Desipio Message Board

Do we have an unlimited supply of medical care? How do we increase the supply? What is the baseline level of care a government should guarantee for someone?  Would others be allowed to purchase insurance above and beyond that?

Will we have to sharply regulate everyone's activity level to keep health care costs down? At what level will the government use the "YOU'RE COSTING US TAXPAYER MONEY" to regulate your choices regarding diet, beverages, exercise activity, tobacco use.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with the health care program in this country is your lack of choice over your insurance provider (and your inability to hold said insurer accountable) and in turn, your limited choice over health care provider (and your inability, except through malpractice suits, to hold said provider accountable).  The thought of decoupling your health insurance from your employer is intriguing for three reasons:

1. You wouldn't have to stay at an otherwise shitty job out of fear of losing your health care benefits.
2. Losing your job wouldn't be as catastrophic if you are buying health insurance out of pocket. Do any of you know how much your COBRA payment would be if you lost your job?
3. You would be able to shop around for the best coverage for you.

Now, I understand the whole problem with pre-existing conditions, but I think this problem is better served through the private market than through government. Who among you would want a Bush Administration appointee administering your health care? Me neither.

Quote from: ~Apex on November 14, 2008, 06:44:34 PM

Quote from: Fork on November 14, 2008, 07:10:15 AM

That's every black person Bush has spoken to in the last 8 years.

Don't see Colin and Condi in there, smart guy. The first two black Secs of State... Remember them? Smart guy? But by all means continue with your Bush as racist caricature. It's hilarious as all get out.

No. Colin and Condi were the house Uncle Toms being nice to massah, until they were principled either by endorsing Obama (Powell) or by hailing Obama's election as a great moment in history (Rice). 

Quote from: PTanner on April 07, 2008, 08:54:50 AM

The Cubs keep trying out walkout music for Wood (Yesterday was "Welcome To The Jungle"). Wood has said he'd just as soon have the organist play.

Wood is bad-ass.

This.

Quote from: Andy on November 13, 2008, 09:19:03 PM
Hendry claims the only reason he announced that the Cubs would not bring Kerry back was so that Kerry would get full value on the market.  Hendry thought that like last year, if other GMs assumed he was coming back to the Cubs that nobody would make him a serious offer.

He might find that GMs don't make a serious offer to a tough as nails, all-around good guy, not because they don't think highly of him, or because they think he's going back to the Cubs, but because his arm is hanging by a thread.

And I guess if Wood goes out and finds the best he can get are incentive-laden two-year deals in places such as Milwaukee, Detroit, Cincinnati and Anaheim, maybe he comes back to Hendry and gives him a Hawk-style contract.

If Wood wanted a 3 or 4 year deal, it's pretty hard to justify it at this point, so I can't argue with Hendry for telling him au revoir.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to lament a favorite guy's tenure ending.  

I also think it's reasonable to question how Gregg for Wood makes the team better in 2009. (I know Wood for 4 years is not practical). Peavy has not yet been acquired. Dempster has not been re-signed.

Let's not debate whether it was reasonable to sign him to a 3 or 4 year deal.

Instead, let's toast Wood for this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

Of course, this.

Oh, and this (the biggest win by the Cubs' franchise in the last 100 years).


Even this, the game-tying Game 7 homer.

The memories of 2004, 2005, 2006? Let's just say it was lost in the haze of the Dusty Baker era.  Look over the beginning of this thread as he had moments last year and this year of awing us with his stuff.  He was unfair when he was at his best.  He had a couple maddening outings when his control temporarily abandoned him.  Oh well.

Again, a three or four year deal is ridiculous for Kerry Wood. Giving him 2 years is probably pushing it. I just wanted him to be part of the team next year when it wins the World Series.

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 13, 2008, 03:19:04 PM
Do the Cubs get two first-round draft picks because of this?

It's probably the right thing to do, but I got that kick in the balls feeling in my stomach right now.

I believe he's a "Type A" free agent.

In other news, the Sox dumped Steve Swisher's son.

Quote from: butthead on November 13, 2008, 02:57:40 PM

Quote from: TJ on November 13, 2008, 02:49:36 PM
He was fragile. But there were few players that I rooted for more than him.



Godspeed, Kerry Wood.

This kind of sucks. Maybe it's the smart thing to do, maybe it's not, but that's not the issue. When you're a kid you get attached to the players on your favorite team, but as an adult you're supposed to be smarter than that. We are just rooting for laundry after all. But it is sad to see him go.

We are rooting for laundry, but let's be honest: who among us continued rooting for the Blitz after they traded the entire team (coaches and all) to the Wranglers in 1984?

Seriously, I'd love to see that experiment conducted on a grand scale. Swap the Dodgers and Angels (players, coaches, etc) and see what happens to the fans.  They nearly did a similar swap when Jeffrey Loria, John Henry and MLB executed a three-way deal that gave Henry the Red Sox, MLB the Expos and Loria the Marlins.  Torborg and staff and Cliff Floyd became Marlins.  

The only reason we root for a team is because we identify with the team in some way.  When a guy who has been with the team for 11 years leaves after having a strong season (and only being 31), it's disappointing.

He was fragile. But there were few players that I rooted for more than him.



Godspeed, Kerry Wood.

The one thing I can take comfort in is that the Democratic President who takes office 1/20 will not be Hillary Clinton.

Quote from: Zed on November 11, 2008, 01:39:19 PM

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 11, 2008, 12:58:13 PM

Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:23:53 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 12:09:05 PM

Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM

The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.

When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile.  If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million? 

But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses.  Where do you think they're putting this $$?

Probably wherever it can best trickle down to the needy, right?

Absolutely.  If it's in the capital markets, it might be so a company can expand and add new jobs (good jobs, too).  Or it could be in the credit markets, where $$ are desperately needed so companies that need credit to keep their doors open can meet payroll.  Or it can be spent in the form of charitable giving, which apparently only bleeding hearts engage in according to DeJesus.  Or it can be spent on a couple more cars, (maybe even American cars if the domestic automakers built anything worth buying) or another house. Hell, it could even be used to overpay for a National League Franchise and a 94-year-old building.

C+I+G=C+S

C is on both sides, so...

I+G=S

G is ideally 0 because, if budgets are balanced, G=C-t.

Therefore, S=I.

Savings = Investment.

Savings is good.

*Putting on Macroeconomist's hat*  I'm not sure what you're showing here, Chuck.  These are the national income accounts as I know them.

Y = Output
C = Consumption
G = Govt Spending
I = Investment
T = Taxes
       
Y = C + I + G (we will ignore trade here, speaking simply about national income accounts)

Rearranging,

Y - C - G = I

Adding in taxation, which is just a transfer from the private to the public sector:

(Y - T - C) + (T - G) = I

The first term is "private saving" and the second is "government saving" in that iteration.  The sum of those is just "saving."

S = I

I bet you went to some Eastern business school and work for some Swiss investment bank.

Elitist.

Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 12:09:05 PM

Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM

The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.

When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile.  If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million? 

But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses.  Where do you think they're putting this $$?

Probably wherever it can best trickle down to the needy, right?

Absolutely.  If it's in the capital markets, it might be so a company can expand and add new jobs (good jobs, too).  Or it could be in the credit markets, where $$ are desperately needed so companies that need credit to keep their doors open can meet payroll.  Or it can be spent in the form of charitable giving, which apparently only bleeding hearts engage in according to DeJesus.  Or it can be spent on a couple more cars, (maybe even American cars if the domestic automakers built anything worth buying) or another house. Hell, it could even be used to overpay for a National League Franchise and a 94-year-old building.

Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM

Quote from: Bonk on November 11, 2008, 11:35:38 AM
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.

They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.

I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.

The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.

When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile.  If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million? 

But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses.  Where do you think they're putting this $$?

Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 10, 2008, 08:15:41 PM
One of the things that I've liked from the Obama transition team so far has been its admonition to the Defense Department that it has to do more with less soon.  I think it's long been time to ween the DoD off its cash high.

What a novel idea.  No one has ever thought of making the military more efficient.

I'm with you that the Pentagon has a long and distinguished history of wasting money, and that it should do more for less.  If Obama's Administration can do it, hats off to him.  However, he's hardly the first incoming president who said he'd trim the defense budget.

I will be unavoidably detained between 6 and 9 Wednesday and thus cannot be in front of a TV. However, I will have Internet access. Is mlb.tv streaming this to overseas lands? If so, is setting up a proxy DNS effective?

No. Zambrano pitches Game 4. Lilly in Game 3.