KJ.

Are you speaking of the Nunn fumble because that was a pretty bang-bang play. He caught it, turned, and then the defender put his helmet right on the ball and popped it out. This thread is bringing back some heart breaking losses. Yeah. But I think I blame the play-calling more than Nunn now, even though I think he should've smothered it. 1) He should've been TOLD to smother it if he caught it, and 2) Weather, crowd, defense...just run the ball and kick it. Because not only was it an awful turnover, but it left a lot of time on the clock. That play call won us the game if not for an All-American making an All-American play. It was a perfect call; just didn't work. An interesting thing about that play is that we ran it earlier in the game in a similar situation and it worked perfectly. It was out of the same formation, but Texas changed their defense the second time around. The first time around, they were basically in a cover two which worked to our advantage because we didn't have a single player on the far side of the field so they had a safety being useless. Next time, their safeties shifted over so the outside corner had help down his sideline which allowed him to leave his guy and cause the fumble.

Henery wasn't about to make a 64-yard field goal. But then, he wasn't going to make a 57-yarder with the game on the line either It definitely wouldn't have been a distance issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq7z4VCZO0o

Bo's decision to go for it on 4th and 4 against OU in 2010 with the game on the line. There's absolutely no way Martinez has a better chance of completing a slant than Henery did of making a 64 yarder. Absolutely no chance. I don't think I'll ever be able to think about that game without getting incredibly pissed off, and that play was the worst of the worst.

LeKevin Smith against Texas Tech. Martinez throwing across his body into the endzone against OU in the 2010 Big 12 Championship. Anytime a quarterback threw it to Niles Paul.

I don't know why you feel the need to get defensive and attack the source when it doesn't even give opinions regarding the findings. You're the one that bitches people out constantly for posting bad or biased sources, so I'm a little surprised to see you try to discredit the output of a stochastic model, which is all the report is. If it would make you feel better, I can plug the same legal restrictions they did into the same program they used and send you the results. I have no ties to the health industry, and even if i did, nobody listens to a panda on the internet so that would hopefully be unbiased enough for you.

Nailed it. I think Carl and I are on the same page. sd'sker is about 23 chapters behind. i do get it, i just do not get why you think it is important. all insurance is a redistribution of wealth because you will probably get more out of it than you put in. so you are saying it is a redistribution of the cost of risk. well, employer-based plans already operate like that. so what is your point? my point has always been that the aca will make insurance better (and overall cheaper and more accessible, which is why it was desperately needed). i do agree that we have been talking at each other rather than with each other, but why does that make my point any less valid and your point any clearer or more valid? again, so you see it as a redistribution of wealth. so what? that is the point of insurance and over time it should even out, thus the need of a mandate and how insurance needs to work. but i guess you would rather look at how insurance and premiums work for a group of people for one year and base your entire assessment of aca on that. that is fine, that is your prerogative. I stopped reading at this point. We have no business trying to talk about insurance if this is the intelligence I'm working with here.

Nailed it. I think Carl and I are on the same page. sd'sker is about 23 chapters behind.

I'm sure that you noticed that this is the lobbying group for the health insurance industry. I'm sure you noticed that the website is merely hosting a research study done by an actuarial consulting firm that doesn't play in the health insurance market and is widely considered as the premier research firm in the insurance industry. The report is nothing more than a description of the results of predictive modeling on the 91 variables that affect the ACA. I don't care if The Onion is who posted a link to the study, it doesn't change the contents of that pdf. The real problem with my hypothetical is that I tried to make it simple enough for people here to understand. The ACA obviously can not be boiled down to that, but nobody here is intelligent enough to understand (that's not a condescending jab, I'm not either) the aggregate effect of the entire ACA. That's what the study is for, their models are incredibly good at quantifying and projecting premiums based on all sorts of combinations of those 91 variables. I obviously can only give an example that focuses on the one or two most significant variables, which is what i did. This is almost certainly correct. I wonder why the lobbyists for the health insurance industry want us to focus on young healthy males? That is the exact point my original post was trying to make. I'm glad you get it now.

If this statement is representative of your mental state in this discussion, this lesson really has no chance of going anywhere. I've been trying to tell you that the sum of a random number of random variables increases proportionally to N. Your response is trying to tell me that insurance is about people sharing risk. Sweet, thanks for that advanced insight. Again, this isn't a discussion on what insurance is. We're talking about the difference between how insurance works with and without the ACA. Correct me if I'm wrong (that was sarcasm: I'm not), but the ACA is not the reason that insurance pays for your claims. That's just the same insurance that's been around for hundreds of years. I'm really not sure why you're bringing that up in a thread about a specific set of laws, but based on the random/irrelevant responses I've gotten so far I shouldn't be surprised.

Also, I'll note: you shouldn't be using "life" here, as a health insurance policy doesn't cover you for life. Replace life with "year" and it becomes more believable. But this goes back to the effective period that your premiums cover.

I guess I don't see the point you're trying to make. I'm not making any claims about what is realistic or likely to occur. My point that health insurance isn't a 100% known variable was just meant to counter sd's point that you can't think of health insurance as self funded. It's a difference in how the law requires they report their profits, it's a difference in how you quantify your premiums, and it all comes back to that difference between life being inevitable and health only being highly probable. That's all I was going for.

They scored more points. R^2 = 1.

While you are sort of on the right track, this paragraph is technically wrong due to red. This is a good way to view life insurance because the red is then true. It isn't necessarily true for health, so everything is backwards. When you pay life premiums, you can think of it like the insurance company holds those dollars aside for your death and no others' deaths. You pay your premiums over time, they'll put it into an interest earning "sd-sker" account, which the company hopes will grow large enough to pay for sd-sker's death. Health insurance (and also social security) work the opposite way. The premiums you pay in a year get combined into a big pot with all other insureds for that company. The company hopes this pot is large enough to pay for all of the upcoming year's claims. So in health insurance, you're splitting the costs with others. Which means that an adverse change in claims (even if you filed none) will probably cause your premiums to go up the next year. That doesn't happen in life insurance: you'll pay the same amount every year even if everyone else insured by your company drops dead. And for the last time, a bigger pool is not better (for purposes of this conversation). You seem to be forgetting that while a bigger pool does mean there's more people to pay for insurance, there's also more people that need insurance. Both these things increase at a linear rate, so the marginal value of one person to an insurance pool is zero on a cost basis. A bigger pool does have value in reducing the unpredictability of claims since variance increases linearly, but that's beyond the scope of this thread and not what you're talking about anyway. Perhaps I'm not up on this kind of thing, so explain to me like I'm five how some people won't need health insurance in their life. Because I have yet to meet anyone who hasn't needed healthcare at some point. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying here? Are you talking about different levels of needed healthcare? Because while I'll agree with your example of everyone eventually needing life insurance, the concept of not needing health insurance is unknown to me. You're understanding correctly. While it's unlikely that someone won't need health insurance, it's still technically possible. And that makes the difference in how the insurance is treated. It probably isn't all that unlikely either. I would assume all it would take is dying in an extreme enough fashion to be pronounced dead without being rushed to a hospital, but I am unsure on how medical costs exactly work there so don't hold me to that. I guess a better explanation than "that's just the way it is" is that health insurance is basically ran on yearly contracts as opposed to life which is a lifetime contract. As I said, with life the premiums pay for your future benefits while health's premiums pay for others' current benefits. Proof of this can be found through what happens if you stop paying those premiums. Stop paying health premiums (on a basic vanilla policy) and the company says "Ok, see ya later, we owe you nothing" because that's the deal you struck...you pay them, they pay everyone. If it's life and you stop paying, they're going to have to fork over some cash to you because the deal you struck was you pay them, they pay you back. You never died, so they owe you money.

Here's a good start. It's a very interesting read, I think. While I'm not going to deny that I am personally against the ACA, nobody can really deny that all the provisions and restrictions involved have an elegant relationship on each other. They're all necessary to support everything else, and the entire ACA becomes economically/mathematically faulty as soon as you remove any of the details. You all have the ability to read, so I won't talk about that pdf. Read it if you want, but here's a dumbed down example: An insurance company has four policyholders for the next year, and there are no regulations on the discrimination of pricing (excluding race). The insurance company is free to charge all individuals whatever they want based on whatever factors they want. The insureds are: Taylor - 22yo - Male - Unhealthier than average Rex - 22yo - Male - Healthier than average Hannah - 22yo - Female - Unhealthier than average Gina - 22yo - Female - Healthier than average The insurance company will charge these individuals what they would expect an average person with their three characteristics to cost. Empirical evidence shows that females cost more than males, and common sense shows unhealthy people cost more than healthy people. So let's say the insurance company comes up with and charges: Taylor: $30 Rex: $15 Hannah: $35 Gina: $20 The insurance company collects a total of $100 that will be used to pay all claims of all four individuals. But when the next year comes, the ACA restricts insurers from charging anyone the same age a different rate. No matter what the law says, the underlying expected costs for each individual is still the same. The company still expects to pay $100 of claims throughout the year, so now they'll charge: Taylor: $25 (decrease of $5) Rex: $25 (increase of $10) Hannah: $25 (decrease of $10) Gina: $25 (increase of $5) Some insured's premiums went up from one year to the next based only on the restrictions within the ACA, while some went down. But the change in the insurance pool did not change. I'd say that's about as close to the definition of redistribution as you can get. Here's a direct quote from the executive summary:

To generally respond to all your questions, I should emphasize that my ROW comment was comparing "individual health insurance pre-ACA" to "Individual health insurance post-ACA" and nothing more. Most of your questions are just referring to the general concept of insurance, which is something that would probably fall into carl's cliche idea to label as a redistribution of wealth. Employer based insurance, for example, would better be described as a redistribution of opportunity. Everyone pays the same premiums during a year, but ~half of those people are probably healthier than that number and the other half are probably unhealthier. This isn't a concrete transfer of dollars, though. The benefits those unhealthy people receive only exist mathematically, which is unlike the ACA, for which I'll hopefully make clearer in my next post.

While you are sort of on the right track, this paragraph is technically wrong due to red. This is a good way to view life insurance because the red is then true. It isn't necessarily true for health, so everything is backwards. When you pay life premiums, you can think of it like the insurance company holds those dollars aside for your death and no others' deaths. You pay your premiums over time, they'll put it into an interest earning "sd-sker" account, which the company hopes will grow large enough to pay for sd-sker's death. Health insurance (and also social security) work the opposite way. The premiums you pay in a year get combined into a big pot with all other insureds for that company. The company hopes this pot is large enough to pay for all of the upcoming year's claims. So in health insurance, you're splitting the costs with others. Which means that an adverse change in claims (even if you filed none) will probably cause your premiums to go up the next year. That doesn't happen in life insurance: you'll pay the same amount every year even if everyone else insured by your company drops dead. And for the last time, a bigger pool is not better (for purposes of this conversation). You seem to be forgetting that while a bigger pool does mean there's more people to pay for insurance, there's also more people that need insurance. Both these things increase at a linear rate, so the marginal value of one person to an insurance pool is zero on a cost basis. A bigger pool does have value in reducing the unpredictability of claims since variance increases linearly, but that's beyond the scope of this thread and not what you're talking about anyway.

Word play, yo. I put this in rumorsville when its was first made public and before the claims were substantiated. It could (should) be move out of rumorville now that many of the fact have been independently verified by different sources. I guess I haven't been paying attention to this thread. More of a roll-your-eyes-at-the-nonsense situation, although I hope the girl who reported him took the incident in stride and isn't traumatized. Don't want to make light of her feelings here. Anyway, I've been remiss in leaving this in Rumorville. It most certainly isn't a rumor, so I've moved it to the regular forum. Have fun conversating.

Definitely a cliche, IMO. It's a bumper sticker phrase. Because it's another easily repeatable catchphrase that can be thoughtlessly regurgitated. Ok. If you feel the need to attack the phrase and its abuse by politicians or news outlets, that's fine. I don't follow or read anything about politics, so you're probably right that it typically just gets used as a catch phrase. But don't use the misuse of the phrase by others as any sort of a contradictory point to my original post. Or else we could always delve into the math behind the ACA, in which case we'd find out who really is thoughtless here.

No . . . it still is. Would you like to talk about job creators next? No, it still isn't. Is the phrase overused? Sure, maybe. But that doesn't take away anything from the meaning of it. My point was based off the completely objective fact that the ACA places additional restrictions on the pricing of insurance. Anyone with an intelligence rating higher than dumbass can see that will create a redistribution of wealth/premiums in the insurance market. You can call it cliche/trite/overused/whatever all you want, but that's exactly what it is. And why the hell would I want to talk about job creators? Am I missing something there? I don't see what job creators has to do with this exchange you and I have going based on your disappointment in my choice in vocabulary.

It's not exactly a cliche when part of the law is prohibiting insurers from charging men different rates from women (they don't cost the same) or healthy people different rates from unhealthy people (neither do they). The pie is currently cut unevenly. The ACA is evening it out. That's the definition of "redistribution of wealth". But nice try.

Combine this with the fact that Jim Delaney did not list Nebraska in his "top four big ten teams in 2013" and I think we've got ourselves an anti-Husker conspiracy here.

UNC/FAU vs. South Carolina North Carolina St. vs. Oregon/Rice UCLA @ Cal St. Fullerton Oklahoma @ LSU Louisville @ Vanderbilt Indiana @ Florida St. Mississippi St. @ Virginia Kansas St. @ Oregon St. The top 2 seeds, UNC and Vanderbilt, need to win tonight to advance.

It's ok everyone. EZ-E says it's fine. Don't question him, he knows everything. I just happen to pay attention and get tired of repeating myself. Especially when there are really only a handfull of people that know the recruiting process on this board better than I.

The super regionals really are going to be fantastic. There's a lot of local flare in the potential matchups. North Carolina vs. South Carolina, Fullerton vs. UCLA, Vanderbilt vs. Louisville. Maybe Arkansas vs. Texas A&M, but Oregon St. is up in the 7th so that isn't looking likely. Either way, I'm looking forward to it. Husker4life, any idea how TV coverage will work? I don't have ESPNU so I can't benefit from the whip around. I'm hoping they stagger the start times so I can catch at least a couple games.

I can't find a good place to find the results, so there might be mistakes. But this is what the supers will look like (bold is confirmed): UNC/FAU vs. South Carolina/Liberty North Carolina St. vs. Oregon/Rice CSF/ASU vs. UCLA/San Diego Oklahoma vs. LSU/ULL Vanderbilt/GT vs. Louisville Indiana/APSU @ Florida St. Mississippi St./Central Arkansas @ Virginia KSU/Arkansas vs. Oregon St/TAMU Indiana is up by 5 in the 7th so it's looking like they'll advance. Very good for the Big Ten. If they can upset Florida St. that would be huge.