Trump's Assault On Health Care

[Kevbeau]

3 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Is Eichel starting to be publicly pissed? 

He’s showing clear signs of frustration. Ive never seen such an inconsistent team. They look like world beaters at times and beer league the next.

[3rdnlng]

13 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Is Eichel starting to be publicly pissed? 

No, he hasn't gone the Chef Jim route yet. He pisses in the bathroom. 

[Koko78]

4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

No, he hasn't gone the Chef Jim route yet. He pisses in the bathroom. 

 

He could get pissed in the bar, where you properly piss the night away.

[3rdnlng]

33 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

Does anyone here follow the Sabres?

 

I'm not a hockey guy, but I keep seeing comments on Twitter about Eichel's career being wasted in Buffalo.

 

Can someone give me the TV Guide version of why the Sabres suck? GM? Coaches? Bad drafts?

Goaltending is a big problem. They are suiting up 2nd and 3rd stringers and even started their 3rd stringer with 4th stringer as backup last game. Penalty kill is a giant problem while power play is mediocre at best. 

[KRC]

57 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

I could go for that. I'm not usually a fan of taking a RB in the first, but it's a late first, and if the talent level is there, go for it.

 

A big bruiser to complement Singletary would make for a dangerous backfield.

 

And you can never have too many good DEs.

 

RBs are easier to pick up, so I would not go RB with the first pick. As Gary M mentioned, get a FA WR. Then, use the draft for some of the big ugly guys.

[IDBillzFan]

38 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Goaltending is a big problem. They are suiting up 2nd and 3rd stringers and even started their 3rd stringer with 4th stringer as backup last game. Penalty kill is a giant problem while power play is mediocre at best. 

 

So they have offense, but no defense? Is there a goalie to  be had in the near term through trade?

 

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

Does anyone here follow the Sabres?

 

I'm not a hockey guy, but I keep seeing comments on Twitter about Eichel's career being wasted in Buffalo.

 

Can someone give me the TV Guide version of why the Sabres suck? GM? Coaches? Bad drafts?

Bad goaltending this year. This team would be *good* with a solid goalie. 

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Is Eichel starting to be publicly pissed? 

No

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

So they have offense, but no defense? Is there a goalie to  be had in the near term through trade?

 

They've got a highly rated one in the minors that they appear to be bringing along slowly. The odd part of it is that they have plenty of NHL defensemen but are lacking in a #2 center and maybe a top six winger. Rookie Oloffson was leading in ROY stats until he got hurt 15 games ago. He has a deadly shot and was a real plus on the PP.  As a team this seems to be the case of the sum of all it's parts is more than the whole. 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

Does anyone here follow the Sabres?

 

I'm not a hockey guy, but I keep seeing comments on Twitter about Eichel's career being wasted in Buffalo.

 

Can someone give me the TV Guide version of why the Sabres suck? GM? Coaches? Bad drafts?

 

His career is getting "wasted" the same way Steve Yzerman's was in the 80's.  (That story eventually had a happy ending for Detroit.)

 

The 2 biggest issues are, as mentioned above, subpar goaltending and a lack of a 2C.  (1 more 2nd line winger would also help, but is a lesser issue.)

 

And both of those problems can be traced back to a degree to the excess of bad contracts on the books.  Botterill has been reluctant to give up the prospecfs/ picks he'd need to trade to bring in the sort of players that could fix the issue with limited cap space.  The good news is, after this season, there is only 1 truly bad contract on the books (Okposo) and the rest go away (Hunwick, Sobotka, Bogosian, Sheary all come off the books along with several other UFA's (some of which MIGHT be back like Girgensons, Larsson, and Vesey).  Botterill refused to spend the assets last year to bring in Marcus Johansson which could've both helped last year AND given notice that he wouldn't be a fully acceptable stopgap at 2C until (hopefully) one of Mittelstadt or Cozens grow into the role; which would've increased the urgency BEFORE this season to do more to fill in the 2C role.

 

Botterill tried, kind of, to fix the goaltending by firing the old goalie coach (Allen) & bringing in a goalie whisperer (Bates).  That kind of worked as Ullmark has become an excellent backup / passable starter and Hutton looked great for 6 games.  But then Hutton fell apart for 3 months and that hoped upgrade wasn't.

 

They also need to fix the special teams (NEVER should have let Wood out of his contract when Bylsma was canned. The PP has been a shell of itself since.), ideally by making an upgrade to the assist coaches.  It could be time to bump Taylor up full time from the Amerks.  When Krueger eventually moves over Botterill, Taylor could very well be the proper replacement. 

 

So, they should be in the playoffs next year with just a handful, or less, of necessary moves.  But, was saying that this year as well and those moves didn't happen.

[Koko78]

53 minutes ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

 

Damn. Bruce really let himself go.

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

His career is getting "wasted" the same way Steve Yzerman's was in the 80's.  (That story eventually had a happy ending for Detroit.)

 

The 2 biggest issues are, as mentioned above, subpar goaltending and a lack of a 2C.  (1 more 2nd line winger would also help, but is a lesser issue.)

 

And both of those problems can be traced back to a degree to the excess of bad contracts on the books.  Botterill has been reluctant to give up the prospecfs/ picks he'd need to trade to bring in the sort of players that could fix the issue with limited cap space.  The good news is, after this season, there is only 1 truly bad contract on the books (Okposo) and the rest go away (Hunwick, Sobotka, Bogosian, Sheary all come off the books along with several other UFA's (some of which MIGHT be back like Girgensons, Larsson, and Vesey).  Botterill refused to spend the assets last year to bring in Marcus Johansson which could've both helped last year AND given notice that he wouldn't be a fully acceptable stopgap at 2C until (hopefully) one of Mittelstadt or Cozens grow into the role; which would've increased the urgency BEFORE this season to do more to fill in the 2C role.

 

Botterill tried, kind of, to fix the goaltending by firing the old goalie coach (Allen) & bringing in a goalie whisperer (Bates).  That kind of worked as Ullmark has become an excellent backup / passable starter and Hutton looked great for 6 games.  But then Hutton fell apart for 3 months and that hoped upgrade wasn't.

 

They also need to fix the special teams (NEVER should have let Wood out of his contract when Bylsma was canned. The PP has been a shell of itself since.), ideally by making an upgrade to the assist coaches.  It could be time to bump Taylor up full time from the Amerks.  When Krueger eventually moves over Botterill, Taylor could very well be the proper replacement. 

 

So, they should be in the playoffs next year with just a handful, or less, of necessary moves.  But, was saying that this year as well and those moves didn't happen.

Always seem to agree with you and appreciate your posts over at the Aud Club.(I have a different screen name over there but don't post a lot).

[Gary M]

2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

He could get pissed in the bar, where you properly piss the night away.

 

Unless it's a coffee bar in Geneva.

[IDBillzFan]

46 minutes ago, Taro T said:

So, they should be in the playoffs next year with just a handful, or less, of necessary moves.  But, was saying that this year as well and those moves didn't happen.

 

So do you advocate for getting rid of Botterill, or would that mean a house-gutting, which would be bad for everyone?

 

Again, I don't follow hockey, so I'm naive to the dynamics, but even where I live I see Sabres license plates on the road (taking my son to school, no less) and will likely need to have conversations with these folks one day.

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

So do you advocate for getting rid of Botterill, or would that mean a house-gutting, which would be bad for everyone?

 

Again, I don't follow hockey, so I'm naive to the dynamics, but even where I live I see Sabres license plates on the road (taking my son to school, no less) and will likely need to have conversations with these folks one day.

 

Am still firmly on the fence regarding Botterill.  Expect they did him a huge disservice by not bringing in a Team President with a hockey background when he was hired.

 

If they can him, unless they find a GM that also wants to build in that Chicago/Pittsburgh-ish mold, then they're set back a couple more years again.  Though this time they've got some good pieces to build around (they had that when Botterill was hired as well, but all 3 of the big pieces Murray went out and obtained became personas non gratia and were traded/ released for pennies on the $ it took to bring them in) so hopefully the step back would be a small one.  But, really don't want to take even a 1/2 step back 9 years into this "suffering." So, am willing to give him 1 more off-season, but if they are floundering around again come Thanksgiving, will join the pitchforks & torches contingent.

 

Still believe (with no proof) that Botterill got forced into accepting a horrible return for O'Reilly.  A legit return (or better yet, no trade, but that horse already left the barn) and then this team is in the playoffs this year with just an adequate goalie to pair with Ullmark.  And, that belief that the trade was beyond his control to a large degree combined with their really only needing a couple of pieces to be in the mix is what says to me give him this off-season.  (That, and an expectation he'll be back anyway, so why tilt at the windmill when there's nothing but frustration to be gained.) 

 

Of course, the flip side of the argument, that many take is: he should've somehow convinced Pegula the ROR return needed to ge better and somehow have forced him into paying the $7.5MM signing bonus that was due to get a reasonable return.  And his unwillingness to sacrifice future assets to help NOW are disqualifying to letting him stay on.  (Which after 9 years, is understandable from a fan perspective.  There's been a lot of bad hockey through the years.)

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Gary M said:

 

Unless it's a coffee bar in Geneva.

 

Better Irish-up that coffee, B word.

[Bray Wyatt]

Is Trump using an assault budget, or perhaps an assault veto? Inquiring minds want to know what he is using to assault health care

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

Is Trump using an assault budget, or perhaps an assault veto? Inquiring minds want to know what he is using to assault health care

The courts 

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

 

Am still firmly on the fence regarding Botterill.  Expect they did him a huge disservice by not bringing in a Team President with a hockey background when he was hired.

 

If they can him, unless they find a GM that also wants to build in that Chicago/Pittsburgh-ish mold, then they're set back a couple more years again.  Though this time they've got some good pieces to build around (they had that when Botterill was hired as well, but all 3 of the big pieces Murray went out and obtained became personas non gratia and were traded/ released for pennies on the $ it took to bring them in) so hopefully the step back would be a small one.  But, really don't want to take even a 1/2 step back 9 years into this "suffering." So, am willing to give him 1 more off-season, but if they are floundering around again come Thanksgiving, will join the pitchforks & torches contingent.

 

Still believe (with no proof) that Botterill got forced into accepting a horrible return for O'Reilly.  A legit return (or better yet, no trade, but that horse already left the barn) and then this team is in the playoffs this year with just an adequate goalie to pair with Ullmark.  And, that belief that the trade was beyond his control to a large degree combined with their really only needing a couple of pieces to be in the mix is what says to me give him this off-season.  (That, and an expectation he'll be back anyway, so why tilt at the windmill when there's nothing but frustration to be gained.) 

 

Of course, the flip side of the argument, that many take is: he should've somehow convinced Pegula the ROR return needed to ge better and somehow have forced him into paying the $7.5MM signing bonus that was due to get a reasonable return.  And his unwillingness to sacrifice future assets to help NOW are disqualifying to letting him stay on.  (Which after 9 years, is understandable from a fan perspective.  There's been a lot of bad hockey through the years.)

Forced how to trade ROR?? 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

....so if he is supposedly on the upswing in the US post impeachment, what is the "benefit" to "attack health care, medicare, SS or Medicaid"?....or does the mere mention of any of those serve as ammo for the TDS Gang without getting into the facts of the proposed budget?....hysteria like the Climate Change Gang?.....

[LSHMEAB]

7 hours ago, Keukasmallies said:

 

Reducing my response to you to a slang phrase:  If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.  (Please accept my apologies if you don't subscribe to the notion that one should be responsible for one's actions.)

You do understand we're talking about people who have been convicted of nothing, correct? I would think a pro-Trump crowd wouldn't be so quick to trust the powers that be. 

 

Based on the supposition that an arrest=guilt, then I'm sure that you MUST be opposed to ANY form of bail. Those with means also (apparently) did the crime, so they should also do the time.

 

Can't have it both ways.

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

The courts 

Forced how to trade ROR?? 

 

Pegula saying "trade him right ####ing now."  (Now hang up.) (Oh.)

[KRC]

14 hours ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

I don't like that idea at all.

 

Well thought-out rebuttal. 

[KRC]

6 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

 

I'm sorry, but I didn't realize this thread was for the highbrow discussion.

 

 

After seeing who started this thread, you are questioning whether this is for highbrow discussion? Of course it is.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

12 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

Pegula saying "trade him right ####ing now."  (Now hang up.) (Oh.)

 

My hallergie to this ***** place, has returned.

[Nanker]

15 hours ago, Bray Wyatt said:

Is Trump using an assault budget, or perhaps an assault veto? Inquiring minds want to know what he is using to assault health care

It’s probably a grain assault or maybe a pinch assault. 

[Bob in Mich]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-budget-proposal-wont-reduce-your-social-security-check-but-it-could-lower-your-quality-of-life-and-health-care-2020-02-11

 

from the article

The budget, if it were to pass as is (which is seen as very unlikely), would trim about $505 billion from Medicare over a decade, and $35 billion from Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The proposal calls for tightening eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, and toughening Medicaid eligibility requirements, such as enforcing asset limits.

The good news for Medicare and Social Security retirement beneficiaries: These cuts don’t directly affect participants’ benefits. The bad news: provisions within the proposal could undermine retirement security all the same.

[Keukasmallies]

On 2/11/2020 at 7:09 PM, LSHMEAB said:

You do understand we're talking about people who have been convicted of nothing, correct? I would think a pro-Trump crowd wouldn't be so quick to trust the powers that be. 

 

Based on the supposition that an arrest=guilt, then I'm sure that you MUST be opposed to ANY form of bail. Those with means also (apparently) did the crime, so they should also do the time.

 

Can't have it both ways.

 

 

Don't want it both ways:  Do want the bail system in place and applicable to all including alternatives for the indigent.  There needs to be discretion exercised by the judge in each case being considered.  After all, to judge is to make decisions given the facts in place.  The law as currently written eliminates the ability to make sound judgements.

 

I also understand that every person detained, arrested, etc. has been convicted of nothing; also that arrest does NOT mean convicted.

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, Keukasmallies said:

 

Don't want it both ways:  Do want the bail system in place and applicable to all including alternatives for the indigent.  There needs to be discretion exercised by the judge in each case being considered.  After all, to judge is to make decisions given the facts in place.  The law as currently written eliminates the ability to make sound judgements.

 

I also understand that every person detained, arrested, etc. has been convicted of nothing; also that arrest does NOT mean convicted.

 

As to the bold, that was the entire point of reforming prior bail system. The same alternatives that exist now existed then - they simply were not being used. Judges weren't making sound decisions; many were simply setting bail and incarcerating people with no regard to anything other than putting the scary person in jail.

 

I'll give you a real world example (and yes, this actually happened.) A judge in a small town set $1,000 bail on a person who couldn't afford it, and set his next court date about 32 days out. The horrible crimes that required this amount of bail? Traffic infractions. The maximum punishment being 15 days in jail. Fortunately, it got caught, and the guy was brought before a county court judge the next day, who reviewed the bail situation and released him.

 

If it hadn't been caught (and it almost wasn't), he would have spent more than twice the maximum punishment in jail before being back in court - there was no chance he was making bail. Twice the maximum sentence, all while not even having a day in court.

 

There's your discretion and sound judgment.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Koko78

[Nanker]

I'm all in favor for Medicare for all. I really am, as long as they don't change the system one little bit.

Once you're in the system, everything is wonderful... simply wonderful.

But when you pay the premiums and the co-pays you're only going to be paying about $5k per year per family member.

It'll be glorious. Give them what they want. 

[CoudyBills]

On 2/12/2020 at 8:53 AM, Bob in Mich said:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-budget-proposal-wont-reduce-your-social-security-check-but-it-could-lower-your-quality-of-life-and-health-care-2020-02-11

 

from the article

The budget, if it were to pass as is (which is seen as very unlikely), would trim about $505 billion from Medicare over a decade, and $35 billion from Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The proposal calls for tightening eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, and toughening Medicaid eligibility requirements, such as enforcing asset limits.

The good news for Medicare and Social Security retirement beneficiaries: These cuts don’t directly affect participants’ benefits. The bad news: provisions within the proposal could undermine retirement security all the same.

We are all going to have to feel the pain if we don't wish to slide further into financial oblivion.  Everyone wants to piss and moan about the deficit, but oh boy, that pissing and moaning pails in comparison to what is heard when people find out their social welfare will be affected.  

[Keukasmallies]

8 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

As to the bold, that was the entire point of reforming prior bail system. The same alternatives that exist now existed then - they simply were not being used. Judges weren't making sound decisions; many were simply setting bail and incarcerating people with no regard to anything other than putting the scary person in jail.

 

I'll give you a real world example (and yes, this actually happened.) A judge in a small town set $1,000 bail on a person who couldn't afford it, and set his next court date about 32 days out. The horrible crimes that required this amount of bail? Traffic infractions. The maximum punishment being 15 days in jail. Fortunately, it got caught, and the guy was brought before a county court judge the next day, who reviewed the bail situation and released him.

 

If it hadn't been caught (and it almost wasn't), he would have spent more than twice the maximum punishment in jail before being back in court - there was no chance he was making bail. Twice the maximum sentence, all while not even having a day in court.

 

There's your discretion and sound judgment.

 

So now we've illustrated that the pendulum can swing from one extreme to the other.  Again, judges need the authority to use discretion in making bail/no bail decisions.  If the judges contnually misuse their authority, as you've illustrated, they need to be removed from their positions.  It's a lot like the current crop of politicians misusing their authority to carry out political attacks on their fellow politicians and ignoring the work of the public.  They need to be voted out of office if they refuse to do the work promised to the electorate.

[Koko78]

18 minutes ago, Keukasmallies said:

Again, judges need the authority to use discretion in making bail/no bail decisions.

 

They had that for centuries. They generally set bail. Thus the bail reforms.

 

19 minutes ago, Keukasmallies said:

If the judges contnually misuse their authority, as you've illustrated, they need to be removed from their positions.

 

That's an incredibly bad can of worms you suggest opening.

[Wacka]

Don’t worry Tibs, they’ll pay for your frontal lobotomy. 

[3rdnlng]

27 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Don’t worry Tibs, they’ll pay for your frontal lobotomy. 

That was done years ago. Sorta unfair to ask for payment now.

[/dev/null]

9 hours ago, Wacka said:

Don’t worry Tibs, they’ll pay for your frontal lobotomy. 

 

I'm sure the surgeon will try his best, but that's not giving him much material to work with

[Bob in Mich]

20 hours ago, CoudyBills said:

We are all going to have to feel the pain if we don't wish to slide further into financial oblivion.  Everyone wants to piss and moan about the deficit, but oh boy, that pissing and moaning pails in comparison to what is heard when people find out their social welfare will be affected.  

 

To cut some of those safety net programs while boosting military spending is where we are going wrong, imo. 

 

I wrote this earlier

 

On 2/11/2020 at 11:06 AM, Bob in Mich said:

To find where I think we need to look to save, I would ask you to examine our annual military spending.  If you enjoyed finding the welfare queen's $14K in wasted dollars, I would think examining the military budget for $14 million waste items to cut should make you giddy.  Our politicians, D & R's are so bought and paid for by this industry it is disgusting.  It should be criminal the percentage of our budget that is spent here.  Before you tell me I hate the vets, let me head that off with, a 'bite me'.   Support the soldiers, honor all of our commitments to our vets, pay them, but stop spending so much on unnecessary bases and unwanted weapons systems.  I would propose a 10 year military spending plan with 5% cuts annually.  Put the generals in charge of deciding what they don't actually need and if they can't decide, threaten to let the politicians decide how to cut. 

[Keukasmallies]

20 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

They had that for centuries. They generally set bail. Thus the bail reforms.

 

 

That's an incredibly bad can of worms you suggest opening.

 

I guess that's a failing of mine; I don't like to see "officials" get away with misuse of their office, especially long periods of time.

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Keukasmallies said:

 

I guess that's a failing of mine; I don't like to see "officials" get away with misuse of their office, especially long periods of time.

 

No, just short sighted.

 

Should Judge so-and-so be removed for giving a fine someone didn't like? How about actually sentencing someone to jail? Man, I don't like how he ruled on my motion, out he goes. What? He didn't buy the dog bite story? Gone. He evicted someone just for not paying rent? Get rid of him.

 

Do you begin to understand the problem with simply removing judges? That's not even getting into how it takes years for the Court of Appeals (the only entity who can actually remove a judge) to remove a judge for actual malfeasance.

[Keukasmallies]

On 2/14/2020 at 7:04 PM, Koko78 said:

 

No, just short sighted.

 

Should Judge so-and-so be removed for giving a fine someone didn't like? How about actually sentencing someone to jail? Man, I don't like how he ruled on my motion, out he goes. What? He didn't buy the dog bite story? Gone. He evicted someone just for not paying rent? Get rid of him.

 

Do you begin to understand the problem with simply removing judges? That's not even getting into how it takes years for the Court of Appeals (the only entity who can actually remove a judge) to remove a judge for actual malfeasance.

 

On the other hand, if you always do what you always did; you always get what you always got.

[BillStime]