Magox

Right. In other words he was spouting off talking points from the opposition. Seems reasonable

Yes, what joy! I get to listen to the same 10 posters who act as if they are the "experts" of the board that all have the same views which are: They are defenders of Whaley All believe Sammy Watkins is some sort of god of a WR and was worth the $16M a year he would have been asking All straddle the fence of saying that TT isn't perfect yet defend him at every turn All believe that the release of Jwill was some sort of heresy and somehow believe he is some sort of special talent Hate McD/Beane because they are completely uprooting the stench of failure and are instilling their vision of how this organization should be. The hysterics of how they reacted over Watkins finally having a good game yesterday was a sight to behold. I mean JHC, he had one ok game, one poor game and one good game and you would have thought that he just had a breakout season of 1400 yards and 14 TD's helping lead his team to the playoffs. It was one good game.

So bipartisanship for something this critical as you say isn't truly what's important to you. Because the ACA like what Republicans are trying to do didn't have an inkling of bipartisanship.

Did you support the ACA back in 09 and 10?

Like I said, he's not sincere he simply is just another douche that happens to have a large platform to advance progressive priorities. The personal nature of his attacks speaks volumes of his character.

I don't know, I've just kind of become kind of numb when it comes to politics. I have an interest in policy and like poking fun of the crazies from both wings of the parties but I sincerely don't really care about either party. And since both parties argue from an extremely shallow point devoid of any true substance, over the years I have lost more and more interest when it comes to the craven nature of politics. I really hate stupidity.

There goes that!

I know this is what is getting regurgitated from mainstream outlets and without doubt there is some pressure from donors. But let's be real here, the base of the GOP wants it gone and that is where the real pressure is coming from.

Overall funding over the next decade for all the states combined would only have a reduction of about 6-7% from it's current baseline. It really is not a Draconian proposal. But as I said earlier, since there is nothing concrete to look at, because the states have to design these systems, the opponents can paint it any way that they'd like. Which of course if you are against it, that would be the way to do it. It's easier to attack the scary undefined unknown.

I don't think it's gonna pass but with all this horsetrading they may be able to cobble together 50 votes. But it's going to take some time to implement it since we are talking about at least 50 potentially separate healthcare systems. I imagine the construct of the ACA would remain in place for at least 2 years and possibly more. At this stage, I'd rather they just do something on a bipartisan basis.

The talent is there. What's not there has been the consistency for one reason or another. He hasn't proven himself yet to be anywhere near $16m a year. If he is able to stay healthy and put it all together then maybe that changes.

The overreactions to a nice play are hilarious.

That was a hell of a catch

Governors don't turn away money. That money will be used and they will try to get as much for it as they can for it.

It's a conspiracy against Sammy!!!

Here is what we know: A) So the text of the law says they have to cover people with Pre Ex. B) Funding for Pre Ex would go to the state to ensure that happens. The concern is that it hasn't been defined how this would occur. Which is natural because each state would create their own system so if there is no definition in how that would look like, opponents can paint whatever picture they would like. The only funding differences is the calculation from the Federal government on how much money to provide for Medicaid. The funding provided under this bill for Medicaid would be more than pre ACA baseline but less than the Medicaid expansion of ACA. So those states that opted into the ACA Medicaid expansion would receive less overall funding but those that had opted out for the most part would receive more funding. The distribution is more evenly distributed than it was with the ACA. Doesn't matter, I seriously doubt this will pass and if it were to pass I'm guessing they'd dole out more money to assuage the concerns of some of these Senators.

What the legislation does is turn the federal funding that was used for the Medicaid expansion and Federal subsidy distribution and divert that money to the States. Net overall dollars towards healthcare is the same. The only area where there is some ambiguity is beyond 2026. But anyone who thinks we are going backwards in overall coverage by 2026 isn't paying attention to where we are as a society and how the majority of populace believes coverage should be. The Pre Ex will still be there, that's in the bill. The only thing that is uncertain is how that coverage for Pre Ex would look like. At worst you could get it but it may be more expensive to get it than in another state. In regards to Medicaid expansion, the states that accepted it have a threshold of $16,000 a year or below to qualify, the states that didn't expand Medicaid's threshold qualify at $12,000 a year. So the Medicaid expansion is for those in between $12,000 to $16,000. So even if that is slashed in your state, (which state's have the option to maintain that threshold, just that they would receive less federal funding to do it), there still would be a lot of dollars to use what was for Medicaid for another form of assistance. Just so you guys know, there are places in the U.S where people with incomes of $12,000-$16,000 a year are able to get these $0 Deductible plans with $0 copays with Max out of pockets of less than $1000 HMO plans. The point that I"m making is even if you lose your Medicaid, you would most likely still be able to get lots of assistance to help pay for a health plan. The reason why it's difficult to talk details is because each state would be able to design their own sort of healthcare system. Bottom line, Pre Ex would be covered and assistance would still be provided to lower income folks. And overall money available would remain essentially unchanged. Could? How? If Pre Ex is still mandatory and funding is still at similar levels than it was before but is now being diverted to the states, how could this happen?

He has a point, at this stage of the game that's what Republicans campaigned on for god knows how many years. It was the battle cry for all Conservatives, it was the noose that was tied around all those moderate Democrats who lost their jobs over Obamacare. From a purely politically craven point of view, they really have no other choice, specially if you live in a purple or red state. On the other hand, it is very difficult to know what is inside the bill. To be honest with you it doesn't sound nearly as bad as Democrats or Kimmell make it out to sound. Protections for those with Pre Ex would still be preserved and most likely in most states without any changes. There may be a few states that have a different sort of protection for Pre Ex but it would remain in one form or another. The subsidies or assistance to get health insurance would still be there. To my understanding Medicaid money would go down for most states but that money that was allotted for Medicaid wouldn't outright disappear, it would be available through another vehicle for financial assistance. Each state would have more flexibility to design plans and programs that they believe would best fit their state. If you like ACA protections, those blue/purple states would have the option to preserve that. Some states would get less overall funding and some would get more. From the way I hear it the ones who expanded Medicaid would end up being the overall financial losers and receive less than they used to receive and the ones that rejected it such as Texas would be the bigger financial winners. Bottom line, financial assistance for lower income, protections for Pre Ex would still be available. Oh and in regards to Kimmell. I don't find him to be sincere, I believe he's just another very politically engaged individual who has a platform to push an agenda that he supports (Liberalism) and he simply chimed in to push that forward. I support a bipartisan solution, because when you have something as all-encompassing as healthcare I believe that in order for it to be sustainable there has to be more broad buy in than passing it on a purely partisan basis. But make no mistake, this isn't nearly as terrifying as the left makes it out to be.

I would not want to pick an OT with our 1st pick if it wasn't a QB. I'm going under the assumption that Glenn will be our LT for the foreseeable future and that Dawkins is to be our RT. Am I missing something? And I do not think this will draft projection anywhere near accurate. But then again, what do I know?

What was the percentage of first down runs this past week? Did we run it 50%? 70%? 20%? Do you know?

Obviously I don't have the resources nor time or for that matter desire to analyze every single throw from these guys but from my limited take on them, if all these guys were to declare for the draft, I don't think it would be necessary to have to trade up to get a good starting caliber QB. Mayfield could be around somewhere in that 8-20 area.

Not sure why people would still be emotionally invested with Watkins, it's not as if he was some sort of locker room, inspirational or community leader. He is a guy with talent that really never endeared himself to Bills fans in any sort of meaningful way. We traded a lot for him and for one reason or another he never lived up to it. That's the bottom line.

Baker Mayfield

Maybe, maybe not. But what I can tell you for sure is if we see a few more sub 250 yard 10 point games, there wouldn't be that much justification to keeping TT in the lineup. For me this is the potential downside for Peterman, makes quicker reads, moves the offense better but gets more int's. Which overall could lead to either net negative or equal impact as your average TT start. On the flip side, I think he could potentially lead us to more yards and points. Keep TT in as the QB and if he can't get this offense going by midseason, yank him.

Me thinks that the final decision was McD's.