Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bottomfeeder Sports

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,314 Excellent

About Bottomfeeder Sports

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/10/1964

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

12,357 profile views
  1. And that was announced prior to the election as a concession to potential conflict of interest concerns and triggered more controversy. So did Hillary expect to lose in September of 2016? And yes there was a drop in donations, just not like the one your link shows. From $172 million in 2014 to $102 million in 2015 to 62 million in 2016 to $26 million in 2017. And a good part of that is the decline in the popularity of the Clinton name. Finally your last link was dealt with numerous time in 2015 and 2016. The authors of that article are just ignorant in assuming that the only charitable work of the Clinton Foundation is donations to other charities. That is not how charities work. The Clinton Foundation puts 88% of its spending into its programs. A bit more than 3% or 20% or whatever nonsense is going around now. Maybe it was, but it is hard to reach that conclusion based on one false claim after another. 0 for 4
  2. By the way, I'm not sure that Maryland's high regulated rate structures are a good thing. As posted earlier I think it protects the giant healthcare companies in Maryland (both the hospital systems and CareFirst) but I'm not sure it is good for taxpayers. It is good for patients in the sense that it provides some stability and since everyone pays the same there is less of picking patient populations, but I since the 2014 deal also required Maryland hospitals to drive down some quality metrics to the national average it obviously didn't historically mean necessarily better quality. Generally when I see Maryland's rate system brought up is by those opposed to M4A. I've seen both on the right (though the right historically has preferred the Grand Junction example) and left where the argument has been instead of single payer we should instead force all payer rates. And as noted that goes back to prior to the passage of the ACA. In any case I'm pointing it out as a fan or something that works. Interesting, but I'm sure the Manhattan-Institute can tell us a hundred ways it has been a failure and one or two are probably correct. However, if we are going to take something that Maryland does correctly and implement it nationally it would be this. Or more precisely AVIATION COMMAND If you fly me to the hospital, will I receive a bill? No, the Maryland State Police Aviation Command does not bill patients.
  3. Your payer mix is off. Might be spot on when it comes to population, but it will be off when it comes to utilization. Think in terms of Medicare being $10K or so per enrollee (2014 - I think), commercial about 6K, and Medicaid about 5K. But that isn't really that important. I am pretty sure Maryland's model favors the entrenched healthcare giants and thus could be fairly criticized as a system that might cut off some peaks but creates a guaranteed floor at profitable levels. So spending 10% above what could be easily justified by averaging things out correctly wouldn't surprise me. My point though is back to these articles exaggerate the spread between what Medicare pays and what it would need to pay to average things out. I think places where there aren't a lot of retirees today might have gotten comfortable with their two and three time spreads and that those systems will need to rethink how they operate if we switch to Medicare for all with say for argument sake a 50% bump in rates. But I'm finding difficulty finding a problem with driving down those operating expenses. Oh and if anyone really cares-
  4. While Medicare for All is kind of a catch all phrase that means different things to different people so you need to be careful speaking in absolutes, I simply think it is a false narrative that we would just pay everyone the existing Medicare rates. It is one of those things where you can use a lie to criticize it by saying nothing but true things. That is why Delaney's debate statement was scored as a fib. Your link seems to be mostly guidance for employers to use to try to negotiate what they pay to be less and there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to the rates. Heck Wisconsin blows the idea that narrow Trump victory states are on the low end. I don't remember you being here in 2009 and 2010 when the various proposals were being debated and before Scott Brown forced everyone's hand with the earlier past the Senate ACA being the only game in town. Back then the conservatives on the board kept posting about Grand Junction, Colorado and how it should be the model. While there are particulars that can be picked apart with that model (small population, little competition in providers or carriers, etc.) the relevant feature of that model was also all payer paid the same. And in this case I think it include non hospital based providers - though I think most are/were affiliated with the one hospital. So ultimately my point is that there are examples of figuring out a single reimbursement rate. That saying it can't be done without putting all, or most, or even a significant number of hospitals out of business is just a scare tactic. If Medicare pays on average 83% (or was it 87% - who cares) of cost then we aren't really that far from profitability. We can figure that out.
  5. Sure but 50% more isn't 300% more. But most importantly- And if 50% more is what it takes today in a state with massive, thriving, rich hospital systems to even things out then it would take less than 50% more once billing is simplified, the vast majority of uninsured move to M4A, etc.
  6. The obvious reasons he could win are- Voter suppression. 30-20 red state head start Getting too late for the economy to tank (not cheering for it) RGB's health...maybe Thomas' health "Inordinate fear of" socialism Democrats chase the few independents that don't already have a strong lean rather than get out the base Democrats chase the few extremes that have little other place to go rather than get out the base (this is more to do with presentation than the ideas itself. For example M4A explained one way would appeal to the base and even center-right, explained another will only appeal to the extreme left.) A "rally around the president" event happens Russians are really good at influencing voters The wear and tear of the Trump presidency just has too many voters feeling too beat down to bother to vote. They gave all they could in 2018.
  7. This is different to me than trying to take many, many dimensions of differences between posters here and the general public and boil it down to a single value from 1 to 10. In this case it seems like just answering a series of questions What is the probability that the House votes to impeach? I don't think we see the word use if this wasn't almost a certainty. To keep the math simple say 90%. If the House fails to impeach I think it makes reelection a safe bet. Again to keep math simple say 60% reelected. Last week you asked about being removed by the Senate. I added a few other ways which he might be removed to the calculation which will all be treated as the same thing. I think that I said that as of what has already happened it would be about 10% chance but I think that would grow as Trump's antics would push the chances up. See this week's letter refusing to cooperate as an example. But still only 30% or so. To keep things simple we will say 30% remove, 60% "survives", and 10% not impeached at all. If the House impeaches, but the Senate refuses to remove I'd like to say that it switches 60-40 to defeat but the pessimist in me thinks it is still about 50-50. If Trump is removed by the Senate I think it has to be at least 60-40 for the democrat. So from here Trump Survives Impeachment and Wins 2020 Election (6% + 30% = 36%) Trump Survives Impeachment and Loses 2020 Election To The Democrat (4% + 30% = 34%) Trump is removed with Impeachment before the 2020 Election and Republican Candidate wins 2020 Election (12%) Trump is removed with Impeachment before the 2020 Election and Democratic Candidate wins 2020 Election (18%) On one hand this is so depressing. On the other hand it is pretty close and my pessimism is baked in. Just a little bit of optimism flips one and two.
  8. She supports the Green New Deal which created a lot of discussion points a year or so ago about the sections that covers displaced workers with health care, minimum incomes, and guaranteed jobs.
  9. You think differently than myself as I find such questions impossible. I'd be "avoiding" the question also not because I'm trying to tip toe around some non answer but because whatever makes this relatively easy to pick a value for your mind doesn't exist in mine.
  10. So why not this time? Seriously! Why such an effort to excuse the inexcusable? The poll results here are not because this is a liberal echo chamber shouting out reasonable voices as all reasonable voices on any part of the political spectrum will agree on this topic. It is inappropriate for a government employee to use the powers from the authority gained by their office to request things for their own personal gain. Whether that is "stuff", "cash", renting properties, campaign donations, etc., or obtaining campaign help. If Hillary as Secretary of State had authorized the creation of the Steele Dossier she would have been in the wrong. If Hillary as Secretary of State prodded foreign governments to donate to the Clinton Foundation she would have been in the wrong. If Trump asks as President for favor to his ego to confirm that the Ukraine rather than Russia hacked the DNC servers he is in the wrong. If Trump asks as Presidents for favors for his campain to start investigating the leading opposition candidate he is in the wrong. There is not a gray area here. It doesn't "depend" beyond on depending on whether or not one is caught. Maybe it isn't enough to impeach in one's mind but it is wrong. There is no other truth.
  11. The president should not be asking for anything that is for personal purposes. Especially while exercising the powers of the office.