Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 03:31pm PT
|
Whenever a government forces citizens to conduct their lives in a certain way, that is socialism.
Fatty, you have gone completely bonkers. So it is socialism to keep people from murdering each other. It is socialism to have speed limits. It is socialism to force me to pay for your wars. According to you, everything is socialism.
You are nuts...
and by the way, I heard a disgusting commercial for your guy Pombo. Such a black and white repugnican dork. oooh oooh oooh.. all those sierra clubbers want to do is grooooow biiiiig government.. I want to groooow the economy.. those bad bad bad sierra clubbers. What a piece of divisive trash that commercial was. For awhile there I had some respect for Pombo, but if he keeps that sort of stuff up, I figure he is just another big government jerk.
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 03:35pm PT
|
I had a friend from Germany visit for a couple weeks. We'd chat about this kinda stuff and the word "socialism" would come up. He'd just chuckle and state that people in the US don't have a clue what the word really means.
One thing we do know is that it means if you toss it around you'll get polarization.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 03:43pm PT
|
"I'm against helmet laws.
I think that being in support of laws regulating other people's high risk behaviors is pretty thin ice for a climber..."
Yeah, I'd oppose them too as long as every person who chooses to do so has enough money to pay for their own expensive neurologic treatment and long-term therapy out of their own pocket, and not affect my insurance rates, or have the costs they can't cover affect what the healthcare system has to charge others to recoup those shortfalls.
Doesn't really work that way, though, does it?
|
|
dktem
Trad climber
Temecula
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 03:49pm PT
|
Whenever a government forces citizens to conduct their lives in a certain way, that is socialism.
It's hard to argue from a position of credibility when one makes up stuff like this.
We're forced to pay taxes. The Constitution gives government explicit power to tax. So I guess our Constitution is a some sort of socialist manifesto?
But I suppose, using the car insurance example, one could avoid taxes by not participating in any economic activity at all...
There was a draft during WWII. People being forced to serve in the military. I suppose it means we were actually just allies with our socialist comrades, the USSR.
There was also also a draft during Vietnam...but I thought that Ho Chi Minh was the socialist? So what exactly were we fighting?
I could see how it might be fun to be a modern Republican. Making up definitions and using pseudo logic to reach all sorts of bizarre conclusions.
|
|
tomtom
Social climber
Seattle, Wa
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 03:50pm PT
|
This thread sucks.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 03:50pm PT
|
"Will I be able to recieve FULL COVERAGE regardless of AGE???..."
Here is what Obama emailed this morning bearing on this question.
"Early retirees will receive help to reduce premium costs."
During the debates in Congress a proposal was advanced to allow people at 55 to move on to Medicare. That proposal did not survive.
To get more detailed information I would go and read the new law.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 03:56pm PT
|
dktem wrote: I could see how it might be fun to be a modern Republican. Making up definitions and using pseudo logic to reach all sorts of bizarre conclusions.
That is what appeals to their base.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 03:57pm PT
|
"This thread sucks."
Creating another thread on the same topic at the same time is more sucky and disrespectful of other ST users.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 04:06pm PT
|
Yeah, I'd oppose them too as long as every person who chooses to do so has enough money to pay for their own expensive neurologic treatment and long-term therapy out of their own pocket, and not affect my insurance rates, or have the costs they can't cover affect what the healthcare system has to charge others to recoup those shortfalls.
Do you have enough money in the bank to self insure if you have a climbing accident?
I'm surprised you take that position and at the same time advocate for a health care reform law which requires all new policies to cover preventive care for free. After all why should a healthy active person like yourself who needs very little in the way of preventive medicine have to carry the "preventive" costs for the millions of inactive couch potatoes who are fat on McDonalds?
Personally I have always carried high deductible insurance. I don't want my insurance to pay for prevention. Now I have no choice and I'm told all this extra coverage will cost me less. Hmm.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 04:07pm PT
|
To answer reddirt's question:
please pardon my ignorance & know I pose this question in earnest.
An insurance applicant walks in w/ a pre-existing condition. The insurance co approves the policy w/ an industry standard 50% markup on the premiums (eg non preexisting applicant pays $300/month, preexisting dude pays $450/month). Preexisting dude can't afford it, but legally has to get insurance...
then what happens?
The reform bill establishes high-risk pools for those who can't get reasonable coverage through other sources at a reasonable rate. These pools would only be allowed to rate and adjust premiums based on age and location, not pre-existing conditions. After 2014, there will be no medical underwriting allowed at all, meaning that the private insurer can't rate you up because of the pre-existing condition.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 04:13pm PT
|
I think I am finally starting to figure Jeff / Fattrad out.
To Jeff, anything that smacks of force is evil socialism. He was a cop for a number of years and still derives some of his self esteem from this, as evidenced by his constant mentioning it. He feels it gives him street creds. A cops job revolves around enforcing societies wishes.
The problem is he is torn between hating force and getting his self worth from the use of force.
No wonder half his ideas are whacked out. The man is a walking time bomb of conflicting emotions.
I feel for you Jeff. One the one hand you hate force. One the other hand you worship it. Tough life you have there. Maybe try to work on your heart and you wont be so conflicted. Also give up the black and white thinking. Sometimes force is necessary. Just not as often as the military wants.
You also need to give up the notion that us commie liberals will never use force. More of us have served in the military then have your conservative friends. More of us have stood and delivered when it was necessary. We just see that often it isn't necessary. Sometimes valor requires you to let the other guy call you names so he can get it off of his chest so to speak. Other times you have to open up a can of whoop ass because that is the only language the person understands. As a commie liberal I am perfectly willing to open up a can of whoop ass. I just don't think it is the answer most of the time. America shouldn't be the worlds cop. Nor should we let the thieves and liars dictate foreign policy.
You lack discernment Jeff. This is obvious from the fact that you think Cheney is a great guy.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 04:15pm PT
|
"Do you have enough money in the bank to self insure if you have a climbing accident?"
No...that's why I carry insurance.
And if my choice to climb was as common in society as motorcycle riding, and there was a clear, demonstrated pattern of a specific injury that came from it (i.e. head injuries) that was creating a huge cost impact on the healthcare system for other people, then I wouldn't have much problem with a regulation that tries to reduce that impact.
The cost impacts of climbing accidents vs. motorcycle accidents are nowhere near comparable- not simply because of the disparity in participation rates, either. It's not a useful comparison, but gets some traction on a climber's website.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 04:33pm PT
|
K wrote: Do you have enough money in the bank to self insure if you have a climbing accident.
That really funny as a simple trip to ER would break most people bank.
I have insurance and that really isn't the issue...just look at this site and the number of older climbers who don't have insurance and don't have the funds in the bank.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 04:36pm PT
|
But that's their choice Bob! They have freedom! Never mind that when they get sick or injured they will wind up becoming a burden on the rest of us.
|
|
dktem
Trad climber
Temecula
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 04:42pm PT
|
After all why should a healthy active person like yourself who needs very little in the way of preventive medicine have to carry the "preventive" costs for the millions of inactive couch potatoes who are fat on McDonalds?
I agree that I would like to see more in the law that accounts for risk due to personal choices. For example, smokers should not get the same rate as non-smokers.
But the reality is this: most people who are covered by medical insurance today are covered by an employer-provided plan or a government plan. These plans do not penalize people for unhealthy lifestyle choices. I had health coverage in the military and I had it for many years as a corporate employee, and no one ever asked me if I smoked, what I ate, or if I had any health issues. The only requirement to for coverage was simply to be an employee.
And most of these plans provide for, and even encourage, preventative treatments.
So we know insurance companies and government/military plans have been successful using a cost structure that does not adjust for individual behavior or preexisting conditions. It has worked for decades. There's no reason that this same model cannot work for the general population.
Here's some questions to ponder:
If a fat, chain-smoking, alcoholic with cancer gets a job at IBM, he gets health coverage automatically as part of his compensation. No questions asked. The insurance company serving IBM still manages to make a profit.
If a non-smoking, exercising, vegetarian with no medical conditions except mild asthma starts a business and applies for private insurance, the answer will be "no." (Or the cost will be insane). He will not even be able to get insurance coverage that excludes his asthma. In other words, his asthma will be the reason the insurance company will not allow him protection from injuries that occur during a car accident. (This is a realistic scenario. I know first-hand.)
Why does the high risk IBM employee get automatic coverage but the low-risk entrepreneur gets no realistic options at all?
And why is the insurance company willing to insure one and not the other?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 04:47pm PT
|
After all why should a healthy active person like yourself who needs very little in the way of preventive medicine have to carry the "preventive" costs for the millions of inactive couch potatoes who are fat on McDonalds?
Because we will also cover the person who needs a new knee because he jogged all of his life. Or the climber that breaks his neck. Or the climber who gets blood clots because of his genetics.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 04:56pm PT
|
The cost impacts of climbing accidents vs. motorcycle accidents are nowhere near comparable- not simply because of the disparity in participation rates, either. It's not a useful comparison, but gets some traction on a climber's website.
I guess I didn't make my point very well. It was about the principle, not the statistics which I know are not comparable. As climbers you or I would feel no guilt using insurance money to pay our medical expenses but a helmetless motorcyclist is prohibited because there are more of them having more accidents.
I understand it, but I think it is a slippery slope. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I see this kind of regulation of individual behavior as intrusive. How long before National Parks require climbers to wear helmets, pass tests to lead, another to do multipitch, etc?
Relevant to this thread, the health reform bill effectively prevents me from shopping around among competing companies for insurance, because if I buy a new policy it is predetermined to include coverages I do not want to pay for.
See you around - I got a bouldering session now... :-)
edit: John pulling my quote out of context makes it look like I advocate that position. Not the case, it was a point of argument.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 04:58pm PT
|
We could have an insurance policy available only to climbers. Either all climbers would have to enroll or we would have to let those who did not, expire at the base of the cliff. But even that would not work. The risk is not spread across a large enough pool. Too few people. One ten million dollar loss would wipe out the pool.
Well if a large pool is the key to cost effective insurance, then wherever there are two companies competing for a pool, we should put one of them out of business. But then we have a sole source and that sole source could do whatever they wished to us, just like now.
We make the government(us?) the single insuror????
But then I hear people saying the government can't keep administrative costs down.
The Social Security Administration(SSA) seems to have. I have heard 3% overhead quoted.
Seems silly but the above IS the conundrum.
It is obvious what we should do. Look really carefully at how the SSA has managed.
Figure out a way to push that kind of operation into other areas, where appropriate.
Figure out a way to keep down political interference.
(When coverage for disability was pasted onto SS without funding the SSA should have been able to say, "We will manage the SSI funding you appropriate. No money - no cigar.)
It's a no brainer.
But to Chris's discussion.
Democracy and society for that matter are intrusive, by definition. Democracy can almost be defined as a state where EVERYONE is unhappy.
A dictatorship is definable as a state wherein ONE person is happy.
(Since marriage is voluntary, is it safe to assume that is the only state where TWO people are happy?)
When the people, reluctantly, come to the conclusion we all gain by enforcing the wearing of helmets then one population of unhappy people becomes defined.
But you got a better way to have all the benefits of a society? Including having someone come around, sweeping up your pieces and trying to keep you alive?
Speak. Please. We are all ears.
|
|
toyon
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 05:00pm PT
|
**How Health Care Reform Will (and Will Not) Change Your Life
Directions: Based on your understanding of health care reform, circle “T” for true or “F” for false for each statement.**
1. Starting in 2014, most Americans will have to have a minimum amount of health insurance or else pay a penalty of $95 or 0.5% of household income, whichever is greater. T F
2. In the health insurance marketplace created by the reform bill, individuals and employees will be assigned insurance plans based on their needs, rather than choosing the plans for themselves. T F
3. In 2014, the government will launch a new health insurance company which will compete against private companies. T F
4. Under the new health care law, employers will be required to offer health insurance to all workers. T F
5. Starting later this year, the government will give tax credits to small business owners who want to offer their employees health insurance. T F
6. Despite the reform, insurance companies will still be able to deny an individual coverage based on his or her age and/or medical condition. T F
7. Under the new plan, federal money cannot be used to pay for abortions, except in cases currently allowed by law, such as rape, incest or when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger. T F
8. To pay for the new insurance plans, individuals and employers will pay premiums; the rest will be covered by new taxes on high-cost employer-sponsored group health plans and tanning bed use; additional payroll taxes for people who earn more than $200,000 per year, and fees to be collected from health care companies, drug makers, manufacturers of medical devices and insurance companies. T F
9. Starting in 2014, all illegal immigrants will be able to purchase health insurance through the government. T F
10. The health insurance reform will result in an estimated 16 million new Medicaid recipients. T F
Answers posted.... whenever i revisit this crazy site.
-st
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!