Upside... potential in a perfect world

[dk]

Dec 16, 2013 12:23:22 GMT -5 sfgdood said:

Ok, so let me get this straight...in 2012, Posey had an OPS of

1.043 in July
1.143 in August
1.024 in September

Buster's post all star break OPS was 1.102.

Your standards must be pretty damn lofty if those credentials seem "terrible" to you. Most would say they qualify as MVP caliber, without question.

~Dood

dk..in 2012, he went almost a whole month without a HR...in August and September...this is not the time of the year you want your 3 or 4 hitter to lose his power.....

[sfgdood]

Once again reaching, old man...

Buster's slugging percentage in August of 2012 was .652 and he drove in 21 runs. His RBI did dip to 10 in September but he still sluggged .598. Just because balls aren't flying over the fence doesn't mean he "lost" his power and failed to produce. Your desperate hate for Buster is only making yourself look more and more foolish. Much like your blind obediance to the train wreck that is Obamacare.

~Dood

[Islandboagie]

Let's not be too hard on Don, after all, he's providing us with concrete evidence of why managers tend to hang it up at a certain age.

[allenreed]

Now c'mon. Give Don some credit. Even he surely has turned by now. There's being pigheadedly stupid, but when the whole program is rife with corruption, incompetence, and fraud, and the President and his minions just continue to lie to your face while they steal your money, even the staunchest supporters would have to have turned by now. They'd be absolute idiots if they hadn't.
My personal favorite was Sibbelius calling for an investigation into why the thing didn't work. To quote Jerry Lewis: Hey lady! You were in charge. You're supposed to have known that it wasn't going to work, and why and who was responsible. You had years and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, and you blew it. Big time.

[sharksrog]

Boly -- Rog, THIS is where I take issue with a statistical analysis. The numbers show a % that doesn't seem too hight, BUT... and it's a huge BUT... in a critical situation, late in a game when you absoltuely MUST get the runner to 3B, a guy like Pence has a much much HIGHER % chance to get to third that P or P.

With the game on the line, the stats go out the proverbial window, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Rog -- Let's look at this one logically, Boly (and by the way, I don't know if you're right or wrong). Why would Hunter's base running be better late in the game than it was earlier? Does he not try as hard earlier in the game?

I don't think that is the case.

When a guy was just 25% in going from first to third last season, it seems very unlikely he was great at doing so with the game on the line.

Remember, Hunter was just 10 for 40 in going from first to third on a single. Based on his plate appearances, he had seven chances in late-and-close situations (the type you are saying he excels at). In order for him to have gotten to third more often than not in those situations, he would have done so at least four times out of the seven.

That would mean that he went only 6 for 33 in his chances where the game wasn't on the line. That's clearly below 20%. Is it reasonable that Hunter would go 57% (four out of seven) with the game on the line and just 18% (6 out of 33) in other situations?

That one just doesn't pass the sniff test.

I too thought that Hunter was more likely to get to third base on a single than not. I too was wrong. Way wrong.

Is it reasonable that in clutch situations I was right and that Hunter was successful THREE TIMES more frequently than in other situations? The test of reasonableness would seem to indicate not.

Now, would I take my chances with Hunter rather than Buster or Pablo? You bet. But the point is that even Hunter doesn't take third even a third of the time.

Last season Hunter went to third 10 out of 40 times. Pablo did so 8 times out of 33. Buster was successful 7 times out of 31. That's hardlly any difference at all.

Now we know Hunter gets from first to third MUCH faster than either Pablo or Buster. But it appears the quality of the chance is far more important than the player who enjoys that chance. We're talking a very small sample here, so the results aren't necessarily meaningful.

But in a larger sample (of players with over 1000 games), Hunter is 67 out of 230 (29%), while the far more ponderous Miguel Cabrera is 106 out of 462 (23%). Based on those percentage, Hunter would have taken third 14 more times than Miguel if each had the same 230 chances.

Hunter has played seven seasons. The difference between Hunter and Miguel is just two bases per season. That's not much -- even if BOTH those bases came at a critical time. That's roughly half a run per season, possibly as much as one run. Even in tied or one-run games, a single run is worth roughly half a win.

Unless a guy gets thrown out a lot, base running (not base stealing) appears to be overrated. And even in base stealing, a guy needs to be successful at least 5 out of 7 times in order to make much difference.

One can make an argument that WHEN those bases are stolen is more important than how many. No question about that. But if a guy gets thrown out say one out of three times, how would he suddenly be clearly more proficient than that at key times and clearly less at other times?

If a guy is really that much better with the game on the line, why isn't he trying harder when it isn't? Doesn't he realize that every run COULD potentially make the difference between winning and extra innings or between extra innings and losing?

Is the guy either lazy or dumb?

Ignore the statistics and simply think about the logic of that.

We'd ALL rather have Hunter on first than Pablo or Buster -- especially in a steal situation. But when it comes to going from first to third, the character of the hit appears to be far more important than the base runner -- unless we're talking about an exceptional one such as Mike Trout.

If there hasn't been a large difference between Hunter Pence and Miguel Cabrera (in over 1000 games for each player), only the truly exceptional base runners and a guy who takes too many gambles and gets thrown out a lot make that much difference.

These samples are small, but base on the Pence/Cabrera comparison, they don't look that far off. Buster was successful in going from first to third 23% of the time. Pablo was at 24%. Hunter was at 25%. No significant difference.

Trout was at 61%. Now THAT'S a huge difference. Trout was successful 17 more times than Pence -- in four fewer chances. Now we're talking difference-maker.

I would rather have Pence than Pablo or Posey. But give me Trout and either Posey or Pablo over two Pences. Give me Trout and half a dozen Posey's or Pablo's over seven Pences. (I'm talking only going from first to third here.)

Hunter makes a small difference. Trout makes a very large one.

It is the guys at the two extremes ( a guy who is successful far more often than not, and the guy who gets thrown out a lot) who make the difference. In 90% of base runners, I don't think the difference in going from first to third makes a huge difference in a team's record.

If we look at a Bell curve, the guys at the extremes matter a lot. The guys who aren't at the extreme matter only a little.

That seems counter-intuitive. But what has actually happened out on the diamond shows it is so.

Getting back to Pence and Cabrera, here is something I didn't expect to find. Pence gets thrown out just about as often as Cabrera, and he actually gets doubled up on a ball hit in the air MORE often than Miguel.

As for getting from first to third, I'm almost positive that even in clutch situations, Hunter doesn't do so over half the time. Among all active players, the best I could find is Chase Utley, who at 129 out of 274 is at 46%. Looking a little deeper into Chase's success, what do you bet batting/running in front of Ryan Howard has something to do with Chase's success. Ryan is a powerful hitter who hits the ball a lot to the right side and has enough power to force outfielders to play deep.

A runner's being able to take the extra base has to do not only with the runner, but with the hitter. Do you suppose Chase would have the same high success rate if he had batted ahead of Freddy Sanchez instead of Howard? My research has indicated that even with very fast runners ahead of him, Freddy didn't advance many from first to third.

As we look at the concept of taking the extra base, we see perhaps three things:

. Even most fast runners don't take the extra base as often as we think they do.

. The difference between most guys isn't all that much. Only the guys at the extremes make a clear and significant difference.

. The hitter hitting the ball also has an impact on how frequently a runner can take that extra base.

Admit it. We on this board all know a lot about baseball, and yet we all learned something here. Baseball is a simple game, a child's game. Yet there is so much to learn about it. Fortunately, we're learning more and more -- and also realizing there is so much we DON'T know.

Don't you just know it?


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2139&page=1#17772#ixzz2njod5ME3

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Let's not be too hard on Don, after all, he's providing us with concrete evidence of why managers tend to hang it up at a certain age.

Rog -- I presume you're joking here, Boagie, but how about a smiley face so we're sure. If you weren't joking, that would be a horrible thing to say.

Let me say this: I would bet quite a bit of money that Don is sharper at his age than most ex-managers are. I get upset with Don a lot, but I strongly admire how sharp he is. And not just for his age.

In fact, if he were any sharper, he's cut me down lower than he already does.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2139&page=2#ixzz2nk5Zz4A4

[sharksrog]

Randy -- Buster's slugging percentage in August of 2012 was .652 and he drove in 21 runs. His RBI did dip to 10 in September but he still sluggged .598.

Rog -- I'm excited to hear that, since we all know that Buster slumped off badly in the season's second half.

Then again, after looking this up to verify it, Buster actually drove in only five runs in September and slugged a shockingly low .315.

And now that I see we were actually talking about 2012, that September Buster drove in 21 runs with a slugging percentage of .607.

Looking at Buster's career, his .823 career OPS is below his .864 OPS overall, but not alarmingly so. His batting average has been only .273 compared to .308 overall, but his pop has actually been stronger. He has slugged for 1.73 bases per hit in September compared to 1.58 bags overall.

Perhaps a good way to look at Don's view of Buster is that Buster's bag is 90% full, but Don chooses to focus inordinately on the other 10%. Don is going to come back with some yada-yade, but I think most of us here realize that my description of the Don/Buster enigma isn't too far off.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2139&page=2#ixzz2nk6US4Iw

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- Let's look at this one logically, Boly (and by the way, I don't know if you're right or wrong). Why would Hunter's base running be better late in the game than it was earlier? Does he not try as hard earlier in the game?

---boly says---

Again, Rog, you're just looking at numbers. That's not my point.

It's not that his base running is any better, it's that WITH HIS SPEED, he can take the CHANCE where as base cloggers KNOW they can't advance on plays where players who CAN run can FORCE the outfielder to perhaps, make a throw and perhaps a mistake.

As the saying goes, speed kills.

And when you have the speed to force an outfielder to rush his throw, you create a higher possiblity for a mistake.

boly

[sharksrog]

Boly -- It's not that his base running is any better, it's that WITH HIS SPEED, he can take the CHANCE where as base cloggers KNOW they can't advance on plays where players who CAN run can FORCE the outfielder to perhaps, make a throw and perhaps a mistake.

Rog -- No question, the more the outfielders have to throw the more likely they are to make a mistake. That is especially true against fast runners, who by the mere perception he causes can force a fielder to rush his throw.

That faster runner who takes the extra chance that a slower runner wouldn't attempt is also increasing his chance of being thrown out. If Hunter attempted more often to take the extra base, how often would he get caught? Neither you nor I know the answer to that, but it is worth considering.

I have been a proponent of trying to take more extra bases. Base runners are thrown out a LOT less often than base stealers. But what is important is the marginal percentage of success those more aggressive base runners would have -- not their overall percentage.

I know you would like to see the Giants' faster runners try to steal more bases. I certainly agree with you that if the Giants are indeed going to try to steal more often, those are the right guys. But let's take a closer look.

Once again it is the marginal steals we're looking at, not the overall average. Last season Pagan and Blanco were a combined 23 out of 36 in steal attempts. At that 64% success rate, the Giants' fastest pair hurt the Giants more than they helped the team.

So now we're going to ask them to steal more, when presumably they are already stealing at the times that give them the best chance of success? Sounds like an even more losing proposition.

If we go back and take the past two seasons, the pair were successful 72% of the time. At that rate they do help the team a bit -- although not as much as one would think. Let's say the 72% success rate is a better measure of the two than their 65% in the smaller sample of 2013 only. I would agree with you that it is.

If we force the pair to steal more than they would by just choosing their own best times, it seems likely they'll be successful less than their combined 72% the past two seasons. Much less than 72%, and the steal attempts begin to hurt at least as much as they help.

To see how that works would we rather have three situations with a runner on first base and one out -- or two situations with a runner on second and one out plus one other situation in which the bases are empty with two outs? As we can see, it's pretty close. If a player isn't successful clearly over two-thirds of the time, he's hurting his team at least as much as he's helping it.

Boly -- As the saying goes, speed kills.

Rog -- Very true. But let's think of the context in which that was likely first used. Speed kills when we're driving a car. Why? Because it increases the chance of happening an accident. When a base runner has an "accident" on the bases, he costs his team not only an out, but having a runner ON base.

Runners on base are valuable -- just as outs are precious.

Incidentally, here are the MLB percentages last season in taking the extra base:

1st to 3rd -- 28%

2nd to home -- 59%

1st to home -- 44%

That means runners overall take the extra base less than half the time.

I don't think we'd look at the Giants as a fast team, but they actually compared OK with the league averages in each situation except scoring from 2nd base. In that situation, they were only 52% compared to the league average 59%.

Scoring from 1st on a double, their 47% success rate was slightly higher than the 44% league average. In going from first to third, which was the original focus of our discussion, their 27% rate was just below the league average 28%.

In the overall taking of the extra base, the Giants were just below average, despite being a slow team. If we consider that they made only 34 outs on the bases (not including steal attempts and pickoffs) compared to the league average of 39 outs, they were pretty much right on average overall.

For a team with players such as Buster and Pablo, that's not bad. Perhaps if their speedier base runners had been more aggressive, they would have been slightly above average. Perhaps not.

Of the Giants' 34 outs, Blanco and Pagan were responsible for 11 of them. Throw in Belt, and we're up to 16. Pence, the original topic of our discussion, was very good, making only one out. Still, if we take the top four base stealers on the team, they made exactly half the team's 34 outs on base in non-steal attempts.

Pence was pretty good on the bases -- especially when we consider his excellent base stealing record. Blanco, Pagan and Belt actually hurt the team (because they were thrown out too often).

Speed kills. But it's not always the opposition.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2139&page=2#17816#ixzz2nkiSEEat

[rxmeister]

Pretty sad that you have to demean DK by calling him "old man" when you're arguing with him about Posey, Randy, there's no need for that. As for Obamacare, all the Republicans whining about the website cracks me up. It's always a big deal over nothing to them. You want to know about Obamacare? I had to tell a 70 year old man yesterday that his blood pressure medicine that he was paying 28 dollars for now 415 dollars! He wasn't even upset. He said I'll buy enough to last me until December 31, because on Jan 1 Obamacare eliminates the donut hole and the medicine will be 28 dollars again. My tech was faxing papers to her insurance because Obamacare means her grown uninsured children are now going to be covered again. What a terrible thing the President has done. Go complain about the website!

[allenreed]

Yes. Because Don never, ever calls anyone names.

[sfgdood]

Pretty sad that I get called out on calling him an "old man" which is correct by any measure, but this "sharp" guy gets a pass for calling a grown man "doo doo" ad nauseum even when "doo doo" is right and he is wrong.

The website is merely a great microccosm of the entirety of Obamacare's failures. Go tell the tens of millions of American families who are losing their insurance due to this ridiculous law how "great" it is for America!

~Dood

[allenreed]

Sad part is that for every guy like your customer, there are tens of thousands who have lost their insurance, and can no longer see the doctor that is familiar with them and their condition. Cancer patients having to stop their chemo, diabetics and others who have to start all over forming a relationship with a new doctor, if they can find one who takes their Obamacare coverage, if they can even get the coverage, and then if the site doesn't just tell them they're covered when they're really not. How many people do you think are paying more for their meds now because they lost their insurance? How many people are having to travel long distances to see a different doctor, or go to another hospital? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Just think what happens next year when employers start cutting coverage too because they can't afford it. Why do you think Obama lied about the law over and over and over again? That's called fraud. Why do you think he's changed the law several times to push the worst things about it back beyond the 2014 midterms? That's unconstitutional. In a just country that actually enforced the law, Obama would be in jail.

[dk]

Dec 17, 2013 19:40:25 GMT -5 allenreed said:

Sad part is that for every guy like your customer, there are tens of thousands who have lost their insurance, and can no longer see the doctor that is familiar with them and their condition. Cancer patients having to stop their chemo, diabetics and others who have to start all over forming a relationship with a new doctor, if they can find one who takes their Obamacare coverage, if they can even get the coverage, and then if the site doesn't just tell them they're covered when they're really not. How many people do you think are paying more for their meds now because they lost their insurance? How many people are having to travel long distances to see a different doctor, or go to another hospital? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Just think what happens next year when employers start cutting coverage too because they can't afford it. Why do you think Obama lied about the law over and over and over again? That's called fraud. Why do you think he's changed the law several times to push the worst things about it back beyond the 2014 midterms? That's unconstitutional. In a just country that actually enforced the law, Obama would be in jail.

dk..you are one sick right winger...you change doctors and your old doctor forwards your records and your treatment never stops...unless there is a problem....2 of my doctors retired, I have just moved and am starting with a new doctor...no real problems....Obama has very little control over what congress passes and I am sure there was no fraud because your nut case friends on capitol hill would be after him with a big stick.....the biggest problems with health care are the medical industry keeps fighting to be able to wring as much out of the country as they can...we are the only civilized country in the free world who has to be dragged screaming into the modern era where the world takes care of all its . The biggest problem is in the states where the repug governors refuse to work with Obama.....there hasn't been a major program that doesn't have birth pains...but the baby will recover and the country will be much better for it all....

[allenreed]

Really Don? Still? To quote John McEnroe; "You can not be serious!" The phrase "unless there is a problem" caught my eye. There of course, is a problem. It's called Obamacare. Older people with chronic health conditions have a relationship with their doctor. They know and trust him. He (or she) know their condition and their personal pecadilloes. They don't want to start anew. Many can't travel hundreds of miles to see a new doctor, or to go to the hospital as frequently as they sometimes must. Actually acquiring the new insurance, with it's exorbitant co-pays and huge deductibles, is a whole different problem.
You cannot misrepresent something "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" as Obama did. That is indeed fraud. He gets away with it because we have a Senate and a DOJ that has no interest in observing the Constitution and enforcing the law.
Interested in what you consider "a civilized country" Mexico? Russia? China? Syria? You think the poor in those countries are getting free health care, or any?
Tell me how Obama reached across the aisle when he was trying (illegally) to get this debacle passed? No Republican input, not one Republican vote. It was all done in backrooms with secret deals, bribes, and payoffs by the "most transparent administration ever". Obama said it would be on CSPAN. Oops, another lie.
Birth pains? You're throwing me softballs Don. Ok, I'll take it. These aren't birth pains. It's an abortion. I really cannot believe that you're still seriously onboard with this, or that anyone is. You're OK with the fact that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted on attempting to build a website that still doesn't work, and maybe never will? You're OK with Obama's lying (knowingly and repeatedly) about people being able to keep their doctor and their insurance? You're OK with millions of Americans being defrauded? You're OK with the costs going up for a large majority of people, when Obama said they would go down? (Oops, another lie)
And while we're at it, how do you feel about Obama cutting veteran's pensions that we're promised to them when they signed on? How do you feel about Nidal Hassan (Ft. Hood terrorist) still being paid with full benefits, while his victims' families can't get the benefits they're entitled to because Obama's administration chooses to call the incident "workplace violence"? Lois Lerner (IRS, targeted people for their political beliefs) being paid full pension and benefits? You're really still with this guy? You're really that stupid?
What in the world makes you think the government (which given three years and over half a billion dollars can't build a simple working website) can run something as complicated as healthcare? Especially when the early returns show nothing but corruption, fraud, incompetence, and ineptitude. Then we're going to put another openly corrupt agency (IRS) in charge of it. Yeah, where do I sign up? The government (and especially this administration) historically has shown nothing but corruption and incompetence in almost everything they do? What in their track record makes you think they're even remotely capable of doing anything other than what they're currently doing?

[sfgdood]

FYI...Politifact "Lie of the year" for 2013 was "if you like your plan you can keep your plan." They used that lie to pass the law...I call that fraud.

~Dood

[dk]

ok. you repeated all the crud that were talking points about Obamacare and has been proven to be so much junk....the insurance companies wrote all new policies that they knew didn't cover the guide lines of the new law just so guys like you could stew and fret...if you don't like the insurance policies offered, pay the fee and go it alone...must people I have heard like their insurance.....as far as changing doctors...it happens all the time...doctors retire, die or just stop working with certain insurance companies or hospitals...it is a fact of life and has always been there.. I have gone thru 3 hospitals and 4 doctors in my 50 years in Lakewood...and I have now moved to a new doctor in a new hospital area...and is has nothing to do with Obamacare...my records move from doctor to doctor and there is little lost in the transition....you are quick to accuse fraud and crime, but no proof and the completely biased house does nothing against what you say...it is so easy to cry that the president doesn't work with the repugs, but what you don't say is that even before the president took office the repugs said their policy is to just say no to everything he wants and that their #1 job was to prevent a second term....sure the president made deals with some of the dems who were afraid for their jobs but that has been the nature of USA politics since the founders
sat down to write a constitution.....and I am still waiting for you to complain about the trillion dollars that disappeared under Bush and all the no bid contracts he gave his buddies....and when is the Iraq oil going to pay for the war...oh, Bush's buddies now control that. too.........how many Microsoft programs and or Apples' software had to be replaced and re-issued in order to get all the bugs out...and didn't they higher all the best software people in the country?

[allenreed]

Proven by whom? Even people in Obama's inner circle have called it an unqualified disaster and called for Sibelius' ouster.
If Obama knew that people would lose their policies (and he did) why did he repeatedly say otherwise? I'll spot you this one. If he had told the truth he would never have been re-elected.
I agree, most people were happy with their insurance. Before Obamacare. I believe the number was 71%. Now they have to start all over with new doctors, new hospitals, increased premiums, increased co-pays, increased deductibles, narrower networks of doctors they can choose from. One county in Georgia has one plan they can choose from. Two pediatricians. There are approximately 75K children in that county. How's that going to work?
People sometimes do have to change doctors, but it's not a good thing, especially for chronically ill patients. Why should the government induce such an unfortunate situation? Who benefits? Certainly not the patient.
What Obama did is by definition fraud. Too bad they couldn't have succeeded in preventing a second term. We'd be in much better shape than we are now. Other than rich people getting richer, who has benefitted from the Obama Presidency? Al Qaeda? Mexican drug cartels? Illegal immigrants? The Taliban? Karzai? The Muslim Brotherhood? Hezbollah?
Again Don, saying other people did it too is a child's argument. This President promised he was going to change all that, and all he's really done is continue the Bush policies. That's another thing that amuses me. You're forever blaming Bush for everything but the rain, yet giving Obama a pass for doing virtually the same thing, only more so. At least Bush would stand up for his choices, rather than continually lie about them.
Microsoft and Apple would never have allowed an amateur show like this to come out with their name on it. They would actually have taken a look at the thing and tested it before putting it on the market. If someone in the private sector had tried to bring something like this out as a finished product, everyone involved would have been fired on the spot.
Btw Randy. Obama not only had the Lie of the Year. He had three of the Top 10. Not only did they have to lie to get the law passed, but they had to hold many facts of it back until after the election in order to win. Same with Benghazi. Same with IRS. Same with the surveillance program.
Don, no comments on the cutting of veterans benefits while we continue to pay a Muslim Terrorist who killed 13 American soldiers and wouned many others? We also send billions in aid to other countries that spend our money sponsoring terrorism. $255 million on schools that teach kids how to be suicide bombers. $170 million on a parking garage in Maryland. All while vets wounded and maimed in the service of our country go without their benefits.

[rxmeister]

Obama was wrong to say you could keep your policy if you like it, but it was the insurance companies that cancelled these policies because they're profit motivated, and the President has no control over privately owned insurance companies. What Republicans fail to mention is that these people who lost their insurance can log onto the repaired website now and get a new plan that's probably better and cheaper than the one they have. As for keeping the same doctor, all they have to do is ask him what plans he takes, and then pick one of them. The fuss has already died down , and the website is working properly, but just like Benghazi, when they find an issue they can use against the President, they won't let it go.

[allenreed]

He wasn't "wrong". He was fraudulent. He knowingly and intentionally lied, and it's far from the first time. That's why his approval rating is in the 30s, and why the rest of his Presidency is basically moot. He's a lame duck a year into his second term, rendered powerless and impotent by his own dishonesty.
Of course insurance companies want to make a profit, that's why they're in business. They're not there to do charity work. They have stockholders they have to satisfy. But they're margins are alot narrower than you might think.
The website is far from repaired. Security is still nonexistent. Hacking it for identity theft is child's play. The part where you pay is totally non functional. Many people are finding out when they try to access their care that the policy they thought they had doesn't exist. According to the Obama camp (and their estimates are always overly optimistic) the site works 90% of the time. Could you imagine a private company putting out a product that works 90% of the time. They'd be laughed out of the business.
As for plans being better and cheaper, simply not true. In about 75% of the cases the policies are far more expensive, and often include required coverage that the patient doesn't need and often can't use, (as in maternity coverage for single men). Also in a large majority of the policies, co-pays and deductibles are through the roof. In addition to that, doctors who take the plans are few and far between. Most docs want absolutely no part of anything to do with Obamacare, it's myriad rules and regs, and it's insufficient reimbursement rates. Most of the people signing up are Medicaid patients, and the reimbursement rates are so small that doctors are running from Medicaid like crazy. Again, there's simply not enough docs willing to deal with Obamacare. Many would rather abandon their practice, and many are. I'll sight again the county in GA that has two pediatricians to cover 75K children. This situation is not atypical.
Maybe the "fuss" has died down at MSNBC, but out here in the real world where millions upon millions of people are finding themselves sans insurance, and really no way to acquire any, not so much. Then there's the millions more who now find themselves unable to afford insurance, or can't travel the hundreds of miles to see a doctor that's part of the new network.
Four Americans died at benghazi because our President wouldn't provide them with the necessary security. They wouldn't send them the necessary help. They left them there to die. Why? Because it would look bad for the President's re-election campaign. Then they lied about it and tried to cover it up, going so far as making the people who kinew about it sign papers saying they wouldn't talk. Our ex- Secretary of State and President lied right to the faces of the people who's sons were allowed to die. We still don't know what the President was doing that night. Our ex- Secretary of State and possibly next President wonders what difference it makes. We should just "let it go"?! Both these people and most of their minions should be looking for work, if not staring out of a jail cell.
With Obamacare, the President lied to the country, again and again and again. He cost millions of people healthcare that they were perfectly happy with and affected their livelihoods and businesses. People are losing their businesses, other are losing their jobs, companies won't hire, and full time jobs are becoming part time. Then he couldn't even be bothered to make sure new care could be accessed, and continues to waste hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars lying to the populace, trying to put a happy face on this mess. The sad part is, very, very few people really benefit. Far more are adversely affected. We should just "let it go"?

[dk]

Dec 18, 2013 9:41:27 GMT -5 allenreed said:

He wasn't "wrong". He was fraudulent. He knowingly and intentionally lied, and it's far from the first time. That's why his approval rating is in the 30s, and why the rest of his Presidency is basically moot. He's a lame duck a year into his second term, rendered powerless and impotent by his own dishonesty.
Of course insurance companies want to make a profit, that's why they're in business. They're not there to do charity work. They have stockholders they have to satisfy. But they're margins are alot narrower than you might think.
The website is far from repaired. Security is still nonexistent. Hacking it for identity theft is child's play. The part where you pay is totally non functional. Many people are finding out when they try to access their care that the policy they thought they had doesn't exist. According to the Obama camp (and their estimates are always overly optimistic) the site works 90% of the time. Could you imagine a private company putting out a product that works 90% of the time. They'd be laughed out of the business.
As for plans being better and cheaper, simply not true. In about 75% of the cases the policies are far more expensive, and often include required coverage that the patient doesn't need and often can't use, (as in maternity coverage for single men). Also in a large majority of the policies, co-pays and deductibles are through the roof. In addition to that, doctors who take the plans are few and far between. Most docs want absolutely no part of anything to do with Obamacare, it's myriad rules and regs, and it's insufficient reimbursement rates. Most of the people signing up are Medicaid patients, and the reimbursement rates are so small that doctors are running from Medicaid like crazy. Again, there's simply not enough docs willing to deal with Obamacare. Many would rather abandon their practice, and many are. I'll sight again the county in GA that has two pediatricians to cover 75K children. This situation is not atypical.
Maybe the "fuss" has died down at MSNBC, but out here in the real world where millions upon millions of people are finding themselves sans insurance, and really no way to acquire any, not so much. Then there's the millions more who now find themselves unable to afford insurance, or can't travel the hundreds of miles to see a doctor that's part of the new network.
Four Americans died at benghazi because our President wouldn't provide them with the necessary security. They wouldn't send them the necessary help. They left them there to die. Why? Because it would look bad for the President's re-election campaign. Then they lied about it and tried to cover it up, going so far as making the people who kinew about it sign papers saying they wouldn't talk. Our ex- Secretary of State and President lied right to the faces of the people who's sons were allowed to die. We still don't know what the President was doing that night. Our ex- Secretary of State and possibly next President wonders what difference it makes. We should just "let it go"?! Both these people and most of their minions should be looking for work, if not staring out of a jail cell.
With Obamacare, the President lied to the country, again and again and again. He cost millions of people healthcare that they were perfectly happy with and affected their livelihoods and businesses. People are losing their businesses, other are losing their jobs, companies won't hire, and full time jobs are becoming part time. Then he couldn't even be bothered to make sure new care could be accessed, and continues to waste hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars lying to the populace, trying to put a happy face on this mess. The sad part is, very, very few people really benefit. Far more are adversely affected. We should just "let it go"?

dk...gosh, all the outdated lies rigged up by the obese drug runner in one post....all the charges were investigated by your tea party cronies and found to be crud...of course the lies will surface at election time and then allowed to die out once more.
Jobs are increasing, more people are covered by health care and you are one flat liar...but what else could be new....

[sfgdood]

interesting to see that while the rest of the country are seeing how much of a liar Obama is, you keep believing him. Good luck with that!

~Dood

[dk]

what amazes me is that so ,many stupid people get all worked up over the lies put out about Obama but are willing to turn the country back to the people that lied and cheated the way into two wars and thousands killed and maimed...and the wealth in the very few of those that paid for the lies.....

[allenreed]

Again Don, the facts just don't back you up. More people have died in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush. More people have died at our unprotected southern border than have died in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Obama? He's checking for tee times on yet another taxpayer sponsored Hawaiian holiday.
Always interesting to me that you have just a one line answer. No facts, no answers to questions posed, no substance. Just blaming others for problems Obama has created. Just like Barack. Until you add some substance it's hard to take you seriously.
Actually, anyone who still believes in Obama at this point would have to be dumber than a box of rocks, or benefitting from one of the secret deals he's always cutting for his cronies.

[allenreed]

BTW, the Senate is on line to pass a bill robbing veterans of their benefits while preserving tax credits for illegals. Guess we know where Obama stands on our veterans. Aren't you a veteran, Don? It's amazing that you would continue to blindly support a man who is against everything you are.

[allenreed]

what amazes me is that so ,many stupid people get all worked up over the lies put out about Obama

Allen- Ok Don. Yet another chance for you. What lies are you speaking of?

[allenreed]

Now he's got poor Michelle pitching this thing too. "Tell your co-workers. Tell your friends. Get them to enroll". Good Christ. They sound like Amway people. Why Michelle? Because no one listens to Barack anymore. His credibility is shot. Just like the dignity of the Presidency.

[dk]

Dec 18, 2013 16:50:25 GMT -5 allenreed said:

BTW, the Senate is on line to pass a bill robbing veterans of their benefits while preserving tax credits for illegals. Guess we know where Obama stands on our veterans. Aren't you a veteran, Don? It's amazing that you would continue to blindly support a man who is against everything you are. [/


dk..Are you really that stupid or just take glee in lying....the Repug HOUSE passed the budget cuts...Obama hasn't anything to do with any bill until it hits his desk ....the Senate is considering the HOUSE bill...

[dk]

Dec 18, 2013 16:29:04 GMT -5 allenreed said:

Again Don, the facts just don't back you up. More people have died in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush. More people have died at our unprotected southern border than have died in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Obama? He's checking for tee times on yet another taxpayer sponsored Hawaiian holiday.

dk..Bush had the allies and we let them do most of the fighting...as Bush refused to go after bin Ladin...Obama stayed off the links long enough to get the top guys, while Bush broke all records for being away from the White House

Always interesting to me that you have just a one line answer. No facts, no answers to questions posed, no substance. Just blaming others for problems Obama has created. Just like Barack. Until you add some substance it's hard to take you seriously.
Actually, anyone who still believes in Obama at this point would have to be dumber than a box of rocks, or benefitting from one of the secret deals he's always cutting for his cronies.

dk...you and your Repugs have failed to prove any of the pyramid of lies you put out but that has been going on for 6 years, so what is new...

[allenreed]

Yeah right. He doesn't control Harry Reid like a puppet. They passed the bill. But now Dem. Sponsor Sen. Murray has got such fierce blowback that she's running from it, saying they will fix it later. Yeah, surrre.