On Sunday Ernie Grunfeld announced that Gilbert Arenas would be back with the Wizards next year. Although a lot of people may not agree with me, I think this is great news. Grunfeld's announcement might not mean much, however, as the new owner, Ted Leonsis, might decide to replace Grunfeld with one of his own guys. When Leonsis takes over, he will have four options with Gilbert Arenas. He could try to void his contract, which really isn't possible due to the fact that a player can't be punished by both the league and the team for any one action (the NBA already suspended Arenas for the rest of the season) and because a player needs to commit a "violent felony" for a contract to be voided. Arenas' felony was clearly not violent, as he didn't physically attack Crittenton.
Leonsis could also try to trade Arenas. But due to his legal trouble, any deal the Wizards would get for him would be far, far worse than his actual value (I'm talking a Gilbert Arenas for Devin Harris swap as a best case scenario). If the Wizards want to trade Arenas, they need to hold onto him at least until next year's trade deadline so that he could recover some of his value.
Another option the Wizards would have is to buy out Arenas' contract for around $40 million. That is a ridiculous sum of money and would cancel out the benefits getting rid of Arenas would provide- financial flexibility, because it would greatly reduce Leonsis' budget for signing a free agent (he doesn't have unlimited money you know). Also, without Arenas no free agent would want to come to Washington. Who would want to join a team whose best players are Andray Blatche and whatever rookie the Wizards draft next year? No amount of money would lure any big name free agent to a team in such desperate straits.
So that leaves only one real option for the Wizards: keeping Arenas and playing him next year. But, I propose the Wizards go even further than just keeping Arenas for another year: I think they should rebuild around him as one of the cornerstones of their franchise. Overlooked in the Wizards awful season this year is that Arenas actually played pretty well, especially in December. Over the year he averaged 22.6 points and 7.2 assists, which would make him the 11th and 9th best scorer and passer in the NBA, respectively. But remember, he was coming back from pretty much two years of inactivity. It took him about a month to knock off the rust, so if we look at his December stats, when he averaged 25.2 points and 7.6 assists, he would rank 7th and 9th in the NBA in points and assists respectively. That is a player who you can build your team around, at least stat-wise.
Arenas wouldn't be the only scoring option on the team or perhaps even the best one. Imagine this as the Wizards starting lineup next year: PG: Arenas, SG: Evan Turner, SF: Chris Bosh, PF: Andray Blatche, C: Javale McGee. That's a pretty good lineup right there. While getting Bosh might be a bit of a stretch, the Wizards do have a very good chance of landing Turner and at least some high-caliber free agent (maybe Stoudamire?). Yes their bench would probably suck, but if the Wizards keep Arenas they could be only two years away from seriously competing in the playoffs again.
So am I misrepresenting Arenas' skills in some way? Do you think any of the other options the Wizards have in regards to Arenas makes more sense than the one I advocate? Comments would be appreciated.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Healthcare Reform
Before I go any further, I'd like to say, to those of you who already didn't know, I'm very liberal. Now that healthcare reform has finally passed, I'd like to offer my opinion of it. I've yet to meet one person who could offer a coherent reason reform isn't a good idea. The number of times I've heard the words "government takeover" and "socialism" in the argument against healthcare is ridiculous.
Here are some facts no one can debate:
1. Healthcare reform will cover over 30 million additional people, or almost all uninsured Americans once illegal immigrants are discounted.
2. Healthcare reform will stop ridiculous insurance practices like denying people due to pre-existing conditions (I heard one story of someone being dropped because of having the pre-existing condition of zits) and dropping them when they're sick. This is undeniably a good thing.
3. Healthcare reform will significantly lower the federal deficit (by over 1 trillion dollars in the next 20 years!). That is according to the official and nonpartisan cost estimator- the Congressional Budget Office. I don't know how people can argue that healthcare reform will add to the federal deficit when the report saying it won't is staring them right in the face.
On Friday I went to President Obama's speech at George Mason University and, obviously, there were a lot of protestors. Three of them came marching towards us holding up the obligatory Obama-as-joker and Obama-socialist signs. But the last guy was holding up a sign saying "Healthcare is NOT a right." This confused me. Do conservatives actually think that healthcare shouldn't be given to all? That when someone gets sick and there's a cure out there that can save their life, they should be permitted to die because they just don't have enough money to pay for it? That guy holding up the sign obviously had healthcare, or else he wouldn't be holding up that sign. How would he feel if he was lying on a bed dying and the doctor told him they couldn't save him because he didn't have healthcare and when he was arguing that he deserved to be saved the doctor just told him "Healthcare is not a right." I'm pretty sure that only a small minority of people oppose healthcare reform for the same reason as this guy, but if I'm wrong feel free to correct me in the comments section.
Now that I've got the main benefits out of the way (I won't talk about all the smaller benefits like kids being able to stay on their parents plans until they're 26 because there are just too many of them), I'm going to examine all the main arguments against healthcare that have been made and rebut them (No, "socialism" and "government takeover" aren't arguments)
1. It costs too much- It's completely paid for (and then some). How does it matter how much it costs if its paid for? If a bill cost 100 trillion dollars but would save the US 100 googol dollars would people rail against it because "it costs too much"?
2. It raises taxes- Yes, on the super rich. There is not one tax in here that will hurt those making under $200,000 dollars a year unless they're a medium-sized small business owner (although I think most owners of businesses that size get more than $200,000). Unless you're earning that much or are a small business owner, shut up about this bill raising taxes on you. Small business owners aren't really taxed. They're now just fined if they don't provide healthcare to their workers if they have over 50 employees. However, this bill will make it a lot easier for these businesses to provide their workers with healthcare and most businesses with over 50 employees should and do provide healthcare to employees anyways.
3. Its financed by excessive cuts in Medicare- Yes, in this bill the Medicare Advantage program is severely scaled back. That program has the government give private businesses subsidies so they could offer seniors cheap private Medicare plans rather than government ones. But the government has to pay a lot more to finance each Medicare Advantage plan than they pay for regular Medicare plans. Medicare Advantage isn't working and if the money withheld from it results in price increases, seniors can always switch back to regular Medicare with no problem. Other than that, the bill cuts costs from Medicare by making it more efficient. Currently a lot of government money goes to waste financing unnecessary surgeries. Healthcare reform gets most of its money from Medicare by fixing that waste. And to top it all off, this bill would close the doughnut hole gap in the prescription drug program and make it so seniors didn't have to pay ridiculous amounts for medicine. What's wrong with that?
4. It'll raise peoples' premiums- The Congressional Budget Office says that the bill will lower the average premium, not raise it. The Budget Office also says that Americans will probably end up purchasing more expensive plans because the plans will cover more stuff and thus are more cost-effective. Republicans have seized on that second part and said that reform will raise premiums for everyone, which is not true. However, in reality no one really has no idea what this bill will do to premiums. There are so many experimental stuff in it (like adjusting how doctors get paid) that could significantly lower premiums; alternatively there are so many well-intentioned reforms (such as banning denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions) that could have unintended consequences and raise premiums. On balance though, the Budget Office has realized that there are more cost-saving measures in here than cost-raising measures.
5. The American people are against it and Congress was elected to serve the American people and not themselves- That's not an argument; that just shows the Republicans played the sales game better than Democrats did. "Government takeover of healthcare" is so much more visceral than "covers all those uninsured people you don't know" so the Republicans had an easier sales job. Besides, any change worth doing is going to be hard and will be opposed at first, but once people start seeing the benefits of the bill I'm confident they'll eventually support it. Also, a lot of people oppose this bill because it is not liberal enough (about one-fifth according to CNN), and when these people are removed from the equation support and opposition runs about even.
So are there any other arguments you have against the bill that I failed to rebut? Are there flaws in my rebuttal of the points I already put out there? Are the benefits I say the bill has not real? Any comments would be appreciated.
Here are some facts no one can debate:
1. Healthcare reform will cover over 30 million additional people, or almost all uninsured Americans once illegal immigrants are discounted.
2. Healthcare reform will stop ridiculous insurance practices like denying people due to pre-existing conditions (I heard one story of someone being dropped because of having the pre-existing condition of zits) and dropping them when they're sick. This is undeniably a good thing.
3. Healthcare reform will significantly lower the federal deficit (by over 1 trillion dollars in the next 20 years!). That is according to the official and nonpartisan cost estimator- the Congressional Budget Office. I don't know how people can argue that healthcare reform will add to the federal deficit when the report saying it won't is staring them right in the face.
On Friday I went to President Obama's speech at George Mason University and, obviously, there were a lot of protestors. Three of them came marching towards us holding up the obligatory Obama-as-joker and Obama-socialist signs. But the last guy was holding up a sign saying "Healthcare is NOT a right." This confused me. Do conservatives actually think that healthcare shouldn't be given to all? That when someone gets sick and there's a cure out there that can save their life, they should be permitted to die because they just don't have enough money to pay for it? That guy holding up the sign obviously had healthcare, or else he wouldn't be holding up that sign. How would he feel if he was lying on a bed dying and the doctor told him they couldn't save him because he didn't have healthcare and when he was arguing that he deserved to be saved the doctor just told him "Healthcare is not a right." I'm pretty sure that only a small minority of people oppose healthcare reform for the same reason as this guy, but if I'm wrong feel free to correct me in the comments section.
Now that I've got the main benefits out of the way (I won't talk about all the smaller benefits like kids being able to stay on their parents plans until they're 26 because there are just too many of them), I'm going to examine all the main arguments against healthcare that have been made and rebut them (No, "socialism" and "government takeover" aren't arguments)
1. It costs too much- It's completely paid for (and then some). How does it matter how much it costs if its paid for? If a bill cost 100 trillion dollars but would save the US 100 googol dollars would people rail against it because "it costs too much"?
2. It raises taxes- Yes, on the super rich. There is not one tax in here that will hurt those making under $200,000 dollars a year unless they're a medium-sized small business owner (although I think most owners of businesses that size get more than $200,000). Unless you're earning that much or are a small business owner, shut up about this bill raising taxes on you. Small business owners aren't really taxed. They're now just fined if they don't provide healthcare to their workers if they have over 50 employees. However, this bill will make it a lot easier for these businesses to provide their workers with healthcare and most businesses with over 50 employees should and do provide healthcare to employees anyways.
3. Its financed by excessive cuts in Medicare- Yes, in this bill the Medicare Advantage program is severely scaled back. That program has the government give private businesses subsidies so they could offer seniors cheap private Medicare plans rather than government ones. But the government has to pay a lot more to finance each Medicare Advantage plan than they pay for regular Medicare plans. Medicare Advantage isn't working and if the money withheld from it results in price increases, seniors can always switch back to regular Medicare with no problem. Other than that, the bill cuts costs from Medicare by making it more efficient. Currently a lot of government money goes to waste financing unnecessary surgeries. Healthcare reform gets most of its money from Medicare by fixing that waste. And to top it all off, this bill would close the doughnut hole gap in the prescription drug program and make it so seniors didn't have to pay ridiculous amounts for medicine. What's wrong with that?
4. It'll raise peoples' premiums- The Congressional Budget Office says that the bill will lower the average premium, not raise it. The Budget Office also says that Americans will probably end up purchasing more expensive plans because the plans will cover more stuff and thus are more cost-effective. Republicans have seized on that second part and said that reform will raise premiums for everyone, which is not true. However, in reality no one really has no idea what this bill will do to premiums. There are so many experimental stuff in it (like adjusting how doctors get paid) that could significantly lower premiums; alternatively there are so many well-intentioned reforms (such as banning denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions) that could have unintended consequences and raise premiums. On balance though, the Budget Office has realized that there are more cost-saving measures in here than cost-raising measures.
5. The American people are against it and Congress was elected to serve the American people and not themselves- That's not an argument; that just shows the Republicans played the sales game better than Democrats did. "Government takeover of healthcare" is so much more visceral than "covers all those uninsured people you don't know" so the Republicans had an easier sales job. Besides, any change worth doing is going to be hard and will be opposed at first, but once people start seeing the benefits of the bill I'm confident they'll eventually support it. Also, a lot of people oppose this bill because it is not liberal enough (about one-fifth according to CNN), and when these people are removed from the equation support and opposition runs about even.
So are there any other arguments you have against the bill that I failed to rebut? Are there flaws in my rebuttal of the points I already put out there? Are the benefits I say the bill has not real? Any comments would be appreciated.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
My NCAA Tournament Bracket (click to enlarge)
Below is my bracket for this year's NCAA tournament. I don't normally watch college basketball because I think college play is inferior to the NBA (that's an argument for a later blog post), therefore I really don't know much about any of the teams in the tournament and a lot of my picks are just guess work.
Before I explain any controversial/important picks, first I have a confession to make. I am a big time fan of any mid-major team, due to my support for George Mason. I remember their Final Four run in 2006 and how all of Fairfax was covered in gold and green in support of them. I like to pick upsets wherever I can and this bracket might be a little upset heavy. Now on to the explanations:
Round 1
Temple over Cornell: Everyone is picking Cornell to pull the upset here, making my choice of Temple almost an upset in its own right. While people are right in pointing out how good Cornell is and how underseeded they are, no one seems to be realizing how good Temple is as well. They are underseeded also and I have them going to the sweet 16.Washington over Marquette: I have to have at least one upset in each region in the first round and this seems like my best bet in the East. I'm not particularly thrilled with this pick.
Sienna over Purdue: Purdue is missing their best player and Sienna has a pedigree for pulling off the upset. Plus, everyone else is going with this pick so I might as well jump on the bandwagon.
Round 2
Xavier over Pittsburgh: I like Xavier a lot. Not just this year, but in general, because they help bring up the image of mid-majors everywhere and they have a cool name. Pitt isn't very good this year- they play way too slowly- and I think they have a good chance of being upset
Sienna over Texas A&M: I need at least one double digit seed in the sweet sixteen, and while I do believe that Texas A&M is a good team, I think Sienna has the best chance of any double digit seed to get to the next round.
Round 3
Butler over Syracuse: This is my big, bold pick. Syracuse isn't that great- they lost to an okay at best Georgetown team in their most recent game; and Butler is on a 20 game winning streak. They know how to play in big games and I think they'll have all the momentum.
Round 4
Baylor over Duke: I don't think Duke is that great and I think Baylor is a good team that could sneak up on Duke. In the end, however, this is just a guess with no real basis to back it up
Championship
Kansas over Kentucky: I have Kansas as my champion because they're the safest pick. They're most likely the best overall team in the league, they have balanced scoring, and they're experienced. Kentucky has two freshman as its best players, ruling them out.
So are my picks and explanations generally on target or am I just a blithering fool? Comments would be welcome.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Cheating
The other day I was talking with my friend about cheating, or as he called it, "consulting with friends", on our english quizzes. After every reading that's assigned in my english class we have to take a ridiculously hard quiz on that reading, and pretty much every Student Assistance Period (basically a half an hour free period at Madison where you can do whatever you want) my friend gets the questions and their answers for the day's upcoming quiz from another student. He feels that since the subject of the quiz isn't something we'll ever use again (which I concede is true) he's justified in cheating because it's not important to actually learn the information. In addition, my friend says by "consulting with a friend" he's rebelling against my English teacher's unreasonably difficult quizzes. He feels that if our teacher is going to quiz us it should only be to make sure that we read the assignment and not to see how well we remember the reading.
In response to my friend's first point, I think that it doesn't matter what someone cheats on; if you get in the habit of cheating it often leads to worse things. If it's okay to cheat on a small reading quiz, then how long until it's okay to cheat on a big math test? On a final? The attitude my friend takes toward cheating, I feel, is self-destructive. In regards to the second point, while I do feel my friend has a legitimate complaint (I make the same objection all the time), i also feel that sometimes life isn't fair and rather then raging against the system my friend should adapt and play by the rules.
So am I hopelessly naive or right on target? Any comments would be appreciated.
In response to my friend's first point, I think that it doesn't matter what someone cheats on; if you get in the habit of cheating it often leads to worse things. If it's okay to cheat on a small reading quiz, then how long until it's okay to cheat on a big math test? On a final? The attitude my friend takes toward cheating, I feel, is self-destructive. In regards to the second point, while I do feel my friend has a legitimate complaint (I make the same objection all the time), i also feel that sometimes life isn't fair and rather then raging against the system my friend should adapt and play by the rules.
So am I hopelessly naive or right on target? Any comments would be appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)