Capco

How is there not more Meatball loving in this thread? Come on now!

They are just following the money. That's capitalism for ya.

To hell with democracy!

Kyle is one of the best overall athletes on the Bills' roster. I laugh when people think a 300lb guy is automatically disqualified to be considered athletic. To me, if you can move like Kyle or Dareus can at 300+lbs, that's more impressive than a WR being able to sprint a 4.4 40.

Not to mention the industries that would be affected by the mass use of hemp (lumber, textiles, even synthetics, etc.).

The effects of smoking a bowl only last about 30min to an hour (unless you have some especially potent stuff). Games are ~3 hours long. There's no reason why these guys would toke up before a game unless they were the 4th string QB or something. It would not be a positive for them on the field. On the other hand, smoking the night before to relax or get some sleep won't have a negative effect on them the next day for the same reason. Maybe it might make the offensive coordinator's play-calling a little more creative? That's about the only possible, directly football-related benefit I see from marijuana. The indirect benefits (pain relief, stress relief, sleeping aid, etc.) are there though.

It's possible. Once every team in the league is geared to stop the pass, watch an 80 year old Belichick bring back the ground-and-pound and get another 5 titles with the RB version of Tom Brady.

I use antenna. Cut cable for 5 years now. Never looked back. Apart from the Bills, I rarely watch TV. If I'm watching something on my television, it's streaming from my FireStick/Roku/etc.

Wasn't Brad Butler a right tackle?

I know right? He basically won the lottery when he got blood cancer!

Garrison Sanborn.

Playoffs or (unintentional) tank. No more middle-of-the-pack seasons please.

Clearly you haven't read his cookbook.

I'm really digging this tree metaphor. And tbf, bullschit is a good fertilizer

Right. The reason I shared that article is because some posters are getting caught up over corporate law in a discussion about healthcare. I mentioned the fiduciary duty of a board of directors as a way to support the notion that large corporations "myopically focus on short-term earnings; cut back on investment and innovation; mistreat their employees, customers and communities; and indulge in reckless, irresponsible and environmentally destructive behaviors." The last article I posted offers a different explanation for the same corporate behavior, but the fact is that regardless of the source of that behavior, that behavior remains, and it is specifically that behavior which doesn't belong in the discussion of people's healthcare. Some posters are failing to see the forest because the trees are getting in the way I shouldn't have planted that fiduciary tree lol.

Here's a snippet from another article that takes a different view, which some of you may find more palatable than the explanation I am offering: So, where did the mistaken idea that directors must maximize shareholder value come from? The notion is especially popular among economists unburdened by knowledge of corporate law. But it has also been embraced by increasingly powerful activist hedge funds that profit from harassing boards into adopting strategies that raise share price in the short term, and by corporate executives driven by “pay for performance” schemes that tie their compensation to each year’s shareholder returns. In other words, it is activist hedge funds and modern executive compensation practices — not corporate law — that drive so many of today’s public companies to myopically focus on short-term earnings; cut back on investment and innovation; mistreat their employees, customers and communities; and indulge in reckless, irresponsible and environmentally destructive behaviors. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

Of course it doesn't have to mean that. But again, in practice, that is almost always what it boils down to when referring to for-profit corporations. Think of it as the difference between de facto and de jure.

Afaik, there is no specific statute that says this, but that doesn't make it any less true in practice. "Most large businesses buy their corporate charters from the state of Delaware. And the law of Delaware is clear about corporate purpose. The chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, Leo Strine, put it simply in a recent law review article: “Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end.” In cases where directors have acknowledged sacrificing shareholder interests for other groups, Delaware courts have found those directors violated their fiduciary duties. But is this standard for corporate governance — shareholders over all — good for society?" https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/its-law-but-it-shouldnt-be "Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end." I dunno about you, but I buy stock to make money.

So grumpy. Have you eaten today?

Thanks for your patience, although I'm trying to be civil. I did read that. Those appeals take time. In the meantime, someone could die (and people have died) simply because a doctor who never met them is working on his/her next pay raise and decided to deny their claim for a necessary procedure. Again, it's not as bad now since the ACA was passed. But that's why protections like the ones the ACA put in place need to be carried over into our next healthcare law.

During the testimony, she clearly stated that she received financial compensation for denying care to people who later died (i.e. a necessary procedure). When shareholders expect profits from a company that makes medical decisions, her actions as medical director will invariably be repeated by any medical director for any for-profit insurance company in lieu of proper regulation. Obviously the shareholders don't talk directly to the medical directors, but that's a cute thought. Again, if and when the choice is between acquiring more profit or giving more care, the insurance companies will go the route of profit every time. I'm not sure what's so hard for you to comprehend considering your erudition.

I agree that unnecessary procedures should be avoided for the reasons you stated. However, when bonuses, positive performance reviews, and raises are in direct proportion to how many claims you successfully deny for whatever arbitrary reason, the people needing that healthcare literally die. She said that was essentially her career for about 30 years. I believe that to be pretty pertinent information. I wouldn't want someone to deny me care just because it means they get a fat Xmas bonus. Correct, but there is no personal financial motive for the person doing the decision making in Medicare/Medicaid (at least as far as I am aware).

Apart from the passing of the ACA, what has changed in the past 21 years that makes this testimony irrelevant?

Oh of course. Don't take it from some random poster on the internet. Take it straight from the horse's mouth of a former medical director for 3 separate firms: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/testimony_of_wendell.php The situation really can't be spelled out any clearer.

When the corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders (as is the case for insurance companies), it is the same thing.