yzerman19

I count 4 grade A Omaha scoring chances

Until it doesn't...

I'll take the bait... 2004-2005: Overachieve. First year head coach with Blaiser's recruits. One very skilled (NHL) line, one skilled and experienced line, and awesome D. Its an overachieve, because the prior year was stacked (Parise, Bochenski) and this team made it all the way to the title game when they appeared to be a weaker team than the prior year. 2005-2006: Underachieve. Probably the most stacked team in Sioux history NHL talent wise. This team won the Final 5 and made it to the Frozen Four, but looking back this team was loaded and should've won a title. Period. 2006-2007: Underachieve. The potent DOT line year. Frozen Four, but no other hardware. 2007-2008: Underachieve. The pact year. Frozen Four, but no other hardware. 2008-2009: Overachieve. This team won the WCHA, surprisingly. 2009- 2010: Achieve. This team lost Chay to injury. Came back to win the Final Five. 2010- 2011: Underachieve. Pony Express team. Nothing other than a national title for this team would be acceptable. 2011-2012: Achieve. If you consider the injuries at the end of they year, it might be an overachieve to have won the Final Five. For what that's worth. 2012-2013: Achieve. This team would go as far as Kristo and Knight could take them. For being a one trick pony, the season's results were about right. So, by my measure. We have 4 underachieves and 2 overachieves with 3 teams having years about how they should've. 2 underachieves by my measure were the best teams in the country (05-06 and 10-11) and should've won titles, and another underachieve (06-07) was maybe not the best team in the country, but certainly had the best line and could've won the NCAA with a great tournament. Not saying to fire Hak, I'm just giving my two-cent evaluation on the teams' performances. Winning a natty the two years where I say we had the best team in the country, and nobody is calling for Dave's head.

I did not see St Cloud trapping in what I was watching, although I quit watching both games before they were over. Having dmen jump into the rush to score goals is not a characteristic of any trap that I know of- left wing or a 1-2-2 or 1-1-3 forecheck. The measure of Hak as a coach will be can he get it done with a more "average" talent club

I've never been part of the pitchfork crew, but something needs to change- especially on the pp and the breakout. I am NOT saying fire Hak, but I am saying that Hak might have to do some thinking. As a professional, I don't lead all teams the same way, and I certainly have evolved my thinking now as compared to when I first started managing people. Maybe Hak's systems suck, and the success has been due to the players' God given capabilities and skills. I did think to myself during the SCSU series, "is SCSU better conditioned than we are?" It seemed like they were physically better...

I'm not upset about losing to St Cloud. What I'm upset about is our persistent inability to generate TEAM offense. Whether it be in the offensive zone or in transition, 5x5 or PP, it just aint there. Our scoring and scoring chances seem to all come from great individual efforts. See Jewels channeling Stevie Y circa 1988 and Rocco Mr. I get many breakaways and not many goals. I feel like a broken record, but we just don't attack and come through the neutral zone with speed and numbers. You have to be able to make somebody miss one on one and then you need to hit the tape with your passes. It wasn't that long ago that our identity was that of a transition team!

Good post- I think Miller and Matteau and Lemieux woulda helped... You know what I see way too much of? Guys that only know how to play systems - I attribute that to doing nothing but organized hockey. We need some good old fashioned improvising like we used to create on the outdoor

St Clair has to be hurt or else Hak is playing head games

allowing guilty men to go free is a small price to pay to avoid innovent people going to prison. You also can not condone vigilantism. There are times where force is justified, if it is measured. You can't simply walk around waiting for someone to wrong you or to find the opportunity to "make ammends" for some previous wrong committed against you. Agree that the current statist approach of choosing to obey or not obey laws based upon the discretion of the executive branch is scary. This is not new, but appears to have taken a giant leap of late.

Convicted criminals do get fewer rights.

The east bank mall area is not ugly at all...very classic.

No need to name call or get the testosterone up on an Internet forum. Violence ain't cool. There are times when it is appropriate if you had to defend your life, someone else's life, or your property. In those rare situations it also must be commensurate with the threat you face or else you change from the victim to the aggressor. The DA will weigh that. That guy in Texas who beat to death ( with his fists) the man sexually assaulting his little girl- no charges, because a reasonable person would likely have done the same thing. As a father, I probably would too in the heat of the moment. A stolen car, a pipe beating...just seems excessive. I had a car stolen once...I felt no need to beat the guilty party.

The DA will use discretion. If the guy had been reasonable in his violence- i.e. a punch or two there would not be charges. It wouldn't be worth anyone's time and energy. Clearly the beating was worse than that, and included a pipe...that is beyond a reasonable "violent" response to having your car stolen.

Current insurance practices are income agnostic.

Question, but if she's maxed out at Altru and unhappy with her comp and hours, why not move? Or get a job at a different hospital within an hours drive...I live in Mpls, and people drive an hour all over town here for work. Sorry about the medical error- they happen, but that is a bad deal.

First, I assume you mean MRI. Second, charges mean nothing. Third, MRI is a generic term like "car" there is a difference between a Ferrari and a Taurus. How powerful a machine, which body part, contrast or no contrast, walk-up, inpatient, freestanding or in hospital- tons of variables. Your example is an unusual one as well, because typically there is a longer wait for services in Canada. The ACA isn't to blame for anything other than drying up capital at this point. That is because financial markets are leading indicators. It will negatively impact the health and healthcare industry and will redistribute costs of care via subsidies- which simply means taxes paid by higher income earners will be used to buy lower income earners their insurance. Sounds like socialism to me.

I won't take the bait, but lets just say I spent 8 years on the west bank of the Mississippi in a city to the SE of GF. I've also got 15 years of professional experience working on the payor and provider side in industry and as a consultant. I do not ignore the growth of healthcare costs, but I do fully understand the drivers. Health insurance is expensive, because healthcare is expensive. It is driven by a multitude of factors, but predominantly utilization increases including both volume and complexity of care. There are many more drivers, but utilization is the big one. Don't forget the quality of life indicators, life expectancy, and survival rates of chronic and catastrophic illness have all dramatically improved over that same 20 year time horizon.

But you were not the norm (with so very few services)...you were subsidizing people who were using more services in your same rating band. Now there is only one rating, so the gap you are describing will only grow via ACA. You are correct that cost shifting has been happening for a long time. As has the purpose of insurance. True insurance is not pre-paid medical. True insurance is stop-loss protection for unlikely events that you can't pay for yourself. In a lot of ways, the migration of insurance to pre-paid medical can be tied to continued pressure on wages and completely inaccurate reporting of inflation. If the vast majority of Americans aren't liquid $2000, they can't "self-insure" at all.

keep the Kauker out of this!! I would disagree on how the business could fail- 1. Revenue compression due to adjustments at the federal level, such as reductions in Medicare reimbursement which is real and part of ACA. 2. Employer/insurer cost shifting to patients via more out of pocket costs in order to keep premiums lower, resulting in a greater portion of revenue "at-risk" to providers. Bad debt is a huge issue for all providers. 3. Continued technology and innovation driven inflation for medical advancements. 4. Continued scarcity of resources for top skill jobs increasing wages- even though cost of living is lower in GF than say Mpls, they have to pay doctors and nurses equal or greater salaries to get them to stay in GF.

And 990's are tax accounting, not financial reporting. They are not for profit, so they should be holding close to flat. Debt if structured well" which theirs is, is a good thing when the weighted average cost of capital is less than 4 percent. If they were making tons of money, the community would come unglued for monopolistic behavior. They are well balanced, solvent, and simply adjusting for the future- as many have said.

Sicatoka beat me to it, but is exactly right. The long term impact of affordable care act will be to impact jobs and access to healthcare. Communities like GF will be hardest hit.

They are very aware of impacts. The mandate isn't in effect yet, the exchanges just opened. Major adjustments haven't happened yet, but they will. This is being done to prepare for the future, not because they are in trouble. Their awareness and adjustments show that they are paying close attention, not the other way around.

Do a days cash on hand analysis. Check their bond rating. Get an MBA. The financials are very strong and stable. There is an alternative to their plan, they could raise the cost of healthcare.

this has started to turn political. End of the day, money doesnt grow on trees

Only senior staff is taking a paycut. They are not in trouble financially. They are missing a budget target. If I have a million in savings, but my monthly expenses are running a thousand bucks in the red, do I stop investing? Do I pull out of savings? No, I'd rather do things like spend less on beer. Read the bios of senior staff- masters degrees and twenty plus years in the business- they get it.