billsfan89

She is the darling of alternative progressive media and makes headlines from right wingers who love to bash her. I think she has to be aware that she isn't going to get anything done legislatively (If not she really is a dumb dumb) but she doesn't have to get anything done legislatively to stay relevant and accomplish her aims. As long as she can make it seem like she is pushing a true progressive agenda she can continue to push that narrative in the alternative media and keep her platform. Its honestly a savvy strategy to sort of hit the brick wall hard and then B word about it. It taps into the anti-establishment fever that got Trump elected and is poison for establishment candidates on the left and right. If she wants to push the Democratic party towards a more populist agenda winning the battle in the media is the way to go because her impact as a freshman congresswoman isn't going to do anything.

I can't imagine Teller not being able to play on the right side. Guards are much more interchangeable from left to right and right to left in general than tackles.

You could move Teller to the right side and sign a veteran LG and C. That way Dawkins and Teller both have a veteran presence next to them.

Keep in mind that 2016 and 2017 were really down years so the NFL ratings might be up 5% from 2017 but they still haven't recovered from the dips of the previous two seasons. That being said the NFL gaining back 5% of their audience is a good thing no matter how you slice it. They stopped the bleeding their own terrible management caused and gained back some of their losses. I am not sure if they will ever get back to their peak of 2015 just due to the younger generation's interest in all sports fading. But the NFL still certainly is a ratings machine.

His 2018 wasn't that much of a decline when you adjust for the fact that he missed 4 games although he didn't take the leap a lot of people expected. I don't know about Oliver. It seems like he went from potential 1st overall pick and lock top 5 pick to being farther down due to concerns about his ability to be a 3 down player. People going into 2018 were thinking that he could be like Aaron Donald but now its seeming like he is a high risk high reward pick as the doubts are a serious concern. I actually wouldn't mind the Bills taking him at 9 because the pass rush and youth along the D-line is lacking (Outside of Shaq and Phillips who are far from great players there is mostly vets along the D-line.) With Star and Phillips being bigger players more effective against the run (and I think you can sign Jordan Phillips to bolster the rotation) I think you can afford to take a chance on a high end pass rush specialist. Oliver could be a passing down player along side J.Phillips and Henry and Star could do the early down dirty work.

Dawkins to me is a solid LT who as the ability to be a good LT. I don't think Dawkins would be as good on the right side for whatever reason (He didn't look that good at RT his rookie year once he switched to LT his rookie year he looked much better.) So I don't mind selecting a RT at pick 9. Both tackle positions are equally as important since so many top edge rushers rush off the right side. All O-line positions are becoming premium positions. So if a guy looks like a stud RT and there aren't elite pass rushers available at pick 9 then go with the RT (Assuming there is no trade down available.)

Yup and if an elite talent falls there has to be a reason why you wouldn't want to just draft that player instead? If there are QB's and you have a QB that tends to be the most likely reason to get a haul for a trade down. There are Julio Jones situations and the Bills even benefited from the Tavon Austin trade considerably. But rarely do teams make massive trade ups for non-QB players. So unless the Bills at pick 9 get extremely lucky with a team coveting a player more than the Bills I don't see a trade down as likely.

Dude was a beast the last half of the season. Outside of maybe Barkley he might have been the best back the last 8 games of the season.

Ducasse and Groy should be gone, neither have much value. I was very disappointed in Groy and Vlad has a solid cap hit and is a very replaceable backup. Miller will likely be gone, I think his career can still be salvaged to be a starting caliber player but I think his time here is gone. Mills should be resigned as a backup but I could see him going either way. Bodine should stay as depth and Ike should be given a shot to make the roster. Dawkins is the only starting caliber player you can lock in, Teller I think will be a starting guard because you can't replace everyone. There should be 3 new starters on the o-line and possibly a new backup or two. Ideally I think the O-line should be LT- Dawkins LG- Saffold (Or other high end free agent) C- Pradis (Or other high end free agent) RG- Teller RT- Mills/High draft pick Bench - Bodine, Mills/high draft pick, and Ike or a mid to late round rookie.

To be fair Ward played most of the season and Wallace only played part way. I think had T.Johnson not missed time he would have been in the top 25 too.

The only people who think Romney would make for a viable candidate are mostly moronic mainstream pundits who are heavily isolated from reality. Trump showed that anti-establishment populism is what the people want, Romney is the most establishment candidate ever who is quoted as saying "corporations are people my friend."

Cam Newton is similar in size and faster than Allen (esp in Newton's younger years) and Cam's best rushing season was 754 yards (although he did have 14 rush TD's in his rookie year and another season with 10.) So I doubt Allen is going to put together that massive of a rushing year and that massive of a passing year. If you are throwing for 4k yards you are likely rushing less. So I can't see Allen being both a prolific runner and a prolific passer.

I like the recent firings, it seems like unlike a lot of other administrations that McBeane knows what is wrong with the team from at least a coaching standpoint. Special teams was mediocre last year and outright horrid this year, its best to move on and build a new unit. Haush money is still a good kicker so you have the hardest piece in place, nab a good punter and a couple of specialists and the unit could easily turn around with proper coaching.

I mostly disagree, Obamacare was written by the Healthcare lobby for the most part. Why would the healthcare insurance industry influence the writing of a law to put themselves out of business? The approach was a poor emulation of the Swiss market (The Swiss have an individual mandate, non-profit plans/companies, and a lot of regulations of policies) but it failed due to trying to keep the private market the primary provider of insurance and other bad decisions when a single payer system would have worked best. So I fail to buy the pseudo conspiracy theory that the law crafted by the insurance industry (based off of a 1990's Republican proposal) was designed to put the insurance industry out of business.

One thing I know about the draft is that the board does shift around during the pre-draft process. Its not going to monumentally shift but guys will rise and fall when the combine, senior ball, individual/team work outs, and scouts analyze their full tape some more. So I wouldn't get too caught up on the draft board right now just because it will shift considerably over the next months. Free agency is the much more pressing matter as the Bills have to fill multiple holes and have a good draft.

He was outright horrific the first few games of the season, he looked lost. Then after a few games he looked much better, he was still up and down a bit (Which is to be expected of almost any rookie let alone a 20 year old) but he looked like he belonged on the field at least. He slowly started to look better and better as the season went (The last Pats game being his only outright bad game in my opinion) I think he hits the gym hard in the off-season, watches the tape, and simply benefits from growing more into his body and he has a big leap in year 2. I think the pick will be looked at as a great one and Edumonds will be a foundational piece for this team for years to come. White, Edumonds, Milano, T.Johnson, and possibly H.Phillips and Shaq could all be the core to a very good defense for the next 2-4 seasons.

Every study even ones done by conservative think tanks state that billing is a major cost saver in single payer systems. You have singular coding, lump sum payments, and less entities to deal with. The amount of money single payer nations and Medicare/Medicaid spend on administration/billing is 40-70% less, that's comparing all administrative costs in total so yes the government is paying those costs but its paying less overall costs on billing and administration due to those reasons stated. I will be honest and say that a single payer system is not perfect and some people will lose their current levels of care (Although I would be for any system that allows Medigap coverage to expand a basic government plan that can be provided by employers over the top or bought privately.) But I think the vast majority of people will see better care and lowered cost or not see much of a difference in care. Our privatized system is so broken and expensive. The only solution on here that I have seen is to loosen regulations on healthcare and treat it like a commodity. I don't think that would work as I think it doesn't address the core issues and it further allows insurance companies the incentive to make their coverage confusing and deny service. I also did not mean to imply that was your personal solution (although I would like to hear your ideas) but rather that in general people were advocating for less regulations and more of a market based approach. Single payer in my opinion is the best solution even if it isn't perfect. Obamacare was an attempt to emulate the Swiss model of healthcare but the law was so poorly written that it just became useless other than a few popular provisions.

Personally I think Trump's biggest mistakes are mistakes that most Republicans would have made. The media goes on and on about his mean tweets while completely ignoring or mostly ignoring his awful policies. Big tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy and aren't doing enough for the economy but are widening deficits. He is destroying environmental regulations and not pushing green energy. Trump is trying to further deregulate finical markets that are already very loosely regulated, he is also trying to destroy the anti-trust regulations, and Trump is offering nothing but vapid solutions to the healthcare issues (Although I do like his price transparency push I think it has limited effectiveness.) Trump's solution on infrastructure was to privatize it and give private industry tax breaks to essentially subsidize the building and pay high fees to private companies for use of infrastructure. He also is responsible for the war crime of separating children from parents and his general push for a wall is hilariously misguided. Although I don't think everything he is doing is bad. Engaging diplomatically with North Korea is a good thing, getting out of Syria is a good thing, and although I think he has gone about it terribly his push against trade deals with China and NAFTA is in general a good thing to tackle. I think the economic policy Trump has pursued is horrid and will lead to another 08 style crash/recession. Now I think recessions aren't avoidable but Trump is doing the same agenda that Clinton/Bush 2 did that led to things being worse than a standard recession. I do think that there are other issues with his general management of his presidency but the media obsesses over mean tweets and soundbites while he does disastrous policy decisions that actually matter.

I would love to see the Bills nab 2 high end interior O-line players and a good vet WR on the free agent or trade market. I think you can address WR, RT, TE, and RB in the draft with your first four picks and then use the rest of the picks to add depth to the defense. I also wouldn't mind seeing the Bills nab a veteran pass rusher and a CB2 via free agency. However although the Bills might have the cap space and draft assets to do such big moves I am not expecting that to be the case. I think the Bills do make a big signing at guard or center but I don't see multiple big O-line signings. WR I also think they make a play for a veteran but I am not sure they go to the top of the market. I think defensively they retain their own and maybe sign one starter. McBeane seems to be a build through the draft type guy. I don't see him making 3 high end signings on offense. Then again who knows exactly what they will do.

No system is perfect, but I think going to a much less regulated system and allowing healthcare to be treated like a full on commodity has far bigger draw backs than the negatives that come with a single payer system. People act like there isn't rationing in the US system, when someone is underinsured or uninsured and they don't have access we are rationing their care along non-sensible economic lines. I just don't see how a more free market oriented approach to healthcare drives down costs other than someone just having a dogmatic belief in the free market over government. I don't see the data and evidence driving the conclusion that deregulating healthcare will accomplish a better system. Billing, preventative care, negotiating drug costs, profit motive, and other factors don't get addressed by deregulating the market completely or nearly completely. Even the best example of a more market based approach to healthcare Switzerland has a more heavily regulated market than the US. The Swiss regulate healthcare more like a utility and they still get better care at a cheaper cost (although they typically do spend more than most single payer countries their standard of care is towards the top.) I just don't see what evidence points to deregulation as the cure for the US healthcare issues.

You would have to increase payroll taxes, it would be the equivalent of taking the money employers already spend on their employees healthcare and taking the money already being spent on Medicare and Medicaid (which is 900 billion yearly) and spending it to provide universal coverage. If employers want to provide over the top coverage as an additional benefit that should be allowed but for most employees if the government provided baseline access to care they would be happy to pay a fixed cost and not have to worry about year to year rate increases and negotiating new benefits every year. Yes it is possible that taxes would have to be increased in other areas like a national sales tax or a small income tax increase but there are a lot of estimates that a payroll tax increase would cover the money needed to fund a 2.4-2.7 trillion dollar single payer system (keep in mind that's not 2.4-2.7 needed to be raised since we already spend 900 billion via medicare and medicaid.) The US can't afford its existing system its a drain on average working people and its a drain on both large and small businesses. Most companies that operate in Canada and the US spend less on the healthcare taxes in Canada than they do providing private insurance to their employees in America.

I don't know how you people think free markets address costs in healthcare, the US has the most free market oriented system in the world and it costs 17.2% of GDP. I have over and over again explained in detail using the outcomes of other nations gain as to specifically how single payer healthcare leads to lower costs and better or at least similar outcomes. I will list the reasons below as to why single payer saves money and improves the overall system. Please tell me how a private market addresses theses issues other than government sucks free market rules. 1- Billing - If you have one uniformed biller you only have to use one set of codes and abide by one set of coverage. In the US there are dozens of insurance companies, each with dozens of plan types and all with their own billing codes. Hospitals and providers all have to get paid on a per patient basis. They have to hound each insurance company for each patient. In single payer countries you only have one set of codes (even private over the top insurance that's used in other countries has to use the governments billing codes), hospitals and providers also only deal with one major provider for 90% of their claims thus a more streamlined system, and finally hospitals and larger providers can get paid in one lump sum yearly budgets which dramatically reduces their billing costs. Single payer systems spend half as much on billing as the US does. 2- Preventative Care - If people are given a baseline level of care and don't have to fear navigating a complicated system where one mistake in going to the wrong doctor can cost you hundreds of dollars you have people getting more preventative care. Preventative care access means people catch more things early when they are cheaper and easier to treat. In the US people fear the expensive healthcare system due to being uninsured or under-insured. People wait for things to get worse as a result of fearing the costs of the healthcare system. 3- Price negotiation on services and drugs - The US gets ***** in the ass when it comes to drug prices because the private market and Medicare get pitted against each other. You also have each insurance company negotiating their own prices on services each year (which takes up providers time and makes things more bureaucratic.) By having the government be the sole negotiator it uses the purchasing power of the public to leverage down the costs of services (the government can also compare one hospitals pricing to another and force them to justify higher fees or make them lower fees.) There are other ancillary cost drivers as well. These are real world proves that countries with single payer systems pay less and get the same or better quality of service. Yes there is a black market for services in nations like Canada but I can't find any verifiable estimates as to how large that system is. Even if the black market increased the GDP spending on healthcare by 20% (which is a large overestimate) the US still would spend more than the next closest nation by several percentage points. Its not magic and its not a coincidence that single payer systems are very popular in other industrialized nations while the US healthcare system is massively unpopular. Even the underfunded VA the big bad evil boogey man of single payer healthcare in the US is more popular than the private system.

The USA spends 17.2% of GDP on healthcare and is far from the best in healthcare rankings. But yes the private market is so efficient with healthcare.

Imagine someone thinking healthcare a service everyone needs access to is more akin to a civil service like policing than a commodity like shoes.

Policing isn't always a shared use utility but even making that distinction (which I would argue) it still is a commodity for the neighborhood and for those who have access to it. Why not privatize it so that you can use the power of the free market? If you call 911 you should have to present your police insurance card after getting help. And if you call the wrong police network well you should have shopped around. A market based system doesn't address the massive bureaucracy. How is it better or more efficient to have 1000s of policies, hundreds of companies with their own coding, and forcing providers to bill by patient instead of getting lump sum payments? You are being a hyperbolic fool avoiding my question as to how exactly does a free market address these ineffencies other than DURRRRRR what do you want Marxism? No there is no need for market efficiency through single use on consumer products. But healthcare is not a consumer product and treating it as such makes it expensive and inefficient.