Nut Can

Comment: MLB 2012 - The Offseason by Jeremy

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:11:15 -0600

Yes, people probably would bring it up if it first came out yesterday, because he didn't fail the test yesterday, he failed it during the season.

Granted the fact that the news he was named the MVP was practically interrupted by the news that he failed a drug test probably stirred the fervor a little bit, but on the other hand that drama has mostly ran its course. It was spread out, to a certain extent little by little, over a few months. If it was all one, official, over and done with bombshell a few days from now, it might be all the tizzy and furor from the last few months all smashed into the following days with the officialness needed to do something about it at the height of the controversy.

As it stands it will be old water under the bridge old news to a load of people by the time it's made official.

Comment: MLB 2012 - The Offseason by Scott

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:31:42 -0600

Brewers sign Marcum to one year deal, avoiding arbitration. He's getting $7.725 million this year. That number was essentially the mid point between what the brewers offered and what marcum offered.

Comment: The Official 2011-2012 NBA Thread by Alex

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:43:07 -0600

Since they're on almost every night because of the condensed schedule, I've watched a little bit. At this point it seems to me that the Bucks have the depth to get into the playoffs (especially because of the condensed schedule) where they'll promptly make a first round exit due to a lack of star power. Although I saw Jennings go off in the second half against Miami, but beyond him they have a bunch of role players.

Comment NFL 2011 Season Super Bowl Picks by Alex

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:38:58 -0600

I'll seriously consider a complete Fantasy Football boycott because of this

http://espn.go.com/nfl/conversations/_/id/7537208/nfl-adding-more-thursday-games-schedule-commissioner-roger-goodell-says

Comment: The Official 2011-2012 NBA Thread by Scott

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:11:27 -0600

The Bucks have won 6 of their last 8, including 2 wins over the Heat and a win over the Lakers. Impressive? I have no idea, I don't follow the NBA. Does Alonzo Mourning still play for the heat?

Comment: MLB 2012 - The Offseason by Scott

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:21:32 -0600

Some of that is probably true, but the Shawne Merriman Rule didn't actually affect Shawne Merriman, at least not in the year it refers to. So if there is a Ryan Braun rule, it shouldn't affect Braun. But what would the "Ryan Braun Rule" be? "If you fail a test for whatever reason after the season is over and after votes for that season have been submitted and counted, and if that news is criminally leaked before you have a chance to defend your case, then you are not able to receive any awards that may have been awarded to you during the season in which you didn't actually fail any tests"? If the news never broke until tomorrow and we hadn't had all offseason to debate the warrants of an MVP player getting into this kind of mess, would we even start the discussion? I mean, for the most part, the MVP debate would have been long over, and the news would have been "MVP player fails test that took place after the season".

Comment: MLB 2012 - The Offseason by Jeremy

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:17:37 -0600

Costas, at least as reported in that article, made no such claim about the two being "the same". He only said they're alike in so far as that he likes the NFL's rule that you can't get an accolade in the same season you get slapped with a substance abuse failure. Last I checked the Cardinals won't have to say they were 2011 Season 2/B champions. Braun's test occurred in the same season, while he was still playing no less, no matter how you spin it, and the best it can be spun is that, as far as we know, he failed a handful hours outside the window of the regular season.

Likewise he didn't "almost defend" Arod. The only point he made, which is valid, is that you don't have to leap to retroactively stripping a guy of a 8 year old award on a 4 year old failure, just to have a conversation about taking it from a guy who failed before the ink on the MVP ballots was dry. This is still the same off season, and is totally different then going back 5, 10, or 100 years to strip every person later proved to be a cheat in some way of their records. ARod would only serve as some sort of precedent if he too failed a drug test 16 seconds after the votes were tabulated, and there was no revote.

I don't think it would be any grand injustice if there was no revote, but I don't think the argument is completely unwarranted. This is a unique situation.

Comment: MLB 2012 - The Offseason by Scott

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:48:48 -0600

My only point of posting that article was the section that I quoted. Let's get it out already. I mean, someone can leak out information about the failed test but no one can leak out information regarding the results? Milwaukee writer/radio guy Drew Olson tweeted today that if he had news about Braun, either good or bad, he would wait to announce it the Friday before the Super Bowl.

While Costas was essentially saying that Braun's case is the same as Merriman's case, he's actually wrong about that (maybe similar, but there are some significant difference). Merriman was suspended the same year in which he was elected to the pro bowl. Braun's test did not occur during the season in which he won the MVP. The test occurred even after the votes were submitted. There is a fairly significant difference there. That and there is a whole laundry list of details that make Shawne Merriman's case way different than this (assuming that some of the leaked reports about Braun are true, like the reports that it wasn't a PED he tested positive for, but rather a "banned substance").

Comment: MLB 2012 - The Offseason by Jeremy

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:28:06 -0600

Would it have been possible to mis-characterize the demeanor, context, or content of the Bob Costas interview any more than this guy did? I vote no.

Comment: MLB 2012 - The Offseason by Scott

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:08:22 -0600

What is the Hold Up on the Braun Ruling?
Please, give us a verdict so that Brewers fans can move on with their lives. We have suffered enough and I am sick of it. Let me go back to enjoying my Brewers/Packers swaperoo. If any arbitrator in this case happens to read my article, you have the power to end this. I don’t care which way you decide. Never have. Just give me an answer so that I can start talking about Jed Bradley and Taylor Green. Enough is e-fricking-nough. I am done.

Comment NFL 2011 Season Super Bowl Picks by Scott

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:05:57 -0600

Did I miss the Pro Bowl picks week?

Comment: The Republican Field by Jeremy

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:47:48 -0600

But even if the higher demand is sustained, and obviously to some extent it would be, supply will catch up. You can't point to "not enough money in it" as a negative of entering a healthcare field, and then bemoan all the extra money being spent on it.

Obviously these plan might not actually save anything, but even if they cost more, it's money well spent. Either way I think it's way too early to call. It would be like convincing a group of people that generally speaking a college education is the ticket to greater overall wealth in life, then having them check the status of their wealth at 1, 2, 4, or even 6 years into the plan and going "what gives". It's not a slam dunk, but obviously the plans aren't going to look stellar in the main investment years.

As for the elderly, yes, they use a lot and keeping them alive longer will cost more, though I guess part of the problem with this conversation is we're using the same phrases to mean different things, sometimes in the same post. Healthcare expenditure as a country might go up while heathcare costs you or I less.

I have no problem with making people who can buy it buy it. If you get into a car accident with no insurance of any kind; you go to a hospital, and your car gets towed to a mechanic, the mechanic can say "well, you have no means of paying so...have a nice life". The hospital is just going to save you, and sort it out later. Obviously young/healthy people are using it less, but every human ever not born broken is healthy...until they aren't. Just like roads and schools and tons of other crap, you could use them, whether or not you do right now, so you should kick in something for when you do. I know the hospitals themselves aren't state run, but I think you could make a case some of the system should be. We're living in a society people.

However, yes, there are other things that need to change too. Most of our clients, as well as our parent company, are medical billers. Essentially between tangled, ever changing, regulations, dealing with what is and isn't covered by whom, and what to do when someone doesn't pay, hospitals look at the prospect of having to deal with that and say "the hell with it" and pay someone else to go get their money. Personally I think a lot of problems with the industry is just an IT problem.

Comment: The Republican Field by Matt

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:10:29 -0600

The problem is, though, that most of the uninsured are uninsured because they can't afford to buy it in the first place. They are dealt with by expanding Medicaid and other programs, and/or subsidizing their insurance. To the extent they were "freeloaders" in the first place, they still are now. Plus, when you subsidize something, you get more of it. Demand then, will almost certainly outpace supply and prices will go up. So, while you have solved the problem of this group not being insured, you are definitely not doing it in a way that decreases health care costs.

As for the people who can afford insurance, but don't buy it... Maybe you save money, maybe not. I think it depends on how different factors balance out. Yeah, you may prevent hospitals from having to eat the cost of procedures (and then passing it on to those who pay), but that amount may only have a small overall effect on prices. I believe that most of the people in this group are usually young and healthy. They don't use a lot of health care (and if they can afford insurance, they are probably paying out-of-pocket anyway), so the only cost is when a small percentage of the group needs major care. However, if you make this group buy insurance that they, presumably, didn't want before, then they may decide to use more health care since they are already paying for it. This could increase demand and thus prices. Ironically, depending on what level of insurance you make this group buy, they could end up having to pay for a lot more care than they can use/need, and thus would become the subsidizers while the original insured group would now be the freeloaders.

As to whether preventative care/screening saves money, again, maybe. For every person that saves money by catching something early, there are x number of people who get screened/use preventative care that would never come down with the condition anyway. Also, since we're strictly talking money here, I'll throw this out. The elderly use a lot of health care. Since they are covered by Medicare, the government ends up spending a lot of money on them. It's quite possible then, that by being unhealthy and dying young, you are actually costing society less than if you stay healthy and die older (hello death panels ). Again, I'm not advocating that we let this happen. I'm just talking on strictly monetary cost terms.

A few final points:

1. Like everything else, health care costs are dependant on supply and demand.

2. A big factor on the demand side is that so much of the health care expenditures are through third-party payers (Medicare/Medicaid, employer provided insurance). The closer you are to the actual costs of the care, the more cost-effective you will be in making health care decisions. As people become less willing to buy care that isn't cost effective, demand will go down.

3. As for the supply side, we should look into easing the way for health care to be delivered in less costly ways. This can include things like getting rid of burdensome regulations, tort reform, etc. Also, and I'm not sure what all can be done to do this, we should find ways to increase the number of doctors (especially primary care docs) and other medical professionals.

4. Regarding people seeking non-emergency care in the emergency room. A lot of these people are not the uninsured, but people who lack access to primary care doctors. One factor is a shortage of primary care doctors. Another factor is that doctors are increasingly dropping Medicaid and Medicare patients as the reimbursement from the government for these patients is too low. They are then left with the emergency room as their only source of health care.

Comment: The Republican Field by Jeremy

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:53:13 -0600

It's safe to say there's probably a greater health return, but I don't think that's the point.

It stands to reason that any plan like this will lead to an initial spike in expendature.

Much like in parks and rec you're going to have people who were never insured before pile 10 years worth of checkups and backlogged medical care into the first period. That demand will subside eventually.

Not to mention one of the key parts of it has to be looked at as an investment. Part of a stitch in time saving nine is actually making that first stitch.

Edit: I mean, take that $414 million from the state for example. Who knows how much of that was catching diabetes, heart conditions, cancers, and untold other progressive diseases early. Even if there's nothing "wrong" getting a baseline comparison of test results that a doctor can compare to later, or use to give you advice on can save later. Laying out that money on those people will save the state much much more in the long run. (Not to mention, that whole keeping thousands of people from suffering, or dying early, thing.)

Comment: The Republican Field by Matt

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:29:42 -0600

According to the study, costs increased more than they would have without the law. As for what the costs were, from the article:

"Specifically, the Institute found that:

* State health care expenditures have risen by $414 million over the period;
* Private health insurance costs have risen by $4.311 billion over the period;
* The federal government has spent an additional $2.418 billion on Medicaid for Massachusetts;
* Over this period, Medicare expenditures increased by $1.426 billion"

I suppose you could say that higher prices aren't bad, if you got back a greater amount of "health" in return, but I doubt that is the case here.