Magox

Not so sure about that. I think you may be over-generalizing here. Your assumptions are based on an "all things being equal" physiological aspect of it. It is very possible that one person's body reacts differently to the same sort of external conditions than another person. Also, I would argue that the typical carry from Ladanian is quite different than the "dish the punishment" carry from Turner. I would think that Turners style of running, the number of carries he had and his physiological makeup all contributed to his drop off

We can discuss the merits and pitfalls of the "for profit" health care industry. Without a doubt that the innovations in medical equipment, drugs etc have improved as a result, but I also would agree that it has contributed to medical price inflation. But as you can see from his view, there are many other factors as well and no where were the private insurers listed as one of his problem areas. If anything he sympathized with them and the doctors. But my whole point was to point out the absurdity of meatface's post. Which what he said was what "he got out" of this article was that we need the public option. That's fine if you believe we need one, but don't chime in and say that the article suggested a need of a government run private insurer to compete when the article had everything to do with the delivery and charging methods of the PROVIDERS

Did anyone happen to catch what brill said about the ACA? He said what it did help solve is who will pay for it? What it didn't solve was to effectively bring down health care costs. That's pretty much what I've been saying from day one

Those examples he cited there are the drug and medical device makers. He also believes that hospitals and their administrators and their methods of charging patients are large factors. Yet again, that has nothing to do with the entities that end up paying for these inflated charges.

Also, the "health care industry" is not primarily the health insurance industry. It encompasses a whole swath of sectors, all related health care. Again, nothing that the public option would effect in a meaningful way. Did you read his summary conclusion? No where does he mention reforming the health insurers. His solutions were solely reforming how the provides of healthcare should charge. It's simple, he believes that profits are a factor when it comes to medical price inflation. And I agree with that. But again, that has nothing to do with the insurers.

Thats not what the article said or implied. There was very little that had to do with the inefficiencies of the health insurers. The article was about the delivery system of medicine and how it is charged to the public. The only straw man here is your perception of the private health insurers. Maybe brill advocated what you said in an interview, but that is not what he was talking about in the article. Again, this point has nothing to do with the public option Even if you we're to accept your argument that a lot of the problems is based on profit, (which is tremendously short-sighted), but lets say we did accept that, everything brill was talking about was again, the delivery of medicine, not the insurers. So the biggest straw,an f them all regarding this subject is believing that if we reform the insurers that it would help solve the problem of rising costs.

No it wouldn't, again you are talking out of your ass. The public option was simply a government run health insurance agency meant to compete with private health insurers with the hope of being able to create greater leverage in negotiating with hospitals and doctors. just quit talking about this subject, you clearly showed not just in your previous two posts but in the prior discussion that this is one subject that you are clueless on. So there is an 11 page article that is primarily about the way hospitals over charge and what you got out of it was, we need the public option. Idiot

Did you even read the article? If you did, then what you just proved to anyone who actually read and understood it is that you are a complete blithering idiot. The article had virtually nothing to do with excessive profits from the private health insurers but much more so with the inefficient delivery system of medicine here in the U.S. The reason why the public option was ever brought up was so it would provide more "competition" amongst the insurers, because there was a false predominant belief from many that rising health insurance premiums were being driven by greed from the health insurance industry, which of course is false. If you had read the article and took it for what it was worth, you would see that premiums are being driven by..... Drum roll please.......... Health care costs, What the author proposes are ways to limit overcharging from the providers not the insurers, Your post helped confirm what I pretty much thought, which is that you're an idiot

Not quite sure I understand your question. The senate democrats plan wasn't what TYTT was talking about, their plan included some spending cuts, the "millionaires tax" and some stimulus spending.

huh?

Lets not forget that the real story is Woodward's original acct. which is that the W.H came up with the idea of the sequester, despite the president lying to us twice, the first time saying that it was congressional republicans idea and then before the elections telling the American public repeatedly that the sequester would never happen, when responding to Romney's attacks that it would.

That's what the W.H does, successfully I might add. They mobilize their base, which it all began with Plouffe and co. when they sent out tweets attacking Woodward, and now all the drones follow suit.

From Andrew Sullivan Talk about eating their own

It doesn't surprise me one bit. Most administrations try to control the coverage as much as they possibly can, but this one takes it to a whole new level. They have an incessant desire to control the narrative, that has been on display for quite some time. Even Plouffe bragged about this aspect of the first Obama campaign, regarding controlling the narrative. These guys are political animals, and they are great at it. They can politick with the best of them, but when it comes to governing, these guys are about as incompetent as they come. It is amateur hour up there at the W.H Also, I see that many liberals are doing everything they can to savage Woodward's reputation. Check it http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/media-others-tweet-on-bob-woodward-88234.html?hp=r2

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/11/3-4-or-4-3-for-bills-under-pettine-yes/

ADDS over $7 Billion to the Deficit. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43960 So what was suppose to reduce the national debt, actually increases it. These are the clowns who run our country.

On the flip side, to expand on this post, out of the teams that were able to draft a player that remained on their teams, 67% of those teams are consistent playoff teams.

Does anyone know if Kelsay's retirement changes the cap figure differently than if he would have been released? Also, are we able to place the transition tag on levitre? And from my perspective, releasing Brad Smith and restructuring fitz's contract would complete the necessary off season cuts and freeing up of cap space for this coming season.

I believe he will be able to fit in both schemes. He runs the 40 in the low 4.6's, which is faster than most linebackers in the league. Also, did you happen to catch the senior bowl? Denard Robinson ran a play out wide and Ansah ran him down for an open field tackle. It was quite impressive.

Jill Stein?

I hope all turns out well for you 3rdlng

Can we put the transition tag on Levitre?

They are gonna talk to him about moving over to safety. He was projected by some to be a top tier candidate for this position coming out of college, it just so happens we played him at CB.

What are you? A moron or such a lefty that you actually believe what you just typed? Here is some work for ya Google. Monsanto and evil. Or pick any derogative term to associate it with and tell me what you come up with. Here is what I got: Firedog lake, Mother Earth news, Youcouldsavetheworld, Infowars, Nature news, And huffington post And that was just on the first page. Yes all bastions of conservative ideologies. And the only one that could remotely be considered conservative is infowars and they are so bat schitt looney they have come full circle. Are there some libertarian minded people who are in disagreement with monsantos policies? Sure But is there the level of outrage from the right as there is from the left regarding Monsanto? Not even close. Anecdotally speaking I have lots of earth loving hippy friends that I go to burning man with along with other kumbaya style festivals, and on my FB all the hatred that is for Monsanto is from the left and not a peep from my conservative friends. So take your head out of your ass and think for a second before you post. This is an issue that largely resonates with the left.

We have "talent" at WR relative to the rest of the NFL?