the patient from having to pay for the medical services. This systems created a disconnect between the patient and the fees charged by the providers, allowing doctor's offices to greatly increase their fees, because the patient's were no longer paying. Government had no pony in this race. The patients did not seem to care or concern themselves with the cost of the care they were receiving, that was now solely the responsibility of the insurance companies. The doctors, realizing the discontent, raised their fees dramatically over a number of years, and reaped huge economic rewards, while insurance carriers were expected to pay for any and all services billed regardless of their efficacy or patient outcome. I can recall a time when colleagues of mine, being newly trained in arthroscopic surgery began charging insurance carriers $15,000.00 for what was in effect a 20-25 minute minimally invasive procedure and would schedule 15-20 of these surgeries per day. You do the math. These surgeons were making $200,000.00-$300,000.00 per day. Hospitals loved these high volume surgeons, because they were a cash cow generating huge revenues for the hospitals. Almost like printing money. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs have actually had a very negative effect on doctor's fees and income. Medicare pays only a fraction of a doctor's usual and customary fees. Medicaid pays fees at such an artificially low level, that few doctors will accept medicaid patients, and those that do may feel compelled to commit insurance fraud, as a rationalized justification of the mistreatment and underpayment of fees by the government. Third party insurance carriers attempt to use the extremely low fees paid by Medicare to negotiate down doctor's usual and customary fees. Note: I have lived through and had to adapt to the changes in our healthcare delivery system, the multitude of changes of healthcare reimbursement, and I own 4 healthcare companies, and a medical billing company. SO, BASICALLY, you've got the doctors/hospitals, insurance companies and drug companies all fighting for a diminishing piece of the pie. Who's going to be willing to sacrifice any of their profits, and WHY? http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/15/politics/ran...ment/index.html Rand Paul presents his plan. On Sunday, Paul gave a preview of his and argued that in requiring insurers to offer more robust plans, Obamacare drove up prices and pushed people out of the market. 1) "One of the key reforms that we will do is, we're going to legalize the sale of inexpensive insurance," he said. "That means getting rid of the Obamacare mandates on what you can buy. We are going to help people save through health savings accounts, as well as a tax credit." Those less expensive options, which were prevalent on the market before the 2010 reform was signed into law, would offer less robust care but also, as supporters argue, be more neatly tailored to what consumers view to be their specific needs. 2) Under Paul's program, the bargaining power created by the state and federal exchanges would be replaced with a provision that allows individuals and associations like small businesses to create their own markets. "There's no reason why (a business owner) with four employees shouldn't be able to join with hundreds and hundreds of other businesses that are small to become a large entity to get leverage to bring your prices down," Paul told Tapper. He added that those negotiations with insurance companies could also be used to guarantee the availability of policies that "can't cancel you and guarantees the issue of the insurance even if you get sick." 3) Paul's plan did not directly address the future of states that signed on for expanded Medicaid offered as part of Obamacare. Kentucky, which had a Democratic governor when the law went into effect, was among those to accept the funds. The majority of the more than 400,000 Kentuckians insured under the law were brought into the fold by Medicaid expansion. "That's the big question," Paul said of their fate. "And I don't think that's going to be in the replacement aspect." The future of Medicaid expansion would then be decided during the repeal process, which will run through a budget reconciliation vote -- one that requires only a simple majority for passage. "What we have to decide is what can be kept and what can't be kept," Paul said, suggesting that the states should raise taxes if they want to maintain their current expenditure levels. So that's two reasonable enough ideas, although not sure why it took since 1994...of course, you have to deal with the pre-existing conditions (addressed in point 2, although not comprehensively, it's a bit vague, as insurance companies won't voluntarily cover the most expensive pre-existing conditions) AND under 25/26 year olds staying on the insurance plans of their parents as well as who continues to pay for the CHIP plan/Medicaid (states? Federal government? higher taxes on individual families?) Of course, independent auditors/CBO are going to have to look at these Medical/Health Savings Accounts, vouchers and tax credits and score how much money it's actually going to cost compared to the current system...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/valeant-...-153344072.html Syprine is considered the gold standard for treating Wilson’s (Disease), in part because it has relatively few side effects. But from 2011 to 2015, as Valeant hiked the price of Syprine from less than $1000 for 100 capsules to $21,266.80 for the same 100 capsules, according to documents Valeant provided the government, the drug came to have an inordinate impact on the company’s profits—and far more importantly, on the lives of those who suffer from Wilson’s disease. Syprine was featured prominently in the report about price gouging that was released last month by the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Syprine drug price increases. Source: US Senate — Special Committee on Aging All the negative press doesn’t appear to have done much to change Valeant’s tactics. One patient just received her three-month supply of Syprine at a total cost of $72,338.58, or almost $300,000 a year. The Senate Committee on Aging says that current Valeant CEO Joseph Papa told them that the company had not reduced the price of Syprine and didn’t plan to do so. (Valeant argued to me that it effectively has reduced the price of Syprine by creating patient assistance programs under which commercially insured patients will pay no more than $25 per month for their prescription, and those without insurance whose household income is below 500% of the federal poverty level will get free medication. That, of course, still leaves the insurance system, i.e. all of us, paying for Valeant’s profiteering.) In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has been increasingly aggressive about using antitrust laws to challenge deals between drug companies that may keep a lower-priced drug off the market. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled, over howls of protest from drug companies, that these deals are subject to antitrust scrutiny. “These business arrangements sometimes serve as a fig leaf to disguise harms to the market and price increases,” says Michael Carrier, an expert on antitrust law at Rutgers Law. But not all such deals are unlawful. The not-so-benign view is that Valeant gave Kadmon 10% of Syprine’s gross profits so that Kadmon wouldn’t undercut Valeant’s pricing by launching its own competing drug. After all, as one lawyer says, “Kadmon isn’t Pfizer,” meaning that a tiny company that was hemorrhaging money and didn’t have a massive sales force doesn’t seem like a choice partner. “If I were still at the FTC, I would investigate,” says a former FTC lawyer. Good luck, Trumpicans!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/15/politics/tru...care/index.html Trump promises "INSURANCE FOR ALL" Don't see how this can possibly go wrong. Republicans have long slammed Obamacare, saying its high premiums and deductibles leave enrollees feeling like the don't have insurance. They have vowed to lower the cost, primarily by lifting Obamacare's insurance regulations that require carriers to provide comprehensive benefits. Ryan and Price have unveiled frameworks for replacement plans that rely on tax credits based on enrollees' age, not income. However, health policy experts have said those credits will have to be generous in order to make coverage affordable. And that could run afoul of Republicans' promise to lower federal spending on health care. while also vowing to force drug companies to negotiate directly with the government on prices in Medicare and Medicaid. Trump said he will target pharmaceutical companies over drug prices. “They’re politically protected, but not anymore,” he said of pharmaceutical companies. In general, congressional GOP plans to replace Obamacare have tended to try to constrain costs by reducing government requirements, such as the medical services that must be provided under health plans sold through the law’s marketplaces and through states’ Medicaid programs. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and other Republicans have been talking lately about providing “universal access” to health insurance, instead of universal insurance coverage. “The Congress can’t get cold feet because the people will not let that happen,” Trump said during the interview with The Post. Trump said his plan for replacing most aspects of Obama’s health-care law is all but finished. Although he was coy about its details — “lower numbers, much lower deductibles” — he said he is ready to unveil it alongside Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon.” “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” Trump did not say how his program overlaps with the comprehensive plan authored by House Republicans. Earlier this year, Price suggested that a Trump presidency would advance the House GOP’s health-care agenda. When asked in the interview whether he intends to cut benefits for Medicare as part of his plan, Trump said “no,” a position that was reiterated Sunday on ABC by Reince Priebus, Trump’s incoming chief of staff. Moving ahead, Trump said that lowering drug prices is central to reducing health-care costs nationally — and that he will make it a priority as he uses his bully pulpit to shape policy. When asked how exactly he would force drug manufacturers to comply, Trump said that part of his approach would be public pressure “just like on the airplane,” a nod to his tweets about Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet, which Trump said was too costly. Trump waved away the suggestion that such activity could lead to market volatility on Wall Street. “Stock drops and America goes up,” he said. “I don’t care. I want to do it right or not at all.” He added that drug companies “should produce” more products in the United States. The question of whether the government should start negotiating how much it pays drugmakers for older Americans on Medicare has long been a partisan dispute, ever since the 2003 law that created Medicare drug benefits prohibited such negotiations. Trump’s goal is uncertain, however, with respect to Medicaid, the insurance for low-income Americans run jointly by the federal government and states. Under what is known as a Medicaid “best price” rule, pharmaceutical companies already are required to sell drugs to Medicaid as the lowest price they negotiate with any other buyer. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tru...m=.487eeaecbdcd

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 15, 2017 -> 11:02 PM) He did run for office a long time ago. I just like the fact that he "appears" to be a compassionate businessman. Seems wise and has good business values. Would love to see him run so we could see the non-scripted part and learn more about him. Also think he'd have the $ to take on Rauner. I suspect he's similar to me... a pro-business Democrat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Lemonis Sounds like a more low-key Mark Cuban, without all the self-promotion (although being on two t.v. shows will certainly raise his profile). Went to Marquette, graduated in 1995, ran for office in Florida and then settled back down in the Midwest. If you've got a Middle Eastern businessman who can work well with NASCAR, that's SOMETHING in and of itself.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 11, 2017 -> 09:57 AM) Greg Holland wants 2 years with an opt out. Seriously, Sox should be all over this guy. Let him rebuild value and deal him off in July. The problem with that is it's hard to market Robertson/Jones/Holland simultaneously as closers. Seems that one needs to be moved (Robertson or Jones) to clear the way...since presumably Burdi will be the man beginning in 2018, unless Nate Jones is somehow still around and they want Burdi to break into the majors as a set-up guy first. Not sure about the wisdom of doing that, since he's closed his entire collegiate career. Addison Reed basically took over the closer's spot as a rookie, as well. Santos had to earn his way there, but his background was different, as he started out as a first round draft pick SS with the DBacks.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-th...6--finance.html Trump at war with BMW now. Would love to hear the fiscal conservatives explain how this type of approach is good for consumers as well as producers...? In a true free market economy, supply and demand should be able to meet at the equilibrium level without any government interference. Is Trump saying that he should be able to force BMW to located its factories in the US, and expect them to maintain the same exact prices for their automobiles? Is it Germany's fault that MOST consumers in both countries would, all things considered, prefer the quality of BMW/Audi/Mercedes/VW/Porsche despite the higher price tags...? Would also love to see Ayn Rand's take on all this, if she was still alive. Captain America 22 hours ago Trump is an IDIOT who knows nothing of business and economics. If US auto makers want to work for $3 / hour like Mexicans do then let them make cars. But US families should not have to pay thousands more for a car through tariffs or increased prices in order to subsidize non-competitive workers and industries. Nobody subsidized me when my paper mill shut down and the industry moved to Asia. Trump is not only a fascist but a socialist. You cannot say that you are for business and then pass socialistic or communist laws. It is socialism that does these things. Get rid of him fast before he destroys the country. Trump has basically declared an economic and racial war on a friendly, developing neighbor country (Mexico) with his auto and wall talk buffoonery. He is trying to take away the economic advances this poor neighbor had made in the last few years. Despicable!! I guess he would rather see them lose their $3/hour auto jobs and go back to growing pot and making meth and heroine which there is no way he can effectively keep out of the USA.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 15, 2017 -> 08:59 PM) Marcus Lemonis for Governor of Illinois He's originally from Beirut? What's his story, if you could explain what you like about him in one paragraph or less...?

Balta's right...you're wiping out roughly 15-20% of the voters (nationally), and at least half of them were more pro-Trump than pro-Republican.

We plead with Donald Trump through Twitter to challenge him to use his "deal making" skills to extract the most value from another MLB owner who is one of his political enemies, lol? I think that should be in green. But maybe not...? For the sake of the fanbase and "rebuild" strategy, it would be nice to go into Sox Fest with EVERYONE on the same page, no Q questions overhanging the team (and it's going to be bad enough for roughly ten members of the 25 man roster to be facing those same reporters the first half of the season) and everyone behind the vision the team is outlining. Without that Q trade (and with Frazier/Abreu/Cabrera/Robertson still around), there will continue to be some doubts about a full and complete commitment to tearing things up 100%.