JuanGuzman

I hope we manage to keep Kromer through some combination of 4 game suspension followed by a demotion to assistant O-line coach for the remainder of the year (promote the current assistant). The articles I have read this preseason have contained nice quotes about Kromer and his ability to teach and emphasize technique. Bills players seem happy with him and Kromer has had success previously so I hope we can hang on to him. That being said, the NFL's crackdown on personal conduct does not bode well for Kromer. An O-Line coach is the definition of expendable and the image conscious league may decide to make an example out him. Not to mention the whole Incognito factor.

Anyone Remember this guy, Spiller Vintage Year 2012-13: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QpLIDa2FdTA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Edit: I can’t figure out to embed the video cause I’m a moron. But here is the youtube link: https://www.youtube....h?v=QpLIDa2FdTA The biggest differencet I noticed between 2012 and 2014 is the offensive sets/formations. In 2012 the Bills ran a lot of single back sets, with Spiller set deep in the backfield. Basically the philosophy was spread them out and let Spiller gash. This took advantage of Spiller’s strengths, acceleration and the ability to make people miss in space. You also see a lot of screens played called. Fast forward to 2014, and the offensive ground game look like a clogged toilet. You see a lot of power sets run to the weak side of the field, with a lead block back. This hasn’t hurt Fred Jackson who runs with excellent body lean and excels at getting those “Tough Yards” But CJ Spiller the play calling is a disastrous use of skill sets. Look Spiller has faults, number one I think is his is below average vision, number 2 as an RB and two he is never going to move the pile. He needs an offense designed to avoid the pile, put him in “one on one” situations and let him make the guy in front miss. *I am posting this as a new topic in the hopes the Nathaniel Hackett cruises this forum under the pseudonym “Can’t_Hackett”*

My biggest concern with EJ was the sixty sacks he took in two years. It suggested a lack of awareness. In his limited playing time last year, I saw nothing to refute it. I will be rooting hard for him to succeed but im guessing we will have a different qb come 2015 or at least hoping for one.

I didn't realize the giants had already cut Josh Freeman. What happened to that guy...? He looked like he might be a star in the league a few years back

I live in British Columbia. In 2008, the province instituted a carbon tax with a corresponding cut in income taxes. This made the tax "revenue neutral" so the governments total tax take remained the same. Although there was a transfer of wealth among citizens as people who were more depended automobile use (rural residents) paid slightly more tax, where as urban dwellers who used less gasoline and had some alternative transit options available earned some tax savings. Generally the Carbon Tax appears to be a success. It's estimated that B.C's GHG emissions have been reduced by 19% per capita, but the provinces GDP has kept pace with the rest of Canada. I don't believe taking action to reduce GHG emissions will be that costly economically. And if we are concerned that the human generated climate could render parts of the planet uninhabitable 100 years from now that it seems like taking action to reduce GHGs makes sense, if the economic costs are small. That being said, given global industrial growth its hard to imagine that reducing of GHG's in Canada and U.S. would do much to slow the pace carbon emissions.

You still don't think Obama Care is going to work?

Trumps a blowhard, he tries to attach his name to anything, I am hoping this is just more hot air coming from him, I would not like to have him as the bills owner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/politics/census-survey-revisions-mask-health-law-effects.html'>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/politics/census-survey-revisions-mask-health-law-effects.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/politics/census-survey-revisions-mask-health-law-effects.html I normally post positive Obamacare stories since i believe the policy is much better than the status quo, but I thought I would post a negative story. This is disappointing, i hope its purely a coincidence, but the fact the new data won't be comparable to the old and that will overstate obamacares impact is concerning. There are ways out there to measure the data but I still dislike this change,

Despite Healthcare.gov's botched rollout, federal budget forecasters now expect Obamacare's insurance exchanges to cover slightly more people with less money. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that 25 million people will gain insurance through the new marketplaces over the next decade. That's an increase from 24 million, the agency's last projection. But here's what's most surprising: CBO thinks that, even as the exchanges insure slightly more people, the overall price tag for everyone goes down. It now expects the federal government to spend $104 billion less on the coverage expansion. CBO's new forecasts reflect the fact that premiums on the exchange have come in slightly lower than initially expected. The ones being sold this year tend to pay doctors less and have "narrower networks of providers." When health plans contract with fewer doctors, they typically can negotiate cheaper prices with the few physicians they do include in their networks. When premiums are lower, that means the federal government pays less to subsidize people buying insurance. CBO says the federal government is, on average, spending $300 less per person on insurance subsidies than it had expected. ttp://www.vox.com/2014/4/14/5613346/obamacares-price-tag-just-got-cut-by-104-billion

Right now the estimate is: "Using a survey fielded by the RAND American Life Panel, we estimate a net gain of 9.3 million in the number of American adults with health insurance coverage from September 2013 to mid-March 2014." - http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/04/survey-estimates-net-gain-of-9-3-million-american-adults.html

What is the whole story in your opinion?

I think you're splitting hairs here. I meant that it may not be the end of the world for humanity, although it very well could be. Anyway I recommended the video cause I thought it was a good take on the issue. I didn't see any flaws or holes in the presenters logic. But I'd welcome a critical review on it if someone watched. Part of the climate change inertia I think we see in society is because no one wants to think seriously about these issues. Here on the other hand is a very serious look at the issue. I urge people to watch it. Anyway, if people don't want to watch it. Can you at least summarize the consensus view from those opposed to action on climate change? Is it climate change doesn't exists, its a big conspiracy? Is it climate change does exist but we don't need to do anything about it, we'll muddle our way through it when we start seeing consequences? Or is it climate change does exist, and while we should in theory do something about it, government is incapable of doing. Why trust them with our tax dollars?

Yeh I'd just ask you to watch it. Its not some crackpot, it's a world class scientist reviewing the evidence for man made change. I think he makes a convincing case. Granted a warmer planet my not be the end of the world, also maybe there are adaptation measures that are possible like using SO2 to cool the planet etc. But I don't think its unrealistic to ask for a revenue neutral carbon taxes. We would reduce income tax and compensate for that revenue loss with a carbon tax. it would also be great if we eliminated any subsidies to fossil fuel producers IMO. Those policies would reduce our carbon footprint and actually might be good for the economy. E.g., why not tax something bad like carbon, and reduce tax on something good (peoples labour)

IF people can take time out of their day and comment on this video I would appreciate. I think it's a great 45 minute lecture on some of the science and politics of climate change. http://youtu.be/9CKNHpVUJKk <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9CKNHpVUJKk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'll always be a Bills fan but its painful to see the organization frequentely mis-manage assets. Byrd's the best safety we've had in a long time. The franchise tag would seemingly give us enough leverage to sign him long term. Yet the F.O. is incapable of achieving it. Not sure if its because they're cheap or incompetent but god damn good organizations seem to retain their best young players.

thanks for the info. I'm always interested to hear about peoples experience with the VA care. It used to be terrible, sounds like it's now some of the best health care you can get in the U.S. although I understand that influx of vets coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq has posed some significant challenges.

I graded you, red = wrong, Bold is my text, and Green = right. You got the first three wrong - the first one is obviously wrong more people will be insured every credible source says so. The other two are debatable but quality will go up (minimum standards duh!) and health costs will slow down not speed up (its already happened http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/healthcostreport_final_noembargo_v2.pdf. I'll give you partial credit for the last one.. out of curiosity are you eligible for VA Care? Also guys feel free to point out where/when it was that ObamaCare caused forced people into involuntary part-time work:

I see no one has responded to my question?

I understand the the president is bound by law. but i also understand there is reason executive discretion, to allow for flexibility. I have no doubt Obama will faithfully execute provisions in Affordable Care Act.

Sorry you guys just toss so many balls in the air for me too shoot em all down, some get lost in fray. here is my response: First, in short I think the role of government is to deliver better outcomes for it citizens, in some instances that means ensuring free unfettered markets, in others it means providing goods and services like national defense, other times it means imposing rules and regulations to deliver a more efficient outcome. So I don't see it as a perversion of government. Second, I don't buy your premise that republicans don't want it both ways..... I think tehy'll argue anything, with no regard for logic, as long as it erodes ACA. I actually think they willfully cause harm to America by putting their preference to see Obama fail over the interest of American citizens. Debt ceiling b.s. being a prime example. Finally, I also don't believe that Obama exercising executive discretion is the final nail in the coffin for Constitutional government and the separation of powers. Here are the stats on executive order: http://www.yourhoust...8ca6a5b175.html Since I answered you. How you answer me one question. Its a simple yes or no... here it goes will more total Americans have health insurance as a result of Obamacare?

The individual mandate still applies to most people, the whole point of it is to get people to sign up, if you made it so that the individual mandate didn't apply (Republican Proposal) than the healthy will take their sweet time signing up thereby screwing up the insurance risk pools . The individual mandates has been postponed for people who've had their insurance policies cancelled because of Obamacare standard requirements. This is a transitory effects and its degree was unanticipated. Making concessions to those who lost insurance their makes perfect sense, but if you extend relief from the individual mandate to whole population than you don't get the widespread adoption of health insurance that you need for it to work.

Thanks, I feel like I can relax now. I'm confident that i am winning the debate when you guys spend your time reviewing my posts for common grammar typos.

Once again you're only telling one half of the story, the side that suits you. On congress suggested changes, the other half was the companion piece would have prevented the individual mandate from functioning. The individual mandate is the guts of the health insurance, its why health reform worked in Massachusetts under governor Romney, and delaying it for a year would of doomed ACA. why do you think the Repubs suggested it??? You guy's always want to have it both ways, it sickens me... you cry like babies when Obamacare cancels insurance policies that don't meet its requirements (Fine I too think its scary that some people who had bare minimum insurance might not have any insurance due to obamacare) But you complain Oh No Obama's not following the rules game when he allows people more time to get an insurance plan that meets ACA standards. There is no logic to it, It's just blinding ideology. Lets stop pretending where having a debate on the merits of ObamaCare Most of the crew in PPP simply don't want it, so they'll latch onto any argument no matter how contrived, how convoluted and argue the point. Me myself I'm evidenced based and I note that ACA has real costs, it also has real benefits. The Benefits outweigh the costs so lets fire this baby up, and get Affordable care going in America.

I'm no legal scholar but I agree with that politicians should follow the rules of land. Politics is murky though, whether the reforms meet the principle of executive discretion or not, I'll leave that up to legal scholars. The point is he wouldn't have been able to achieve the health reforms he wanted in congress so he sidestepped congress. Just like many presidents have done in the past and many presidents will do in the future. that's how business gets done.

BaHAHAHAAHAH do you really you think Obama would be able to achieve the reforms in congress that he has implemented through executive discretion? haha if true you are just as out to lunch as congress. Anyway the the key point your missing is the companion piece to that bill meant that people who don't buy insurance wouldn't be taxed. The whole point of this bill is the insurance market only functions when there are adequate risk pools, that means healthy and sick need to sign up a like. (Yes that means some young people are unfairly taxed but that cost is needed to have the benefits of a functioning insurance market) Removing the tax would of destroyed legislation. This is the problem with negotiating with the republican congress, they attach unholy conditions to legislation, even if said legislation that helps America. These attached conditions do more harm than good and put the president in a impossible position to help americans. The only people that are helped out the politicians who use the media coverage chance to raise a war chest for the next election