Pittsburgh Pirates: jcharding - Viewing Profile - Pittsburgh Pirates

Jump to content

User Rating: -----

Reputation: 967 Excellent
Active Posts:
5,284 (1.67 per day)
Most Active In:
Change In Atmosphere Discussion (5276 posts)
17-November 08
Profile Views:
Last Active:
User is online Today, 07:32 PM
Viewing Topic: Steeler's Offseason Thread

My Information

Member Title:
Bench Manager
Age Unknown
Birthday Unknown
Not Telling Not Telling

Contact Information


Latest Visitors

Posts I've Made

  1. In Topic: Steeler's Offseason Thread

    Yesterday, 06:02 PM

    View PostNCBuccofan, on 25 July 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

    Not really, when the section called, would someone pay him, keeps saying someone will pay him.

    Of course it is a risk. He plays in the NFL.

    I would argue that you are both right. Someone will pay him, but it's a bad contract and I am comfortable with the Steelers not doing it. And I think he is the best RB in the NFL.

    I also think he is an idiot for turning it down. He won't be as productive elsewhere, and he won't finish the contract.
  2. In Topic: Trump Presidency Thread

    Yesterday, 03:53 PM

    View PostMa13tt0, on 25 July 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

    Aren't there a shit ton of kids waiting to get adopted and can't because they can't find homes? So how is adding another kid to the pool a good thing? Especially one forced on someone.

    There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care.

    Today, about 135,000 children are adopted in America every year from the foster care system, private domestic agencies, family members, and other countries.

    The number of single women placing babies for adoption has dropped dramatically from 9% of all births to 1% as unwed motherhood loses its stigma.

  3. In Topic: Trump Presidency Thread

    Yesterday, 02:46 PM

    Winter, let me put it this way. Absent health care, the people in your housing units are going to be more unstable, default on their leases more often, and trash their units more often. This is why a large number of states (Tennessee led the way) have worked strongly to mesh their public housing with Medicaid so that the two components work hand in hand.
  4. In Topic: Trump Presidency Thread

    Yesterday, 02:42 PM

    View PostWinterset Resurrection, on 25 July 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

    If your argument were actually correct, Obamacare would've been a net neutral cost change, and I would've supported it.

    As we all know though, that could not be further from the truth.

    It is correct, which is why the Republican proposals are really just Obamacare shrunk (maybe) and with different titles.

    On a more serious note, there is no lack of literature indicating cost neutrality. Any waivers states submit are predicated on cost neutrality.
  5. In Topic: Trump Presidency Thread

    Yesterday, 02:16 PM

    View PostWinterset Resurrection, on 25 July 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

    1. For starters, Obamacare has not been in place long enough to garner significant statistical data to prove increases in lifespan. That is supposition on your part.

    2. Beyond that, this is more a philosophical difference than anything. I believe Americans with no ability to pay are entitled to basic emergency health care, as they received prior to the implementation of Obamacare. The *problem* as I see it with offering excellent, full-service healthcare for free- as many of you whom favor Obamacare appear to be advocating- is that it's one less reason for people to work, earn money, and generally contribute to society.

    I see this in my rental property line of work all the time. Our government assistance programs have actually gotten so good that people no longer need to work, and can still enjoy a lifestyle very similar to those who do work lower-paying middle class jobs. While perhaps paved with good intentions, it all but eliminates the desire for many Americans to even attempt to find work.

    From my perspective, that is a very big problem, and I have seen it first hand for well over a decade.

    1. Yes. Why are we killing it off then prematurely?

    2. No, because these people are the 5% that drive 50% of total healthcare costs. You need Obamacare to TRY and change the course of that ship. Moreover, if you kick these people off they then tend to fail at their initial problems (mental health and substance abuse), and then we still pay for them at other even more expensive venues (mental institutions, jails and prisons). I would add that for these people there is already no incentive to work (pre Obamacare) - because their mental health and substance issues qualify as pre-existing conditions. That means that they have two choices - never change jobs (assuming they have healthcare at all) or become stupid poor and qualify for Medicaid. Because untreated schizophrenia or bipolar disorder makes it kind of hard to work anyway.

    When it comes to healthcare your experiences are again inapplicable. Medicaid serves 50% kids, 25% disabled or old, and 25% adults. Of those 25% adults, they are overwhelmingly pregnant or have mental health or substance abuse issues. This isn't a dependency issue, its quite simply bad public policy and spending to not support them. You are going to pay for them anyway - why not try and get it right?


Showing 4 random friends of 4


jcharding has no profile comments yet. Why not say hello?