Designed?

Every conservative knows that whatever you Progressive say the program is "designed" to do, it never does; and in fact, often accomplishes the opposite of what it was allegedly "designed" to do. That's why we conservates say things like The Department of No Energy, The Department of No Edcuation.

I like the way you say "ramping up the supply of providers." That's nice Progressive rhetoric there. Talk about people as units that you just push up a ramp.

Just in case you couldn't interpret the sarcasm, I have posted several times that according the US Census data, there are 16,000 less medical professionals in Massachusetts. So, of course, doctors are not moving to Massachusetts. They have been moving away. But if you get Romneycare nationalized, they won't have anywhere to run.

16,000 FEWER medical professionals (same thing as providers).

I don't want to disrupt your delusions, but I didn't support Romneycare or Obamacare.

The Red Sox are "designed" to finish first...

...Sure you did. When I asked you if you had a "solution" to "free riders," you described a personal mandate system and defended it vehemently. Or have you seen the conservative light, now? Shook up your Etch-a-Sketch?

Exactly. You advocated statism. You made the same arguments the Obama Adminstration and the liberal justices made in the Supreme Court. This so-called - difference between state and federal - is the mootest point in the history of Earth. You are for top-down authoritarianism that usurps the unalienable rights of individuals to live free.

It was the typical- invent a boogeyman that only socialism can fix - argument that has come out of the mouth of every Statist since Plato.

I don't know why you keep struggling with this. We are saying the same thing. I am just translating it into the kind of stark language we conservatives use to describe philosophies like yours.

Do you recall hearing that a 29 year old Sarah Burke recently died while performing extreme sports (her profession)? She decided to skip the expense of health insurance and let us pick up the tab.

Under my proposal, individuals would choose coverage or no coverage, and what levels of coverage they purchase. They would purchase the product from a private company competing nationally on price and service.
If they choose not to participate, they would effectively ACCEPT the tax to support the others who make the same choice

Just stating facts.

You made the same so-called "cost shifting" arguments as the libs, with the same same solution as Obamacare - buy insurance or pay a penalty. These are your words, right?

Cost shifting argument


Buy insurance or pay a penalty
for anyone who was paying attention, insisting that it is a tax and not a penalty was critical to their argument. And here you were making Obama's argument months before his lawyers made it in front of the Supreme Court. Remember? I posted the Obamacare law Sec 1510, where it says must buy insurance or pay a penalty.

You want to advocate the Lefty position on health care without being told you are a Lefty. Face it, dude. You are a Massachusetts liberal.

How about those Sawx? Where have those guys been putting their thumbs?

Presumably, your 'non-lefty' plan is to have anyone who doesn't want insurance (including illegal immigrants) to ignore the expense until they become sick and then charge us taxpayers and responsible citizens for all of their costs.

Geez, I thought this was a baseball thread. You know, Yankees and all that. Obamacare has all the charm of a dirty Christmas card and should be dealt with elsewhere.

Amen!
The season is officially open. Let's play ball.
Tigers open with the Red Sox tomorrow at 1:05. In honor of the Sox I'll be drinking beer and eating fried chicken by 9:30.

Plan? No. Central planning is for you lefties.

And under your plan, what happens when they don't pay the tax because have no money? Or when their medical bills are $100k more than tax? The cost gets shifted anyway right? You haven't solved anyting.

Are you aware that ever business that ever existed, survives by cost shifting? And you think you can get rid of it?

Try to stay focused on baseball, and the general notion of not turning every thread you come across into a crap fest.

Your the only one who thinks that. He's never been fine there before.

Not in the field. A-Hole was below average on third for several years, but has improved.

Last time the Tigers put Cabrera at third, he made 5 errors in 14 games. I am sure he could outperform me.

No matter how you bandy the rhetoric around, having this guy in the field for the season instead of at DH is going to cost the Tigers at least 10 and maybe 25 runs. That is, if as I said before he took one in the face, if he doesn't hurt himself pretending to be a third baseman.

Even if you are right, and he costs the Tigers 25 runs, replacing Brandon Inge's bat with Prince Fielder's bat will increase their run production by 3 times that.
I'll take that trade every day of the week.

But the tradeoff is not Inge v Fielder. Fielder is not a variable. If Cabrera DH's or plays 3rd, Fielder doesn't change.

It's the runs they give up with Cabrera at 3rd instead of DH; less (or plus) the run differential of between whoever plays 3rd instead and whoever isn't the DH (Delmon Young?). I think even Delmon Young would be better at 3rd than Cabrera.

The root of this is that Cabrera is not a team player. He won't do the right thing and be DH.

Inge' bat was in the lineup last year. Fielder's bat is in the lineup this year instead. That's the trade and Fielder's bat will knock in a bunch of runs that Inge's bat would have fanned.

The Yankees are 0-3 and already I'm questioning Girardi's lineups. ...The Yankees only have three problems, pitching, hitting with runners on base and fielding..other than that it's a good start. Now on to 3-0 Baltimore. Shheeese! Everything is already upside down.

With a mere five months left in the season, you're panicking already?

It's not a panic.
You expect a 200 million dollar team to do a little better. That's all.

So, if the payroll was lower, you'd be happy?

Sorry, but 3 baseball games by any team is an insufficient sample for sober analysts. (Oh, and BTW, that's not $200 mil, it's only $197 mil ).

Paid less?


Probably. Parking would be cheaper. Food would be cheaper. Tickets would be cheaper.

Does anyone know the breakdown of the income stream to the teams? How much is generated by tickets, concessions, etc. and how much is TV money?