Desipio Message Board

You wouldn't necessarily have a high deductible plan. You'd buy a plan that you're most comfortable with, and you'd pick an insurance company that (you'd hope) would negotiate the best rates with the health care providers. It wouldn't be much different than what you have now, except the insurance company (jn many ways your contractor) is more accountable to you. That and if you change jobs (or lose your job) you don't have to worry about COBRA.

Quote from: RV on May 27, 2009, 12:38:04 PM
If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start:

Quote
Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.

There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients.

QuoteProviding health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later?

QuoteWhen it comes to making care better and cheaper, changing who pays the doctor will make no more difference than changing who pays the electrician. The lesson of the high-quality, low-cost communities is that someone has to be accountable for the totality of care.

You also don't have your employer pick out a contractor to build your home for you (and everyone else).  Perhaps the tax laws should change to make it less advantageous for an employer to provide health care, and more advantageous for an individual to find an insurance program to his liking.

Why is David Patton still on this club?

I want to know more, but if I was one of the 100 that matter, you'd have me as leaning in favor of confirming.  I'd want to know more given the Didden ruling.

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 26, 2009, 02:01:44 PM

Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:42:34 PM

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 26, 2009, 01:29:48 PM

Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:13:58 PM
Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past...

I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.

So, they should have ruled otherwise and have risked SCOTUS overturning?  Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.

That doesn't rise to the level of extortion, either?

2007 - Sotomayor and colleagues rule contra to Kelo.
2008 - Overturned on appeal at SCOTUS.
2009 - TJ complains that Sotomayor doesn't follow judicial precedent.

If So Soto, a moderate compared to who could have been nominated, causes this much angst, I can't wait for the howls when Obama nominates replacements for Ginsburg and Stevens.  And, if re-elected, possibly even Scalia or Kennedy.

I want to know more about here. That's all. And I do not like Kelo, and I do not like Didden. Maybe her hands were tied, but the case was a bit different from Kelo.

I'm not necessarily opposed to Sotomayor. If she doesn't sail through, I'll be shocked. I just want there to be some due diligence.

But sure, who gives a fuck about the next Supreme Court Justice? I have no concerns at all.

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 26, 2009, 01:29:48 PM

Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 01:13:58 PM
Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past...

I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.

So, they should have ruled otherwise and have risked SCOTUS overturning?  Your beef is with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, not Sotomayor.

That doesn't rise to the level of extortion, either?

Here's one of the more troubling rulings in Sotomayor's (recent) past...

I'd want to know more about her view of private property rights. This ruling sucks.

Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2009, 08:39:34 AM

Quote from: Brownie on May 26, 2009, 08:02:04 AM
An interesting coincidence.

So, 25% of the dealerships are closing—close to 800—and a "partial list" of 40 of their owners gave money to politicians not named Barack Hussein Obama?

RED ALERT!

QuoteI have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Okay.

But what about on the list of dealerships staying open? How many owners of those donated to Obama? And how many, like those on the close list, donated to someone else like Russ Feingold?

Seems like something I would have looked at before declaring these numbers "interesting" (let alone "significant").

Honestly, all I see is that these business owners gave donations to politicians, local politicians especially. As is their right and their wont.

It's not their right to give money to candidates or causes, Thrillho. Not if they want to do business in California.

Here's a more comprehensive list. Far more than 80 dealers here.

This is a fair question. More important is how the dealers are being closed. Chrysler (and the government) are going to see a fight from the dealers, especially those who went into debt at Chrysler's insistence over the last couple of years, and now will be left with nothing.

Quote from: Fork on May 26, 2009, 07:52:12 AM
It's Sotomayor.

Remember when Bork said this:

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

No, he didn't say that? Did Scalia? John Roberts?

No?

That's right, no one said it. But Sotomayor said this:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She'll sail through, but not before a few uncomfortable moments.

An interesting coincidence.

Quote from: LoneStarCubFan on May 25, 2009, 09:41:55 PM

Quote from: Fork on May 25, 2009, 09:39:13 PM

Quote from: ~Apex on May 25, 2009, 09:37:02 PM

Quote from: Brownie on May 25, 2009, 09:34:02 PM
Remlinger resents the inference, LoneStar.

This is a historically bad bullpen. It is worse than the 2006, 2005, 2002 bullpens. Put it up there with the 1999 bullpen. The 1988 bullpen was pretty bad as well. But the 2009 Cubs bullpen is as bad as any of them.

I don't think it's worse than '02.

I humbly submit any of the Cubs bullpens from 1980 through 1983.

That's a pretty good call.

1980 - Bullpen featured Bruce Sutter, Bill Caudill, Willie Hernandez and a young Lee Smith.
1981 - Lee Smith, Bill Caudill and a bunch of others. Sucked, but Lee Smith was going to be good.
1982 - Willie Hernandez healthy and effective again. Lee Smith showing signs of being a dominant closer. Also: Bill Campbell.
1983 - Smith, Hernandez (before being traded), Campbell, Warren Brusstar and Craig Lefferts.

Want a bad bullpen? See 1986. See 1988. See 2002.  But save yourself the time and just turn the TV on now.

Remlinger resents the inference, LoneStar.

This is a historically bad bullpen. It is worse than the 2006, 2005, 2002 bullpens. Put it up there with the 1999 bullpen. The 1988 bullpen was pretty bad as well. But the 2009 Cubs bullpen is as bad as any of them.

Quote from: Bonk on May 23, 2009, 03:17:36 AM
I'm not suggesting Edmonds is the answer, but the $10M the team is paying Badley would be better served being set ablaze. I'd rather see Edmonds on the team for $500K and see the remaining $9.5M used elsewhere.

Like on a second baseman that could either field or hit above .220 or maybe a reliever that could get an out occasionally.

Where did Edmonds say he'd come back for $500K? I would think he'd want something in the 5-6 million range.

Quote from: morpheus on May 21, 2009, 07:55:30 AM
So, the State of Indiana realized that they, too ,were being ripped off (their words) by the Federal Government, in favor of the UAW.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/indiana-pensioners-object-to-chrysler-sale/

Quote"As fiduciaries, we can't allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government," Richard Mourdock, Indiana's treasurer, said in a statement. "The Indiana state funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned more than 100 years of established law by redefining 'secured creditors' to mean something less."

The Judge comes back and says, if I read this correctly, that the secured creditors of Chrysler (teachers and policemen, we're talking about now) do not have standing in a bankruptcy proceeding.

http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/viewdocument.aspx?DocumentPk=2cbaafa5-ec80-4fa8-aef9-2de98f52a6ac

QuoteThe movant's papers do not address the fundamental issue of whether they have standing to challenge any governmental action. There are substantial issues and disputes concerning the movant's standing both under the Collateral Trust Agreement as well as the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence. Without having addressed these issues, the Court cannot say that the movant has clearly demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the withdrawal motion.

Shoah.

In fairness, Murdock is getting his ducks in a row to run for Gov. in 2012 to succeed Mitch Daniels, who is considering running for President.

Quote from: Slakee on May 20, 2009, 09:22:56 PM

Quote from: ~Apex on May 20, 2009, 09:21:13 PM
They do this sometimes. Slump together and threaten not to score for a week. It happened a couple times last year and we all yelled at the TV for awhile. They eventually righted the ship and made the playoffs. Then in October they thought it would be awesome to do just this very thing. I hate it when this happens. I get depressed. I start thinking about horrible things. I need to sleep and not dream. Visit death's cousin. I'll send him your love.

That's pretty much the truth. The starting pitching has been consistently good so I'm not at all concerned. Clearly they cannot get worse than this, offensively speaking.

The good times are yet to come.

That said - this is fucking irritating.

This. But goddammit.