illinilaw08

QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 4, 2017 -> 10:35 AM) Susan Rice lied about Obama admin spying on Trump campaign. Pretty big story somehow didn't get back here as far as I can see. Must have been because of Opening Day I'm sure. She (and HRC) pushed Obama to bomb Libya unconstitutionally, lied about Benghazi in a public effort to distort a tragedy and now she lied about this. Where is the accountability? I hope to see her before congress under oath. Rabbit, please read the link below re: Rice and "unmasking." http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-u...g-wrong-n742476

QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 30, 2017 -> 11:23 PM) Wow, that's really interesting. If that is the case that is one incredibly mobilized and effective group. The President, the Senate, the House of Representatives and more than two thirds of governorships are all from one party that only 25% of the country identifies with. If I was entirely unlearned on American politics I would think that is one brilliant group. I know, following along, that that's not the case but man if you just stick to the numbers the Republicans are wiping the floor with them. Rabbit, 55% of the eligible population voted in 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/pop...e-turnout-2016/ Of that amount, 45.2M voted for a Democratic Senate candidate, while 39.3 for a Republican Senate candidate. Despite that fact, the Rs control the Senate. In the House, it was 56.3M Republican votes vs. 53.2M Democratic votes. For the Presidency, well, we all know that HRC got more votes in the popular vote. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politic...e-too/93598998/ So, if 55% of eligible voters cared enough to vote, then we can assume the other 45% don't share any particular party affiliation. Based on the split of votes, and the number of votes to each side from people who don't identify as D or R, it looks like 25% of the population as Rs is a fairly accurate number. Now, that doesn't mean 75% of the population is D, obviously. The Republicans are "wiping the floor" with the Democrats because they control the rural vote. But, a mere 8 years ago, the Ds had majorities in both Houses and controlled the Presidency. Control is cyclical, and parties who think that control represents a "mandate" find themselves quickly losing control.

Flynn reportedly offers to testify on Russia in exchange for immunity. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...ge-for-immunity

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 30, 2017 -> 03:29 PM) Agree. In this rebuild mode, signing a choice latam prospect or targeted draft pick is our world series. And I am not just happy to be there! With the Sox committing to the rebuild, and the system's lack of impact position player talent (outside of Moncada and Collins), it almost feels like this is a race the Sox need to win...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2017 -> 11:28 AM) How do you propose this? There would have to be some sort of "Opt out" whereby if you do not take health insurance, you are barred from any emergency services, hospital services, etc unless you pay up front. But I would be fine with that. If you want something like a "DNR" that says "This person does not get any emergency services, hospital, etc, under any circumstances", and then allows that person to be completely denied any service. Just dont believe anyone really wants this, but sure, Im fine putting that on the table. Actually Id be 100% fine with a provision that states "If you agree to opt out of healthcare, you do not have to pay the $500 penalty." Yeah, that's the issue. We have decided that everyone has a right to healthcare treatment at a hospital. Healthcare is unique in that the provider has to provide the service notwithstanding the consumer's ability to pay. Opting out of health insurance or a healthcare system does not work if the person is still entitled to emergency services because those costs ultimately get passed down to the consumers who do have insurance or who have the ability to pay.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2017 -> 10:23 AM) The problem is all of the better matches don't want to play ball. Sure they could swoop in at the last minute to win a deal, but at this point, the best match is the team that offers the most, not the team who has the most to offer. Yep. At this point, it's a game of chicken. I'm sure there are offers out there for Q. And ultimately, from a rebuild standpoint, I think the Sox need to deal Q this season if they are looking for guys that will be ready by 2020 or so. If the offers aren't there that the Sox want right now, they might be there at the deadline. Maybe the Rockies are in contention, maybe the Yankees convince themselves to push chips in. But like SSK said, this ultimately comes down to the who offers the most, not the team who has the most to offer.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2017 -> 10:19 AM) Our federal government is not equipped to fix anything of this structure. The more involved they have gotten, the more expensive and less productive it is. We have already seen them do this to the insurance industry. Cutting that out completely would turn out health care system into a VA style system where care suffers emmensly. For god's sake, all you have to do is look at the VA to realize that the federal government can't handle health care and insurance for a smaller subset of society in our veterans. To expect them to get better at with hundreds of millions more people to take care of? I can't think of a scarier proposition. Yeah, I'm not entirely clear why the VA is so messed up, but everyone I know who is on Medicare is extremely happy to be on Medicare. There's a disconnect somewhere there. Why does Medicare work and why does the VA not work (SS discussed this below)?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2017 -> 09:38 AM) No one cares about hybrids or compromise, nor do they care about going after the actual problem which is the costs of health care in general. It is all about partisan points and meme making. Cost is an issue, but I'd argue that cost, access, and quality of care are all inter-related issues that need to be solved. The ACA did good work on access and quality of care (at least quality of what is covered under an insurance policy). It has warts, and didn't do enough on the cost side. But it's a framework that can be built on to deal with some of the cost issues. The only real talking points I've seen on cost are: (1) policies across state lines; (2) tort reform; and (3) publishing costs for procedures at each hospital. On 1, I tend to think that policies across state lines leads to a race to the bottom in terms of coverage. All policies would end up coming out of health care's version of Delaware. That sets you back on quality of care. On 2, I'm torn. It's bad when good doctors are paying premiums out the nose. But it's also bad when a doctor seriously screws up and kills or maims somebody. But I see how reducing doctor's costs in theory passes costs savings down to consumers. 3 is an important step, but it really only helps with elective surgery. If I have a heart attack, the ambulance is taking me to closest hospital, not to the most cost effective hospital. A fourth point - I've long thought that subsidizing med school (to some degree) would help on the cost side. If people are leaving med with north of $200k in debt, they need to have substantially high salaries to survive that debt which impacts the cost side of things. It requires more government money into the health care system, but there isn't a way to solve the issues with health care absent a greater influx in cash from the government. In any event, I do think we need a more substantive policy discussion on healthcare. For the last 8 years, one side of the aisle has campaigned exclusively on how bad the ACA is. I think they would have found lawmakers on the left willing to work on making the ACA better to address cost issues, and work to make the system better. Ideally, now that the R plan was an objectively worse version of the ACA that is dead, we will see some real legislating that gets us to a better place on healthcare.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Mar 30, 2017 -> 09:34 AM) I can't come up with a trade package coming from St Louis that makes much sense for the White Sox, or that could not be beaten by other clubs I don't know. If the Sox are comfortable with Reyes' medicals, a package of Reyes, Kelly, Perez and Sierra could work. The Cardinals might be willing to move Reyes because he won't help them this year, and then you add the top catching prospect in baseball, a top 100 prospect who plays SS (Perez), and a toolsy 4th prospect. Yeah, the Yankees could beat that, but it looks pretty similar to the packages we're throwing around from the Astros.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2017 -> 09:06 AM) It is a loss of freedom. Period. It is just as easy for the government to socialize pretty much anything because "it is for the public good". It is an absolutely terrible reason for anything when it comes to the power of the federal government. We can debate the mandate, but let's start by acknowledging that the ACA didn't socialize medicine. The government doesn't run healthcare, it just mandates that people have to have healthcare or pay a penalty, and it kicks government money into the program. With or without the mandate, however, freedom to not have health insurance is really a freedom for those that can afford the service in the first place. Those who can't afford healthcare don't have the freedom to make any sort of decision. BUT you didn't answer the second part of my question. And that was what should the Republicans have done with healthcare? In the initial post I responded to, you said that the Democrats blew a chance to make healthcare better for the American Public (paraphrasing), and the Republicans blew it as well. That means that you acknowledge the problems inherent in the old health care system. So what opportunity did both the Ds and the Rs blow? What is your proposed fix for healthcare?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 05:32 PM) Not to mention the mandate is the single biggest loss for individual rights for the general public in a long time, but no one seems to care about that because apparently moving towards a socialistic system where the government decides for you is more important than actual freedoms when it comes to health care. The sad part is that the GOP had a change to seize on all of this and do something that would have actually helped the American public, but just like the Democrats did, they pissed away their chance to do some real good instead of exacerbating things. SSK - on point 1, I think it's important to note that "freedom when it comes to healthcare" is a luxury. The working poor who are not provided health benefits through work were effectively priced out of the market previously. On point 2, what should the GOP have done policy wise to help the American public on health care? You say they had a chance to do something that would have actually helped the American public, but I'm in the dark on what you mean.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Mar 30, 2017 -> 07:56 AM) That's a great point. I don't think he'll leave, but still am nervous. Other news, Illinois hired OK State assistant Joey Biggs as an assistant coach. One more spot left, really hope Underwood gets Heirman or Gates. I'm seeing that Biggs will be stepping into a support staff role, not as an assistant.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 03:49 PM) Scouting at the time of the draft was fairly torn as to whether he would make it as a catcher. This isn't a new thing. I get the feeling that some are assuming that with time he can figure it out, but some guys never do. I mean look at Avi in RF. At one point he was being touted as a possible CF. The bat is obviously his carrying tool, but Collins isn't reason enough yet to even think about ignoring other catchers. Yeah, no disagreement that it's too early to be thinking about ignoring other catchers. In fact, I really like the idea of adding Severino because, even under the best circumstances, Collins as MLB catcher is a couple years off. But scouting is going to remain torn on whether Collins can stick as a catcher for awhile. I'm just putting absolutely no weight on reports on his catching from his first spring training. If the reports still have him as a disaster next spring, I'll worry about whether Collins can stick behind the plate or not.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 02:20 PM) I think it's as simple as they needed a shooter and just fell in love with the idea of McDermott despite the concerns with him. Yep. And, if I remember right, the Bulls had a shortage of roster spots at that time. I can see the mindset that led to the Bulls making that pick. It obviously backfired terribly, but I get why it happened.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 12:37 PM) I mean I get they have time. But the reports so far haven't been kind. It's really, really early. Much too soon to be formulating an opinion either way on whether Collins can stick defensively at catcher.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 02:13 PM) The handling of this is a lot like student loans. I really think a lot of the virtue signalers who say "everyone should have the right go to college" and "everyone should have healthcare" should take a basic economics course before making blanket statements like that. I wish everyone could have healthcare and education too but is it economically feasible? When you make guaranteed students loans available the Universities can charge whatever they want. When you force people to get insurance and increase premiums far past the wage growth every year they can keep raising premiums and keep rising profits even when people start to reject ACA. It's just weird seeing regular people support policies that enrich drug and insurance companies and put the burden on small companies and taxpayers. Both of these are economically viable everywhere else in the world. But it costs more. People will have to take on greater tax burdens, but that tax burden leads to greater societal benefit. On "everyone should have healthcare," the economic argument in favor of that is that everyone is entitled to go to a hospital and get care. But people who don't have insurance, don't pay their bills, the hospital gets stiffed, and this gets passed down in the form of higher costs to the consumer. It's weird to see people think that the ACA created rising premiums when that is demonstrably false.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 01:36 PM) Health care companies getting richer is proof that Obama care "ruined healthcare". Smaller companies that couldn't keep up with all of the ridiculous regulations had to shut down, limiting competition for the larger companies. Now the larger companies can do what they want and limit offerings as they so please. They only offer in the locations where they most profit. If you aren't part of a large group they like, then they limit your access to the majority of their doctors and hospitals, since you have no other companies to choose from. If you are not part of a large corporate group, you are at the mercy of the big health insurance companies, if they wish to help you. But at least they are profiting. I wonder where the majority of their political donations went. There are certainly issues with the ACA, and some of those issues are systematic. Our health care system has, for decades, been based around the idea that employers provide coverage. You have a bigger pool, so you can get lower rates, and companies get tax incentives to provide health care as a benefit. The system has never been good for people who get their insurance outside of their employer. Cheap insurance - pre-ACA when I wasn't covered by an employer - had high deductibles, and were literally catastrophe policies. No doctor co-pays, the policy was literally there if I broke my leg. The ACA helps people lower on the income spectrum obtain care. The ACA helps people with pre-existing conditions get healthcare. The ACA gets a lot right, but because it isn't Medicare for all, it's still subject to market forces. That means that policies for those on the exchanges are more expensive. Those policies cover more, but that isn't a help to somebody who is healthy and shelling out several hundred $$ per month for healthcare. There are fixes that could be made to the ACA to deal with the issues you are describing and ALSO maintain all the stuff people like about the ACA. But those fixes require more government investment. And that isn't going to happen any time soon. Medicare for all would fix a lot of the issues in the system, but that would require tax increases, and that isn't going to get traction with the Republicans in control. Ends rant...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 12:24 PM) I respect your posts. I don't mean to offend you or others with mine. Many (most) of you are much smarter about politics than I am. I like politics, but it's like my following of the White Sox. Every year I think I'll follow them in Spring Training and do not. Then I pick it up as the season starts. In politics, I follow it heavily during election season then much less the first half of a person's presidency. I'm no big Trump fan. I am a hopeful American ... still. Again, I trust those with power to impeach him if it's deemed appropriate and/or deemed that he has committed an impeachable offense. Remember when you blast me ... I do concede you all are much smarter about politics than me. But why can't I be hopeful for the USA and Trump? Why does that make me bad? Yes I want Trump to succeed. Greg, see the below link re: how Trump is proposing to pay for the Mexico wall. http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf...order_wall.html On the other stuff, if people are hopeful about Trump, I want to know policy reasons why they are hopeful. From my standpoint, in the first 60 days, he has pushed unnecessary immigration bans, has pursued deportation policies that actually make communities less safe, pushed a health care bill that would have increased health care costs, decreased coverage, and reduced the quality of health care, and he has pursued policies that will be catastrophic for the environment, including the air we breathe and the water we drink. If it's for reasons other than policy, why are they hopeful? The President has shown an unprecedented willingness to lie to the American people. When called on those lies, he says that he was merely quoting someone else. Don't blame HIM if those people were wrong. Or his administration hand waves it away by saying he was joking. Not only is that bad optics, but the President's words have a significant impact on policy, on the economy, on any number of things. So I think this needs to be turned around. If you are hopeful about Trump, why are you hopeful? What things has he done that make you think he's putting average Americans in a position to succeed?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 11:13 AM) I feel like you are closed minded on this. Q: Would you ever ever praise Trump if he did something in your eyes that was good? Or would you bash him? I agree he's very unlikeable and I tend to disagree philosophically with the very rich who run the country, but I also defer to the zillions of Americans who thought he was the best choice. It seems to me you don't want him to do anything deemed as productive. The two party system IMO has become a detriment to America. More and more (I realize it's been this way for decades) one side hates the other and will not cooperate at all for a better America. More people voted for Hillary than for Trump. It's not "zillions" of Americans who thought Trump was the best choice. It was a minority of eligible voters.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 29, 2017 -> 11:35 AM) 1.) Obamacare also sucks. It's a disaster as well. We still need a new plan. I'd listen to Bernie on this one. 2.) He's doing what he said he'd do, build a wall. he got elected on that. 3.) Dunno. 4.) He points fingers and the Demos point fingers. That's what they do. Nobody cares about America just their own party. 5.) I wouldn't call him a fraud. He is who he is. A rich, selfish one percenter who was the best option of the two so he won. 6.) I'm sure a lot of deals have gotten done in his life on or around the golf course. It's what rich people do. Golf, bond and deal. I'm sure he'll put in the time it takes to be Pres. so let him golf. 1) Why do you think Obamacare sucks? We have a lot more people covered, and health insurance covers significantly more health issues than it did previously. The Trump administration's plan would have covered less people, cost more, and covered less health issues. It was worse that Obamacare. And if you think that Trump and the Republicans are going to listen to Bernie, well... 2) Trump campaigned on Mexico paying to build a wall. He has backtracked on that. Now he's planning to pay for the wall by cutting funding for cancer and other medical research. So that's incorrect. 3) Doesn't need a response. 4) Trump's party controls every branch of the legislature. If he can't pass legislation, then he's failing. Plain and simple. 5) I'm not sure "fraud" is necessarily the right word, but Trump's lies while in the White House are very easy to prove. For a guy who was so concerned about Hillary Clinton being a mean person, you sure look the other way on a staggering number of flat out lies from the President in his first 60+ days in office. 6) Trump is golfing on his own golf courses. That means that, in addition to paying Trump a salary as President, we are also literally paying him his greens fees. Note, Trump also campaigned saying he wouldn't be golfing or vacationing. Both of those are demonstrable lies. Now, with all that being said, why do you think Donald Trump is going to be good for this country?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 28, 2017 -> 03:29 PM) Except money can't buy them a pitcher until next off-season, and didn't buy them a good one this off season. This. Assuming Q is Q this year, the Sox should get a haul back at or before the deadline. I'll start worrying about the Sox asking price if he hasn't been moved by next offseason.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 24, 2017 -> 03:31 PM) This is so not surprising. The GOP is not the party of unity. They have no problem voting against the rest of their party when they don't believe in something. They were sure united in voting against everything the Obama administration threw out there over the last 8 years. The fact that, as a bloc they do not share the same vision on health care does not a party of free thinkers make.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 24, 2017 -> 11:00 AM) You have my post backwards. This new plan IS a disaster (regardless of how we got to this point), clearly. What I am saying is that people complaining about the last minute nature of the bill, but who were fine when the Dems did it, need to look in the mirror. That's all. Obamacare is flawed. But TrumpCare is an abject disaster. Just to make sure you understand where I stand here. I think it's important to focus ire on the actual bad, but also be less defensive of previous own-goals. Yeah, this process reiterates the Trump administrations desire for "results" they can parade around over good policy. There are Conservative health care ideas that I may disagree with in philosophy, but I can understand the thought process that gets someone there. That's not the plan that has been proposed. And I think that's the (admittedly semantics) difference between the way these bills came to be. The ACA started with policy goals in mind, and last minute additions were made (after 5 months or so of public debate and discussion) to get the bill passed. The AHCA started with the goal of repealing the ACA, period with no clear policy idea behind what the bill was trying to accomplish.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 24, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) Without Meadows in a deal, Pittsburgh is one of the last teams I would like to see a deal done with. Glasnow scares the crap out of me with his lack of control. I get the stuff is there, but to still be walking 6/9 IP is scary. Bell has a nice bat, but is a DH in waiting from the sounds of it. I think we can do better than that from somewhere else, and I would be willing to sit on Q until we did. Fair enough. Leaving aside the specifics of the Pirates organization, would you want the Sox to take a deal with a pitcher as a headliner, and three top 150 position prospects coming over? I don't think the Sox necessarily need a position player to headline a Q deal, but if they don't, they need to bring back 2 or 3 position players that would rank above Basabe in the Sox position prospect rankings. I'd be comfortable with a deal like that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 24, 2017 -> 11:00 AM) It amazes me how if you swap out Muslim extremist for Jewish here, you have the same thing that went on in the last administration, with the parties (as always) flipped . Yeah, I'm not sure what the argument here is either. Could you please elaborate on what you consider to be the similarities between Trump's response to the JCC threats, and the Obama administration's response to Muslim extremists?