Obamacare got more health insurance coverage for the lower class, but it crippled the middle class in the process. It goes much deeper than just providing more coverage. Also, Obamacare compels action at gunpoint and violates American freedoms. This is a problem. The point is, I don't think you can say "well this provides more coverage so I support it."

But you are right, it is very complex and complicated. This is why neither political party can get it right. The republicans have no plan and the democrats had a bad plan. While what the Dems produced turned out to be crappy, I applaud them for making efforts to fix a poor system.

I use Botox and Laser eye surgery as examples. Both were very expensive and then more and more doctors got into it and now the prices are very affordable. Why? Neither is covered by insurance and capitalism works.

The fact that at my job I pay the same for insurance as someone who has twice as many kids or maybe those who are not nearly as healthy is illogical. Auto insurance takes into account driving record, car value, location, experience, etc. Life insurance requires you to take many tests and those who are deemed less healthy pay more.

The ACA was a disaster. It forced the healthy to pay for the unhealthy and the only entities who made out were insurance companies. They have never seen higher profits.

Nationalized Healthcare doesn’t work. Period. I recommend we get away from employers offering insurance. Do it how auto insurance is. Have people apply on their own. Have companies compete. Have companies gauge what the right costs should be. The fact that I may have a broken arm and the MD cannot tell me how much it will cost to cure it is mind boggling.

Get the lobbyists out. Get the employers out. Let capitalism take over and for the poor and unfortunate they apply the same way they do for food stamps and get health stamps or whatever.

Healthcare is a tricky issue. In some cases, we are talking about life and death situations. I think one thing we have to remember is that health insurance is not health care. The one area that we get it right is that if you go to the emergency room, you must be treated. Nobody is denied service. Where it gets tough is when you are talking medications and life-saving treatments. This is where insurance becomes somewhat of a necessity. We do have medicaid for the poor which helps, but it a highly flawed system. It is abused by many and a lot of doctors (typically the better ones) do not accept it. The problem is that it is the best system to date to help the poor. I have yet to hear a solution that replaces it and still provides the necessary services.

Here's the thing. We know why healthcare is so expensive. It is because of frivolous lawsuits, administrative costs, high drug costs,... We need a remedy for those before we can actually attack health care reform.

Since Healthcare-providers accept such a low (<50) % of payment from Insurance companies, why then won't they accept that same payment from the unInsured? Every procedure should cost the same for every patient. Mandating that would be a quick, simple 1st step.

Most doctors offices do give significant discounts for "self-pay" patients.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I haven't ran any actual numbers, but I'm not sure any player is worth $35M/year. Saying that, I think he's worth more than Harper simply because he can play SS adequately if needed.

It's a function of revenue. If you work for a company that brings in $1B a year in revenue (Yankees) and can make an argument that your labor contributes significantly to the company's success, $35M a year is a drop in the bucket. Realistically, the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, and a handful of low payroll teams can afford to pay Machado or Harper $30M+ a year. League average payroll was $140M last year. It will probably be about the same this year. The White Sox could sign both and still just barely hit league average payroll.

Look at the Braves, for example. The excerpt below is from Fangraphs. We know a lot about the Braves finances because their parent company is public, so we can see their books.

It is useful to put Atlanta in a broader context. While the Braves moving into a new ballpark opens up new revenue streams, most teams have relatively new ballparks. The 2.5 million fans the Braves have drawn in attendance in each of the past two season is good, but the team also ranked outside the top 10 this past season. Add in one of the worst local television contracts in the game and a $130 million payroll, and the Braves had $100 million in profits last season. If a team with close to average ticket prices and attendance took in $100 million in profits with their payroll, it isn’t far-fetched to think that there are teams with significantly higher payrolls but better attendance and television deals also making a tidy profit as well.

That 130M includes over $40M in dead money to Adrian Gonzalez, Scott Kazmir and a bunch of smaller contracts to guys like Peter Bourjos and RA Dickey. That all goes away this year.

And they are paying Josh Donaldson and Darren O'Day a combined $32M in 2019 that will be gone in 2020. Markakis ($4m 2019 and $6m 2020) had a good year last year, but he's 34. The Braves are clearly trying to compete. Signing Harper also/instead would have been a perfect fit for them this year. And they can EASILY afford it. 10/350 or 12/400 sounds huge, but compared to actual team revenue, it's not insane.

Being able to afford and it being good business are two entirely different things. The question is does Harper bring in $40M/year worth of production. The market is saying no so far. Just because teams can afford to give him that doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/8/2019 9:08:00 AM (view original):
Obamacare got more health insurance coverage for the lower class, but it crippled the middle class in the process. It goes much deeper than just providing more coverage. Also, Obamacare compels action at gunpoint and violates American freedoms. This is a problem. The point is, I don't think you can say "well this provides more coverage so I support it."

But you are right, it is very complex and complicated. This is why neither political party can get it right. The republicans have no plan and the democrats had a bad plan. While what the Dems produced turned out to be crappy, I applaud them for making efforts to fix a poor system.

If I had to trade middle class healthcare for poor healthcare, I would do it. But ideally you would want both.

I don't care about 'freedoms'.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/8/2019 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Being able to afford and it being good business are two entirely different things. The question is does Harper bring in $40M/year worth of production. The market is saying no so far. Just because teams can afford to give him that doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

I think he probably does. And it's not really that cut and dry.

For what is probably several reasons (analytics, collusion, skyrocketing franchise values, etc), every year for the last couple years, a smaller and smaller share of the overall league revenue has gone to the players, despite overall revenues going way up.

That's a problem. MLB (and NBA and NFL) aren't normal businesses. You or I or Joe Schmo goes into work every day to help deliver whatever it is our businesses sell. We aren't the actual product. MLB players are. Their share of the revenue should be large and it should be guaranteed through the CBA.

You don't care about freedoms because you have them and take them for granted. Talk to people who don't have the freedoms that we have and see what kind of response you get. We way too often take our freedoms for granted.

Posted by all3 on 2/8/2019 10:53:00 AM (view original):
Since Healthcare-providers accept such a low (<50) % of payment from Insurance companies, why then won't they accept that same payment from the unInsured? Every procedure should cost the same for every patient. Mandating that would be a quick, simple 1st step.

So would that mean many poor people don't get healthcare and die?

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/8/2019 11:30:00 AM (view original):
You don't care about freedoms because you have them and take them for granted. Talk to people who don't have the freedoms that we have and see what kind of response you get. We way too often take our freedoms for granted.

I am clearly not talking about bill of rights or an authoritarian regime.

I don't think microaggressions of freedom are that important.

On this issue, my logic is, 'Pile up the dead bodies that we could have kept alive, whichever plan has the least dead bodies wins.'

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/8/2019 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Being able to afford and it being good business are two entirely different things. The question is does Harper bring in $40M/year worth of production. The market is saying no so far. Just because teams can afford to give him that doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

I think he probably does. And it's not really that cut and dry.

For what is probably several reasons (analytics, collusion, skyrocketing franchise values, etc), every year for the last couple years, a smaller and smaller share of the overall league revenue has gone to the players, despite overall revenues going way up.

That's a problem. MLB (and NBA and NFL) aren't normal businesses. You or I or Joe Schmo goes into work every day to help deliver whatever it is our businesses sell. We aren't the actual product. MLB players are. Their share of the revenue should be large and it should be guaranteed through the CBA.

I agree with some of this. Sports are different than most enterprises. A quality product is a competitive product. But, there as a value placed on each player as to what they add competitively. The market within MLB so far has said that he doesn't add $40M of competitive advantage.

I hate being a conspiracy guy, but I strongly believe that the teams have agreed to some form of collusion. Either it’s dont spend over X% of renevue or don’t sign players for more than X average annual value for more than Y years.

I have no actual evidence to back up this opinion. But I also know that people smarter, more connected, and with a better view of MLB operations than me hold the same belief.