gbear

Skinsfan_1215, was your comment a reminder that Romney care, upon which the ACA was modeled. was a Heritage foundation brain child? I am just wondering how many got that jab.

On Porter, I try to make myself remember that he was out most of last year, and this is his first full year. Now, how many games do college players play in a year, and how long is the NBA season and playoffs? Limiting a player who has never played a full NBA season to save for the stretch run seems logical to me. What this assumes is that he knew Porter would be able to turn it on late in the season against the league's best teams because there were times in the middle of the season where Porter looked lost, and most of us said he needed playing time to find his way. With the way Porter has played towards the end of the season and in the playoffs, it looks like Wittman was slightly less foolish that I thought.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I like how the seeding turned out. I would rather play CLE or CHI after they battle each other. To my mind, those were the 2 hottest teams in the East coming into the playoffs. I'm fine with missing either of them until the Eastern Conference finals if we are lucky enough to make it that far.

Black Sails is very good. I watched last season and was sad the season was so short. It is probably a very expensive show to shoot without knowing if it will succeed. I'm glad it's back, and I'm a little surprised so few people have seen it.

What I hate is thinking of the recidivism stats I've seen for rapists. It seems they rarely commit the crime just once. From an outsiders perspective, I don't even know for what to hope. Do I hope the women speak the truth and the horrible rapist got away with decades of rape or do I hope all these women lie making it harder for real victims to be believed? I think as a society we loose either way. Some days there is just no escaping the thought we humans may just be the universe's brown streak in a potty training toddler's underoos.

Goskins, I think you have me painted as one who thinks the AFA is bad. I don't. I just see the costs a bit differently nad have different expectations. Personally, I have been on the single payer bandwagon for quite some time. I was simply pointing out the studies on whether preventative care/screenings cost or save money on the whole have generally come back saying they cost more. The longer lifespan with more illnesses to treat as a result of the longer lifespans is what is typically pointed to as the difference between cost saving and costing more over time in the reports. The fact that there seems to be concensus on the point is why I posted it. While I am in favor of covering these things, I just recognize successfully treating A means we will treat B at some point. On a personal level, it's like saying "I hate getting old, but it sure beats the alternative."

Slateman, I notice goalposts keep moving. The most recent numbers I have seen suggest the percentage of uninsured in the U.S. is at an all time low. Now you might argue all those without insurance must have had a reason to not have insurance so covering that reason must surely cost a lot. The rebuttal is those people were already getting care, subsidized by the rest of us with insurance. It's a large part of why medical bills are so expensive. Either the hospital has to make up for those who pay nothing by jacking up the bills of those who pay or the state eats the bill with medicaid or medicare. Either way, you and I were already paying for the procedures. Now I still come back to the size of the risk pool matters. An insurance company has to be able to stay solvent while paying for the outlier bills. That means everyone is charged a portion of the terrible bills even when there is no terrible event. Having more people in the pool means a smaller charge for the outlier events. Why is a family insurance plan less than simply multiplying the inital person's fee by the number of people? Insurance companies don't do this out of the goodness of their heart. For the same reason, large employers get better insurance deals because they bring a bigger pool to share risk. At first Americans for Prosperity was running a bunch of ads about how terrible the ACA was for most people. Of course it isn't a benefit for all people, but they have stopped a lot of those ads or changed the wording because it turned out most people they picked to tell the story of the "horrible Obamacare" ACA actually benefited when their stories were fact checked. The simple truth was our healthcare sector was a horribly inefficient drag on our economy. Now it's just bad. How about we stop trying to say it fails in a purely partisan effort and start trying to improve it? My feeling on the ACA was and is "Well at least now we have shown healthcare can be a topic in politics instead of just a third rail." Still, it seems so many can't get over the insurance mandate proposed by the heritage foundation as the last hope for private insurance in the U.S. and initially implimented by a Republican Governor. The irony is they can't just take credit for the idea and say "thanks for caving" to the Dems, many of whom want(ed) a single payer system. Politics some/most times boggles my mind. edit to add: GoSkins, the preventive care actually increases costs according to the GAO and CBO reports. It turns out hte preventive care increases life spans allowing us to incur more costs over a life time. Personally, I don't have a problem with the result of living longer, but sadly nothign is free, not even more trips aroudn the sun.

Chip and slate, As I understand it, it is possible for people's insurance costs to go down simply because there are more people in a plan. With more people, the insurance company does not have to charge as much per person to cover the outlier expense (like my MS). I was under the impression this was one of the reason the federal employee insurance plans all seem to cover so much in comparisson to similarly priced insurance plans offered by other employers. There are a lot of government workers to spread the costs of covering the risks. You are quick to assume somebody else paid for the procedure because it costs less now. To an extent, you may be right on an individual procedure basis, but as part of a bigger risk pool, he is paying in for more stuff than he was before too. It is why there was so much concern about getting enough people to sign up for insurance in the exchanges. It's why I chuckled when everyone said "Look Home Depot (I think it was them but may have been another large employer) is dropping their employee healthcare and just providing money for their employees to buy on the exchanges. They are showing why these plans can't compete." I kept thinking that the more companies which do this, the better the odds are for success because the insured pool will be big enough.

Sadly, I know all too well how expensive major health events can be. I have multiple sclerosis and one of my medications is roughly 90 grand a year. I am lucky as all get out to have good insurance and a copay assistance plan from the pharmaceutical company which manufactures the drug. Still, I have eaten through the 5k out of pocket maximum from my insurance by the end of April the last two years. That was why I suggested having the employer commit to putting some of the money saved from not buying the cadilac plans towards deductables. When I wrote in my blog questioning whether maintaining a year of (my) productivity is worth a college education for another person, I know this is a trade off about which I think often. For me, the one getting expensive treatments, it's great. For society, it is a tradeoff to which we don't give a second thought. We can, therefor we do.

The tax is on health insurance plans costing more than $10.2K per individual or 27.5k per family. The tax is 40% on every dollar above this threshold. There are adjustments for locations (some places have higher premiums) and risk pools of the people covered. For example, if the majority of the workers are premedicare retirees or working in a high risk vocation, the amount before the tax is incurred rises. The threshold is also set to rise at the level of inflation plus one percent for 2018 and 2019. After that the rise is linked to the consumer price index (inflation) which typically goes up slower than medical costs. I don't know the term of your negotiations, but if you are negotiating a long term deal near that threshold you should account for projected increases in costs relative to incurring the tax. If you are negotiating a deal near the tax, could you prpose a deal such that workers always get a benefit = threshold - $100? Keep in mind the threshold applies to healthcare savings accounts and insurance premiums. A good site for information on Cadillac tax: http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=99

Wrong Direction, Australia has a 2 teered healthcare system. From what I read from an MS research blog, Englands healthcare may be moving to a similar model: http://multiple-sclerosis-research.blogspot.com/2014/03/is-australian-healthcare-system-better.html Here's the irony: A system where the state says we can affor to treat x,y, and z but not A or B is the 90's Hillary care proposal. From memory, her plan had a lot of Tsongas healthcare plans where what to treat and how to do so on hte state's dime was determined by looking for maximum returns on dollars spent. All sub-optimal dollars would have to come from individuals. It was a healthcare based on the idea of "greatest good for the greatest number." It's a tough sell to those who could have more.

I almost hesitate to post on this attack thread because I am not sure how many will read anything with any attempt at understanding. We are all so stuck in our mindsets we can't see any other views or reconcile differences. Still,... I get frustrated when I see attack ads put out that turn out to be completely misleading like the Americans for Prosperity ad telling the story of a woman who can't afford her insurance despite the truth of the ACA actually saving her money, The problem is she didn't know and niether do most consumers. They go the "truth in advertising" premise, and this susceptablity by people on both sides to only see and hear only what they expect. The same problem happens with thos of us on the left as many of us will probably shrug off the Feb. enrollment numbers not meeting their goals. It is all an arguement for the failure of the free market in healthcare. A free market's success is predicated on the consumers acting in their own best interest which requires the market place to have perfect information and the ability to understand it. In an only slightly different vein, I was asked to interview for the position of patients' advocate on a prestigeous board a couple of weeks ago. One of the questions posed to me was "If you had a magic wand to fix the ACA and the healthcare industry in the U.S. how would you use it?" As I thought about it afterwards, I wrote the interviewing committee back with this adendum to my answer: http://thelifewelllived.net/2014/02/18/could-versus-should-the-unasked-question/ I'm curious how much of that would run counter to what many on here who think about healthcare would say is a major source of our healthcare woes. For what's worth I was offered the position.

Maybe I missed it, but does covering birth control raise prices? I seem to remember this question from the discussion about entities wanting exceptions because they shouldn't have to pay for something they don't believe is ethical. From memory, it was pointed out insurance pays X dollars on average for every birth. This amount would cover X years of birth control. Does the average births per thousand enrolled patients without birth control versus the average number of births when birth control is covered make up for the cost of providing birth control? Now people will say men don't need birth control, but there are procedures many of us would like covered, and there is an on going effort to give us a daily pill like med too. I'm always surprised the birth control issues always seem to be about the pill or abortion, and nobody ever seems to mention vasectomies.

Did Cleveland not watch him disappear for MD this year? More importantly, I hope the Wizards spotted his frequent use of the cloak of invisability. Sadly I see a likely Kwame Brown bust in his future. Maybe Cleveland could hire MJ to come play some 1 on 1 with him to make them feel better picking him.

On the China Onion article, will heads roll or will it played off as one of those times where humor got it right? From afar, maybe this can played like, "John Stewart is seen as funny because he is saying what many think. This is the same, right?"...um...no.

The problem for Bullets fans is we just had a super star PG. He was lightning fast and could shoot from anywhere...then he got hurt, but he was due back...then there were constant set backs and blaming of the medical staff...he was never the same player...then there was a poo in a player's shoe...next thing you know there's guns involved...and it's time to rip up the team and start anew. So we got a new super star PG. Only this one is real PG who does things like pass the ball and play D...but then he got hurt, but he's due back...now there's a set back without a date due back/date of expected recovery. Isn't there a song about history repeating? Tough to say which is harder these days, being a Skins fan or a Bullets fan. Skins at least have their star on the field at the moment.

The movie I most want to see is Les Miserables. It is my favorite musical, and I am curious to see what a bunch of movie actors can do with it. After the trailer, I have some hope for the film, especially if I agree to view it and listen to it separately from the productions I've seen.

Did anyone catch Kobe on Kwame Brown and the 2005-2006 season? "I almost won an MVP with Smush Parker and Kwame Brown on my team," Bryant said before Wednesday's 93-75 exhibition loss to Portland. "I was shooting 45 times a game. What was I supposed to do? Pass it to Chris Mihm or Kwame Brown?" lol Thanks again Jordan

Mike, beware slanted polls. "If forced to increase coverage or drop all together will you drop?" Means companies who already provide health insurance will drop is a stretch. How about a follow up noting what percentage of current plans will fall below the minimum requirements? How about asking if they will cut back coverage if they don't have to provide as much and have an option to switch to less coverage? The presentation of facts in this seems like an author who starts with an opinion and looks for facts to prove it. Just asking the questions above would lead to a more complete and possibly more damning or vindicating conclusion. If one is more interested in other information from study, 9% are considering dropping insurance because the costs of providing them keep going up (regardless of Affordable Care Act). http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/30/business/la-fi-employers-opt-out-20120630 and http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-employers-healthcare-20120724,0,5878835.story The Affordable Care Act does not seem to be enough of a deterent to dropping them, but where does one get the dropping them because of AFA? If healthcare benefit costs go up 9% a year, I would be surprised if only 10% stop paying for them. At some point, it's not about wanting to provide them for employees anymore, AFA or not.

Peter MP, I can see how that experience would frustrate you. I see similar things dealing with my MS, even when dealing with Neurologists. I'm lucky I have a nurse for a wife who has ingrained in me a sense of need to question the why things are done or not done. I've been lucky at Hopkins to get a doctor who stays current. At my last appointment where he said he had to go over the treatment options with me because I am in uncharted territory for the length of time I have been on the drug I take, I asked him about the claim of no cases of PML with the alternative drug he presented. PML is essentially a brain infection which usually kills or severely disables. He said, "Wow, you've heard about that case too. It's thought to be the result of the Tysabri taken before the switch of drugs." Tysabri is the drug I am on. I was impressed, because I only knew about the case because it was written up in a few journal articles the month before, and those articles had been posted on patientlikeme.com. The flip side is the presentation at an MS dinner I attended last week. The presenter said all kinds of things I was pretty sure were wrong. She claimed everyone who has a first flare progresses. I had always heard roughly a third do not. In fact, this is said on the national MS foundation website as well. Then she went on to say everyone who has an event should be on a disease modifying drug. It's not that I disagree with her, but I asked "Have these drugs been shown to slow the progression of symptoms? I know they reduce flares, but I haven't seen long term studies." She responded flares cause long term symptoms so reducing flares reduces long term symptoms. The logic is fine there, but I note the FDA doesn't use symptom progression for MS treatments as a benchmark, only flares. In fact anecdotal evidence seems to argue little long term benefit to the front line drugs. I noted this to my table, but didn't want to be the unknowing jerk questioning the doctor in her presentation... Two days later, a study is published showing no significant difference in disability progression between patients who took Avonex or Rebif versus patients who remained untreated. Now the doctor has been treating MS patients for 25 years. So she would be the presumed expert. However, how much time is left to study the just released data? A patient has to be informed, and I know talking with my table about what information pushed them from drug to drug, that most are not. Heck, 2 people at my table stopped tysabri when they found out they were JC+ which gives them a 1 in 250 to 1 in 350 chance of getting PML. Their doctor pulled them from Tysabri because of these odds only saying "there is a risk you could die on it, so I am pulling you off it." When I told them those odds are equal to or better than the odds cancer patients face when choosing to have chemo for the most treatable kind of cancer, they were surprised. I told them to question their doctor on what the chances are and then make an informed decision together. They never thought to ask, and they never thought they had a right to insist in a say in the decision. I reminded them they can go to another doctor. As a population we are not informed, and the amount we expect our doctors to do while staying up to the minute is perhaps unfair. I know I email my neurologist before my visit with questions before every visit. I always think of it as giving him the best chance to be able to answer my questions instead of springing them on him. Still there are cases like yours where we don't see whom we normally see, and getting the doctor the needed information isn't a given. I'm not sure how current reform efforts or a totally free or socialized market will ever address these issues.

mjah, that odd dynamic might not be so odd if one believes he was trying to preserve the perception of the courts. If he knew it would come out 5-4 in favor, the court looks far better/less political with him on the liberal side and Kennedy on the conservative side. A decision of this magnitude is better accepted if those perceptions aren't reinforced.

For all those pointing out is cheaper for companies to not provide health insurance, wasn't that true before the affordable care act? If anything it would seem to be slightly (like 40%) less true now.

mandate survives as a tax. still reviewing it . fed power to terminate medicaid funds is narrowly read.

I liked the beginning of our only win, and I've seen that defensive effort a few other games. It just needs to be there throughout an entire game no matter what the score is. I liked the link, but I don't think Blatch is anywhere near the most hated DC sports figure ever. D. Sanders was a Skin for a season is one which comes to mind. I don't think he is even up to Fat Albert's level, but that may only be because of the area's fixation on the Skins.

Holy yucky lunch time bumps Batman! Why oh why does this thread keep rising from the dustpan of gross history? lol