glunn

Moderator note -- I realize that you guys are having a spirited discussion, but language like this is inherently disrespectful and potentially inflammatory. It's OK to say you disagree, and forcefully argue why. But when you characterize someone else's idea a "preposterous", this actually weakens your argument and your ability to persuade the other person. It is better when you explain in a friendly way why you feel that their position is preposterous. Then, the other person might even be persuaded that they were wrong, or at the very least they will respond with respect. You are having a good discussion. Please keep it within TD policy.

So while people argue about what to do and how best to do it, children continue to die every day because they are unlucky enough to have parents who cannot afford to provide health care. Our medical system is among the least efficient in the world. The Affordable Care Act includes attempts to make it more efficient, by penalizing poor results (such as hospitals that have high infection rates because staff does not always wash their hands) and by allowing consumers to better compare policies offered by competing insurance companies. It also increases taxes on people and companies who can afford to pay such taxes. I understand that the ACA could be a lot better and less expensive. If not for the lobbyists, the ACA would be far more efficient. One huge example is prescription drug prices. Why do prescription drugs cost more in the U.S. than anywhere else? Check this out. Is it a coincidence that the drug companies spent more on lobbying than any other industry from 1998 through 2006? To me, the supreme irony is that if our policy was created with a focus on efficiency, we could afford to take care of everyone. Other countries do it -- here is one of many articles that provides common sense ideas about how we could do it. This is not rocket science. The inefficiency is deliberate. The politicians could adopt a plan modeled on the Israeli plan tomorrow, we could cover everyone and have money left over -- please check out this article as an example of many that show this. While our politicians squabble, the lobbyists make sure that good things cannot happen. I would think that my Christian friends would be with me in wanting to do whatever it takes to save children from dying who can be saved by the ACA. I certainly join them in wanting to do this with the least possible expense and the best possible results.

This is getting way off topic. The article about the Cardinals is interesting. Why not discuss what the Twins might learn from the Cardinals? Or perhaps debate whether the Rays or the A's or some other team might make a better role model?

Or Olivia, which saddens me.

I am looking for suggestions for a good fishing resort that is within easy driving distance of Target Field. My priorities are as follows: 1. The closer to Target Field the better. The plan would be to fish during the day and go to games at night. 2. A good on-site restaurant is a must. There should be no possibility of my wife doing any cooking. 3. Comfortable rooms/beds. A jacuzzi in the bathroom or on a deck would be an added bonus. 4. Good internet access. 5. Activities for family members who are not into fishing/baseball, including kids' activities like swimming, miniature golf and horseback riding. Based on my research so far, Cragun's looks nice, except it looks like it would be a brutal drive to and from Target Field every day. I will be grateful for any suggestions.

Excellent first post. I hope that you continue to participate.

Nice first post. Be prepared for some respectful debate. Moderator note -- this is a first time poster. Let's try to be welcoming.

I wish that this post and the accompanying link were getting more attention. If this information about the splitter is correct, then Tanaka seems scary risky to me.

With all due respect, I am 99% certain that Major Leauge Ready is correct -- the fee paid to his ballclub in Japan would have to be deducted over the term of Tanaka's contact, i.e. amortized. I am too lazy to look at the primary sources tonight, but here is a link to a treatise by Sky Moore, who is a tax genius, and you can see Sky's citations in footnote 7. I am confident that Sky is correct, because Sky is always correct, but if you still disagree then please be ready to debate why Sky's citations are not controlling. Also, I would note that not requiring amortization would facilitate extreme shenanigans. Kudos to Major Leauge Ready for his apparently correct intuition on this. And let this be a lesson to all of us not to label someone else's post as "completely incorrect" unless we are 100% sure.

It seems to me that this has been addressed. Some people believe that Gardy should be retained because the recent troubles are due mainly to having poor talent to work with. If these people are correct, then keeping Gardy makes more sense than holding him accountable for something that is not his fault. Just because other teams scapegoat managers who are not at fault does not mean that this is a necessary component of accountability. Personally, I wish that the Twins and Gardy had come to a mutual decision not to renew Gardy's contact, but I understand the arguments for renewing the contract.

My understanding is that there is some good regulation here, including caps on insurance company profits and penalties to be applied to hospitals with higher than average infection rates. There is also some effort being made to make rates available on the internet so people can better shop for particular procedures. As for Jesus avoiding political issues, I don't understand the relevance. Caesar was a dictator. Today, we each have an equal vote. Collectively, we are Caesar. With power comes responsibility, and we no longer have a Caesar to blame for policies that screw poor people.

I still don't understand how people can call themselves Christians when they choose to ignore what Christ said that they should do. I understand what you are saying about Jesus viewing this as a personal decision, but I am finding it difficult not to conclude that many of these people are insincere about their religion. I think I understand your point about having no right to healthcare but am wondering if you really believe that someone whose life may be in danger should be turned away from an emergency room if he or she has no ability to pay. Would you make an exception for someone who will die without immediate treatment? Finally, imagine a country where some of us are Christians and those who are not Christians agree that helping the poor is a good idea. Why not use government to get this done? Would you really like to eliminate Social Security and go back to having old people living on the street? Would you really eliminate Medicare and let old people die from curable illnesses? I am still unclear how you could explain to St. Peter that you did these things knowing that they would hurt so many people.

I agree that the Twins are unlikely to do this, but don't agree that it's unfortunate. It seems to me that there are probably better ways to spend $120 million+. Some of the Japanese pitchers have been good and some have not. I was optimistic when the Twins signed Nishi -- it seemed to me that at worst Nishi would be decent. I was wrong. And the Tanaka proponents could now be wrong. I think that it might be smarter to spend the big bucks on one of more of the Cuban prospects and/or free agents. Yes, Tanaka seems promising, but if the cost is going to be $120+ million, it might be smarter to spread that over 2 or 3 players rather than bet so big on one.

The medical device industry enjoys very high profit margins and the excise tax of 2.3% seems like a fair price to pay for having millions more potential end users. This is less than the 3.8% additional tax that high income people will be paying. As for giving courtesy to the Tea Party, this works both ways. A majority of Americans voted for Obama and for Democratic candidates for both the Senate and the House. Due to gerrymandering, the Republicans retained the House, which does not seem very democratic to me -- more like a perversion of democracy.

The law is also funded by taxes on people with high incomes and medical device manufacturers. "Individuals with annual incomes higher than $200,000 and couples who make more than $250,000 a year will face two new taxes — a 0.9-percent increase in the 1.45-percent Medicare levy on earnings above those income thresholds and a new 3.8-percent tax on investment income. Together, these two taxes are expected to raise about $318 billion over the next decade — roughly half of the law’s new tax revenue." As a capitalist and small business owner, I am happy to pay these taxes. It makes me feel good to contribute to helping people who would otherwise be uninsured. The idea of saving people who have curable diseases appeals to me. I agree that there are serious issues relating to student loans. I believe that inflation will eventually make such loans easier to repay. I also believe that we need to rethink our economy to deal with the fact that there are going to be millions less jobs as time passes, due to automation. The good news is that robots and computer programs will be doing more and more as time passes. The bad news is that millions more jobs will be going away. For the sake of younger people, I think that we need to work hard to make sure there will be jobs that allow them to prosper, but I don't think that this is a good reason for them to not participate in the ACA. Does anyone know if student loan payments count in computing the subsidies under the ACA?

I would add that about 1.3 million more people voted for Democrats over Republicans for seats in the House of Representatives, but the Republicans won more seats as a result of gerrymandering.

Great thread. Taking into account what happened with Koskie and Morneau, I am worried about Joe Mauer's concussion. The fact that Mauer did not come back this season even after we were told that he was expected to be back worries me. I worry that Mauer may never be the same or that he might be one more concussion away from permanent problems. Given the time and money, I would be working around the clock on developing a catcher's helmet that absorbs more of the force of an errant baseball. Barring that, I worry about Mauer, and I would also like to see him wear the safest possible batting helmet, preferably with some strategically placed bubble wrap on the outside.

I found this article on him. It sounds like he has lots of velocity, but control issues.

You are massively exaggerating what he said. This is how flame wars get started. Please stop or I am going to start issuing infractions.

I am not arguing that Christians have an obligation to believe anything -- I am merely asking how they can oppose something that seems so consistent with the teachings of the New Testament without proposing something better to help poor people get health care. That said, please explain why you think this will be such a disaster considering how it has worked in Massachusetts. And why should I have to pay a dime to cover the emergency room visits of people who can afford insurance but choose not to pay for it?

There was a great article in Time Magazine a few months ago -- I think the author was Steven Brill -- where he explained why hospitals can get away with charging $50 for something that costs them less than $1. I agree that this is worth looking at.

I don't think that this is about what people are allowed to believe. I do think that history proves that unregulated capitalism would be disastrous. I also think that it's pretty clear that Jesus would be in favor of laws that allow poor people to have access to affordable health care, even if this means reducing the profit margins of insurance companies to 10 to 20% per year.

I wish someone could explain to me how a Christian could oppose the Affordable Care Act. In the New Testament, Jesus clearly advocates the importance of helping poor people: Matthew 25:34-36 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions. Mark 12:41-44 He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on." Luke 14:12-14 He said also to the one who had invited him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Luke 16:19-25 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. How can any Christian oppose the implementation of the Affordable Care Act? Someone please explain this to me. I also cannot understand how a non-Christian could oppose this. Previously, any uninsured poor person could always get FREE treatment at the local emergency room. This is very inefficient and helps explain why some hospitals can charge $50 for an aspirin or some other item what costs less than a dollar. The cost of poor people going to the emergency room gets passed on to many of the people who oppose the Affordable Care Act, and it is indisputable that emergency rooms are a very expensive and inefficient way to provide care. For example, if someone has curable cancer, wouldn't it be better to give them chemo once a week than pay for the 10 or 20 emergency room visits until they die? Do I even have to ask what Jesus would say? And to those who say that this is socialistic, it seems to me that Medicare and Social Security are more socialistic. The Affordable Care Act, like Romneycare (which seems to be working in Massachusetts), is based on creating competition among private insurers. This approach was invented by Republicans, and initially opposed by Democrats who preferred a single payer solution, modeled on Medicare. And to the civil libertarians, your rights end when you ask me to pay for your failure to provide for your own economic costs. If you drive without car insurance, others will have to pay if you get into an accident and cripple someone. Don't ask me to pay for your health care, unless you genuinely cannot afford it. Yes, I admit that there is a part of me that would not mind seeing some Tea Party adherents experience poetic justice by dying of curable cancer because they were too irresponsible to buy medical insurance, but deep down I agree with Jesus on this. And to the Republicans who complain that this does not apply to Congress and the Executive Branch, I agree with that. On the other hand, how many women and children would you like to die of cancer next year because they cannot afford treatment? And you might want to read Luke 16:19-25 again. Do you really want to argue with St. Peter at the gates of heaven that you let poor people suffer and die because the legislation was not perfect??? Almost every civilized foreign country (and Massachusetts) has government supported health care. So far, God has not rained hell storms on these places. Instead, many of these countries have better results than we do in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and other important measures of success. One thing that I believe everyone can agree on is that there is lots of room for improvement in the law. If not for the lobbyists in Congress, I think that this would have been a much cleaner, simpler and less expensive statute. What I would love to see would be for the Republicans and the Democrats make amendments that cut costs, but unfortunately the lobbyists seem to be able to block changes that might reduce the profits of their clients -- companies who are making a killing with profit margins on medical devices and drugs that far exceed what they would get if Medicare and insurance exchanges were allowed to negotiate prices in an open market. Finally, I am concerned that doctors and other medical professionals have been squeezed and may become more squeezed unless they can get a fairer share of health care revenues. Unfortunately for them, their lobbying power is no match for the pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and insurance companies. This has been getting worse for years, and I don't think that the Affordable Care Act will make much of a difference either way, but this is something that I think that people should really worry about. What do you think?

For the record, neither one is OK. \

I see that one moderator liked the post. I suspect that he liked the non-inflammatory portions and was too tired from dealing with other, clearer violations to give this the level of attention that we have just given it. Like umpires, we are not perfect. And you probably have no idea how hard we work and how much we talk to each other about how to promote intelligent debate without killing the passion.