Meathead

oh lord

well my understanding is that the bills save 400k in cap money and 4 mil in real money by cutting fitz. but they would have to go out and get a veteran to replace him which would cost at the least 3 mil for very likely a significantly inferior player. so what would the bills really be saving? i think its likely smarter to keep him to at least participate in a competition for the job. if they can get him to restructure then all the better weve heard all along the bills were smart to leave themselves an out in the fitz deal but frankly it looks like they are still in a very tough spot at the position

he does that straight leg move all the time. so does spiller. its no secret, ive even heard the announcers comment on it. its really their god given talent that makes those moves work much more than any secret technique

its just really bad posting etiquette to provide a link and nothing else. if youre trying to contribute to the posting environment then CONTRIBUTE at the very least there should be a significant blurb from the article that gives a firm idea what its about. better is to tell us why you decided to post the link and blurb, tell us specifically how you are adding value, interest, or intrique to the board

thats my take too fans are in a feeding frenzy hating on both fitz and buddy but rationally there were solid reasons to be optimistic that fitz would improve last season. first, he wasnt going to be having the problems with his ribs that seemed to coincide directly with his decline the season prior. second, they had just hired the best qb coach in the game. and third, it was another full offseason in the offense as we know now, that did not materialize. fitz wasnt nearly as bad as most fans are retroacitvely projecting, but he certainly did not elevate his game as everyone expected. his short and intermediate game is pretty good, but his inability to stretch the field was and is a killer and if he doesnt find a way to change that his days as a starter are permanently over theres no way buddy could have known thats how it would play out, of course. still, i do think it was a mistake not to take at least a mid-round qb last draft. i realize they had some pretty pressing needs elsewhere but they could be so much further ahead now if they had taken somebody to develop while the fitz saga played out now that they are behind the curve i wouldnt be surprised at all if they took two qbs this draft, just to increase their odds. they know they must hit on one so why not

ive always thought it was the best one ever. having that kick go through would have cemented it - and saved us locals a lot of weeping

tjax is worse than fitz, and both are likely career backups from this point on. put down the opium pipe and get some electroshock therapy

then i misunderstood you i was going by memory but i thought the clinton plan was for various levels of care that would give more and better options to those that could afford it, which i dont have a problem with. the voucher program was a fixed cost stipend of sorts that lost value over time and thus shifted the burden to seniors and poor people but this sounds to me like youre trying to draw me into that gotcha stuff, so if i disappear its bc i dont play those games. keep it smart and nonpartisan or i aint playing

ive said for years i dont care how it gets done as long as it gets done. if they wanted to do your idea thats fine with me, though i can see some flaws in that suggestion. seems like the expansion of medicade is the more logical solution but whatever, as long as it gets done and again, im not a democrat nor a partisan so associating me with party positions is presumptive. i didnt have a problem with clintons premium plans suggestion. as we all know now, thats always been the reality anyway and always will be

because frankly to me the questions appear silly to me and have already been answered in public discourse by now "Which serious politician is looking to "mercilessly slash the programs" ? And can you outline or at least give an example of how they are proposing to do this?" um how about the party leaders themselves who for months and months insisted in big cuts to medicare in exchange for cooperation on the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff. how about the candidates that ran for president, the vouchers program would obviously shift the burden back to the poor and the elderly. its nonsense that i even have to point these obvious examples out, which is why i dont usually get into these conversations bc they are ridiculously vapid "Secondly, how do you justify that a vast expansion of Medicaid is not an entitlement?" ive already made that point. at this time in history we (including all developed countries that already do it besides us) have plenty enough resources to cover everybody with minimal standards of care and we should. medicaid expansion is to cover those at the bottom as mandated by the aca "How in the world is a private insurer who has limited pockets going to compete with the Federal Government who basically has unlimited funds at their disposal? You don't think that if they lowered rates that it would put private insurers out of business? And if rates are artificially lowered by the government, that means quality of care would go down, simply because there aren't enough doctors who will take on even scheduled Medicare rates, which is what their goal would of been. Or, if they didn't artificially lower rates, their would of been an explosion in the overall costs to the federal budget because of the massive infusion of clients shifting from Private insurers to the public option." i already covered that too. its obvious youve never spent any time in the lower levels of healthcare in this country, and if you can avoid it you should. that care is simply inferior to what you can get from private insurers. speaking bluntly, medicaid doctors suck. they are a lot better than nothing but they struggle to provide consistent quality. there would always remain a gap between the quality of care because there will always be a gap in the quality of the doctors that provide it - and what they get paid to do it this would certainly shrink the pool of clients the insurance companies would have but they would shift to the higher ends and decide to compete at the lower ends to the extent that they can make it profitable. believe me, if you ever get exposed to the lower levels of care you will run to the private insurers begging to provide you with something better. besides, im simply not going to apologize for putting the health of people before protecting the low ends of the markets for private insurers it is hard for someone who has never been exposed to the lower end to understand this but leaving it to market forces was a major disaster. until those horror stories hit you or those close to you they are just brushed off as isolated incidents when in fact they were happening at an alarming frequency to more and more people. we need that public option to ensure minimally acceptable standards are supplied to the low end and keep putting cost pressure on the big insurers "Also, when you mention life expectancy and "entitlements' health care, you imply that there is a direct connection. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a false equivalence. If you truly want to know why we have a shorter life expectancy than some other developed nations, it's for one major reason, gluttonous consumer behavior. We are a country of fat asses, and until that changes, you won't see those numbers change much." just because its true our gluttonous behavior drives a lot of our health problems doesnt mean better access to hc wont save massive amounts at the other end. just getting in front of a doctor and getting details on tests for things like cholesterol and prediabetes is going to get more people to avoid the costly treatment of the problems those habits present if left unsupervised and without feedback. this is admittedly an area with the weakest empiricle evidence but there is some out there. its also a common sense type of argument, letting people fend for themselves without access to minimal standards of care not only leads to more problems, its also immoral you have to do a lot of ignoring to not already be aware of these realities. however, i am under no delusion that i am going to convince you. if you havent come to this conclusion on your own by now its unlikely you will any time soon

birdog +1 again

my penis is always loaded

oh i see now. larry has him talking about obamas comment to gays in his speech. so yeah, they were probably just giving george some practice camera time while he was already there. i like the guy, i wouldnt mind seeing him try a guest hosting. dont know how he would do but it would be cool to see sulu give it a shot

fans are better off just forgetting about the word 'reach' when it comes to drafting a qb. that position is so vital it doesnt matter where anybody else ranks a prospect, if a team likes somebody they will draft him when they can. id love it if the bills could trade down (or up i guess) and get him later than eighth, but if they cant and they like him they will definitely take him (or some other qb) there

best. parody. ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQc6oBCuDXk

yeah i saw the same thing. im not sure whats going on with that, maybe they are just letting him do the mini-promos between commercials to see how he does

the only way to stop a bad penis with a gun is with a good penis with a gun, so maybe if we posted armed penises in all ... public places, then everybody would be safe

only the first paragraph was a response to you, that im not going to be pressured to provide links to something that is established. this will be my last comment on this specific question, but im sure youve heard that we spend more per capita on health services and yet rank something like twentieth (near or at the bottom) on measurements for vital health elements. if you still are not aware of that reality, and i dont know you you missed it, you will have to go find it yourself. the rest of my commentary was simply laying out my rationale for my positions on uhc and rob, i dont mind discussing my disability, but im curious why you would quote me and then ask. what relevance does it have on my commentary? perhaps you didnt mean to link the two but it did appear that way. when it comes to political discussion i only engage in real discussion of the issues. i dont belong to a political party and i vote on both sides of the isle depending on current circumstances and what i feel needs to be done. i have no problem admitting i am a left leaning centrist but i simply will not engage in empty partisan bickering. if the real meat of the issues isnt addressed i just simply dont respond and leave those kinds of time wasting pissing contests to others btw i am permanently disabled with two serious back injuries that are irrepairable and prevent me from sitting or standing for extended periods

lmao yeah should i also provide links that smoking causes cancer. you gotta be kidding me, that info has been out there for a while now, its not in debate. i will remind you again i dont play these silly partisan gotcha games so if i dont respond you know why the ama does have its flaws, partially due to the inevitability that any new program will. but the biggest reason imo is bc the republicans demagoged the public option and forced it out of the program. if that was still there it would permanently force competitive improvements, including keeping downward pressure on price escalation. it was a massive error to allow that to be eliminated, which is one reason i refused to cast my first vote for obama fortunately for this argument and unfortunately for me, i have first hand evidence how badly broken the previous system was and how badly it needed reform. i went from having a great career and fantastic health care to being disabled, losing my healthcare completely, and having to struggle to get basic treatment while i waited for disability. now my healthcare is significantly poorer than it used to be, but its a world better than having none. i dont want any human on earth let alone other americans to have to live like that so uhc is my biggest priority for current politics and is why i enthusiastically support aca, warts and all. now we need to finish that job the truth is there will always be a disparity between the hc we provide to those who cant get it themselves and that which is earned by those who are higher achievers. frankly, im fine with that, but there should be a minimum standard that allows every human to see a doctor for both routine and catastrophic incidents. i firmly believe in the long run that not only saves money but it promotes self sufficiency. until there is uhc there will permanently continue to be an incentive for those at the bottom to not jeopardize their ability to get minimal hc bc they take a low paying job that doesnt provide it. remove that disincentive and we not only save money down the road on catestrophic illness, we also put more people back into the workforce where they can work their way up without jeopardizing their health we should not be competing based on the ability to get a minimum standard of professional level health care. being poor sucks ass. even with uhc being poor will still suck ass. we need to continue to address the issues of incentives and self-sufficiency, but i just dont think thats the main problem

all of these observations about people needed to provide for themselves and have a proper work ethic are true. fortunately thats not really the point the point of course is that people who cite the abusers talk as if thats the norm when it has been clearly established that its a tiny minority. no matter what systems of safety nets a society develops there will be abusers but that is not a valid reason to mercilessly slash the programs further, healthcare should not be referred to as an entitlement. the richest country in the history of the world overflowing with medical facilities should not be a current world leader in the number of uninsured and near the bottom in life expectency its a back asswards position that isnt based on facts or logic, its based on emotion and partisanship

a workout, sure why not. if hes done with consuming mega doses of booze, food, and white women maybe hes finally ready to get serious

is this 'craziest nfl stories ever' week?!? big college heros soulmate dies but never existed nfl head coach throws superbowl holy crapoli

in your mind

when a team struggles, especially unexpectedly, a large portion of the fans need to identify a player to fixate their blame on. whitner, brown, parker, and recently for the sabres roy. that player is almost never nearly as bad as the 'fans' lament. this time its fitz. certainly he was a disappointment especially early on last season but he wasnt even close to the main problem on the team. but dont expect this to be a popular viewpoint bc once that impression is formed its close to impossible to change until the player leaves town

mmm blue dress