Messages

1

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Eddie Jordan Stinks.

« on: January 06, 2010, 01:56:23 PM »

I found it interesting that EFJ threw his players under the bus when he mentioned that they did not take advantage of the Wiz being in the penalty with less than 3 minutes gone in the 3rd quarter...but if it was the PLAYERS fault, then why did you sub in both Kapono and Smith - two guys that, in addition to being less-than-stellar defenders (at a time that the Wiz were making their run) are guys who generate the overwhelming majority of their offense from the perimeter?

I guess that IDIOTIC substitution was the PLAYERS fault as well, huh?

2

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Bring Back Iverson. Who's With Me!

« on: December 04, 2009, 12:29:25 AM »

If this team had a coach who cared about defense, they could make some noise in the playoffs.

Unfortunately they have Eddie Jordan, so they're fucked.

It is a shame, as they really do have legit talent - especially when Williams and Speights come back.

3

NBA Discussion / Re: The Will Ferell Health Care Reform video

« on: October 02, 2009, 08:23:25 AM »

When a provider makes a decision to not provide services to, say, 10-15% of the available population, they believe that is a rational business decision - they believe that they can gather enough business from the remaining 85-90% of the population.  However, when that percentage of the population rises to 30-35%, it becomes a harder decision to walk away from that business.

When you are the intermediary for 85-90% of the total marketplace (as the traditional health insurers are) - providing the customer pool for the service providers (doctor groups, hospitals, etc...), it is a lot easier to 1) negotiate deals that benefit you as the intermediary and then 2) use the leverage obtained by forcing the service providers to provide said services (at a very attractive spread to the intermediary) to both retain your customer pool AND pass on price increases (premiums paid by businesses and individuals) over and above what may be necessary guarantee quality service by said service providers.

For years, this has been a game that has been set up to benefit EVERYBODY BUT THE PEOPLE PAYING FOR THE SERVICES.  It has been a basic oligopoly - with the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies benefitting from a structure where TRUE competition does not exist.

While I am for a public option primarily as a competative weapon to force down costs and spur rationalization and efficiencies within the health care industry, I would also be fine without it - as long as the government uses its power to increase competition within the health care system and improve the efficiency of the people who actually provide the services - the doctors.  Allowing both interstate health insurance sales and devolving health insurance provider selection would increas competition and force prvoders to sharpen their pencils on premium pricing.  Tort reform would help to eliminate the mountains of wasteful and over-the-top "CYA" spending by doctors and hospitals.   Portability of coverage (which goes hand-in-hand with devolving the decision-making from company to employee) would allow talented labor to be more flexible within the economy - which would provide valuable ancillary benefits.

Many of these things would cost ZERO...but they would require GOVERNMENT REGULATION - because we certainly know that things that would force providers to increase efficiency, price more competatively and take excess capacity out of the system will not be done from within.  It's like letting the fox guard the henhouse - they simply cannot be trusted to get this system under control...and given the MASSIVE cost of health care in this country (and the sheer impact that it has on the every-day lives of ALL of this country's citizens), health care passes the screen in my eyes to be looked at in the same vein as national defense, infrastructure, education and the other big-picture issues where it is the GOVERNMENT who is the only entity that can insure that this essential service is provided to all citizens.  The industry has shown - time and time again - that it will put profits ahead of the common good.  For the 51-year old woman whose husband has lost his job and has a respiratory problem that will financially destroy their family to treat, this is not like buying a new plasma TV or another Coach handbag - we need to find a way to provide a road to treatment for this woman that takes the decision out of the hands of an insurance provider...because we all know what is going to happen.

And for those of you who hate government regulation in all of its forms...for those who favor deregulation as a way to unleash the entreprenural energy of capital and the private sector....just ask yourself how that worked out in the financial services industry...

Pretty well, huh?

4

NBA Discussion / Re: The Will Ferell Health Care Reform video

« on: October 01, 2009, 10:51:08 PM »

Lurker:

My background is the same as you...grew up in North Philly...single mom...some time on public assistance and food stamps...first in my family to graduate from college...worked two jobs while I was there and did temp work every summer and Christmas...

Nobody gave me JACK.  I earned it.

There is a scholarship at my alma mater that I funded - with the scholarship recipient specified to be a public school student from the Philly region in need.  While I don't do as much charitable work these days (I am 49 with 4 kids), I have done everything from volunteering with kids at St. Christopher's Hospital for Children (my hospital growing up) to working at Habitat for Humanity building sites.

I could always do more...but I've done my share.

There will always be examples like you and me...or Obama or Sotomayor.  Exceptional people (you and I excluded) will always find a way to make a mark.  However, to baseline what we as a society should do to provide things like affordable health care, quality education and the like with the high-achievers on the tail end of the bell-curve distribution...

Hey!  Obama did it so EVERYBODY can..don't worry about being raised by a single mom in Cabrini Green or Crenshaw...don't worry about the fact that there are ZERO jobs in your region of Applachia...don't worry about being downsized out of your job at 51 years of age (with your COBRA coverage running out and your wife having a respiratory issue that will cost $40,000 after-tax to pay out of pocket...

Just "grab those bootstraps"...right?

And I agree about the civil debate, bro...and I respect you for it as well.  Too many azzholes who populate forums like this that show ZERO humanity with a keyboard.

5

NBA Discussion / Re: The Will Ferell Health Care Reform video

« on: October 01, 2009, 10:43:54 AM »

My compensation (and the level of taxes I pay) is important in the sense that this is one high-income taxpayer who cares more about trying to address some of the biggest isues that our collective society faces (with the reality that I will likely have to pay even more in taxes to help support health care reform, enact some kind of "cap and trade" or carbon tax, support education in my local public school districts - even thouogh I send my kids to private schools - and on and on....) than trying to minimize the amount of taxes I pay.  You don't think that my argument would have less weight if I made $18K a year and paid $200 in taxes?

At the end of the day, a society either cares about the collective good, realizes (as I do) that those who are INCREDIBLY fortunate to have above average means have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate...or you believe that what is yours is yours, that those who didn't win the sperm lottery (or those who have the wrong color of their skin, or those who don't have a penis, etc...) have to just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" (because that's how it's done in America).

Regardless of our differences of opinion, I wish you well.

6

NBA Discussion / Re: The Will Ferell Health Care Reform video

« on: October 01, 2009, 08:55:37 AM »

Lurker:

As somebody who pays more than his fair share of taxes (and with the full understanding that I will pay more in all likelihood going forward), I have no problem with that - as long as it is going to places that I believe are productive.  To expect ANY government to be as efficient with spending as you or I may be in our household is a pipe dream...and it has been that way since the founding of the republic.

Our tax burden is low relative to our European counterparts - but they have better health care, better public transit, better infrastructure, better enviormental policies, a better social safety net...and a mindset where they care more about society as a whole than what each individual keeps for themselves.  While I certainly appreciate the American apporach to individualism and do not support structures that take away the value of hard work and putting capital at risk, I also believe that our society would be WAY, WAY better off if we thought more about the collective good and took the lofty ideals that we preach (read: ram down the throats of other cultures around the world in the name of "democracy") and put them to practive right here in America.  Is is an EMBARASSMENT that the richest nation in the world also has such relatively poor infant mortality rates...such middle-of-the-road secondary-level academic achievement...such abject poverty...and tens of millions of people without basic health care (including untold millions of children).

The amount of lip service that we give to the lofty ideals that we wrap ourselves around is a joke.

But that's OK.  We'll just continue to underinvest in health care, education, the environment, our infrastructure (in the name of SMALLER GOVERNMENT and LOW TAXES), and our kids and grandkids will reap the "benefits" of our self-centered and selfish ways...and the society that comes from that.

Yay.

7

NBA Discussion / Re: The Will Ferell Health Care Reform video

« on: September 30, 2009, 10:21:54 PM »

Joe:

I'm not going to get into a point-by-point discussion with you...it is obvious that you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this issue.  From your point about "corruption" (Enron, AIG, etc...) to the money spent on "bailouts" to complaints about the national debt (which EXPLODED under Reagan and became a freaking DISASTER long before Obama had to come in and try to clean up "W"'s mess), I find way, WAY more fault with corporate greed and a criminal lack of oversight by a Republican Congress and White House who - after their "Contract with America" - became the biggest hypocrites of all time.

Over the past three years, I have averaged paying approximately $700,000 a year in Federal income taxes alone...and if I have to choose between what the Republicans have spent the money on and what Obama is proposing spending the money on, that is a freaking no-brainer to me.  While the Feds have done a terrible job of managing my money, I would rather see a health care plan that expands coverage, keeps working class people from declaring bankruptcy (and losing their dignity), and helps small and midsize businesses (who are the entreprenurial lifeblood of our country) stay in business...rather than the nightmare that W, the Republicans and their corporate friends (Exxon, Haliburton, Enron and all the rest) have shoved up our collective azz for the past 10 years.

Lurker:

Good post, bro.  I agree with all of your suggestions.  Interstate health insurance competition - ANY kind of competition, for that matter - is a good thing.  Tort reform is simply HUGE - my next door neighbor is a clinical raidiologist for a major hospital group in the metro area where we live...and according to her, the fear of lawsuits is probably the number one reason why so many tests and proceedures are done...VERY high cost tests...simply to protect the doctors from getting sued.  While I like the theory of an employer using their "perceived" buying power to keep premium costs under control, having an exponential increase of customers for the insurance companies to try to get could lead to even MORE competition between insurers to get customers.

Unfortunately, there is no rational debate anymore in this country.  Everything is controlled by the extremes on both sides of the issue.  It is why politicians who occupied the rational center of these debates (Warren Rudman, Tim Penny, Vin Weber and others) have left politics...replaced by the Maxine Waters' on the left and the Michele Bachmann's on the right....

And THEY control the debate.

It makes me sick.

8

NBA Discussion / Re: The Will Ferell Health Care Reform video

« on: September 30, 2009, 04:15:12 PM »

Why the f*ck is everybody so freaking afraid of a "public option"?

News flash: there already is one.

It's called Medicare.

An existing, Government-managed health care plan with tens of millions of participants.  A pool of participants, by the way, that use health care at 1) a higher frequency and 2) for a broader range of services than the US population at large.  Haven't seen the destruction of the US health care system coming from this "Government-managed health care plan"...have you?

Any health care proposal that does not address the lack of competition and the need to control costs is a total waste of time, IMO.  Having a public option does not mean that THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY YOUR HEALTH CARE!!!!

There is no reason why I still won't be able to keep paying my higher out-of-pocket costs for Personal Choice.  In case you don't know this, the number of available health care plans is truly staggering...just go to any website that quotes available HMO policies by Aetna, Chubb and a host of other providers.

Many corporations provide multiple options - from a premium plan like Personal Choice to your basic 80-20 HMO/PPO options...a government run plan would just be another option on that list.

So - what is the worst that can happen?

Let's see...entry-level employees and small businesses offer the Government plan - either as an option or their value-priced plan...people sign up...the plan gets critical mass...it starts using the strength of its growing membership (like Blue Cross, Aetna or other larger pools) to negotiate better deals with hospital groups, doctor/specialist groups, pharma companies and the like - except the cost savings don't go to the for-profit companies...they are used to force sharper premium pricing by the private plans...with reigns in the relentless increase in health care costs that we have seen for YEARS.

More people are covered.  Costs can actually be REDUCED for small/medium sized businesses, mom-and-pop-type outfits and individuals.  The government already has experience in running a HUGE health care operation (i.e. Medicare), so it's not exactly re-inventing the wheel for them.  For those who want a premium priced plan (like my Personal Choice plan), I will likely have to pay more in premiums at first, but if the Government-run plan is successful in attracting a large subscriber base, eventually the hospitals and doctor groups who have until now been opting to not be part of these pools will have no choice but to opt back in.

And the silly think is that the "Public option" is only one component of this.  How about Tort Reform?  There's another 3rd rail that nobody has the cojones to touch....

Obama blew it.  He allowed the Republicans to "Swift Boat" him here...instead of proactively framing the issues and taking it DIRECTLY to the people...HARD.  These right-wing nutjobs at these Town Halls would have looked absolutely Palin-esque had Obama done a better job of selling this from the jump...and as a result, he blue a BOATLOAD of political capital...he won't get this through Congress (or worse, they'll pass a piece of dreck that does SQUAT to either meaningfully increase coverage or control costs)...and the Republicans will have a great 2010 election cycle in Congress.

Nice job, Barack.

9

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: Willie Should Start at PG Over Lou Will

« on: September 21, 2009, 09:10:49 PM »

Joe:

Nobody is talking about Felton because 1) he probably won't sign a 1-year deal; 2) Comcast/the Roberts boys/Ed Snider are cheap f*cks; and 3) we supposedly have our PG of the future in Holiday.

While I absolutely DETEST that Stefanski's horrific handling of this roster has put us in this position (i.e. going into this season with the "Lou and Jrue Show" as our PG options), at this point I am with those who say we should just throw Lou to the wolves and see what happens.

10

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: The Sixers free agency thread.

« on: August 04, 2009, 03:37:53 PM »

rickortreat:

You are not serious - are you?

I'm not talking about them being a tax-payer.  I think that the primary reasons why they did not try harder to trade Miller at the deadline were 1) it was more important to insure 2-3 home playoff gates than it was to bring in assets that could help the team in 2009-10 and beyond and 2) they were FULLY PREPARED to simply let him walk after the season and get ZERO back for him.  F*ck the S&T...what kind of S&T could we have reasonably gotten for him...even if we only wanted one year?  Huh?

(Steve Blake, come on down!)

They aren't even spending the MLE, for crissakes.  And while I understand that if they used the full MLE, they would have a problem in 2010-11 (until we get cap relief), but c'mon, bro...if you want fans to put out THEIR money to support the team, the team needs to put out THEIR money to put a competitative product on the floor.

I hear a LOT of people saying that the "Lou and Jrue Show" may not be so bad this season.  Wishful thinking, if you ask me...and it's not like we are some rebuilding 30-win team trying to get through a transition year - we are going to piss away a VERY expensive year of Brand's contract going with a PG rotation of two guy with a combined NBA/college experience level at PG of around 1000 minutes.

Pathetic.

11

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: The Sixers free agency thread.

« on: August 04, 2009, 02:34:57 PM »

Bingo, tk.

And THAT is why nobody gives a shit about the Sixers.

I did not know that it was possible for the Sixers to fall lower on the radar screen of Philadelphia sports fans, but Comcast and Ed Snider have lowered interest in the team to subterranean levels.

Congrats, guys.

12

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: NBA Draft Discussion

« on: June 25, 2009, 09:11:45 PM »

Touche, tk...thanks!

TOTALLY psyched about the pick.  A perimeter defender - what a concept.  VERY nice to have a big guy to play out there with Lou.  Hope that your Thad comparisons pan out...he seems to have decent shooting mechanics, so there is no reason to believe that he won't become a solid outside shooter.

T-Wolves just took Ellington.  Crap.

13

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: NBA Draft Discussion

« on: June 25, 2009, 01:37:09 PM »

Ty Lawson played in one of the top 3-4 conferences in the country.  He was the starting PG on a team that won a national championship.

Eric Maynor was the PG of a good mid-major conference team.  He never won a NCAA tournament game.

They are not the same player.

14

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: NBA Draft Discussion

« on: June 25, 2009, 12:37:02 PM »

Thad:

If I am not mistaken, Lawson shot something like 47% from 3 last season.  He's also like 200 pounds, and is STRONG (as opposed to Maynor at 165 lbs)...I don't think either of these guys are defensive wizards...although didn't Lawson have like 5 steals in the National Championship Game?

To me, Lawson and Maynor aren't close.

15

Philadelphia 76ers / Re: NBA Draft Discussion

« on: June 25, 2009, 12:17:12 PM »

ankle:

I would be against taking Maynor over Jennings.

If we could sign Bibby to a 3-year MLE deal, I would be all over that.

I agree with Derek - I think Henderson is a little overrated...and I also think that Ellington is a little underrated.

If all of the good PG's other than Maynor and Teague are gone at 17, I would rather have Ellington/Bibby and whatever quality 2nd tier PG we could get with an additional pick (Collsion, Calathes) than either Maynor or Teague and the guy who is the subject of MUCH man-love around these parts, Marcus Thornton.