Jack M

I agree, but the too far left hand-wringing bed-wetters will say oh but what if they can't afford it? Well, not my problem I say. Huh? I thought they always did this. Different people pay different premiums. Isn't this what actuaries are for? Isn't the tab for this bill projected at 10 trillion though? ugh.

Nobody has been able to answer my original and main beef with this whole thing - why anybody else should be forced to pay for the healthcare of a smoker or someone who leads a slovenly or gratuitously self-destructive lifestyle like the woman in that picture. Sure, most of us indulge in unhealthy treats/libations/recreation in moderation, but there has to be a line in the sand somewhere. Well, it's law now, and really I do hope it works. I would rather spend money on healthcare here than rebuilding nations in the middle east. I'm just not optimistic that the US gov't can pull it off. And I'll be surprised if they have the balls to deny or penalize smokers, etc. I hope they do.

Sure, a story or two is anecdotal, but the fact that there is an industry in Canada of brokers who will connect you with US doctors when you can't get service in Canada in time, is useful. http://www.timelymedical.ca/

Iceland is bankrupt.

well not ruined, but let's say severely impeded. you should hear his stories.

I would call 60 Billion awash. The frauds are carried out by criminals, not businesses. CBS 60 Minutes, 10.25.09: <object width='400' height='300'><param name='movie' value='http://www.cbs.com/e/GQIzNJWFeZA3_UdBSl8JcB58XdIud78c/cbs/1/'></param><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'></param><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='always'></param><embed width='400' height='300' src='http://www.cbs.com/e/GQIzNJWFeZA3_UdBSl8JcB58XdIud78c/cbs/1/' allowfullscreen='true' allowScriptAccess='always' type='application/x-shockwave-flash'></embed></object> it is the first story in the episode, and is about 15 minutes long.

Of course. My point is that there is a huge difference between participating in risky but otherwise healthy activities like snowboarding, and eating your way to obesity or smoking. They're not even close.

I'd need to see that data. of course I realize that, come on. I'm just saying I don't like it, and I think it's morally wrong that people who make good decisions have to pay the way for people who make bad decisions. Someone said that conservatives consider this an economic issue, not moral. I consider it both and I think a lot of people do. I suppose there's no way to dictate whether or not someone gets coverage based on the quality of the choices they make, so what do we do, just cover everybody blindly? I think that would be wrong. So then we have to start talking about not covering people if they're smokers or obese or didn't wear a helmet on their motorcycle or any number of unappealing topics. Pretty soon we're living under Big Brother. I agree these are problems. I want the solution to reward personal responsibility.

I agree these are also problems that need to be fixed. Somehow. However I and most people I know have had good luck with getting things covered by insurance, including our 2 week stay in the NICU. You can't just blanketly say that you always get denied. I'm just stating this is my biggest moral issue with universal healthcare. I think it is one of the elephants in the room that nobody wants to admit. I see so many people choosing to live an unhealthy lifestyle. I don't want to pay for them. I guess that makes me a bad person. Oh well.

Great idea!!! ;) Hey, this is OT. It is largely unmoderated. Almost anything goes. Hmm, well, you did just violate rule #1 in this forum, but, meh. Why is it so hard for you to see how engaging in risky or stupid activities like smoking and over-eating without insurance is irresponsible? I agree if you injured yourself doing something in the pursuit of physical fitness or if you were a victim of an accident and you didn't have insurance, that's one thing. But engaging in self-destructive irresponsible behavior and then expecting other people to pick up the tab just doesn't fly with me.

It's a lot different morally. I have health insurance, and I wouldn't snowboard without it. If I was stupid enough to go snowboarding without insurance, then I should be SOL. Bottom line is personal responsibility. Sure there are people who truly need and deserve the safety net. But it's a much smaller number than a lot of people would like to believe. (tangent: I can't even count how many houses I drive past on the way to the mountain where the people are obviously poor, like, half the house is missing siding, but hey, there's the DirecTV dish mounted on the roof! )

My brother lived and worked in France for a year. When he returned he literally knelt down and kissed the ground.

Yes, you're right about that, and that is also the problem. But you say that as if there's nothing we can do about that, and that's the end of the argument. We wouldn't have to pay for her ER visits in most cases, if I were king. Maybe the ER would require insurance, or state-issued proof of uninsurability, or proof of being a valid ward of the state or something, but there would be no open door policy. Also she'd be more likely to be able to afford insurance in my kingdom, because I'd have enacted tort reform and people like John Edwards would be out of a job. I simply reject the notion that we should have to pay for people who can afford to eat 6 meals a day, spend $6, $12, $18 A DAY on cigarettes and whatever on booze. In my kingdom, if you'd rather live like that than take care of yourself and buy insurance, you'll be turned away at the ER. Darwin and I are good chums. If you have a damn good reason for not having insurance, then there would be a safety net for these people. The problem is now, too many people expect and receive the safety net for no good reason. If able-bodied people knew there was no safety net, they'd be more responsible, or accept the consequences. But as it is, they know that the saps and suckers in this country will provide for them. I hope you're right about that, and it will be a wonderful thing if it does and if it operates efficiently and provides insurance to all. Given the government's track record, I don't see that happening.

Yeah, because Canada got it right. <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXZaTXDu3Os&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXZaTXDu3Os&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="385"></embed></object>

Where the **** do you get this crap? All you need is a decent JAY-OH-BEE. I had full health coverage with my first $29,000 job out of college.

+10,000 I am a "fiscally conservative libertarian" (abortions, pot, and gay unions all around!) and I consider this a moral and economic issue. Moral in that there is no moral reason that I, as a relative picture of health, being of the ability to make relatively good decisions about how to treat my body, should have to pay one thin dime for the healthcare of the idiots in this country who whine that they cannot afford insurance while they can afford to stuff their face into obesity and diabetes, and to buy cigarettes, scratch tickets, and coffee brandy. These people can go have a coronary in a McDonalds for all I care. It is amazing to me that people with the little Darwin emblems on their Priuses do not believe the same. I should not have to pay for this.

I don't know for sure, but the "3D" sidecut they advertised seems like it would be a blend of 3 radii. I rode a 163 for several days many years ago and it was a great board. Pretty sure they're metal too. Volkls were ahead of their time - metal, multi-radii sidecut (I assume), a poor man's VSR. Oh look, the Bomber store has them in stock!

Huh? Do the smilies not show up on your screen? we did? cool, where?

heh. we should probably ride together before continuing this discussion. :D

:D I agree about eyes and head, and yeah, my upper body often rotates, although not excessively.

why? you could easily build a rig out of 2x4's and a cinder block to do this with skis. same thing, really. a carve does not depend on steering. (or rotating your upper body for that matter.) this is the entire point of The Norm exercise - to show you that you don't have to actually <i>do</i> anything other than lean, to get a snowboard to carve. that is a big "ah ha!" moment for many people who have always thought they had to kick or push the board around with their feet in order to turn.

Your profile information helps others get a feel for where you're coming from when you post advice or questions, and especially equipment reviews. Also we've added two new fields: Snowboarding since (year) and Hardbooting since (year). It's not required, but it's a nice way to enhance the sense of community here.

When it happens, it should be posted in the reviews forum. I rode the WCRM and wrote about it here. The FLC should be similar, with the addition of a blended dual sidecut and a more decambered nose. I think it would be a wonderful board.

Not necessarily. You tilted the board up to 60 degrees and rode the sidecut. A dead weight could do this, if it could be balanced. A dead weight cannot steer.

:( http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100317/NEWS01/100316013