HuskerNMO

Question no more

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/in-san-francisco-meeting-eichorst-and-perlman-find-our-guy/article_d024a272-7cb1-11e4-97d9-7f8f570d3d6e.html

Ten years ago, the Oregon State coach popped up on Riley's radar during South Carolina's coaching search. Eichorst was an assistant athletic director at South Carolina.

Jimmy Johnson, after getting in the best shape of his life to have a go at CBS's Survivor, felt the urge to get back to coaching kids again. He met Shawn Eichorst in a back room poker game in Miami, people think Eichorst is behind the scenes because he doesn't like the spotlight, but the truth is he is one heck of a poker player. Fast forward and Shawn needs a splash hire, Jimmy Johnson decides he is going to give the next 5 years of his life to bringing Nebraska back to glory.

Jimmy's first call is to Butch Davis, his former protege and DC at Dallas as his DC at Nebraska. They call Norv Turner who declined to come back to college as an OC, but recommended LSU OC Cam Cameron who accepted the position.

Confirmed that last years alternate N on the chest with black helmets are in

I've heard some rumblings of that Michael Rose might possibly be shedding his redshirt this weekend. Anybody else hear anything about this?

Nope. I don't think he is traveling with the team this weekend. This is what I've heard.

This is correct, he is not traveling, and currently in Omaha.

He raised a small stink over at HOL, he posted on Facebook about being done with his obligations to UNL, and people thought it meant that he was leaving school. In reality it meant he had a free weekend.

Local newspaper has a Facebook poll up about the favorite team, let's beat the Tigers in their own state!

https://www.facebook.com/questions/341913485892401/

Tyler has left Nebraska, and enrolled in another 2 year school. He will get his AA degree and be free to transfer wherever he wants without limitation, redshirting this year.

But what do we define as healthcare and what needs reformed?

People attack the insurance industries as the big bullies of healthcare, they on average make about 2.2% profit margin. The median operating margin for hospitals that had 200+ beds was -.7%, some do make a lot of money, but most operate on razor thin budgets. The profit and hole of healthcare in in the research arms of the drug companies and medical device industry, these guys are raking in 20%+ profit margins, we pay for the innovations here in the United States and those with the money to pay for it are going to places like the Mayo Clinic to get bleeding edge treatment and paying the cost of it.

Of course other countries piggyback on the medical research done in the United States and spend less on research which lowers their cost, while still having the benefit of what we provide.

The US has the most advanced systems in the world, and the best care for those that can afford it, it's the American way.

The only real solution to drastically altering the cost model is to have better pricing control across the board, but that could ultimately gut the profitiblity of the research arms which will slow innovation and ultimately lead to reduced quality of care and curing of diseases.

Health care costs are not a bubble, if you put an action into part A there will be a reaction somewhere else along the chain that could cause a larger problem than the one we started out with.

The thing you miss about the regulation is the cost of regulation, tell a small rural hospital that they have to abandon their paper based methods, buy and implement electronic medical records, develop systems to maintain HIPAA compliance, have to convert to a new coding standard over the next few years which will require system changes, staff training and changes and they simply can't afford the changes so they sell out to a larger company. I work for a regional health system and we just finished integration with one such hospital, are looking at a second, and have 3 others within an hour of us that have sold out to our competitor in town in the past 2 years.

 

The changes in regulation on healthcare aren't creating competition other than for the large companies to swallow the smaller ones.

 

And when you talk about the other industrialized countries and their affordable health care, go compare the income tax rates of said countries to the US, most are between 35-50% compared to the US which is between 28-30 depending on where you look. I'm sure if I gave an extra 5% of my income along with everyone else we could funnel it to healthcare and create the appearance that it has become affordable, but yet I now take home less so I can't afford the stuff that I really need to spend my money on. You can call it "affordable" all you want, but the truth is you want subsidized healthcare.

 

Cost is the key thing, and that's a great point to bring up. Yes, healthcare costs a lot. But that doesn't mean that those needing healthcare are to be punished. It means that costs need to be controlled.

 

That, to me, is the largest swing-and-miss of Obamacare. Most everyone agrees that some reform was needed because costs of healthcare are outstripping consumers' abilities to pay for it, but instead of figuring out a way to help rein in costs, Obamacare simply says, "You have to cover everyone." That's nice, but it doesn't fix the problem.

 

I'll be the first to admit I don't have the answer to healthcare costs. But the current political battle is no more likely to solve the problem than Obamacare did. And meanwhile, we live in the most prosperous nation on earth, yet a huge chunk of our population cannot afford the basic healthcare offered by countries half as wealthy as us.

The theory is that if you reduce the revenue streams then the hospitals will be forced to adapt and reduce costs on their own accord, which they will do, but I think it will have the opposite effect that the American public really desires. It will lead to further crowding of ER's, increased wait times for PCP's and the further consolodation of the industry as a whole into large corporations that don't have the pulse or intrests of the local community at mind when making decisions.

We do agree that there is NO simple answer, and there probably won't even be a correct answer. As long as America continues to live our fast paced, unhealthy lifestyle health care costs will continue to rise in turn. Poverty is not a new issue in America, why is health care suddenly such a hot topic for everyone? Why is it suddenly such a fundamental right? Because American's work too much, are too stressed and take poor care of themselves.

I hate to stereotype, but how many people complaining about the cost of healthcare own multiple newer vehicles, are overweight, choose to smoke or whatever cliche you want to use to describe people? Why does our tax system and welfare system encourage and reward individuals to have multiple children with tax incentives and increased welfare?

To me it's a worse injustice to bring a child into a poor house where you can't afford to take care of them than to have healthcare cost more than people can "afford".

The unfortunate truth is we, as a society, are getting exactly what we put into our collective existance, we pour greed in by wanting a bigger house, nicer cars, the newest TV or whatever else and rack up significant debt, become overweight or over-stressed which lowers our quality of life and increases our reliance upon healthcare and other subsidized services.

Until there is a fundamental change upon the philosophy and actions of the average American in a large quantity these issues will only become worse and worse.

Then why is it not "necessary" for any other program to be viable, just health care coverage? The fiscal insolvency of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. don't seem to have the same people arguing that costs must be controlled to keep them viable.

 

Because in this instance there are three parties that came to an agreement based on the inclusion the individual mandate.

 

The government wanted to expand coverage, alter regulation of insurance (issuance, caps, etc.), and lower cost in part by reducing reimbursement rates.

Insurers agreed because the individual mandate will expand their risk pool.

Health care providers agreed because the individual mandate will reduce losses incurred from treating those will no ability pay (i.e. the uninsured).

 

If the individual mandate is removed from health care reform, the whole thing necessarily falls apart; all the good aspects that enjoy wide bipartisan support go away. I understand that many of the opponents that find the mandate particularly egregious are standing on a principle of the scope of government, but essentially, it seems insane to me that their argument boils down to wanting to protect the theoretical person who has the ability to obtain health insurance but doesn't want to. Also, it is conveniently ignored that this theoretical person is suddenly in the market for health care the moment they have a health emergency, which quickly becomes the financial burden of the insured in the per-reform system.

Lowering costs by reimbursing less is a myth, private companies require a certain level of profit to maintain operations, if you lower their income they will have to make up for it in some way, either reduced quality, staffing or reduction in services. A big part of the problem is the reduction of reimbursements, less dollars from the government for the same services means that the charitable care that many health systems do will be reduced or eliminated.

No, what is strange is the left looking over my shoulder and determining if I have been using too much salt. Forcing a restaurant to change their menu because they view it to be hazardous to my health. That is what is really strange.

What's strange is that you sound concerned about salt regulations . . . but not about government ordered rape.

 

Put another way, you sound concerned about the left looking over your shoulder but unconcerned about the right ramming instruments into your orifices.

 

Why is that? Tribalism?

I will be sure and inform rape victims that I meet that the government telling me to buy something is equal to their physical assault. Great choice of words.

In reality this isn't really a debate on healthcare, it's a debate on the powers of government and the impact of our capitalist economy.

 

Many people say they want "affordable" heathcare, but this isn't true. They want cheap healthcare for the poor, subsidized by the government, or ultimately the larger earning taxpayer. Congrats on making it, now I need you to pay for the "less fortunate" that can't afford healthcare.

 

Others say healthcare costs are out of control, here's a novel thought, healthcare companies want to make money, many are non profit and are sneaking by on 2-3% margins. Yes there are some others that are for profit and make 6-7%, but those are few and far between. The government payouts for services are driving up the cost of insurance and out of pocket costs for healthcare. Regulation on the industry forces an archaeic model of med schools that impose significant barriers to those wishing to enter the market.

 

If you want a capitalist system, then healthcare is going to cost a lot and quality will vary significantly. If you want a single payer model it will eliminate competition and drive even further the consolodation of the market into mega corporations that run hospitals trying to make more money. Hundreds of locally run hospitals will be forced to either shutter their doors or align with larger companies the way things are going. But this isn't limited to just healthcare, it is hitting almost every industry in America.

 

There is a saying in business, you can have it fast, cheap or good, and you can pick 2 of the 3, but cannot get all 3. People may desire all 3, but it just isn't possible.

 

Absolutely untrue. I am your average wage-earner, middle-class non-poor guy, and I just want affordable healthcare. Like every other industrialized nation has. Like every nation that we perceive as our peers have. Like every human should have, whether they're rich or poor, middle class or legal non-resident.

 

Deregulation doesn't drive down costs, it does the opposite - without regulation, nothing is to stop healthcare companies from forming monopolies by gobbling up smaller providers and, once they've done so, creating whatever price they want. Deregulation doesn't create some price-competition utopia, that's a line of BS the companies and their GOP cronies are feeding to keep the cash flowing from your pocket to theirs.

 

Your doomsday scenario in your fourth paragraph is belied by the healthcare models in the rest of the modern world. Healthcare isn't perfect everywhere else - it's just affordable everywhere else. Everywhere but here.

 

And no sane person wants "fast, cheap" healthcare. They want good healthcare. Period. That's not asking too much.

The thing you miss about the regulation is the cost of regulation, tell a small rural hospital that they have to abandon their paper based methods, buy and implement electronic medical records, develop systems to maintain HIPAA compliance, have to convert to a new coding standard over the next few years which will require system changes, staff training and changes and they simply can't afford the changes so they sell out to a larger company. I work for a regional health system and we just finished integration with one such hospital, are looking at a second, and have 3 others within an hour of us that have sold out to our competitor in town in the past 2 years.

The changes in regulation on healthcare aren't creating competition other than for the large companies to swallow the smaller ones.

And when you talk about the other industrialized countries and their affordable health care, go compare the income tax rates of said countries to the US, most are between 35-50% compared to the US which is between 28-30 depending on where you look. I'm sure if I gave an extra 5% of my income along with everyone else we could funnel it to healthcare and create the appearance that it has become affordable, but yet I now take home less so I can't afford the stuff that I really need to spend my money on. You can call it "affordable" all you want, but the truth is you want subsidized healthcare.

In reality this isn't really a debate on healthcare, it's a debate on the powers of government and the impact of our capitalist economy.

Many people say they want "affordable" heathcare, but this isn't true. They want cheap healthcare for the poor, subsidized by the government, or ultimately the larger earning taxpayer. Congrats on making it, now I need you to pay for the "less fortunate" that can't afford healthcare.

Others say healthcare costs are out of control, here's a novel thought, healthcare companies want to make money, many are non profit and are sneaking by on 2-3% margins. Yes there are some others that are for profit and make 6-7%, but those are few and far between. The government payouts for services are driving up the cost of insurance and out of pocket costs for healthcare. Regulation on the industry forces an archaeic model of med schools that impose significant barriers to those wishing to enter the market.

If you want a capitalist system, then healthcare is going to cost a lot and quality will vary significantly. If you want a single payer model it will eliminate competition and drive even further the consolodation of the market into mega corporations that run hospitals trying to make more money. Hundreds of locally run hospitals will be forced to either shutter their doors or align with larger companies the way things are going. But this isn't limited to just healthcare, it is hitting almost every industry in America.

There is a saying in business, you can have it fast, cheap or good, and you can pick 2 of the 3, but cannot get all 3. People may desire all 3, but it just isn't possible.

Yoshi Hardrick tweeted Green to ask if he was playing DB now and Green laughed and said no way. He is still a RB. Heard is the one that has the option to move if he wants. but IMHO I think Rex gets a similar number of snaps this year as he did last year. I think Abdullah is the back up for Rex with Marrow used as the short yardage/change of pace back or fullback for some plays. Cross will either get limited playing time this year or will redshirt. My prediction is that Green/Heard hardly see the field.

 

Our DB position just got a whole lot better with Seisay replacing Dennard and then a stable of backs to pick from on the opposite side: Andrew Green, Stanley Jean-Baptiste, Alonzo Moore, Charles Jackson, Ciante Evans, Corey Cooper, Dijon Washington, Antonio Bell, LeRoy Alexander... SURELY one or two of these guys will click with the system this year. We will have a good safety spot with Stafford holding down one side and either PJ Smith or Courtney Osbourne holding down the other (both have playing experience). We know we have a couple of guys who can play the nickel with (Ciante Evans, and Justin Blachford) if needed.

 

I think this year we need to go out and get some quality big cornerbacks and safeties to secure the year after this year but all in all we have some guys who can play. With that being said though, I do not see our defense being much different than it was last year. I do not think we have the defense of 2009 this season.. we just do not have the crazy athletic/mentally experienced guys that we had last year.

Heard isn't an option, he is a DB unless he moves back to RB at some point.

Here's why this really, really sucks.

There has been a focus on recruiting the southeast for the upcoming year, and a lot of relationships were with Raymond, with him gone a lot of the relationships built with the kids going into the senior class are now gone. With a fairly large amount of scholarships for 2013 this really hurts.

Warfield has I think 4 DUI's under his belt, I don't imagine he will become the DB coach.

http://dcs-inmatesearch.ne.gov/Corrections/InmateDisplayServlet?DcsId=70124&showInmateImage=true

Offense

QB - Martinez

RB 1 - Burkhead

RB 2 - Ameer/Aaron

FB - Marrow

LT - T. Moore

LG - Andrew Rodriguez

C - Reeves

RG - Long

RT - Sirles

TE 1 - B. Cotton

TE 2 - Reed

WR (x) - Enunwa/T. Allen

WR (z) - Marlowe/Turner

WR (y) - Bell/Turner

Defense

WDE - Meredith/Carter

DT - Steinkuhler/Peat/Guy

DT - Rome/Randle/Williams

SDE - Ankrah/Martin/McMullen

Sam - Anderson

Mike - Compton

Will - Fisher/Santos

Nickel - Evans

CB - Green/Heard

CB - Seisay/Heard

SS - Stafford/Cooper

FS - Smith/Osborne

Special Teams

K&P- Maher

PR - Abdullah

KR - Abdullah/Bell/Turner

Reminds me of the movie Next Friday with Ice Cube and a scene with Michael Rappaport

Per Pelini's presser, for violation of team rules

13. Nebraska Cornhuskers: Nebraska fans are starting to get a little impatient with coach Bo Pelini, whose teams lost four games in each of his first four seasons. The Cornhuskers went 9-4 in their first season in the Big Ten in 2011, losing to South Carolina 30-13 in the Capital One Bowl. Nebraska probably won't get better quickly unless quarterback Taylor Martinez becomes a more efficient passer. Nebraska brings back top tailback Rex Burkhead, but it will have to replace three starting offensive linemen. Eight defensive starters are coming back, but the Cornhuskers will miss star linebacker Lavonte David. Nebraska will play road games at UCLA, Ohio State, Michigan State and Iowa and it plays Wisconsin and Michigan at home.

 

Way too high, we need to be around 20-25 IMO. With an inconsistent QB, OL, and a suspect defense there is no way we should be considered on of the top 13 teams in the country.

 

http://espn.go.com/c...rly-2012-top-25

 

I'm with Knapp on this one. Why does everyone think this? TM wasn't the inconsistent one this season. There were so many games that, without drops, his completion percentage is north of 80%. He takes away 1, if not 2, defenders every single play - just due to the threat factor.

Taylor was the very definition of inconsistent, he was awful against Wisconsin and Michigan, and for the second year in a row became non-existant in the running game in the conference season.

In our 8 losses over the past 2 years our QB has rushed for the following

116 Carries, 229 Yards and 1 TD, 1.97 YPC in 8 losses (28.6 YPG)

234 Carries, 1610 Yards and 20 TD's, 6.88 YPC in 17 wins (94.7 YPG)

92/160 Passing, 1069 yards, 5 TD's and 7 INT's in 8 losses (133.6 YPG)

186/324 Passing, 2651 yards, 18 TD's and 8 INT's in 17 wins (155.9 YPG)

That means in losses Taylor has been responsible for 162.2 YPG offense and 4.5 PPG

In wins Taylor has been responsible for 250.6 YPG and 13.4 PPG, that's a 90 YPG and 9 PPG drop (not counting XP's) just from the QB position less production in losses. You can obviously pin some of that on the o-line, but not all of it.

Taylor was worse in just about every statistical category in 2011 compared to 2010, comp %, Yards per completion, long pass, interceptions and passer rating.

no matter how you spin it, that number is still shocking. Considering Pelini started out 28-9, and has gone 10-7 since.. i think thats shows a lot about the direction of the program.

 

btw, who cares about Urban Meyer? is he coming to coach here?

 

I would wager that 98% plus of this board would take Meyer over Bo, if Bo is a bad coach because of his last 17 games, Meyer is a bad coach because of his last 15 games.

 

Why the arbitrary 17 games, did Bo change something 17 games ago that is relevant?

 

Since 17 games are so important, lets look at the 17 games before your 17 games

 

Bo was 15-2 in the 17 before your 17, including 12-2 against BCS competition. Anyone have a problem with that type of record?

 

Sorry must have been editing my post when you replied.

 

I dont, 15-2 is great, but not when you follow it up with a 10-7, dont you agree?

Not happy about it, but when I look at those 7 losses I see losses @ A&M where Martinez should have been on crutches and the refs were on fire, against OU where a healthy Martinez probably wins the game, the Holiday Bowl where nobody really cared.

Then this year we lost to 3 teams that were better than us but we were in the games at the half (2nd halves were awful, no doubt), 2 of which were on the road.

I disagree with a lot of things about the Pelini regime, I don't think Taylor Martinez is a BCS level starting quarterback, but I am not jumping off the ledge after a season that I expected to go 9-4 or 10-3 in anyway depending on bowl matchup.

I will say this offseason is crucial to Bo's time here in Lincoln. Both lines need to be rebuilt and upgraded and I'm not sold that the talent is on the roster (oddly I feel better about the o-line than d-line), and QB play has to make a marked improvement.

Bo also needs to get control of himself and the game, his team reflects his anger, lack of focus and arrogance IMO, which is not a good thing.

no matter how you spin it, that number is still shocking. Considering Pelini started out 28-9, and has gone 10-7 since.. i think thats shows a lot about the direction of the program.

 

btw, who cares about Urban Meyer? is he coming to coach here?

I would wager that 98% plus of this board would take Meyer over Bo, if Bo is a bad coach because of his last 17 games, Meyer is a bad coach because of his last 15 games.

Why the arbitrary 17 games, did Bo change something 17 games ago that is relevant?

Since 17 games are so important, lets look at the 17 games before your 17 games

Bo was 15-2 in the 17 before your 17, including 12-2 against BCS competition. Anyone have a problem with that type of record?

Bo is 10-7 over the last 17 games.....

Urban Meyer is 9-6 over his last 15 games...

Stats can be fun, and useless.

Nebraska will lose 6 games next year

Someone said we're losing a WR. I don't know who or if it was Kerr since he was a TE.

I guess I could see Steven Osborne deciding not to return if he's graduated (not sure if he has or is on track) and could go play somewhere his senior year, I wonder if that's what Kerr is doing?

I could also see Khiry Cooper dropping football to concentrate on baseball.

Here's the offseason attrition topic

Announced by Bo as no longer on the team

JT Kerr

Possible departures

Josh Mitchell- Did not travel with team, is back in California attending to family business, status going forward is unknown