• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Trump the Impeached vs Superplanner Lizzie, Shake Your Booty Pete & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

The bot thing would be hilarious if there werent so many stupid people living in the country

Edited by Mr. Sinister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the first half of the debates, I still haven't changed my mind; Trump wins reelecton.  

 

The GOP fear machine will work again, giving Trump his narrow electoral victory.

 

You get from last night from most candidates and you will tonight from most candidates other than Biden; the Dems want major change.  Not incremental change. They want the big change now.   That's fine.  Thing is can the Dem nominee overcome the GOP/Trump fear machine and convince a majority that the change is good for everyone.

I don't think so.  Yes, the under 45 voters will be all for it.  The over 45 voters won't be.  They don't want major change.  I mean they voted for Trump because he promised them a return to the past.  A false promise that in reality can not come true.  Still, that's what they voted for.   I will continue to believe this:  If the older, more moderate Dem voters feels the Dems are going to far to the left; they will not vote for the 2020 nominee.  I don't believe we are at the point where the younger voters can carry the day.  The younger voters who enthusiastically will embrace Bernie or Lizzie or even Jay Inslee will be offset by the older voters who can't vote for them. They will either stay home or vote non-Dem or maybe even for the Cheeto.

 

I hope I am dead wrong, bit I believe more in the strength of the GOP fear machine than the Dems being able to convince their policies are what this country needs.

 

I think Lizzie will be the nominee but how is she going to explain, getting rid of private insurance completely. My guess, if she can pass it; it would take effect probably within 1 to 3 years of passage.  That's a major change.  Trump and the GOP will scaring everyone.  She will have to overcome that.

 

 

As for tonight,  I think Joe stumbles badly.  Bernie tears him to shreads.  Joe will show he's out of touch with today's Dems.  Maybe Kamala or Pete can benefit. I doubt the others will do much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

One of the real tragedies of the Trump presidency is that we are living in an extremely data-rich environment. Like we have so much data being collected about everything from health to transportation, we literally don't have enough people who can do big data analytics to make sense of it. The Obama admin had started laying the foundations of a data-driven federal government but that's largely been ignored under the buffoon currently in charge.

 

The federal government right now REALLY stands to benefit from a President who understands the value of data and hiring data scientists at federal agencies to make sense of it. Instead of a bunch of brainless goons with no qualifications except their ability to kiss the President's ass, I want the next POTUS to hire experts in their respective fields who will promote policies driven by sound data-analysis.

 

That is why I am Yang and Mayor Pete curious. I think they are both much more likely to rely on expertise and modern approaches to governance than Biden and Sanders. We need a fresh perspective on governance and neither of these two provide it. A fundamental restructuring of the federal agencies to modernize is possible without ever having to rely on Mitch McConnel and the broken legislative branch.

 

I think you are projecting.

 

Yang and Buttigieg both seem to be people that make up their minds on ideas and then go forward without worrying too much about the details and working them out.

 

I think they like the big idea and don't worry about the details.

 

Yang has a bad idea what the right is calling "welfare" and therefore how much we spend on welfare and how so how much money he'd need to fund a UBI.  Buttigeg instituted his home policy with its name/slogan (forget what it was exactly) without worrying about the details and to my knowledge without a lot of data behind it.

 

I'll also point out that big data doesn't generally support big ideas well because there just isn't much data related to massive changes in government.

 

Any big or new idea or big change isn't going to be well supported by data because of the novelty of it.  Existing data can't tell you much about things that haven't been done or haven't been done by very many people.

 

You seem to be advocating for two different ideas:

 

1.  Embracing bold new ideas.

 

2.  Using existing data to improve our situation.

 

Geoengineering is the first (it is a bold idea, but there's very little data to long term results of just doing it much less the global governance of it).   In general, most big ideas are wrong and when they are pursued on a societal level, they have huge negative consequences and costs.

 

The 2nd will be more of piecemeal activity.  Look at the data, adjust, collect more data, adjust, etc.

 

(**EDIT**

 

The Buttigeg program was called a 1,000 homes in 1,000 days.  I'm extremely skeptical that any big data analysis supported massively altering the housing situation in a town the size of South Bend that much that quickly.  And then not surprisingly, there were unexpected consequences, they had to make changes, and people still aren't happy with the out come.)

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

Is the GOP really going to argue that everything not right-wing is "socialist" is that where their arguments are headed on every issue?

Truman used to say the same thing. It ebbs and flows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You seem to be advocating for two different ideas:

 

1.  Embracing bold new ideas.

 

2.  Using existing data to improve our situation.

 

I don't think the two approaches are mutually exclusive. There is a lot of room to modernize the data collection and analytic capabilities of the federal government. There is also a lot of room for the federal government to take on a greater role in pushing bold ideas forward such as geoengineering.

 

For both Mayor Pete or Andrew Yang, there is reason to believe that both of them are likely to be open to some modernizing and bold approaches to governance.

 

For Mayor Pete, he's participated in the Mayor Innovation Project and worked on incorporating data-driven policies in his governance already: https://www.mayorsinnovation.org/images/uploads/pdf/Buttigieg.pdf

https://www.wired.com/story/pete-buttigieg-revived-south-bend-with-tech-up-next-america/

 

And for Andrew Yang, he is at least discussing fairly bold approaches on issues like automation (I think he is wrong here) and climate change (I think he is right here). I'm not sure where he stands on incorporating data-driven policy approaches but considering his background in tech, I would assume that he is probably more open to such ideas.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Kamala Harris seems like a candidate that could usurp Biden's moderate support.  She is tough, could wallop Trump in a debate pretty easily, and I think has the right presence.  

 

Kamala has it all on paper but she's waaaaay behind when you put her in front of a camera or put a mic in her face.

 

Winning votes in CA where people are familiar with you isn't the same as running a national election. 

 

She needs to start kissing babies fast.

 

6 hours ago, No Excuses said:

The Dems aren’t facing a juggernaut. They’re going up against the weakest incumbent in decades, who is so bad at his job, that a decent economy isn’t even helping his approval numbers, nor did it help his party in midterms.

 

The juggernaught isn't Trump; guy's a giant turd, the juggernaught is the rightwing media/social platforms he stands atop of.

 

And he can point/pull at almost anything and it's all reinforced down to your average American.

 

Dems need a strong message, now. They need to flood your news/social media with it. They need troll armies laughing at Republicans 24/7. And they need to do this for the next couple decades.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I don't think the two approaches are mutually exclusive. There is a lot of room to modernize the data collection and analytic capabilities of the federal government. There is also a lot of room for the federal government to take on a greater role in pushing bold ideas forward such as geoengineering.

 

For both Mayor Pete or Andrew Yang, there is reason to believe that both of them are likely to be open to some modernizing and bold approaches to governance.

 

For Mayor Pete, he's participated in the Mayor Innovation Project and worked on incorporating data-driven policies in his governance already: https://www.mayorsinnovation.org/images/uploads/pdf/Buttigieg.pdf

https://www.wired.com/story/pete-buttigieg-revived-south-bend-with-tech-up-next-america/

 

And for Andrew Yang, he is at least discussing fairly bold approaches on issues like automation (I think he is wrong here) and climate change (I think he is right here). I'm not sure where he stands on incorporating data-driven policy approaches but considering his background in tech, I would assume that he is probably more open to such ideas.

 

He's worked for tech and he realized that tech could be an important part of turning around the economy there and so he pushes for tech development.

 

That isn't using data to make decisions.

 

Except, there isn't really any data that geoengineering is a better solution to climate change than any other.  It is a (controversial) opinion.  If you are using the federal government to push ideas that are supported by data, then you aren't really running a government based on or guided by data.

 

If I'm running a data driven government, why should I spend government resources pushing geoengineering?

 

The answer to the question is that there is no data supporting that idea.

 

And that's the case for most big and new ideas.

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't dove too much into each Dems policy positions yet because it is so early but Warren raising her hand for getting rid of private health insurance is a big worry spot for me.  One, I think it's wrong.  And how the hell does she even propose doing it?  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

I haven't dove too much into each Dems policy positions yet because it is so early but Warren raising her hand for getting rid of private health insurance is a big worry spot for me.  One, I think it's wrong.  And how the hell does she even propose doing it?  

 

My hope is the plan is to adjust medicare to point incorporates the benefits of medicare advantage so that its a plan that goes above and beyond what's seen in most every health plan.  You can't get rid of private insurance and it not be better them what people have, I agree that that's asking for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping private health insurance is not going to work long term though.  As more and more people elect a public option or medicare or whatever, the pool for private insurance will continue to decrease, thus the folks leftover will likely be having to deal with their costs raising. 

 

Also I would challenge the idea that tons of people like their health insurance.  Most people probably don't know the details of their plan or haven't had to use their insurance beyond paying co-pays for dr visits or very minor incidents.  Where private health insurance runs a'foul is when you actually have something major happen and the insurance companies decide it's time to nickel & dime, or go through you files to look for some kind of technicality to justify throwing you off your plan completely and there is nothing you can do it about it.  

 

Like one or more of the candidates said last night, a good portion of people who claim medical-related bankruptcy actually did have private insurance, and it either didn't cover them adequately or they were denied the necessary treatment.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

My hope is the plan is to adjust medicare to point incorporates the benefits of medicare advantage so that its a plan that goes above and beyond what's seen in most every health plan.  You can't get rid of private insurance and it not be better them what people have, I agree that that's asking for it.

I think that's got to be part of it. In truth, I haven't read up on her plan either, but she doesn't seem like a super-idealist or pie in the sky kind of politician. She's a super-wonk. So, if she says she wants to do something I bet she has a blueprint.


Mind you, I suspect it's a blueprint that has no chance of passing in its pure state, but if she aims for the moon (absolute universal coverage) and winds up with Medicare for all with a public option... we'll still be in an improved state... and both sides could potentially claim a victory.

 

In terms of generating excitement though, I do think you have to present a vision and not be an incrementalist even if the pragmatist in you knows that incremental change is the most likely outcome. In any case, every candidate over-promises. Warren may be doing that here, but she also lays out specifics as to how her over-promises could be achieved and what their outcome might look like.

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

Also I would challenge the idea that tons of people like their health insurance.  Most people probably don't know the details of their plan or haven't had to use their insurance beyond paying co-pays for dr visits or very minor incidents. 

I'm with you. Most people I know hate their insurance or the insurance con game. They just accept it as a necessary evil. They surely don't want to give up their insurance because they know how quickly they can go bankrupt without it, but in terms of "liking" it? 

 

Nah.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I haven't dove too much into each Dems policy positions yet because it is so early but Warren raising her hand for getting rid of private health insurance is a big worry spot for me.  One, I think it's wrong.  And how the hell does she even propose doing it?  

Do you get private insurance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

If I'm running a data driven government, why should I spend government resources pushing geoengineering?

 

I mean why does the government support research endeavors in any nascent technology that seems promising or could deliver entirely new tech capabilities? I don't really get what you are arguing here. A government can be data driven and also forward thinking and bold in terms of supporting early research and growth of entirely new forms of technological capabilities. This is already the case with DARPA and ARPA-E.

Edited by No Excuses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

MFA would have to be phased in, a siesmic shift like that cannot be taken lightly.  

 

Could be something like:

 

1.  Move up medicare to match what's missing in medicare advantage

 

2. Start negotiating medical prices down to levels between Canada and UK

 

3. Make it illegal to deny Medicare or Medicaid

 

4. Convert all Medicaid recipients to Medicare

 

5. Convert all tricare recipients to medicare

 

6.  Convert all remaining government employees at fed and state level to medicare

 

7. Make remaining US citizens eligible to apply for medicare like was proposed with Medicaid for All (basically able to apply regardless of income level)

 

8. Count down to elimination of private insurance giving plenty of time for everyone remaining to get in the medicare system, which could take years.

 

I don't see it realistic to get this done in one term, 8-10 years seems reasonable to prevent too much of a shock to the economy considering you are wiping out an entire industry (private health insurance) to so it.  

 

There better be a good answer for all those people that will essentially be looming for work elsewhere.  It's like intentionally shrinking the coal industry via policy, you better have a policy for what to do with people that work in that industry and its an absolute mess because we really didn't.

 

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good steps Renegade7. We can't forget all the admin people employed by private insurance companies. They need to find new jobs.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Keeping private health insurance is not going to work long term though.  As more and more people elect a public option or medicare or whatever, the pool for private insurance will continue to decrease, thus the folks leftover will likely be having to deal with their costs raising. 

 

Also I would challenge the idea that tons of people like their health insurance. 

 

My insurance is awesome and I like it. So I’m not really thrilled about this idea. At all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mooka said:

The juggernaught isn't Trump; guy's a giant turd, the juggernaught is the rightwing media/social platforms he stands atop of.

 

This is one of the most insightful comments I've seen in awhile.  Which is somewhat strange because it includes the word "turd," but here we are. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

My insurance is awesome and I like it. So I’m not really thrilled about this idea. At all. 

 

Even if they make Medicare as good or better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Keeping private health insurance is not going to work long term though.  As more and more people elect a public option or medicare or whatever, the pool for private insurance will continue to decrease, thus the folks leftover will likely be having to deal with their costs raising. 

 

I'm not so sure about this.  I think (as not an economist) that the public option will "self-select" (1) the people that just want to pay the least and (2) the people who are the most expensive to insure (because private healthcare companies will nudge them out).  The other people will be people that want access to the best possible healthcare and are able and willing to pay for it.  Those people tend to be more affluent and middle aged.  Except for costs associated with pregnancy, the vast majority of healthcare costs are associated with people outside of that group (i.e., old (because that's when expensive life-ending diseases tend to hit) and poor (because they tend to live harder, less healthy lives)).  

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Do you get private insurance?

 

 

I'm military.  Not a system you want to copy.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Keeping private health insurance is not going to work long term though.  As more and more people elect a public option or medicare or whatever, the pool for private insurance will continue to decrease, thus the folks leftover will likely be having to deal with their costs raising. 

 

Also I would challenge the idea that tons of people like their health insurance.  Most people probably don't know the details of their plan or haven't had to use their insurance beyond paying co-pays for dr visits or very minor incidents.  Where private health insurance runs a'foul is when you actually have something major happen and the insurance companies decide it's time to nickel & dime, or go through you files to look for some kind of technicality to justify throwing you off your plan completely and there is nothing you can do it about it.  

 

Like one or more of the candidates said last night, a good portion of people who claim medical-related bankruptcy actually did have private insurance, and it either didn't cover them adequately or they were denied the necessary treatment.  

 

Lots of countries with good universal healthcare systems also have supplemental private insurance, including Canada, England, France, and Australia.

 

Other than the likes of Cuba, I don't know of a country that doesn't have private system that can be used to supplement the public system.

 

There's no reason the same wouldn't happen here, unless the government actually abolishes private health insurance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Even if they make Medicare as good or better?

😂

 

thats a good one

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

There's no reason the same wouldn't happen here, unless the government actually abolishes private health insurance.

 

 

 

You are right, and I forgot to add that in as a clarification on my post.  There is still room for private health insurance, just not in the way it is used now.  Buying supplemental plans, or maybe even buying perks to add on to your standard health plan.  Absolutely.  I was talking more primary/first point of contact healthcare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.