OCinBuffalo

Before the now 13 delays to Obamacare, and the most recent "hardship waiver" what people had what choice? Individual Mandate means...what exactly? I didn't choose Kaiser when I could have in 1999. Could they have fined me? :whacko: There ends your comparison. One is a product that I could choose to buy, knowing the consequences/benefits. The other is something I have no choice but to buy, and I don't get to shop, as in many states, there is 1 provider, and even where there are more than 1? The product is: the exact same. I have to pay to be covered for pregnancy, no matter which Obamacare plan I buy, and I have no choice but to buy that coverage. So, to what choice are you referring? The comparison is awful. If my doctor refuses to participate in Obamacare, then what is my rememdy? What choice can I make to get him, and not somebody else? At least before, you could buy a different plan, one that your doctor would participate in. Now? There is no plan you can buy. Now, no matter what you have to work it out with your doctor on your own. Which...unless you guys wise up immediately, is going to be the way things run going forward. I know something quite significant about "going forward", but I can't say. All I can say is, again, you better wise up. No they don't, and I prove it every single day, even when I am sleeping. Your dirty break down analysis is called "financial allocation", and it sucks horrifically. Nobody drinks 3.2 cartons of milk, per day, but, that's also what your "quick and dirty" tells you. And, more importantly, that's what the government you say you want as the insurer will tell all of us. It's crap, because we have no idea what the TRUE cost of doing business is, but more importantly: when we use your fudge factored crap? We have no real way of seeing what causes 3.2...to go to 3.5. Your fudge obscures it, because you've fudged your way to get to 3.2 in the first place. Is the second floor drinking 3.2 cartons of milk? How about the psyche ward? Post Op? What has changed in these different areas? Are we just throwing milk that's been out too long away? Are the patients drinking more? What is giving us 3.5 today, when according to you: everyone drinks 3.2, and therefore, that is the cost? "Well, we do know that the entire facility is drinking 3.2 cartons of milk per day...so...." Horseshit. And even if it wasn't, that is completely useless to a manager. We need to know what is really happening, but, we have no way of knowing what is really happening, because we aren't tracking what is really happening. Instead, we are making fudge, and then trying to pretend that fudge is useful for making decisions. And, that fudge is combined with the fudge from every other hospital, aggregated, and used to dictate massive macroeconomic swings in Medicare/Medicaid funding, which directly affects Private Insurance payouts, while nobody has any idea what affect cutting or adding funding will have, because NONE of it is real. Ah, you've even stated it. So, you admit that indirect cost, not expenses, "skews" cost. But, who is responsible for the skewing? Does it skew all by itself? Does the night shift med pass LPN sneak in and skew it? No. It's "skewed" because it was never created properly. It's fudge. How about direct variable cost? Such as: it takes 3 times longer to get a double amputee diabetic to the MRI room, than it does a healthy 20 year old. Aren't we paying the person getting them down there? That time, is cost. How many MRIs does a hospital do in a year? Who is standing around, doing nothing, waiting for the patient, who took 3 times longer to do the MRI, to get to them, because, "we can't do this before we do this"(= business rules) + there's no reflexive workflow system in place to tell them to do something else? What does that cost? Where can I find that cost on your spreadsheet? You want to tell me(of all people)...that ALL MRIs cost "the same", and, there was never anything we could have learned(from analytics) or done(in real time, due to workflow/real time analytics) to save any of the cost that comes from unplanned work(which accounts for ~40% of the total labor cost of any hospital) in and around MRIs...or the other 400+ tasks a hospital does daily... ....because you worked something out in Excel? No, you really don't. Because this is just the easy stuff, and I haven't even really begun....best for you to quit now. I've heard this ridiculous before. Lots of times, but it always ends the same: tell me about your spreadsheet for an hour, 2 hours, the whole day. Whenever you get done talking? You still don't know your true cost of doing business. Period. No, you want fudge, which is completely useless to everyone, to dictate what we do, and worse, you want aggregated fudge to be how the whole thing gets funded.

Because they can rarely just approach a problem straight up, practically, and without external political consideration = "How is Big Donor X going to feel?" Because they have to mollify the extremist activists in their base... Because the extremists raise the most campaign $ from Big Donor X and all like him... Because the extremists have the best chance to motivate/scare/convince donors... Because the extremists have the most passion... (And some would add: because the extremists are F'ing nuts, which is what makes them extremists, Q.E.D. Extremist can also mean: extremely self-interested, which doesn't mean they are crazy, but does mean they support crazy) Ergo, the USA is not being run by us, the people. It's being run by a tiny minority of extremists(or F'ing nuts), and they have a very successful business model, which means we are empowering crazy with millions of dollars, in many cases, per extremist(or F'ing nut). Then, we are shocked when the political party in power F's up? Why? Given the above, "F'ing up" is the default expectation in this model, is it not? Therefore, my final "Because": Because the rational, reasonable people are too involved in other things, and they have every right to be involved: in their jobs/kids/life in general, to ever compete with the extremist, in terms of passion or $, and, they want to spend their $/time on those other things... So, what should we do here? Seems to me: we need to ask the rational/reasonable to get off their asses, realize the country is in real trouble, and get involved. And, now we finally have the real rationale for the TEA party. Did you see that one coming? Do the clowns here get it? No, really, this is exactly why the TEA party exists. The notion that the TEA party is extremist is patently retarded. The TEA party is the response to extremists. The TEA party = the logical response to extremism on both sides. The TEA party despises Wall Street bailouts(right wing extremism) every bit as much as they despise Solyndra(left wing extremism).

If we were having an adult discussion, and not a religious one, we might be inclined to deal with it differently. But we haven't been, have we? There's no wonder here at all: most of your pals in Hollywood began this, with their $, by yet again, overreaching and trying to impose socialsm both nationally and globally, using Global Warming as the pefect vehicle: because it's based on fear...this time of catastrophe. Cut the crap: that's precisely what happened. And, now that the purely political "solution" has been exposed, we are hearing things like "well, it still makes sense to cut pollution, manage our resources properly, and innovate away from fossil fuels"? No schit, really? What the F is that? I'll tell you: it's exactly what we've been saying the whole damn time. But, we've also been saying: get rid of the scam/money making for the corporatist left, and get rid of the socialist nonsense, and the welfare checks for China, India, and all the rest. For that? I've personally been called every name in the book, and so have many others here, and all over the web. We're just supposed to forget all the left's bad behavior on this issue, pretend it never happened, and begin the adult conversation now? Sorry dude. Your Hollywood friends went WAAAAAY too far on this one. Tell them they've got a whipping coming, and no amount of obfuscation is getting them out of it. Or, they can apologize. So? They're gonna chose the whipping, aren't they? Fine. November is coming. Whose been running around saying the "Science is Settled" for the last 10 years? You want to start making corrections? Start there. You want to treat this like a defense issue? Really? I've been in "defense", and I'll be happy to discuss it with you right F'ing now, with exactly 0% BS. EDIT: In fact let's handle this exactly like an Army training document, shall we? ARMY304440-1 Treatment of Global Warming as a threat to National Security Objective: To explain what is initially required for treating Global Warming as a national defense issue. Summary: Instrcution will describe the Army's culture of all leaders admitting to their mistakes in training exercises, and correcting them. It will also describe actions taken to prevent group think when developing strategic plans, and avoid countermission consensus. Detail: The first thing you do in a defense paradigm? Admit your mistakes. No seriously, you go to any training in the Army, and the first thing you will see after an exercise is the officers admit where they messed up. That is the culture. Not admitting your mistakes is the fastest way out of today's Army. This is life and death, and therefore, ego over fact will not be tolerated. Still want to treat this like a Defense issue? Hey, you said you believe this is a life and death issue. Ok, then treating this as a defense issue does make sense. Thus: practically every Democrat in the country needs to admit they've F'ed up huge, immediately, understand each mistake and why they made it, and make the corrections. When you're done making that happen, we can move on. Ok, the second thing we do, if this is a defense issue, is organize teams of people whose job it is to argue opposite, and sometimes 3 or more, sides of every position. The mission here is to establish the OPPOSITE of consensus. Group think is an enemy to feared(google the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, or our Pre-WW2 Pacific Defense plans), and so drastic measures are taken to avoid it. Given 1 and 2, what are the chances, do you think, of the current "experts" and policy people getting past them? But, if you really want to treat this as a defense issue, that is what must happen. There are more things, but let's just start with these 2, shall we? Conclusion: Treating Global Warming like a defense issue requires all of the bad actors involved to admit their mistakes, understand them, and correct them. It also requires that we understand that group think is the enemy to successful strategic planning, and that therefore discussion of, or attempting to attain, consensus is countermission. There more requirements, which will be discussed in ARMY304440-2. That is the 0% BS discussion of handling of this as a defense issue that you requested. It even follows the Army's "tell them what you're gonna say, say it, and then tell the what you said" format. National defense issue. How many Democrats have the ability and character to treat this as a defense issue?

Who's too chickenshit to back up his "Rs aren't dealing with reality" charge? I just gave you a reality barometer, and then I gave you the answers. I'm trying to help you get your head on straight, dumbass.

I'm a libertarian, dumbass. Well, I guess there's probably libertarians that would tell me I'm not, but, that's a different thread. Before I am anything: I am professional problem-solver. I kill problems and make sure they don't come back, and I don't merely move the problem from one place to another. This is what I do, when I'm not helping you to see things clearly. What we are doing with Welfare/Food Stamps clearly isn't working. Doing more, of what isn't working: is FAIL. The answer is always: stop doing it, first. I.E. Stop touching the oven. More touching the over, pushing harder...solves nothing. But, it's always the same old thing in my job: the oven touchers, and those that designed the oven-touching plan, always fight to keep touching the oven. That's because usually they are either so accustomed to oven-touching, that they don't feel the pain anymore. Or, they really don't know what else to do. Or, they believe that since oven touching is their job, they have a right to force everyone to continue touching the oven...because "they've earned it", and "job security" blah blah blah. All of that is horseshit. I've never recommended the termination of anyone who was willing to meet me halfway, and I never will. In fact, I've fought to save entire departments, because the boss was trying to make things work. I'm not always successful, but I'm batting about .600 for my career. Nothing is new for me here, so here is the answer: Democrats want to keep touching the oven. Period. Giving the poor the $ directly? That's not more oven-touching, is it? It's a new approach to an old problem...which is what I do. See? Problem solving doesn't need to be difficult, but it does require thick skin, courage and honesty. The Democratic party has become deficient in all 3, especialy the courage: to admit they are FAILing, and to be willing to try something else that at least has a chance of working. We can talk about Republican problems, but they do NOT cancel out the Democrat's deficiencies.

Consider your own words: if you're not sure how the government jobs aids the poor...what makes you think anyone else is? What if no one is sure how these government systems aid the poor, but, they are sure how they aid their own pockets/campaigns? 50 years of the "war on poverty"...and 0 results = you've crossed into England vs. France territory. If we gave the money we spend on government programs every month, directly to the poor, every month? They would literally no longer be classified as "in poverty". Moynihan said we could only give them 1/3 of it. Who cares? I say: Give them the whole thing....and then see what happens. I can guarantee you will see howling, and the Ds doing everything they can to stop it. That's because: Giving the actual poor all the money we allocate to "the poor" via government, directly = freeing the slaves. These newly freed people would be able to afford all sorts of things, and, once they had them, they'd want more. Once we get there? "The poor" have self-respect. Once they have self-respect, they will have the courage to do things like start a business, look for a job, go to school, or any number of things that = "more". The feeling of having more than just survival $ in one's pocket is a very powerful thing. Ask anyone who's in their first real job after college. Instead, we have things like welfare and food stamps, which keep people down. They are just enough to survive. Keeping people in subsistence mode, is what Democrats want: this way, millions are 100% dependent on them. The Democrats own them. However, the Ds made a huge error: since the private sector unions have been decimated, now Democrats are dependent on this scam as well. They have to keep it going, or they are finished. Hence, the hubub in Wisconsin. I don't disparage Democrats for acting in their own self-interest. We all do. However, I do disparage them for pretending it's anything other than self-interest. Today's Democrats don't help the poor, they help themselves, and talk about things that happend 80 years ago, to make it sound good.

....i mean, many learned men have disputed this, but in the 14th century. the rabahm... And now I have a new thing to pray for every day. Think for second how awesome that would be. It reminds me of Kyle having to suck Cartman's balls. The sheer irony and hilarity of DC_Tom being waken from sleep, and having Gabe standing there?(or would it be hovering?) And Tom saying "Oh now hold on a second, I have to go back to PPP after this?" Pretty sure that would make for one hell of a thread. So, I'm praying for that right now. You can't stop me. I'm still doing it. Still doing it.

Ham and Egg sandwich, and these amazing hash brown thingers. There's this little crappy diner nearby that is cheap, and has good and unhealthy food. Anyhow here's where your understanding of me, or George Will, or the TEA party, breaks down, and leaves reality behind: You keep pretending this is about the poor, or that we are somehow against the poor. Personally, the only people I care enough about, to be against them? Progressives, pro wrestling fans, and Scientologists. All three groups add 0 value to society, and can do a lot of damage if left unsupervised. The poor and elderly aren't on my list, or anybody else's list either. No. Try to understand that my problem is 100% with the bolded line above, and so is the TEA party's. Your problem? You think telling people we hate the poor...distracts them from the bolded above. It does not. You can keep saying it, but, no one is listening. Everybody know the scam you are running, because you've run it every single election since Dukakis. Time for something new, because this old crap doesn't work.

Without even looking, first, I'm going to ask you a simple question: if your hand is touching a burning hot oven, what is the solution to that? Doesn't any solution we might try, like putting the hand in ice water, first require us to STOP touching the damn oven? Or, is that too logical for you to handle? Yes, often when we are doing something stupid, the first thing to do is: stop f'ing doing it. Now, I will read the article, and edit this with my comments...later...I'm hungry now.

Yeah? Here's how we determine who is living in reality, and who is not. Answer the f'ing questions that follow, and answer them yes or no. You want to prove you are empirical? Here's your chance: 1. Do the insurance plans that have been prescribed by Obamacare, suck as insurance products? 2. Is there any, rational, non-political hack reason why the Keystone pipeline shouldn't be approved immediately? 3. Has Obama's "reset button" with Russia worked in any appreciable way? 4. Was Obama's decision to end the missle defense programs in Poland and The Chezh Republic a good one? 5. Is GITMO still open? (Extra credit: WHY is GITMO still open?) 6. Has The Stimulus worked in general? 7. Specifically, can you show me a single, properly defined, Keynesian multiplier that the Stimulus focused on, and got the standard, expected results? 8. Has Obama or his administration had anything at all to do with the observed, lowering cost of energy, due to increases in supply? 9. Has Obama faithfully enforced all the laws of this country, as per his responsibility? 10. Do we have the truth, or any action as a result, of the Benghazi (TERRORIST) attack? Here's the answer key, for the empirical: 1. Yes 2. No 3. No 4. No 5. Yes (It's still open because the concept of closing it was never based in reality. Closing it was based in magical thinking, that said there was some other viable place to put the people there, like um...Disneyworld.) 6. No 7. No (If you could, you can get your Nobel Prize in economics, because not even Paul Krugman has been able to explain this one) 8. No 9. No 10. No Now, if you have deviated from ANY of those answers: you are the one living in Neverland. Every single question and answer can be fully backed up. These questions and answers are EXACTLY where the right is, which is to say: They represent reality on each issue. You are seriously deluding yourself if you think this isn't the case, and by all means, don't let me stop you: November is coming. Keep lying to yourself and others. This way, we are assured of taking the Senate, and if you keep lying to yourself, I like our 2016 chances as well.

Way back in 2009, Rahm Emanuel knew this war was coming: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/26/rahm-emanuel-liberals-are-f-king-retarded/. He called the far-left, who was insisting on single payer: "F'ing Retarded", for threatening to run ads against the Blue Dog Democrats who refused to go along with them. That link is hilarious btw. (Once and for all, the above makes clear that it was the Blue Dog Democrats, who've largely been replaced by Republicans in subsequent elections, who refused to vote for single payer. Republicans had NOTHING to do with that. The Blue Dogs were correct in being afraid of government managed health care. They tried to buy insurance = Lousiana purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, but to no avail. They got caught in the crossfire, between the idiot left, and 65% of the country, wearing the wrong uniform, and they have/will pay the price for that. This is the basis for the Civil War.) We ended up with Obamacare as a result. The far-left, instead of learning, takes away that Single Payer was the right approach all along, and that the reason for FAIL is Obamacare's design, and not the truth: government intervention into health care causes more problems than it solves. Hence this nonsense: its-time-for-democrats-to-embrace-obamacare democrats_must_defend_obamacare_327701 special_election_doesn't_prove_obamacare_is_a_loser dana-milbank-obama-has-a-problem-connecting-to-young-on-health-care Which, if you actually read these, and you are a clear-headed thinker, are quite hilarious. Read them, and you will see the intellectual equivalent of nerds at gym class. Nothing like a good laugh after the week is finished. I especially like the "Blame the Internet" notion from the last one. This is the worst sort of "blame the customer" mentality, combined with "Get off my lawn". As I said: hilarious. Obamacare, the product, sucks. And, we haven't even begun to see the contortions to avoid admitting that. Twister Champions have nothing on these people, but it's all pointless: If Obamacare was delivered by telegram or explained by the boss of the union we were all in, it would still suck, and we would still hate it. Meanwhile, there's things like this(from the Chicago Tribune, not exactly the Weekly Standard): florida signals Obamacare backlash And, of course, there's the pile on from the right, like this: sebelius-happy-talk-makes-it-worse-for-democrats or, whatever B-man posts next in the Obamacare thread. And it's not just limited to Obamacare(but if you think Obamacare can be pushed aside? Idiot.) There's the Keystone pipeline, and the fact that many Democrat politicians are in full retreat mode on Global Warming, while many far-left agitators and donors, are trying to stem the tide. Look at that all night Senate session: that's based on the whims of 1(one) environtologist donor, and his $100 million. This is an election losing issue, so again, Civil War. Meanwhile, there's the abject failure of far-left foreign policy = "engagement" and "reset buttons", and trying to force the USA into being "just a guy", when we are the star player on the team that is NATO. This is an election losing issue, so again, Civil War The far-left, progressive, whatever we call the agenda that comes from Harvard/Berkley, has failed. Failed miserably. We all knew it would, but now most moderate Ds, and ALL independents know: it HAS. Big difference. The lowest of information voter can now be thrown "If you like your doctor, change your Senator", which is right down the middle, so he will hit it out of the park. Only a clown denies that the D party is in big trouble, and much bigger trouble than the GOP. The GOP's problems are largely theoretical, and semantic. The Ds have multiple real-world policy failures that can be used against them, and hurt them severely. Therefore, their Civil War has begun. The only reason you don't hear it: media blackout, and the desire to stay unified to protect their biggest mistake = Obama. They don't want to have to answer for nominating him as well, so they will try to avoid dealing with the policy issues for as long as possible. But, that is their 2nd biggest mistake: staying unified for the sake of defending Obama means there won't be enough time left, in the spring/summer of 2016, for them to have it out on policy, like they would in a normal campaign. No. These issues are far too big for that. They should be getting to work now, and that starts by forcing the far-left to admit that their policies from the 1960s have put the D party in this mess, and now its time for new and better ideas. They will not do this, and all hell is going to break loose. The media, trying to suppress the existence of these policy FAILfrogs, is like trying to hide them in a microwave on high. Sooner or later, it's going to blow, and when it does? That's a mess they can't clean up or deny.

All sounds right to me. We actually lost a bid with the VA because we were accused of being: "too efficient", and they "weren't ready for that level of capability"...while we came in cheaper by $2 million? Horseshit: what they weren't ready for? The accountability that comes with being able to easily track everything they did. They were afraid of what we might discover. They simply didn't understand: we don't do "gotcha" here. But in government work: apparently "gotcha" is the culture. "Our software is like a road whore: it will do anything you want, for cheap."TM (You'd be surprised how well that line goes over with plumbers and HVAC guys, or maybe you woudn't. But, in all cases, I know my customer. More on this later.) Before this, I was an IT paratrooper: dropped into the schit and had to fix it almost every project. So, no, I don't agree that the data model will be so out of whack that I couldn't do anything with it. Remember: I've worked in health care and utilities. Also, a certain large mortgage company who thought running their entire business on a single instance of MS Access was a good idea comes to mind. I've already seen the worst, and lack of validations scripts, or terrabytes of nomalized, duplicated data that serves no purpose, does not scare me. It's as I've said: ever since the Bill Clinton thing, Democrats have been conditioned to reject all human decency in favor of political expediency/getting results. His lie was OK, therefore, every D lie is OK. They have lost their self-respect. Things won't be right for them, until they get it back. That article is an excellent description of the root cause, and why the root cause makes all massive Federal schematic solutions to this problem useless. Job #1 in marketing is "know your customer". The Democrats not only don't know the customer: they refuse to know the customer. They would rather make up and "believe" in a phony customer. Thus, they insist on selling a product that the real customer refuses to buy. It really is that simple. Heh. This is so indicative. The Ds got into power, using the same bumpersticker approach that is on display above. Keeping things simple was their great strength. Now? Because they have overreached even more than Bush, they are exploitable in the exact same way. It begs the question: are any of them smart enough to recognize their exposure, in time to make a difference? And that, my friends, is the question that WILL divide the Demcratic party, and that division WILL be worse than any R civil war. I've said it for a year now. They cannot ingore the above bumper sticker. They have to respond. Some will want to respond one way, others, another. Thus, there's no way in hell this simple bumper sticker does not divide the Ds. It's inevitable. It's also so difficult to have honest, meaningful conversations about health when Democrats don't understand the mere basics of marketing, insurance, or economics, and how these things affect creating and selling insurance prodcuts, how these products are paid for, how ignoring supply and demand and their effect on price, in favor of magical thinking, means trouble. It's so frustrating.... You know what else is frustrating? Show me a single Democrat who can define health care cost properly, and is actually aware of how much empty cost government intervention creates. And, show me a single health care administrator(who isn't one of ours) who can actually define his costs(not with some made up financial allocation nonsense), but with real cost of doing busines....in terms of every patient, in real time, down to the second if necessary, by the service, by all those who render service. Anyone who talks about health care costs, but can't actually define them down to the $.01/second? On at least some level, they are talking out their ass. This is why we exist. This is my public service. We merely want to impartially give people the facts about health care costs, so that all discussions about what to do about them begin in an honest, and meaningful way. I can't think of having less empathy for the human bring , than pretending you know the facts about his health care cost, and then acting on that lie. Yes, and acting like Kaiser = ACA? Nah, there's nothing wrong with that comparison. While we are at it, let's pretend LTC is the same as acute, after all, they both provide health care service! You know better than this. I know better than this. So just stop. Here's a single point that gator has made well. This is the internet, and the rest of you are being a bit pompous if you really think how you view gator, or DC_Tom, or TTYT, or EII, or GG, or me, or anyone: matters. I'll just tell you: your opinion is worthless. It doesn't mean we shouldn't bash gator for his blatant stupidity. It does mean that: let's not delude ourselves into believing that because we, and not somebody else, are doing the bashing, that it has more meaning.

Well? Now that Chris Christie appears to be out of the penalty box? Libera media back to bashing the TEA party every time it does anything, while insisting they are "dead", at the same time.

I'm thinking: both you or I, given merely "select" priviiledge on the various DBs, could tell this entire board exactly what is happening in about an hour. I know I could. Yeah: reporting, the task we assign the dumbasses/rookies on the project....is suddenly a major challenge? Integration/Federalized data issues? Deploy Mule, and STFU. I could train most of this board to this in about 2 hours. This is a pathetic attempt at hiding the data. There's no way in hell they don't know the answers to these questions. No way. The people who are believing them, and calling them incompetent, are being extremely naive. Therefore, don't be surprised if suddenly, magically, the data that answers the questions Sebelius "doesn't know" comes out. Why? Because Accenture isn't going to have some (*^*&%^$^#go out and tell people that they can't do reporting. No way in hell. Sebelius and the rest of CMS top management are absolutely fooling themselves if they think Accenture is going to allow any of this to stick to them.

It would helpful if you actaully responded to what people wrote. Do you, in any way, believe you've answered much of anythign here? Other than your "not a currency because I said so" rinse and repeat? You said contract pogramming isn't a legitmate business. That's absurd. We've raised a whole bunch of points, albeit some are edge cases, but, others clearly aren't....but you've painted all of them with the same brush. It's f'ing annoying.

You are GM Buddy Nix of the Bills in January 2013: 1. Your scouts tell you Byrd can be replaced by drafted kids. 2. You don't want to overpay for a FS, because of the position, and it's market, and because you think you're going to need $ elsewhere, and elsewhere's market 3. You know Byrd's agent is wont to play games 4. You know that your team is bad, and having a high-priced FS isn't going to change that 5. You know that the franchise tag causes chaos on the team every time it is used. You decide what? If this was the info/decision making process, I don't see what difference the franchise tag makes. If Buddy decided to keep Byrd, wouldn't that decision have been made in 2012? With a contract extension? And, what if they tried, but Byrd refused it? In all cases: I don't see what choice Whaley had, this year, to do much of anything different than what he did. Should we have paid $9 mil for a FS? No, no, and no. Just like we don't pay $9 million for a G Neither the Steelers or the Colts got to be who they are, by overpaying Gs and FSs.

Some might say Mario Williams? But, I get your point. The best use of FA is to get young guys coming off their first contract who are decent, but crowded out of playing time, or don't fit the new system on thier team, or something like that. There's plenty of good value to be had, and big contracts don't necessarily mean value. In fact they do less often than not. The other reasonable use of FA? Making up for bad drafting. You have to pay more, and by all rights, you should pay more, for making bad draft choices. However, there's nothing wrong with correcting a mistake, provided you aren't using future draft picks to do it. That compounds the mistake. The worst use: what the Redskins do. How are we not supposed to bring up the Redskins? We have the single biggest case of FA idiocy in the history of the NFL, but we aren't allowed to reference it? The Redskins behavior should and must be referenced, as often as is necessary, to remind fans of just how dopey FA can be. Some fans need more reminding than others. While still others need constant supervision.

They drafted 2 safeties last year. Both have upside. Which means: they decided a long time ago, that they weren't going to play Eugene Parker's reindeer games another time. I don't see how they could have done anything differently this year, given that this plan was obviously begun at least 2 years ago, and they are merely completing the endgame. What are we approving/disapproving of here, exactly? Completion of a long term plan, exactly as it was designed, by Buddy Nix? That's what they were supposed to do. I don't really approve, or disapprove, because it's kinda pointless. I voted for approve, just because it made slightly more sense than disapprove.

Right, just like zone defense has nothing to do with football, because zone defense has to do with basketball. And, now we see that you weren't trolling, after all, huh?

Oh man: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/10/carville_hillary_certainly_is_not_going_to_get_rid_of_obamacare_i_promise_you_that.html James Carville, promising us that Hillary isn't going to get rid of Obamacare? Look at his silly head bobbing back and forth: He doesn't really believe all that much in what he is saying. Well, progressives? Now you are pants F'ed. Why is James Carville, the Clinton's personal talking head, saying this, and saying this now? Accident? Coincidence? All we need to see: Lanny Davis coming out and saying the same thing, and that will confirm it. Hillary WILL make getting rid of Obamacare a talking point for her campaign. And don't be fooled: we are speaking in Clintonese here. Hillary, speaking in Clintonese: "We absolutely have to support Obamacare, because we can't go back to what we had.() That means doing the things that are going to support its success going forward....I just have a small list here of the things we will be working on....". Translation: "support" means kill. "success going forward" means whatever Hillary has to do to not be hurt by Obamacare. "small list" "the things we will be working on" means they will completely repeal and replace all of it...leaving a few trivial things in place to give the lie just enough truth... ....so that 3 years form now, James Carville can go on TV and say "See? I told you we weren't getting rid of it". More confirmation of: You can't have your Hillary, and your Obamacare too.

So you are trolling, then, making the same point over again? I don't think that's doing it right. You can't seem to connect: the standing "argument" for why nigga is Ok, for African Americans, yet not OK for others, is intellectual in nature. It relies on historical context, juxtaposed against the current "street" context, and is therefore described as a badge of honor of sorts. This is phony intellectual, humblebrag nonsense. It's about as believeable as me using the word: juxtaposed. Look: You don't see Polacks running around calling themselves Polax. It's as simple as that. (Although, using that term in the context of a Pole Axe would be pretty cool for Polish American nerds. And a bunch of Polish guys starting a band called Poleax...is probably as metal as they are going to get.) (And, if you don't think Morrissey is being used here, intentionally, against a poster who purports to be a Hollywood writer, then, again, I've overestimated your ability.)

(Gator said: "Night" which means now I get to go.) You have just literally blown gator's mind, along with about 10 million other environtologist's minds. "You mean the US isn't the biggest polluter? You mean that China and India are increasing their carbon emissions, while the US has been consistently reducing, year after year? Whatever do we do now?" If we allowed the "logic" of environtologists to be extended: We must either start a war with India and China and Malaysia for that matter, or, we must immediately cancel all orders from those 2 countries...which...would probaby result in a war with India and China. Hell let's just go after all of East Asia, pull a Pearl Harbor on them. Payback time! Because, you know, cap and trade.

Oh I'm sorry, I gave you credit for being smarter, and apparently cooler, than you actually are. My mistake. You don't realize the implications of the word, in the context of history, and how it's "transformation" is actually just a giant load of BS, wrapped in "identity studies" faux intellectual papers. Carry on. Speaking of contradiction...now you do see that there are intellectual implications here? Hmm. You do realize that you're going to have to make up your mind at some point, preferably before this thread hits page 2 status, right? Ah, so now it's LA being intellectually dishonest? You are just the innocent bystander. And of course, the intellectual legitimacy of rap remains...unchallenged, because you are a Morrissey fan, through and through, and that's because you still don't want to be "uncool".

We are going to get down to 2 things left, and you already know what they are, because these are the only 2 things they have been saying since 2009: 1. Pre-existing conditions 2. Stay on parent's plan until 26 The problem: lots of small problems, each requiring its own solution. The not-solution: trying to solve all these small problems with a massive solution, that creates more complex problems, and near-infinite dependencies, that must align at all times. Therefore, it creates more problems than it solves, large and small, and does a schit job of dealing with each original small problem, while trying to run the entire thing from DC. Obamacare's ceiling is: mediocrity. We can already see what the floor looks like.

Whatever. You know damn well what I'm talking about. You know so well, that this nigga vs. the other is what you'll be talking about at your next Morrissey show. Or, is it your next conversation at Starbucks? You = "I'm so rock and roll, check me out supporting double standards as societal norms, and for my next topic: social engineering"