ptatc

I need to play two of the following: Leveon Bell, Torrey Smith, Matellus Bennett, Golden Tate. I need a wr and flex in a ppr league.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 01:18 PM) This seems incongruous with other trends. The lack of doctors problem, and the drive to cut medical costs by having non-Doctoral medical professionals do a larger bulk of the load, as examples. Those trends, I think, will win out in the long run over lower reimbursement levels for physical therapy. I could be wrong of course, but that is my view. I read a great pilot program and study, as an example, some 15 years ago. Not PT, but on the topic of balancing which types of professionals do what work. In a rural area in the mountainous west, they decided to try an alternative to expensive clinics to serve spares and spread out communities for basic medical needs. The basic idea was, the only medical professionals in these areas are often the fire/rescue volunteers - EMT's and Paramedics. So they trained some of them on things like immunizations, some limited medication scripting, therapeutic techniques, etc. And they delivered much of the care in person, in their homes. The results were dramatically increased general health, for relatively low costs, because ovehead was so low. This sort of out-of-the-box thinking could benefit medical costs as a whole. This type of program generally works, i think. It most other counties if you have a minor injuries such as a sprained ankle you don't go to the expensive physician. You go directly to the "physio" (PT) who in most cases is better trained in orthopedics than most GP physicians. This saves a great deal of time and money for the system. In many states this type of direct access is legal but underutilized due to the public perceptions of physician's as "gate keepers" of all medicine.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 20, 2013 -> 09:15 AM) Love that trade if you're in a ppr league. And that's really lame that it won't be finalized until Monday, your commissioner can't just put it through? For some reason the trades after weds go through after the games for the week are done. So it's actually finalized tomorrow. The starting moreno instead of gore didn't go so well however I still won so it didn't matter. I think the brown for gore trade will help in the long run.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 20, 2013 -> 12:15 AM) Now they're saying nothing has been decided re:Gronk. Normally I'd say it's a Belichik smoke screen, but who knows with this fiasco I'm at lacrosse practice. I need to watch this. I had him in my starting lineup. Finally made my trade for a WR last night. It was gore for antonio brown. The guy wanted gore instead of moreno. I think it is actually better as gore has been more consistent but doesn't score as much. Unfortunately, I didn't realize the trade won't be final until Monday.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 19, 2013 -> 02:40 PM) Mike Leake also comes to mind, but I don't think there's ever been a hitter to do so. The Sox don't really need a pitcher to come straight out of the draft, unless Rondon drops to us and they wanna use him as a LH bullpen arm. Guys like John Olerud and Dave winfield didn't even go to the minors, if my old mind is still working.

Gore vs. Ten or moreno vs. Ind? Im really stuck on this one.

An interesting topic came up today at our advisory board meeting with local clinician's. The popularity of the physical therapy field is always ties to insurance reimbursement. The clinician's as a group said that over the last 3 months there has been a reduction in reimbursement across the board. Earlier in the year there were 10 jobs for every PT. Now, the clinics are getting 10 applicants for every opening as they dry up. Everyone is holding their breaths to see how all of this unfolds and are really cutting back.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 03:03 PM) Do you really think guys didn't play harder when Chris Sale was on the mound? Because frankly, I think that's frankly crazy talk. Maybe it's not play harder but are more focused thus play better.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 02:01 PM) I like Brown over Moreno overall, but who is your 4th RB? You'll need a backup for bye weeks. I've got Le Veon Bell and Eddie Lacy for extra RB

A trade was offered to me. My Knowshon Moreno for Antonio Brown. My starters at RB are Gore and Lynch. Moreno is very hit and miss as they sit him if they get a lead and let Hillman and Ball play.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 12:53 PM) Thats why Id need more facts. If a guy went through 4 weeks that felt like he was being burned alive every minute its probably worth more than if he sat at home for 4 weeks and got to watch netflix. There are a lot of things wrong with the legal profession, but capping medical malpractice claims likely isnt one of them. Thats just 2 remarkably powerful lobbies (Drs and insurance) putting on an amazing show. Its just so clever. Somehow the fact that Drs are making grave mistakes that are hurting people is forgotten. And even more hilarious the jury already has the ability to cap the award however they like dependent on the facts. So if tort reform is so popular and every person goes into the jury thinking "Im not going to give a ridiculous award", imagine how bad the facts must be to convince them to give these sums. I always tell people, to get a lot of money, you need to get hurt really really bad. And its probably not worth it. It's not the legal profession that bothers me it's some of the laws. The grave mistakes where there is permanent or long lasting damage are the valid ones and should get their due. I've been involved in those as well. I agree with the final quote and it usually goes that way.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 12:18 PM) Well I'm sure some of it could be pain and suffering. MRSA staff infections are extremely painful (if it was that), VRSA is worse. It wasn't MRSA. Just a staph infection and the reason was for pain and suffering. However, he returned to normal rehab within 4 weeks.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 11:42 AM) If it's a 2 million dollar settlement, someone screwed up somewhere and the damages were drastic. Insurance companies don't throw away large sums of money like that. Do you have a link to this story? I don't have a link it was one I was personally involved as the PT. I'm not saying they are all like this just that these are the ones that unnecessarily raise the price tag.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 11:30 AM) Without the facts I cant really comment. But I have to presume that the infection did more than just cost the person 4 weeks of work. Otherwise that seems odd. It did not. And it was odd.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 08:34 AM) Remember how I said there was "way too much malpractice"? Infection in hospitals is a problem that can be significantly reduced simply by following proper procedures. This has been repeatedly established in trials of basic checklist use, for example, but many hospitals have simply treated them as a cost of doing business. Agreed. However, that is not the physician's fault and was definitely not worth the 2 million judgement with no permanent disability. They write it off as expense but the amount of the judgments are the outrageous part.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 09:28 AM) When you have the power to kill someone or seriously injure them for life because of your mistake, you better have adequate insurance coverage. And if malpractice is a real problem in this country, taking away the economic penalty for being s***ty at your job won't help that problem. Doctors will get even more negligent/careless. That's true if it was only the very serious cases. How about a 2 million dollar settlement when a person got an infection (not necessarily the physician's fault) because the patient was delayed in returning to work for 4 weeks? These are the cases to which I'm referring. If you screw up you screw up and there should be penalties.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 04:36 PM) A lot of research is funded by outside grants, but many institutions are research institutions and students know this full-well before attending. Some colleges, like Rose-Hulman, are teaching facilities first, but your flagship schools are primarily research-based. If they weren't it'd be hard to attract grad students and professors who either are training or have trained for a life of research. It's not about "adding a little to their prestige," it's one of the primary reasons professorships exist. External funding is dropping dramatically, most of it was federal.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 04:34 PM) Healthcare probably shouldnt be a for-profit game either. And I actually think that about law as well. Now we're getting towards way to decrease the cost of healthcare. Like in the VA system. You can't sue the doc for exaggerated amounts.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 02:08 PM) Not to discount research, but why is that the responsibility of the tuition paying student? If I was paying tuition, I am paying it to be taught, not so he can go publish papers, research things and add a little to his prestige. Professors do not have the latest and new information to impart to the students without research. Somebody needs to do the research and the state and federal government are not funding it. If you want an institution of higher learning this is what needs to be done.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) Education shouldn't be a for-profit game though, especially if it's being paid with government funds. It's not for profit. Everything goes back into the research, salary or something else for public schools.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 10:40 PM) The trend towards part-time and untenured professorships is bad for everyone. Will just lead to only a select few schools having the select few qualified researchers while the schools trying to cut corners will be delivering a crap experience with underprepared and underpaid teachers Completely true. In physical therapy it's already very difficult to find qualified people because very few return to school to get an academic doctorate, most stay in the clinic. The current climate in the state is making it worse. Again, part of the reason that the change in healthcare will lead to inferior care for the masses.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 11:38 PM) So 3 students ponying up $120k between them doesn't cover the cost of one professor? Then he is over paid. Read what I wrote there a little bit more. As mentioned a few posts ago by someone it is more the admin bloat I am referring to. http://www.ibhe.org/PA96266/search.aspx Just check out the many admin positions. Assist. provost to this, assistant to that, all 6 figure jobs. And this doesn't count THEIR support staff, because you know they each have an assistant, a secretary, a few peons and so on. It's not just salary. There is the massive research costs. Salary is less than 25% of the cost for a professor's work at a research institution. Unless you don't want much of the advancement in medicine that we currently see (again just my field) the money needs to be there. I completely agree with the administration cost.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 09:44 PM) I meant at a higher level, New directors of this or that made-up position, outsized compensation packages, etc., not administrative assistants. I can dig up the data on this tomorrow if you're interested. If you meant administration then I completely agree. I took it as the academic administrative assistant. I think it's true in most situations (including the government) where there is too much "supervision" and not enough doing. Again, my whole life is based on data and research, but I don't need to see this data I live it daily.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 09:07 PM) This is greed. I may be eternally optimistic but unfortunately I just do not think you can convince people not to be greedy. So there will always be a client, lawyer, business, dr, person who is willing to try and game the system to make profit. And that is really why I think that everyone should get health care, because money and all that is just a game. Insurance risks really wont change, because the risk of people who dont have health insurance is already covered in a different form of insurance. It also is better for insurance because if you insure from birth you just want the largest amount of insureds. Unless you are going to exclude due to preconditioning, which then gets at a more fundamental question of do we as a society have a duty to try and ensure that everyone has an equally healthy life if science allows it, even if the cost is may be extremely high for some as compared to others. I'm not disagreeing that it's greed or that there shouldn't be universal healthcare. I just don't think this version of a new system will work effectively. I think cost control is the first step and policing the greed more effectively will be better than just offering this type of program.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 08:56 PM) Administrative and facilities bloat, slashed state funding. Definitely not professorship positions, which are being increasingly replaced with non-tenure adjunct lecturer positions. Without the administrative support the professors production will decrease dramatically. I hate taking a great deal of time entering data into spreadsheets.