“In my mind” sounds more like feelings and emotions than anything of substance. Vague, unsupported claims that don’t have a clear connection to this issue are hardly better. Why do one person's perceived non-healthcare failings of the gov disqualify it, but demonstrable failings of the current healthcare industry and companies not disqualify them? Sounds more and more like a personal fear of change than a reasoned and substantiated argument.
Apparently not as bad as facts hurt yours. Sorry again for hurting you.
This is false. They have genomes and they can and do mutate, usually more rapidly than other genomes.
It sounds like we’ve abandoned sources and moved back to assertions substantiated by little more than feelings. “Seems cheaper,” despite your source and others saying otherwise. Is this how we should set policy that affects the lives, health, and wellbeing of millions? I think we need better than that. You don’t trust the government with healthcare, but you do trust the industry that has led us to this point? You trust the government to succeed at the arguably harder task of modifying a complex system but don’t trust it to be able to run a relatively simpler one? ‘I just know that the healthcare industry has a horrible record of properly meeting the needs of all our people and I see no reason to expect anything different simply because a person says they feel it will if the government just does some vague but not comprehensive intervention.’
I’m going to assume you aren’t deliberately offering seemingly disingenuous responses, despite some repetition of previously refuted points and extreme cherry picking of your own source. Why are you leaving out the other findings of this Wharton estimate? Such as: 1) Without reform, the uninsured rate will more than double over the next 40 years, 2) M4A would improve health, 3) M4A would make the healthcare sector more efficient, 4) under premium financing option, the economic effects are slightly positive, and 5) other modifications to M4A could make the economic benefits much larger, boosting the economy by as much as 12% by 2060. And as I have already stated but will repeat again for hopefully the last time, Sander DOES NOT plan to use deficit financing. So why do you keep on bringing that up, when even your Wharton analysis acknowledges that he plans to use a different method of financing? Why is more health insurance coverage, better health, better efficiency, and a better economy worse? You don’t like the government for some reason, and you don’t like how the market has behaved. So what’s your solution?
Do you still promote fighting in non-fighting sports?
Are they saying that Tebow's teammates would have somehow been even worse without his transformational leadership? Scary thought! Anyways, by these arbitrary rules football would have Hershel and Tebow. Basketball is probably Shaq or AD. Last spot is up for debate, but doesn't matter as much anyways.
Is your point that this more extreme response is reasonable because the current disease is several times more deadly? Also, even slight differences in the rate at which people require medical attention and hospitalization (a rate that is typically closely linked to the infection rate) can have an enormous impact on the mortality and health of many people. We should be even more skeptical of our personal feelings than we are of experts and data.
Pretty sure it's the Heisman Trust. I don't think the NCAA has anything to do with it.
What can the NCAA do about this?
If you completely understood it, why did you misrepresent part of it? You’ve once again misunderstood either me or logic and decency because comparing the physicality of females to that of quadriplegics is denigrating and flawed. Can you explain how I attacked you? I don’t see it.
What money will his plan cost the economy? And what price do you think we should put on about 70,000 lives/yr and significantly better physical and financial health for millions?
Report first, investigate later. Good way to get the facts.
Report: NCAA reaches out to Clemson about potentially allowing athletes to support charitable causes
Report first, investigate later. Good way to get the facts.
This is full of false and misleading information, and one reason why one young person's instagram video isn't sufficiently reliable as a solitary source. "That was the case again on Tuesday." "the NCAA had to get involved and shut it down" "The money that was raised before the NCAA shut it down" Real journalism has indicated that these are untrue. And much of the damage is already done; even a responsible correction would do little more than display a bit of character.
I agree, though again this was about 'greatest,' not 'best,' so Maravich wasn't quite as underrated as some might feel. Unfortunately, that's not the route some here chose to take. Stewart has a good argument for being the GOAT in her sport, so she belongs towards the top of the list of greatest cbb players, however awkward it is to compare two different sports for such a list.
I’ve provided more support for the argument that government is capable of solving some problems that have been caused and perpetuated by individuals and other private entities and interactions than the unsupported but stubbornly held narrative that “the less government the better.” Sanders isn’t an epidemiologist, but okay. How about this article written by two economists in The Guardian: “Make no mistake: Medicare for All would cut taxes for most Americans.” No one can predict exactly how any legislation will change, but I would guess that compromise will generally lead to it becoming less “extreme” to the opposition. I don’t know exactly what he would do about climate change, but I trust that unlike the previous and current administrations he would not only comprehend the threat but take action to reduce the lives lost and damage done. I’m not familiar with this nationalization claim, but from what I’ve read, Sanders’ proposal seeks to pay for itself in 15 years, and many economists agree that significant change is required to avoid economic loss. Some estimate we are currently on track to lose $34.5 trillion in economic activity if we take no action. Sometimes you have to spend money to not lose it.
Again, I think you're reading a bit of what you think I said, not necessarily exactly what I said. I never claimed that the best female athletes would be competitive with the best male athletes. And that comparison is as denigrating as it is flawed. We aren't talking about "best," we're talking about "greatest." We can say Tom Brady and Tiger Woods are greater players than James Harden despite the fact that they all play different sports and that James Harden is a far better athlete by essentially any physical criteria.
I notice even more rebuttals going unanswered. Government is a vital part of our society, and we the people have thus far been even worse and less helpful than the government on this issue. We can keep wishing for our own personal perfect worlds, or we can make the real one better however we can. The problems you want addressed are too big, complex, varied, and pervasive for individuals to solve, so any real desire to address them adequately and fairly will require government action - a key way we work together. First, you mentioned two sources, not several. And I’ll just repeat my earlier response: “Brief research to find stuff that supports your view isn’t exactly a sufficient basis for a reasonable conclusion, but I am glad that you are starting to look into it and hope you do continue. First, I never said Sanders’ plan was perfect, and I also made the important note that any such proposal would be significantly altered before enacted. It is expensive, but his proposal would actually reduce healthcare costs in this country (even if it would shift most payment from private entities to the gov). Also, his proposal follows the fiscal responsibility you espouse (unlike the current administration) and proposes a way to pay for this spending, so this GDP cut due to deficit funding seems irrelevant.” As for sources, Sanders’ bill, his explanation for how it works and how he proposes to pay for it, and his favorite article in the Lancet.
Technically, it only makes sense to release betting lines before they are actually played. Playing the games then setting the lines wouldn't work. But yes, these are basically pointless if the season gets canceled.
Does Treadwell make this potentially all 11? Interesting, but they'll still need a defense. I doubt this will scare the Saints or the Bradyneers unless that changes. But maybe the NFC South will be more competitive this season (assuming it occurs).
Is it April 1? That's the only reason I can think of to sink all the way to Paul for a quote of the day.
@LSUSMC - Ah, so you are not a man? Because there are women out there who could more than hang with you, they could beat you at pretty much any physical competition you chose. Right now. Just because your feelings are hurt doesn’t mean they are goofy. And I wasn’t offering a comeback. Maybe the person looking for comebacks and telling people to grow up and let it go and trying to insult instead of discuss should worry more about the beam than the speck. I notice you don’t have arguments or rebuttals, just feelings and “comebacks,” so maybe you should stop humiliating yourself to humor me.
@oskie - not sure you read what I wrote either. I was the first to actually note that the comparison doesn't make sense. But this is not about who is the best athlete or even who is the best bball player. This is about who is the greatest player. And it isn't an unreasonable take that a player with more high-level team and individual accomplishments in one of the more difficult and competitive eras of their sport is among the greatest in their sport. I don't care if Vandy's bench would beat hers in a game of bball (technically neither of their sports at that point), Vandy's bench hasn't won a single NC, much less four straight, so there's at least one clear, straightforward way to state that her team is greater.
It is 1) not the accepted medical or legal term and 2) does not have general consensus. You can believe what you like, but that is no basis for hundreds of millions of other people to operate. Any claim to a right has to have more than a person’s feelings to justify it. What is the basis for that belief? Why should we be ruled by your belief? Your belief is just as vague as some period during development, and less sensible. You do realize that more than half of all fertilized eggs naturally fail to reach full term, right? So if a right to life began at conception, more ‘babies’ are lost naturally/according to plan than through abortion. This would be the biggest crisis. I’m glad you bring up the fact that the best way to address abortion is societally; I can only assume that this means you’ve changed your mind and now support more government involvement in things like healthcare to ensure that such concerns are no longer major drivers of abortions. It is not obvious that I have no objections to the practice, because I do have objections. But I don’t think my feelings are more important than facts or other people’s lives, rights, and health. Like you, I acknowledge that there are some instances where abortions are necessary. I just happen to realize that, in order to ensure that women and their medical providers can properly handle such situations, the laws have to be broad enough to permit abortions in situations that I personally might not like. I find it odd that you want and trust more government in this situation but don’t in seemingly most others. That is what you are saying. What is your basis for claiming “it likely won’t help?” More feelings? And I have yet to see any evidence that it would “tank” the US economy (some might argue that such a thing has already been done, and perhaps exacerbated by current leadership/healthcare system, but that’s a whole new can of worms). Again, spending is only half of overspending! And, for example, a plan like Sanders’ proposal is no less fiscally responsible than the do-nothing plans we’ve been getting. Not sure why we should support a deficit only when it benefits wealthy individuals and corporations but oppose any that help millions of working families (and potentially unborn) and saves lives.
I'm not sure you read what I wrote; I said they are two different sports. You acknowledge that they are talking about two different sports, but still claim that athletes in one are all better than the other? That doesn't make sense. But you're still missing the point; they aren't doing "best," they're doing "greatest." Those are different. And it's hard to claim that, across all eras, all the males are better than all the females. Pretty sure that shooting from the hip would not hold up that well in the modern game. We can call stuff that hurts our feelings "PC" if it makes us feel better, but it usually just tells others that we care more about ourselves than we do other people. Lol, marriage and female children have existed for a long time - clearly these are not guarantees that people won't hate, mistreat, or disrespect females.
More word play - the word is health, and that clearly includes more than physical health. You keep claiming it is ending a life with no basis or justification. You have misrepresented the history; a background WITH racist eugenics is different than and origin IN it. Many people, groups, and movements that are not inherently bad had a background with racist eugenics at the time because it was a very popular and acceptable idea to many at the time. Again, you keep on baselessly claiming that it is babies that are dying, which is not true. That is an incorrect use of the word. And most abortions occur so early in development that it clearly doesn’t make any sense to use the word baby. What’s laughable is trying to ignore that Trump has brash cheap talk AND mental deterioration. As I already pointed out, more than 70,000 mental health professionals have warned us about Trump’s mental state. This isn’t even close. If you think being the primary sponsor of enacted laws is the only definition of legislative experience, you must not understand the legislative process. But even if it was, it would still be more impressive legislative pedigree than Trump. Again, Democratic Socialism IS NOT Socialism. This has already been discussed; why are we still going through this? So continuing to let a problem that is resulting in unnecessary death and poor health is better than doing something? I don’t agree, but that means you should support protecting current abortion laws - you think it results in unnecessary death, but intervening would likely exacerbate the problems of maternal mortality and health. Besides, your claim that it won’t help the issue is not well supported. And government spending isn’t inherently problematic; if it is being productive or properly financed, it can be very good.
Why do this when there's a chance, however small, that the market allows for you to keep him at a steep discount and have a QB with lots of potential learn from and back up the aging GOAT?
I like sports, but they are hardly the only way to take your mind off other things. This isn't a good explanation.