cabiness42

If your business pays employees salaries, then you are a business with employees. If you are just have a business and are pocketing the profits, then you are self-employed.

Frank Thomas, Luke Appling, Ed Walsh, Eddie Collins

At that point matchups don't even matter. You have to put a guy on first so you can move your infield back to double play depth. Although, once the decision was made by Robin to pitch to him, Zach shouldn't be giving him such a hittable pitch on 0-2. As for the Alexei tag, it doesn't really matter if he got him or not. Robin has nothing to lose by challenging.

How do you not f***ing intentionally walk the batter with the winning run on 3rd with 1 out?

No IBB????

Well if one Cabrera is going to get himself out on a high pitch, it's only fair that the other one does it also.

If you can get into the bullpen innings tied with Detroit, you have a good chance to win.

Somehow LaRoche gets those pitches called balls where the entire rest of the team gets rung up on them.

However you want to move the pieces around, you only have 8 right/switch hitters, and that's only if you play both Soto and Flowers. Assuming that doesn't happen, you have to start at least two lefty batters. Eaton is a given, but if you want to bench LaRoche, then you are starting Gillaspie, Johnson or Shuck, so I'm not sure what you gain by insisting that LaRoche sit vs LHP.

No reason other than that they are the Cubs.

LaRoche has a career .715 OPS vs LHP and Flowers has a career .662 OPS vs LHP. There might be specific lefty pitchers that have given LaRoche problems where it might make sense to sit him, but let's not even get close to the suggestion that LaRoche needs to be sitting regularly vs LHP.

If the manager isn't bright enough to call of a bunt with a two-strike count, he's not going to get this either.

http://www.wave3.com/story/28822995/apartm...-jeffersonville The person referenced is the article was a classmate of my wife's and is now a co-worker. I don't know the media's definition of minor, but she's in the ER (at the hospital where she works) with a very badly broken ankle and two fractures in her back. Her apartment was a total loss, including both of her cats.

My father-in-law is self-employed, and he, along with all the other self-employed people he knows in his trade had anywhere from 25-60% increases in their premiums from 2013-14 due to their coverages having to be changed to be compliant.

Right, but I'm not talking about funding the entire PPACA, just the portion that is now being covered by the cost being forced upon people who were forced to change plans. More than enough jobs to cut to cover that.

You've obviously never worked for a Federal agency.

No, it's not the entire middle class, but aside from young single people, there are a lot of middle aged self-employed people who got screwed over in this. Also, no need to increase taxes on anybody (though I am in favor of some combination of a higher taxrate/closing loopholes for the top 1%). Every Senator in favor of Obamacare could have easily found enough unnecessary Executive Branch agency jobs in their home states that could have been cut in order to pay for this, but no, we have to screw over some middle class folks rather than cut the bloated government.

Yes, I'm referring to people who had catastrophic plans, which are hardly useless to people who were getting by just fine with them. And yes, the bill they're getting stuck with is getting them increased coverage in return, but for most of them it's coverage they don't want or need. These people are being forced to pay for coverage they don't want or need in order to increase the risk pool for insurance companies.

How is that bolded phrase not exactly what I said a long time ago that the middle class is getting stuck with the bill?

I'm still not getting my question answered: Why did there need to be ACA minimums that caused a bunch of existing plans to be non-compliant?

No, plenty of people have been voluntarily paying for varying levels of coverage for a long time. In fact, the vast majority were already paying for as much as or more coverage than the new law required. So there really was such a thing as health insurance before.

Yeah, there are better ways to deal with that than forcing a whole bunch of people to pay for coverage they don't need.

I'm having a difficult time buying that the government has any business telling me what my health care plan has to cover. If I choose to risk not having something covered, what business is that of anybody else?

That doesn't explain why it was necessary to force people off those plans.

No, probably not all. I'm sure you can find one or two that didn't. Why did people have to change plans anyway. What about the Obamacare bill required certain kinds of existing private plans to go away???