billsfan89

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.

Almost all top top tier WR 1 are divas and cause some level of issues. I wouldn't hesitate to give up a 2nd plus other picks for Brown.

If its between 9-10 million I would decline it. Shaq is still here for 2019 so the team can get one more year to evaluate him and if he breaks out he can be franchised and a deal can be worked out. I don't think there are many major players that will be free agents from the 2016 draft class that would require the tag anyway.

How so? There are so many man hours that can be dedicated to servicing a community in the same way that there are only so many man hours a doctor can provide patients? If Healthcare is a commodity because it is finite then why isn't policing which is equally as finite a commodity? Electricity, Water, and Healthcare are just as essential as policing and we treat those as commodities. Under the conditions to which people here have described Healthcare as being a commodity policing would fall under those criteria. Now if you want to say that neither healthcare nor policing should be treated as commodities then I would agree. But you can't specificity the conditions for why Healthcare is a commodity and then when I apply those same conditions to policing say those conditions don't apply.

What's the cost of the 5th year option? He is under contract for 2019 so you can let him play it out. I am not sure if I would pick it up.

Policing is a commodity, it is individually applied and there is only so much attention and patrolling that can be applied to specific areas. Yet we do not have a system where you need private police insurance to administer policing. Everything can be called a commodity if you break it down enough. So why do we treat policing which is paid for by the public and administered as such (while also having a private market for private security and investigation if you can afford it) but Healthcare which is a similar product (It isn't elastic, its finite, and people need it in emergency situations where they can't shop around) should be treated as a commodity despite the fact that it isn't a product you can ethically deny people and it is needed in emergency situations where you can't shop around? Please explain to me how a massive private insurance system where each provider has its own codes, own billing practices, own network of doctors and providers, and own billing administration is going to drive down costs for insurance? No amount of Durrrr government sucks waves that fact away.

The USA spends 17.8% of its GDP on healthcare, the next closest developed nation spends Switzerland spends 12.4% most developed nations with a form of single payer healthcare spend about 10-11% of GDP on healthcare. Healthcare is not a commodity, you aren't always in a position to shop around for it and it isn't an elastic commodity. I would rather employers pay a payroll tax (In place of what they pay for medical insurance now) so that everyone has a basic medicare plan than to have an insanely complicated system that is inefficient (Imagine calling the police and needing private police insurance and calling the right police in your police network to avoid ending up with a 10k bill) and just costs more money without providing better outcomes. I know there is an orthodoxy for a lot of people here that the government sucks and private industry is better at everything but yet anytime I travel to other nations in the developed world they seem to like their healthcare system and outright fear and laugh at the cost and complexity of the US healthcare system. I also think our privatized healthcare system is bad for someone wanting to start their own business. Small businesses and start ups have to put their own and their families health on the line just to be able to get off the ground. That's a horrible and perverse incentive. Our healthcare system also makes it almost impossible for you to freelance or go into business for yourself and maintain good coverage. You see the government sucks at everything. Just ignore real world evidence that single payer systems produce similar or better outcomes for less money.

It was a hard schedule but every year your schedule is hard and you will have to beat good teams. Yes some years you might luck out and be pitted against a bad division but typically your schedule in the NFL is always hard.

Unless Foles goes on a deep run in this years playoffs and looks good doing it, then no. But if the Eagles get bounced by the Bears and Foles looks mediocre I would rather stick with Wentz who is still on a rookie deal and was an MVP candidate last year.

I think Fornette is talented but I don't see him being a Zeke, Gurley, Bell or Barkley type difference maker. He is a dam fine power runner but not a capable receiver and not elite at pushing between the tackles either. I think he has top 10 RB talent but when you draft him at pick 4 you want a top 5 elite RB. I think Jacksonville dumps him for a early 3rd or late 2nd round pick this off-season. It cuts their losses while another team gets very good talent on the cheap. I don't think he would be worth trading for if you are the Bills. Too much of a headcase and malcontent for McBeane even if it cost the team a 3rd rounder I just don't see the fit.

He will be 31, on a sizable contract, and has been banged up lately. I wouldn't be opposed to trading for him but not at the cost of 2 draft picks. If it was a swap of our 3rd for Cincy's 5th or 6th I would strongly consider it. Green I think still might have 1-3 very productive years left. But I am not trading a high 2nd rounder and a mid round pick (which I value more with a regime that seems to know how to draft) for a short term solution at WR that is far from a sure thing high impact player. If the draft compensation were lowered then I would listen as the market for free agent WR's isn't that great and the draft might not produce an impact player. But at the steep asking price of a early 2nd and a late 4th I would rather just draft 2 WR's with those picks.

He was viewed as a generational guard prospect projected to be a Zack Martin type player right out of the gate and Nelson came in and looked the part his rookie year. Given how important each position along the O-line is now and how hard it is to find guards now (It used to be the best guards and centers drafted in the first two rounds were low risk picks not so much anymore) its no longer stupid to draft guards or centers high up. They are premium positions that aren't easily replaceable. Overall I like to see a much hyped rookie guard come in and look the part, the last time guards went high in round one (Cooper and Warmack) they busted.

Its not necessarily a fallacy but it is something that gets overstated. Often times the highest player on the board will not be taken if the position doesn't fit need simply because the second best player on the board is in a position of need. The draft is about value and if you are drafting 9 and you have the 7th and 9th best player on your board still available but the player that is ranked 7th isn't at a position of need and the 9th best player is then teams will take the player ranked 9th. Its splitting hairs in terms of talent level and you want the player that will help your team more. Now if the choice is between the 7th best player on the board who isn't at a position of need and the 14th that is then you take the higher ranked player. So its value vs. need and you weigh value more but its not the be all end all.

I am not sure a trade down will be available at pick 9. Unless multiple QB's get highly coveted in the pre-draft process I don't see the Bills having a talent at pick 9 that they wouldn't want but other teams would be willing to trade up for. So I think more than likely the team is stuck at pick 9 and will have to take the best player available. That being said if I have my choice of positions to pick it would be RT. Ideally I think WR is the teams biggest need but there isn't a player worth taking at 9 at the position. More realistically at RT would fit the teams second biggest need on offense and be a mighty fine way to add more talent around Allen via the draft. At pick 41 the team can take a WR to complement the existing talent (I also would want a vet WR, I am not going to be fooled by Zay and Foster just yet.)

I am glad Kyle is looking to get out at age 35, he has had a significant amount of injury issues and playing deep into your 30's can take its toll. Kyle has also collected on a big contract so its not like he needs the money. I hope he enjoys retirement. It was so great to see him end the drought and come back to try and be the glue for a young defense. Even through his last season was a losing season he had a good year and certainly helped lay the foundation for the defense and the culture of the new regime. Really always loved Kyle, he was almost always a bright spot for a team with so few bright spots.

O-line players are highly coveted so I can't see the trade market having high end lower risk impact starters. WR's on the other hand might be more available. So I can see a trade for a WR happening, but I think a massive trading spree is unlikely. The team has been drafting well and they have the dollars to spend in free agency. Why burn picks to take back players most likely on bigger contracts when you can just sign free agents? Ertz is the best or second best tight end in the game, there is almost zero chance he gets traded unless its for an ungodly sum of draft picks at which point it wouldn't be worth it.

Yes but if you are suffering from CTE I don't think weed will help your brain is my main point. Chronic weed use has been associated with negative effects on the brain (That being said most if not all of the effects are reversible if you stop using over a long period of time.) So unless there is new research showing otherwise I think the better argument for weed is to treat pain for these retired players. CBD might be better for CTE but I think research needs to be done.

If the team resigns Jordan Phillips they have 3 solid DT's in Henry, Star, and Phillips. I think the team would be better off drafting a DT in the mid rounds to help rotate in and develop behind those 3. I think the departure of Kyle means Phillips becomes a must resign. So I think edge is a bigger priority considering Hughes will be 31, the jury is still out on Shaq, and Murphy is both older and comes with injury concerns. IF you resign J.Phillips you can address DT in round 4 and be comfortable. I think they go OT in round 1 but if they went D-line I wouldn't be too upset. The pass rush is decent but not spectacular so adding a top 10 pick that can add a prime pass rusher isn't a bad way to go considering the importance of a big time pass rush to win games.