bearrock

gotta love the effort so far

Nothing to lose at this point. Go small, create spacing, go out there and just play ball. When the fall is all there is left, it matters very much.

After a night of cooling off, I'm in the mind set that this was pretty much the reasonable high ceiling of the season. Barring a historic come back, Wizards will get knocked out in round 2 (I still think it's important that they put up a fight and still make a series of it by bringing it back to DC).

I thought at the beginning of the playoff that we can beat Chicago if we play well and have a puncher's chance against Indy. When Indy started stinking up and we looked really good against Chicago, I had dreams of Miami, but this probably was the likely outcome all along. It takes playoff experience to go far and Wall and Beal are going to have to go through growing pains. Barring catastrophic injury (a la Gil), this is a solid young nucleus. I don't think we have the horses to be a championship team and I'm not sure how we will get the pieces at this point, but overall it's a solid start and a good playoff first showing.

I'm starting to hate the Pacers and Hibbert and his goofy looking grin. I'm leaning towards the unthinkable and rooting for Heats over them. Basically, anybody but the Pacers at this point.

Anyone else see that coming?

What happened to pushing the pace so that we don't get shut out in a half court game?  Also, how is it that a pro basketball player can't hit free throws?  A freakin joke.

All game long, I was wondering how we are in this game. Wall played as bad as I've seen him all season. No one hitting their shots. Pacers in bonus with 4+ minutes every quarter. And we still lost by 4.

I don't know how to reconcile the first 7 seasons with what we are seeing now, but unless some HOF coach is stepping into the job, I'm not sure how much better we can do than Randy Whittman.  Combine that with the obvious chemistry he has with his players, it's almost a lock at this point.  A more interesting question to me is Grunfeld (who will likely be retained as well, I imagine).  Horrible at drafting, good to very good at trading.  Maybe Ted can have a contractual clause that says Grunfeld will have no say in drafts?  Maybe monkey with a dart should be given a chance. 

Pretty much outplayed the Pacers from beginning to the end.

Dish and swish!!!

I've seriously considered cutting the cord over the past few years but couple of things keep holding me back

- Basketball.  My understanding is that league pass blacks out local games so that's not an option either.  I don't think MLB league pass blacks out locals and OTA has me covered for football

- Food network.  Other than kids shows and sports, it's the only other channel that gets regular viewing at my house (which is not a lot to begin with.  Sometimes days go by without the TV coming on and I keep thinking, why do I pay for cable again? SMH)

- For Verizon, bundle package with basic cable and other services is not that much more expensive then internet alone.  If I cut the cord, I'll probably switch to Cox as their internet standalone is cheaper.

If I could get local basketball and food network without cable, I would cut the cord, switch to Cox, order Netflix and Amazon for movies and Kid's Show, get league pass for MLB and NBA, and get a HD antenna.  Not here yet, but that day is coming.

Just for the record. The Cleveland Browns?? The Cleveland Browns were named for Art Brown the first owner. Pleassse.

Was this a joke?

I think the point Chip is making is the aftermarket demand sets the price not what is printed on your ticket.

Does the face value of the ticket have any effect? I don't buy tickets so I have no idea.

I'll be upfront. I consider myself a left leaning independent. I also have concerns about whether the ACA will accomplish its goals. What I do not have problems with, however, are the goals pursued by the law.

First, I have no problem with the general proposition that anyone who wants health insurance should be able to get one. In fact, I'll go further, I think everyone should be able to receive health care when they need one. Why? Because we as a country do not have the guts or callousness, however you want to call it, to turn people away at the emergency room. Which results in a fundamental problem. If I pay for health insurance and you don't, in effect, I end up paying for it when you show up for health care at anywhere other than a free clinic. Now, I'm willing to pay for those who cannot afford health insurance (Under the ACA, I believe all below 133% of the federal poverty level is eligible for expanded medicaid, people between 100% to 400% of the FPL gets subsidy to get health insurance and is not subject to the individual mandate). To an extent, we already do this via medicaid and SCHIP. But, if you can afford to pay for insurance and don't pay, either don't ask me to pay for your health care when you end up needing one or don't cry over forking over few percentage of your income. I'm willing to bet your 2.5% tax/penalty doesn't come close to covering the cost of health care others are covering on your behalf.

As I said, if you can afford health insurance, you should get it. This is complicated by the fact that as it currently stands, not everyone has the same access to health care. As others have mentioned, big companies, via force of capitalism, can get greatly discounted rates. And federal employees can get similarly great rates and wide range of choices via FEHB. Individuals and small businesses are squeezed and may find insurance cost prohibitive. Unless we provide an affordable option, it would be wrong to punish those who can't afford it.

ACA attempts to address this issue by community rating system. In essence, regardless of whether you are getting your insurance via major company, federal government, or individually, insurance companies may only use certain factors to adjust your rate (age, location, smoking preference, and family size). Meaning, you are now on equal footing regardless of how you are getting your insurance. I'm sure insurance companies will do their utmost to find a loophole or maybe they will just jack up premiums across the board without discrimination. We'll see.

About covering individuals with preexisting conditions, no annual cap, no lifetime coverage? When viewed from health insurance as a business, it is problematic and indeed it may raise the premium on everybody. But again, if we are not willing to turn the sick away at the emergency room due to lack of health insurance, we might as well bite the bullet and deal with the realities.

To me, the country still has not addressed the fundamental issue underlying the health insurance industry. When viewed from a business perspective, some risks are simply uninsurable, at least not within reasonable cost. No one would expect a life insurance company to insure a 100 year old on his/her death bed. No one would expect an insurance company to issue a homowner's policy while the home is burning down in a fire. When it comes to health care, however, we live with the fact that we make no exceptions. We don't turn away people at the emergency room because they can't afford it. We treat them and redistribute the cost to the rest. At some point, health care ceases to become an insurance industry issue and becomes a social issue. We seem to agree on providing care to all. How are we going to go about it? Some aspects of providing universal care is incompatible with for-profit insurance industry. I think the ACA is trying to segregate the unprofitable (high-risk pool, medicaid, etc) from the profitable. Left unchecked, premium would continue to go up and make insurance untenable for more and more. Will ACA be successful in reigning in the cost? I don't know, but I sure hope it works. It seems to have in Massachusetts.

As for Republicans decrying ACA, I have but one thing to say: Put forth your detailed alternative. Don't give me a line of bull on how we need health care reform, but ACA is not the right way. Unless you have your detailed alternative, I don't want to hear your moaning. You say status quo is unacceptable and agree with lot of the features of the ACA, but don't provide any specifics as to how to reform. Republicans have no credibility until they come up with a detailed plan.

Candidate Romney's press conference basically said if he becomes President, he'll repeal the ACA and put forth a plan that keeps all the popular provisions intact. You've been running for president for years. If you have a plan that can accomplish all the popular provisions, keep the premiums in check, without adding heavily to the federal deficit, show it to us now. Because in the past, you've been suggesting tax penalties for those who don't get health insurance. According to the Supreme Court, that is what the ACA already does.