MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on October 25, 2013, 09:29:21 PM
-
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us130715/HBO%20Real%20Sports/Complete%20October%202013%20USA%20HBO%20Real%20Sports_Marist%20Poll%20Release%20and%20Tables.pdf
Roughly one in three Americans said they're less likely to allow their children to play football due to what they know about football-related head injuries and long-term brain damage, according to a poll released on Wednesday.
For the HBO Real Sports/Marist poll, 1,204 adults were surveyed by telephone about their views on the potential safety risks involved with youth football. Thirty-nine percent of the survey respondents had children under the age of 18, including 23 percent with a son 18 years or younger. Nineteen percent had a child who had been seriously injured while playing a team sport.
When asked about their level of knowledge regarding "the connection between concussions from playing football and long-term brain injury," 55 percent of the respondents said they knew "a good amount" or "a great deal," with an additional 31 percent saying they knew "a little." Only 14 percent knew "nothing at all," which should encourage youth-safety advocates preaching the importance of educating the public about sports-related concussions.
According to the survey, 13 percent of U.S. adults wouldn't let their sons participate in football, while 85 percent would. (The remaining 2 percent are unsure.) This varied based upon region, with adults in the Northeast least likely to allow their sons play football (81 percent would allow it; 18 percent wouldn't) and adults in the South the most likely (86 percent would, 12 percent wouldn't).
Thirty-three percent of adults said that the information coming out about the link between concussions and long-term brain damage made them less likely to allow their sons to play football. Once more, adults in the Northeast and West were more swayed by such information (38 percent and 37 percent, respectively, were less likely to allow their sons to play) than those in the South and Midwest (31 percent and 30 percent, respectively).
For 16 percent of Americans, the risk of long-term brain injury would be the deciding factor in whether or not to allow their son to play football, according to the survey. Fifty-six percent of adults said it would be one of the factors that influenced their decision, while the remaining 28 percent said it would play no role in their decision.
Additionally, roughly one in five adults said the risk of injury is too high to allow boys to play football, the survey found.
"What will be interesting to watch is if other sports begin to recruit those kids whose parents keep them from football," said Dr. Keith Strudler, the director of the Marist College Center for Sports Communication, in the survey. "Football's loss could be the inevitable gain of lacrosse, baseball, or even soccer."
ESPN's Henry Abbott touched upon that possibility on Wednesday in the TrueHoop blog.
"Basically, the biggest force in the history of sports business—the NFL—has had a kind of 'black swan' event—a permanent change nobody could have seen coming. There's a fracture, suddenly, between football, its players and its fans. The numbers are coming in, and you have to wonder if the coming decades really will bring radical reformation of the sports landscape."
At the high school level, there hasn't yet been a massive decline in the number of boys playing football.
A total of 1,086,627 boys participated in high school football during the 2012-13 school year, according to the latest annual High School Sports Participation survey from the National Federation of State High School Associations, compared to 1,095,993 boys during the prior school year. That's a decline of fewer than 10,000 student-athletes, or less than 1 percent of the total high-school-football-playing population.
As more information spills into the public consciousness, however, it's worth keeping an eye on these youth-football participation figures to see if any major trends emerge in the coming years.
-
NFL is about to cut a new deal for an 8 game package that will blow you away. That and the Sunday Ticket deal will likely be done in the next few months that will also add lots of $$$ to the coffers. Ratings are very good, stadiums filled, people desiring it more than ever.
In one sense, I'm glad this stuff is happening now so we can stop with the BS and players can stop pretending they didn't know there was risk involved. Give me a break.
I say the lawyers go after basketball next, then soccer, baseball, etc.
-
NFL is about to cut a new deal for an 8 game package that will blow you away. That and the Sunday Ticket deal will likely be done in the next few months that will also add lots of $$$ to the coffers. Ratings are very good, stadiums filled, people desiring it more than ever.
In one sense, I'm glad this stuff is happening now so we can stop with the BS and players can stop pretending they didn't know there was risk involved. Give me a break.
I say the lawyers go after basketball next, then soccer, baseball, etc.
You've finally matched Willie Warrior as a one-trick pony.
Just as we don't need to hear Willie's opinions anymore on recruiting bigs, your opinion on any issue involving the "rich and powerful" vs. those lower on the economic ladder is unnecessary. The issue is always irrelevant - you will always shill for the side with the power and money.
To say that all players knew the brain damage risks involved is ludicrous. Nobody was talking about this until just a few years ago. The risks that players worried about were knee problems, weight issues, etc.
Furthermore, just as there are science deniers and climate change deniers, there continue to be the risk deniers among owners and coaches at all levels. I'm sure it's not that they are putting their own monetary interests over reality. ::)
For you to casually disregard this issue is disgusting. But the first paragraph of your post explains your opinion entirely.
-
To say that all players knew the brain damage risks involved is ludicrous. Nobody was talking about this until just a few years ago. The risks that players worried about were knee problems, weight issues, etc.
This is Bullsh1t. Our son played DI football and awareness of concussions has been known and monitored for 20 years. Our son suffered a concussion in a game but it only manifested itself one quarter later when he became unintelligible in the huddle; he had played 3 series before showing any symptoms. Given the subsequent diagnosis he did not suit up for practice or games for 3 weeks. Pac X schools have actively addressed concussions for 20 years.
-
This is Bullsh1t. Our son played DI football and awareness of concussions has been known and monitored for 20 years. Our son suffered a concussion in a game but it only manifested itself one quarter later when he became unintelligible in the huddle; he had played 3 series before showing any symptoms. Given the subsequent diagnosis he did not suit up for practice or games for 3 weeks. Pac X schools have actively addressed concussions for 20 years.
Exactly right, but some people always have to have someone to blame. It's always some big corporation, or big evil multinational, or whatever, that is to blame. My God, I played 25+ years ago I remember our helmets having a sticker on them and saying football is dangerous and you can risk head, neck, etc, injuries. We signed waivers, we had to go through a packet of information our parents had to sign on all the potential injuries. That was 25+ years ago. What do people think, a sport that requires pads on the legs, hips, butt, shoulders and a helmet is there to make you look good? It's a FULL CONTACT sport. There are risks.
It's amazing we just don't put people surrounded by pillows and everyone telecommutes....that is before these same people sue the companies for hardened arteries for sitting in their homes too much or claiming they got cancer from staring at the monitor too long. Good grief. Bunch of Sallies.
Brandx, if you are consistent, you would claim these organizations should go after basketball. Soccer. Hockey. etc. Why aren't you being consistent?
-
I blame......you two for hijacking every bleeping thread. Ignore for both.
-
Brandx, if you are consistent, you would claim these organizations should go after basketball. Soccer. Hockey. etc. Why aren't you being consistent?
What does basketball have to do with brain damage? What would people be "going after?" Couldn't be less relevant to the discussion.
-
I'd say Crean was perpetually concussed.
-
I'd say Crean was perpetually concussed.
Crean. Never concussed. Having a brain is a prerequisite.
-
Keefe, thanks for your real life story here about concussions and football....the actual topic of the thread. I didn't realize my comments or your comments about the risks of concussion were hijacking a thread. Go figure.
Keep sharing Keefe.
-
It's amazing we just don't put people surrounded by pillows and everyone telecommutes....that is before these same people sue the companies for hardened arteries for sitting in their homes too much or claiming they got cancer from staring at the monitor too long. Good grief. Bunch of Sallies.
Surely if we allow the legal system to play out, we'll soon be surrounded by pillows and the only legal sport will be chess!!!!!
Because everything is a slippery slope!!!!!
Edit: Oh, and those of you claiming we've known about football and brain injuries for "25 years" are clearly and provably wrong. Our knowledge of the long-term effects of football on the brain (CTE, ALS, Alzheimer's) is relatively new, and evolving, science. Yes, everybody knew 25 years ago that playing football could lead to injury. Nobody knew 25 years ago that those injuries could leave players suicidal, depressed, addled and with the mental functioning of an 85 year old man when they're in their later 40s and 50s.
-
Good grief. Bunch of Sallies.
I prefer "nancys"
-
Keefe, thanks for your real life story here about concussions and football....the actual topic of the thread. I didn't realize my comments or your comments about the risks of concussion were hijacking a thread. Go figure.
Keep sharing Keefe.
Every Keefe post is a "real life" story. Considering he does nothing but talk about himself and his exploits, how could it be anything else?
Narcissism in action ::)
-
Surely if we allow the legal system to play out, we'll soon be surrounded by pillows and the only legal sport will be chess!!!!!
Because everything is a slippery slope!!!!!
Edit: Oh, and those of you claiming we've known about football and brain injuries for "25 years" are clearly and provably wrong. Our knowledge of the long-term effects of football on the brain (CTE, ALS, Alzheimer's) is relatively new, and evolving, science. Yes, everybody knew 25 years ago that playing football could lead to injury. Nobody knew 25 years ago that those injuries could leave players suicidal, depressed, addled and with the mental functioning of an 85 year old man when they're in their later 40s and 50s.
Precisely.
-
Every Keefe post is a "real life" story. Considering he does nothing but talk about himself and his exploits, how could it be anything else?
Narcissism in action ::)
Wait a minute, I thought I just looked up trivia on Wiki then repeated it here. Now I just talk about myself. The reality is some lives are just more rich with experience.
There is an irony in "Brand X" that was likely unintended and yet captures the quiet desperation rather well.
-
I don't know if this was posted before, but Frontline did an hour long documentary on concussions that aired two weeks ago.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/league-of-denial/
Explores the book that came out; how the NFL tried to cover it up, got exposed and became "proactive"; older players who are talking about their lives after the game; and most recent deaths related to possible concussions.
-
Wait a minute, I thought I just looked up trivia on Wiki then repeated it here. Now I just talk about myself. The reality is some lives are just more rich with experience.
There is an irony in "Brand X" that was likely unintended and yet captures the quiet desperation rather well.
That's what I was talking about. Very well written post by an intelligent guy.
And you were able to do it without relating it to an experience of yours.
-
Keefe/CBB
I agree with you about football and concussions. But it does not matter.
The long-knives are out for Football and they will not stop until they turn it into boxing (a sport that used to be far and away the most popular in the country and is not a minor sport because of its brutality.). I've argued that in 10 to 15 years football will be as popular as the MLB while on its way to boxing. I see no reason to change that view.
Think taobacco lawsuits. Those took decades and they were relentless until they hallowed out that industry. Same thing is happening with football. When they are done with the NFL, the lawsuits will turn to the NCAA and high school until they are gutted.
Years from now we'll look at the TV contract CBB noted above as the high water mark of Football's popularity.
-
Surely if we allow the legal system to play out, we'll soon be surrounded by pillows and the only legal sport will be chess!!!!!
Because everything is a slippery slope!!!!!
Edit: Oh, and those of you claiming we've known about football and brain injuries for "25 years" are clearly and provably wrong. Our knowledge of the long-term effects of football on the brain (CTE, ALS, Alzheimer's) is relatively new, and evolving, science. Yes, everybody knew 25 years ago that playing football could lead to injury. Nobody knew 25 years ago that those injuries could leave players suicidal, depressed, addled and with the mental functioning of an 85 year old man when they're in their later 40s and 50s.
Why don't you read what I said. I said 25+ years ago my helmet had a sticker on it saying football was dangerous and could cause neck and head injuries. I didn't say anything about the more advanced diagnosis of today, but it nevertheless had those warnings. We signed waivers, we had to take an education seminar on the risks. This was 25 years ago. There were risks known, even then. Guess what, people still chose to play.
I'm all for giving people the information, it is how it should be. But please stop with the nonsense that people didn't know football is a dangerous sport. It is embarrassing to read that argument...completely embarrassing. Football has been a violent game with injurious risks since day one. The game was almost banned in the early 1900's due to a string
of deaths.
When I hear people say that they didn't know football was dangerous it makes my head spin. What planet have they been on? And for those demanding some kind of renumeration, I ask where is the consistency? It is nowhere...of course. Medicine tells is sports injuries lead to arthritis among other things....why aren't people demanding payment and damages for those injuries?
-
Why don't you read what I said. I said 25+ years ago my helmet had a sticker on it saying football was dangerous and could cause neck and head injuries. I didn't say anything about the more advanced diagnosis of today, but it nevertheless had those warnings. We signed waivers, we had to take an education seminar on the risks. This was 25 years ago. There were risks known, even then. Guess what, people still chose to play.
I'm all for giving people the information, it is how it should be. Bug please stop with the nonsense that people didn't know football is a dangerous sport. It is embarrassing to read that argument...completely embarrassing. Football has been a violent game with injurious risks since day one. The game was almost banned in the early 1900's due to a strong of deaths.
When I hear people say that they didn't know football was dangerous it makes my head spin. What planet have they been on? And for those demanding some kind of renumeration, I ask where is the consistency? It is nowhere...of course. Medicine tells is sports injuries lead to arthritis among other things....why aren't people demanding payment and damages for those injuries?
You have accurately described the tobacco industry's argument. Remember that cigarettes had a warning sticker on them since 1966.
This argument worked so well that the tobacco industry has a settlement that will reach hundreds of billions over the next few decades.
So unless you have a better argument, football is going to meet the same fate as tobacco, pay tons of money and become socially unacceptable.
-
Chico's .... could you please cite on example of a former player/or attorney for a former player who's said they didn't know football was a dangerous sport?
You're doing a fine job of constructing straw men to bowl over.
-
You have accurately described the tobacco industry's argument. Remember that cigarettes had a warning sticker on them since 1966.
This argument worked so well that the tobacco industry has a settlement that will reach hundreds of billions over the next few decades.
So unless you have a better argument, football is going to meet the same fate as tobacco, pay tons of money and become socially unacceptable.
I think that is a more accurate encapsulation of our court system absolving smokers of personal responsibility. I'm not a smoker and one of the reasons is that it is one of the single most stupid things a human can do to themselves. If one smokes for decades one should not complain about having emphysema or lung cancer. And one certainly should not blame Philip Morris for their medical condition. Why the courts entertained such rubbish is akin to the idiots rioting in Seattle to protest the existence of corporations at the WTO meetings. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
-
I think that is a more accurate encapsulation of our court system absolving smokers of personal responsibility. I'm not a smoker and one of the reasons is that it is one of the single most stupid things a human can do to themselves. If one smokes for decades one should not complain about having emphysema or lung cancer. And one certainly should not blame Philip Morris for their medical condition. Why the courts entertained such rubbish is akin to the idiots rioting in Seattle to protest the existence of corporations at the WTO meetings. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
It's the USA now. Personal responsibility....hah....how can I get another lottery check or payment of some kind.
Look, it is one thing if companies are knowingly hiding information, etc....like the tobacco industry. But I'm sorry, anyone that began smoking in the last 30 years it is appalling that someone would get a red cent of anything unless they were in a coma within a cave in the Artic. People know the risks, where is the personal responsibility? Who is putting a gun to people to smoke, to play football, etc?
-
It's the USA now. Personal responsibility....hah....how can I get another lottery check or payment of some kind.
Not all of America has abandoned personal responsibility
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p266/turkeypaste/PJ14.jpg)
(http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/973/94326316igknhnph7pm.jpg)
(http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t304/buffdaddydrummer/Hero_Mark_Forester.jpg)
(http://dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/JTAC-patrol-Afghanistan-720x570.jpg)
-
Pakuni
Here is the lawsuit filed in Federal court.
http://www.anapolschwartz.com/pdfs/nfl-complaint.pdf
It's a fun read and I think you will find your answers throughout. It's amazing to me the extent Travellers, the players, etc go out of their way to highlight the various violence, marketing of violence, etc, going back to even the 1930's....amazing that the NFL knew it was a violent game and the players didn't. Odd. Strange. Or that equipment was mandated throughout the development of football because of injuries and the attempt to reduce them.
No one is suggesting CTE isn't real or isn't something important to be dealt with. Of course it is. My problem with all of this is that some of these players didn't know the risks everytime they went on the football field? BS. Ridiculous, but that is what their lawsuit states. It is preposterous. "I knew I could be paralyzed, I knew I could break my neck, I knew I could be killed but I chose to play anyway, but now I'm suing because I didn't know having to wear a football helmet and getting hit in the head repeatedly might lead to something else, so I'm going to sue despite warnings of head, neck, knee, etc injuries that have been warned about for decades."
If the NFL is smart along with Pop Warner, NCAA, etc, they will claim that football causes cancer, syphyllis, polio, lupus, hair loss, and every single medical condition known to man. Just put it all out there. You want to play, there is a risk. Don't like the risks, don't play.
When do baseball pitchers start suing because after 15 years and thousands of pitches thrown their arm doesn't work like it used to?
-
Pakuni
Here is the lawsuit filed in Federal court.
http://www.anapolschwartz.com/pdfs/nfl-complaint.pdf
It's a fun read and I think you will find your answers throughout. It's amazing to me the extent Travellers, the players, etc go out of their way to highlight the various violence, marketing of violence, etc, going back to even the 1930's....amazing that the NFL knew it was a violent game and the players didn't. Odd. Strange. Or that equipment was mandated throughout the development of football because of injuries and the attempt to reduce them.
No one is suggesting CTE isn't real or isn't something important to be dealt with. Of course it is. My problem with all of this is that someone these players didn't know the risks everytime they went on the football field. Ridiculous, but that is what their lawsuit states. It is preposterous.
When do baseball pitchers start suing because their after 15 years and thousands of pitches thrown their arm doesn't work like it used to?
Chico's ... one again, you're badly mischaracterizing the nature of the lawsuit and the players' claims. It's difficult - no, impossible - to have a serious discussion about the validity of the allegations with someone who refuses address the actual allegations, and instead makes up what he wants them to be so he can more easily refute them.
The irony here is, had you actually taken the time to read the lawsuit you linked, you would understand what the claims are.
-
Keefe/CBB
I agree with you about football and concussions. But it does not matter.
The long-knives are out for Football and they will not stop until they turn it into boxing (a sport that used to be far and away the most popular in the country and is not a minor sport because of its brutality.). I've argued that in 10 to 15 years football will be as popular as the MLB while on its way to boxing. I see no reason to change that view.
Think taobacco lawsuits. Those took decades and they were relentless until they hallowed out that industry. Same thing is happening with football. When they are done with the NFL, the lawsuits will turn to the NCAA and high school until they are gutted.
Years from now we'll look at the TV contract CBB noted above as the high water mark of Football's popularity.
I think you truly have no idea why boxing became what it became with your comments. No idea.
Pay Per View. Period. Throw in a hefty dose of corruption, lack of solid fighters in certain divisions (heavy weights mostly), etc. That will not happen with football.
Happy to take bets on this. You clearly do not understand the money involved in this. Just wait for a few announcements in the coming months and the length of the deals and the dollars involved and tell me again how football will be the same as boxing.
You are just wrong, there is no other way I can put it for you. Follow the money and it is ENORMOUS.
-
Happy to take bets on this. You clearly do not understand the money involved in this. Just wait for a few announcements in the coming months and the length of the deals and the dollars involved and tell me again how football will be the same as boxing.
You are just wrong, there is no other way I can put it for you. Follow the money and it is ENORMOUS.
While one of my rules is to always "follow the money", I think this may be the one exception to the rule. I think this is going to be a "public perception" issue first and foremost. Once enough of the public turns, no amount of money will matter.
Marc Trestman said the biggest difference he saw in the NFL after returning from Canada was the bulk of the current players. He saw a noticeable difference in size, speed, and strength over just the few years he was gone. I don't think the injury problem - mainly head injuries - is going to improve and THAT is the big issue.
We can look the other way for broken bones and torn ligaments, but when serious head injuries are involved, it will make a difference. It may play out over 10 -15 years, but it will happen.
-
I don't think the injury problem - mainly head injuries - is going to improve and THAT is the big issue.
We can look the other way for broken bones and torn ligaments, but when serious head injuries are involved, it will make a difference. It may play out over 10 -15 years, but it will happen.
Actually, I disagree. I think the head injury issue is going to improve in the years ahead, not get worse.
Steps being taken today - concussion protocols, baseline testing, serious penalties for blows to the head, reduction in the amount of contact allowed during practices - all are likely to reduce the amount of serious, and more importantly, repetitive/cumulative head injuries. A few decades ago, a guy who suffered a concussion was told "ya got yer bell rung, now get back out there," which, of course, led to more serious brain trauma. Now that same player is put on the shelf immediately and held out until post-concussion symptoms are gone.
Also, helmet technology will improve. Because it has to. As we all know, companies (i.e. the NFL and helmet makers like Ridell) only make safety improvements to their products when there is a financial incentive to do so. Well, now that incentive exists in the form of product liability.
-
Actually, I disagree. I think the head injury issue is going to improve in the years ahead, not get worse.
Steps being taken today - concussion protocols, baseline testing, serious penalties for blows to the head, reduction in the amount of contact allowed during practices - all are likely to reduce the amount of serious, and more importantly, repetitive/cumulative head injuries. A few decades ago, a guy who suffered a concussion was told "ya got yer bell rung, now get back out there," which, of course, led to more serious brain trauma. Now that same player is put on the shelf immediately and held out until post-concussion symptoms are gone.
Also, helmet technology will improve. Because it has to. As we all know, companies (i.e. the NFL and helmet makers like Ridell) only make safety improvements to their products when there is a financial incentive to do so. Well, now that incentive exists in the form of product liability.
The NFL is taking positive steps, but we aren't seeing the same thing in high school and college. They still want to hit every day.
It is not just the "big" hits that are the problem as much as the constant lesser blows to the head. I don't have numbers to back it up, but it seems as though there have been fewer long term head injuries to QBs and WRs - maybe because the QB is usually off limits in practice and WRs are also not involved in hard hitting nearly as often.
-
I'm not inferring that football will become like boxing. I think baseball would be a more apt comparison.
Still popular - but no longer the national pastime.
-
While one of my rules is to always "follow the money", I think this may be the one exception to the rule. I think this is going to be a "public perception" issue first and foremost. Once enough of the public turns, no amount of money will matter.
Marc Trestman said the biggest difference he saw in the NFL after returning from Canada was the bulk of the current players. He saw a noticeable difference in size, speed, and strength over just the few years he was gone. I don't think the injury problem - mainly head injuries - is going to improve and THAT is the big issue.
We can look the other way for broken bones and torn ligaments, but when serious head injuries are involved, it will make a difference. It may play out over 10 -15 years, but it will happen.
So what's the bet? You and Another....any other takers? Let's name the stakes.
-
Chico's ... one again, you're badly mischaracterizing the nature of the lawsuit and the players' claims. It's difficult - no, impossible - to have a serious discussion about the validity of the allegations with someone who refuses address the actual allegations, and instead makes up what he wants them to be so he can more easily refute them.
The irony here is, had you actually taken the time to read the lawsuit you linked, you would understand what the claims are.
I read it. I'm well aware of the allegations. I don't believe in them. Just as I don't believe in smokers getting a red cent if they started smoking in the last 30 years. Trust me, I get it just fine, I just find the allegations and arguments ridiculous.
-
The NFL is taking positive steps, but we aren't seeing the same thing in high school and college. They still want to hit every day.
It is not just the "big" hits that are the problem as much as the constant lesser blows to the head. I don't have numbers to back it up, but it seems as though there have been fewer long term head injuries to QBs and WRs - maybe because the QB is usually off limits in practice and WRs are also not involved in hard hitting nearly as often.
Bingo
This is why the NFL got off "easy" with $765 million. It is the constant pounding that is more damaging than the big hits. Nearly all NFL players had 8 years of banging heads (4 in HS, for in college) before they arrived. The league was not arguing that head trauma does not exist. They argued that most players are damaged goods when they arrive at their first NFL training camp. This severely weakened the case against the NFL which is why the players settled.
The lawyers went after the NFL first because they have money. When they are done with them, they are going after college and HS and will gut them before they are done.
The NFL will still exist but it will be like boxing, only performed by the poor and desperate for the enjoyment of the rich.
-
I read it. I'm well aware of the allegations. I don't believe in them. Just as I don't believe in smokers getting a red cent if they started smoking in the last 30 years. Trust me, I get it just fine, I just find the allegations and arguments ridiculous.
If you're well aware of the allegations, why is your recitation of them here (i.e. "We players never knew football was dangerous") so out of line with reality?
-
I'm not inferring that football will become like boxing. I think baseball would be a more apt comparison.
Still popular - but no longer the national pastime.
And what becomes the national pastime in its place? We subscribe to a number of data reports on popularity because we need to know where to invest. Here is one of them.
Pro Football is currently listed by 34% of the public as their favorite sport....more than twice that of baseball which is at 16%.
College football comes in at #3 at 11%, trailing only baseball and the NFL
When you combine college football and pro football, it is monstrous how big the lead is at 45% with the next closest at NBA and college hoops combined at 10%. MONSTROUS superiority. College hoops continues to decline in popularity.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris%20Poll%203%20-%20Favorite%20Sport_1.17.13.pdf
-
And what becomes the national pastime in its place? We subscribe to a number of data reports on popularity because we need to know where to invest. Here is one of them.
Pro Football is currently listed by 34% of the public as their favorite sport....more than twice that of baseball which is at 16%.
College football comes in at #3 at 11%, trailing only baseball and the NFL
When you combine college football and pro football, it is monstrous how big the lead is at 45% with the next closest at NBA and college hoops combined at 10%. MONSTROUS superiority. College hoops continues to decline in popularity.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris%20Poll%203%20-%20Favorite%20Sport_1.17.13.pdf
Current numbers aren't necessarily an indicator of future numbers. I would guess that if you looked back to the '50s, baseball would have had the huge advantage with boxing possibly ranking second.
-
Current numbers aren't necessarily an indicator of future numbers. I would guess that if you looked back to the '50s, baseball would have had the huge advantage with boxing possibly ranking second.
Yes, but boxing went to a PPV model, and the NFL is not going to do that.
Baseball is a boring game to many people, the NFL and college football are not.
Every model we have done, CBS, ESPN, NBC, etc....let's put it this way, we're not spending billions of dollars on a sport that isn't going to be king of the hill over the next 15 to 20 years. Some of these contracts already go into the 2020's.
-
If you're well aware of the allegations, why is your recitation of them here (i.e. "We players never knew football was dangerous") so out of line with reality?
Because some of their attorneys and their own comments are arguing just that. Not all of them, but enough to make one's head spin.
-
Current numbers aren't necessarily an indicator of future numbers. I would guess that if you looked back to the '50s, baseball would have had the huge advantage with boxing possibly ranking second.
The most popular sports in the 1950s
Baseball
Boxing
Horse Racing
Track & Field
Football
-
Bingo
This is why the NFL got off "easy" with $765 million. It is the constant pounding that is more damaging than the big hits. Nearly all NFL players had 8 years of banging heads (4 in HS, for in college) before they arrived. The league was not arguing that head trauma does not exist. They argued that most players are damaged goods when they arrive at their first NFL training camp. This severely weakened the case against the NFL which is why the players settled.
The lawyers went after the NFL first because they have money. When they are done with them, they are going after college and HS and will gut them before they are done.
The NFL will still exist but it will be like boxing, only performed by the poor and desperate for the enjoyment of the rich.
Again, I find some of these statements to be based on myth and not reality. I'm sure there are high schools that hit every day. Where I played, one of the best programs in the state of California and nationally ranked in the top 20 in the last 15 years, we hit ONE day a week. Many of our competitors did the same thing. This was 25 years ago. I don't think we were the exception.
When you get down to Pop Warner, if you have ever seen a game, the hits are so mild that it is extremely rare when something bad happens. Again, exceptions, of course, but they put the kids in weight divisions and it is often just a scrum of kids with no violent hits of any kind. I would guess heading the ball in soccer in AYSO or club at the level does every bit the damage at that level. Of course, today, the restrictions are even greater to point we are babying these kids to the nth degree. I mentioned what happened to one of my son's friends at our local high school. It was preposterous the overanalysis they did for a kid that never had a concussion.
-
Again, I find some of these statements to be based on myth and not reality. I'm sure there are high schools that hit every day. Where I played, one of the best programs in the state of California and nationally ranked in the top 20 in the last 15 years, we hit ONE day a week. Many of our competitors did the same thing. This was 25 years ago. I don't think we were the exception.
When you get down to Pop Warner, if you have ever seen a game, the hits are so mild that it is extremely rare when something bad happens. Again, exceptions, of course, but they put the kids in weight divisions and it is often just a scrum of kids with no violent hits of any kind. I would guess heading the ball in soccer in AYSO or club at the level does every bit the damage at that level. Of course, today, the restrictions are even greater to point we are babying these kids to the nth degree. I mentioned what happened to one of my son's friends at our local high school. It was preposterous the overanalysis they did for a kid that never had a concussion.
Watch this segment
http://www.hbo.com/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel/episodes#/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel/episodes/0/188-episode/video/188-concussions.html/eNrjcmbOYM5nLtQsy0xJzXfMS8ypLMlMds7PK0mtKFHPz0mBCQUkpqf6JeamcjIyskknlpbkF+QkVtqWFJWmsjGyMQIAWCcXOA==
It quotes high division 1 coaches (note the plural) arguing why it is necessary to hit everyday ... in 2013!!!
-
Yes, but boxing went to a PPV model, and the NFL is not going to do that.
Baseball is a boring game to many people, the NFL and college football are not.
Every model we have done, CBS, ESPN, NBC, etc....let's put it this way, we're not spending billions of dollars on a sport that isn't going to be king of the hill over the next 15 to 20 years. Some of these contracts already go into the 2020's.
So your contention is boxing's WORLDWIDE decline is due purely to PPV model and nothing to do with sport fans tastes moving away from brutality. Let me guess, you must work in the broadcasting industry because you seem to hammer every nail with the same hammer!
To further your argument, if boxing were to move to ESPN for, say a revival of the most popular TV show of the 1950s, Friday Night Fights, boxing would return to its former glory. Oh, wait, Friday Night Fights has returned to ESPN a few years ago so the PPV model is going away (save a few really big fights) and yet the sport is not really getting more popular.
-
The most popular sports in the 1950s
Baseball
Boxing
Horse Racing
Track & Field
Football
This may have been true in 1920s, but it's nowhere close to the case in the 1950s.
Gallup conducted polls in 1948 and 1961 asking people about their favorite spots to watch.
The results ('48, followed by '61):
Baseball - 39 percent/34 percent
Football - 17 percent/21 percent
Basketball - 10 percent/9 percent
Hockey - 3 percent/2 percent
Boxing - 2 percent/3 percent
Horse Racing, golf, swimming, skiing - 1 percent
http://www.mrpopculture.com/january-1-1961
So, it's pretty clear football had a firm grip on #2 through the entire 1950s (and eventually became #1 in the late 60s). Keep in mind, while the NFL wasn't nearly the monster in the 40s and 50s that it is today college football was hugely popular back then.
-
The lawyers went after the NFL first because they have money. When they are done with them, they are going after college and HS and will gut them before they are done.
No chance. In most states it's nearly impossible - in some states literally impossible - to sue a government entity like a school for negligence.
-
The most popular sports in the 1950s
Baseball
Boxing
Horse Racing
Track & Field
Football
As I said - things change.
And the one thing we know about the future is - things will change.
Will football keep it's current level of popularity? Despite Chicos telling us it will, none of us (including Chicos) know that answer
-
No chance. In most states it's nearly impossible - in some states literally impossible - to sue a government entity like a school for negligence.
While I see suits against schools at the high school level having no success, I find it nearly impossible for Universities to avoid lawsuits.
The Universities have pretty well established that they are acting in a commercial manner with the signing of large TV contracts. I can see that easily nullifying the government immunity.
-
The most popular sports in the 1950s
Baseball
Boxing
Horse Racing
Track & Field
Football
Football is the perfect television sport. It thrives in a world of technology. Horse racing and track & Field do not. Boxing chose their own death (and even so, they are still making a lot of money on some PPV). Baseball is a respectable second.
You need a sport with action, intensity, high speed, and a defined window of time (baseball doesn't have it). Football has all of those. It is also a minimal commitment of one game a week, usually on the weekend. It is the most enlightened sports model and nothing else really comes close, especially in the media age.
Of your list from the 1950's, only two are still around and one of them is very much in the lead. I'd love to see what is going to supplant it....nothing that is out there today. Maybe a new sport comes along, but
-
Football is the perfect television sport.
You need a sport with action, intensity, high speed, and a defined window of time (baseball doesn't have it). Football has all of those. It is also a minimal commitment of one game a week, usually on the weekend. It is the most enlightened sports model and nothing else really comes close, especially in the media age.
I don't think any of us are arguing these points. But, I'm guessing that when the Romans went to the coliseum, they figured that what they were seeing would never be outdone either.
-
I don't think any of us are arguing these points. But, I'm guessing that when the Romans went to the coliseum, they figured that what they were seeing would never be outdone either.
The more things change the more they stay the same. There is no mistaking the lineage of today's brutal sports. A veneer of civilization is all that prevents the thumb's down verdict.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Jean-Leon_Gerome_Pollice_Verso.jpg)
(http://cdn2.cagepotato.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/48304.jpg)
-
As I said - things change.
And the one thing we know about the future is - things will change.
Will football keep it's current level of popularity? Despite Chicos telling us it will, none of us (including Chicos) know that answer
You are correct, none of us know for certain. We don't know if the sun will explode in the next 12 hours, but I'm going to bet my life that there will be a tomorrow. Billions of dollars in play here, and the bet is on football being king of the hill for a long time to come.
I'm following the money, especially since some of it is ours and we try not to make dumb bets. That and the fact there is nothing lying in waiting to challenge it. Absolutely nothing.
-
You are correct, none of us know for certain. We don't know if the sun will explode in the next 12 hours, but I'm going to bet my life that there will be a tomorrow. Billions of dollars in play here, and the bet is on football being king of the hill for a long time to come.
I'm following the money, especially since some of it is ours and we try not to make dumb bets. That and the fact there is nothing lying in waiting to challenge it. Absolutely nothing.
The highlighted part is what the tobacco industry supports said. How did that work out?
-
The highlighted part is what the tobacco industry supports said. How did that work out?
Your analogy continues to come up short.
What's the bet? I plan on being around in 10 or 15 years...I don't smoke, I'm betting the sun does stick around and despite playing football (and knowing the risks) I'm doing ok.
-
I'd love to see what is going to supplant it....nothing that is out there today. Maybe a new sport comes along, but
So why does anything have to replace football? Why can't we have 12 or 14 sports all getting 2 to 4 interest?
The internet fractionalizes everything. Look at music, more people are listening to music than ever. But today instead of a few radio stations (taking payola) and spinning Beatles tunes all day, we now have literally have dozens and dozens of genres. I would argue their is almost nothing that could be called "popular music" anymore. Sure they are radio stations that play what they think is popular music. But far more people are devising their own narrowly focused radio stations on things like Pandora and Spotify.
Ditto TV. I would argue the best TV shows ever produced are in the last five years and almost none of them are on traditional networks. Now, thanks to Netflix, they are not even on TV!
So, why not have the same kind of thing happen in sports. Fractionalize it to death!
-
Your analogy continues to come up short.
What's the bet? I plan on being around in 10 or 15 years...I don't smoke, I'm betting the sun does stick around and despite playing football (and knowing the risks) I'm doing ok.
I'll take the bet ... in 10 to 15 years the popularity of Football is lower than today.
-
I plan on being around in 10 or 15 years...I don't smoke
Dumb decision. I am taking up the habit so I can sue RJR and Philip Morris and get my lottery prize.
-
I hate the phrase "follow the money." Monied interests will do all they can to keep the money rolling in. So if there's enough of it, they can influence media, government, "research" or studies or what have you. They will do everything within their power to keep hold of the streams of income almost at a complete disregard for anything else - as long as they are turning a profit.
Do I know if football will be as popular in 20 years? No. But people who have it in their best interest to keep football popular will do everything within their power to make sure it is regardless of public opinion, player health, etc, etc.
-
So why does anything have to replace football? Why can't we have 12 or 14 sports all getting 2 to 4 interest?
The internet fractionalizes everything. Look at music, more people are listening to music than ever. But today instead of a few radio stations (taking payola) and spinning Beatles tunes all day, we now have literally have dozens and dozens of genres. I would argue their is almost nothing that could be called "popular music" anymore. Sure they are radio stations that play what they think is popular music. But far more people are devising their own narrowly focused radio stations on things like Pandora and Spotify.
Ditto TV. I would argue the best TV shows ever produced are in the last five years and almost none of them are on traditional networks. Now, thanks to Netflix, they are not even on TV!
So, why not have the same kind of thing happen in sports. Fractionalize it to death!
Many of them, actually aren't on Netflix. That's what troubles me about your comparisons, they seem to be missing some of the facts. What is a "traditional" network...an over the air network? That might be how you define it, but that's not how the industry defines them. Follow the money. Same thing goes with football. Those shows on AMC, A&E, etc...follow the money. Let's not forget some of those same experts predicted television would be gone by now. ::) And oh, by the way, Netflix and others are making so little money right now they can't afford to get into the sports game. It is basically non fractionalized for a reason. Could it change? Yes. Will the players that are spending so much money allow it to change without a massive fight? You decide.
Now back to football, isn't your comment and whole premise that football will no longer be the national past time? What is replacing it? Or are you saying we will just have a bunch of sports all with mild appeal? Or will all boats rise and baseball, hoops, etc will catch up with it? Maybe I'm not understanding your comments or Brand's, but I keep hearing you guys say how football will be diminished. OK. Diminished to what? From the 800lb gorilla to the 799lb gorilla or to a 100lb gorilla? Put some context behind it.
What I'm saying is that 15 years from now, despite gloom and doom predictions here and concussion studies and mommies not letting their sons play football...I'm saying football will be the #1 sport in the United States of America and without compare...15 years from now. It will not be close. Happy to hear your take.
-
I'll take the bet ... in 10 to 15 years the popularity of Football is lower than today.
That's a far cry from what you've been saying. You make it sound like it will be on the dustbin of history with some of this stuff.
I wouldn't be surprised if the popularity is lower than today, the question is in comparison to what? Will it not still be the most popular sport in the US, garnering the biggest ratings, etc? I say without a doubt.
-
I hate the phrase "follow the money." Monied interests will do all they can to keep the money rolling in. So if there's enough of it, they can influence media, government, "research" or studies or what have you. They will do everything within their power to keep hold of the streams of income almost at a complete disregard for anything else - as long as they are turning a profit.
Do I know if football will be as popular in 20 years? No. But people who have it in their best interest to keep football popular will do everything within their power to make sure it is regardless of public opinion, player health, etc, etc.
Ah....a smart man. Very good. You may not like the phrase, but its the phrase that pays. I'm not nearly as cynical as you are, the popularity will be there because it is popular. Regardless of the money, the public isn't stupid. Having said that, the money that flows will definitely mean the promotion, the windowing, etc, will be dedicated to making sure it has the best chance of success.
-
You realize that just because your company gave out bloated long-term contracts to the NFL that it in no way guarantees the NFL's popularity right? Logical fallacy. There's such a thing as a bad investment. You say follow the money, yet you rag on Netflix. NFLX up 350% in the last year. Over the same time period, DTV is up 23%, lagging the S&P by over 100 bps. Looks like the popular long-term bet is on Netflix. Follow the money, right?
-
Regardless of the money, the public isn't stupid.
Actually, you point out rather frequently how stupid you think they are.
-
Actually, you point out rather frequently how stupid you think they are.
Home run.
-
How can anyone seriously sit down and watch the garbage that is a modern NFL television production? I realize that I am four standard deviations outside of the norm on football, but between hyper commercialization, the obsessive over-celebration, the length of time between plays or actions... I just find it incredibly boring. I can't see how even longer commercial breaks are going to help sell the product.
PS - Let me point out that I love watching baseball on television, so it isn't an all sports or a professional sports problem, at least for me.
-
How can anyone seriously sit down and watch the garbage that is a modern NFL television production? I realize that I am four standard deviations outside of the norm on football, but between hyper commercialization, the obsessive over-celebration, the length of time between plays or actions... I just find it incredibly boring. I can't see how even longer commercial breaks are going to help sell the product.
PS - Let me point out that I love watching baseball on television, so it isn't an all sports or a professional sports problem, at least for me.
Baseball is arguably the slowest sport on television.
The NFL doesn't need help selling the product - The product has been sold, and now it's all about maximizing revenues.
-
What's interesting about all this concusion talk is how the rule changes in the NFL are going to change the way people play the game and the way the game is taught... and while the perspective might be that this is making the game safer... it really might just be displacing the pain. Look at Brandon Merriweather's comments following his one game suspension for hitting too high:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9...n-marshall-vows-target-opposing-players-knees
"I guess I just got to take people's knees out," Meriweather said Monday morning in the Redskins' locker room. "That's the only way. I would hate to end a guy's career over a rule, but I guess it's better other people than me getting suspended for longer.
"You just have to go low now, man. You've got to end people's careers. You got to tear people's ACLs and mess up people's knees. You can't hit them high anymore."
So, whether he is correct or not in saying that and taking that attitude... that is what's going theough the head of the NFL defender. It's no wonder that we see many more ACL/MCL tears/sprains now than ever before.
-
What's interesting about all this concusion talk is how the rule changes in the NFL are going to change the way people play the game and the way the game is taught... and while the perspective might be that this is making the game safer... it really might just be displacing the pain. Look at Brandon Merriweather's comments following his one game suspension for hitting too high:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9...n-marshall-vows-target-opposing-players-knees
"I guess I just got to take people's knees out," Meriweather said Monday morning in the Redskins' locker room. "That's the only way. I would hate to end a guy's career over a rule, but I guess it's better other people than me getting suspended for longer.
"You just have to go low now, man. You've got to end people's careers. You got to tear people's ACLs and mess up people's knees. You can't hit them high anymore."
So, whether he is correct or not in saying that and taking that attitude... that is what's going theough the head of the NFL defender. It's no wonder that we see many more ACL/MCL tears/sprains now than ever before.
Meriweather is an idiot who presenting a false choice, i.e. either he has to use his helmet as a weapon aimed at another player's head, or he has to intentionally try to take out knees. These, obviously, are not the only options, and I doubt Meriweather - a guy with a history of head shots and other transgressions - is a fair representation of your average NFL defender.
-
Many of them, actually aren't on Netflix. That's what troubles me about your comparisons, they seem to be missing some of the facts. What is a "traditional" network...an over the air network? That might be how you define it, but that's not how the industry defines them. Follow the money. Same thing goes with football. Those shows on AMC, A&E, etc...follow the money. Let's not forget some of those same experts predicted television would be gone by now. ::) And oh, by the way, Netflix and others are making so little money right now they can't afford to get into the sports game. It is basically non fractionalized for a reason. Could it change? Yes. Will the players that are spending so much money allow it to change without a massive fight? You decide.
You miss the point. NetFlix produces its own shows (i.e., House of Cards, Arrested Development) and distributes it over the internet. We don't need DTV or Comcast anymore to watch high quality dramas. You can do that over the internet now.
I read the NFL is close to signing a deal with Google to stream games live (presumably using YouTube as Google owns it). If that happens, you do not need DTV or Comcast to watch live sports anymore.
Here in Chicago Gigabit service is starting to become available for residences. That is 1,000 MPS.
In a few years the world will have one big fat pipe of broadband for everything. And once we are off the cable and satellite with those kinds of speeds, we will effectively have tens of thousands networks streaming live content and original dramas, on the 60'inch flat screen in 1080p in the living room without interruptions because of slow download speeds. It will fractionalize the sports business like music and TV now.
So, who replaces the NFL in 15 years? Maybe I will be watching the Girls High School Cross Country network because my daughter is a runner. Maybe I watch college tennis, or Indian Cricket, MU basketball, Junior cycling, Big Ten Soccer, MLB and on and on. In this world, which does not exist now but is coming in a few years, I'm not forced to watch only what DTV and Comcast feed me. I can pick from an endless supply of sports content based on my individual interests,
I make more time for these sports by watching less NFL. And when I do watch NFL and see a guy strapped to a backboard getting carried off the field, and Brett Favre forgetting his name and drooling on himself (see any current interview of John Mackey) I'll remind myself why it is not fun to watch people destroy their lives and why kids that come from families of means will view playing football as the equivalent to boxing.
That is my view of what is coming. This world has less room for football. Having this concussion argument just reminds me that I want to get away from the status quo.
-
Football is the perfect television sport. It thrives in a world of technology. Horse racing and track & Field do not. Boxing chose their own death (and even so, they are still making a lot of money on some PPV). Baseball is a respectable second.
You need a sport with action, intensity, high speed, and a defined window of time (baseball doesn't have it). Football has all of those. It is also a minimal commitment of one game a week, usually on the weekend. It is the most enlightened sports model and nothing else really comes close, especially in the media age.
Of your list from the 1950's, only two are still around and one of them is very much in the lead. I'd love to see what is going to supplant it....nothing that is out there today. Maybe a new sport comes along, but
I tend to disagree. There are moments in a baseball game that are intense with action and high speed. Nothing more exciting than an in the park home run or a player stealing home from 3rd base or witnessing a perfectly pitched game. Yeah the game can be dull at times but so is football. Out of the 60 minutes they play you actually see about 20 minutes of action; most of the game they're in the huddle. Now basketball is all action except when they're shooting free throws and even they can be nail biters.
-
Real Sports also did a show linking head and spinal injuries to Lou Gehrig's disease. They also reported that the incidence for former NFL players was higher than the general population. They also noted that Gehrig got beaned 8 times in the head during his playing career.
-
I tend to disagree. There are moments in a baseball game that are intense with action and high speed. Nothing more exciting than an in the park home run
Which rarely happen (fewer than 20 times per season, on average)
or a player stealing home from 3rd base
Which happens even less often (nine times in all of 2012). Of the 36 attempts, 18 were the result of botched squeeze plays and 14 the result of double steals. The pure attempt the steal home happens almost never.
or witnessing a perfectly pitched game.
Which has happened 21 times in 133 years.
I have no issue with someone saying they prefer baseball to football, but you're reasoning here is akin to someone saying "I love football because there's nothing quite like a perfectly execute game-winning Hail Mary." I mean, yeah, these things happen, but they're far from routine parts of the game.
-
What is a "traditional" network...an over the air network? That might be how you define it, but that's not how the industry defines them. Follow the money. Same thing goes with football. Those shows on AMC, A&E, etc...follow the money. Let's not forget some of those same experts predicted television would be gone by now. ::) And oh, by the way, Netflix and others are making so little money right now they can't afford to get into the sports game. It is basically non fractionalized for a reason. Could it change? Yes. Will the players that are spending so much money allow it to change without a massive fight? You decide.
Netflix's third-quarter earnings quadrupled from last year as its tally of U.S. streaming-video customers hit 31 million.
-
and here comes the high school problems...
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9902116/report-details-concussion-risks-high-school-athletes
-
and here comes the high school problems...
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9902116/report-details-concussion-risks-high-school-athletes
Not too surprising considering the equipment and coaching in HS.
-
Not too surprising considering the equipment and coaching in HS.
If anything, these numbers show the risk of concussion is really limited ... and that football isn't significantly more likely to cause a concussion than sports like lacrosse, wrestling, soccer or field hockey, and none of them are likely to cause a concussion ever.
The numbers show that for every practice or game, a high school football, players runs a .1 percent chance of suffering a concussion. Or, one concussion for every 1.1 concussions for every 1,000 games/practices. Them's pretty slim odds.
-
and here comes the high school problems...
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9902116/report-details-concussion-risks-high-school-athletes
How many misdiagnosis, like the one I mentioned last month with the kid on my son's team, labeled as a concussion, kept out of multiple games, all practices, etc. Guess what, NEVER had a concussion. NEVER. Totally wrong diagnosis, but people bending over backward to be Chicken Littles in the training, educational world that couldn't wait to go there. Frustrating for the young guy and his parents. He was perfectly fine. Had to get two outside doctors not affiliated with the school district to get cleared. It was beyond ridiculous what they had to go through.
So say the data is right, and no misdiagnosis ever happen ( ::) ), why aren't we getting all bent on women's soccer? Softball? Volleyball? Wrestling? LaCrosse? Etc. Why are the ladies having more concussions then the dudes? Why is the emphasis only on football? Shouldn't EVERY concussion matter? Men's basketball should have to start wearing helmets soon?
-
If anything, these numbers show the risk of concussion is really limited ... and that football isn't significantly more likely to cause a concussion than sports like lacrosse, wrestling, soccer or field hockey, and none of them are likely to cause a concussion ever.
The numbers show that for every practice or game, a high school football, players runs a .1 percent chance of suffering a concussion. Or, one concussion for every 1.1 concussions for every 1,000 games/practices. Them's pretty slim odds.
While the focus by many is on concussions, it's the repeated sub-concussive level shots to the head that are just as bad. Linemen who have never suffered a concussion but make head to head contact nearly every play from scrimmage are at just as great a risk of CTE.
-
You miss the point. NetFlix produces its own shows (i.e., House of Cards, Arrested Development) and distributes it over the internet. We don't need DTV or Comcast anymore to watch high quality dramas. You can do that over the internet now.
I read the NFL is close to signing a deal with Google to stream games live (presumably using YouTube as Google owns it). If that happens, you do not need DTV or Comcast to watch live sports anymore.
Oh, believe me I'm quite aware of it. There is a reason why Netflix refuses to release the ratings for those shows, because no one watches them. We have 4 former Netflix employees in our group. Yup, you can get them, but no one is watching.
And you read an article that NFL is close to signing a deal with Google...you did, huh. ;)
-
I tend to disagree. There are moments in a baseball game that are intense with action and high speed. Nothing more exciting than an in the park home run or a player stealing home from 3rd base or witnessing a perfectly pitched game. Yeah the game can be dull at times but so is football. Out of the 60 minutes they play you actually see about 20 minutes of action; most of the game they're in the huddle. Now basketball is all action except when they're shooting free throws and even they can be nail biters.
I'm a huge baseball fan, worked for the Angels for awhile. I'm just going off the demos of what fans are saying.
-
Netflix's third-quarter earnings quadrupled from last year as its tally of U.S. streaming-video customers hit 31 million.
Yup, they earned $32 million on $1.11billion in revenue. OUCH. When you only made $7.7M on over $1 billion last quarter (think about how small that is), then quadrupling it isn't saying much. Margins about the size of a gnat's testicles. That would be like a guy going 1-4 in free throws to start the season and the next day he goes 3 for 4 and improves his free throw percentage by double.
And right around the corner, more than $5 billion in liabilities about to hit them. A profit margin of under 3% or the quarter...but I will give them this, in Q1 of '12 they actually had negative profit margin. Of course from '09 to '11 they had about 8.5% profit margin quarterly. The last seven quarters, a profit margin of 1.11%. Yikes. That is not good.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303902404579149883903402974
-
Yup, they earned $32 million on $1.11billion in revenue. OUCH. When you only made $7.7M on over $1 billion last quarter (think about how small that is), then quadrupling it isn't saying much. Margins about the size of a gnat's testicles. That would be like a guy going 1-4 in free throws to start the season and the next day he goes 3 for 4 and improves his free throw percentage by double.
And right around the corner, more than $5 billion in liabilities about to hit them. A profit margin of under 3% or the quarter...but I will give them this, in Q1 of '12 they actually had negative profit margin. Of course from '09 to '11 they had about 8.5% profit margin quarterly. The last seven quarters, a profit margin of 1.11%. Yikes. That is not good.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303902404579149883903402974
Reminds of the statistics of the "experts" who predicted a follow-up market crash in '11, '12, and '13.
Obviously, when a company puts out a huge amount of cash to improve their product, it will have a short-term negative impact.
-
Reminds of the statistics of the "experts" who predicted a follow-up market crash in '11, '12, and '13.
Obviously, when a company puts out a huge amount of cash to improve their product, it will have a short-term negative impact.
A bit more complicated than that. Their COGS is about 72% of their revenue and it's going to increase exponentially in the next few years. That trend line is not good (nor is it good for anyone in the video space). It is not merely a matter of capital expense to improve their product, they have huge cost implications on the content they are buying and developing. A big price increase to their customers is coming one way or another (big in terms of %). Last time they took it up they had a near meltdown from all the folks that expect the world to run on pixie dust (aka, many of their subscribers). Content isn't cheap, and they are learning that just like everyone else.
-
Here is the bet ...
you go short NFLX
I will go short the NFL ratings.
We'll check back in 10 to 15 years and see how we did.
-
And you read an article that NFL is close to signing a deal with Google...you did, huh. ;)
http://www.deadline.com/2013/10/could-netflix-or-google-land-nfl-games/
-
Oh, believe me I'm quite aware of it. There is a reason why Netflix refuses to release the ratings for those shows, because no one watches them. We have 4 former Netflix employees in our group. Yup, you can get them, but no one is watching.
Netflix poised to pass HBO in paid U.S. subscribers as House of Cards, other original shows spur growth
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/21/netflix-q3-2013-subscribers/?__lsa=8546-f2d6
Isn't paid subscribers the only thing that really matters?
-
Netflix poised to pass HBO in paid U.S. subscribers as House of Cards, other original shows spur growth
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/21/netflix-q3-2013-subscribers/?__lsa=8546-f2d6
Isn't paid subscribers the only thing that really matters?
Uhm, no.
Is Motel 6 better than the Ritz Carlton? Motel 6 has more customers (i.e. subscribers).
Netflix is half the price of HBO, of course they will get more subscribers eventually, but what do they do with them? Netflix charges $8 but their COGS is about $6.50....so they get $32 million in profit on $1.1 billion in revenue. Ouch. HBO (part of Time Warner) accounts for about $1.8 billion in PROFIT (not revenues) annually for Time Warner. Ironically enough, they take in about $8 of the $16 average price point out there charged by cable and satellite systems.
So who's $8 has been leveraged better? Don't get me wrong, I'm a Netflix investor even if I don't believe in the fundamentals right now. Irrational exuberance is sometimes the vehicle you ride. I think they will continue to grow, I just know what is ahead of them, big price increases, churn, etc. Doesn't mean they can't do well, they will, but they will have plenty of bumps as a result because their customer base is so used to paying next to nothing for content. Those days are coming to an end.
Good article on what's going on with them.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/peterlauria/the-netflix-conundrum
-
Uhm, no.
Is Motel 6 better than the Ritz Carlton? Motel 6 has more customers (i.e. subscribers).
Netflix is half the price of HBO, of course they will get more subscribers eventually, but what do they do with them? Netflix charges $8 but their COGS is about $6.50....so they get $32 million in profit on $1.1 billion in revenue. Ouch. HBO (part of Time Warner) accounts for about $1.8 billion in PROFIT (not revenues) annually for Time Warner. Ironically enough, they take in about $8 of the $16 average price point out there charged by cable and satellite systems.
So who's $8 has been leveraged better? Don't get me wrong, I'm a Netflix investor even if I don't believe in the fundamentals right now. Irrational exuberance is sometimes the vehicle you ride. I think they will continue to grow, I just know what is ahead of them, big price increases, churn, etc. Doesn't mean they can't do well, they will, but they will have plenty of bumps as a result because their customer base is so used to paying next to nothing for content. Those days are coming to an end.
Good article on what's going on with them.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/peterlauria/the-netflix-conundrum
Uh, Total NOPBT for TWX Films, TV Entertainment was $1.2B last year so the other IBU's in that P&L lost a sh1t load of money...
-
Uh, Total NOPBT for TWX Films, TV Entertainment was $1.2B last year so the other IBU's in that P&L lost a sh1t load of money...
HBO is a huge piece of the pie for TWX, but so is Turner. Not sure what numbers you are using, but in 2012 they brought in about $29 billion in revenues and nearly $13 billion in gross profits. Their EBITDA was about $8 billion.
-
HBO is a huge piece of the pie for TWX, but so is Turner. Not sure what numbers you are using, but in 2012 they brought in about $29 billion in revenues and nearly $13 billion in gross profits. Their EBITDA was about $8 billion.
2012 TWX Consolidated Film, TV Entertainment
Rev $28,729MM $12,018MM
EBITDA $ 5,918 $ 1,228
2012 Gross Earnings were $5,918MM, far short of $13B. My source is the TWX Annual Report
-
Me too, now. I got the $13B EBITDA off of Yahoo or Bloomberg. http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Time-Warner-Inc/Valuation/EV-to-EBITDA
You sure your $5.9B isn't EBIT, not EBITDA? That's what it looks like to me.
At any rate,
HBO and Turner combined for $14B in revenue and $4.7B in operating income. Those are not part of the film and tv entertainment group. That may be where the disconnect is.
You are correct that the TV Entertainment and Films group is $12B and only $1.2B in operating income. This is stuff like Warner Bros.
Page 25
Maybe we are saying the same thing, HBO and Turner drive the train mostly. Warner Bros and the other stuff is crap....not much profit there as you have illustrated.
-
Me too, now. I got the $13B EBITDA off of Yahoo or Bloomberg. http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Time-Warner-Inc/Valuation/EV-to-EBITDA
You sure your $5.9B isn't EBIT, not EBITDA? That's what it looks like to me.
At any rate,
HBO and Turner combined for $14B in revenue and $4.7B in operating income. Those are not part of the film and tv entertainment group. That may be where the disconnect is.
You are correct that the TV Entertainment and Films group is $12B and only $1.2B in operating income. This is stuff like Warner Bros.
Page 25
Maybe we are saying the same thing, HBO and Turner drive the train mostly. Warner Bros and the other stuff is crap....not much profit there as you have illustrated.
I am looking at the report in my Berkshire Hathaway portfolio. If I add back in some fairly aggressive one-times I can get to $6.8B. In any event, I thought HBO was in Film and Entertainment. If HBO is in "Networks" here is what Mr Buffet tells us about that TWX line of business:
Rev $14,204MM
EBITDA $ 5,236MM
Clearly significantly better margins than Film/Entertainment. It makes sense that Networks drives the TWX Earnings train so we are in agreement on the actual question. 37% flow through is fairly robust - in the same range as the cell carriers. Problem for TWC is that all the other operating units are a drag on earnings and corporate overheads seem a bit high.
-
http://www.deadline.com/2013/10/could-netflix-or-google-land-nfl-games/
Well aware of what "has been considered". Here's the problem, they can't do it today. The infrastructure isn't there.
You may want to read the article that came out the very next day
http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/google-addresses-nfl-youtube-tv-deal-rumor-1200735354/
Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft, also killed the idea again a few days ago publicly. Everything I'm saying is in the public domain. It's one thing to have streaming of movies on Netflix or Youtube where the load balance is distributed as such that not everyone is hitting on one event. Quite a different thing when you're talking about hitting one program at the same time.
Look for Google, etc, to get involved in enhancing the experience, not delivering broadcasts...if I were to guess.
-
In a related note, remember months ago when Intel was going to launch a tv service. Looks like they are backing out, just like Apple did. Very difficult business to get into.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/30/us-intel-verizon-idUSBRE99T0RN20131030
-
Follow the $$$......
Majority Of NFL TV Partners Seeing Gains Through Week 8; ESPN Off Slightly
Published November 1, 2013
A majority of NFL TV partners are seeing audience gains for game coverage through the halfway point of the season. NBC’s games have averaged a 13.1 rating and 22.1 million viewers, marking the best average for an NFL primetime package through eight weeks in 17 years -- dating back to 23.9 million viewers in ’96 for ABC’s “MNF” coverage. “SNF” continues to be the most-watched primetime show on all of TV. The net was able to benefit from having one less day of MLB competition this year. Week 7’s Broncos-Colts game had no MLB game up against it, while last year’s Week 7 game (Steelers-Bengals) had NLCS Game 6. “SNF” also has now topped World Series Game 4s three times in four years. Meanwhile, ESPN is the only NFL TV partner seeing a decline this season to date. “MNF” games are averaging an 8.3 rating and 13.1 million viewers, off 1% for both metrics from ’12. NFL Network is maintaining its record-breaking audience figures through the first half of the season (excludes the special Sunday night game on Oct. 6). The net’s 4.6 rating and 7.3 million viewers is on pace to supplant last season’s record-setting averages.
AFTERNOON DELIGHT: Fox is averaging a 12.5 rating and 20.9 million viewers for its Sunday afternoon telecasts, putting the net on pace for its best NFL season on record. The net’s audience is up 23% from five years ago, up 26% from 10 years ago and up 29% from 15 years ago. CBS also is seeing gains for NFL coverage. The 10.7 rating and 17.6 million viewers mark CBS' second-best audience through eight weeks since the NFL returned to the net in '98 (behind only '10).
-
The plot thickens...
http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=9931754
-
The plot thickens...
http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=9931754
Yes....it does...though you rarely hear about this....
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/does-cte-brain-disease-found-nfl-players-really-exist
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809542
-
Yes....it does...though you rarely hear about this....
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/does-cte-brain-disease-found-nfl-players-really-exist
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809542
It wasn't that long ago that there was a cadre of smoking-danger deniers, including Mds and medical 'researchers' arguing that the connection to cancer wasn't proven; that the dangers of second hand smoke were unsubstantiated; and that anti-smoking activists were trying to destroy legitimate family farms and jobs.
Not much different here. Christopher Randolph is on record saying that he does not believe in CTE - hence it would follow that his bias may (and I say may) influence his studies.
-
It wasn't that long ago that there was a cadre of smoking-danger deniers, including Mds and medical 'researchers' arguing that the connection to cancer wasn't proven; that the dangers of second hand smoke were unsubstantiated; and that anti-smoking activists were trying to destroy legitimate family farms and jobs.
Not much different here. Christopher Randolph is on record saying that he does not believe in CTE - hence it would follow that his bias may (and I say may) influence his studies.
Yup, just as there have been plenty over the years that made medical linkages that turned out to be entirely false. Remember how breast implants would cause cancer. Oops. Not true, but that was all the rage in the media, etc for a number of years. So it goes both ways.
I think the most important part of the data is that there isn't much difference between CTE in football population and the general population. That is what I mentioned many months ago. What is the incrementality by playing football? How many people get it anyway? A lot of people can't wait to blame something, cash in, etc, when they were going to get something anyway. People get lung cancer that never smoke a day in their lives. There are people that smoke very little and get lung cancer and will blame it on smoking, but were they predisposed to get it anyway? How many other things did these guys with CTE do that could have also contributed?
Those are all fair questions, but I think a lot of people just want a real easy answer, all wrapped up in a bow.
-
I'd add this....
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/10/fear-of-cte-may-be-unnecessarily-freaking-out-football-players/
Dr. McCarthy points out that, regardless of whether football players are determined to have CTE, the connection to concussions still has not been established by the scientific community: “At the 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport . . . world experts gathered to discuss the state of head-trauma science. At the end of the conference, a consensus statement was released that said the following: ‘A cause and effect relationship has not as yet been demonstrated between CTE and concussions or exposure to contact sports.’
“The statement runs counter to almost everything you have read about CTE, but it received virtually no media attention in the United States when it was released,” Dr. McCarthy explains. “In part, that’s because it speaks to the far higher burden of proof in the scientific community than the one in the public consciousness. But that’s the point. The popular consensus has far outstripped the science.”
-
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365113186/
Start watching at the 44:30 mark for the portion on concussions... though the whole program was pretty neat.
-
Saw it, curious why the story didn't address the scientific community consensus. Imagine, for a second, if a global warming story didn't bring up the scientific consensus...interesting. :o
-
sorry, not taking that bait.
-
Hopefully we will have enough doctors in the future to treat all of this stuff, not looking promising though not that it wasn't warned it would happen. It's going to be awesome.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-04/lifestyle/sns-rt-us-doctor-demand-20131104_1_more-primary-care-providers-health-insurance-reuters-health
-
Hopefully we will have enough doctors in the future to treat all of this stuff, not looking promising though not that it wasn't warned it would happen. It's going to be awesome.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-04/lifestyle/sns-rt-us-doctor-demand-20131104_1_more-primary-care-providers-health-insurance-reuters-health
That either. Mind staying on topic?
-
A lot of people can't wait to blame something, cash in, etc, when they were going to get something anyway. People get lung cancer that never smoke a day in their lives. There are people that smoke very little and get lung cancer and will blame it on smoking, but were they predisposed to get it anyway? How many other things did these guys with CTE do that could have also contributed?
Those are all fair questions, but I think a lot of people just want a real easy answer, all wrapped up in a bow.
Some people (probably most people) who smoke don't get lung cancer. Some people who don't smoke do. Some people who are morbidly obese live long lives. Some people who are in terrific physical shape die young while exercising. Exceptions to every rule. You want to throw common sense out the window and hope you'll be one of the exceptions? Fine. Sit on your ass, smoke a couple of packs a day and feed your face constantly. Good luck with that. And every couple of hours, drag your butt off the couch and bang your head against the wall for a minute or two. Since there's no definitive scientific evidence that it's harmful, why not?
-
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365113186/
Start watching at the 44:30 mark for the portion on concussions... though the whole program was pretty neat.
My bad...I thought you were referencing the PBS League of Denial video. My apologies.
I had an issue with that PBS production on League of Denial because it didn't address what the medical community is saying as a consensus about CTE, etc, yet when it suits them (PBS) they will go to the scientific "consensus" on other issues. Seems a bit skewed, or lacking if it were.
I went to your video attached, actually had seen this one as well.
-
That either. Mind staying on topic?
It's on topic....all these injuries....who is going to take care of them with the impending doctor shortage that we are willfully creating in this country? Definitely on topic.
-
Some people (probably most people) who smoke don't get lung cancer. Some people who don't smoke do. Some people who are morbidly obese live long lives. Some people who are in terrific physical shape die young while exercising. Exceptions to every rule. You want to throw common sense out the window and hope you'll be one of the exceptions? Fine. Sit on your ass, smoke a couple of packs a day and feed your face constantly. Good luck with that. And every couple of hours, drag your butt off the couch and bang your head against the wall for a minute or two. Since there's no definitive scientific evidence that it's harmful, why not?
You can argue that about everything. Drink too much Coca-Cola, die. Did you know you can die by drinking too much water? Everything has risks, everything. And here's the money shot....WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
All of us, every single one of us. We are going to die of something. Not if, but when.
But people want to assign blame to something, despite the fact we are all going to die. Now, of course if you are injecting poisons into your body, you elevate that risk. Same with your smoking example, or drinking, or jumping out of airplanes for a living. The risks go up. My problem with a lot of this stuff is how many of these folks were going to get that disease anyway? How many smokers were going to get lung cancer regardless if they smoked....yet the blame is all on the tobacco industry?
Just wait until companies like HP, Samsung, Dell, etc are sued into oblivion because of "damage" caused by computer monitors. Think I am joking, it's on the way. At the end of the day, you need an entity with big pockets, a lot of lawyers and the magic begins.
-
It's on topic....all these injuries....who is going to take care of them with the impending doctor shortage that we are willfully creating in this country? Definitely on topic.
Support your midlevel providers and advocate for legislation supporting them.
Sincerely,
Current PA student
-
Doesn't have to be football. Larry Sanders can start off a concussion just by crackin' champagne bottles off some ass whole in bar fight.
-
All of this is irrelevant. Just follow the $$$. Chicos' company gave a bloated long-term contract to the NFL, ergo fan interest can never wane and CTE is a myth.
-
It's on topic....all these injuries....who is going to take care of them with the impending doctor shortage that we are willfully creating in this country? Definitely on topic.
Will you just stop? Seriously this is just another talking point that is wrapped in language an political bullsh*t, when in truth it is much more nuanced.
**The shortage of primary care physicians existed prior to ACA - simply put primary care is not a very lucrative field that has been beaten to death by insurance companies for years.
**This shortage is going to be exacerbated because more people will have insurance and will therefore be going to the doctor. I'm not sure that is a bad thing. People should go to the doctor.
It would be like going back to 1910 and proclaiming that we should stop manufacturing cars because we are creating a shortage of mechanics.
-
You can argue that about everything. Drink too much Coca-Cola, die. Did you know you can die by drinking too much water? Everything has risks, everything. And here's the money shot....WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
All of us, every single one of us. We are going to die of something. Not if, but when.
But people want to assign blame to something, despite the fact we are all going to die. Now, of course if you are injecting poisons into your body, you elevate that risk. Same with your smoking example, or drinking, or jumping out of airplanes for a living. The risks go up. My problem with a lot of this stuff is how many of these folks were going to get that disease anyway? How many smokers were going to get lung cancer regardless if they smoked....yet the blame is all on the tobacco industry?
Just wait until companies like HP, Samsung, Dell, etc are sued into oblivion because of "damage" caused by computer monitors. Think I am joking, it's on the way. At the end of the day, you need an entity with big pockets, a lot of lawyers and the magic begins.
In " Physics of the future". Kaku says we may actually be the last generation to die
-
Support your midlevel providers and advocate for legislation supporting them.
Sincerely,
Current PA student
I'd love to. Unfortunately some of our docs are retiring early, they aren't hanging around for the nonsense. They aren't alone. Maybe we can have nurses do the concussion tests moving forward since they have recently been granted the ability to do all kinds of other stuff that used to be doctor certified.
-
I'd love to. Unfortunately some of our docs are retiring early, they aren't hanging around for the nonsense. They aren't alone. Maybe we can have nurses do the concussion tests moving forward since they have recently been granted the ability to do all kinds of other stuff that used to be doctor certified.
IMO, most of those docs not "hanging around for the nonsense", are getting out because they aren't going to see the financial gains they thought they would. IMO, again, healthcare providers have been making too much for far too long - a lot of people went to med school simply for the money and not because of the care they wanted to provide. The world they knew is coming crashing down. And it should. Physicians didn't originate as a wealthy profession; those aren't the roots.
*If you're going to say physicians need to get paid to cover the expenses required to become MDs, that's a whole separate discussion about tuition, lawsuits, etc.
-
Some people (probably most people) who smoke don't get lung cancer. Some people who don't smoke do. Some people who are morbidly obese live long lives. Some people who are in terrific physical shape die young while exercising. Exceptions to every rule. You want to throw common sense out the window and hope you'll be one of the exceptions? Fine. Sit on your ass, smoke a couple of packs a day and feed your face constantly. Good luck with that. And every couple of hours, drag your butt off the couch and bang your head against the wall for a minute or two. Since there's no definitive scientific evidence that it's harmful, why not?
+1
-
It's on topic....all these injuries....who is going to take care of them with the impending doctor shortage that we are willfully creating in this country? Definitely on topic.
Oops off topic again.
If we were only willing to let more sick people die, doctors would have more free time to treat patients ::)
-
Oops off topic again.
If we were only willing to let more sick people die, doctors would have more free time to treat patients ::)
Back on topic - I take the work of scientists who have studied CTE for decades in both boxers and football players over one guy from Loyola (funded by Big Pharma) who did one study.
-
Back on topic - I take the work of scientists who have studied CTE for decades in both boxers and football players over one guy from Loyola (funded by Big Pharma) who did one study.
Actually, it's not one guy as I have provided a few other articles. I also provided the response from the International Conference on Concussion in Sport.
More research is needed, in the meantime it's always good to have a deep pocketed someone to blame for the lawyers and others to try to milk $$ from. It's America Baby.
Let's not forget that CTE cannot be diagnosed until death with a full cross section of the brain. It's interesting to me how these CTE diagnosis are happening on live people now. Someday they may be able to and work is progressing to get there, but they cannot today. ::)
-
My problem with a lot of this stuff is how many of these folks were going to get that disease anyway? How many smokers were going to get lung cancer regardless if they smoked....yet the blame is all on the tobacco.
How many? Not many. Only about 20% of the people in this country smoke, but more than 80% of those who get lung cancer do. Lung cancer is the most deadly AND most preventable disease out there.
-
I'd add this....
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/10/fear-of-cte-may-be-unnecessarily-freaking-out-football-players/
Dr. McCarthy points out that, regardless of whether football players are determined to have CTE, the connection to concussions still has not been established by the scientific community: “At the 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport . . . world experts gathered to discuss the state of head-trauma science. At the end of the conference, a consensus statement was released that said the following: ‘A cause and effect relationship has not as yet been demonstrated between CTE and concussions or exposure to contact sports.’
“The statement runs counter to almost everything you have read about CTE, but it received virtually no media attention in the United States when it was released,” Dr. McCarthy explains. “In part, that’s because it speaks to the far higher burden of proof in the scientific community than the one in the public consciousness. But that’s the point. The popular consensus has far outstripped the science.”
So until recently we have not been able to image Tau fibrils within the brain of living individuals. Thus it is impossible to make a cause and effect relationship, as you would require images before and after participation in contact sports. For that matter a cause and effect relationship will never be constructed, because of the impossibility of the task...there is no definitive experiment to prove cause and effect.
That is far from there being no definitive proof that concussions and contact sports lead to brain trauma and degenerative brain diseases. There is sound evidence to support that. Further, there is sound evidence that the presence of Tau fibrils is associated with neurodegenerative disorders. The new experiments show a higher incidence of tau fibrils in athletes exposed to head trauma. The correlation is statistically relevant indicating that concussions and contact sports lead to tau fibrils and thus neurodegenerative disorders, but cause and effect can not be shown.
Your quote from a conference consensus is really not relevant as few things have been shown to have a definitive cause and effect relationship in medicine/biology, the systems are just too complex to control all variables besides the inducing event.
-
How many? Not many. Only about 20% of the people in this country smoke, but more than 80% of those who get lung cancer do. Lung cancer is the most deadly AND most preventable disease out there.
I thought it was Syphilis...just keep your johnson in your pants and it is 100% preventable.
-
So until recently we have not been able to image Tau fibrils within the brain of living individuals. Thus it is impossible to make a cause and effect relationship, as you would require images before and after participation in contact sports. For that matter a cause and effect relationship will never be constructed, because of the impossibility of the task...there is no definitive experiment to prove cause and effect.
That is far from there being no definitive proof that concussions and contact sports lead to brain trauma and degenerative brain diseases. There is sound evidence to support that. Further, there is sound evidence that the presence of Tau fibrils is associated with neurodegenerative disorders. The new experiments show a higher incidence of tau fibrils in athletes exposed to head trauma. The correlation is statistically relevant indicating that concussions and contact sports lead to tau fibrils and thus neurodegenerative disorders, but cause and effect can not be shown.
Your quote from a conference consensus is really not relevant as few things have been shown to have a definitive cause and effect relationship in medicine/biology, the systems are just too complex to control all variables besides the inducing event.
Source? The latest study, in fact, shows no statistically significant difference between the athlete population and the general population. That may change, but that is the situation right now.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on the other stuff, but merely pointing out that more research needs to be done and the scientific community is going to require a bit more evidence than our wonderful media types and many of the chicken littles out there....thankfully. The scientific community isn't there on this issue yet.
Oh, and WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
I'm sure you would also agree, then, that since CTE cannot be tested in a living human being a story like this from CBS (the headline) is just poor journalism and a lot of less educated people will just believe it to be true.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57611388/cte-diagnosed-in-hall-of-famer-tony-dorsett-two-other-living-nfl-players-report/
-
Source? The latest study, in fact, shows no statistically significant difference between the athlete population and the general population. That may change, but that is the situation right now.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on the other stuff, but merely pointing out that more research needs to be done and the scientific community is going to require a bit more evidence than our wonderful media types and many of the chicken littles out there....thankfully. The scientific community isn't there on this issue yet.
Oh, and WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
I'm sure you would also agree, then, that since CTE cannot be tested in a living human being a story like this from CBS (the headline) is just poor journalism and a lot of less educated people will just believe it to be true.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57611388/cte-diagnosed-in-hall-of-famer-tony-dorsett-two-other-living-nfl-players-report/
You really like to play fast and loose with the facts, don't you? Scientific consensus isn't established at 100%. Just ask any scientist.
-
IMO, most of those docs not "hanging around for the nonsense", are getting out because they aren't going to see the financial gains they thought they would. IMO, again, healthcare providers have been making too much for far too long - a lot of people went to med school simply for the money and not because of the care they wanted to provide. The world they knew is coming crashing down. And it should. Physicians didn't originate as a wealthy profession; those aren't the roots.
*If you're going to say physicians need to get paid to cover the expenses required to become MDs, that's a whole separate discussion about tuition, lawsuits, etc.
Yup, a lot did go for the money. So as make it less and less of a desired job, where are the smart and talented people going to go....medicine? LOL.
Nothing like lowering the standard of care across the board. What a deal. Our race to the bottom in some of the things we do is awesome.
-
Will you just stop? Seriously this is just another talking point that is wrapped in language an political bullsh*t, when in truth it is much more nuanced.
**The shortage of primary care physicians existed prior to ACA - simply put primary care is not a very lucrative field that has been beaten to death by insurance companies for years.
**This shortage is going to be exacerbated because more people will have insurance and will therefore be going to the doctor. I'm not sure that is a bad thing. People should go to the doctor.
It would be like going back to 1910 and proclaiming that we should stop manufacturing cars because we are creating a shortage of mechanics.
Yes, the shortage started many years ago because of other wonderful decisions we made. That doesn't mean we aren't putting in on the fast track now, because we certainly are. Sorry, I'm bias as I have way too many doctors in the family so I get to hear their points of view. Guilty as charged. My wife's father I assure you is doing backflips in his grave right now (received his med degree from Marquette).
-
Yup, a lot did go for the money. So as make it less and less of a desired job, where are the smart and talented people going to go....medicine? LOL.
Nothing like lowering the standard of care across the board. What a deal. Our race to the bottom in some of the things we do is awesome.
And all this after we just worked so hard to make teaching a more desirable job :o
-
Government subsidized health care is the norm in nearly every other industrialized nation on the planet. They still have people becoming doctors. This is a change, adjustments will be made. Just like the NFL has had to adjust to not leading with the helmet, hitting defenseless receivers, cutting down on hitting in practice......you know, stuff to cut down on concussions.... it will get figured out. Like not using the arm bar or putting two hands on the dribbler. It is a change and it will take some time to figure out. So it is with any change. There will still be doctors in a generation and there will still be sports injuries in a generation and there will still be people complaining in a generation.
-
I thought it was Syphilis...just keep your johnson in your pants and it is 100% preventable.
Most preventable disease that's almost 100% lethal. Make jokes if you wish, but smoking kills a boatload of people. Brushing it off by saying that the smokers who die of lung cancer might have gotten it even if they didn't smoke so you can't blame it on cigarettes is a specious argument that would make even a tobacco lobbyist cringe.
I hate how litigious our society is. That said, when you knowingly produce a physically addictive product (and lie about it) and it turns out that said product kills people by the millions, don't you think those companies should have some liability?
-
Most preventable disease that's almost 100% lethal. Make jokes if you wish, but smoking kills a boatload of people. Brushing it off by saying that the smokers who die of lung cancer might have gotten it even if they didn't smoke so you can't blame it on cigarettes is a specious argument that would make even a tobacco lobbyist cringe.
I hate how litigious our society is. That said, when you knowingly produce a physically addictive product (and lie about it) and it turns out that said product kills people by the millions, don't you think those companies should have some liability?
Let me answer for him.
No. Because there is a chance that these people were predisposed to get lung cancer anyway.
EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE
/micdrop
-
I'm hearing directly from doctors, not politicians....the actual people in the trenches that have to provide the services. It's going to be SO AWESOME in the coming decade. Just wait until next year when the employ mandate kicks in. Millions of people ticked off now because they have been dropped, you haven't seen anything yet. It will be on steroids next year. Not that we weren't warned time and time again.
-
So, you're hearin' from those money hungry sumbitches, hey?
-
I'm hearing directly from doctors, not politicians....the actual people in the trenches that have to provide the services. It's going to be SO AWESOME in the coming decade. Just wait until next year when the employ mandate kicks in. Millions of people ticked off now because they have been dropped, you haven't seen anything yet. It will be on steroids next year. Not that we weren't warned time and time again.
People are dropped EVERY year. Prices rise EVERY year.
Yes - I think it will be So AWESOME.
-
I'm hearing directly from doctors, not politicians....the actual people in the trenches that have to provide the services. It's going to be SO AWESOME in the coming decade. Just wait until next year when the employ mandate kicks in. Millions of people ticked off now because they have been dropped, you haven't seen anything yet. It will be on steroids next year. Not that we weren't warned time and time again.
If you can't afford healthcare, you shouldn't have it. Get rid of all government handouts - SS, Unemployment, Welfare, Food stamps, etc, etc. People will stop being lazy. Unemployment will decrease. The country will flourish. Let the private corporations take over. Give us freedoms. The government shouldn't be interfering with our lives as much (except women's healthcare). If people get left behind, so be it - only the strong/rich survive. /teal
I love biased rants. Let's do it again sometime.
The whole of the argument is so much more complicated than any one piece of legislature or tax or whatever.
-
Inchin' toward the intended outcome------single payer system.
-
Source? The latest study, in fact, shows no statistically significant difference between the athlete population and the general population. That may change, but that is the situation right now.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on the other stuff, but merely pointing out that more research needs to be done and the scientific community is going to require a bit more evidence than our wonderful media types and many of the chicken littles out there....thankfully. The scientific community isn't there on this issue yet.
Oh, and WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.
I'm sure you would also agree, then, that since CTE cannot be tested in a living human being a story like this from CBS (the headline) is just poor journalism and a lot of less educated people will just believe it to be true.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57611388/cte-diagnosed-in-hall-of-famer-tony-dorsett-two-other-living-nfl-players-report/
Bringing this slightly back to the origin topic.
CTE can be tested in living people now...its just a very recent development and they conducted that test on Tony Dorsett and confirmed he does have CTE (aka accumulation of tau fibrils). So the CBS headline is absolutely not poor journalism.
What I was indicating is that there is consensus amongst scientists/health professionals that repeated head trauma/concussions leads to neurodegenerative conditions. No additional studies really necessary for this.
Further there is consensus that accumulation of tau fibrils correlates with neurodegenerative conditions. Until recently, they couldn't correlate the cause of these tau fibrils to concussions/head trauma. It will still be difficult to do that experiment (not possible to have proper controls). Rather there will be a statistical correlation, not a true cause and effect determination.
Regardless, this does not detract from the well documented studies demonstrating that repeated head trauma/concussions does lead to neurodegenerative conditions.
An unanswered question is whether the tau fibrils themselves are the cause of the neuodegenerative diseases or whether a precursor state (that is not imageable) is responsible for the neurological impairment (similar to the case with beta amyloid aggregation).
Fortunately, the scientists will answer these questions and will continue to ignore McCarthy as he has 0 credibility.
-
(http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_1411/14116955/suzuki-kizashi-bubble-wrap-suit-600-12426.jpg)
-
Also, I read the article where the "consensus statement" was placed, and the point they are illustrating is not that CTE isn't caused by contact sports, rather that the appropriate double blind study (that would take 30-50 years to complete) hasn't been completed yet. Rather the concept is based on 90 years of studies demonstrating that repeated head trauma leads to CTE.
It was meant to be interpreted by scientists, who would rationalize it correctly.
Some of the contributors to that statement have came out and said that the reports that they are saying that CTE isn't related to contact sports is absurd as they are some of the leading experts saying that CTE is caused by contact sports.
-
I've always kinda wondered, since I don't follow the sports, how do Australian rules football, rugby, etc compare to the NFL in terms of injuries, especially head injuries? They basically don't wear pads right?
-
Bringing this slightly back to the origin topic.
CTE can be tested in living people now...its just a very recent development and they conducted that test on Tony Dorsett and confirmed he does have CTE (aka accumulation of tau fibrils). So the CBS headline is absolutely not poor journalism.
What I was indicating is that there is consensus amongst scientists/health professionals that repeated head trauma/concussions leads to neurodegenerative conditions. No additional studies really necessary for this.
Further there is consensus that accumulation of tau fibrils correlates with neurodegenerative conditions. Until recently, they couldn't correlate the cause of these tau fibrils to concussions/head trauma. It will still be difficult to do that experiment (not possible to have proper controls). Rather there will be a statistical correlation, not a true cause and effect determination.
Regardless, this does not detract from the well documented studies demonstrating that repeated head trauma/concussions does lead to neurodegenerative conditions.
An unanswered question is whether the tau fibrils themselves are the cause of the neuodegenerative diseases or whether a precursor state (that is not imageable) is responsible for the neurological impairment (similar to the case with beta amyloid aggregation).
Fortunately, the scientists will answer these questions and will continue to ignore McCarthy as he has 0 credibility.
Not yet. UCLA has developed a test that identifies SOME CTE traits in the living, but it does not fully replicate the CTE post mortem test. Not yet, anyway. UCLA acknowledges this and one of the push backs from other doctors, researchers is that the traits it does identify are also present in other brain disorders that are not CTE.
"CTE is the degenerative brain disease linked to concussions and repetitive brain trauma and thought to be incredibly common among former football players. Currently, it can only be fully diagnosed postmortem, but it has been found in more than 50 deceased professional football players. As the PBS Frontline documentary League of Denial chronicled, CTE was at the center of the National Football League’s denial of the dangers of concussions, as the league tried to cover up the links between brain trauma suffered on the football field and problems, including dementia, memory loss, depression, and suicidal thoughts, that CTE can cause. Dr. Bennet Omalu, one of the researchers who first identified CTE and was subsequently silenced by the NFL, is among the doctors involved in UCLA’s testing.
It still isn’t possible to diagnose CTE in living players, but researchers involved in the project told ESPN that identifying signs could help both in developing a live diagnosis and in figuring out how to treat, manage, and possibly cure the disease. It could also help answer one of the key questions about CTE and football: exactly how prevalent is the disease in former players?
-
Not yet. UCLA has developed a test that identifies SOME CTE traits in the living, but it does not fully replicate the CTE post mortem test. Not yet, anyway. UCLA acknowledges this and one of the push backs from other doctors, researchers is that the traits it does identify are also present in other brain disorders that are not CTE.
"CTE is the degenerative brain disease linked to concussions and repetitive brain trauma and thought to be incredibly common among former football players. Currently, it can only be fully diagnosed postmortem, but it has been found in more than 50 deceased professional football players. As the PBS Frontline documentary League of Denial chronicled, CTE was at the center of the National Football League’s denial of the dangers of concussions, as the league tried to cover up the links between brain trauma suffered on the football field and problems, including dementia, memory loss, depression, and suicidal thoughts, that CTE can cause. Dr. Bennet Omalu, one of the researchers who first identified CTE and was subsequently silenced by the NFL, is among the doctors involved in UCLA’s testing.
It still isn’t possible to diagnose CTE in living players, but researchers involved in the project told ESPN that identifying signs could help both in developing a live diagnosis and in figuring out how to treat, manage, and possibly cure the disease. It could also help answer one of the key questions about CTE and football: exactly how prevalent is the disease in former players?
The new imaging technique can identify tau aggregation in the brains of living individuals. That correlated with cognitive impairment in my mind and many scientists/doctors is a diagnosis. The authors are going to take the cautious approach and say it is not possible yet...why?
Because the only accepted diagnosis is to analyze the brains of dead individuals to confirm the presence of abnormal tau plaques. Unless Dorsett or others that have undergone the new UCLA test want to allow themselves to be autopsied to confirm that the buildup observed in the imaging approach correlate well with those in autopsies in humans, then it will not be confirmed as a "diagnostic tool."
As for the traits being observed in other illnesses besides CTE...you are correct, because CTE is specific to the same type of neurodegenerative process with the caveat of being caused by repeated head trauma.
-
Face it Chico, your company threw a fat pile of cash at a long-term loser.
-
I'm hearing directly from doctors, not politicians....the actual people in the trenches that have to provide the services. It's going to be SO AWESOME in the coming decade. Just wait until next year when the employ mandate kicks in. Millions of people ticked off now because they have been dropped, you haven't seen anything yet. It will be on steroids next year. Not that we weren't warned time and time again.
Anecdotal evidence from a handful of personal associates is always the best evidence.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
-
Anecdotal evidence from a handful of personal associates is always the best evidence.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Precisely how you and a handful of like-minded cronies pile on here against anyone with a contrary position. Pardon the pun but, "Physician, heal thyself!"
-
Anecdotal evidence from a handful of personal associates is always the best evidence.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
I admitted my bias, try it yourself. By the way, it's not just anecdotal. It's funny seeing how many doctors are against this (cue the but but but the AMA supported it....LOL).
You haven't seen anything yet with this thing. Wait until the 3 month payment grace period actually starts to trigger and the doctors and insurance companies have to pay for all the deadbeats...that's right...what do you think happens then...section 156.270..that's what happens on a 11,000 page bill is passed with no one knowing what is in it.
The best line I have heard from doctors. "If you need to pass it to see what's in it we call that a STOOL SAMPLE". Never has something so proper ever been said.
-
nm
-
Yo, this country's gone to hell in a hand basket.
-
I admitted my bias, try it yourself. By the way, it's not just anecdotal. It's funny seeing how many doctors are against this (cue the but but but the AMA supported it....LOL).
So the largest doctors' association supports it, but you know doctors who oppose it, ergo, your opinion is right?
Got it.
What is my bias, by the way? I haven't said anything pro or con the ACA. I'm just poking fun at the notion that your chats with a handful of self-selected doctors means Armageddon is just around the corner.
-
It's going to be A W E S O M E
-
So the largest doctors' association supports it, but you know doctors who oppose it, ergo, your opinion is right?
Got it.
What is my bias, by the way? I haven't said anything pro or con the ACA. I'm just poking fun at the notion that your chats with a handful of self-selected doctors means Armageddon is just around the corner.
So you are dismissive of intel from troops in the trenches? Before an AFSOC team goes behind the lines it is provided reams of imint, sigint, and elint from NSA, CIA and the respective service intel communities. But no team ever goes outside the wire without finding every swinging dick who has been in your oparea recently so you can pick his brain for every possible piece of information that will not just help you kill tangos but will keep your men safe.
There is nothing trivial about first hand evidence. Overhead imagery and Predator feeds are great but I place greater value on the word of the Ranger or Seal who has crawled on those rocks. The AMA might endorse something but its perspective is materially different from the doctor providing primary care.
-
So you are dismissive of intel from troops in the trenches? Before an AFSOC team goes behind the lines it is provided reams of imint, sigint, and elint from NSA, CIA and the respective service intel communities. But no team ever goes outside the wire without finding every swinging dick who has been in your oparea recently so you can pick his brain for every possible piece of information that will not just help you kill tangos but will keep your men safe.
There is nothing trivial about first hand evidence. Overhead imagery and Predator feeds are great but I place greater value on the word of the Ranger or Seal who has crawled on those rocks. The AMA might endorse something but its perspective is materially different from the doctor providing primary care.
Ok. I've spoken to many doctors, nurses and midlevel providers who all think that this will provide many with the healthcare they lacked in the past. So now what?
-
Who, in this country, lacked access to healthcare?
-
I admitted my bias, try it yourself. By the way, it's not just anecdotal. It's funny seeing how many doctors are against this (cue the but but but the AMA supported it....LOL).
You haven't seen anything yet with this thing. Wait until the 3 month payment grace period actually starts to trigger and the doctors and insurance companies have to pay for all the deadbeats...that's right...what do you think happens then...section 156.270..that's what happens on a 11,000 page bill is passed with no one knowing what is in it.
The best line I have heard from doctors. "If you need to pass it to see what's in it we call that a STOOL SAMPLE". Never has something so proper ever been said.
Does it really matter? Really, I mean we are ALL going to die.
-
Who, in this country, lacked access to healthcare?
Those who couldnt afford to go to a primary care provider due to lack of insurance. Forced instead to use ERs or other methods that were worse for their long-term health.
-
Who, in this country, lacked access to healthcare?
I have lost count of the number of injured people who have told me that they can't go to the hospital, that they don't have any insurance, despite the stab wound, gunshot hole, clearly broken bone. Young people, who didn't think they needed it, didn't have it provided for their part-time job, etc. The emergency room visit for a genuine injury, sans insurance, is a bankruptcy causer.
-
Ok. I've spoken to many doctors, nurses and midlevel providers who all think that this will provide many with the healthcare they lacked in the past. So now what?
Read what I wrote. I am not taking sides in the ACA debate. I am saying that one must always listen to people who work with something on a daily basis. There is no substitute for personal insight. So the experience and comments of your health care contacts are as valid as those Chico cited.
There are people here who demand conformity to their position and are dismissive of other viewpoints. I am amazed at the closed-mindedness of so many here. I cannot understand how discourse is transfigured into a contest of will. Perhaps lives devoid of substance must find fulfillment in the mundane? Regardless, the inability to listen is execrable. Fr. Davitt who find it loathsome.
-
Read what I wrote. I am not taking sides in the ACA debate. I am saying that one must always listen to people who work with something on a daily basis. There is no substitute for personal insight. So the experience and comments of your health care contacts are as valid as those Chico cited.
There are people here who demand conformity to their position and are dismissive of other viewpoints. I am amazed at the closed-mindedness of so many here. I cannot understand how discourse is transfigured into a contest of will. Perhaps lives devoid of substance must find fulfillment in the mundane? Regardless, the inability to listen is execrable. Fr. Davitt who find it loathsome.
fair enough. Appreciate the viewpoint.
-
I can say with 100% certainty, based on discussions with ER docs, that no one is denied care at either Children's or Froedtert emergency rooms. This includes those who come in for upset stomachs, dandruff, worts, hangovers, or other nonsense that taxes the system.
-
Who, in this country, lacked access to healthcare?
No one, Doc. One of my sisters and her husband are physicians. And every 4 years they take 6 weeks off from their practices and provide primary care for patients in the developing world through Médecins Sans Frontières. Their assignments have included work in Chad, Somalia, Nepal and Rwanda. People there truly lack access to health care.
My daughter is working on a grad degree in Public Health at Harvard. She worked clean water issues at the Gates Foundation. She has dealt with people in Swaziland, Darfur, and the Congo who have zero access to health care.
I have been trained as a field medic and our teams have provided immunizations for people in Afghanistan. Those people have no access to health care.
There is no issue with the quality of health care in America. And everyone has access. The issue is in the ease of access. And everyone knows how you improve your ease of access. Study. Work hard. And understand the mechanisms that improve your access. It is that elementary.
-
Solid and spot on.
-
Who, in this country, lacked access to healthcare?
Nobody, but this whole thing is going to be A W E S O M E.
The race to the bottom is the awesomeness thing ever
-
Can anyone go to the ER? Sure. But that's not good for the economy/cost, which is what the argument here started about. As a provider, my bigger problem is that these people are missing out on much more preventative care and long-term term health improvemnt, as opposed to reactive care.
-
No one, Doc. One of my sisters and her husband are physicians. And every 4 years they take 6 weeks off from their practices and provide primary care for patients in the developing world through Médecins Sans Frontières. Their assignments have included work in Chad, Somalia, Nepal and Rwanda. People there truly lack access to health care.
My daughter is working on a grad degree in Public Health at Harvard. She worked clean water issues at the Gates Foundation. She has dealt with people in Swaziland, Darfur, and the Congo who have zero access to health care.
I have been trained as a field medic and our teams have provided immunizations for people in Afghanistan. Those people have no access to health care.
There is no issue with the quality of health care in America. And everyone has access. The issue is in the ease of access. And everyone knows how you improve your ease of access. Study. Work hard. And understand the mechanisms that improve your access. It is that elementary.
If that is the standard we are shooting for, no one is going to lack access to healthcare even after ACA.
-
Nobody, but this whole thing is going to be A W E S O M E.
The race to the bottom is the awesomeness thing ever
Of course the real issue isn't access to health care. The issue is how much that health care costs....and access to health insurance to help mitigate those costs.
-
Can anyone go to the ER? Sure. But that's not good for the economy/cost, which is what the argument here started about. As a provider, my bigger problem is that these people are missing out on much more preventative care and long-term term health improvemnt, as opposed to reactive care.
[/quot
If you think goin' to the ER is bad for the nation's economy, I can't begin to explain the tailspin the ACA with lay on this country. It'll make the typhoon that blasted the Philippines look like a calm drizzle.
-
Read what I wrote. I am not taking sides in the ACA debate. I am saying that one must always listen to people who work with something on a daily basis. There is no substitute for personal insight. So the experience and comments of your health care contacts are as valid as those Chico cited.
There are people here who demand conformity to their position and are dismissive of other viewpoints. I am amazed at the closed-mindedness of so many here. I cannot understand how discourse is transfigured into a contest of will. Perhaps lives devoid of substance must find fulfillment in the mundane? Regardless, the inability to listen is execrable. Fr. Davitt who find it loathsome.
I seldom agree with your viewpoint, but this is very well written. We must look at all sides, and give every issue the common-sense first approach.
-
So you are dismissive of intel from troops in the trenches? Before an AFSOC team goes behind the lines it is provided reams of imint, sigint, and elint from NSA, CIA and the respective service intel communities. But no team ever goes outside the wire without finding every swinging dick who has been in your oparea recently so you can pick his brain for every possible piece of information that will not just help you kill tangos but will keep your men safe.
There is nothing trivial about first hand evidence. Overhead imagery and Predator feeds are great but I place greater value on the word of the Ranger or Seal who has crawled on those rocks. The AMA might endorse something but its perspective is materially different from the doctor providing primary care.
Who exactly do you think makes up the AMA? (hint: doctors, many of whom provide primary care).
And, of course, it's not just the AMA that supports it. So does the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American College of Cardiology.
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2010/02/organized-medicine-on-hcr-updated-again.html
They may be right or wrong about what outcomes the ACA will bring. I have no idea, nor have I said one word in favor or in opposition to the Act. I lack both Chico's crystal ball and proclivity for schadenfreude. But it's sheer lunacy to suggest that the handful of doctors Chicos says he's spoken with are a better representation of the medical community's take in the issue than the organizations that represent hundreds of thousands of physicians. And, of course, I'm sure there's zero chance of confirmation bias entering the equation here when Chico's reports what he's heard.
As for your "troops in the trenches" analogy, would you really self-select a few soldiers and claim they speak for the entire corps? Cause that's pretty much Chico's position here.
-
I seldom agree with your viewpoint, but this is very well written. We must look at all sides, and give every issue the common-sense first approach.
+1. All too frequently, it becomes a power struggle. And common sense is rarely used.
-
I can say with 100% certainty, based on discussions with ER docs, that no one is denied care at either Children's or Froedtert emergency rooms. This includes those who come in for upset stomachs, dandruff, worts, hangovers, or other nonsense that taxes the system.
100% correct, because by law they could not prevent it. 100% access has always been there.
-
100% correct, because by law they could not prevent it. 100% access has always been there.
Of course it is.
Problem is, providing care that way costs us (we the insured, who pick up the tab for the uninsured) huge amounts of money.
The national average cost of an ER visit = $383.
The national average cost of a doctor's office visit = $60.
Call me crazy, but isn't it the economically wise thing to do here to find a way to get those people to the doctor's office (when it makes sense medically, of course) rather than the ER?
-
So the largest doctors' association supports it, but you know doctors who oppose it, ergo, your opinion is right?
Got it.
What is my bias, by the way? I haven't said anything pro or con the ACA. I'm just poking fun at the notion that your chats with a handful of self-selected doctors means Armageddon is just around the corner.
Uhm, an ORGANIZATION supports it, not the MEMBERSHIP. This isn't hard.
Over 70% oppose it in one survey, 64% in another. Over 15,000 physicians asked. Just because an organization endorses it, doesn't mean the membership does. It is far easier to get a few people to support something than the actual people that are involved. This has been going on for years.
You, of all people, know this.
-
No one, Doc. One of my sisters and her husband are physicians. And every 4 years they take 6 weeks off from their practices and provide primary care for patients in the developing world through Médecins Sans Frontières. Their assignments have included work in Chad, Somalia, Nepal and Rwanda. People there truly lack access to health care.
My daughter is working on a grad degree in Public Health at Harvard. She worked clean water issues at the Gates Foundation. She has dealt with people in Swaziland, Darfur, and the Congo who have zero access to health care.
I have been trained as a field medic and our teams have provided immunizations for people in Afghanistan. Those people have no access to health care.
There is no issue with the quality of health care in America. And everyone has access. The issue is in the ease of access. And everyone knows how you improve your ease of access. Study. Work hard. And understand the mechanisms that improve your access. It is that elementary.
Keefe, you made a great comment on listening and getting first hand information. You might be wise to take some of your own advice here. The poor neighborhoods of the US are full of people that studied and worked hard, but could not escape their lot in life because of inequality in opportunity. These people do not have affordable access to health care.
-
Of course it is.
Problem is, providing care that way costs us (we the insured, who pick up the tab for the uninsured) huge amounts of money.
The national average cost of an ER visit = $383.
The national average cost of a doctor's office visit = $60.
Call me crazy, but isn't it the economically wise thing to do here to find a way to get those people to the doctor's office (when it makes sense medically, of course) rather than the ER?
No one cares to address this because it makes way too much sense. Tow the line.
-
Uhm, an ORGANIZATION supports it, not the MEMBERSHIP. This isn't hard.
Over 70% oppose it in one survey, 64% in another. Over 15,000 physicians asked. Just because an organization endorses it, doesn't mean the membership does. It is far easier to get a few people to support something than the actual people that are involved. This has been going on for years.
You, of all people, know this.
Links, please.
-
17% of American doctors belong to AMA (21% of that group are Med students). In the 1970's, it was 75%.
Definitely an organization that represents the field. LOL
-
Links, please.
Here you go
http://www.jacksoncoker.com/Promos/internal/Surveys/AMA/images/JC-AMA-SurveyFullPresentation.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcsiegel/2012/04/15/obamacares-horseless-chariot/
http://www.thedoctors.com/ecm/groups/public/@tdc/@web/documents/web_content/con_id_004676.pdf
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_lshc_PhysicianPerspectives_121211.pdf
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/16831-survey-ny-doctors-adamantly-oppose-obamacare