What healthcare reform means for you as a skier?

Your definitions are right of course but having several part of the economy, healthcare, military and such run by the government doesn't make a country socialist. Now if you weren't implying this, my mistake, I misread you. Then you agree that Obama isn't even as close as a socialist ?

Here's the official list of current socialist countries:

- China

- Cuba

- North Korea

- Laos

- Vietnam

As for your time in western Europe, I just think you're a bit selfish in the way you think... But whatever.
 
Its a pretty true statement. If you ski, you have excess cash to pay for rides to and from the mountain, at minimum $500 of gear, plus whatever the pass may cost... you can certainly ski bum it, but most of NS doesnt live that lifestyle. Skiing and Snowboarding are recreational sports for the rich.
 
I will agree that is defiantly not a "poor" sport but im sick of ns thinking that everyone is rich and spoiled. 1st statement we have a local shuttle that takes you up and down the mountain for free. Majority of my gear was handed down to me by my dad or hooked up by a friend who won something in a comp. The pass 400 dollars isnt to bad considering how much i use it.
 
The bill of course has both good and bad..no one can deny that. The reason many people are complaining about the bill is the method used to pass it into law. Ill keep it simple: Obama knew he could not get the votes necessary to pass the bill, so he used a special power he has as president (which is not often used and seen as cheating) to lower the amount of votes he needed. Even after "cheating" like this, he struggled to get the votes to pass it, but he did. barely.
Obama also promised America to be open about his bill and policies. As many people in this thread have said...NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHATS IN IT. It was put together in recored breaking time and essentially forced on the people. Something as big as national health care should take YEARS to create, not weeks.
Also, many people like the current health care plan that is provided by insurance companies. Although people can (in theory) choose to keep their old health care, incentives offered for switching to the new plan make it ridiculous not to. Therefore, if you work at a job that offers you healthcare as an employee, you will be forced to switch plans.
Also, with no private health care and private doctors, there will be EXTREMELY high demand for doctors in the new system. This means if you had healthcare provided by a job, not only will you be forced to switch but you will be forced to wait to see you doctor, sometimes for over a MONTH.
I am sorry for getting so into this but I feel strongly about the subject.
end rant
 
God, people. THERE IS NO FUCKING PUBLIC OPTION. THERE IS NO SINGLE PAYER PLAN! STOP SAYING THAT "UNDER THIS PLAN, YOU'D BE MAD TO NOT SWITCH."

THERE IS NO PUBLIC OPTION.

YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR(S).
YOU CAN KEEP YOUR INSURANCE.
THIS IS A MODERATE REFORM BILL.

STOP BEING IGNORANT AND MISINFORMED!
 
But that scale disregards the obvious similaities between fascism and communism (i.e. usually totalitarian).
 
Best way I ever heard it phrased was to think of a circle that isn't connected all the way around, with communism on one end and facism on the other.
 
yet you back up what you say with nothing. and everyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant.
yup you sound smart...
 
The bill doesn't include a public option. No one seems to understand that. That's really all there is to it.
 
Are you fucking kidding me? Do you know what ACL reconstruction costs?
I'm 26 and I can't afford health insurance. I just had my knee fixed...Thank god that I qualified for the "indigent" fund and the state of NM covered a huge portion of the cost for my procedure, otherwise, I was absolutely in no position to have my knee fixed, thus no skiing, and furthermore—as a trades worker whose income is dependent on my ability to physically work—I'm just screwed? Might as well shoot me like a race horse with a broken leg.
For the procedure (Hamstring autograph, and Meniscus repair) the surgeon charged over $6000. The HOSPITAL charged over $18,000 simply for the use of the surgical room, anesthesia and two nurses. I didn't even stay overnight. Checked in at 6 am...in my car by 10:30 am.
Something is very wrong with that...If that's not outrageous, I don't know what is.
I don't know your definition of "poor" but not many people have roughly $25,000 laying around for a rainy day.
Just because I can afford a season pass, and a pair of skis and boots every three years...that doesn't make me bourgeoise and doesn't mean I wipe my ass with benjis.
I hate this whole attitude.
AND, it's "you're". Fuck.
 
Nobody knows what the fuck is in itThey were making all sorts of concessions for it right up to the voteGetting more people dependent on federal government just creates a bigger and shittier nanny state; the government makes the decisions, all that shit. fuck that. Disingenuous means of passageDoesn't actually combat a lot of what it is claimed to combat (costs, for instance)Hella more debt. Like it would run as projected.My biggest gripe of all: it is a stepping stone to what the far left dems really want, which is complete overhaul, complete federal involvement of the healthcare system. Hell no
 
you are wrong period. the means that have been used so FAR to pass this bill have been a strait up and down vote in the house of representatives passing the senates health care bill. that being said, since the senate has to confirm this bill and most likely there will not be 60 votes that are needed to end the filibuster the SENATE not Obama but the SENATE will use a rule called budget reconciliation. this basicaly means that it will end the filibuster and there will be an up or down vote on it, a simple majority will get it passed with 51 votes. this method has been used questionably many times throughout history Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by

Republican presidents (a Republican has been president for 20 of the

last 29 years). this is not some sneaky backhanded tactic that can be used on any bill it mus fit a certain set of criteria:

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd)

was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions

reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a

provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for

reconciliation) in six cases:

  1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
  2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
  3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted

    the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
  4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
  5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those

    covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in

    question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the

    measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
  6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian.

A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. The Presiding

Officer need not necessarily follow the advice of the Parliamentarian,

and the Parliamentarian can be replaced by the Senate Majority Leader.[7]. However, this hasn't been done since 1975.[8]

if your wondering that is all from Wikipedia but i read it over briefly and it agrees with my prior knowledge.

also on another note the biggest part of this is that a bill must be fiscally neutral it either must not increase our national debt or it must decrease it. Which is something many people in this thread have been wrong about, this bill will DECREASE OUR NATIONAL DEBT. Get that into you heads already.

another side note is that congress during George bush's terms passed three bills under this procedure all of which were projected to increase our debt, which should not have happened.

the Senate Parliamentarian is the one who gets to decide whether or not the bill meets this critera and so far he has sided with the bill all the way.

 
From the Dictionary:

Communism: 1 a :[/b] a theory advocating elimination of private property b[/b] :[/b] a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

Socialism: 1 :[/b] any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Capitalism: : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Fascism : 1 :[/b] a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

There are no countries that are completly capitalist, few that are completly socialist, and certainly none that are anywhere near communist. America, while mostly capitalist, still has some socialistic traits. England, Germany, and most of Europe have both capitalistic and socialistic traits, though more socialistic than the US (like healthcare). Communism is often used incorrectly instead of socialism to describe countries like the USSR, China, and North Korea. Marx, the founder of Communism was an anarchist, and didn't want any authority in his ideal society.

While nobody fully knows what's in this 2,000+ page bill, it is definately a step in the direction of socialism. More power is given to the government, and less to the private sector. And i think our founding fathers would agree.

Thomas Jefferson -

""

""

""

 


Wooo i just wrote a wall of text and it went by by fuck the internet anyways round 2:

Obama is not doing this, he is suggesting this method the senate and congress are the ones who have the power to "cheat" which as laid out below is very far from the truth. just another thing so far the health care bill has been passed using only standard methods in both the house and the senate. now what is likely to happen is when the revisions that the house of representatives sent back to the senate go up for a vote there will be a filibuster and to break this filibuster, since they do not have 60 votes they will be forced to use Budget reconciliation. which is a process outlined below in a wiki article (yes i know not the best source but it matched everything my prior knowledge of the subject held)

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus).The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd)

was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions

reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a

provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for

reconciliation) in six cases:

  1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
  2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
  3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted

    the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
  4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
  5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those

    covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in

    question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the

    measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
  6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian.

A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. The Presiding

Officer need not necessarily follow the advice of the Parliamentarian,

and the Parliamentarian can be replaced by the Senate Majority Leader.[7]. However, this hasn't been done since 1975.[8]

The most important thing to get out of this is that for reconciliation to be used the bill must be fiscally neutral or beneficial to our national debt which despite some of the other members of this wrongly saying this BILL IS.

the senate Parliamentarian gets to decide if the bill meets this criteria and so far he has. Once again Obama has NOTHING to do with this so Called "backhanded" method that has been used to pass bills under many other presidents terms. George Bush had three tax cuts passed this way for an example. thank you and good night.

 
According to wiki...

Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in its turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism.

So if wiki's correct, in pure communism, there wouldn't be any government.
 
I'm amused by this thread for so many reasons. First of all, that it is on newschoolers at all. Second, that a discussion about healthcare reforms in the US are being equated to socialism or communism. Third, that wikipedia is being quoted as the definitive source for political rhetoric.

For those of you who are afraid that having any kind of universal healthcare (and this bill isn't providing that yet--it is just a tiny step towards it) diminishes the value of being rich, go buy a Porsche or a yacht or a mansion in a rich neighborhood. The healthcare bill isn't taking any of the luxuries of wealth away from you. However, being rich shouldn't entitle ONLY you to good healthcare when you are in need. You can still pay privately for expensive experimental treatments or luxury hospital rooms or plastic surgery. .

For those of you completely confused and think that ithis bill is to provide healthcare to homeless people and those who are extremely poor, you're wrong. Homeless people and really poor people already receive public aid for healthcare. Who will benefit are the working poor and the middle class and senior citizens on a fixed income. Anyone who loses their job will not lose their healthcare and considering the lack of stability in the economy, that could be almost anyone.

Insurance companies have done (and continue to do) a great job of scaring Americans about universal healthcare. They don't want to lose that cash cow--people are always going to get diseases, get sick, etc. and they want to make money off of that fact. They made a boo boo when they decided not to make a big stink about Canada getting public health--they were small population countries and it was believed it would never last. They aren't going to make the same mistake with the USA.

 
First off let me say I am a VERY broke athlete. That said I am STOKED on this bill. Now here's why so much of the country is up in arms. Few people actually take the time to educate themselves on the matter at hand. So They listen to our bullshit news channels and quote fear mongers such as Bill O'Riley and Glen Beck, who if you have watched either of their shows, both just spew hate from a VERY right point of view. But lets look at results, since they do speak louder than words, The main result is a very large portion of countries that are doing very well have health care similar to what we passed. And since I have a broken leg right now and need surgery, I couldn't be more stoaked.

As to why half the country is whining like little bitches? Well here's an obvious answer: Because half the country ARE LITTLE BITCHES!
 
Also, I think some of you need to realize the differences between totalitarian, socialism, and communism, because they are VERY different. And while you are looking things up, please look at the origins of Kaiser Permanente and Nixon. You can find quite a few answers in that.
 
ok 80% of the country is bitching about it, and we dont want our government having us on a leash like a fucking dog thats why. all it is is a power grab. the government controls yet another aspect of our lives which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to get rid of in the first place. we dont want the government making a financial decision whether we live or die....... its going to make nearly every insurance company at least downsize if not go completely under. the federal government is also being sued by nearly half of our 50 states for the bill being unconstitutional. the bills 30 million people it intends to help and 20 million of those are illegals. no shit americans are acting up. we dont want to be paying taxes for 20 million illegals and 10 million americans for the next 4 years of our lives without any sort of representation at all. almost 1 trillion dollars for for less than 1/12 of the population..... and only 1/32 of the legal population.
 
590Ev.png
 
The government probably wouldn't spend half the money pharmaceutical companies do on R&D every year, plus if they were to start spending that much everyone would get taxed to shit.
 
Just one question:

I thought (from reading articles and news, unbiased) that you have to have health insurance in the future or you will get a fine. But still, doesn't it mean that you can get whatever kind of insurance you want? If you're rich enough at the moment to get under the orthopedian's knife in 15 minutes (referring to someone in this thread) how will this affect you in any way? Won't you still get the same care as before; just the people who at the moment cannot afford universal healthcare will have better possibilities and insurance?

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm intrigued in this matter as it seems to have divided US into two sides in a very fast period of time.
 
PLEASE DONT EAT ME ALIVE FOR THIS but my history teacher explained this a little bit and he said that right now untill 2014 the only this that is gonna be different is that insurance companies cant deny you for any reason (like if you have medical problems)
 
I just hope Tanner Hall doesn't have to go before one of the new death panels. With his bum legs he's definitely a candidate for euthanasia in the new Ameristan. Wake up people. Turn on your AM radios.
 
C'mon man. That's just a list of debunked Republican talking points. This plan is not some "far left" concoction. It's not a single payer plan. It's not government run healthcare! In fact, it's much closer to Nixon's plan of a market-based governmental intervention--a government-offered plan that would compete with private plans and drive down costs. Look it up. he recognized the same problems as Obama, and he wasn't some lefty nut.

Also, as far a debt goes, what don't you believe about the congressional budget office estimate? Sure, it's gonna cost just under a trillion to implement, but over the long hall it's gonna save much more by bending cost curves. The CBO estimate of cost reductions is also extremely conservative.

What's your plan for reducing the unsustainable amount of our GDP devoted to health care? Please don't tell me it's the Ryan budget offered by the Republicans. That got scored by the CBO too and it was costlier than the dem's plan, and it fucked with the social safety net (social security, medicare, medicaid). Also, do you know who your nanny is now? Like you can just choose whatever doctor to go see or procedure to get with a private plan. Maybe if you have money out your ass and you don't main forgoing coverage. I make above the living wage, and I have enough trouble meeting the deductable and co-pay for minor medical issues.
 
I think everyone needs to look at this before they read anything else....
pollard_slash.jpg


and be reminded that we joined this site because we all love to do the same things.
 
Someone made a great point in a similar thread on NSG. Definitely worth mentioning here:

As part of this bill there will be a new 10% tax added if you visit a tanning salon. Who the fuck cares right? It matters because the government is setting a new precedent of adding tax premiums to activities that are statistically proven to be a higher health risk. We aren't talking cigarettes here. This is a tax assessed to an activity. If you anticipate that the government will have to continue to look for other sources of revenue to pay for health care, they might continue to look at other high profile activities that have high injury rates. Can you say skiing? How would you like to have an added 10% tax on lift tickets and passes? What about having to pay more for a ticket that allows you to go into the park? It's not a huge leap to get from tanning to skiing. It all depends on who's looking at the stats.
 
The problems I have with the bill:
1: What Constitutional authority is Congress using to get their power on this? Interstate commerce clause? I can't pick a single clause that gives them power on this, but maybe my Constitutional knowledge is just rusty.
2. The bill FORCES me to do something. If I want a car, I have to have car insurance. But, that's a state law and I really don't have to have a car. The only other mandatory thing I can think of (I'm sure I'm missing a ton) from every civilian is taxes, but that's a whole other argument. With this bill, I can't choose to not get health insurance. Technically, I could, but I'd be paying a fine, so it forces me to do something either way.
3. Saying it's a long bill is an understatement. How many Congressman actually read the whole thing? Hell, how many people total have read the whole thing? From what I've seen of what the bill actually does, it should be long but not three encyclopedias long. Where is all that extra law coming from? How much more waste did they throw in just to pass something?
4. Again, haven't read the bill, but my understanding of it says I can do this (read this on another site): I won't purchase health insurance, opting to pay the fine instead, as it is cheaper than insurance rates. If something serious happens to me that I cannot pay out of pocket, I will purchase insurance then because the companies cannot deny me.
5. The bill does absolutely nothing (again, from my understanding of it) to fix the root of the problems. Taking a medical comparison, it fixes the symptoms, not the disease. Where are my incentives to actually live a healthy lifestyle (other than the obvious that the government can't give me)? If I eat healthy, work out regularly, don't smoke, etc etc I might see something from my insurance company but nothing from the government. The government wants everyone to have health care, but doesn't really care if the reason they need it in the first place is personal choice.
6. It doesn't open state boundaries for interstate competition between companies. I'll the first to admit my knowledge in this area is rusty, but my understanding goes something like since I live in PA, I can only buy PA insurance. If a company in South Dakota can offer me better coverage for a cheaper rate, I can't take it. By opening up boundaries, companies are forced to compete nationwide, helping bring prices down.
Since I don't feel like spending the next month to read the bill and become familiar with the law in place that it replaces and acts with, I'm sure I made some error somewhere.
 
Looking through the summary of the bill this is what I see as being the main effect for skiers
If you're under 26 you can stay on your parents healthcare plan- seems like this will help a lot of skiers afford insurance, as a family policy adding an additional member will generally be a lot cheaper than insuring a single young adult.
Insurance Companies barred from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions- this one seems like a big plus for young adult skiers. Since most people on this site don't work career track jobs, a lot of us either switch jobs frequently or have to buy insurance on our own. Several friends of mine have switched jobs in the middle of an injury/recovery process and had to foot the rest of the bill. This one seems like the biggest plus for skiers.
Mandatory insurance - somewhat of a negative. I can't see any reason to not have health insurance if you're an active skier, but some people don't. So it sucks for them that they'll have to pay for it.
For all the talk about socialism and broad ideological change, I have to say this bill really doesn't change all that much. Our system is still going to function in basically the same way as it has. It's all just small points within the same old system. It doesn't really address either of the biggest problems that I see with the system- the profit motive of insurance companies is directly apposed to paying for coverage, and that doctors have little incentive to practice preventative care. So while it seems to me that some of the provisions will help things, this bill doesn't seem to really fix much. Which is too bad, since us young people are essentially paying into a broken system that won't be able to last until we are old enough to benefit from it.
 
thank you!

READ and take your head out the sand people.

The problem with America is war.

It always has been.

We make war on everything.

From other countries to social issues like poverty, drugs, and crime.

It's ridiculous - the idea that you can make war on a social issue, and

expect an outcome other then the usual results of war -

death,destruction, and chaos.

Hence, the "battle over healthcare" - we even fight ourselves - it's a

mode of ignorance we're locked into in this country.

From the very beginning we color our perception in such a fashion that

completely corrupts the effort from that point forward.

At the highest levels of our co-optive conscious efforts the best we can

come up with his...."LETS MAKE WAR ON IT".

We haven't evolved much in last the few thousand years.
 
Obama spent more time working with people to try and pass it, than work with people to fix the problems.
Nancy Pelosi said "we need to pass the bill to know what is in it" seriously, that's an issue right there.

 
Let's see, we already give a bunch of lazy assholes a weekly check, food stamps, subsidized housing & a cell phone. Now they get free insurance too, with all of this being paid for with the taxes taken out of MY paycheck that I work hard to receive? Why would they bother getting a job? FUCKING AWESOME!

That's why. Although, I do feel for the people that are truly getting screwed by the insurance companies. Something needs to be done, but this is not the answer. Oh, and it's going to drive many small businesses into the ground.

/my rant. Have fun telling me that I don't know wtf I'm talking about.
 
You lost your credibility when you said "have" instead of "half" in not one but TWO separate posts. Are you really that retarded?
 
A little off topic but the reason why people call Obama a socialist is because he is a liberal extremist. He is about as far left as you can get.
The liberal way of thinking is that the government should be big and handle many aspects of life for the majority of the american people: for example healthcare. They also believe is taxing the upper class portion of america to pay for programs that benefit the lower class (this is essentially redistribution of wealth).
So how is this socialism? its not...but it is about as close as you can get. Some people who are wealthy got where they are for working their ass off and taking risks...and they were being ambitious. Many people who are poor are lazy and don't work hard...or they were just ok with living in the middle/lower class. So what happens next? the wealthy people are punished for their hard work (via taxes) and their money is essentially given to the poor (including all of those lazy people who live off the government).
The irony of it all is most Liberals HATE rich people...this only shows their ignorance seeing as how the rich are paying for THEIR government programs.

 
yeah, aren't you guys super stocked to pay almost 50% tax for 4 years with no new health care bill.

now the fuck are we going to get out of the recession doing that.

HOW DO YOU THINK THEY GOT OUT OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION

CUT TAX 25%

CUT SPENDING 50%

we need to cut cut cut
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top