Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 48 pages
Hello? Can anyone hear me? Is this thing on?
David was apparently trapped in a server room at Burstnet's old PA location.
I can't imagine why anyone would hate Obamacare. I switched from a private plan to Obamacare myself.
The test is whether folks like ObamaCare better than what they had.
Considering they had nothing before I suspect this will be a pretty easy test.
No one who is not insurable who wasn't previously insurable hates the ACA. Opposition comes almost exclusively from people who already have quality coverage, and that cohort skews to people with coverage who are politically opposed to anything Democrats do.
Considering they had unlimited free healthcare at their local emergency room, convincing anyone to pay a monthly premium us a big impediment to liking it more.
Never mind whether you plan to run for public office in this cycle or the next, David, are you even a registered Republican?
Not to mention you've got the pharmaceutical companies who sponge off government research while spending twice as much money on marketing as they do on their independent R&D
"Welfare recipients like welfare."
"Society" doesn't have any money. You're taking money from one citizen and giving it to another.
Paul has advocated major across the board cuts to the CDC, the NIH, and the NSF. I'm sure that none of these cuts could possibly affect medical R&D, and if you've got any statements by Paul that he'd exempt research from any of his proposed cuts, I'm sure you'll be happy to provide them.
No, Andy, I have been pretty specific regarding medical research. Let's see a quote.
Interesting article on Warren Buffett
Mr. Buffett’s talents are widely known. But despite his celebrated past performance, his returns since the beginning of 2009 have been disappointing.
In four of the last five calendar years, he has underperformed his own benchmark, the S.&P. 500 with dividends, often by significant margins. (In 2011, his return of 4.6 percent beat the benchmark by 2.6 percentage points.) In addition, data provided by Morningstar shows that he underperformed the average stock mutual fund investor in four of the five years.)
By contrast, in the previous decades, he had underperformed the S.&P. only six times. Mr. Mehta said his calculations showed that given such a long period of outperformance, there is only a 3 percent chance that the recent stretch of underperformance was a matter of bad luck.
Jason, that's kinda ########. Paul Ryan wants to cut discretionary funding by two thirds. He never says what he's going to cut, so you can't say that he wants to cut cancer research or that he wants to cut food stamps, or that he wants to cut anything popular. It's always magically the unpopular stuff he's somehow going to cut.
No one in public office is going to say out loud that they want to cut cancer research (David excepted). It is just going to work out that we can't afford cancer research--not after those tax cuts and with the national debt and all.
ACA may be a ###########, but at least it tried to solve a problem. And helped some folks like KT out despite wholesale attempts by 47% of the country to sabotage it because they are Bloods and it's a Crip plan.
Considering they had unlimited free healthcare at their local emergency room
Is this, like, a joke of some sort?
It's illegal for them to refuse medically necessary care. Doctors also take an oath, which used to mean care for everyone who needs it regardless of ability to pay, but now apparently means lobby congress so they don't have to.
Right. Paul Ryan's budget is deliberately vague because there's no chance of it becoming law.
Societies support their citizens. I know it's hard for you, the idea of the common good.
Citizens don't have money. In the absence of government, citizens can only barter. Only the government has money, because "money" is only that which the government will accept and enforce. The government supplies its citizens with that money via loans and purchases and salaries.
I don't understand, Jason, you're making my points. Paul Ryan is in favor of cutting the category of spending that cancer research fits into. He would probably claim he is not in favor of cutting cancer research, but his claims are not credible, since he is unwilling to state what it is that he would cut.
For the vast majority of history, Gov't issued money only had value because it contained precious metal. No one cared if a coin was French, English, or Venetian as long as it contained gold or silver. Society determined the means of exchange independent of Gov't. Fiat money is a very modern invention.
There's a reason that "debase" has such a negative connotation
You can argue that Bitcoin is just another form of barter because it's not "backed", but neither is the USD. Our ability to maintain the value of the USD will crack just like Soros broke the pound, every currency will reach the level of its intrinsic value. Another 6-8 years and another $10 trillion in debt brings us to the brink of a real default, that will destroy faith in the USD. Whether it's cancer research or military spending, spending needs to be cut severely, we simply can't continue to spend nearly 30% of GDP on governmental programs, there aren't enough taxes possible to close that gap.
Sorry, Shipman, but "Paul Ryan is in favor of cutting the category of spending that cancer research fits into" is not the same as "Paul Ryan supports cutting cancer research." Wake me when Ryan weighs in on the FY18 budget.
I suspect very few people making the "emergency room services were free healthcare" argument ever lived without health insurance for very long. And the idea that 'if you're so sick you need the emergency room it's right there" is comparable to annual checkups and actual preventative health maintenance is... It requires a special sort of stupid.
KT: Dialysis, there's a good one. Seriously, I can go to the emergency room for Type I-diabetes-induced kidney failure weekly dialysis treatments? Or does that not fall under medically necessary care?
Sorry, Shipman, but "Paul Ryan is in favor of cutting the category of spending that cancer research fits into" is not the same as "Paul Ryan supports cutting cancer research." Wake me when Ryan weighs in on the FY18 budget.
So your point is that until someone says "I am in favor of cutting cancer research" you don't believe Republicans want to cut it?
Sure, Governments tried to cheat the system by debasing the currency. But, when the people figured out it was happening, the value of the currency plummeted, and Gov'ts had massive financial difficulties.
There's a reason that "debase" has such a negative connotation.
At least we'll have a ton of heads up, given that every other country in the world who spends/taxes more as a percentage of GDP will go tits up before we do. So when France, the UK, Germany, China, etc etc etc all descend into lawless anarchy, we'll look at your proposals.
Every few years he has a major medical emergency (last year fell off a ski lift, a few years back surgery, appendix I believe). He's obviously in decent shape, doesn't seem to worry about annual checkups or anything, but can scrape up enough dough to visit the doc if he's not feeling well.
Do you really think there are a lot of people who use the emergency room twice a year and declare bankruptcy? How often can you even declare bankruptcy?
BTW: you don't need to declare bankruptcy as my brothers story illustrates. Do you really think it's profitable or even feasible to chase around a low income person for $10,000 they don't have and may never have? Its much simpler and easier to write it off as part of their medical obligations to provide healthcare to the poor at free or reduced rates, and then lobby congress for Obamacare so they don't have to write off as much and get pay themselves more.
Similarly, it's easy to push for increases in discretionary spending until you have to explain how you're going to pay for it.
I wasn't referring to the private sector part. I'm talking about the mentality that uses a few isolated cases like Solyndra as a sledgehammer against funding nearly every type of research. I'm talking about the mentality that refuses to recognize that the vast majority of pharmaceutical advances have sprung from research that was kickstarted by government funding. I'm talking about the mentality that mocks Al Gore for allegedly having claimed to have invented the internet, while themselves imagining that the internet was a product of a few geeks hanging out in their garage.
Wow, it's no wonder conservatives are so wrong on the economy. They don't even understand the most basic facts about money.
Every dollar you own came from the government. It printed that money and handed it out. You take that money in exchange for your labor or capital because (a) you can pay taxes with it; and (b) other people will accept it (because they can pay taxes with it). It makes no difference whether the money is "backed" by anything, and it makes no difference if it's made of gold, silver, or cheese. Even the gold coins so lauded by the nutters worked solely because they were issued by the government and, yes, you could use them to pay taxes. Money is inherently a government monopoly. Otherwise it's barter.
Our problem isn't too much of any kind of spending, it's that the levers of government have been commandeered by freeloaders, diverting a torrent of spending and leaving those genuinely in need with scraps.
You can keep repeating your gibberish, but that doesn't make it true, its already been factually rebutted.
However, since Democratic presidents have proposed pay-fors for every major piece of legislation since Carter, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
One day, you'll have to explain how the oft-repeated exercise of Obama railing against Hill Republicans for not blindly passing so-called "emergency" unemployment benefits fits into your interpretation.
Did I die? No.
Obama has always included payfors in the Democratic versions of those bills. The House is the legislative body that passed it on a voice vote and did not include a payfor. Who controls the House?
Republicans are, however, willing to discuss extending unemployment benefits if they don’t burden federal coffers. Even Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said Sunday that he is open to extending unemployment insurance as long as it is paid for. House Speaker John Boehner told the White House a month ago that he would go along with an unemployment extension if it was offset. Boehner also wants an unemployment bill to include other provisions to create jobs (and, he notes, the House has passed a bundle of them).
The Republicans’ demands are complicating the unemployment issue for Democrats, who argue that extended unemployment benefits have been in existence since the late 1950s and have generally not been offset since 1972. The exceptions to that rule were in 2009, 2011, and 2012, when the extensions were part of larger legislative packages that included tax offsets. For example, the 2009 unemployment extension was part of the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act.
For Democrats, setting a precedent that federal long-term unemployment benefits must be paid for opens up a can of trouble. It means that the benefits are no longer driven by economic and employment conditions but by the condition of the federal budget. Generally, tight-employment economies translate to tight budgets, which means it becomes infinitely harder for lawmakers to approve additional benefits.
“Quite frankly, I thought it was a mistake when we offset it before. It should not be offset,” said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., who oversaw the unemployment-compensation program when he was in the House.
Cardin also argues, correctly, that extended unemployment benefits give a short-term boost to the economy of about 0.2 percent of GDP—not enough to offset the cost, but it is something.
Democrats have not completely closed the door on offsets, which confuses the matter. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., ranking member on the Budget Committee, offered late last year to offset a short-term unemployment extension using revenues raised from the farm bill, but there is no sign that their proposal will come up again this year.
House Democrats now are preparing to pressure—or perhaps shame—Republicans into thinking they have to support an extension without an accompanying spending cut, aides say. Ways and Means Democrats are working on an unemployment “counter” that will show a running tally of the number of jobless people who have exhausted their benefits. (It’s running at about 7 per second.)
Does that sound like an embrace of offsets by Democrats?
The cost would be paid for in part by extending certain fees levied by United States Customs and Border Protection as well as by temporarily changing the way private corporations fund their pensions.
Weren't the offsets subsequently offered because it was the only way to secure a filibuster-proof majority?
Fifty-nine senators, including four Republicans, voted to advance the legislation, falling one vote short of the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster effort.
Republicans and Democrats, many from the nation’s most economically depressed states, had been trying to reach a solution that would allow people who have exhausted their unemployment insurance to continue receiving benefits as long as the government offset the $6 billion cost.
Ultimately, how to pay for the program proved too big a hurdle for senators to overcome.
“We’ve given them everything they wanted. Paid for,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, flashing his irritation at Republicans who blocked the bill.
Uh ... R's still filibustered, even when there were offsets.
However, many Republicans and some Democrats worry about adding to the growing national debt.
"No one's disputing the value of these very important programs," said Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass. "But we also have to have tough choices and we also need to live within our means."
Brown and other Republicans want to pay for the unemployment benefits with unspent money from last year's massive economic recovery package.
The Democrats' unemployment bill would provide up to 99 weekly unemployment checks averaging about $300 to people whose 26 weeks of state-paid benefits have run out. The benefits would be available through the end of November, at a cost of $33 billion. There are no offsets in the bill, so the cost would add to the deficit.
EDIT: Were it not for the offsets, Shipman, the Democrats wouldn't have had a filibuster-proof majority.
I wasn't referring to the private sector part. I'm talking about the mentality that uses a few isolated cases like Solyndra as a sledgehammer against funding nearly every type of research.
The day people stop going to work is the day we become poor, because the supply of goods and services evaporates. The supply of any type of money is immaterial in comparison.
The fact that fewer people work on farms and in factories obviously has not made us poorer. And at some point automation will render obsolete most service jobs. Well, maybe robots won't be able to do the work of prostitutes, but pretty much any job held by a BTF poster will be performed by a machine in 100 years.
Tennessee Gov. William Haslam has proposed that his state use lottery funds to provide high-school graduates with two free years of education at community or technical colleges.
First announced in February, the proposal now appears to be on track for approval having won support from several of Haslem’s Republican colleagues in the state general assembly.
Called “Tennessee Promise,” Haslam’s plan would allow high-school graduates to attend an in state technical or community college without having to pay any tuition or associated fees. The funds would come from newly created endowment using money from the lottery’s reserves.
It’s estimated that the plan would cost about $34 million each year.
Some Democrats in the state oppose the proposal, saying it would take away funds from other currently existing scholarship models.
By "business", you mean political cronies?
I don't really get this argument against it. I would much rather see funds used for all-inclusive access to higher education than scholarships which only benefit certain individuals who meet the qualifications. Yeah, some people that don't need the free ride will be getting it but the overall benefit seems well worth it.
I like the idea of giving people more access to technical schools, since people gain actual job skills, but what's the ROI on, e.g., a two-year liberal arts degree from a community college?
pretty much any job held by a BTF poster will be performed by a machine in 100 years
A lot of the kids going to college for no better reason than "it's what I'm supposed to do after high school" should be learning a trade, joining the military or just getting three part-time jobs and saving some money while they work out what they want to do with their lives for a few years.
But now I've come to think that many people are being educated and informed beyond their capacity to encompass it and assimilate into crtical thinking. They can't handle it. Or rather they handle it inappropriately.
Have you looked at the ROI of college education versus no college? Seriously college is still (in aggregate) a good investment.
Complication rates from diabetes in the United States are generally higher than in other developed countries. That is true even though the United States spends more per patient and per capita treating diabetes than elsewhere, said Ping Zhang, an economist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The high costs are taking their toll on public coffers, since 62 percent of that treatment money comes from government insurers. The cumulative outlays for treating Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes reached nearly $200 billion in 2012, or about 7 percent of America’s health care bill.
Expenditures could well double by 2030, according to estimates by the C.D.C., in large part because the number of Americans found to have diabetes has been increasing more than 50 percent every 10 years. Most of the increase is attributable to Type 2 diabetes patients, whom manufacturers are encouraging to try insulin treatment and glucose monitoring, even though that is rarely medically required. Also, the Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to cover people with chronic disease, meaning they will have better access to treatments.
“This is not just a health care crisis,” said Mr. Kliff, the newsletter editor, who has Type 1 diabetes. “It’s an economic crisis as well.”
The "in aggregate" is doing the heavy lifting, as the engineering majors are lumped in with the Womyn's Studies majors.
A lot of the kids going to college for no better reason than
The U.S. already has too many kids going to college. These sorts of plans will only exacerbate that problem.
That education is, for most "students", only a secondary purpose of college doesn't help. For most its primary purpose is merely delaying the responsibilities of adulthood. And in large swaths of our culture this is celebrated.
If only I could be as exact as those statements. No aggregating there, no sir.
The problem is that it's a trend unlikely to turn around any time soon and too often the simple act of going to college is considered "important" by employers even if the time there didn't actually do anything other than show that the person was capable of doing the coursework necessary to graduate college.
As a Type I diabetic, I still grow annoyed being lumped in with people who gave themselves diabetes rather than getting it from their genes.
Say what you will about the rest of it—his campy countryness, the rampant media attention, the decision to enter politics—but Mark “Coonrippy” Brown adored his pet varmint. Her name was Rebekah. He’d raised her from a baby. Fed her bottles. Cooked her scrambled eggs, her favorite. He trained her and gave her the run of his home in Gallatin, Tenn. . . But last summer, state wildlife agents, tipped off by the viral scene, seized Rebekah.
. . .
Brown begged the governor to intervene. He hired an attorney and went to court. A petition with 6,000 signatures called for the raccoon’s release. Nothing happened. Brown says he still doesn’t know exactly what became of Rebekah. And so, earlier this year, he decided to go from appealing for help from the state’s highest office to seeking it himself.
I know this has been true in the past, but how true is this in 2014? From what I've seen, employers are increasingly looking for specific skills. Given the struggles of recent college grads to find work generally and what we know to be the specific ROI for various degrees, it seems like a huge waste to just throw open the doors to college. It seems a lot smarter to make high-ROI technical colleges free and pay for it by doubling the cost of low-ROI liberal arts colleges (or by extending far fewer and smaller college scholarships and loans to students at such schools) than to just say "Go to college" and not pay attention to what's being studied with the money loaned or allocated.
Given our current labor market, this is not the best time to be moving more 18-22 year olds to the work force anyway.
... but if a job at Enterprise is the payoff for four years of college, I'd say there's no time like the present to start deflating the higher-ed bubble and revamping our high school curriculums.
I don't disagree that as a country we're way too college-obsessed and plenty of people out there would really be better off not going. The problem is that it's a trend unlikely to turn around any time soon and too often the simple act of going to college is considered "important" by employers even if the time there didn't actually do anything other than show that the person was capable of doing the coursework necessary to graduate college. So given the circumstances being what they are now I think it's better to make college more accessible to everyone.
I think that leaves, Marvin Kaplan, Barrie Chase, Stan Freberg and Louise Glenn as the only cast members alive from that flick.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.9833 seconds, 73 querie(s) executed