home

Saturday College Football Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 10:59:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

My picks:

Iowa -10 over Minnesota; Oklahoma @ Baylor -3, Oregon -10 @ Stanford, Arkansas +8 @ LSU, Memphis +7 @ Houston, Kentucky +3 @ Vanderbilt, Kansas State +6 @ Texas Tech, Clemson @ Syracuse +30, Nebraska @ Rutgers +8.0 Miami Florida @ North Carolina -13 (5 units), Michigan @ Indiana +13, Alabama -8 (3 units) @ Mississippi State, Virginia @ Louisville -14, North Carolina State +9 @ Florida State, Tulane @ Army -3 Purdue +15 @ Northwestern, Maryland @ Michigan State -15, Texas +9 @ West Virginia, Ohio State -17 (3 units) @ Illinois, Florida @ South Carolina +8, Georgia @ Auburn Pick (3 units).

Go Gators!

< Paris Open Thread | ISIS Claims Responsibility for Paris Attacks >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday College Football Open Thread | 138 comments (138 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    In some uplifting and inspiring news, ... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 03:29:38 AM EST
    ... the twin-hulled Hawaiian voyaging canoe Hokulea, now halfway in her Mālama Honua ("Care for the Earth") Worldwide Voyage, arrived today in Cape Town, South Africa, where her crew was greeted warmly by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and U.S. Ambassador Patrick Gaspard.

    After a six-week respite over the holidays in Cape Town, Hokulea will resume her journey in January 2016, traveling to Brazil and the Caribbean, and is tentatively scheduled to reach New York City harbor in time for the July 4 festivities.

    Aloha.

    Answering MoBlue about Bentley considering (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    The Medicaid expansion. I didn't see how this state was going to avoid it. All the federal money that was given hospitals to keep their doors open while simultaneously abusing the poor dries up in the states that don't expand Medicaid.

    When you live in a state like Alabama with GDP of -4% your hospitals aren't staying open through the vehicle known as capitalism in the South.

    Still startled though, it was inevitable, but startling that that evil backwards bastard Bentley has somehow arrived at the writing on the wall and is even reading it. And if he has arrived I suspect most of cohorts aren't far behind. It's that or start shuttering hospitals.

    Thanks for the reply (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 03:52:24 PM EST
    Let's hope that he follows through on this. Poor people and people in rural areas  have few enough health care resources as it is. They or the people of Alabama do not need to have hospitals shutting their doors.

    Parent
    I think the ACA is the new third rail (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 07:15:17 PM EST
    The GOP is nuts.  I don't believe they mean a word of their talk about dissolving Obamacare but if they do, they'll be shooting themselves and their voters in the gonads.

    Senator Alan Simpson on today's Klown Kar GOP train wreck.

    Parent

    As they continue to chip (none / 0) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:37:43 AM EST
    away at the old third rail and shoot their voters in the gonads, I am not as confident as you.

    The corporate pols are like a massive force of water continuously flowing over our society eroding all that is good.

    The Pols do not directly get rid of the third rails. They just continue to "reform" the programs a little at a time until they longer have strong support and are easier to privatize them completely.

    As to Simpson, for the first time he is beginning to actually talk sense.

    Parent

    We are losing the fight for the ACA now (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 11:24:22 AM EST
    I believe. When those making less than 40,000 a year can only afford what amounts to catastrophic coverage...and we are forcing them to buy it...we have lost.

    Parent
    IMO That is a predictable result of the (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 04:21:26 PM EST
    way ACA was structured. It helps some people and hurts others.

    I know that CaptHowdy is still saying the program works for him.

    The best part IMO is the expansion of Medicaid but still too many can not participate in the expansion. But many people don't share my opinion of providing care regardless of their ability to pay.

    If it comes down to being perceived as a "free program for those people" and "you know whose pocket that money is coming from" kind of thing, the fight will be lost completely. If that happens, I'm afraid that the consensus will be that we tried having the government involved in health care and it didn't work so government needs to stay out of the health care business.

    Parent

    I'm plowing through my savings (none / 0) (#26)
    by shoephone on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:06:37 PM EST
    to pay for my monthly insurance premium, and that's despite the fact I get about a 40% subsidy. I have chronic conditions and one of my prescriptions is quite expensive because insurance refuses to cover the generic. I simply don't make enough right now to cover monthly expenses. I'm happy to have a job doing work I really like, but the pay is not nearly enough. The economy is really only steaming ahead for the rich.

    If we don't get a single payer plan in the next four years, hoards of people are going to have to forgo buying insurance, and will get hit will tax penalties they won't be able to pay.

    Parent

    You know from all of my previous (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:45:56 PM EST
    posts how I feel about this and the definite drawbacks built into ACA. Bottom line it is a program written by the insurance industry for the benefit of the insurance industry.

    To say that we should not have a system that forces people to liquidate their savings and many of their assets in order to get adequate health care, is a given. I'm sorry that you are one of the people being caught by this Catch 22.

    Unfortunately, I think that we will see hordes of people having to forgo buying insurance and being hit with a tax penalty long before we get to the point where we have single payer insurance.

    Don't get me started about the back room deals made with Pharma. The so called concessions that the pols claimed we received from Pharma in exchange for not negotiating prices and not allowing us to buy our prescription drugs from other countries was just a brunch of malarkey. Now even generics are becoming expensive even when insurance decides to cover them. They have moved many generic drugs into higher tiers so that most of the cost comes out of our pockets and the insurance covers little or nothing.

    Once again, I am sorry that this is not working out for you. Not real sure where the corporate owned pols will take us from here.

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 06:25:56 AM EST
    Unfortunately, I think that we will see hordes of people having to forgo buying insurance and being hit with a tax penalty long before we get to the point where we have single payer insurance.

    is probably the unfortunate truth. Even Vermont couldn't get single payer going.

    Parent

    It is on the.ballot (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 08:24:31 AM EST
    in Colorado in 2016. So people have not given up on the idea.

    When we get to the point once again where a large percentage of people cannot afford even crappy insurance and companies opt out of providing this benefit, I guess we will find out how the government decides to bale the industry once again.

    Parent

    My congressman, (none / 0) (#32)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 12:04:20 PM EST
    McDermott, is working to get Washington State to start its own single payer plan, like Vermont did. I guess I'm not aware of the drawbacks to the Vermont program. If it were to come to pass here, I think it would be very successful. After all, in the late 80's, when he was serving in the state senate, McDermott sponsored the legislation that created the Basic Health Plan. This was a successful program that provided health care to low and middle-income individuals and families that were not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Unfortunately, it got phased out when the ACA became law.

    Parent
    Another one (none / 0) (#73)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 11:20:25 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/ogk3apn  Syracuse.com

    Health Republic of New York made a big splash when it debuted in 2014 with rock-bottom health insurance prices that undercut its competitors across the state.

    Its premium rates were 30 percent below average in Onondaga County. The new company, backed with $265 million in federal loans, quickly captured the biggest share of new business on the state's health insurance exchange created by the federal Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

    Now Health Republic is going broke because of those low prices, forcing its 200,000 members - including 4,060 in Central New York - to get their health coverage from other insurers, experts say. State and federal regulators recently ordered the insurer to stop writing new policies and shut down its business because it's on the brink of insolvency. And it's not clear if the federal loans will ever be repaid.

    Parent

    Health care is a public good (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 11:22:14 AM EST
    Getting private insurance out of the health care field would be a good thing.

    Parent
    ACA (none / 0) (#77)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 12:57:41 PM EST
    Affordable Care Act was a step backwards, it has never been popular, years after its existence. Obama and Pelosi claimed it would be loved after people got to know it.

    There was catastrophic insurance coverage for those who chose it, now, it is basically forced upon people, some who cannot afford it.

    It changed the political landscape, turning the House into a Republican stronghold, and the Senate over to the Republicans as well.

    Obama's 1st term would have been best served to tackle the economy, get people employed instead of having them leave the workforce, that would have increased the number of people with health insurance.

    There were more losers than winners with the ACA, and I feel the reason people soured on it , was it was sold as a winner for all. Perhaps that was the only way for it to get passed, by lying to the public, but it came at high political cost, without much benefit in health coverage.

    Parent

    You COMPLETELY miss the point (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 02:31:29 PM EST
    The problem is that the ACA keeps the insurance companies -- ie., the phony "free market" that you conservatives loooove to fetishize -- in the driver's seat for controlling premium rates. The second issue is that wages for most workers have not risen with the increase in jobs. That, alone, makes affording premium rates and hikes very difficult for many, impossible for others. It doesn't matter how many more jobs are created, if the bulk of them are low-paying or part-time. But your Republican party refuses to accept the truth about wages, and rails against any increases in the minimum wage.

    Your arguments don't address either one of those factors.

    If we had a true single payer plan, where every taxpayer, even the Richie Riches of the world, had to contribute...well, we'd have a civilized health care program for all.

    And some of my family members who are doctors, recently told me they know that a single payer plan is the only way to fix the problem, even though it would mean lower salaries for doctors. They'd still make a good living, they just wouldn't be as rich as they are now. Interestingly, they didn't seem troubled by that fact.

    Ignorant Republican talking points do absolutely nothing to further this conversation.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 02:38:48 PM EST
    All the doctors I know say the ACA has been a disaster

    They get less time to provide healthcare, need more staff for paperwork, and are more inclined not to accept Medicaid patients

    Parent

    That is (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 02:41:17 PM EST
    the insurance companies conservatives love to love that are doing all the paperwork requirements. After all they don't file with the government to get paid. They file with the insurance companies and they're the ones with all the requirements. But then most doctors had that same complaint long before the ACA came along. You must never have discussed that kind of thing with them before.

    Parent
    Are you truly (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 01:59:40 PM EST
    that clueless? People with preexisting conditions were denied insurance before the ACA and the GOP had no plan to do anything about it. The way you are thinking is what continually gets the GOP in trouble. They think that gerrymandering and winning elections on an off year make them popular. Therefore they continually overreach on everything. Of course, this has been going on for a quarter of a century so it's nothing new.

    You have no understanding of what catastrophic insurance is if you think the ACA is catastrophic coverage. Catastrophic coverage is insurance with things like a 25K deductible. The ACA deductibles start at 5K. You honestly do not know enough about insurance to even have a discussion with. I find this pretty typical of conservatives. They regurgitate their force fed talking points from the wingnut welfare brigade with absolutely no understanding of the subject matter.

    Parent

    Please re read the prior comment (none / 0) (#81)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    There were more losers than winners with the ACA

    Bingo, we have a winner, I guess one group considered a winner would be pre existing conditions, and there are others, (MKS among them).
    I feel the reason people soured on it , was it was sold as a winner for all. Perhaps that was the only way for it to get passed, by lying to the public, but it came at high political cost, without much benefit in health coverage.

    It was sold as a winner for all, there are too many losers with the ACA, which is why it was , and has remained unpopular.
    Lying politicians, either Republican or Democrat, usually get found out , and in this case, Democrats paid a heavy price for lying about the ACA. It was passed using a budgetary gimmick, reconciliation, while in fact it will increase the budget, not decrease it, as every financial calculation regarding the ACA has fallen short.
    Health care for all is a noble pursuit, covering pre existing conditions is very humane, but do not lie to the people about how you will go about it.
    I scan posts on the Great Orange regarding the ACA, and there are far more losers than winners.
    The selling of the ACA should be a lesson to both political parties, if you want to pursue goals loved by your base, make sure you are honest with the public regarding the benefits , and costs, and do not force it through without any support from the opposition party.

    Parent
    There are millions of people (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 02:30:47 PM EST
    who have been helped and rely on ACA....

    Parent
    NY Times, Nov 14th (none / 0) (#126)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 09:04:50 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/q9gvjf5

    But the deductibles are so high they may be scaring away some consumers.

    Alexis C. Phillips, 29, of Houston, is the kind of consumer federal officials would like to enroll this fall. But after reviewing the available plans, she said, she concluded: "The deductibles are ridiculously high. I will never be able to go over the deductible unless something catastrophic happened to me. I'm better off not purchasing that insurance and saving the money in case something bad happens."

    People who go without insurance next year may be subject to a penalty of $695 or about 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater.

    Karin Rosner, a 45-year-old commercial freelance writer who lives in the Bronx, pays about $300 a month, after a subsidy, for a silver insurance plan with a $1,750 deductible and a limit of $4,000 a year on out-of-pocket expenses.

    She is extremely nearsighted and has an eye condition that puts her at risk for a detached retina, but has put off visits to a retina specialist because, she said, she would have to pay the entire cost out of pocket.

    "While my premiums are affordable, the out-of-pocket expenses required to meet the deductible are not," said Ms. Rosner, who makes about $30,000 a year.

    Mr. Fanning, the North Texan, said he and his wife had a policy with a monthly premium of about $500 and an annual deductible of about $10,000 after taking account of financial assistance. Their income is about $32,000 a year.

    The Fannings dropped the policy in July after he had a one-night hospital stay and she had tests for kidney problems, and the bills started to roll in.

    Josie Gibb of Albuquerque pays about $400 a month in premiums, after subsidies, for a silver-level insurance plan with a deductible of $6,000. "The deductible," she said, "is so high that I have to pay for everything all year -- visits with a gynecologist, a dermatologist, all blood work, all tests. It's really just a catastrophic policy."

    Another consumer, Anne Cornwell of Chattanooga, Tenn., said she was excited when Congress passed the Affordable Care Act because she had been uninsured for several years. She is glad that she and her husband now have insurance, because he has had tonsil cancer, heart problems and kidney stones this year.

    But with a $10,000 deductible, it has still not been easy.

    "When they said affordable, I thought they really meant affordable," she said.

    Parent

    Most of the policies have (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 11:56:20 PM EST
    deductibles way below that....for not that much more per month.....

    And, it is not "bingo" for us.  It matters.....

    Parent

    Like I have repeatedly stated (none / 0) (#133)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 05:53:40 AM EST
    There will be winners...and losers

    And many more losers than winners.

    A major problem with that is that the ACA wasn't sold that way, Obama and Pelosi intentionally lied to pass this Rube Goldberg contraption, and by using  a budget gimmick designed for budget reducing law, with the ACA is not.

    No one can deny that insurers are leaving the market, co -ops have been shut down , and original anticipated numbers of enrollment have fallen far short, that over 90% of the covered have been through Medicaid expansion.

    There is no collection process to collect the penalty, all anyone has to do is to change their exemptions so they are due no refund, then the IRS collects no penalty.

    These are all facts, perhaps inconvenient, but still facts

    Parent

    Well, then increase (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 08:35:49 AM EST
    the subsidies....Easy.  Done.

    And, no, your opinion on many more losers than winners is not a fact.

    Parent

    The problem (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 02:37:22 PM EST
    is that Obama let the GOP get out in front of it and it's based on a for profit insurance model which is exactly what the GOP wants people to use. The GOP wants people to have high premiums and be denied insurance.

    The irony is in KY it's very popular but it's not called Obamacare. That should tell you something.

    As far as the GOP going along, it would not have mattered what Obama did because they were going to vote against anything and everything. One of Obama's biggest mistakes is try to get the GOP to go along. He should have taken a page from Bill Clinton and broken their backs instead of begging them to go along.

    The good news is Hillary has no delusions about the GOP. After all the GOP were the ones pilfering through her and Chelsea's underwear drawers.

    So the GOP can campaign on taking away the insurance of 16 million people in this country. That's a lot of voters and there are people like me to which the ACA has had zero effect.

    Is the GOP going to say things were wonderful when people were losing their insurance and they couldn't get it? The GOP had 8 years to fix this problem and these problems are not new. If their ideas are so wonderful why didn't they do something? Why did it take the ACA for all of a sudden for them to become concerned about the people of this country?

    Parent

    The ACA (none / 0) (#87)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 02:48:46 PM EST
    Has been mainly a Medicaid expansion. 90 % of the "newly insured" have been people added to Medicaid.
    Wouldn't it have been simpler for the Democrats just to push that through instead of throwing the insurance industry on its head.
    As I recall others posting, governing is not easy, it takes compromise to get big things done.
    Every major law has had bi partisan support...until the ACA, and it has damaged the Democratic Party.
    The ACA is in a state of freefall, it is economically unsustainable, insurers will be leaving the markets.
    A lesson in forcefeeding legislation to the American public, forcing people to buy a product, or pay a fine, is just not acceptable.

    Parent
    The Medicaid expansion has been a positive thing (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 02:58:02 PM EST
    It's just that conservatives hate Medicaid, and really, really hate the poor. Oddly, a few Republican governors accepted the Medicaid expansion, because they know the alternative is worse. Kentucky is a prime example.

    Parent
    And some (none / 0) (#89)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 03:11:30 PM EST
    Of the states that accepted the expansion, are finding now that the Feds will stop the subsidies, they may not be able to afford it.

    Parent
    Feds stopping subsidies? (none / 0) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 06:49:30 PM EST
    CBO estimates show that the federal government will bear nearly 93 percent of the costs of the Medicaid expansion over its first nine years (2014-2022).  The federal government will pick up 100 percent of the cost of covering people made newly eligible for Medicaid for the first three years (2014-2016) and no less than 90 percent on a permanent basis.

    Feds will pick up 100% through 2016, nearly 93% through 2022 and no less than 90% on a permanent basis.

    Not sure where you came up with the statement that the Feds were stopping the subsidies but your statement is not factual.

    Parent

    Feds are reducing (none / 0) (#120)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 07:33:28 PM EST
    Misspoke, the lure of the Medicaid expansion was the Feds were paying 100%, it is being reduced, with no promise that it might be reduced further. It will be a strain on states budgets going forward

    New Hampshire became the 26th state to expand its Medicaid program under ObamaCare in early 2014. At the time, Democrats controlled the Governor's mansion and House of Representatives, while the Republicans controlled the state Senate. Under a compromise, the expansion was only authorized through 2016, while the federal government was still paying 100 percent of the costs of expansion.

    After 2016, under current law, the federal government will only cover 90 percent of the costs of expansion. There is nothing to prevent the federal share being reduced further in the future, a key fact pointed to by fiscal hawks arguing against expansion.



    Parent
    And Kentuckys (none / 0) (#121)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 07:35:14 PM EST
    Starting next year, Kentucky will pay roughly $109 million for the program, or about 5 percent of the cost of the expansion. By 2020, the state will pay 10 percent, or an estimated $409 million. The federal government will continue paying 90 percent of the expansion cost after that.

    States cannot run budget deficits, they will need to raise taxes or cut spending to accommodate the rising costs

    Parent

    So basically you are agreeing (none / 0) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 08:12:42 PM EST
    that the federal subsidies will still be at least 90% in 2020 and the following years. Let's look at the schedule of subsidies by year once again:

     

    Under the health-care law, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of expansion in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Then the federal match is pared back to 95 percent in 2017, 94 percent in 2018, 93 percent in 2019 and then 90 percent in 2020 and beyond. It would stay at the 90 percent level unless the lawmakers change or repeal the legislation.

    So, rather than getting $1 back for every $2 spent, states would get $9 back for every $10 spent. (This is a simplified version of a complex formula. The Kaiser Family Foundation in 2013 issued a report with all of the details.)

    Next year is 2016. According to the law, the Feds will be paying 100% and not 95% as you indicated in your comment.

    Rubio made much the same comment about the subsidies going away as you previously did. Fact check gave him 3 Pinocchios.


    Parent

    Many States (none / 0) (#125)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 08:52:46 PM EST
    Are legitimately afraid of busting their budgets,

    Why else did the Federal Government entice them, paying 100% originally,

    And by 2020, all bets are off, they are not guaranteed the 90%

    If Medicaid cost continue to rise, States will need to raise taxes, or cut other expenses,

    And if the Feds cannot keep up the 90% reimbursement,it gets exacerbated.

    Parent

    You are contradicting yourself (none / 0) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 09:29:25 PM EST
    In you previous comment you provided this quote to substantiate your position:

    By 2020, the state will pay 10 percent, or an estimated $409 million. The federal government will continue paying 90 percent of the expansion cost after that.

    What you quoted clearly states that after 2020 "The federal government will continue paying 90 percent of the expansion cost after that." It does not say that all bets are off after 2020. The subsidies going away is the current Republican talking point. Rubio tried to claim that the subsidies were going away as well. Fact check gave him 3 Pinocchios.

    Under the health-care law, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of expansion in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Then the federal match is pared back to 95 percent in 2017, 94 percent in 2018, 93 percent in 2019 and then 90 percent in 2020 and beyond. It would stay at the 90 percent level unless the lawmakers change or repeal the legislation.

    The only way the Feds cannot keep up the 90% is if the Republicans change or repeal the legislation and refuse to fund the law.

    Parent

    Let's look at one other health care (none / 0) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 08:23:55 PM EST
    Related cost incurred by states:

    As discussed above, if all states were to expand Medicaid, there would be 4.3 million fewer uninsured people in 2016. Fewer uninsured people would lead to lower spending on uncompensated health care.  A recent study found that, in 2013, those uninsured for a full year paid for an average of 30 percent of their care themselves, while the remaining 70 percent of health care expenditures were uncompensated.5 Based on this research, we estimate that between 2015 and 2024, uninsured people in states not expanding Medicaid would consume $266 billion in uncompensated care under current Medicaid policy decisions. Were these states to expand Medicaid, the amount of uncompensated care over this period would fall to $185 billion.

    The authors of the study cited above also estimated that, overall, 24 percent of uncompensated care was funded by state and local governments.



    Parent
    Mo (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 09:16:34 PM EST
    you're trying to convince someone who doesn't even understand the basics of insurance.

    Parent
    I don't think lack of (none / 0) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 09:31:36 PM EST
    understanding is the problem.

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 10:11:19 PM EST
    the people who think Trevor is serious haven't dealt with his continuous concern trolling and fact free or Breitbart talking points.

    Parent
    Oh, Trevor is serious (none / 0) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 10:17:16 PM EST
    Spreading Republican talking points, fear and misinformation throughout the blogosphere and general population is serious business.

    Parent
    You are (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 03:32:47 PM EST
    freaking kidding me. Right? The GOP doesn't even want the Medicaid expansion. My governor in Georgia is willing to let hospitals close in rural areas than take the expansion.

    The ACA is more popular than the GOP. Do you realize that the approval rating of the GOP is 15% nationally? I hate to tell you but the GOP has the lowest approval rating ever recorded. I mean Nixon's numbers when he resigned were higher than the current numbers for the GOP. George H.W. Bush's numbers and his son's numbers only went down to 29% and you know what happened to them.

    The GOP can obsess over the ACA but they their solution is to take insurance away from people. They've been fighting this war for how many years now and losing? And if the ACA is so bad then the GOP should start advocating for single payer because it's the only thing that is left. We had this debate in 2012 and the GOP lost. But your post is pretty indicative of how bad of shape the GOP is in ideologically.

    Parent

    Not too worried (none / 0) (#91)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 03:45:53 PM EST
    From July 2015

    WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As the 2016 presidential race increasingly dominates political news, the favorable ratings for both major parties are still close to their historical lows. Slightly more than four in 10 Americans (42%) view the Democratic Party favorably, while the Republican Party has a favorable rating of 35%. The rating for Democrats is up slightly from March's 39%, while the Republican rating fell two percentage points. The net result is Americans now view the Democratic Party more favorably than the GOP.

    If the ACA was popular, the Democrats would still have the House and the Senate.

    Health vouchers will be put forth , when the ACA finally crumbles financially

    Parent

    And if it Was as Unpopular... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:10:16 PM EST
    ...as you are proclaiming, it would have been repealed in the 50+ votes to repeal it.

    It's better than what we had, which isn't saying much, but it is without a doubt, thousands of times better than the republicans plan, which never existed beyond ridiculous talking points.

    Also, Prescription prices, which are a large portion of most people's health care costs, are something we can not bargain to get better prices, because of republicans.  When given a chance at reform in the medical area, republicans screwed everyone, including the removing many of original ACA finer points.

    They would not even discuss single payer, so it was taken off the table, they stripped ACA down, and ensured Americans paid more for prescriptions than anywhere in the world.  The last people anyone should take advise from in regards to health care reform is the group who whose only real contribution has been ensuring Americans either pay more or don't have insurance.

    While ACA is better than nothing, it is infinitely better than what republicans have done to health care, which is a combination of doing nothing and raising costs.  Whining and complaining about a plan they don't like is not a contribution, if it was, they would be the most productive Congress in all of human history.  

    If they had a better plan, it would have been implemented.

    Parent

    They need (none / 0) (#101)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:18:19 PM EST
    60 + votes for a veto over ride

    That ain't happening, still is unpopular,

    And hurts more people than it helps

    Taking money out of of peoples pockets, forcing them to buy a overpriced product they cannot use unless they spend approximately $10k or more (The cost of the policy and the deductible)

    Hurts more people than it helps, and was sold by politicians lying through their teeth, that is why it is really unpopular.

    Go buy a used a car, The ACA was like going to a used car salesmen, almost everything they said about it was a lie.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:30:08 PM EST
    you have no idea even how the ACA operates. And what you are saying about insurance is not going to be solved by the GOP. Insurance that doesn't pay out until you've paid 25K out of pocket is what the GOP wants you to have. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? ACA has a number of plans. The highest deductible is 5K. It also has co pays for doctors visits etc. Vouchercare as proposed by the GOP is basically junk insurance where you pay all the costs of your own medical care and the insurance company pockets the premium from the government and doesn't have to pay for anything. It's the ultimate corporate welfare program. But then again, we all know how the GOP loves corporate welfare.

    Parent
    Well That Hasn't Been Most People's... (none / 0) (#107)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:32:47 PM EST
    ...experience, including me.  I call BS on the $10k figure, that has way too many assumption built in.

    You keep acting like it so unpopular, but not unpopular enough to garner much over the republican votes.

    It is not nearly as unpopular as you are proclaiming and while it does hurt some, it helps many more, right around 15M people have insurance that did not before.

    And you didn't address any of my points in regards to what republicans have done in terms of health care costs.

    Belly aching over something you don't like isn't really productive when your own side can't seem to come up with a better solution to something you claim is god awful.  

    That is just plain sad on so many levels.

    Parent

    Lol (none / 0) (#110)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:53:32 PM EST
    Wasn't bellyaching

    If you followed the thread, and  actually read what I wrote (nobody does, they skim read and then imprint what the feel I wrote)
    I first said the ACA was the cause of the Democrats losing the House, then the Senate.
    I stated the ACA had many noble goals, but the American public voted like they were lied to.
    Like they just bought a lemon from a used car dealer.
    The politicians lied, Obama, Pelosi, all they way down. There are more losers with the ACA than winners, the young healthy people expected to buy insurance are not, they are paying the penalty, thus causing this Rubic Cube contraption to collapse upon itself.
    A young health person in their 30's, making $60k or more, gets clobbered. High premium, high deductible, they then say screw it, I will pay the penalty. And without them in the insurance pool, Bam, premiums go even higher. It is a death cycle.

    It's been a tough year for some of America's favorite health care boogeymen: insurers.

    U.S. insurers had to absorb nearly $2.9 billion in unexpected medical expenses from their customers in Obamacare's exchanges in 2014, according to new data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

    But don't shed too many tears for the health insurers. They'll make up those multibillion-dollar losses in 2016 -- by ratcheting up premiums for patients.

    Obamacare's authors knew that insurers might take a bath in the exchanges. Congress even wrote a mini-bailout for insurers into the law to keep them from complaining too much.

    That mini-bailout is called the "risk corridor" program. The concept is simple. Some insurers will pay out less in medical claims than anticipated. Those fortunate companies have to send some of their revenue to companies that had to pay out more than anticipated.

    Ideally, the risk corridor would have allowed some level of parity among insurers, spreading out both the pain and the profits.

    Unfortunately, that theory hasn't worked out in practice. Unprofitable insurers faced a $2.9 billion deficit. But profitable insurers were only able to offer $362 million. That's a sizable difference.
    http://tinyurl.com/ocqzoc5

    http://tinyurl.com/ow7zv9g

    http://tinyurl.com/pqc3upx

    Parent

    Just out (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:24:50 PM EST
    today link

    Republican congress has an approval rating of 11%. According to Gallup the lowest the GOP got was when they shut down the government and it was 9%.

    Your information is old.

    You guys are making it easy for Hillary. All she has to do is run against all the GOP elected officials. The ACA is rock star popular compared to the Republicans in the house and senate.

    Health vouchers are a joke. They were put up by Paul Ryan as a solution in 2012 and rejected. They were put up by George HW Bush as a solution and they were rejected. Vouchercare. It's a punchline.

    Parent

    Lol (none / 0) (#105)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    That is a generic poll of CONGRESS

    Approval ratings for Congress are always bad, check the numbers when the Democrats controlled it.
    What I gave you was approval of the 2 parties, and there, not much difference.

    Health vouchers will be passed after the 2016 election, the ACA further implodes.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:44:18 PM EST
    who controls all of congress? Have you forgotten it is the GOP and that's 11% for the GOP silly.

    But here you go: Here's one from October that says the GOP has fallen to all time low in favorability 28% link Read it and weep. The Dems have 15 POINTS on the GOP. There's a reason why the GOP won't repeal the ACA. It's more popular that THEY ARE. LOL.

    Health vouchers are never going to be passed. Hillary is going to get up there and explain how they work and basically the plan is for people who can't afford medical care to die. And that's the honest assessment of the GOP plan: If you get sick die quick.

    Parent

    Ga6thDem (none / 0) (#109)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:52:30 PM EST
    I want to rate this but I don't want to shift the comment.
    If you get sick die quick.

    That should be a GOP bumper sticker.

    Parent

    Exactly how are health care vouchers (none / 0) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 05:16:47 PM EST
    going to keep the cost of insurance under control? The price, deductibles and co pays will continue to spiral out of control and the vouchers will increasingly buy less and less actual health care.


    Parent
    A little more about vouchers (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 06:08:20 PM EST
    coined the term "premium support" in response to criticisms of health care vouchers,[44] states that the Republican plan for Medicare uses vouchers, not "premium support".[45] The defining attribute of the plans that Aaron christened "premium support" was that governmental financial support would rise with average health care costs. The Republican plan instead has this support rising with the consumer price index (general inflation). This difference is crucial to understanding the Republican proposal, as the cost of health care is rising much faster than the consumer price index.[45]

    The vouchers would rise in value with the consumer price index (general inflation), but as medical expenses have been rising much faster than the consumer price index, the value of the government subsidy would erode over time. When the program begins in 2022, the typical 65-year old would be responsible for about 25% of the cost of their healthcare, which is consistent with Medicare as it exists today. However, the share paid out-of-pocket by this typical 65-year-old in 2030 would be 68% under the Republican plan, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.[23]

    68% out of pocket.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 06:14:19 PM EST
    that is the Republican plan. It's called you die if you don't have money. I suppose it's their way of eliminating the "undesirables" and "unworthy" in the country by just passively allowing them to die.

    Parent
    I totally disagree (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    We are only insured through Obamacare.

    It has been a life saver....Your side would wipe us out.....

    Parent

    Methinks that the conclusions (none / 0) (#116)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 06:22:50 PM EST
    in your statement above about the ACA are merely that ... bald-faced conclusions.

    MKS refers to health care advances as a "good" and I refer to health care as a matter that is or should be called "a right."  I'm not sure where your starting point is concerning healthcare and its development in our country, other than my suspicion from your writing that the conclusions are spouted forth from a political position on the right.  

    As time moves on, the ACA is shown--via enrollment and poll responses--to represent the long-sought improvements that so many families longed for.  For example, pay particular attention to the insurance reforms aspects--the lifting of the cap, the prohibition of using the so-called pre-existing conditions as a way to deny or limit legitimate coverage, the requirement that 85% of insurance profits be put into directly related (as audited) medical rather than administrative costs, the rebate for any overage, the prohibition of summary denial without clear establishment of fraud by the insured, etc.  These reforms, per se, were and are groundbreaking.

    The operation of the ACA has led to expanding coverage in the millions, and it continues to grow annually.  The exchanges have controlled the cost curve--to date; and, have allowed people to have guaranteed annual exams, mammography, prostate checks, other necessary exams such as colonoscopy at no or little charge.  Popularity? Check the Kaiser Foundation reports in the past year ....  As people understand the fullness of what the ACA delivers in terms of fruitful medical care (including, importantly, the Medicaid expansion so key to a healthy public), I truly believe that future politicians will jockey to show some connection with it.

    It takes a lot to overcome a campaign of fear.  Your Repubs practiced that from the get-go with the ACA, as with any previous attempt to bring about improvement to our heretofore impoverished and hurting medical care system.  First, you all railed against Social Security; then Medicare; and--so very predictably--the ACA still.  

    BTW, you are losing.

    Parent

    Will have (none / 0) (#122)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 07:42:35 PM EST
    To agree to disagree on this one

    The ACA cannot fundamentally survive without a massive infusion of tax dollars, as the young proposed to carry the cost of the insurance model, are not buying in. Without the healthy young buying in, you have insurance for all sick people, thus the closing of so many co-ops, so many insurers leaving the marketplace.
    It is actually dollars and cents now, no fear mongering.
    Cost curves have not leveled, they have increased.

    And again, it was sold as a pack of lies, it never would have passed if the politicians told the truth, which is why Democrats were demolished in the 2 off year elections.

    Forcing people to buy a product or pay a fine basically rubs most people the wrong way, what will the next "product " be?

    Although Roberts danced around that by calling it a Tax, although Obama swore it wasn't a tax,

    lol


    Parent

    That low-premium model only works if (none / 0) (#76)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 12:02:54 PM EST
    it is in line with the actual cost of services - if it isn't, there will come a point where what the plan is taking in is less than what it is paying out.  

    I know the thought was that a low-premium plan to which people flocked would cause other plans to lower premiums to keep more of the business, but it doesn't address what the providers are charging, or what they are willing to accept.

    If doctors aren't willing to accept lower reimbursements, pretty soon you're running short on them, as well.  Hard to run a health plan without providers, I think.

    Medicare works because everyone pays the same for the basic plan; you want more coverage, you get a supplemental plan, but you don't have to.

    Parent

    Has it ever happened... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 01:32:21 PM EST
    ...that a police officer was charged with excessive force BEFORE the video went viral?

    That was always previously known as (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 02:07:24 PM EST
    resisting arrest.

    Parent
    CG, are you getting the (none / 0) (#4)
    by fishcamp on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 02:20:24 PM EST
    Florida State game up there?  I'm not, down here in t he rain.  It's still 82 degrees.  Warm rain.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 02:24:58 PM EST
    WBFS-33 in Miami. It's on channel 3 on Comcast here.

    I ran in that muck this morning, but I did see my shadow between the muggy showers. Looks like 6 more weeks of summer.

    Parent

    Wow, thanx... (none / 0) (#6)
    by fishcamp on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 02:45:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Oregon 28, Stanford 23 with (none / 0) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 08:52:12 PM EST
    less than 3 minutes left in th 3rd quarter.

    GO, DUCKS!!!!!

    Oregon now leads Stanford 35-23 (none / 0) (#10)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 08:57:52 PM EST
    with one minute left in the 3rd.

    GO, DUCKS!!!!

    Parent

    Oregon wins! Oregon wins! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 09:51:23 PM EST
    The Ducks beat Stanford 38-36 in an amazing game.

    Go, Ducks!

    Parent

    Wow.. New Mexico favorite Holly Holm... (none / 0) (#12)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 01:22:18 AM EST
    knocks out Ronda Rousey in a stunning upset.

    Then it's a big night in New Mexico, ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 03:50:11 AM EST
    ... because in what is arguably the biggest win the history of University of New Mexico football, the Lobos stunned Boise State on the road tonight, 31-24, become only the fifth team since 1999 to beat the Broncos on their famous "Smurf Turf."

    Even more amazing, with that upset the Lobos now control their own destiny in the Mountain West conference. If they can manage to beat both Colorado State and Air Force at home in Albuquerque, they'll win the division crown and will likely play San Diego State for the conference championship in December.

    Congrats to the Lobos.

    Parent

    Where am I? (none / 0) (#22)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:28:50 PM EST
    I must have slipped into an alternate time-line.

    Parent
    Well, if you're not a college football fan, ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:31:00 PM EST
    ... I can certainly see how you missed the Lobos' upset. As for me, I had absolutely no idea who Ronda Rousey was until last night, when everyone kept saying, "Hey, Ronda Rousey lost!"

    Parent
    A bad night in the Pac-12 (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:35:32 AM EST
    As they likely played themselves out of any consideration for the BCS. Two fun games but with Stanford losing and Utah losing the west coast won't sniff the top ten this week.

    How has the Pac-12 played themselves out? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    Were Oregon, Arizona and Washington State just supposed to roll over and play dead in last night's games, in order to preserve the subjectively poll-ranked status of their opponents?

    This is exactly why and how the former BCS and "Playoff Committee" has been ruining college football. It's no longer enough of an accomplishment to win a conference championship and go to that conference's bowl game. Now, they've got to please the whims of CFP Chairwoman Condoleezza Rice, her fellow playoff overlords and their media cheerleaders.

    How is the system that's presently in place any less arbitrary than the old AP / UPI polls? The short and blunt answer is that it's not.

    But what the former BCS / present playoff set-up has done is: (a) render once-prestigious post-season games such as the Rose Bowl and Cotton Bowl all but completely irrelevant; (b) cheapen the overall meaning of a first-place conference finish; and (c) make lots of otherwise good conference programs afraid to schedule quality non-conference games against tough opponents during the regular season.

    I said at the very outset of the season that the Pac-12's overall parity this year meant that it was highly unlikely that its eventual champion would ever be able to run the table unscathed, and would probably emerge with at least two losses. That prediction has pretty much come to pass.

    And from the present playoff system's standpoint, such intra-conference parity has proved to be the death knell for any national championship consideration of Pac-12 members. Given the number of actual good-to-great teams in the Pac-12 this year -- as of today, there are still six teams that could win the conference title, depending on what happens over the next few weeks -- that's just stupid and perverse.

    The NCAA needs to either set up an equitable playoff system as it exists at the I-AA / FCS level, one in which all Div. I / FBS conference champions plus a select number of at-large teams are given an opportunity to compete for a national title on the field, or scrap the concept altogether and revert to the former bowl system.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The former system had 2 teams (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 02:58:03 PM EST
    The new system doubled that number.

    I enjoyed both games last night. but both games killed the chances for a National Championship for the Pac 12. Nothing new though, they haven't won one this century.

    Parent

    So what if they doubled the number from 2 to 4? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:20:49 PM EST
    There are ten Div. 1 / FBS conferences, with 128 schools competing at that level. If you want to see a true championship, then all the conference champions need to be given an opportunity to compete, as well as the six best at-large teams. A 16-team tournament would take four weekends to complete. If each FBS team eliminated one non-conference game from their regular-season schedules, such a tournament is certainly doable. But right now, you might as well call the current arbitrary and exclusive playoff system in place right now the "NCAA Invitational Tournament."

    Parent
    Happy Sunday (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 01:37:00 PM EST
    MIGRATION

    United wi fi blocks (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 09:15:36 PM EST
    Talk Left but not DK. Why?

    Myabe it's the (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:29:28 AM EST
    ISIS fanboy approach that pops up at times.

    Parent
    My thought too. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 11:42:58 AM EST


    Parent
    Flying time is my down time. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 08:49:07 PM EST
    Give me a good book and some cool tunes, and I'm fine for the five-plus hours it takes to fly between Hawaii and the west coast. Besides, Wi-Fi wasn't available on trans-Pacific flights between here and the mainland until fairly recently, like only within this past year. No satellites were available to facilitate it earlier, I guess.

    Parent
    Leaves (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    Want some leaf mulch?   I have lots.   Cheap.

    I did a pass of the yard yesterday.   Takes a couple of hours.   I have the mulched bagging thing for my little John Deer.    It has two approx 40 gallon bags.   I usually make it once around the yard before dumping them.   Yesterday day I dumped them 18 times.   That's 1440 gallons of leaf mulch.   That was for one pass.   That is the 4th pass I have done this year and there is 2 more on the trees.

    Good thing I love my trees.
    And a good thing my neighbor lets me dump it in his field across the road.

    Anyone here to talk (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 01:33:37 PM EST
    about real football?  (I kid, I kid, kind of...)

    I thought I was going to have a heart attack last night.  And the worst part of it all is that the 5-5 Giants are number 1 in their division, will likely make the playoffs, and all of this is starting to feel like 2007 all over again.

    On an even lighter note, "NFL Offers Summer League For Suspended Players To Make Up Games", link

    All (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 01:37:21 PM EST
    three Fl teams won, which is a rare occurrence for sure.

    Parent
    We was robbed. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:22:42 PM EST
    Seriously.

    Beckham completed the catch. He, and any receiver who catches the ball in the end zone, has no reason to run, or become a runner.

    By this rule, if (for some bizarre reason) a receiver is standing still in the end zone and catches a pass, and stays standing still w/o moving, the pass will be ruled incomplete.

    Parent

    I thought it was a touchdown (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:26:56 PM EST
    The refs called it as a touchdown on the field, but every announcer and apparently the refs changed their minds upon review.

    Parent
    Thx, the rule sux. (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:53:27 PM EST
    And sorry to hear about Edelman. Love watching him play.

    Parent
    Ummmm... the Problem as I See It... (none / 0) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 08:49:36 AM EST
    ...there is no rule.

    These catches seem to be more at the whim of the officials than any NFL rules stating this is what qualifies as a catch.

    Right now I don't think anyone, including officials, can put on paper what needs to happen in order for a catch to be considered a catch.

    I thought Beckham had it, in the endzone, 2 feet down, and control is all you need, which Beckham had.

    Last night, the Texans beat the Bengals with a catch by Hopkins that IMO was very similar to Beckham's, well except that he didn't bumble it.

    Green Bay is my team, but the Texans are my adopted team.  It's almost unfathomable that the Texans are tied for first and the Packers are in second place in the division when you look at what they have done on the field.

    But at least I got to witness one good game this week.  It was the week of the underdog.

    Parent

    This what I am talking about: (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 03:56:52 PM EST
    The NFL's rules state that a player has to complete the catch through the moment he "becomes a runner," which is defined as the moment he "is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact." This wording is new this year, replacing the dreaded "football move" language that previously existed.

    It doesn't look like Beckham held the ball long enough to avoid or ward off impending contact:

    So thus, he was not a runner. And that means this was not a blown call, by the NFL's rules. CBS rules expert Mike Carey said the call was right, as did FOX rules expert Mike Pereira

    Why, when a receiver catches a ball in the end zone for a TD, would he possibly then have to "become a runner?" The play is over when he catches the ball for a TD.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#93)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:06:01 PM EST
    The play is over when he catches the ball for a TD.

    Parent
    The entire NFL says you're wrong (none / 0) (#96)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:08:34 PM EST
    so ummm...you're wrong.

    Although I guess in the make believe TB Football League  you would be correct.

    Parent

    Meant to say that is the rule I was talking about (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:07:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Why the "becomes a runner" rule (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:13:00 PM EST
    would apply in the end zone doesn't make sense at all.

    If you have control of the ball with both feet down, it should be a touchdown.

    I have a feeling there's going to be an adjustment of the rule in the upcoming off season. Bets?

    Parent

    They'll probably make it even worse. (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:17:09 PM EST


    Parent
    I thought the idea was (none / 0) (#135)
    by CST on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 10:00:38 AM EST
    That he didn't have control when the second foot came down?

    At least that's what I thought everyone was saying.  It looked iffy to me, but now I'm just confused.

    Parent

    Nope. (none / 0) (#136)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    NFL VP of Officiating Dean Blandino says the refs got it right (Just as CBS NFL officiating expert Mike Carey said as well).

    "They did get it right, and the rule is pretty clear on this," Blandino said on NFL Network, per the New York Daily News. "I know there has been a lot of debate about the rule, but it says you have to have control, you have to have both feet down, and after the second foot is down, you have to have the ball long enough to establish yourself as a runner. And that doesn't matter if you're in the end zone or in the field of play. It's that element of time.

    "Beckham, the second foot hits, and it's a fraction of a second, maybe a fraction of a second after that, the ball comes out. He didn't have the ball long enough after the second foot was down to establish possession, that's why it was overturned to incomplete."



    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#137)
    by CST on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 12:57:45 PM EST
    that is a pretty stupid rule.  I just thought it was so close they decided the ball came out first with their magic cameras or whatever, and my eyes couldn't tell the difference.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#138)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 01:21:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Right... (none / 0) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    ...that wording doesn't IMO cover sideline catches or catches in the endzone.  There are clearly different rules for endzone catches than on the field, but the rules don't reflect that.

    If one catches the ball on the 1 yard line, the millisecond the ball crosses the plane, it's a TD.  If they are in the endzone, there is more to it, which from what you posted includes everything up to becoming a runner.

    It's almost like pornography, they can't define it, but they know it when they see it and of course they standard varies from officiating crew to crew.

    Parent

    yup. (none / 0) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:31:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 01:44:30 PM EST
    Who cares about the Patriots-Giants (although it was nice to see Tom Brady get parked on his butt a few times - hopefully, that and his interception-throwing will continue).

    The big news was that my Lions beat the Packers at Lambeau Field - the first time they won in the state of Wisconsin since 1991!  And on a bad last second field goal!  Woo-hoo!

    Parent

    I never did like the Packers much (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    Since they beat the Patriots in the 1996 Superbowl.  So sure - Go Lions!  It is nice to see the underdogs win a few.

    Dream on about Tom Terrific though.  The Giants are the Pats kryptonite.  That last drive was a thing of beauty though, and it's nice to see they can win the hard ones.

    Parent

    I do find it amazing how few holding calls (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:11:38 PM EST
    the Pats o-linemen get. Or should I say never get. Especially when you consider that they have a couple of rookies on that line.

    It's almost like there are Brady rules the way there used to be Jordan rules..

    Parent

    Possibly (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:30:01 PM EST
    But in football, with everything going on, I wouldn't notice a million missed holding calls.  So it's hard (for me at least) to tell.

    One home-town hero that was definitely subject to those rules though was Ortiz.  If he was at the plate with the game on the line, his strike zone would shrink considerably.

    Parent

    The refs seem to go through (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:38:41 PM EST
    phases of watching for on certain types of infractions..

    I remember when offensive pass interference was the rarest call in football, now you see a couple of calls in every game. Offensive and defensive interference calls are way up..

    It seems like there's some penalty on every other kick return, and 90% of the long returns get called back..

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:38:05 PM EST
    ...I think you mean the NFL rules compared to the Pats rules.  All I can think when they play, is what kind of under-handed cheating are they doing this year.

    Please don't put Jordon and Brady in the same sentence, one was great, the other plays on a team that has so far been caught cheating twice, one directly related to Brady.

    Parent

    haters gonna hate (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    I know I'm asking for it.  So I'll just leave this and this here.

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:57:11 PM EST
    here - though it helps to say it out loud

    Parent
    I think You are Misrepresenting My View... (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 03:25:43 PM EST
    ...which is a sports fan is gonna hate people who cheat.  It's not reserved for your team, just happens that your team cheats a lot, so I am gonna hate a lot.

    Not a hater, I used to really like the Pats, but now their fans are like rapid republicans in their denial of reality.  Yeah, Brady didn't cheat and Saddam had WMD's.

    You must have been like 6 when GB beat the Pats in the SuperBowl.  That run up, beating 49ers in the playoffs was one of my football highlights.  I think because they were my age, I related to them more, or maybe because they sucked for nearly two decades, which was pretty much my entire life.

    Parent

    Eleven actually (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 03:32:19 PM EST
    Where does the time go.  I remember it distinctly, it was around the age I started getting really into sports in general.

    Parent
    At 11... (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 03:56:09 PM EST
    ...the Packers were sporting the best QB in years, Lynn Dicky who's greatest accomplishment was years of 8-8 seasons.

    My dad uses to always say stuff like, 'They are only 2 plays away', when they were down by 14.

    Parent

    Drew Bledsoe (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    Was a hero.  Little did we know that the biggest impact he'd ever have as a Patriot was getting injured.

    Parent
    I hear (none / 0) (#55)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:30:37 PM EST
    The NFL is about to announce that all footballs be underinflated for the rest of the year,

    Brady is just too good with fully inflated footballs

    Parent

    Yeah, ole cheatin Brady at it again, (none / 0) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:38:37 PM EST
    I heard he paid a couple of maintenance workers big bucks to let the air out of the ref's whistles

    Parent
    You Know JB... (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:44:34 PM EST
    ...I used to like Sundays, now they are just a source of frustration.  And then we have the Vikings in the Metrodome, which has always been a hard place for GB to play.

    I just put a decal sticker on my vehicle in anticipation of breaking their losing streak...  fail.  

    The Pack is making it almost impossible to make fun of Cowboy and Bear fans.

    Parent

    I feel your pain (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    But. I'm a Lions fan so I'm just kind of numb to it.

    And I always was a Brett Favre fan and I am an Aaron Rodgers fan, especially after his comments for calling out the idiot who, during the requested moment of silence for the Paris victims yesterday, yelled something like "Muslims suck!" Or some other douche-bag rant.  Kudos to Rodgers.

    Parent

    Rogers... (none / 0) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 03:15:41 PM EST
    ...is a robot, he is great, but for me it will always start and end with Favre.  He was exciting and tough as GD nails, he was Wisconsin.

    That guy threw more last minute interception than anyone I think, but hot damn even when they lost, he was exciting to watch.

    Plus I used to have a GF in GB and partied there often, when Favre & Co were out and about, which in GB is about 5 bars.  Until Chmura, the family values tight end decided to assault his baby sitter on prom night.


    Parent

    Favre had Sterling Sharpe (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 07:01:21 PM EST
    who could catch anything, to boost his confidence in his first couple of years in the league.

    Sharpe was a rare, Jerry Rice-level receiver.

    Parent

    Not a Fan of Sharpe... (none / 0) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 09:11:21 AM EST
    ...and Donald Driver had nearly double the yards and catches of Sharpe.  Green Bay's ability to get no name receivers and turn them into catching machines IMO has been their greatest strength, Freeman & Brooks were also better for the team than Sharpe could have ever been.  He was more suited for a team like Dallas than GB IMO.

    Desmond Howard while not a great receiver, was the man when it came to punt/kick returns.

    Parent

    Not a fan of Sterling Sharpe.. (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 10:20:51 AM EST
    How do you figure, Scott?

    Sterling had 595 receptions and 65 tds in 112 games..

    Driver had 743 receptions and 61 tds in 205 games.

    Parent

    Sharpe Was a Jacka$$ (none / 0) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 10:44:54 AM EST
    And I think that is a sentiment that is held by most Packer fans and management.  His abilities were shadowed by his ego.  If there is one team in the league that goes out of it's way to keep those kinds of players off the roster, it is GB.

    What I never knew until last year, was that there is a serious riff between GB and Favre.  Maybe it's because I was down here for the whole QB debacle, but Favre went up for an award last year and didn't even stick around to watch the game, which was the same day.

    From Farve:
    Sharpe  - 314 receptions, 3,854 yards, 42 touchdowns
    Driver  - 503 receptions, 6,987 yards, 38 touchdowns
    Freeman - 431 receptions, 6,651 yards, 56 touchdowns
    Brooks  - 306 receptions, 4,225 yards, 32 touchdowns


    Parent

    Are you sure you're not confusing (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    Sterling with his brother Shannon, who was known for popping off?

    Farve has gone out of his way to publicly give Sterling Sharpe credit for making his first couple of years easier. He's never once said anything remotely derogatory about him.

    Parent

    Come On... (none / 0) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    ...you think I am confusing a Packer with a team that beat us in the SB, that included Shannon ?

    I don't know that Favre ever talked S about any of his teammates.

    I think he is still a commentator on the NFL Network.

    Parent

    My cousin's husband is from Green Bay. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 08:36:21 PM EST
    Everyone in his family up there is a season ticket holder. I think she and her family are likely the only Packer fans in the northwest Chicago suburbs. It seems like come every football season, every single house in their neighborhood has a Chicago Bears banner hanging from their garage except theirs, which has the Green Bay banner defiantly flying.

    I've found the city of Green Bay itself to be very nondescript and unmemorable -- that is, until you get to Lambeau Field. I accompanied my cousin's family there once back in November 2007 when they had an extra ticket from another family member who was out of town that week, and we saw the Packers beat the Minnesota Vikings 35-28 on a clear and crisp evening, perfect football weather. (Little did I realize at the time that it would be Brett Favre's last season in a Green Bay uniform.)

    Lambeau's such an awesome venue to watch a game and if you're a pro football fan, a trip there is about as close a pilgrimage to hallowed ground as you can make.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    One of the Best (none / 0) (#68)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 09:56:01 AM EST
    Sports books I have ever read

    A Christmas stocking stuffer way back in the 60's

    Jerry Kramers Instant Replay, a diary of the Packers 1967 season

    Great insight into the individual Packer personalities, and Lombardi.


    Parent

    Jerry Kramer was the anchor ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 01:21:38 PM EST
    ... of Green Bay's vaunted offensive line during the team's dynasty years in the 1960s, and "Instant Replay" is considered one of the best accounts ever written about a single NFL season, which in this particular instance proved to be the Packers' swan song under Coach Vince Lombardi.

    The book got me from its opening pages, when Lombardi confides to Kramer that the Packers had just lost their great halfback Paul Hornung to the New Orleans Saints, all because he had carelessly made Hornung available for the '67 NFL expansion draft. Having wrongly wagered that nobody would be interested in an aging running back who was in the twilight of his career, Lombardi's sheepish admission to Kramer of his error showed that legendary coach in a very personal and vulnerable light.

    Another great book chronicling that particular era in NFL history is "Brian Piccolo: A Short Season" by Jeannie Morris, who's something of a pioneer amongst female sports journalists in this country. She tells the tragic story of the late Chicago Bears halfback, who played for the team from Aug. 1965 to Nov. 1969, when he was diagnosed with embryonal cell carcinoma at age 26. He died only six months after playing his final game.

    Morris's work served as the basis for the critically acclaimed ABC-TV film "Brian's Song," although her book is a more well-rounded account of Piccolo's life than was that now-dated and overly sentimental 1971 movie, which focused almost exclusively on Piccolo's friendship with fellow Bears running back Gale Sayers.

    The 2001 remake of "Brian's Song" by Disney for ABC proved much more faithful to Jeannie Morris's original story, and is actually far better than the original film, IMO. For starters, James Caan and Billy Dee William, who starred in the original film, were well into their 30s when cast for that production, and they were really too old for the roles of Piccolo and Sayers.

    For the remake, Disney selected actors who were in their mid-20s, which was the actual age of both players when they were with the Bears. The 2001 film deals much more realistically with Piccolo's relationship with his family, as did Morris's book, and doesn't shy away from brutal details of his fatal illness. This includes Piccolo undergoing a radical mastectomy when his cancer was first discovered -- and was already well metastasized, at that point -- in both his breasts and pectoral muscles, a fact which the TV censors nixed back in 1971.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Manning (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:15:31 PM EST
    It's almost insulting to the record to be broken by a guy that was benched because he was throwing horribly.  That was one of the hardest Favre records to be broken.

    If there is one record that establishes the best QB ever, it's total yards, and now Manning holds it.  

    Just an overall bad football day for me.

    Parent

    Who would have predicted (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:41:16 PM EST
    That Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck would have the two worst QB ratings for full-time starters in the NFL this year.

    Four years ago when the Colts let Manning go and signed Luck, I don't think anyone expected the pair to turn into the worst of the lot.

    Parent

    Ah, c'mon (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 06:41:19 PM EST
    It hurt watching it (and, admittedly, I couldn't watch the obvious for too long.)  But, Peyton Manning is 39 years old ... for football players, that is almost akin to dog years.  He will rest the ribs & the rest in the week ahead, and who knows after that.

    Neither Manning nor Luck could last forever.

    Parent

    Well No One Thought Manning... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 08:58:39 AM EST
    ...had any good football left in him, and they certainly never thought he would last forever.

    Luck is in his 4th year and is 26, I don't think anyone is counting him out.  But as a Texans fan, I can only hope...

    I believe Manning has foot and shoulder issues as well.  But I wouldn't count him out and with the Broncos holding a solid lead in the division, I don't think anyone is too worried about him sitting a game or two out.  Every year since his neck injury, same thing, is he done, what's wrong with Manning, and he invariably comes back to quiet the naysayers.

    Parent

    NY FOOTBALL GIANTS (none / 0) (#54)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:28:56 PM EST
    Are now primed for the Superbowl

    Time for another improbable run

    Parent

    Congratulations to Kris Bryant of the Cubs. (none / 0) (#63)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:12:38 PM EST
    He was just selected as the NL Rookie of the Year. Looking forward to watching you play at Wrigley next year, Kris.

    Go, Cubs!

    It's 77 Degrees Now... (none / 0) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 09:29:48 AM EST
    ...but by the time I leave it is suppose to be 50 degrees.  Windy and cold rain on the Houston forecast today.

    In Miami (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 09:59:29 AM EST
    the average high this month has been 90.

    It only reached 80 yesterday so we'll consider that progress. It may have also dipped below 70 just before sunrise today for the first time since Spring. Hope springs eternal.

    Parent

    Ben Carson is doomed (none / 0) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:06:26 PM EST
    two of his top advisers said... that he had struggled to master the intricacies of the Middle East and national security and that intense tutoring was having little effect.

    Said one: "Nobody has been able to sit down with him and have him get one iota of intelligent information about the Middle East."

    Trump will have a field day with this.

    Ben Carson is back (none / 0) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 06:14:41 PM EST
    Bobby Jindal is out and his 12 national voters (all from Louisiana) are most likely to support Carson.

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 06:19:58 PM EST
    know, Carson  believes eating crawfish is akin to the homo thing(says so in the bible) ain't no self respecting cajun gonna buy that.

    Parent
    David Vitter (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 06:34:22 PM EST
    has to be unhappy about Jindal coming back to LA as he's so unpopular there.

    Parent
    The Louisiana Election for Governor (none / 0) (#99)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 04:14:52 PM EST
    is this Saturday. The three most recent polls all have John Bel Edwards over 50% against David Vitter. Should be interesting to see if the John Bel Edwards hardball campaign takes down a Republican in Louisiana.

    I just (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 17, 2015 at 06:34:58 PM EST
    hope that poll is right. So many of them have been wrong lately.

    Parent
    Saturday College Football Open Thread | 138 comments (138 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment