Doc
-
Posts
66,091 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Doc
-
-
Partisan hack, not racist, but a hack nonetheless. Still, you are a hugely better poster than either Dave. So I find this bit beneath you.
Hardly a partisan hack (although the irony isn't lost on me). My larger issue was with Barry talking about health care reform when he was smoking and sucking-down Five Guys at every opportunity. And it seems that his story about his mother being denied health care was another lie, uncovered by a NYT reporter no less.
-
Word is that they're targeting Falcon's RT Tyson Clabo.
-
Hopefully she bummed a cig off of dear hubby after the meal.
-
I hope they open camp by the 31st. I'll be in town (home) in 2 weekends.
-
Funny how other teams would pick him up in a second. In Buffalo, even though he has been through a series of injuries he has played very well. I would like to see what he can do with help... a rejuvenated Merriman, better D-line in front of him, etc.
Depends on what he's asking for. I doubt he'll find a lot of suitors for top-dollar demands.
-
I've been disappointed with Poz' play. Maybe that's due to the personnel in front of him, but I can't see re-signing him for huge bucks only to find out it was more him than anyone else. I think it might be time to part ways.
-
The NHL is small potatoes compared to the NFL. And unlike football players, hockey players (who play on ice) don't really care too much where they play.
As for the Sabres specifically, they did extremely well under Golisano, who was basically a caretaker owner who didn't spend a lot on the team. And in the NHL, 16 out of 30 teams make the playoffs, meaning it's harder to miss them than make them. So while it's great that Pegs is spending money, it means little unless the Sabres win championships. Hopefully they do that, and if they do, we can revisit this again.
-
So he was let go, despite his potential to return to Pro Bowl form and despite a willingness to work for peanuts--because AJ Smith no longer liked him? What's not to like?
You don't think they might have thought he wasn't fully recovered? That he was likely to be reinjured--which he was as soon as he stepped on the field and the Bills staff asked him to run backwards? His release had little to do with this?
Simple question, actually. Just wanted to see if anyone would attempt to contort themselves around the obvious--that Smith thought he was prone to injury and washed up.
It's rarely just 1 thing. I'm sure AJ Smith thinks Merriman is washed-up. He probably also views him as a headache. So it's better to part ways. Whether Smith or the Bills will be proven right remains to be seen.
-
Anyone know why SD let him go? Why didn't they keep him--he comes cheap?
Anyone know why SD hired Norv Turner?
As for whether the money given to SM will hinder signing FA's, that won't be known until we see the Bills salary cap for 2011. We also won't know if the Bills made a mistake giving him that extension until the 2011 season plays-out.
-
Living beyond our means has become the American way & i for applaud the Bills & owner Ralph for not putting the county or team in such a financial pickle (as our government's so frequently do) that they can abstain a financial down turn easier than say a (dumb a**) Dallas owner by building a !.3 Billion dollar facility just t stroke our own ego !!
Sure it would be great for the Bills to have a brand new stadium (& i would love a new Vet) but if it ain't broke & it don't need replacing (YET) & serves the purpose use it and plan for the day when it needs to be replaced instead of putting people along with there region in financial straights !!
I know this comment will by put down more than likely but before you do we might want to look at your check book & see where we stand before jumping on the soap box for a new stadium . Besides the Ralph has a lot of Bills history in it & is as much a part of the team as the fans it self !!
Go BILLS !!!!!
You are correct. There is no need for a new stadium at this time.
-
This is what it should look like when it's done (with the obvious changes): http://aturf.ehclients.com/images/sports/sport-main-football.jpg
-
who is better positioned than health care providers to effect it? without the incentives included in health care reform for preventive care it's highly unlikely to happen.
Do you have an idea for a better way?
Incentives...for whom?
He will try to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, as he said he would. He will fail in the attempt.
Doubtful. Barring a major miracle, the Repubs look all but assured of taking congress and the presidency. Which means buh bye to Obamacare.
That is, assuming Obamacare survives SCOTUS.
-
from the CIA website: "life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes mortality at all ages. it can be thought of as indicating the political return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures."
so how we doin? the CIA ranks the US 50th worldwide by this measure.
it won't happen in a vacuum. it will take cultural change although there's no harm in trying. i've cited you evidence previously about the effectiveness of smoking cessation counseling and i have plenty of anecdotal evidence.
Why do you need Obamacare to effect cultural change?
-
and you were doing so well til the last sentence... "obamacare" is a means to an end. it's just the jumping off point for everything else you mentioned. will it work as envisioned? maybe not but it's a work in progress and will certainly require both major and minor tweaks over time. magox, you seem to actually want a better system with better outcomes. to me that desire seems obvious and natural. i'm not so sure about d/c or rob. it's all about "what's in it for me" and "i'm alright jack, pull up the ladder". unfortunately there are plenty of americans that think this way and that has much to do with the appalling life expectancy statistics.
Creating a gigantic entitlement and then expecting to "tweak it" is a fantasy. Again look at Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. But if by "jumping off point," you meant "a cliff," I agree with you.
As for counseling an education, that's another fantasy. The American public wants to hear none of it, and I'd bet your patient population is no healthier than that of your peers, despite your belief that Obamacare is a step in the right direction (and you've no doubt adopted many of the guidelines in it).
-
If Merriman produces, is it still an act of desperation?
As for Bucky Brooks, what a waste of a 2nd round pick that guy was.
-
Heck, the defendant argued that he was alive. His contention was is that the guy on the ground was still a threat. Smarter argument would have been he was dead I suppose. Then it is just corpse mutilation.
If the defendant argued that he was alive, then he and his counsel are idiots.
-
so it follows that the myriad of other factors is an indictment of current american culture...agreed. it appears we also agree that american patients largely can not be counted on to control costs on their own. so, what is the solution? a paradigm shift in the way we practice medicine. we stop treating every minor complaint. we get reimbursed mostly for improving patients wellness. we stop trying to fix things beyond repair. and some times we just say "no". but who is the "decider"? the insurance companies? the govt? the people themselves who we've just concluded are generally incapable? who has the ability to change the culture? maybe we should turn to madison ave to actually do some good for a change.
No, the real solution is to dictate to people how they will have to live (the "personal mandate" is merely a step in that direction, as are the "death panels"), so as to lower health care expenditures for the country. Changing everything else and not the root cause is wholly futile.
And who gets to make the decision to say "no?" A doctor? Like Kathleen Sebelius (
)? What if someone is denied care and he/she truly has a problem and dies. Who gets sued? The government? The doctor? Because Obamacare addressed tort reform?The sooner you realize this, bd, the better-off you'll be: Obamacare was designed to further squeeze the salaries of doctors. The problem is, those account for less than 15% of health care expenditures, yet Barry cut deals with the major players/deep pockets and that's why not only will nothing improve, it will get far worse. And again you're laboring under the false delusion that you'll make out on this whole deal, when the reality is your pay will be cut less than specialists' will.
-
Didn't read the specifics of the case, but how do they know he was unconscious and not dead after the first shot?
-
sure, if the private insurers agree to take the sickest patients and not cherry pick (and that is coming in 2014 when pre-existing conditions go away- just wait for the rationing from anthem, humana and the like when it happens.
and no, the us came in 31st in world mortality statistics in the most recent report but spent by far the most. almost every nation ahead of us had govt run healtjhcare, rationing and an emphasis on primary care.
I agree that insurers should not be allowed to cherry pick and/or kick-off expensive subscribers. But removing pre-existing conditions means that you can get insurance only when you need it and drop it when you don't. Insurance is destined to fail that way and the system will collapse quick, especially since everyone is going to be paying the same premium. The fine/penalty/tax for not having insurance is so ridiculously low that it's not a deterrent. And again, mandating people buy insurance is opening the floodgates to unprecedented government intrusion. But if you're fine with that, then you'll be fine with the government telling you what you can and can't do, right?
Taking life expectancy by itself without adjusting for the myriad of factors that contribute to it is meaningless. Despite/because of the health care system, Americans take horrible care of themselves, yet expect everything be done for them and it to be done cheaply and perfectly, otherwise they'll sue. So obviously the U.S. spends a ton on health care.
-
but this is what it will take to get entitlements under control...that or have the private insurers do it, which for some reason you folks are eager to accept. we need to stop the mri's for the people that "just want to know" and the stress test on 30 year olds with gas pains and all the futile care. the gov't really is the only entity that can effectively do this. same for social security reform. the painful stuff has to happen. if you're asking if the political will really exists on either side then i agree, that's a serious question.
Adding yet another entitlement is what it will take to get entitlements under control?
no, you don't realize what i'm arguing...for reasonable rationing based on thoughtful allocation of limited resources, for safe harbors to just say no, for refusal without fear of reprisal for denying unnecessary care. for empowering people with actual medical knowledge to be the decision makers. everywhere in the world that this has worked has a govt run system.
The government can ration health care for those on Medicare and Medicaid without destroying the system for everyone else. And government run systems in other countries are failing.
-
What really kills soccer for me is the way they keep time. To me it's insane not to play to a hard clock instead of a referee's whim. I'd also stop the clock for injury. None of this faking schitt.
Yeah, the "stoppage time" seems completely arbitrary and another reason to
.Fifa actually said it was because Solo moved forward (which she clearly did not even when you watch the replay in super slow-mo). Just wow. I'm not sure if the thought of the fix being in is any more scary than an honest ref being that incompetent at her job.
I thought that the official reason given was that Solo allegedly moved forward, which she most certainly didn't do. Then I heard people talking about the encroachment by the other US player and thought it was weak call at best. Again more evidence the fix was in. What's funny was to hear the Brazilians say they didn't deserve to lose.
-
That's because after they're still reeling from the effects of Obamacare, they're scared shitless about what the Current Occupant will create a national mandate for next.
SCOTUS needs to strike down Obamacare. If they don't, ANYTHING will be fair game to be forced on people under the charade of "regulating interstate commerce."
-
Set your DVRs for wednesdays match against France.
and tonight at midnight ESPN2 will replay todays match
as an "Instant Classic"
Rapinoe's pass to Wambaugh for the second goal was a thing of beauty.
Regarding the re-do on the penalty kick that Hope blocked.
Encroaching happens, but is rarely called , like traveling in the NBA
It was FIFA/the refs trying to give Brazil every advantage they could after being down 1-0 and looking like they were going to go down. The play should never have been called a penalty in the first place, much less a red card given. And on the 2nd goal by Marta, there was clear off-sides. With officiating like that, as well as all the flopping, it makes soccer almost impossible to stomach.
-
You don't have to vote for one over the other. You could vote for a 3rd party or decide not to vote at all
The difference being...?
What about the O-line?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Even without a FA acquisition, the O-line should be far better than last year. Having all the competing players and being healthy going into training camp will help with cohesion, unlike last year where players were (still) injured and others joined late.