kmfenaughty 0 #1 August 5, 2009 We all know the problems we currently experience with individual Medical Insurance policies that EXCLUDES activities such as Skydiving … how do you think that the new “Public Option” will impact us? Does Medicare have such EXCLUSIONS? Has anybody seen any of the proposed legislation?99% of the people on this earth are sheep ... dare to be different Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 3 #2 August 5, 2009 the point would be,, what they COULD do to us !! it only takes 1 ratfink to screw us over. You all would not believe how many folks think skydiving should be banned !! that's not a joke. it would scare you mightily. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #3 August 5, 2009 move to switzerland; its accepted by EVERY inscurance, like collecting stamps for example.. actually, no, better dont, if i see videos from the states.. your inscurances are probably right for doing so! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #4 August 5, 2009 QuoteWe all know the problems we currently experience with individual Medical Insurance policies that EXCLUDES activities such as Skydiving … how do you think that the new “Public Option” will impact us? They already want to control fat people and smokers because they're lifestyle is unhealthy. I imagine that when high risk sports become a burden on government costs, they'll move to shut them down too. The government will only be happy once we are all passive little lab rats, safe in cages. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #5 August 5, 2009 we have a national health service here - and it is a definite benefit to skydivers (automatic cover, no private insurance needed) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #6 August 5, 2009 there is nothing in the legislation that excludes ANYTHING. part of the premise is that insurance companies must stop excluding people for what they do and the existing conditions they may have. The government program would also be like that. sadly, insurance is not really the issue, but they are pretending that this will fix the problem. The problem is delivery of healthcare to everyone. and you do that be delivering healthcare to everyone. not by providing insurance..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #7 August 5, 2009 Quotethe point would be,, what they COULD do to us !! it only takes 1 ratfink to screw us over. You all would not believe how many folks think skydiving should be banned !! that's not a joke. it would scare you mightily. Right. The threat exists in both legislative riders to thousand page bills no one reads before voting on and in the rule making authority delegated to executive branch agencies headed by appointees to the current and future administrations and in legislative changes tacked on as a rider to a thousand page bill no one reads before signing. The motorcycle market is a $15,000,000,000 a year industry with 6,600,000 registered bikes and 280,000 dues paying AMA members. There are 3,900,000 horses owned for recreation in this country. While those two groups got HIPAA to include a clause prohibiting group plan participation restrictions based on hazardous sports, they were unable to keep out a source-of-injury exclusion so those plans are free to reject your $40,000 claim for a broken leg skydiving. They've been lobbying since 1996 to get that fixed. With just 30,000 skydivers in the US (it's impossible to take advantage of the vast majority of lift capacity without a USPA membership, and the few who jump without are probably outnumbered by the retired skydivers who retain their membership and subscription) we don't stand a chance. To say nothing of the poor BASE jumpers and street luge riders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #8 August 5, 2009 Quotethere is nothing in the legislation that excludes ANYTHING. part of the premise is that insurance companies must stop excluding people for what they do and the existing conditions they may have. The government program would also be like that. sadly, insurance is not really the issue, but they are pretending that this will fix the problem. The problem is delivery of healthcare to everyone. and you do that be delivering healthcare to everyone. not by providing insurance..... The fine print needs to be read in the context of existing law. It's currently illegal for group plans to deny coverage based on hazardous sports, but the insurers managed to retain the right to exclude coverage for injuries based on source. Fall off a ladder at your house and it's covered. Get an ambulance ride to the DZ and you may be out of pocket $40K for a broken leg. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #9 August 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteWe all know the problems we currently experience with individual Medical Insurance policies that EXCLUDES activities such as Skydiving … how do you think that the new “Public Option” will impact us? They already want to control fat people and smokers because they're lifestyle is unhealthy. I imagine that when high risk sports become a burden on government costs, they'll move to shut them down too. The government will only be happy once we are all passive little lab rats, safe in cages. Laws in America (and other countries with first-past-the-post electoral systems and no country-wide proportional representation) aren't based on what's happening in reality or the burdens imposed by classes of people. They're about favors to some one in some podunk district who has their pet cause which must be in to vote for your 1000 page omnibus bill, public perception, and appearing to "do something" while ticking off as few people as possible while bringing home the most bacon to legislators' districts (I read one local papers where the incumbents were actually ranked on dollars brought home and bills authored). Maybe 30,000 out of 300,000,000 people would be deeply hurt by loosing health insurance coverage for skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #10 August 5, 2009 Quote we have a national health service here - and it is a definite benefit to skydivers (automatic cover, no private insurance needed) Your national health service wasn't instituted by private health insurance companies as a way to force everyone to buy their product, with those same companies being the ones that countered the group plan requirement that "coverage not be denied based on participation in hazardous sports" with " source of injury exclusions for hazardous sports." Personally I'd call for the legislators' government plan to be opened to the rest of us, but I'm not masochistic enough to run for office or unethical enough to fund a successful campaign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thrillstalker 0 #11 August 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteWe all know the problems we currently experience with individual Medical Insurance policies that EXCLUDES activities such as Skydiving … how do you think that the new “Public Option” will impact us? They already want to control fat people and smokers because they're lifestyle is unhealthy. I imagine that when high risk sports become a burden on government costs, they'll move to shut them down too. The government will only be happy once we are all passive little lab rats, safe in cages. +1"Never grow a wishbone, where your backbone ought to be." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
