Y2HH

I'm not.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 20, 2009 -> 10:00 AM) SS, I think your question deserves a fuller response, because in the short term it would be a hurdle. Long term, perhaps not as much. I do believe for any new system to work, there needs to be some gate to keep people from making weekly visits to the Doctor. Currently it is the insurance companies and economics that keep people away. Also the time away from work and other responsibilities. I would like to see some sort of gate left intact. Perhaps it is a co-pay per visit. I'd even accept a sliding scale on that co-pay. Short term, I agree it will be an issue. I also believe, with providers receiving payments, we will see a boom in small clinics. I'd also like to see more Nurse and PA care for common ailments built into the system. That is one area that is underutilized with a better cost. I think there will be a slow down in the building of new emergency rooms as patients are moved to more appropriate treatment venues. I see here some of the clinics that offer free or low cost treatment. They are at capacity based on revenue not on physical size or available volunteers and doctors. They could expand without much effort just by receiving adequate funding for their operations. I am interested in how you envision the short term and long term affects. That gate is would be called rationing -- in reality -- as it's the only alternative. If demand rises (adding 40M or whatever the officinal number ends up being), and that will raise demand then the available supply MUST rise with it to keep things exactly as they are now in terms of speed, quality of care, etc. But therein lies the problem...we will not suddenly have a supply of experienced doctors and nurses that were kept in Al Gore's lockbox the last few years waiting to be unleashed to bring equality to the flood of new patients. The quality of care would either drop, because you'd be on an assembly line through a doctors office, because the line of patients behind you keeps growing -- or they'd have to start rationing to alleviate the mess they've created. Either way, the focus is once again on those unhappy with the system...thats A MINORITY number no matter what math you choose to futz with to get the answer you're looking for. The population of the US is 320+M, of that 320+M, only 40-50M are uninsured. I'm not one of them. Breaking a system that the majority are happy with because a rather loud minority wants something for nothing annoys the holy f*** out of me. But I'll compromise...and I'll do so clearly and easily. Government care ONLY IF you make less than 40K per year (family) or are unemployed. Boom. Done. And if you b**** enough, maybe you can get me to agree to raise that to 50k a year for a family...but do NOT make it something anyone and everyone can be a part of...I do not want the government more involved in my life than it already is.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 20, 2009 -> 12:01 AM) Trying bulk up my legs. The endurance issue is a good observation. I rarely do any cardio yet I've never noticed a fatigue factor on days that I'm working my upper body, only on leg days. It's not like I'm soaked in sweat and gasping for air, but I just feel like I get unplugged and all the energy gets zapped from my body quickly. I don't do much cardio either, maybe 10 minutes a day, but I also don't lift weight on my legs -- my split breaks down like this: Monday - Arms Tuesday - Shoulders Wednesday - Legs (Home workout, P90X Plyometrics) Thursday - Back Friday - Chest That split prevents any major/minor muscle assist fatigue. For example, triceps are used for chest exercises, so if you try to work out chest after an arm workout, your arms will tire too fast and you're chest workout will be affected, the same applies following up an arm workout a day later with a chest workout -- the arms are still in rebuild mode so using them isn't wise for a full workout. This split prevents that for every muscle group. Over the years I've observed that weight training on legs causes knee issues, pain, etc...so I've moved away from it. I also found the increased size caused me to lose athleticism/speed. The P90X Plyo workout is THE perfect leg workout, and it's also an exceptional cardio workout combined into one, and this is coming from a person that's worked out in the gym for years -- though I recently restarted after a hiatus, I wish I had never taken the time off. P90X is embarrassing, though, so do it alone or without sound...I mean seriously, the stuff those douchebags say half the time is just eye rolling stupid, but I won't say it's not an awesome workout, it just has to be used in a proper way. It's great for slimming down/toning up, but it's not for increasing size like weights (which is my goal). Other than that, however, I'm a traditionalist when it comes to working out -- I prefer weights over gimmicks any other day of the week, and I've tried it all from weird Bowflex machines to P90x to Yoga and core conditioning. Anyway, the P90X Plyo routine is what I'd recommend to you -- don't jump into it expecting to do the entire 60 minutes the first time, as you'll probably tire out 12 minutes into the warmups (and I'm not kidding), but after a few weeks you'll be able to finish it (provided you still do your other workouts in between). This will solve your leg strength and endurance conditioning all at once -- and believe me, it will work out every muscle in your legs. Oh, also, I note you are doing 3 sets of 10-12 -- do a pyramid instead...works wonders. Ex: Set 1 - 1x45s - 12 reps Set 2 - 2x45s - 10 reps Set 3 - 3x45s - 8 reps Etc.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 12:11 PM) I rarely squat because they wore me out even worse, lol. I'm not even going that heavy, I push out 10-12 reps per set. My legs just suck. My usual: squats on smith machine leg extensions leg press leg curls calf raises 3 sets of 10-12 reps each How much weight are you using? I'm not sure what's wrong, exactly -- are you looking to get stronger legs, bigger legs, more endurance, or what? Rock's workout will help with your endurance quite a bit...but I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Sounds like you may need to do cardio work, because the fact you are tiring out when you work your legs seems to point toward lack of cardio conditioning.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:58 AM) You were pretty insulting and dismissive of anyone who disagreed with you. Not getting that at all. I was no more or less sarcastic than anyone else. I guess I just don't take things as personally as others. I also tend to call things like I see them. When someone says the Vikings outright suck, I know it's the fan in them talking -- it's hard to take it seriously when everyone knows they may not be the greatest team, but they also don't suck.

QUOTE (Nixon @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:46 AM) If it makes you feel better I don't think you're a douchebag at all, giving your division opponent a little too much credit sure. Where's the rivalry hate man? Eh, I'm skeptical of the Packers this year -- I think their offense will be great, but over the years I was somewhat used to the Packers having a better than average offense, with Favre, and now with Rodgers. I think their issue is defense, and since they're switching from the 43 to the 34 defense this year, I foresee disaster. I watched the Bears get better (undoubtedly) with the addition of Cutler (not to mention a more solid offensive line, if they can stay on the field). Then, I watched the Vikings get better and regardless of what people say, Favre will make the Vikings a better team, they lacked a QB...and even an old Favre is better than what they had, especially with AP standing beside him. I see the Packers as a #3 team, especially taking their defensive scheme switch into consideration...so of course I'm giving other teams in my division more credit than they possibly deserve...mostly because I'm upset with the direction the Packers are taking.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:32 AM) I said you were acting like a douchebag in the thread, and it's hard to argue that you weren't when you go back and read the things you've said. These are the things that get people suspended, so just take my advice and tone it down a notch. I don't want anything to do with this argument. Just re-read everything from where I started posting...I saw nothing that would make me a douchebag other than a little sarcasm -- and it wasn't written in an attack tone at all...how you saw it that way I have no idea. Until you basically called me a doucebag, nobody called anyone any names.

QUOTE (Nixon @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:27 AM) Ooo OOO You're rubber and I'm glue right? I guess that makes me better than all the Vikings receivers combined. Well, that's hard to argue...you probably are.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:26 AM) I haven't even been involved in this conversation, so I don't see how I've been a douchebag. I have read how you have been speaking towards other people in this thread, though, and it comes off really badly. You were a douchebag by interjecting and calling me one. I've read how I've been speaking to others, too...and it's really no different than how they spoke to me. They're all right, I'm all wrong. We have differing opinions on the Packers, Vikings, Bears, Steelers and the NFL as a whole...and so what...I can dish it, I can take it...I don't see it as a bad thing. People are passionate about football, I think it's a good thing.

QUOTE (Nixon @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:25 AM) Did you high five yourself too? No, I'm not you.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:23 AM) Why are you being such a douchebag in this thread? And who are you to mock other fans when you admitted yourself that you didn't even know your starting QB signed a 6-year extension? Someone that admits when they were misinformed and wrong...yes, that's a bad thing around here, I forgot. Speaking of douchebags -- look in a mirror.

QUOTE (Nixon @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:22 AM) Yeah, they beat the Lions by a grand total of 6 points last season. STRIKING FEAR INTO THE HEARTS OF THE NFC NORTH. It's not last year. Nice strawman. Burn.

QUOTE (Nixon @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:20 AM) I'm a Steelers fan. Nice strawman though. Yes, nice strawman. Being a steelers fan you know little about the NFC north, or you probably wouldn't be calling the Vikings weak -- when everyone knows they arent.

QUOTE (Nixon @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:17 AM) They were #18 in pass defense, why run when you can pass. Weren't you the one complaining that stats don't tell the whole story? The Vikings are soft. They're overrated, their receiving corps is garbage and their coaching staff is among the worst in the league. Why are you so far up their ass as a GB fan? You still carrying a torch for that pill popping attention whore Favre? lol. Week 6 against Baltimore, Week 7 against Pittsburgh IN Pittsburgh and Week 8 against GB in Lambeau. They could be on a 3 game losing streak going into the bye. 7-0. Haha. Hehe... Another typical Da Bears fan. You and your kind are really laughable, especially after reading this...it's just laughable. Yes, the Vikings suck. The Bears are going to win the division by going 16-0. Wake up now. Dreams over.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:14 AM) I don't think Rodgers was that bad in 4th quarters last year. A couple of times he took the team down the field and put the team ahead late. The D than usually gave it up. Which forced Rodgers to come back again, usually with little time left. Rodgers also signed a nice contract during last year. 65 mil over 6 years. Which is nice compared to what Eli got and what Cutler is gonna get. You're right, I missed that somehow -- he's signed through 2014! That's good news. But I'd like to see how he plays this year before I say it was a good or bad move...being his 2nd year, the scouting reports are out and detailed on him now -- people are going to realize he's really good when throwing to the left, but anywhere else he's pretty average. This year will be a very telling tale about Rodgers.

QUOTE (Nixon @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:05 AM) I guess running games don't count as offense now? Ray Rice, Willis McGahee and McClain say hi. Pretty sure Mason put up over 1,000 yards receiving last season too. Vikings will be lucky to be at .500 by the time their bye hits in week 9. I hope Favre gets his knee shredded in practice so he can go away for good. I really hope you are joking -- but it doesn't appear that you are... The Vikings have the #1 rushing defense in the NFL. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't realize that. Running games can say hi to that.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:01 AM) It was his first season starting. He did a damn good job and as I said, in the small sample size, those numbers are actually comparable to Favre (who I've seen blow a game many a time with an untimely INT and I'm sure you have too). Before the Bears got Cutler, I'd have taken him over almost any QB in the NFL. He's only had 8 attempts on 4th down - you really can't draw anything meaningful out of that. To be fair, I agree -- I need to give Rodgers more time. And Rodgers is better than Cutler, for the record...it's not even close.

But don't get me wrong -- he's good, he just needs more time to grow. Of course the packers will try to resign him, I'm just not sure it will happen. I think the hardest thing for a Packer fan to get a grip on is Rodgers is absolutely terrible on 4th down situations -- which are often crucial. It's in those situations that Favre is at his absolute best, I guess we kinda miss that.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 08:39 AM) The Packers will give him an extension unless they are stupid. I've debunked this myth about him not being a "winner" before but I suppose I can do it again (I have no vested interest in defending Rodgers). The numbers simply don't bear this out. The Packers' defense sucked last year, Rodgers didn't choke. 4th quarter: 87.8 rating, 87/143 60.8% Late and close: 93.7 rating, 54/85, 63.5% (very similar in regular close situations) Playing from behind: 88.9 rating, 160/258, 62% 3rd down: 105.8 rating In losses: 83.1 rating, 60% 2 mins left: 69.4 rating, 62.9% His completion percentage, accuracy, decision-making etc. are pretty even across the board. Besides the 2-minute drill, which is a pretty small sample size (and pretty similar to Favre's in 2007 which you keep pointing to anyway), there are no obvious red flags. His production in all situations are as good as or better than Favre's basically across the board, even going back 2-3 years. All great statistics. But as in baseball, there are so many statistics for other statistics that they often cover up reality. I've watched Rodgers in the final 2 minutes of many games in which they were trailing -- and he lost them. I know you'd love to dismiss that "small sample size", but in football, that "small sample size" is often one of the most telling stats in the game for a QB. He's shown he's incapable of coming from behind with just a few minutes left in the game. He also has a big problem if he has to carry the team -- as his passer rating drops precipitiously when he throws more than 30 passes in a game.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 08:21 AM) The hell are you talking about? I haven't brought up the Bears a single time in this thread. Why would I be biased if I just said Aaron Rodgers is the real deal? Consistency please? I've been a Packer fan for decades, so yes, I've watched him. He has talent...too bad he's a FA soon. Also, he's not very good under game time pressure. As soon as it's the 4th quarter he has shown a lack of ability to make a comeback...until he does that, he's not going to be called the successor, at least not by me.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 09:50 PM) Man I hate leg days. They take so much out of me, I can't figure out why. I'll start with 4 sets of leg presses with moderate weight and when I'm done with those I'm exhausted, light headed and ready to go home. Then I'll just half ass through the rest of it because I start to feel like if I push any harder, I'll vomit. This only happens with legs, consequently, they are by far the weakest and worst looking muscle group on my body. Tips?? Lighten the load or switch it up to squats, and try isolating a bit. Do some calf raises, some leg extensions and some leg curls rather than simply pressing weight.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 08:18 AM) What's this have to do with the Bears? Get off that. Everything. You sound like the typical Da-Bears fan with your obvious bias. It's actually funny, keep it going!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 08:14 AM) I didn't say the Vikings were going to suck, but all of the de facto clinging to Favre's dick is unwarranted. Oh and Rodgers > Favre, sorry. Can't blame the lack of a QB for a decline in the RB's play. Favre had the same RB, and played the first 6 games 2 years ago without him -- I think it was Favre that made that RB good, not the other wary around. Nobody'a afraid of Rogers yet -- he's good, but nobodys afraid of him...so they're stacking the box, whereas with Favre they loosened it, hence the RB appearing better than he was.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 11:20 PM) And that was when they were recruiting him in the first place, and then he turned them down simply because he didn't want to go through a training camp. Just reeks of hypocrisy. My point on Sage vs. Farve is this. Right now, when both are 100% healthy, Farve is clearly the better QB. But who expects Farve to be 100% healthy for the whole season and the playoffs? I certainly don't, especially when he hasn't had any surgery since the end of last season to fix the partially torn rotator cuff. I'd expect his numbers to decrease as the season goes along, just like they did with the Jets, and it'll cost the Vikings when it's all said and done. Supposedly he doesn't need to have the rotator cuff repaired, as he's had it for years. Let's ignore that, too. This way we can act like it's a foregone conclusion that the Bears are going to win the division! I think you guys need to look at the Vikings schedule -- they're not going to hit a good team until like week 7 (Ravens) who have no offense. I easily see the Vikings jumping to a 7-0 start.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 07:53 AM) Favre is an upgrade, but not as much as people are saying it is. First off, what is he, about the 22nd best QB in the NFL right now? Then, remember that he had that bicep issue (yes he had surgery but he is old), the partially torn rotator cuff, then he hasn't bothered with training camp or practice and he's going to have to cram the Vikings' offense and wing it with the WRs. He does have a great line and AD to play with but come on, let's quit acting like Favre still plays at a Hall of Fame level. It was a joke that he made the Pro Bowl last year. The year before last he went to the NFC title game, and nearly won, doing so with a fleet of young receivers (less Driver), and a no-name running back that was only good because Favre stood in front of him. The minute Favre left the team that running back regressed to the point of non existence and Greg Jennings looked human again. But let's forget about all that. Favre won't have to throw the ball 40 times a game anymore, like he did last year or the year before, since he has an actual running back (and backup). But let's forget about all that, too. Favre's rotator cuff injury is supposedly years old, a diagnosis by the one and only James Andrews (who I think knows what he's talking about), and his torn bicep is surgically repaired and healed. Let's forget that, too, though. It's more convenient to just pretend the Vikings are going to suck.