Recent Forum Topics Forums Search Search Results for 'patient'

Viewing 30 results - 631 through 660 (of 945 total)
  • Author
    Search Results
  • #46555
    bnw
    Blocked

    You think you are the judge and jury.

    One more personal remark and I will be forced to consider closing the thread.

    We all get warned about personal remarks now and then in this forum…it includes a lot of emotional topics.

    But I can’t in good faith offer more than two warnings and not act. It comes with the job description.

    Oh brother. I’ve been more than patient with the personal shit thrown my way this week. Do what you must.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #45963
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Omar Mateen and Rightwing Homophobia: Hate Crime or Domestic Terrorism?

    Juan Cole

    link: http://www.juancole.com/2016/06/rightwing-homophobia-terrorism.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

    US law enforcement is at least initially categorizing the horrific Orlando shootings as “domestic terrorism.”
    I don’t think it probably was terrorism in any useful sense of the term.
    I used to know what domestic terrorism was, before the term became politicized in the past decade. It was defined right there in the Federal code of 1992:

    “(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
    (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
    (B) appear to be intended—
    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
    (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

    The great thing about this definition is that it focuses on the motive behind the act. And it specifies that the motive has to be to coerce people or influence or affect government policy.

    So if the alleged shooter, Omar Mateen, was a terrorist you would expect him to make demands about US government policy. There will be more such acts, he would have said, unless the US government passes a law outlawing homosexuality. Or unless the US government withdraws from Afghanistan. (But if he aimed to change the latter policy, why shoot up a civilian gay club on Latin night? Wouldn’t he have targeted, say, a US Army base?)
    Shootings like Orlando that hit “soft targets” such as restaurants or nightclubs are not a form of classical strategic terrorism. Serious terrorist would hit military targets, e.g.–an act that might hope to degrade US security. Shooting down people at a nightclub has no obvious strategic goal. Such a goal is intrinsic to the tactic of terrorism, and its absence should cause us to question the use of the term.
    What we know about Mateen so far doesn’t indicate that he was a member of a terrorist organization. If the authorities thought that he was, the crime would have been labeled international terrorism, not domestic.
    We know that his father, Seddique Mateen, is a Pushtun nationalist from Afghanistan who objects to the 1893 Durand Line that the British drew between British India and Afghanistan, which cut the Pushtun ethnic group in two. Today, the Pushtuns (called Pukhtuns in the local dialect) are a majority in the province of Khyber-Pukhtunkhwa of northern Pakistan, while the Afghanistan Pushtuns dominate a number of provinces stretched across eastern and southern Afghanistan. Decades ago a Pushtun nationalism that wanted to unite Pushtuns into a single country and secede from both Pakistan and Afghanistan had some popularity, but it is now a fringe movement.
    Mateen senior goes on a California Persian-language tv and promotes this subnationalism. He is also said to support the Taliban, but that may be because he sees them as authentically Pushtun and oppressed by the Punjabi Pakistani officer corps, rather than because he is a fundamentalist. His big emphasis seems to be on erasing the Durand Line. He asserted that his son’s action had nothing to do with Islam. Although the US press is depicting Seddique Mateen as himself perhaps unbalanced, his position isn’t crazy, it has just become a minority idea.

    You could imagine Mateen being brought up to resent that the West had divided and weakened the Pushtun ethnic group. But there isn’t any evidence that Omar shared his father’s separatist politics.
    We know that Omar Mateen’s marriage failed because, his ex-wife alleges, he beat her. Her Muslim relatives were so appalled on hearing this that they extracted her from the match.
    She says he wasn’t religious 8 years ago.
    We know that a co-worker when he was employed as a security guard considered him unbalanced, racist and homophobic, and even left his position rather than continuing to have to work with him.
    We know the FBI investigated him twice and found no reason to pursue the inquiry or to keep him on a terrorist watch list.
    So this person looks as though he was unbalanced and extremely prejudiced individual who bought two semi-automatic weapons only last week and then committed a mass shooting against a group against which he was bigoted.
    He may have invoked Daesh (ISIS, ISIL) as he began his mayhem, but there is no reason at the moment to think that he was involved with them in any practical way.
    He was about to commit a mass murder that he must have known would likely end in his own death as well.
    So it may be that he was searching for a way to make sense of his homicidal impulse, a way to give meaning to his senseless killing and senseless death.
    So, a major, major hate crime for sure. But terrorism? What is the governmental policy he wanted changed?
    If it was about gay marriage, well, there is a lot of political opposition to that on the Republican Right, and violence against gays has been a feature of the American far right.
    In fact, you could argue that the American evangelical groups that successfully lobbied Uganda to execute gays were engaged in a form of international legislative terrorism–they are certainly driven by a political agenda and wanted to see people killed; they were just more patient about it.
    In a mirror image of Mateen, police in LA arrested James Wesley Howell , a right wing white conspiracy nut. Howell was found with high powered rifles and bomb-making materials. He says that Hillary Clinton is Hitler, and he is a truther, alleging that the US government is behind terrorist attacks since 2000. He was headed to the Gay Pride parade in Los Angeles, though friends of his denied that he is a homophobe. (Friends don’t always know these things).
    If Howell was planning an act of violence at the parade, it was forestalled by his arrest, so it is hard to compare him to Mateen, especially since we know so little about Howell’s intentions. But these two men both seem to have been unbalanced, and both intended to go to a gay event.
    The biggest thing they had in common between being off their rockers was that they had free access to high powered firearms despite all the signs they exhibited of being one can short of a six-pack.

    #45663
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    WV,

    Am with you on that. I don’t have the energy for arguments these days, either. Though, every now and then, things boil up inside me and it comes out. Then I go back inside, way inside, and think: Why on earth did I bother? It’s not worth it, etc.

    Too old, too tired, too many other things to do — too many much better things to do. So, yeah. I get that.

    Also: I’m obviously new to this version of the board, and I don’t know bnw, really, at all. So I probably shouldn’t have included him with the general group I referred to. I also think it’s preferable to try to find common ground if it’s there. So, basically, just ignore what I said.

    :>)

    Beyond all of that: You’ve always been far more patient online, with all kinds of different people, and I give your props for that. I think I do a pretty good job of that in the real world, but not always online. Something to work on.

    Anyway . . .

    In solidarity.

    • This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    #45564
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Dylan Thompson

    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/dylan-thompson?id=2552571

    6’3″
    218LBS.

    ANALYSIS

    STRENGTHS

    Adequate height with good bulk on his frame. Recognizes when to take a deep shot and is decisive in doing so. Puts some pepper on his throws. Able to throw the deep out to the field side.

    WEAKNESSES

    Footwork is an absolute mess. Has issues getting feet set on many throws and compounds issue by short-arming throw. Inaccurate, with tendency to sail the ball or throw behind receiver. Below average leading receivers to give them a chance to pick up yards after catch.

    DRAFT PROJECTION Priority free agent

    BOTTOM LINE One-year starter in the SEC with adequate size. Poor footwork and substantial accuracy and ball placement issues have him tabbed as a draft reject on several draft boards, according to scouts.

    ===

    Dylan Thompson

    Height: 6-2.5
    Weight: 212
    School: South Carolina

    http://www.draftinsider.net/reports/2015/QB/Dylan-Thompson

    Bio: Moved into the starting role last season then set a South Carolina record with a conference leading 3564 yards passing. Also threw 26 TDs.

    Positive: Patient intermediate range passer who accurately places throws. Sits in the pocket, scans the field and goes through progressions. Elusive with the ability to scramble away from defenders, buys time and improvises when plays breakdown. Quickly locates the open receiver, effectively times his throws and does not have receivers waiting on the ball. Knows where his receivers are and accurate making the throw on the move. Possesses a relatively quick release.

    Negative: Lacks great pocket stature. Cannot drive deep throws.

    Analysis: Thompson did a terrific job the only year he started for South Carolina and displayed enough accuracy to warrant space on a practice squad.

    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    On the health care issue again. There is no reason for Single Payer to produce wait times. Those are almost entirely a result of the ratio of patients to doctors, and have next to nothing to do with the kind of insurance system in place. The real way to fix those wait times is to make sure there are plenty of doctors, hospitals and staff to support the needs of every community/region. And a great way to guarantee this is to make all public colleges and universities tuition free. This will also do away with the need for doctors to charge high enough rates to cover their student loans — which can set them back well over 150K.

    When it comes to rationing, that’s a different issue. In the capitalist system, “rationing” is done according to who can afford to pay for care. We have long had “death panels” for the poor, for the working poor, and for many a middle class person, even those with insurance. In my own case, I have to forego certain medical care suggested by my GP and oncologist, outside the scope of the seemingly urgent. Last year, this included treatment for Sleep Apnea. This year, other kinds of care. There are millions of Americans in worse shape than I am, too. “Rationing” is a part of our system, because of its profit motive and privatized nature, and most of it will vanish if we go to a truly non-profit, Single-Payer system. Most but not all. The rest would, if we decommodified all of it.

    Other issues will crop up, as mentioned before. But they won’t be “rationing” or “wait times.”

    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    100 NFL predictions that will frame 2016 season

    ESPN.com

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15794943/100-nfl-predictions-frame-2016-season-tom-brady-ryan-fitzpatrick-eddie-lacy-jj-watt-von-miller

    Tuesday marks 100 days from the start of the 2016 NFL season. What better way to celebrate than with 100 predictions from our crew of NFL reporters? Have at ’em.

    1. QB Jimmy Garoppolo will lead the Patriots to a 3-1 record should Tom Brady serve a four-game suspension (at Arizona, vs. Miami, vs. Houston, vs. Buffalo). Garoppolo has shown obvious growth on the practice field and is ready to prove he is a capable NFL starter. — Mike Reiss

    2. I’ll do you one better, Mike: Garoppolo’s services won’t be needed. Tom Brady will not miss the first four games of the season. I’m banking on Brady’s legal dream team finding a way to drag out the process again. — Mike Sando

    3. Free-agent QB Ryan Fitzpatrick will re-sign with the Jets shortly before training camp. Fitzpatrick needs a team, and the Jets need a starting quarterback. The staring contest will last until late July, with the urgency of training camp finally forcing both sides to the bargaining table. Tough luck, Geno Smith. — Rich Cimini

    4. Seahawks coach Pete Carroll will sign a contract extension worth more than $10 million per year before the start of the season. Carroll is in the final year of his contract, but he wants to stay in Seattle until at least 2018. — John Clayton

    5. Questions about Eddie Lacy’s weight won’t cease. Even though the Packers’ RB is slightly slimmer than last season, he’ll always be a big running back whose weight will be blamed when he has a poor performance. — Rob Demovsky

    6. The Texans will play it safe with J.J. Watt, keeping him on the shelf during the preseason. Watt is recovering from significant surgery after tearing five different core muscles. — Tania Ganguli

    7. The NFL will develop a weekly half-hour sitcom featuring vice president of officiating Dean Blandino. The pitch: “A man and his friends laugh, cry and find meaning in the inexplicable (catch) rules of life.” — Kevin Seifert

    8. Darren McFadden will be trade bait by the end of the summer. With Ezekiel Elliott and Alfred Morris, the Cowboys will hear from a RB-needy team willing to give up a draft pick for McFadden, who rushed for 1,089 yards last year. — Todd Archer

    9. Better wrap your head around the idea: Mark Sanchez will be the quarterback who opens the regular season for the defending Super Bowl champs unless injury gets in the way. And the Broncos are just fine with that because, frankly, they like him more than you’d think. — Jeff Legwold

    10. Even with the presence of Alshon Jeffery, 6-foot-3 Bears WR Kevin White will play a significant role near the goal line. Consider that Brandon Marshall and Jeffery ranked one-two in the NFL in end zone targets while with Chicago during the 2013-14 seasons. — Mike Clay

    11. Redskins quarterback Kirk Cousins will play under the franchise tag this season. Both sides want a long-term deal, but unless Washington meets Cousins’ asking price by the July 15 deadline, there’s little incentive for him to sign now. The Redskins want to see more; Cousins is willing to bet that he’ll show them what they want and cash in next offseason. — John Keim

    12. The Seahawks have not heard the last from Marshawn Lynch. Able-bodied players generally don’t walk away from good money. Seattle would have to activate or cut Lynch if he chose to return, an awkward situation after the team drafted three running backs. — Mike Sando

    13. Carolina’s Kawann Short will sign a long-term deal that makes the 2015 Pro Bowl selection among the five highest paid defensive tackles in the NFL. — David Newton

    14. Blaine Gabbert will take first-team reps at quarterback for the 49ers through most of training camp. Coming off three surgeries, Colin Kaepernick isn’t getting the chance to pick up the pace of Chip Kelly’s offense. Gabbert looks in control of the offense at the moment, running plays every 20 seconds. — John Clayton

    15. But this is far from a settled QB situation in San Fran, so I’m betting the 49ers will start three different quarterbacks at some point this season. Gabbert, Kaepernick and Jeff Driskel will all get time for Chip Kelly. — Field Yates

    16. RB Le’Veon Bell won’t play much in the preseason. The Steelers will be cautious with Bell’s knee, as the star back tries to have his first NFL season without injury. — Jeremy Fowler

    17. Giants DE Jason Pierre-Paul will be the talk of training camp. He’s focused, healthy and already being hyped about by teammates as looking much different than he did a year ago. — Dan Graziano

    18. LB Vontaze Burfict’s three-game suspension at the start of the season will have a minimal impact on the Bengals’ defense. If anything, his Week 4 return will serve as jolt for the Bengals as they work through a tough early season stretch. — Coley Harvey

    19. Sam Bradford will remain the Eagles’ No. 1 quarterback through the preseason. First-year head coach Doug Pederson will not want to flip-flop on his first major (and very public) decision. — Phil Sheridan

    20. Chiefs LB Justin Houston won’t begin the regular season on the active roster. Despite the optimism that he can be ready when the season starts, Houston had ACL surgery in February and such a speedy return is unlikely. — Adam Teicher

    21. Robert Griffin III’s name will be No. 25 on that jersey of Browns’ QB starters since 1999; he’ll start the opener against Philadelphia. But don’t be surprised if, for the fifth season in a row, the Browns start their No. 3 QB in the season finale. That could be rookie Cody Kessler, who’s expected to make the roster either as the No. 2 or No. 3 QB. — Pat McManamon

    22. Dolphins coach Adam Gase isn’t spilling the beans on how he plans to use first-rounder Laremy Tunsil, but look for the Ole Miss product to find a home at guard — not offensive tackle — in Year 1. That’s where he’s needed most for this team. — James Walker

    23. Colts QB Andrew Luck will sign a contract extension worth between $23 million to $23.5 million per year sometime before the start of training camp. Luck is the franchise and the team needs to lock him up sooner than later. — John Clayton

    24. If Luck doesn’t beat him to it first, Saints QB Drew Brees will sign the richest annual salary deal for a QB in NFL history — for the second time in five years. Look for Brees and the Saints to agree to a four-year extension worth more than $90 million on the eve of training camp. — Mike Triplett

    25. Falcons RB Tevin Coleman will get ample opportunity to show he can split reps with Devonta Freeman, despite Freeman’s coming off a 1,000-yard, Pro Bowl season. — Vaughn McClure

    26. At some point during training camp, you will hear the following question asked on sports-talk radio: How will Russell Wilson’s engagement to Ciara affect his play? I promise to do everything in my power to stop this, but I’m only one man. — Sheil Kapadia

    27. The Ravens will run significantly more pass plays with three-plus wide receivers on the field after ranking 27th in the category last season. This will allow intriguing breakout player Breshad Perriman, who has 4.24 40 speed, plenty of opportunities to produce. — Mike Clay

    28. Although the Rams will say all the right things about remaining patient, No. 1 overall pick Jared Goff will start at quarterback on opening night against the San Francisco 49ers. The investment to get him was too big and the alternatives so uninspiring that the Rams will ride with their rookie. — Nick Wagoner

    29. Harrison Smith will have a new contract by the start of the regular season. The Vikings know they need to get a deal done with the Pro Bowler, who has become one of the NFL’s best at his position. General manager Rick Spielman took the somewhat unprecedented step (for him, at least) of admitting as much after last season. — Ben Goessling

    30. In maybe the easiest prediction of the year, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell will not attend a Patriots home game in 2016. Relations between the team’s fans and the commissioner are still frosty as Deflategate lingers. — Mike Reiss

    31. Brock Osweiler will have some growing pains in his first month as a member of the Texans, but he will ultimately break the franchise record for touchdowns in a season (29). — Tania Ganguli

    32. Even though Cardinals coach Bruce Arians has said RB David Johnson will be the team’s bell cow, veteran Chris Johnson will claim the starting job. They’ll continue to pair together for a dynamic “thunder and lightning” backfield, but CJ2K’s experience will win him the job. — Josh Weinfuss

    33. One more veteran quarterback — perhaps Nick Foles or Josh McCown — will be traded before the regular season. — Field Yates

    34. Tony Romo will get hurt (again), giving Bucs QB Mike Glennon a lot of trade value. A desperate Jerry Jones will make Tampa GM Jason Licht an offer can’t refuse for the fourth-year QB. — Mike DiRocco

    35. As RB Melvin Gordon continues to rehab from microfracture knee surgery, don’t be surprised if the Chargers take their time getting him back on the field in training camp and the preseason. San Diego needs its 2015 first-rounder healthy for the regular season. — Eric D. Williams

    36. The first time Raiders QB Derek Carr has a rough stretch in a preseason game, a certain segment of fans will call for rookie Connor Cook to supplant Carr. Hey, the backup QB is usually the most popular guy on the team, right? — Paul Gutierrez

    37. Colts offensive line coach Joe Philbin is back in his comfort zone and will produce immediate results in Indy, revamping what has been the team’s weakest link. — Mike Wells

    38. The biggest concern the Jaguars will have about No. 5 overall pick Jalen Ramsey is which number he’ll wear. He had already made enough strides in the defense before his knee injury that the Jaguars were re-considering using him at only one CB spot. — Mike DiRocco

    39. Rest easy, Baltimore: QB Joe Flacco will be ready for the start of training camp. His knee injury will keep him out of spring practices, but Flacco is driven to prove he’s an elite healer. — Jamison Hensley

    40. Titans rookie RB Derrick Henry will be the team’s starter by Week 5. He’ll show he’s more valuable than DeMarco Murray, who the team traded for this offseason. — Tania Ganguli

    41. The Broncos will write the biggest check in franchise history and give Von Miller that mega-deal he has been wanting. And Miller will show exactly why when he keeps the momentum of last season’s Super Bowl run right into the 2016 season. — Jeff Legwold

    42. I’ll go one step further, Jeff: Von Miller will become the highest paid defensive player in league history. — Field Yates

    43. Redskins LB Junior Galette will recapture his pre-injury form. He looked so good last summer before tearing his Achilles, and the early reports from coaches and teammates have been positive. Galette had double-digit sacks in both 2013 and 2014. — John Keim

    44. Fifth-round pick Jordan Howard will prove to be the Bears’ top RB. It won’t take long for the 230-pound bruiser out of Indiana to overtake the underwhelming Jeremy Langford. — Mike Clay

    45. Agree to disagree, Mike: Jeremy Langford will the Bears’ featured rusher, even though John Fox likes the RB-by-committee approach. Eclipsing 1,000 all-purpose yards isn’t out of the question for Langford. — Jeff Dickerson

    46. Jets defensive end Muhammad Wilkerson won’t get a long-term contract. Don’t be surprised if Wilkerson, who has yet to sign his $15.7 million franchise tender, skips the entire offseason program, including training camp. That would be a spite move; the deadline for franchise players to sign long-term deals is July 15. — Rich Cimini

    47. The return of Kelvin Benjamin will propel Cam Newton to even greater heights. A year after winning the MVP while Benjamin was sidelined (ACL), Newton will look to his favorite target early and often. — David Newton

    48. Lions first-rounder Taylor Decker will be the starter from day one at left tackle, pushing Riley Reiff to the right side. It might not always go well, but he’ll build a foundation for the future. — Michael Rothstein

    49. With Randy Gregory suspended the first four games of the season, Benson Mayowa will win the Cowboys’ right DE job coming out of training camp. He has started three games in his career and has two career sacks. — Todd Archer

    50. Shaq Lawson will start the season on PUP, missing at least the first six games. The Bills’ first-round pick underwent shoulder surgery three weeks after being drafted. — Mike Rodak

    51. Rookie Sterling Shepard will open as the Giants’ No. 2 wide receiver. Victor Cruz is still a long way off, and there remains a chance he never makes it back. — Dan Graziano

    52. We’re in agreement here with Sterling Shepard, Dan. In fact, I’ll go so far to say that the second-rounder will be on the field for nearly every pass play run by the Giants this season. New York has ranked second in the league in three-plus WR sets during each of Ben McAdoo’s two seasons with the team. — Mike Clay

    53. The Ravens will trade Eugene Monroe to the first team that loses a starting left tackle to an injury. No. 6 overall pick Ronnie Stanley is the future at left tackle, and the Ravens drafted him because of their questions about Monroe’s ability to protect the quarterback’s blind side. — John Clayton

    54. Mike McCarthy isn’t thrilled that the Packers have to play five preseason games this year, so don’t expect to see much of WR Jordy Nelson until it counts after he blew out his knee in an exhibition game last summer. — Rob Demovsky

    55. First-round rookie CB Artie Burns will not be a Week 1 starter for Pittsburgh. He’ll be a good player, but Burns is fairly raw and the Steelers will ride with their veterans early. — Jeremy Fowler

    56. The Vikings will again try to get Adrian Peterson involved in the passing game, especially as they try to use him in the shotgun more effectively than they did last year. The running back said he wanted to be a better receiver after last season, and he has been working to improve there in the offseason. — Ben Goessling

    57. Offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan will cater the offense more to Matt Ryan’s strength as a pocket passer. The addition of Pro Bowl center Alex Mack certainly will help the cause — Vaughn McClure

    58. Neither TE Jimmy Graham nor RB Thomas Rawls will play in the preseason for Seattle. Both players are coming off season-ending injuries — ruptured patellar tendon for Graham, fractured ankle for Rawls — and the team will be patient as they get back to full strength. — Sheil Kapadia

    59. Joe Thomas will open the season in Philly — as a member of the visiting Browns. Cleveland’s new regime has unloaded veteran players almost as a matter of policy, but none was a truly elite talent. Thomas is, which should keep him in Cleveland. — Mike Sando

    60. No player has ever had to explain why 105 catches and 1,304 yards receiving were a “step back” like Demaryius Thomas has this offseason. But book it, Thomas’ offseason work showed he’s poised to be a problem for opposing defenses. — Jeff Legwold

    61. Cardinals first-round DT Robert Nkemdiche will make some veterans and incumbent starters sweat in training camp. He’s a top-five talent whose skill will drop jaws the more he’s on the field. Limiting Nkemdiche to 30 plays a game, as is planned, will allow him to harness his energy and explode onto the scene. — Josh Weinfuss

    62. The Ravens, who have pushed the NFL to overhaul and expand replay review, will win a game on an unreviewable bad call. Next year: Abolish replay for everyone! — Kevin Seifert

    63. Kelvin Beachum will win the left tackle job in Jacksonville. Luke Joeckel, the No. 2 overall pick in 2013, will move inside to left guard. — Mike DiRocco

    64. Eagles DE Fletcher Cox will torment offensive linemen in training camp. After skipping OTAs in pursuit of a new contract, Cox will be highly motivated to prove his worth. — Phil Sheridan

    65. Even though the Bills are “encouraged” with the progress of QB Tyrod Taylor, he won’t get a contract extension before the regular season. If Taylor turns into a stud this upcoming season, the Bills should have the cap space to assign him the franchise tag next spring. — Mike Rodak

    66. 49ers RB Carlos Hyde will be put in protective bubble wrap this preseason and see little, if any, of the field. After all, the 49ers went into a tailspin after Hyde suffered a stress fracture in his left foot last season. — Paul Gutierrez

    67. The Chiefs will eventually release running back Knile Davis. He fell from favor and dropped down the depth chart last season, and other teams won’t relinquish a draft pick for a player they know the Chiefs will cut. — Adam Teicher

    68. CB James Bradberry will quickly make Carolina fans forget Josh Norman, as the rookie out of Samford will win the starting corner spot opposite Bene Benwikere. — David Newton

    69. A year after failing to top 1,000 yards for the first time since 2010, Frank Gore will surprise some with his play. He’s trying to become the first 33-plus-year-old RB to rush for 1,000 yards since 1984. The Colts will scream “Finally!” if Gore does because he’d be their first rusher to eclipse that mark since 2007. — Mike Wells

    70. Colts rookie RB Josh Ferguson will be drafted in nearly every fantasy league that takes place in August. Indianapolis made little effort to add depth behind Gore, opening the door for the undersized but explosive scat back out of Illinois to emerge as a coveted handcuff. — Mike Clay

    71. Rams DE William Hayes will have HBO subscribers believing in mermaids and rejecting the notion that dinosaurs ever existed after five weeks of watching “Hard Knocks.” OK, maybe we shouldn’t go that far, but Hayes will be the show’s breakout star. — Nick Wagoner

    72. RB Lamar Miller will gain 300 yards in the first month of the season. The Texans will use him more than the Dolphins ever did and he’ll reward them. — Tania Ganguli

    73. As the Bengals look for a complement to top receiver A.J. Green, expect 2015 practice squad WR Jake Kumerow to get a lot of action this summer. He and rookie Tyler Boyd will be heavily used in the preseason. — Coley Harvey

    74. Undrafted rookie RB D.J. Foster (Arizona State) and first-year WR DeAndre Carter (Sacramento State) are two dark-horse candidates who will make a surprise run at roster spots. Foster’s quickness and dual-threat skills as a rusher/pass-catcher give him a chance, and Carter is a spark plug slot receiver. — Mike Reiss

    75. The Cowboys won’t trade G Ronald Leary, who’s an unrestricted free agent after this season. The Cowboys know the importance of offensive line depth and are willing to pay him $2.553 million this year and hope for a potential compensatory pick in 2018 when Leary leaves as an unrestricted free agent. — Todd Archer

    76. Steelers free-agent TE Ladarius Green will become a breakout star in this offense. He was under-used in San Diego, and Ben Roethlisberger will take advantage of Green’s unique skill set. — Jeremy Fowler

    77. Jay Cutler will be caught on camera in-game yelling at offensive coordinator Dowell Loggains. Cutler had zero known outbursts with Adam Gase, but Loggains’ temper is more volatile. It’s the perfect storm. — Jeff Dickerson

    78. Expect at least one “wow” play from No. 3 overall pick Joey Bosa in the preseason. Bosa is too talented, and Chargers defensive coordinator John Pagano will find ways to free up the Ohio State product as a pass-rusher. — Eric D. Williams

    79. The Giants will, for the second year in a row, wake up in August and realize they need to sign a veteran safety off the offseason scrap heap. It won’t be Brandon Meriweather again. — Dan Graziano

    80. Vikings first-round WR Laquon Treadwell will start from day one. No one on the roster fills Minnesota’s need for a split end like Treadwell, who’s the kind of physical presence the receiver group has been missing. — Ben Goessling

    81. Rob Ryan will be a surprise replacement for Rex Ryan at a news conference. You know this will happen at some point. The twin brothers haven’t worked together since 1995, and before the season ends, they’ll find a way to have some fun with the media. — Mike Rodak

    82. Who needs a baseball instructor to teach you how to slide? Not QB Andrew Luck. Luck will finally stop being stubborn and realize it’s OK to slide instead of taking unnecessary hits (see early fourth quarter of Week 9 last season). — Mike Wells

    83. Seahawks WR Doug Baldwin will sign a contract extension before the start of the season. He’s entering the final year of his deal, and it makes sense for both sides to keep the partnership going after Baldwin enjoyed a breakout performance in 2015. — Sheil Kapadia

    84. Terrelle Pryor will make the Browns’ roster as a receiver, and will run, catch and throw the ball for Hue Jackson this season. — Pat McManamon

    85. Even with Jared Goff and new passing game coordinator Mike Groh in place, the Rams’ offense will still revolve around RB Todd Gurley. So long as Gurley remains healthy, he’ll average 20-plus touches per game. — Nick Wagoner

    86. Detroit will end up with the best combination of facial hair in the league. The Lions already had DeAndre Levy, who has one of the best beards in the league, and they added rookie A’Shawn Robinson’s plush chinstrap in the draft. — Michael Rothstein

    87. Speaking of facial hair: Mike McCarthy will shave his beard — again. The Packers’ coach grew one last offseason too, but then shaved it right before the season opener. Look for him in the razor aisle of a Jacksonville area Walgreens in September. — Rob Demovsky

    88. Raiders CB D.J. Hayden will respond to the challenge and solidify his standing as the starter … in the slot. Not exactly a first-rounder’s standing, but it’s progress, yes? — Paul Gutierrez

    89. Don’t expect TE Coby Fleener to replicate Jimmy Graham’s ridiculous 2011 season. But now that he’s in New Orleans, Fleener will be drafted ahead of Graham in your fantasy league. — Mike Triplett

    90. The albino tiger will become a common sight. Jaguars WR Marqise Lee, who was given that nickname by OC Greg Olson, will make it through the entire offseason, training camp, and preseason completely healthy. — Mike DiRocco

    91. The Cardinals will sign veterans at cornerback and offensive tackle before the starting of training camp. General manager Steve Keim knows those are two areas where Arizona needs more depth, and Keim does a great job of find one-year solutions. — John Clayton

    92. Eagles WR Nelson Agholor will open eyes in his second training camp. After a disappointing rookie season, the 2015 first-round pick bought his own JUGS machine so he could catch passes at home. That’s dedication. — Phil Sheridan

    93. Jets DE Sheldon Richardson will be suspended by the NFL. In January, he pleaded guilty to resisting arrest, stemming from a high-speed car chase last July — an apparent violation of the league’s personal-conduct policy. It will mark the second straight year that he begins the season on the suspended list. A year ago, it was a substance-abuse violation. — Rich Cimini

    94. Dolphins S Reshad Jones will end his holdout soon. The Pro Bowler wants a new contract and is missing voluntary work to prove his point. But don’t expect Jones to risk a fine by missing mandatory minicamp next month or training camp in July. — James Walker

    95. Tyler Bray will win the Chiefs’ backup quarterback job over Aaron Murray and rookie Kevin Hogan. He’s the most talented of the bunch, and the fact that he began offseason practice in that role indicates the Chiefs would like him to win this position battle. — Adam Teicher

    96. Ben Jones will eat at least one roach by the end of training camp. The Titans’ center has been known for his antics. — Tania Ganguli

    97. Ravens will reach an extension with franchise player Justin Tucker. The sides have until July 15 to strike a deal, and it was a good sign that Tucker was at voluntary OTAs. Plus, where else are the Ravens going to find an opera-singing, Matthew McConaughey-impersonating kicker? — Jamison Hensley

    98. Jameis Winston’s offseason fitness work will pay off, as the Bucs QB will lead the NFL in passer rating and TD passes in the preseason. — Mike DiRocco

    99. No media access policy, be it from the Bills or another team, will contribute to a single win or loss. Nor will it be responsible for raising a single dollar of revenue. — Kevin Seifert

    100. Cam Newton will come up with a touchdown celebration that will make the “dab” look drab. — David Newton

    Ozoneranger
    Participant

    Sorry to hear your story ozone.

    On Italy. Italy is not a single-payer public insurance system. The medical industry itself is part public, which is technically called socialized medicine (although in this case it is a mixed system). Socialized medicine and single-payer insurance systems are different. In contrast to Italy, for example, in the Canadian single-payer system, the medical industry is private and only the insurance is public.

    In Italy:

    …healthcare is provided to all citizens and residents by a mixed public-private system. The public part is the national health service, Sistema sanitario nazionale (SSN), which is organized under the Ministry of Health and is administered on a regional basis.

    Family doctors are entirely paid by the SSN, must offer visiting time at least five days a week and have a limit of 1500 patients. Patients can choose and change their GP, subjected to availability.

    On, however, single payer and wait times in Canada:

    http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/single-payer-does-not-equal-increased-wait-times/

    Now it’s possible that single payer systems can lead to increased wait times. In Canada, they keep spending far below what we put out. They do so partially by spacing out visits for elective procedures and such. That’s a conscious decision, and it leads to some people waiting for elective care. But that’s an outcome of their financial conservatism, not the single payer system. Other countries (think France) don’t have the same issues with elective procedures because they spend more money. Our single payer system (Medicare) has far fewer spending restraints, and does not suffer from the wait time problem

    That is, the decision to have longer wait times for elective procedures in Canada is a deliberate Canadian fiscally conservartive policy, not a direct result of a single-payer system.

    .

    On Italy- Obviously, I’m not a resident and they did not bill my insurance provider directly (Kaiser wanted a tax ID number for the hospital). I paid up and was reimbursed. So perhaps I’m not 100% fully informed about how my wife’s care, such as it was, fit into their system. I received a demand for payment via registered letter with no detailed bill for services provided.

    Canada- My sources are two Canadian widows from a couple of FB support groups. One elected to self-fund a boob job, of all things, due to quality of care concerns. The other is still recuperating from the auto accident that killed her husband. A third source is an instructor in a tech class I took last November. He cut one class short so he could make an appointment for chronic back pain- he stated that he HAD to go or wait several more months.

    So I’m providing anecdotal evidence on the Canadian system which is really all I have. As for Italy, thanks for firming that up.

    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Sorry to hear your story ozone.

    On Italy. Italy is not a single-payer public insurance system. The medical industry itself is part public, which is technically called socialized medicine (although in this case it is a mixed system). Socialized medicine and single-payer insurance systems are different. In contrast to Italy, for example, in the Canadian single-payer system, the medical industry is private and only the insurance is public.

    In Italy:

    …healthcare is provided to all citizens and residents by a mixed public-private system. The public part is the national health service, Sistema sanitario nazionale (SSN), which is organized under the Ministry of Health and is administered on a regional basis.

    Family doctors are entirely paid by the SSN, must offer visiting time at least five days a week and have a limit of 1500 patients. Patients can choose and change their GP, subjected to availability.

    On, however, single payer and wait times in Canada:

    http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/single-payer-does-not-equal-increased-wait-times/

    Now it’s possible that single payer systems can lead to increased wait times. In Canada, they keep spending far below what we put out. They do so partially by spacing out visits for elective procedures and such. That’s a conscious decision, and it leads to some people waiting for elective care. But that’s an outcome of their financial conservatism, not the single payer system. Other countries (think France) don’t have the same issues with elective procedures because they spend more money. Our single payer system (Medicare) has far fewer spending restraints, and does not suffer from the wait time problem

    That is, the decision to have longer wait times for elective procedures in Canada is a deliberate Canadian fiscally conservartive policy, not a direct result of a single-payer system.

    .

    Ozoneranger
    Participant

    This is rather long, so I apologized in advance…

    I have experienced a single payer system. Italy. Two years ago, my wife was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer after a five year remission (three mets so it was pretty advanced). This was ten days before a planed two week Med cruise. In a “fuck it all moment,” we decided to go ahead with the trip- Italy was was lifetime dream destination for my wife. She was symptomatic but seemingly healthy enough to travel. We kept our bad news from family (the plan was to tell them upon our return) and flew to Barcelona to embark on the ship.

    About half way through the cruise, my wife started deteriorating. Once I convinced her to see the ship’s doctor, her liver started to fail and we were fairly kicked off the ship in Venice and transported by ambulance (with full siren) to Ospidale del Angelo in Mestre, Venice. It was a clean, modern facility. Unfortunately, very few English speakers. I was unable to communicate to them what I knew of my wife’s condition. After tests, she was admitted to what I now know was a hospice ward. Due to her condition, her doctor would not allow her to fly on less than an air ambulance. I tried to arrange this through my insurance provider (Kaiser Permanente) and actually had an aircraft and medical staff on standby to get my wife home. However, after a conference call between the Italian docs and Kaiser docs in Sacramento, Ca. (Kaiser provided the translator), it was determined she would not survive the flight (this was a business jet and would take 16 hours and four refueling stops). “No hope.” That’s what her doctor told me in his limited English. My wife passed seven days after being admitted.

    Those seven days: I was trying to communicate with staff- only one nurse spoke passable English and he was either busy or off duty 16 out of 24 hours so I couldn’t get through to them to call my wife’s oncological team in CA so they could coordinate treatment. Actually, none of the staff even tried to talk to me, although I did attempt to use Google translate on an Ipad. One did loan me a power converter so I could keep my smart phones and Ipad charged up and was able to keep my family updated, not to mention communicating with Kaiser’s liaison. Thinking back now that I can think and remember more clearly, the only treatment they administered was a hydrating drip and vitamin K for the liver. As far as I can tell, they made no attempt to at the very least stabilize her for the trip back the states. I mentioned earlier that she was admitted to a hospice ward. I came to that conclusion due to watching five people die on that ward during the stay, the fifth being my wife. To this day, I am convinced she was “death paneled.” They did request a PET scan, which I refused as she had undergone one the day before we departed. They did a CT scan instead. I practically begged them to contact her oncologist in California, which was met with mute stares.I’m pretty sure the doctors and staff were not accustomed to a very involved care-giver husband. So for seven days treatment consisted of water administered by me, Vitamin K drip and in the end, morphine. No food to speak of -she stopped eating after day one, but they did feed me (lived in the hospital until my kids arrived, when I rented a B&B close by the hospital).

    I received the bill via registered mail after my return to the states. 4000 Euros. A bargain, I suppose, when compared to the $75000 bill for my wife’s prophylactic bi-lateral mastectomy back in 2010. I don’t know what her eight rounds of chemo and 25 rounds or radiotherapy was. My laundry bill in Venice was 30 euros, kindly arranged by the two Foreign Patient Liaison staffers assigned to us. They also found the B&B for me. They were very nice to me. Wish they could have had some medical training to help me communicate, though.

    So you must wonder what my opinion is via the single payer…nice if you have broken arm. But serious illness? I’m not so sure. And from what I know of the Canadian system, which is the system most Americans point to in this debate, the wait times for non-emergency appointments are astronomical. And it’s not “free” anywhere. I was in BC Canada a few years ago and paid a VAT tax of 14% on some gift items. In Ireland, there just last week, it’s 23% on taxable items. I know this to be true because I’m in the process of filling out the Irish paperwork to be reimbursed from the receipts I saved from the trip.

    I the US will adopt the single payer system. It’s inevitable, really. But I don’t think we’re going to like it very much and God help you if you find yourself in a dire medical predicament…there are no “heroic measures” in this system.

    I’m sorry your wife had to pass away under those conditions. Did you call the US embassy or consular office for assistance? The US Diplomatic Mission has a large presence throughout Italy including Venice. I’m very sorry for your loss.

    Yes, I was in contact with the consulate, who kept tabs on us. They helped where they could.

    bnw
    Blocked

    This is rather long, so I apologized in advance…

    I have experienced a single payer system. Italy. Two years ago, my wife was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer after a five year remission (three mets so it was pretty advanced). This was ten days before a planed two week Med cruise. In a “fuck it all moment,” we decided to go ahead with the trip- Italy was was lifetime dream destination for my wife. She was symptomatic but seemingly healthy enough to travel. We kept our bad news from family (the plan was to tell them upon our return) and flew to Barcelona to embark on the ship.

    About half way through the cruise, my wife started deteriorating. Once I convinced her to see the ship’s doctor, her liver started to fail and we were fairly kicked off the ship in Venice and transported by ambulance (with full siren) to Ospidale del Angelo in Mestre, Venice. It was a clean, modern facility. Unfortunately, very few English speakers. I was unable to communicate to them what I knew of my wife’s condition. After tests, she was admitted to what I now know was a hospice ward. Due to her condition, her doctor would not allow her to fly on less than an air ambulance. I tried to arrange this through my insurance provider (Kaiser Permanente) and actually had an aircraft and medical staff on standby to get my wife home. However, after a conference call between the Italian docs and Kaiser docs in Sacramento, Ca. (Kaiser provided the translator), it was determined she would not survive the flight (this was a business jet and would take 16 hours and four refueling stops). “No hope.” That’s what her doctor told me in his limited English. My wife passed seven days after being admitted.

    Those seven days: I was trying to communicate with staff- only one nurse spoke passable English and he was either busy or off duty 16 out of 24 hours so I couldn’t get through to them to call my wife’s oncological team in CA so they could coordinate treatment. Actually, none of the staff even tried to talk to me, although I did attempt to use Google translate on an Ipad. One did loan me a power converter so I could keep my smart phones and Ipad charged up and was able to keep my family updated, not to mention communicating with Kaiser’s liaison. Thinking back now that I can think and remember more clearly, the only treatment they administered was a hydrating drip and vitamin K for the liver. As far as I can tell, they made no attempt to at the very least stabilize her for the trip back the states. I mentioned earlier that she was admitted to a hospice ward. I came to that conclusion due to watching five people die on that ward during the stay, the fifth being my wife. To this day, I am convinced she was “death paneled.” They did request a PET scan, which I refused as she had undergone one the day before we departed. They did a CT scan instead. I practically begged them to contact her oncologist in California, which was met with mute stares.I’m pretty sure the doctors and staff were not accustomed to a very involved care-giver husband. So for seven days treatment consisted of water administered by me, Vitamin K drip and in the end, morphine. No food to speak of -she stopped eating after day one, but they did feed me (lived in the hospital until my kids arrived, when I rented a B&B close by the hospital).

    I received the bill via registered mail after my return to the states. 4000 Euros. A bargain, I suppose, when compared to the $75000 bill for my wife’s prophylactic bi-lateral mastectomy back in 2010. I don’t know what her eight rounds of chemo and 25 rounds or radiotherapy was. My laundry bill in Venice was 30 euros, kindly arranged by the two Foreign Patient Liaison staffers assigned to us. They also found the B&B for me. They were very nice to me. Wish they could have had some medical training to help me communicate, though.

    So you must wonder what my opinion is via the single payer…nice if you have broken arm. But serious illness? I’m not so sure. And from what I know of the Canadian system, which is the system most Americans point to in this debate, the wait times for non-emergency appointments are astronomical. And it’s not “free” anywhere. I was in BC Canada a few years ago and paid a VAT tax of 14% on some gift items. In Ireland, there just last week, it’s 23% on taxable items. I know this to be true because I’m in the process of filling out the Irish paperwork to be reimbursed from the receipts I saved from the trip.

    I the US will adopt the single payer system. It’s inevitable, really. But I don’t think we’re going to like it very much and God help you if you find yourself in a dire medical predicament…there are no “heroic measures” in this system.

    I’m sorry your wife had to pass away under those conditions. Did you call the US embassy or consular office for assistance? The US Diplomatic Mission has a large presence throughout Italy including Venice. I’m very sorry for your loss.

    • This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by bnw.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    Ozoneranger
    Participant

    This is rather long, so I apologized in advance…

    I have experienced a single payer system. Italy. Two years ago, my wife was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer after a five year remission (three mets so it was pretty advanced). This was ten days before a planed two week Med cruise. In a “fuck it all moment,” we decided to go ahead with the trip- Italy was was lifetime dream destination for my wife. She was symptomatic but seemingly healthy enough to travel. We kept our bad news from family (the plan was to tell them upon our return) and flew to Barcelona to embark on the ship.

    About half way through the cruise, my wife started deteriorating. Once I convinced her to see the ship’s doctor, her liver started to fail and we were fairly kicked off the ship in Venice and transported by ambulance (with full siren) to Ospidale del Angelo in Mestre, Venice. It was a clean, modern facility. Unfortunately, very few English speakers. I was unable to communicate to them what I knew of my wife’s condition. After tests, she was admitted to what I now know was a hospice ward. Due to her condition, her doctor would not allow her to fly on less than an air ambulance. I tried to arrange this through my insurance provider (Kaiser Permanente) and actually had an aircraft and medical staff on standby to get my wife home. However, after a conference call between the Italian docs and Kaiser docs in Sacramento, Ca. (Kaiser provided the translator), it was determined she would not survive the flight (this was a business jet and would take 16 hours and four refueling stops). “No hope.” That’s what her doctor told me in his limited English. My wife passed seven days after being admitted.

    Those seven days: I was trying to communicate with staff- only one nurse spoke passable English and he was either busy or off duty 16 out of 24 hours so I couldn’t get through to them to call my wife’s oncological team in CA so they could coordinate treatment. Actually, none of the staff even tried to talk to me, although I did attempt to use Google translate on an Ipad. One did loan me a power converter so I could keep my smart phones and Ipad charged up and was able to keep my family updated, not to mention communicating with Kaiser’s liaison. Thinking back now that I can think and remember more clearly, the only treatment they administered was a hydrating drip and vitamin K for the liver. As far as I can tell, they made no attempt to at the very least stabilize her for the trip back the states. I mentioned earlier that she was admitted to a hospice ward. I came to that conclusion due to watching five people die on that ward during the stay, the fifth being my wife. To this day, I am convinced she was “death paneled.” They did request a PET scan, which I refused as she had undergone one the day before we departed. They did a CT scan instead. I practically begged them to contact her oncologist in California, which was met with mute stares.I’m pretty sure the doctors and staff were not accustomed to a very involved care-giver husband. So for seven days treatment consisted of water administered by me, Vitamin K drip and in the end, morphine. No food to speak of -she stopped eating after day one, but they did feed me (lived in the hospital until my kids arrived, when I rented a B&B close by the hospital).

    I received the bill via registered mail after my return to the states. 4000 Euros. A bargain, I suppose, when compared to the $75000 bill for my wife’s prophylactic bi-lateral mastectomy back in 2010. I don’t know what her eight rounds of chemo and 25 rounds or radiotherapy was. My laundry bill in Venice was 30 euros, kindly arranged by the two Foreign Patient Liaison staffers assigned to us. They also found the B&B for me. They were very nice to me. Wish they could have had some medical training to help me communicate, though.

    So you must wonder what my opinion is via the single payer…nice if you have broken arm. But serious illness? I’m not so sure. And from what I know of the Canadian system, which is the system most Americans point to in this debate, the wait times for non-emergency appointments are astronomical. And it’s not “free” anywhere. I was in BC Canada a few years ago and paid a VAT tax of 14% on some gift items. In Ireland, there just last week, it’s 23% on taxable items. I know this to be true because I’m in the process of filling out the Irish paperwork to be reimbursed from the receipts I saved from the trip.

    I the US will adopt the single payer system. It’s inevitable, really. But I don’t think we’re going to like it very much and God help you if you find yourself in a dire medical predicament…there are no “heroic measures” in this system.

    • This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by Ozoneranger.
    PA Ram
    Participant

    The cost of one chemo treatment, for instance, has literally doubled since I started on this journey. From roughly $15,000 to $30,000. And that’s for a single treatment, roughly 4-5 hours in a chair, with a single chemo drip bag and maybe two nurses in attendance (who also look after other patients). I’ve never had an insurance company turn down the chemo, though I have had them say no to a PET scan. Change it to a CT scan, and we’ll cover it, they said.

    That’s incredible.

    I agree–there has to be some sort of overall plan when it comes to health care.

    I’m glad your experience with the insurance companies has been relatively good. I always felt if a doctor asks for something–your personal doctor–the one who physically sees you–they should pay for it. A bunch of doctors sitting in an office miles away looking at papers is in no position to make the call, IMO. This is where the “for profit” concerns come in and it’s slimy.

    Also–people have to pick up more and more of their share these days of the cost. Their cost in general–what they pay a week continues to rise–the procedure costs rise–and the co-pays and deductibles continue to rise. I myself have been told to have this or that done–looked at the cost and said: no thanks. I know others with more serious things who have done the same thing. Yes–they want this. They want you shopping around. Making these decisions about your own health. And yes–shopping around is a good thing. But all the pressure of costs are placed on the patient.

    More needs to be done from the other side.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    I think it’s disingenuous for an organization of doctors to call for Single Payer. They’re actually just as much a part of the problem as the insurance companies. They have every incentive in the world for a Single Payer system to come into place (they’ll make more money), and no doubt believe they could “capture” it via lobbying, as do Big Pharma, Hospitals and Medical Equipment folks, among others.

    Yes, we need Single Payer for the insurance side. We need non-profit health insurance for everyone. But in America, if we leave it at just that, the costs of medicine itself will not go down overall, and may well go up in many cases. As long as medical providers operate under capitalist laws of motion and incentives, those prices will continue to escalate. They, not just the insurance companies, keep raising their prices too on everything from simple 10-minute (almost symbolic) checkups, to surgery, to chemo — with cost pressures also coming from Big Pharma, etc.

    The cost of one chemo treatment, for instance, has literally doubled since I started on this journey. From roughly $15,000 to $30,000. And that’s for a single treatment, roughly 4-5 hours in a chair, with a single chemo drip bag and maybe two nurses in attendance (who also look after other patients). I’ve never had an insurance company turn down the chemo, though I have had them say no to a PET scan. Change it to a CT scan, and we’ll cover it, they said.

    To make a long story short: We need to make both insurance and delivery of health care a right, not a commodity. Decommidify all of it. Remove it from the capitalist laws of motion. End the profit incentives from both sides of the equation. If we do just the insurance side, we open ourselves up to a gold rush of abuse from medical providers, who will attack the new cash cow with armies of lobbyists and kill it, if they can’t control it.

    • This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    I don’t think it’s patient care they’re worried about–medicare works fine. Insurance companies routinely turn down claims and patients don’t get procedures done.

    They just happen to be trying to protect their own profits.

    —————–

    You know, Pa, one of the most dis-spiriting discussions I’ve ever had in my life, happened when i went to a dinner with a friend of mine, about seven years ago or so. My friend’s brother-in-law was in medical school. And this dinner was a get-together of Med-students. (all wealthy, white, privileged young people) — and somehow we got on the topic of single-payer. Every single med-student at the dinner (about eight or ten) was against single-payer — and several of them flat-out said things like “I did not take out all those loans so i could be poor.” It was all about the money. And they were adamant. And angry at the thought of not making a lot of money as doctors. That was their priority. It was painful to listen to. Not a word about poor people or what is happening to the poor. No understanding of what is happening to non-privileged Americans. Sigh. Ignorant, ignorant privileged med-students.

    w
    v
    “Our patients can’t afford care and don’t have access to the care they need, while the system is ever more wasteful, throwing away money on bureaucratic expenses and absurd prices from the drug companies,”

    Well, those med students were worried about nothing. Canadian physicians under a single payer system get paid very well. They are not poor by any means. While they may earn less than their American counterparts, Canadian doctors also have fewer costs because of the single payer system.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110239/

    • This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by Avatar photonittany ram.
    • This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by Avatar photoInvaderRam.
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    I don’t think it’s patient care they’re worried about–medicare works fine. Insurance companies routinely turn down claims and patients don’t get procedures done.

    They just happen to be trying to protect their own profits.

    —————–

    You know, Pa, one of the most dis-spiriting discussions I’ve ever had in my life, happened when i went to a dinner with a friend of mine, about seven years ago or so. My friend’s brother-in-law was in medical school. And this dinner was a get-together of Med-students. (all wealthy, white, privileged young people) — and somehow we got on the topic of single-payer. Every single med-student at the dinner (about eight or ten) was against single-payer — and several of them flat-out said things like “I did not take out all those loans so i could be poor.” It was all about the money. And they were adamant. And angry at the thought of not making a lot of money as doctors. That was their priority. It was painful to listen to. Not a word about poor people or what is happening to the poor. No understanding of what is happening to non-privileged Americans. Sigh. Ignorant, ignorant privileged med-students.

    w
    v
    “Our patients can’t afford care and don’t have access to the care they need, while the system is ever more wasteful, throwing away money on bureaucratic expenses and absurd prices from the drug companies,”

    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    My wife is a physician and she has always been a proponent of the single payer method. Our current system is ridiculous with insurance companies acting as middle men needlessly driving up costs. They also drop doctors with high cost patients. A person’s health shouldn’t be at the mercy of some bean counter sitting behind a desk at Cigna.

    PA Ram
    Participant

    The American Medical Association (AMA), which is the largest organization of physicians in the US, has opposed the idea of a single-payer model. When contacted, the AMA pointed to its policy regarding evaluating health reform proposals, which states in part that: “Unfair concentration of market power of payers is detrimental to patients and physicians, if patient freedom of choice or physician ability to select mode of practice is limited or denied. Single-payer systems clearly fall within such a definition and, consequently, should continue to be opposed by the AMA.”

    Another reason there is no single-payer plan. I don’t think it’s patient care they’re worried about–medicare works fine. Insurance companies routinely turn down claims and patients don’t get procedures done.

    They just happen to be trying to protect their own profits. If they aren’t getting paid what they want they have the power to just drop an insurance company. There is strength in numbers. If single-payer is the only game in town–that’s it. It would have the power to better control costs.

    I just don’t buy it.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    US DOCTORS CALL FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE: “ABOLISH THE INSURANCE COMPANIES”

    THIS ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE GUARDIAN

    http://www.occupy.com/article/us-doctors-call-universal-healthcare-abolish-insurance-companies

    A group of more than 2,000 physicians is calling for the establishment of a universal government-run health system in the US, in a paper in the American Journal of Public Health.

    According to the proposal released Thursday, the Affordable Care Act did not go far enough in removing barriers to healthcare access. The physicians’ bold plan calls for implementing a single-payer system similar to Canada’s, called the National Health Program, that would guarantee all residents healthcare.

    The new single-payer system would be funded mostly by existing US government funding. The physicians point out that the US government already pays for two-thirds of all healthcare spending in the US, and a single-payer system would cut down on administrative costs, so a transition to a single-payer system would not require significant additional spending.

    “Our patients can’t afford care and don’t have access to the care they need, while the system is ever more wasteful, throwing away money on bureaucratic expenses and absurd prices from the drug companies,” said David Himmelstein, a professor in the CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College and lecturer on medicine at Harvard Medical School.

    Himmelstein, one of the authors of the plan, said the proposal is meant as a rallying cry for physicians and other healthcare professionals around the cause of a single-payer model. According to the paper, even with the passage of the Affordable Care Act many patients “face rising co-payments and deductibles that compromise access to care and leave them vulnerable to ruinous medical bills”. Despite the current high healthcare spending levels in the US, healthcare outcomes are worse than in comparable well-funded countries.

    “There has been a conviction that we can approach this incrementally and get there in small steps and one of the advantages of having passed the ACA is that modest steps can’t do the job, and in a way make it easier to make arguments that we need more fundamental changes,” said Himmelstein.

    Under the proposal, all US residents would be able to see any physician of their choosing in the country and be treated at any hospital. With guaranteed coverage and no co-pays, deductibles and premiums, patients would not have financial barriers to seeking care, which would lead to greater utilization of the system and improved health outcomes, Himmelstein argues.

    The additional funds would be made up by modest tax increases in exchange for abolishing insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays.

    “We would have to abolish the insurance companies, there is no way around that,” Himmelstein said. The employees at the private insurance companies would be retrained for other jobs, he explains, and receive job placement assistance. The insurance CEOs, who earn multimillion dollar salaries, would not get comparable job placement, Himmelstein said wryly.

    Fees for medication would be negotiated with pharmaceutical companies the same way other countries with single-payer systems already negotiate for lower cost medications. Currently, US drug prices are some of the highest in the world.

    While Himmelstein acknowledges that the physicians’ proposal would meet with political and business interest opposition, and he can’t say when such a system would realistically have the political backing needed to be implemented, he is hopeful that as more Americans view a single-payer system favorably, pressure will continue to mount on the government.

    Proposing a single-payer system in the US is not new. Vermont previously attempted to implement a single-payer system, which passed the legislature but was shut down by the once supportive governor when cost estimates increased beyond what the state was able to afford.

    Coloradans will vote this November on whether to institute a single payer system statewide. One of the leaders of the movement in Colorado is state senator Irene Aguilar, who is also a physician. The Colorado proposal would be financed by a payroll tax increase of 7% for employers and 3% for employees. For the self-employed, that would translate into a 10% tax increase.

    But Himmelstein said this type of reform can’t be done state by state. The physicians’ plan depends in part on cost containment through having a single payer with the power to negotiate drug pricing with pharmaceutical companies as well as eliminating many levels of bureaucracy in billing and insurance registration.

    The American Medical Association (AMA), which is the largest organization of physicians in the US, has opposed the idea of a single-payer model. When contacted, the AMA pointed to its policy regarding evaluating health reform proposals, which states in part that: “Unfair concentration of market power of payers is detrimental to patients and physicians, if patient freedom of choice or physician ability to select mode of practice is limited or denied. Single-payer systems clearly fall within such a definition and, consequently, should continue to be opposed by the AMA.”

    But Himmelstein sees change around the corner. “I think the AMA and its member organizations are slowly starting to come around and I am confident that they will eventually come around.” He points to the passing of resolutions by a few of the state medical associations that make up the AMA membership to study the impact of a single-payer system as indicators of change.

    For Himmelstein and the other writers of the editorial, the biggest indicator of change seems to be the talk of a single-payer system in the presidential primaries which has brought attention back to the issue.

    “Bernie Sanders showed you can do extraordinarily well campaigning on this issue,” said Himmelstein, who is confident that if enough American people demand a single-payer system, Congress will eventually have no choice but to change their minds and support it.

    #44954
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

    ———————–
    I passed that “smug liberal” article on to a young grad-student friend of mine.
    Just thot I’d pass along here spontaneous reply to it (for those that read the article) (…i also mentioned to her that i hate the word ‘neoliberal’ coz i think it confuzes the peepulz)

    ===============
    Yeah… I wasn’t sure what to think of it at first either. But I think I figured out why something about it seems off to me.

    I think he’s absolutely right when he says it’s misguided to blame poor rednecks. I think where he goes wrong is in saying we should instead blame the smug liberals. The problem isn’t “smug liberals,” just as it isn’t “poor rednecks.” Blaming the individual is the problem. Blaming the individual is…. neoliberalism.*

    See, this is why I think we need that word. I don’t think this guy understands the big picture — the system, the ideology. This dude would have written a much better article if he had that framework to work with. Maybe he wouldn’t have had to use that word you don’t like, but certainly if he could write this piece, he could use the concept of neoliberalism to frame his criticisms and communicate essential parts of the concept. But he doesn’t see it, he’s too stuck in it to see it and misses the point entirely. That’s why he blames those smug liberals for their misguided blaming of dumb rednecks, when he should really be blaming the system.

    If I could rewrite this whole article, I would say, “Rich educated people who vote Democrat like to smugly blame poor people for voting against their own interests. But the reason they blame poor people is because that’s what neoliberal ideology trained them to do so that they won’t question the fucked up neoliberal economic system that produces poor people.” But maybe that article wouldn’t have gotten on Vox. (I don’t know who owns Vox.)

    I don’t think we can get out of the mess we’ve created for ourselves unless more people can “see” the ideology for what it is, and have some way of discussing/communicating it. I don’t know if your preferred term “corporate-capitalism” quite covers it or not. It’s just a part of the puzzle. Another part of the puzzle is that there is a very problematic over-emphasis on individual effort and “freedom.” Pointing the finger at corporations breaks it down into something more concrete and real, but I think maybe it does that at the expense of understanding how ideology shapes the way we think about the world and about things like individual freedm. Maybe. I don’t know. It’s late and I’m tired.

    *If you would like to stop receiving emails containing variants of the word “neoliberal,” please send youtube videos of baby animals doing cute things. No neoliberal baby animals, please.
    ====================

    I agree with her. The article seemed off to me, too, but I tell you what part of it is on: rednecks don’t like the fact that liberals insult them and belittle their beliefs.

    That part is just true. Blaming liberals may not get anybody anywhere, but what it does is identify the biggest obstacle to winning that voting bloc back.

    Here is a somewhat related piece…it is on the stone-age brain and its influence on voting decisions. There is a lot in this interview (Moyers interviewing a historian) that I found interesting, but one of my main takeaways is the idea that politicians have a meta-narrative that they campaign on, and this is how I see those meta-narratives now.

    Trump: You are getting screwed by brown people who are undermining your lifestyle, and your entire way of life is being attacked by the muslim variety of brown people. Furthermore, the government is completely corrupt and screwing you over, and I will fix all that.

    Sanders: We are getting screwed by corporations and the finance industry, and we need to level the playing field and make the rich contribute their resources to fixing the country.

    Clinton: Things are slowly getting better, and I am the most experienced and competent leader to continue down this path. I have all the connections. I am the answer, and by golly, my time has come.

    Clinton’s story has the least emotional appeal partly because her story is about herself rather than us, and partly because she isn’t playing to fear or anger. The only Anxiety card she can play is anxiety about crazy Trump. Clinton supporters, naturally, are drawn to this narrative because they are basically doing okay, even in this economy, and they are the sane, rational actors in this storyline as opposed to the naive, immature, and impatient Sanders supporters, and the contemptibly low-information, bigoted Trump supports. Her ability to win in November depends entirely on how many people she can convince that Trump will make things even worse. She already has all the voters who think everything is basically fine. She has to appeal to voters who think something is drastically wrong. So far, she’s been completely tone deaf to that perception, so I dunno know how she is going to craft a message to appeal to those people other than “Trump is psychologically unstable, and unfit to govern.”

    So we are going to have Corrupt Hillary vs. Crazy Donald.

    Anyway, here is the article. Interesting stuff about the brain, interesting bits about political lying – Grover Cleveland, JFK, and LBJ anecdotes – and the appeal of myth to voters as shorthand for facts.

    http://billmoyers.com/story/voting-with-their-stone-age-brains/

    #44918
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    We spent all of our time in the south, south west and west of Ireland. We were supposed to be there for 2 weeks but left after 10 days because of our dog. We also stayed in BnB’s. Instead of driving the ring of Kerry we did the ring of Beara. The locals recommended it as being less touristy. It was beautiful. Ireland has the prettiest scenery I’ve ever experienced. My favorite memory happened while in Limerick. We watched their hurling team defeat Tipperary. We were in a pub with a bunch of locals. The atmosphere in the pub was every bit as intense as you see in a bar in Pittsburgh when the Steelers are playing. The locals happily answered all my questions about the match and were very patient with my ignorance. They even had my back when a German tourist made a snide remark to me about American football.

    • This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by Avatar photonittany ram.
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Ranking all 32 NFL head coaches, from worst to first

    Ranking all 32 NFL head coaches, from worst to first

    32. Mike Mularkey, Titans

    Yes, I’m dropping Mularkey below the first-year coaches. Mularkey may have a track record as an NFL head coach, but it’s not very good. His teams have won four of the last 25 games he’s coached. In his four seasons running a team, he’s never produced an offense ranking higher than 25th — not very good for an offensive-minded coach. At least the four newbies have hope.

    31. Dirk Koetter, Buccaneers

    30. Doug Pederson, Eagles

    29. Ben McAdoo, Giants

    28. Adam Gase, Dolphins

    We’re lumping all of the first-year coaches together, because no one really knows how they’ll fare as head coaches. Gase goes to the front of the line because of his successful runs in both Denver and Chicago. Ben McAdoo gets credit for turning the Giants into a West Coast outfit, which has revived Eli Manning’s career. Pederson did a fine job running Andy Reid’s offense in Kansas City, but he has yet to establish his own productive offense away from his mentor. Koetter did an excellent job with Jameis Winston last year, but his stints in Jacksonville and Atlanta did not go so well.

    27. Gus Bradley, Jaguars

    Bradley’s been on the job for three years and the team hasn’t really shown any progress on the defensive side. Granted, that should change in 2016 after the front office brought in a number of defensive upgrades. Still, Bradley’s scheme hasn’t evolved since coming over from Seattle, which is concerning.

    26. Dan Quinn, Falcons

    Quinn is in the same boat as Bradley until he proves he can build a good defense with the group of All-pros he had at his disposal in Seattle. He also drops on this list for some poor game management moments during his first season with the Falcons, specifically his blunder in San Francisco.

    25. Jim Caldwell, Lions

    Caldwell has a Super Bowl appearance on his resume, but really, that was Tony Dungy’s and Peyton Manning’s team. He lasted just one season in Indianapolis after Manning’s neck injury, and hasn’t done much in Detroit to prove he’s a good head coach. The offense — and he’s a former offensive coordinator — wasn’t very good when the Lions made the playoffs in his first season. It did improve in the second-half of 2015 when Jim Bob Cooter took over the play-calling duties. Cooter (stop giggling) and defensive coordinator Teryl Austin, who could be in line for a head job in the near future, are the real stars of this show.

    24. Jack Del Rio, Raiders

    Del Rio has proven he can build a good defense. He did so in both Jacksonville and Denver. The question is whether he can he build a great one. Del Rio’s defenses tend to play conservatively, with few blitzes and a game plan that doesn’t change much week-to-week. You’re not going to take down top quarterbacks — which you have to do to win in the playoffs — with vanilla defenses.

    23. Mike McCoy, Chargers

    You can’t coach health, so it’s hard to put the Chargers’ recent struggles all on McCoy. He’s produced consistently productive offenses during his three-year tenure in San Diego. And his offense, which is built around quick timing throws, suits Philip Rivers perfectly. The 2016 season — assuming the Chargers finally stay healthy — should give us a better idea of just how good McCoy really is.

    22. Jeff Fisher, Rams

    How does this guy still have a job? People complain about Marvin Lewis in Cincinnati, but at least he gets his teams to the playoffs. Fisher hasn’t produced a winning record in seven years. The offense has been dreadful during his run and the defense, which has been loaded with talent, has underachieved.

    21. Jason Garrett, Cowboys

    We all agree Tony Romo is a very good quarterback, right? Maybe not top-five but definitely in the top-10. So why have the Cowboys made the playoffs only once under Garrett? The teams that consistently make the playoffs usually have two things: A good quarterback and a good coach. Dallas has the first part of that combo down. So what does that say about Garrett?

    20. Chuck Pagano, Colts

    Judging by the players’ reaction to owner Jim Irsay announcing Pagano’s surprising contract extension, the team clearly likes playing for him. His defenses, though, have been underwhelming, ranking outside the top-20 every season except for 2014. It’s fair to wonder how much of Pagano’s impressive win-loss record (41-23) is based on the brilliance of Andrew Luck.

    19. Marvin Lewis, Bengals

    One thing you can say about Lewis is he knows how to pick his coordinators. In the last two years, he’s seen three of his play-callers leave for head jobs. And despite all of that coaching talent under him, and all the talent he has on the roster, he has yet to lead the Bengals to a playoff victory.

    18. Hue Jackson, Browns

    A year from now, Jackson could crack the top-10 on this list. His quarterback-friendly offense should get Robert Griffin III’s career back on track — maybe not 2012 levels, but close. I’ve learned not to doubt Jackson after he turned Andy Dalton into an MVP candidate. Don’t be surprised if the Bengals offense falls off with Jackson leaving for Cleveland.

    17. Jay Gruden, Redskins

    Say what you want about Gruden’s handling of the RG3 situation, the man knows how coach up an offense. He makes things easy for Kirk Cousins, setting up simple either/or reads that put the ball in his playmakers’ hands in space. Washington led the league in yards after catch in 2015, according to SportingCharts.com.

    16. Rex Ryan, Bills

    Ryan is known as a brilliant defensive mind, but he’s going to need a bounce back season to retain that title. He hasn’t produced a top-10 unit in three seasons, and he hasn’t led his team to a winning record since 2010.

    15. Todd Bowles, Jets

    Boasting the most aggressive defensive scheme in the league, Bowles needed only a season to turn the Jets’ declining defense into one of the league’s better groups. And he managed to do so with out any dominant edge-rushers. That’s not much of a surprise after the work he did in Arizona, patching together a banged-up defense and keeping it in the top-half of the league’s statistical rankings.

    14. Gary Kubiak, Broncos

    He has a Super Bowl ring now, but let’s be serious: Most of the credit belongs to defensive coordinator Wade Phillips and his historically great defense. Kubiak’s offense is usually productive — well, unless the quarterback is a decaying Peyton Manning — but he can get a little too conservative at times.

    13. Bill O’Brien, Texans

    O’Brien earned his spot on this list after leading the Texans to consecutive winning records despite having Ryan Fitzpatrick, Ryan Mallett, Case Keenum, Brian Hoyer, T.J. Yates and Brandon Weeden making starts at quarterback. Brock Osweiler may not be a franchise passer, but he’s better than anyone O’Brien has had to work with since coming to Houston.

    12. John Fox, Bears

    Yes, he’s conservative, but Fox always gets the most out of his teams. He took both the Panthers and the Broncos to the Super Bowl, and he’s got the Bears on track to make a run at the playoffs in 2016.

    11. Chip Kelly, 49ers

    We won’t punish Kelly the Coach for Kelly the General Manager’s decisions. He’s still one of the more innovative offensive coaches in the league and somehow managed to churn out yet another top-15 scoring offense despite all the Eagles’ issues. His 26-21 record is pretty impressive considering who he’s had at the quarterback position.

    10. Andy Reid, Chiefs

    OK, so maybe Reid still hasn’t figured out how to manage the clock, but you can’t deny his track record as a coach. His teams have missed the playoffs only six times over his 17 seasons as a head coach. And Reid’s offenses have landed in the top-10 in points scored in 10 of those seasons.

    9. Mike McCarthy, Packers

    Everything we just said about Reid applies to McCarthy. He’s not great at managing a game, but he knows how to get his teams to the playoffs. Last season was the first the Packers did not have a top-10 scoring offense.

    8. Ron Rivera, Panthers

    The Panthers were patient with Rivera as he went through some growing pains over the first few years of his head coaching career, and he’s repaid the organization. His biggest strength is developing young defensive talent. Despite all of the turnover in the secondary over the last few seasons, the defense is still one of the best units in the league. And Rivera deserves a lot of credit for not trying to turn Cam Newton into more of a traditional quarterback.

    7. John Harbaugh, Ravens

    Harbaugh deserves a pass for last year’s debacle. The Ravens sent an inordinate number of players to IR. It was only the second time the Ravens missed the playoffs in Harbaugh’s eight years in charge.

    6. Mike Tomlin, Steelers

    Tomlin might not be as hands-on when it comes the X’s and O’s as some other coaches on this list, but his players always play hard for him. And he’s done a good job handling his assistants. When he was given the job, Tomlin was smart enough to leave Dick LeBeau in charge of the defense instead of installing his own scheme. And the unpopular hire of Todd Haley has turned out to be a brilliant move.

    5. Sean Payton, Saints

    There’s no offensive coach in the NFL better at creating favorable match-ups than Payton. That’s how the Saints offense remains in the top-half of the league without elite talent at the receiver position. While most other quarterbacks see their production fall off when their top targets go down, Drew Brees just keeps putting up 4,000-yard seasons.

    4. Mike Zimmer, Vikings

    Zimmer is the most creative defensive play-caller in the league. And more importantly, he knows how to develop young talent. Case in point: It took him only two years to turn Anthony Barr, who was seen as a raw prospect who would take some time to develop, into an All-pro caliber player. The Vikings defense is going to be very good for a very long time.

    3. Bruce Arians, Cardinals

    Is there a more aggressive coach in the league? Arians isn’t jumping on the dink-and-dunk trend most NFL offenses are now favoring. The Cardinals offense is going to attack defenses downfield and do it relentlessly. And that mindset has carried over to the defense. No team captures the personality of its coach more than Arizona. Arians also produces results. His teams have never won fewer than nine games, and that includes his 12-game stint as the Colts interim coach, when Indianapolis went 9-3.

    2. Pete Carroll, Seahawks

    No team plays harder than the Seahawks. It doesn’t matter what the score is (see: Seattle’s playoff loss in Carolina last season), Carroll’s teams never seem to give up. The players buy into his “Always Compete” philosophy, so you won’t ever see the team get complacent. His overly-enthusiastic approach wasn’t supposed to work in the NFL, but it’s hard to argue with the results. The Seahawks have made the playoffs five times in Carroll’s six years as head coach.

    1. Bill Belichick, Patriots

    Belichick is the greatest coach in NFL history. It’s not even debatable at this point. Other coaches have had bigger impacts on the game thanks to innovative schemes. But that’s what separates Belichick from the rest of the pack: There is no Belichick system. His defenses have employed a number of different schemes throughout his reign. What started out as pure 3-4 defense favoring zone coverage behind well designed blitzes has morphed into a 3-4/4-3 hybrid front with the secondary locked in man coverage. Belichick isn’t tied to any one scheme. Schemes grow old and get replaced by the next big thing. The game is constantly evolving, and, somehow, Belichick always seems to be ahead of the evolutionary curve.

    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Congressional report says NFL waged improper campaign to influence government study

    http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/15667689/congressional-report-finds-nfl-improperly-intervened-brain-research-cost-taxpayers-16-million

    WASHINGTON — At least a half-dozen top NFL health officials waged an improper, behind-the-scenes campaign last year to influence a major U.S. government research study on football and brain disease, congressional investigators have concluded in a new report.

    The 91-page report describes how the NFL pressured the National Institutes of Health to strip the $16 million project from a prominent Boston University researcher and tried to redirect the money to members of the league’s committee on brain injuries. The study was to have been funded out of a $30 million “unrestricted gift” the NFL gave the NIH in 2012.

    After the NIH rebuffed the NFL’s campaign to remove Robert Stern, an expert in neurodegenerative disease who has criticized the league, the NFL backed out of a signed agreement to pay for the study, the report shows. Taxpayers ended up bearing the cost instead.

    The NFL’s actions violated policies that prohibit private donors from interfering in the NIH peer-review process, the report concludes, and were part of a “long-standing pattern of attempts” by the league to shape concussion research for its own purposes.

    “In this instance, our investigation has shown that while the NFL had been publicly proclaiming its role as funder and accelerator of important research, it was privately attempting to influence that research,” the report states.

    Democratic members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce launched the investigation in December after Outside the Lines reported that the NFL backed out of the seven-year study, which aims to find methods for detecting — in living patients — chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, a disease found in dozens of deceased NFL players.

    The report, first obtained by Outside the Lines, also shows:

    • The co-chairman of the NFL’s committee on brain injuries, Dr. Richard Ellenbogen, was one of the league’s “primary advocates” opposing Stern, even though Ellenbogen had applied for the same grant and stood to benefit personally. Ellenbogen previously denied to Outside the Lines that he tried to influence the NIH, but the report sharply criticizes his actions.

    • The NFL was warned that taxpayers would have to bear the cost of the $16 million study and that the NIH would be “unable to fund other meritorious research for several years” if the league backed out. The NFL offered a last-minute $2 million payment after an intermediary suggested a partial contribution would “help dampen criticism.” The NIH turned down the offer.

    • Even after an NIH review panel upheld the award to Stern, the NFL sought to funnel the $16 million to another project that would involve members of the league’s brain injury committee. The plan would have allowed the NFL researchers to avoid the NIH’s rigorous peer-review process. NIH Director Francis Collins rejected the idea.

    Behind the NFL’s donations for brain research is a funding apparatus that some researchers believe steers research away from potentially uncomfortable truths about football and brain disease.

    U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, told Outside the Lines that the NFL’s attempts to influence the NIH threatened to compromise the integrity of the research.

    “Once you get anybody who’s heavily involved with the NFL trying to influence what kind of research takes place, you break that chain that guarantees the integrity, and that’s what I think is so crucial here,” Pallone said. “Fortunately, the NIH didn’t take the bait. It shouldn’t be a rigged game. If it is, then people won’t really know whether what we’re finding through this research is accurate.”

    The NFL has repeatedly denied that it withheld funding because of objections to Stern, a professor of neurology and neurosurgery and the director of clinical research at Boston University’s CTE Center. But in emails and phone calls documented by congressional investigators, league officials said they believed Stern was biased and his selection marred by a conflict of interest because a grant reviewer had previously appeared on a scientific paper with one of Stern’s colleagues. The NIH ruled that the allegations were unfounded.

    Jeff Miller, NFL executive vice president of health and safety, told investigators that the NFL voiced its concerns through appropriate channels and believed it had done nothing out of the ordinary.

    NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy on Monday said: “The NFL rejects the allegations laid out … There is no dispute that there were concerns raised about both the nature of the study in question and possible conflicts of interest. These concerns were raised for review and consideration through the appropriate channels. … It is deeply disappointing the authors of the Staff Report would make allegations directed at doctors affiliated with the NFL Head, Neck and Spine Committee without ever speaking to them.”

    However, Dr. Walter Koroshetz, who directs the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke for the NIH, described the NFL’s campaign as unprecedented, telling investigators he “was aware of no other instance” in which a private donor attempted to intervene in the NIH grant selection process.

    “They wanted to look like the good guy, like they were giving money for this research,” said Pallone, the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee. “But as soon as they found out that it might be somebody who they don’t like who’s doing the research, they were reneging on their commitment, essentially.”

    According to a five-page research plan provided in the report, the NFL agreed to the objectives of the CTE study in July 2014 and committed $16,325,242 — nearly the entire budget. The document was signed by NFL general counsel Jeff Pash, along with representatives of the NIH and the Foundation for the NIH (FNIH), a non-profit organization. In addition to raising money, the FNIH was created by Congress to help preserve the independence of the NIH, the nation’s largest biomedical institution.

    The report indicates the FNIH “failed” in that role, which resulted in the NFL “circumventing appropriate protocols of communication, attempting to influence NIH’s selection of grant recipients and ultimately violating its obligation to provide funding for that grant.” The FNIH had no immediate comment Monday.

    The NFL first registered its concerns in spring 2015, after the NIH notified Stern that his group had been selected. As Outside the Lines has previously reported, a competing proposal for the grant was led by Kevin Guskiewicz, a prominent concussion researcher who chairs the NFL’s Subcommittee on Safety Equipment and Playing Rules, and included three other NFL advisers, including Ellenbogen.

    On June 17, Dr. Elliot Pellman, the NFL medical director who once ran the league’s discredited concussion research program, emailed Dr. Maria Freire, FNIH executive director, to say the NFL had “significant concerns [regarding] BU and their ability to be unbiased and collaborative.” He asked Freire to “slow down the process until we all have a chance to speak and figure this out.”

    Freire forwarded the email to Koroshetz.

    “Yes, we knew this was coming,” Koroshetz replied the next day, according to the report. “Lots of history here. But our process was not tainted and all above board. … Trouble is of course that the [Stern] group is led by people who first broke the science open, and NFL owners and leadership think of them as the creators of the problem.”

    Less than a week later, the NFL’s chief health and medical adviser, Dr. Betsy Nabel, emailed Koroshetz directly. She attached a 61-page affidavit that Stern had submitted in support of players who opposed the settlement of a class action lawsuit against the NFL in 2014.

    “I hope this group is able to approach their research in an unbiased manner,” Nabel wrote, according to the report.

    On June 29, the FNIH arranged a conference call to discuss the NFL’s objections. Along with Miller, the report states the NFL was represented by Ellenbogen and Dr. Hunt Batjer — the co-chairmen of the Head, Neck and Spine Committee, which helps set league concussion policy — and another committee member, Dr. Mitch Berger. (During Super Bowl week in February, Berger made headlines by saying he did not believe a link had been established between football and brain disease.)

    On the conference call, the NFL raised concerns about Stern’s alleged bias and the potential conflict of interest during the peer-review process.

    Koroshetz told investigators that shortly thereafter, Ellenbogen called back to reiterate that “he could not recommend that the NFL fund the BU study, because he believed that Dr. Stern had a conflict of interest and that the grant application process had been tainted by bias.”

    Ellenbogen previously denied to Outside the Lines that he was part of any effort by the league to influence funding, saying that he doesn’t know Stern “and therefore do not have an opinion of him.”

    The report is particularly critical of Ellenbogen, who chairs the neurological surgery department at University of Washington, for intervening as both a grant applicant and a representative of the NFL.

    “Dr. Ellenbogen is a primary example of the conflicts of interest between his role as a researcher and his role as an NFL adviser,” the report states. “He had been part of a group that applied for the $16 million grant. After his group was not selected, Dr. Ellenbogen became one of the NFL’s primary advocates in expressing concerns surrounding the process with the BU grant selection. … This series of events raises significant questions about Dr. Ellenbogen’s own bias.”

    Through last fall, the NIH struggled to find out whether the NFL would honor its commitment to pay for the study.

    “Clearly, it would be best if [the NIH] could count on the entire support from the NFL for the CTE project, as originally agreed,” Freire wrote Miller on Oct. 19.

    In a separate email, she noted, the NFL had put the NIH “in a difficult budgetary situation because this is a very large grant — a cost that was not expected to be paid by taxpayers’ dollars.” Using public money would mean the NIH “will be unable to fund other meritorious research for several years.”

    Freire proposed that the NFL at least pay for the first year.

    “Frankly, this would also be an important statement about NFL’s commitment to research and will help dampen criticism,” she wrote. “We understand that this is a very awkward situation all around, but some level of compromise would be the best possible solution.”

    Six weeks later, the NIH was still waiting on the league.

    In December, days before the study was to be announced, the NFL offered to contribute $2 million, Miller told investigators.

    At the same time, the NFL was continuing its efforts to redirect the $16 million to its own researchers, according to the report.

    Another member of the Head, Neck and Spine Committee, Dr. Russell Lonser, a former NIH researcher, reached out to a senior NIH official to explore using the $16 million for a project that would involve the same NFL advisers. Under the plan, the researchers would not have been subjected to the NIH’s peer-review process.

    The report indicates Lonser’s actions were “inappropriate” and “in direct contravention of NIH policy prohibiting donor involvement in the grant decision-making process.”

    The congressional investigators applaud the NIH leadership for maintaining “the integrity of the science and the grant-review process,” but it adds that the NIH “may have gone too far in attempting to accommodate the NFL.”

    The report, which will be distributed to officials with the NFL, the NIH and the FNIH, recommends that the three groups amend their current agreement to ensure that “each party has a clear understanding of its role for the remainder of this partnership.” The congressional committee will follow up with the NIH and the FNIH on its recommendations, which include establishing clearer guidelines for donors and communication with NIH officials.

    The Stern study, which will include 50 researchers from 17 institutions and hundreds of former college and NFL players who will participate as subjects, officially launches next week in Boston.

    Pallone told Outside the Lines the NFL’s actions are particularly harmful to the league’s players: “It says to them that they really can’t trust the NFL to do the right thing.”

    NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said on SportsCenter on Monday that the union decided, years ago, to split from the NFL on such matters because of the league’s conflicted history around brain research. He said the league has no commitment to the health and safety of its players.

    “It’s one of the most troubling and disturbing reports I’ve seen,” Smith said of the Outside the Lines story Monday, adding he wasn’t surprised, however. “It reaffirms the fact that the league has its own view about how they care about players in the NFL.”

    Pallone said he hopes the report will push the league to make changes.

    “The history with the league is, if you catch them, then they start to listen,” Pallone said.

    #44166
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Zooey,

    Good questions, and points. And a key thing about Single Payer: It would radically reduce costs for Americans “consumers” and taxpayers. Our present system, as has been noted repeatedly, is twice as expensive as those other systems, the single-payer systems in other nations, like ZN’s example of Canada, and most of Europe. They pay half or less than we do, and they get far better coverage, have far less — or no — out of pocket costs, and everyone is covered. To me, it’s absolute madness that we don’t do this.

    I’ve been told, for instance, by people from Canada, and in Europe when I was there, that cancer treatments are paid for. Virtually everything. Here, in America, the out of pocket costs for a typical patient with insurance can run at least into the thousands per treatment, and if a prolonged hospital stay is ever required, it can be tens of thousands out of pocket. That does not happen in Canada, Europe and anywhere with Single Payer.

    No country on earth has a higher rate of medical bankruptcy than the US, and no other country pays anywhere close to what we pay for prescriptions drugs. There isn’t any reason to keep our system beyond making corporate America fat and happy, and the politicians who work to prevent Single Payer do so on their behalf.

    Also: Not sure if this has already been posted here, by I think it’s a really good article (from Naked Capitalism) on Clinton/Sanders and the so-called pragmatism versus idealism debate:

    The Crackpot Realism of Clintonian Politics

    The most bizarre thing about these desperate calls to realism is our modern context. In what possible way is it “realistic” to continue voting for the lesser evil when we have an ongoing climate catastrophe no mainstream Democrat or Republican is willing to discuss, let alone actually do something significant about? During Obama’s first term he even pressured environmental groups to stop or tone down their discussions of climate change. Each lesser evil candidate just happens to be a greater evil than the last one. Each of their politics are unimaginable even as one is in the throes of the attacks on basic human decency engendered by the last one. The slogan of the Democratic party is “it could always be worse” while the promise is “it will always be worse”. When your realism involves supporting a trend that could quite realistically mean the end of human civilization forgive me for holding you in contempt.

    In crackpot realism, a high-flying moral rhetoric is joined with an opportunist crawling among a great scatter of unfocused fears and demands. In fact, the main content of “politics” is now a struggle among men equally expert in practical next steps — which, in summary, make up the thrust toward war — and in great, round, hortatory principles.

    Charles Wright Mills writing nearly sixty years ago captures this dynamic perfectly. Whereas then the steps towards war could be apocalyptic because of nuclear annihilation now the steps towards war seem more like a distraction while we sink into greater economic doldrums and come closer to social death. But not only does all this ignore the existential threats, it completely misses how American politics has evolved for over four decades. To the liberal commentariat the status quo is irrevocably right wing and politicians like Obama and Clinton are simply “grappling” with this reality. As Klein said “Clinton’s theory of change is probably analytically correct”.

    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    Well, athletically Goff brings more to the table than Warner did. And the thing is about Warner, nobody knew he was going to be Warner until he was…Warner.

    So I agree, potentially Goff could be as good as Warner. But much about what made Warner great had nothing to do with athletic ability. His accuracy, quick release and a bunch of sorta abstract intangibles set him apart from the rest of the NFL. I don’t know what’s being said about Goff’s release but I hear he is accurate. Of course, he could be as effective as Warner but be so for different reasons. I don’t expect him to play like Warner however he will need to have some of those intangibles to be on his level.

    One thing Goff won’t have is Bruce, Holt, Hakim and Proehl so we should be patient if he doesn’t take command of the offense as quickly as Warner did.

    #43942

    In reply to: tavon austin

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    well unless something changes my guess is going to be rams fans will need to “be patient”.

    probably not until next season when hopefully as you wrote one of this year’s rookies steps up next year.

    • This reply was modified 10 years, 3 months ago by Avatar photoInvaderRam.
    #43928

    In reply to: tavon austin

    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    although i concede that saying he could be goff’s go to receiver was going a little overboard. i’m just a little anxious about how goff will do his rookie year. feel like he’s gonna need the receivers to step up. don’t think the rookies are gonna be up for it. not this year. austin seems like their best chance.

    This kind of no-holds-barred, “I’m just right” board war has to have limits. So maybe by July we should think about slowing it down.

    Anyway, you’re right…Goff would do better as a rookie if he had a receiver. I don’t know, it’s possible that Tavon steps up and adds more receiving chops. It’s also possible Britt does the same. Maybe Marquez has some of that in him. Maybe Quick goes back to what he was showing early in 2014. It’s also possible they work Gurley in more to the passing game. (I’m not going to count Bailey.) Maybe all that happens, or a percentage of it. Maybe a rookie defies the normal odds and steps up.

    I don’t think it’s bleak, it just looks like one big question.

    Reminds me of the snakebit past, a little. Bradford began his rookie season with Mark Clayton, and Clayton looked like he was going to be better than his Ravens self and give SB a go-to guy. Then he was hurt in the 2nd game. This isn’t like that…there’s no Clayton this time, and there probably isn’t a Laurent Robinson or Gilyard either (meaning I don’t think they will end up stuck with guys who are just that bad). There’s no Amendola either, but then Amendola was a mixed blessing (he was a short yardage magician but not an outside guy).

    I think it’s possible there’s someone in this mix who can get 60/900–

    Austin?
    Britt?
    Cooper?
    Marquez?
    North?
    McRoberts?
    Quick?
    Spruce?
    Thomas?

    I am not listing Williams because he has too far to go and too much to prove.

    My own view, remember, is that 2017 will look better regarding all this than 2016 does now. Which, I know, is a big help. I am even afraid to use the phrase “be patient” around longterm diehard Rams fans. It sounds too much like “Niagra Falls.”
    .

    #43922

    In reply to: Bern comin to town

    bnw
    Blocked

    Major General Smedley Butler got it right. So did Eisenhower when he left office.

    As for job creation, that’s just not justified by basic economics.

    Principal demands return. Period. Wages are a drag on returns and thus in maximizing returns, wages are minimized or eliminated.

    Which means, principal seeks return in which there are few people required or no people required.

    Why do you think speculative returns on Wall Street are so attractive? They can get returns and have ZERO of the drags on the net such as wages. The only thing to manage is risk which is still evident in any venture in which there are jobs, be it retail, manufacturing, service sector, health care, etc.

    Thus, the BIGGEST LIE of all is that the wealthy are job creators. They are not. The wealthy are wealth hoarders. Their investments have proven to NOT create jobs, certainly not in the US. The returns they seek are too great for that to happen here.

    The actual math is that what should have happened initially instead of some piddly little stimulus was a MASSIVE, MASSIVE stimulus in which the country borrowed at ZERO percent (the world was flooding the US with funds even then because we were one of the safe places, even still) and used the amount to rebuild our infrastructure as well as embark on much needed improvements. The amount should have been somewhere between $3-5 Trillion. Yeah…MASSIVE. Why so much???

    Well, firstly, we’re going to have to pay that bill, anyway. As Flint has shown, we’ll have to replace lead pipes all across the country and upgrade/replace outdated water treatment systems including the ability to treat for sodium which they can’t now such that some city water is technically clean, but not safe for children or heart patients/elderly people.

    Now, if we go about it the way we “rebuilt” Iraq, yeah, it wouldn’t be worth it. However, with smart project management, efficiencies can be found and executed. Understand that mostly this wouldn’t be the “government” building anything, but private firms building according to government plans or guidelines and if private contractors can build nuclear submarines and work with the government, it can work with bridges, water treatment plans and schools.

    With such an infusion in the hands of people who LIVE and WORK, the demand would be immense. At that point, it would be incumbent upon the Fed to manage inflation, Federal and state legislatures to deal with regulations to encourage entrepreneurship without selling out the environment or workers and All level of governments to FINALLY realize that creating JOBS doesn’t mean dooky squat if people can’t GET TO WORK.

    Here in Central Florida, Public Transportation is laughable. Our Criminal Governor Rick Scott torpedoed a high speed rail that was mostly paid for and was shovel ready (and I mean shovel ready in a way that isn’t hyperbole. When the I-4 was put in, it was designed with some kind of rail system in mind and even graded such that the ONLY change needed along the entire path, only one rail overpass would need to be either lifted or removed. That’s it. So, there’s no high speed rail connecting Orlando with Tampa. Orlando has more jobs and Tampa has a bunch of bedroom communities with workers. Moreover, the tourism possibilities were immense. Disney and Universal were crazy about the idea of being able to tap into the beaches of the Gulf Coast as well as the Tampa Cruise Terminal. So much synergy…

    Point being that this was just one example of MANY in which those synergies were allowed to lapse for personal gain of a few. Thus, even if an entrepreneur in Tampa or Orlando wanted to succeed, there are real barriers in place. Like…how does an employee GET to work? How do customers get to you?

    Principal doesn’t want to build public roads or bridges or sewage plants or schools or internet infrastructure or any number of other things that are critical for us as a society.

    Principal demands return like the mob. Remember Ray Liotta in Good Fellas? That’s principal. “But we need jobs.” “Fuck you, pay me.” “But we need clean water.” “Fuck you, pay me.” “But the bridges are about to collapse!” “Fuck you, pay me.”

    That’s principal. Principal is a reluctant job creator, it at all.

    Again allow the wealthy the option of lowering their ADDITIONAL tax burden by investing in US job creation.

    With all the talk about principal and Wall Street I wonder if you get it. You seem to be flying high over the problem. I only had two econ classes in college. Perhaps you had more? I’m not talking about people with the cash to invest in Wall Street. I’m not talking about Wall Street investing in private business two blocks off of Main Street either. I’m not talking about crowd source funding or any other internet access funding during the open hours of the public library either. I’m talking about businesses started out of desperation on a shoestring to bring some money in. When that effort begins to succeed the government takes notice and the regulations either end the business or forces the owner into debt to comply. That is the system in place today throughout this nation.

    • This reply was modified 10 years, 3 months ago by bnw.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    #43899

    In reply to: Bern comin to town

    Mackeyser
    Moderator

    Major General Smedley Butler got it right. So did Eisenhower when he left office.

    As for job creation, that’s just not justified by basic economics.

    Principal demands return. Period. Wages are a drag on returns and thus in maximizing returns, wages are minimized or eliminated.

    Which means, principal seeks return in which there are few people required or no people required.

    Why do you think speculative returns on Wall Street are so attractive? They can get returns and have ZERO of the drags on the net such as wages. The only thing to manage is risk which is still evident in any venture in which there are jobs, be it retail, manufacturing, service sector, health care, etc.

    Thus, the BIGGEST LIE of all is that the wealthy are job creators. They are not. The wealthy are wealth hoarders. Their investments have proven to NOT create jobs, certainly not in the US. The returns they seek are too great for that to happen here.

    The actual math is that what should have happened initially instead of some piddly little stimulus was a MASSIVE, MASSIVE stimulus in which the country borrowed at ZERO percent (the world was flooding the US with funds even then because we were one of the safe places, even still) and used the amount to rebuild our infrastructure as well as embark on much needed improvements. The amount should have been somewhere between $3-5 Trillion. Yeah…MASSIVE. Why so much???

    Well, firstly, we’re going to have to pay that bill, anyway. As Flint has shown, we’ll have to replace lead pipes all across the country and upgrade/replace outdated water treatment systems including the ability to treat for sodium which they can’t now such that some city water is technically clean, but not safe for children or heart patients/elderly people.

    Now, if we go about it the way we “rebuilt” Iraq, yeah, it wouldn’t be worth it. However, with smart project management, efficiencies can be found and executed. Understand that mostly this wouldn’t be the “government” building anything, but private firms building according to government plans or guidelines and if private contractors can build nuclear submarines and work with the government, it can work with bridges, water treatment plans and schools.

    With such an infusion in the hands of people who LIVE and WORK, the demand would be immense. At that point, it would be incumbent upon the Fed to manage inflation, Federal and state legislatures to deal with regulations to encourage entrepreneurship without selling out the environment or workers and All level of governments to FINALLY realize that creating JOBS doesn’t mean dooky squat if people can’t GET TO WORK.

    Here in Central Florida, Public Transportation is laughable. Our Criminal Governor Rick Scott torpedoed a high speed rail that was mostly paid for and was shovel ready (and I mean shovel ready in a way that isn’t hyperbole. When the I-4 was put in, it was designed with some kind of rail system in mind and even graded such that the ONLY change needed along the entire path, only one rail overpass would need to be either lifted or removed. That’s it. So, there’s no high speed rail connecting Orlando with Tampa. Orlando has more jobs and Tampa has a bunch of bedroom communities with workers. Moreover, the tourism possibilities were immense. Disney and Universal were crazy about the idea of being able to tap into the beaches of the Gulf Coast as well as the Tampa Cruise Terminal. So much synergy…

    Point being that this was just one example of MANY in which those synergies were allowed to lapse for personal gain of a few. Thus, even if an entrepreneur in Tampa or Orlando wanted to succeed, there are real barriers in place. Like…how does an employee GET to work? How do customers get to you?

    Principal doesn’t want to build public roads or bridges or sewage plants or schools or internet infrastructure or any number of other things that are critical for us as a society.

    Principal demands return like the mob. Remember Ray Liotta in Good Fellas? That’s principal. “But we need jobs.” “Fuck you, pay me.” “But we need clean water.” “Fuck you, pay me.” “But the bridges are about to collapse!” “Fuck you, pay me.”

    That’s principal. Principal is a reluctant job creator, it at all.

    Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.

    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Rams will be patient, but Jared Goff likely to start sooner than later

    Nick Wagoner

    http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/29179/rams-will-be-patient-but-jared-goff-likely-to-start-sooner-than-later

    LOS ANGELES — The best-laid plans of NFL teams can change at the drop of a hat. Or, perhaps in the case of the Los Angeles Rams, at the cost of a move from No. 15 to No. 1 in the 2016 draft.

    Soon after making their move up the draft board, the Rams’ biggest decision was whether to take Cal quarterback Jared Goff or North Dakota State signal-caller Carson Wentz. Now, the biggest question facing Goff and the Rams isn’t who but when.

    As in when will Goff take over as starting quarterback for a team that finished at the bottom of the league in most major passing categories a year ago?

    History shows there’s not necessarily a right or wrong approach to throwing a top pick into fire. More often than not, such choices have proved dependent almost solely on the individual.

    Rams coach Jeff Fisher knows a thing or two about handling such situations. The then-Houston Oilers drafted Steve McNair, the best quarterback Fisher ever coached, with the third pick in 1995. McNair promptly went to the bench, making only brief cameos before taking over full time as the starter in 1997.

    “Steve did play under center his junior year in a pro-style system and then got in the shotgun his senior year,” Fisher said. “We were very patient with him and he was asked numerous times, ‘When are you going to play?’ and it’s the same thing that Jared said, ‘When the coaches say I’m ready for it.’ I think we handled it well. We’re not going to follow that same model because he’s got a different skill set than Steve.”

    The model the Rams will follow is more likely one taken from a page in general manager Les Snead’s history. As one of the key personnel evaluators for the Atlanta Falcons, Snead was part of the group that drafted quarterback Matt Ryan in 2008. The Falcons insisted Chris Redman would be their starter until Ryan was ready. As it turned out, Ryan was ready around Week 3 of the preseason and went on to start 16 games as a rookie. The same was true of Joe Flacco in Baltimore.

    In fact, over the past eight years there has been a growing trend of quarterbacks who were taken early starting right away. In addition to Flacco and Ryan, Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Sam Bradford, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota were all Week 1 starters in their first season.

    The lone exception among top signal-callers taken recently was Jacksonville’s Blake Bortles, who sat the first two games and part of a third before playing and becoming the starter.

    Of course, that list of quarterbacks has produced varying levels of success.

    “Well everybody is different,” Fisher said. “Jameis is different than the next quarterback. We have always had the philosophy that we are going to play them when we think they are ready. We aren’t going to subject them to fail, so whenever that is you are going to see him under center. We aren’t going to come out Day 1 and announce that he is a starter. It’s going to happen pretty soon, sooner than probably later.”

    For Goff, learning the offense won’t be easy as he transitions from Cal’s “Bear Raid” spread system to a more pro-style offense. The Rams will help him by adding some concepts he’s comfortable with, and they view Goff as a quick study based on what they’ve already seen.

    At last weekend’s rookie orientation, Fisher was walking through the team’s temporary Oxnard meeting areas when he encountered Goff leaving the quarterback room at 10 p.m., long after the day’s scheduled meetings were done.

    “He’s a guy that understands priorities,” Fisher said. “He knows how to budget his time and where to spend his time. It’ll change a little bit. We’ll get him some information this week so he can stay up as we continue to install. He’s handled everything. As I’ve mentioned before, he’s got that internal, competitive drive that you don’t see. He doesn’t wear it on his sleeve. He’s going to make sure that everything’s right.”

    For his part, Goff has acknowledged that he’d like to play right away but also has said he’s proving himself to the coaches and leaving the decision in their hands. Upon getting his first taste of the Rams’ playbook, Goff said there were things, especially in the shotgun, that translate from college.

    The difficult thing for Goff is adjusting to playing under center more and learning the terminology.

    “The way they say it, and they’re absolutely right, it’s almost like you’re learning a different language,” Goff said. “It’s from any system you come from in college – it doesn’t really matter. It’s like you’re going into Spanish class and you have to become fluent in Spanish over however long the time is. That’s kind of what it is.”

    There’s plenty of time for Goff to get up to speed between now and the season opener on Sept. 12. The Rams have Case Keenum in place to offer competition,but it’s unlikely anyone but Goff will start that game against San Francisco.

    “I always thought when you invest that much, unless you have Brett Favre sitting on your team, I think you have got to play him,” former NFL coach Rick Venturi said. “I have always believed that. You learn by doing and the only thing you learn sitting is you learn how to sit.”

    Even Fisher, who won’t make any sweeping declarations before he absolutely has to, has dropped plenty of hints that it won’t take long for Goff to take over.

    “He may start the opener on Monday night, we don’t know, but that’s the goal,” Fisher said.

    It would be a surprise if that’s a goal the Rams and Goff don’t accomplish.

    #43865
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    I have to say, I’m surprised no team drafted this guy.

    It;s the post-Manziel era.

    Patient tolerance is impatiently untolerated.

Viewing 30 results - 631 through 660 (of 945 total)