Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       02-17-2010, 5:52 PM Reply   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5O9Imbpe6Q
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       02-17-2010, 6:16 PM Reply   
Ruin healthcare as we know it, ha ha ha ha ha ha, as in the shiatty healthcare that we have now, ha ha ha. People who make these videos have WAY to much time on their hands
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       02-17-2010, 6:31 PM Reply   
OMG that was hilarious. Lighten up Scott the United states has the best health care on the planet. It's not the care that is in shambles, it's the business of health care that needs to be looked at. If you think it is a good idea to ram a health care bill through congress without anyone understanding it let alone knowing what is in it then by all means stick your head in the sand and hope for a brighter future. if we are going to move forward on creating a better health care for our country, it needs to be well thought out and planned with professionals, doctors, nurses Hospital administrators as well as the patience who will be receiving the health care all having their input. Right now there has only been a select few (Democrats) writing a 20,000 page monstrosity that was written behind closed doors with the GOP and American people totally blinded to whats going on. If you want to believe that the US has the wors health care on the planet keep drinking your koolaid, Truth doesn't always win out, more often it is repetition that sinks in to the mind until finally people just believe something not because it is the truth, but because it has been repeated enough times to have been seared into their thinking as truth.
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       02-17-2010, 6:55 PM Reply   
The Republican philosophy is to kill any bill that comes from the Democrats. They have no desire to find a solution to healthcare costs. Their main pony show is Tort reform. Healthcare is great in this country, if you can afford it. If you cannot, it's a moot point.

So stick your head deeper in the sand and just keep saying everythings OK, but this country will collapse in a very short time if nothing is done. We all know that republicans won't do anything about it once they regain power. If you do, keep on drinking your flavor of Koolaid.

Oh and I heard it was a 17,000,000 page bill.

Where do you get your facts?
Old    Trace (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       02-17-2010, 7:23 PM Reply   
You are blind or not paying attention if you don't think partisanhip is rampant on both sides of the aisle. It is a cancer in our government. Look at Evan Bayh.

If you currently have health care, you have a martyr complex if you support the government getting involved.

Tort reform is bad??
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-17-2010, 8:19 PM Reply   
Hey Scott. What is the issue with healthcare? Is it the costs? I think most agree and considering you mentioned the cost, you do too. Here is a basic premise for all those reading. Insurance is purchased with the implication of it not being used. If you use it, the cost goes up. How do you deal with that? Right now, the business owners typically pay for it. So, the evil people who profit have to pay. What you want to do is move the costs to the tax payers. That will be good for everyone. How about this. All the people who are not covered think clearly from a early age about the type of job you want to get and if healthcare is part of that. I know I did. You can't have your cake and eat it too. How many of those people looking for the government to take over just trying to not take responsibility for their education, job choices and so on? The government has done zero to address the real costs of healthcare. If the government takes over it will be a huge failure just like social security.
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       02-18-2010, 12:19 AM Reply   
"Tort reform is bad??"

Never said said it was. But that's ALL they've got. I'm not saying I'm for this healthcare bill. But if Republicans were running the government, I can just hear them now (healthcare problem, we have a healthcare problem). The partainship is ridiculous.

"Hey Scott. What is the issue with healthcare? Is it the costs?"


You're kidding right? Or are you just being sarcastic?

You know what, lets just bankrupt the country in the name of free enterprise, and not do any meaningful reform, jeesh!
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-18-2010, 5:55 AM Reply   
"Insurance is purchased with the implication of it not being used. If you use it, the cost goes up."

I haven't been to the doctor in almost 3 years, and except for check-ups my son hasn't been in 5 (knock on wood), but my premium has risen at least 5% each year. The costs of other people not being insured is being passed onto me along with the costs of people that are insured.

You're mistaken if you think your costs do not rise if you do not use the insurance. Also, do you think it is correct that anyone, including myself, may be subject to bankruptcy if a family member is diagnosed with cancer or some other catostrophic illness that exceeds the maximums the insurance company will cover?

Truth is 95% of Americans will benefit from some sort of govt option. The rallying cry from the GOP and the teabaggers is this is socialized or a Nazi plan. But to paraphrase Bill Maher, "most Americans can't identify the 3 branches of American govt much less know even know what socialism is, and when you think of Nazis do you really think of healthcare"
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       02-18-2010, 6:51 AM Reply   
Our basic problem is that we have two parties wanting to excercise their will. The currency they deal in is votes. One party buys their votes from the earner, the other buys theirs from the poor. The vote of the earner carries the same weight as the vote of the poor. One side vows to ensure the earner can keep what he earns so he can afford the services he desires, while the other promises unearned money to those who want it rather than earning it so they can afford the services they desire.

Healthcare is a service not a right. It is one of the motivating factors of being a contributor to society. Many are motivated to work so they can provide this service for their loved ones. Do you really think that democratic washington fat cats care about whether the poor get free healthcare? No, they already get it free. What they want to do if force the earners to foot the bill instead of the government, at the same time buy precious votes from the poor.

I think we all agree that the foundation of this country was to gift equal opportunity and fairness to all men. It affords every person the same opportunity to maximize the fortunes of their destiny. No matter which side of the isle you drink your kool-aid from, you cannot ignore the disparity in fairness that soccialist policy creates. Its the same unfairness as the class system the founding fathers were escaping from.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-18-2010, 7:07 AM Reply   
well said Jason
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       02-18-2010, 7:14 AM Reply   
"The Republican philosophy is to kill any bill that comes from the Democrats. "

LMFAO.... yeah, that's called politics, you must be new to the game.

It's funny we all complain about the costs of Health Insurance, but rarely hear people complaining about how much they pay to insure their cars. I know for me, my auto insurance is more expensive.

I've got to agree with Flight, time to open this debate up to everyone. It doesn't make sense to not get this right the first time especially when it's not going to be implemented for another 4 years.

"but this country will collapse in a very short time if nothing is done."

Really???? Did CNN tell you that or just your president? Talk about drinking the kool-aid
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       02-18-2010, 7:27 AM Reply   
When the left is spewing this big gov't BS every chance they get, then YES Repubs should DEFINITELY kill whatever bills they propose. And yes, it's how politics works.

Tort reform IMO is the only problem with healthcare now. We don't need a new system, we don't need more gov't involvement. We just need a more efficient system with fewer BS lawsuits. Lawsuits = higher premiums and higher costs in general.

Here's my problem: WHY DO WE STILL NOT KNOW EXACTLY WTF IS IN THE BILL???
Old    Trace (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       02-18-2010, 7:31 AM Reply   
The government needs to stick to its job of regulating (as opposed to competing in) the marketplace.

Tort reform would go a LONG way to fixing the problems with the current system.

I do think in a country as wealthy as this one that there should be some very basic level of healthcare for everyone, but it should be the last option anyone considers. Think Medicaid but more efficient and including a death panel. Anything more and it will disrupt our current system which is working quite well for most people with decent jobs, and would work even better with tort reform.

Also, anyone ever wonder who's paying for those awesome drug company ads? This is one of if not the only country in the world where pharmaceuticals are allowed to advertise directly to consumers.


Vote out incumbents!!
Old    Dhtige Hill (dh03r6)      Join Date: Mar 2007       02-18-2010, 7:43 AM Reply   
Don't give me that people can't afford it crap they don't WANT to have to pay for it. I just got a really good policy from bluecross blueshield for 120 a month. And if i go to the gym 12 times a month i get 20$ off. Next time somebody tells you they can't afford it, check out what kind of car they drive or what kind of shoes they are wearing.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       02-18-2010, 7:45 AM Reply   
It's funny we all complain about the costs of Health Insurance, but rarely hear people complaining about how much they pay to insure their cars. I know for me, my auto insurance is more expensive.

My Health Insurance is more than our three cars and boat combined. If you take any single policy that we have which includes multiple HO policies, general liability, landlrd et al, HI is BY FAR the most expensive.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       02-18-2010, 7:48 AM Reply   
Also, anyone ever wonder who's paying for those awesome drug company ads? This is one of if not the only country in the world where pharmaceuticals are allowed to advertise directly to consumers.

That is a VERY VERY VERY good point IMO!

Next time you are watching TV and see an ad come on for this Serequol drug, pay attention to it. 30 second spot and at a minimum, 26 seconds are spent listing side effects where death is mentioned at least 4 times. It blows my mind that you can;t smoke a cig in a bar, smoke pot at all but you can get a pill to make you hard.

Right now, the business owners typically pay for it. So, the evil people who profit have to pay. What you want to do is move the costs to the tax payers.

On the surface, you are correct the business owners pay for it. End of the day who REALLY pays for it anyway? The consumer. Little difference in this regard.

(Message edited by zo1 on February 18, 2010)
Old    Paul (paulsmith)      Join Date: Mar 2002       02-18-2010, 8:02 AM Reply   
It blows my mind that you can;t...smoke pot at all

Move to California!
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       02-18-2010, 8:12 AM Reply   
LOL...
Old    Dhtige Hill (dh03r6)      Join Date: Mar 2007       02-18-2010, 8:12 AM Reply   
You guys have got to be crazy or invincible, the drug companies create life saving new drugs and cures for diseases. I want them to be as profitable as possible so they keep churning them out. How did drug companies become a villain? Now that's a PR campaign.
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       02-18-2010, 8:35 AM Reply   
"You guys have got to be crazy or invincible, the drug companies create life saving new drugs and cures for diseases."

Didn't know that Cialis and Viagra were life saving, (well to some maybe ). Drug companies sure spend a ton advertising these "life saving drugs". But that won't affect my health costs............yeah right!
Old    A-dub (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       02-18-2010, 8:50 AM Reply   
^^ they are also used for infant heart issues
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-18-2010, 8:58 AM Reply   
Jeremy, you proved my point. People are using the insurance and it is going up. Can you explain ANY situation in which insurance is designed to be used? If it is, can you explain how you control costs? Manzo described his health insurance is higher than his toys and home. Of course, I would like to see him use that insurance more than once and still say that. At the end of the day, for insurance to remain cheap is not to be used. What you are asking for is a service contract not insurance. Even with that, you have to have a certain limit on service provided undert the contract. Anything over and above, you have to pay.

You have to fix the actual costs of "insurance". Tort reform has to happen. They have to stop charging through the roof for emergency room visits as well. They also need to look into the drug companies influence of the industry. My wife worked in Vet med for 12 years and they have the exact same medicine for animals as they do for humans but at less than 1/10th the cost. Much of the extra cost is human certification but I am sure there is room.

On tort reform. Even before illegal's became a big issue, it has always been at least twice the cost to insure in California. Why is that? California has always had the reputation as the sue happy state and they have paid for it for a long time.

I also resent your term "teabagger". I don't really need to hear you refering to a political movement as a sexual act. Wonder what act the current democrat movement could be characterized as?

On your bankruptcy issue. Bankrupcty is a legitimate financial move if you have too. It is not the end of the world. It was put in place to help those who got in over their head.

I still ask the question of those who are complaining about healthcare costs. What have you done to get a career path that allowed you to get healthcare? Did you choose not to do well in school? Did you go for the big bucks with no insurance option? Or you just have a run of bad luck?
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       02-18-2010, 9:00 AM Reply   
"they are also used for infant heart issues"

I have no problem with that whatsoever, what I have a problem with is the constant bombardment over the air of these drugs for E.D., the money that drug companies are spending on advertising over the air for Cialis and Viagra is aimed entirely on erectile dysfunction. Part of my own, and everyone else insurance premiums are higher as a result.

How did we survive 20 years ago without the barage of commercials?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-18-2010, 9:19 AM Reply   
You guys have got to be crazy or invincible, the drug companies create life saving new drugs and cures for diseases. I want them to be as profitable as possible so they keep churning them out. How did drug companies become a villain? Now that's a PR campaign.

They are also fueling an addictive drug industry that includes pharmaceuticals and doctors. It's hard to even imagine how much of the insurance dollars goes to drug seeking behavior sponsored by the industry.

Also consider that any health cures that can't be patented won't get any studies done that will allow approval by the FDA. Getting scientific studies done is expensive. So when you hear that there is no scientific evidence for many treatments or herbal remedies, remember that no scientific evidence equals no money. Even universities need to see a patent in the future to research. Doesn't matter if it's tax payer dollars funding it.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       02-18-2010, 9:23 AM Reply   
"the money that drug companies are spending on advertising over the air for Cialis and Viagra is aimed entirely on erectile dysfunction. Part of my own, and everyone else insurance premiums are higher as a result"

They advertise those drugs to increase the sales of those drugs to increase they're overall profits, which allow them to develop new drugs of all kinds. Drug companies can't develop new drugs or stay in business if they can't make money. Those commercials must be working, or they wouldn't keep using them. I don't think drug company commercials are the driving force in increased drug costs and certainly not health costs, in general.

From talking to a couple doctor friends in the past and from what I've read, end of life health care costs account for the largest chunk of health care costs. It costs of ton of money for all the tests we have available, to keep people in ICU, life support etc. Lawsuits and huge huge malpractice insurance premiums for doctors in the U.S. also are a major problem.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       02-18-2010, 9:28 AM Reply   
^^ I just read about that last night. According to TIME, 30% of all medicare's yearly budget is spent on recipients in the last year of their life and 10% of all the beneficiaries account for 70% of all spending.

I terms of drug companies, i also read not long ago that next year will very likely mark a MAJOR shift for them as there are a ton of patents that expire next year...
Old    Paul (paulsmith)      Join Date: Mar 2002       02-18-2010, 9:42 AM Reply   
What about the anti-depressant industry? Think of the money that's been spent, resulting in billions in profits for huge corporations, when they're no better then a freakin' placebo (but with side effects like, oh I dunno, suicide!).

http://www.newsweek.com/id/232781
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       02-18-2010, 9:44 AM Reply   
Cialis and Viagra were both discovered by accident as they attempted to create a drug with another purpose to help with the heart. They noticed what the side effects were and boom...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-18-2010, 9:57 AM Reply   
"Jeremy, you proved my point. People are using the insurance and it is going up. Can you explain ANY situation in which insurance is designed to be used?"

How does that prove your point? On car, home, etc. does your premium go up if someone else with the same insurance company has an accident? If you have the same auto insurance I (and I suspect most others) have, if you don't have an accident or moving violation over the course of a year, your premium goes down. This is not how the health insurance game works. AT BEST, your premium will not go up, however, your premium will NEVER go down without reducing your benefits.

It has been proven, that overall health costs could be reduced if there was an emphasis on preventative medicine. My family's health insurance is way more than my auto, home, and boat and the overall coverage is less.

I most of you guys miss the point, if you have health insurance you are already paying for the people that do not have it.

And DeltaHoosier, did you ever stop to think why they charge so much for emergency room visits? The ER is the one place where someone without insurance can show up and not be turned away. Is the ER not supposed to make a profit after costs? Again, you are paying for the people that do not have insurance.

"I still ask the question of those who are complaining about healthcare costs. What have you done to get a career path that allowed you to get healthcare? Did you choose not to do well in school? Did you go for the big bucks with no insurance option? Or you just have a run of bad luck?" I have insurance, but why should I be entitled to live any more than the next guy, or the guy with a run of bad luck, as you put it. Is that what Jesus would do?

"You guys have got to be crazy or invincible, the drug companies create life saving new drugs and cures for diseases. I want them to be as profitable as possible so they keep churning them out. How did drug companies become a villain? Now that's a PR campaign."

Many of the "breakthrough" drugs are either A. designated as experimental, so the insurance company won't cover them. Or B. so expensive that they along with treatment will max out your benefits before they are covered. Magic Johnson is for all intensive purposes, HIV-free. This is because of the drug regiment he received. Just about any insurance company is not going to cover half of the meds he was/is taking. Therefore, the "average Joe" dies in a few years, while the wealthy man lives a long time. Does that seem "right" or moral to you?

(Message edited by wake77 on February 18, 2010)
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       02-18-2010, 10:00 AM Reply   
someone said,"Did you choose not to do well in school?"
are you a teabagger?, not everyone can be at the top of their class
Old    Jeff Baker (innov8)      Join Date: May 2005       02-18-2010, 2:44 PM Reply   
Blahahahahahahahaha
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-18-2010, 3:04 PM Reply   
Jeremy. The cost of auto insurance will creep up if the entire company is bleed money whether you have an accident or not. I did not have an accident for over 13 years and about 18 years of only one dinger of my car that was considered single car accident that did not affect my rates. I can absolutley without question tell you that I am paying much more than I was in 1990 for car insurance. That tells me that the company is raising rates according to total liability of the company. I have never heard of anyones insurance premium going down for not having an accident during the year unless they are up charging you to begin with only to say they gave you the discount.

When you say the health insurance does not work this way? I say you are dead wrong on that. Premiums are based on risk period. It is a business. Why do you think people are up in arms because companies sometimes drop high risk clients. If they can not drop high risk clients, then overall costs go up.

The emergency rooms rates are crazy. You argue they should be able to charge what they want. I say you are correct to a certain degree, but, those people are on staff wether anyone shows up or not. It is a cash cow for the hospital. The costs are what they are because A) the hospital chooses to do it or B) they do it because they have too inorder to recoup normal operating costs?

If you really want everyone to pay for your healthcare they still have to limit costs. They will start by eliminating wakeboarding for starters. There is no benifit to the general public to allow it and it is a huge risk. Mark my words. You will get things like that just like seatbelt laws and helmet laws. Those two issues were high risk with data to prove it and the insurance companies got it through.

Jo. There is that Teabag word again. No, I do not put my family jewels in your mouth.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-18-2010, 5:09 PM Reply   
If the car you had now is more valuable than the one you had in 1990, than yes you do pay more. My car insurance has gone down each year since 2005 (same vehicle) and the rate I received in 2005 was lower than what I shopped around with other companies, and a fair price. I have never seen a letter from my auto insurer that said, "This was a bad year, we had a bookoo of wrecks, and profits are down, so your rate is going up." If your driving record is sound and your insurance has not lowered, I recommend you find a new insurance company. Hell, even All State is issuing "reward" checks for "Good Drivers". Have you ever heard of a Health Insurance company giving money back for a "Healthy Person", or even lowering rates?

Health insurance is priced in age brackets (20-29; 30-39; etc.),smoker/nonsmoker, prior illness, correct? When I was 27, I received NO medical services of any kind, I don't smoke, no prior health issues. So why did my premium rise the next year and the year after that and the year after that? I say you are wrong about health insurance works. They know they can jack the prices to the most profitable level, look at the case in CA. I can drop my car insurance and ride the bus, but if I drop my health insurance and take the risk of not carrying any, I risk financial ruin if something happens, and insurance companies know that this is how the majority of Americans feel. They have us by the family jewels and because of political affiliation you are against something being done to correct this vicious cycle?

I never said that ER's should be able to charge whatever they want. I said they HAVE to be profitable after costs, otherwise the hospital closes. So when the guy that doesn't pay for his visit, it gets passed along to the guys that have insurance.

You are getting carried away. Why would they eliminate wakeboarding? There are alot more people injured jogging than wakeboarding. So what they eliminate jogging, cycling, leaving your home? No wait, there are more people injured at home than on the lake. So by your reasoning we'll all be tied to our bed, unable to leave our homes.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       02-18-2010, 5:22 PM Reply   
They will start by eliminating wakeboarding for starters.

That is the same scare tactic as the death panel BS.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-18-2010, 5:31 PM Reply   
Yeah, reminds of the battle cry for the Iraqi War. "We have to fight them over there, or we'll be fighting them here."
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-18-2010, 7:10 PM Reply   
Manzo it is not far from the truth. I just used something that is close to home. Do you really think that I think they will go straight for wakeboarding? Of course not. Like I said, look at helmet laws and seat belt laws. I don't think anyone saw those coming in the 70's or 80's. It is a insurance company law passed down to all of us in the name of the public good. Look at all the lake closures to wakeboarding. That is done for the public good. If I were the government and I had a agency that could not make ends meet, I would start with all these multi-thousand dollar surgeries for un-needed sporting events. Just like the "death panels", they already do that. They cut off high risk people or at the very minimum will not insure people that are high risk. Is that not a death panel for a severely ill person? If the ends do not meet they will cut the funding to pay for fringe expenditures. It is a natural progression. How many saw the minimum age for social security raised or benefits cut? That has happened. Why? They felt like it or was it due to money? Yet, you believe the government would treat public insurance different or would be able to treat it different without limiting costs?

I cannot believe the basic lack of business sense from those on the left (even the right). Jeremy, where do this supposed profits of the health insurance companies go to? ALL insurance is based on risk and having enough money in reserve to pay claims. It is that simple. If they do not collect enough premiums to cover costs, then they raise rates. Your car insurance went down because the value of your car went down. The way you don't notice the rate raise is they just make the slope of the depreciation curve less than it would have been. If the value of your car stays the same, then you are paying more for your insurance. I have very good insurance and I have shopped around and there is not much change between the insurers. How do you explain why insurance companies charge different rates in different parts of the country? It has to do with risk.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-18-2010, 7:46 PM Reply   
I'll tell you where alot of the health care profits have been going lately. Convincing you that a public option in healthcare is going to be the end of the country and freedom as we know it. Google profits of the 5 big health insurance companies. The profits are in line with the profits of ExxonMobil and Shell back in 2008. So why did they still raise the rates?

You post is so flawed, I don't know where to go next.

Are you arguing against seatbelt and helmet laws? I have a buddy that is a Captain in our local fire dept. He has mentioned many times that serious injury or death could have been prevented had a seatbelt been worn during the accident that he has responded to. It has been blatantly shown that seat belt usage saves lives. Anyone that argues that is full of it. States pass seat belt laws.

I have never heard of wakeboarding being banned on a lake because of a safety (to the rider)issue.

So you bash about a procedure that is currently in use by health insurance companies "death panels", and pass it on as a downfall to the healthcare bill. I don't get it.

So you think they are going to go after "un-needed sporting events"? That makes alot of sense, address something that affects THOUSANDS, rather than something like, I don't know, smoking or obesity that affects MILLIONS and costs that are exponentially greater than all the surgeries of these sporting events? I'm sure it is all moot to you as you envision the citizens heading into concentration camps at the hands of the "Nazi's" and "Marxists".

Social security troubles began when the govt saw fit to begin issuing IOU's from the reserves in SS.

I can't believe the lack of compassion from people that claim to be "Christians", including yourself and the rest of the Tea palmers.

(Message edited by wake77 on February 18, 2010)
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-18-2010, 9:01 PM Reply   
Boy oh boy, you are an emotional sort. How much money does an insurance company need to wager against future losses? Sounds like you are giving up on the basic premise of rates vs risk. That is the first step in realizing this is not a cut and dry issue. Hate to tell you but the insurance companies are regulated by the states.

http://www.ambest.com/directory/govdir.html

Yet, they still were able to rip you off huh? Imagine what they will be able to do with Washington D.C. control.

My post is flawed huh? Please explain how you make medical costs go down while doing ZERO to limit it's costs? You have new math?

Who said I was arguing against using seatbelts or helmets. I think people should use them but I don't think the government should require it. I am not alone. It was a huge fight and some states even got the helmet law reversed if I remember correctly. The seatbelt law only came about because the feds threatened to take away funding from states that did not pass the law. Those laws were done against many peoples will's based on the public good. You think that is a great idea. What about the major amount of people who are not into sports that would be against paying for your sports injuries? Let's lump in football, softball leagues, wakeboarding, snow sking, dirt bike riding? If you don't think that is too far from the truth then you have not looking into how many rec areas and programs that have been shut down because of liability insurance issues. Your lying to yourself if you don't believe that.

On the water area being closed. It is not because of injury, it is because of so called water quality issues. Many of those places are open to fishermen, but, close to water sports all in the name of the public good.

Take a look at this article.

http://www.datalyscenter.org/

As America’s passion for sport grows, recreation- and exercise-related injuries are also rising. Reported clinical data reveal the prevalence of such injuries:



1 in 5 emergency room visits—or 3.65 million emergency room visits per year—are the result of participation in sports, recreation or exercise. (The CDC Injury Research Agenda)



Approximately 715,000 sports and recreation injuries occur each year in school settings (The CDC Injury Research Agenda); while high school athletes alone account for an estimated 2 million injuries, 500,000 doctor visits and 30,000 hospitalizations annually. (MMWR weekly)



Injuries to children younger than 15, involving 29 popular sports, cost the U.S. public more than $49 billion per year. (The Consumer Products Safety Commission)


Tell me this is not a prime cost cutter?

Seems like you are wanting to go after fat people just fine. What is the tables are turned? When the budgets get tight, ALL points of view are on the table.

The "death panel" is not me railing on anything. You really need to pay closer attention to the words actually typed.

They will start by eliminating wakeboarding for starters.

That is the same scare tactic as the death panel BS.


You and Manzo brought it up as a scare tactic like it never would happen but yet I was able to bring up how it is happening right now. I am just bring facts into the discussion. You on the other hand are struggling:

I'm sure it is all moot to you as you envision the citizens heading into concentration camps at the hands of the "Nazi's" and "Marxists".

I can't believe the lack of compassion from people that claim to be "Christians", including yourself and the rest of the Tea palmers


Love the continued name calling and emotional pleas. What does religious views have to do with sound financial decisions and monetary policy? Those are number driven, not emotion driven. I think what you are proposing is way less compassionate. I have not seen too many well run government programs. Case in point, your retort to me regarding Social Security.
Social security troubles began when the govt saw fit to begin issuing IOU's from the reserves in SS

I agree. We individually put enough into social security over our lifetimes to retire as millionaires but yet it is not well run? Imagine that. What is going to keep the government from doing IOU's off of healthcare? There is not requirement for them not too, they are the government. They just print more money that makes our savings and income worth less and less.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-18-2010, 9:07 PM Reply   
Also Jeremy, I see more money being spent on trying to convince us that we need national healthcare. Remember, it was not much of an issue until the democrats decided to make it a issue to get elected. You know, the whole promise all the free handouts in the world to get in power game. Kind of like global warming and all the deep pockets waiting to profit from the publics money if they can convince everyone that the world is going to end if we don't send more money.
Old    Ron T (wakemetoday)      Join Date: Mar 2006       02-19-2010, 6:39 AM Reply   
Well said, Someone Else!!!
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       02-19-2010, 7:12 AM Reply   
"Remember, it was not much of an issue until the democrats decided to make it a issue to get elected."

Kind of like how a balanced budget was all the rage a while back and it was absolutely paramount we do something. Yeah, how is that working out these days?
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       02-19-2010, 7:36 AM Reply   
" Remember, it was not much of an issue until the democrats decided to make it a issue to get elected."

That's not true. It's been an issue for a long time with people who don't have health care and for hospitals and all of us indirectly paying for people without healthcare insurance.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-19-2010, 8:25 AM Reply   
"Tell me this is not a prime cost cutter?"

Why didn't you address how much is spent on smoking-related illnesses (i.e. emphyzema, heart disease, lung cancer, etc.)? Why don't you research which costs more, supplemental accident insurance OR supplemental illness insurance? Accidents happen so my point do you believe they are going to ban exercise or all recreational sports (golf, tennis, etc.)? Those statistics you post are nice, but do you honestly think the majority of those have anything to do with "ACTION" sports? I'm not going to check, but my guess is no.

The evidence is there to support mandatory seat belt laws, yet you don't see it necessary to post those statistics. Here's a statistic for you 70 percent of adults that choose not to wear seat belts do not require that children wear seat belts in the car with them. What next do you the "people" advocate, babies shouldn't be forced to ride in car seats? And those laws were not created "against the people's wills". You make it seem that everyone was against seatbelt laws before the first one was ever enacted, when many thought it was a good idea. Millions have and continue to support laws enforcing seat belts.

Water quality to fisherman has nothing to do with health so I'll leave that one alone.

Our country began to fall into the financial quagmire once we decided to wage two unnecessary wars (I'm a vet, so don't bash me on my patriotism and my brother-in-law is currently in Iraq).

"Remember, it was not much of an issue until the democrats decided to make it a issue to get elected."

Not true. In the mid 90's, a Republican (not sure which one) had a good plan. It was buried as many in the GOP felt that it would ensure Clinton's reelection in 1996. Research that. Bush, of course, didn't address healthcare other than modifications to Medicare. But that does not make it a non-issue.
Old    Dhtige Hill (dh03r6)      Join Date: Mar 2007       02-19-2010, 8:30 AM Reply   
They dont have it because they dont want to pay for it. Anybody can get health insurance for less then a car payment. I have a 10 year old truck and i pay out of pocket for good insurance. So dont take my tax money and use it because you still want to drive a tahoe.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-19-2010, 8:48 AM Reply   
You're right Tige. There is not one person in the US that does not have insurance because they simply can't afford it. There is no one in the US that has to make a choice each month to either pay the heating bill, buy groceries for the kids, and pay the rent or pay for insurance. They ALL choose to buy rims and stereos for their new SUV or a new 60" Plasma rather than paying for insurance.
Old    Dhtige Hill (dh03r6)      Join Date: Mar 2007       02-19-2010, 8:53 AM Reply   
If you can afford 120 a month for your HEALTH then you should really check your finances. If you cant afford groceries for your kids even with all the gov money they will give you then you should not have children. Dont force your problems on me because of bad choices you made. I dont make very much money and as such i dont have kids i keep my lights on and i pay for my own health insurance.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-19-2010, 9:09 AM Reply   
So if someone gets laid off, that is there fault? What exactly is the bad choice made? Because the crystal ball didn't reveal that the factory they took employment with was going to shut down in 15 years? Millions of Americans that live paycheck to paycheck are one incident away from being one of those people that fit your category of being a bad choice maker.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-19-2010, 9:13 AM Reply   
Smoking is a known issue and they still can not get it banned. Drinking is a heavy hitter too. I think you miss the point. You have to limit the costs period. I don't think you know how money works do you? If you want everyone to pay for something then everyone is going to start having a say in it. That is the way the government works. To you sports is important. Me, I played baseball, wrestled, and played football in high school and went on to play baseball in college. I also played softball as an adult, mountain biked and wakeboarded as well as basketball as non school sponsored from the time I was little. With that said, if you want everyone to pay for it and then the budgets get tight (and they will), they will start looking into easy marks like team sports and make those so expensive that no one can afford to cover them with insurance. They already do in places like california. Do you really think that the average congress critter really will look into which sports by number will cost them when they are looking at which things to cut? Also, if I were to throw just a straight percentage of injury to number who participate to you vs actual numbers of people participating, action sports looks very damning with the amount of high cost injury vs participants. You give congress criters too much credit for looking at actual facts.

You again are missing the point about seatbelts. I wear one and my kids do to. The point is, if the insurance companies and or the government (aka public) descides that the activity is for the public good, they are going to pass it regardless of how many millions do not approve of the law. Many think the seat belt usage is good, many do not believe in giving the government yet another opportunity for an excuse to pull you over and fine you.

I don't know why you can't grasp the water issue. They package the banning of water sports as a public health issue (aka water quality) issue. Even though fishermen are allowed on the lakes (aka two cycle engines spewing crap into the water and peeing from the boat). Facts don't have a ton to do with the ban except for soil errossion issues. They felt it was in the public interest to ban the activity so the government did regardless of fact.

You really believe that two wars that amounted to less than 4% of our GNP is the cause for all this? Then I have a bridge to sell you. We bailed wall street alone with over the cost of the entire war through all the years in one day. Don't give me that crap that Iraq was the cause.

I tend to follow politics moderately close and I don't remember a republican touting public healthcare. HMO's came from Clinton's effort to reform healthcare.

The point of this exercise is simple. The government is horrible at managing business matters. Insurance is not for use. It is a just in case. You are after a service contract and those have usage caps to manage costs. The more you use ANYTHING, the more it costs. Period. No way to get around that no matter who you put in charge of the money. Another constant. If budgets get tight, the cuts start coming. If you can't cut, you raise the price. If you can't do either, then budgets overrun. The difference is businesses can't run that way. Government would just print more money and devalue everything in the proccess. That is a universal truth.
Old    Jeff Baker (innov8)      Join Date: May 2005       02-19-2010, 9:14 AM Reply   
Americans need to learn how to make good decisions in life and not rely on our Government to bail them out because they made bad decisions.

I have given up a lot to get to where i am in my life and had to make really hard decision, learn what delayed gratification is and do without, until I can do with.
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       02-19-2010, 9:18 AM Reply   
You republicans are so old fashioned. I know you all wish it was the 1950's but the times are changing and your iron age philosophies are dying. Now please, go back to praying to your imaginary friend.
Old    Ron T (wakemetoday)      Join Date: Mar 2006       02-19-2010, 9:32 AM Reply   
Democrats--Creating a permanent under class and moving the Middle Class into it! YEP, A GOOD FUTURE. I can hardly wait.
Old    Trace (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       02-19-2010, 9:33 AM Reply   
I love how people assume that you're either GOP or Dem. I happen to think for myself, and hence I despise both parties equally.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-19-2010, 9:33 AM Reply   
Nice retort Jimmy. What determines price? How do you control cost? Or do you just throw your faith in the imaginary government god that can just make up numbers and make end meet?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-19-2010, 9:36 AM Reply   
Oh... that's right numbers are some of that ol fashioned math based stuff that they don't teach in the gubment schools anymore. They replaced that subject with rap vidoes.
Old    Ron T (wakemetoday)      Join Date: Mar 2006       02-19-2010, 9:49 AM Reply   
Well said, Someone Else. These new liberals are emotionally based so reasoning over a trivial thing like cost analysis is useless. I compare this new spending and taxing philosophy to giving a kid the key to a candy store.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       02-19-2010, 9:58 AM Reply   
You republicans are so old fashioned. I know you all wish it was the 1950's but the times are changing and your iron age philosophies are dying. Now please, go back to praying to your imaginary friend.

Where did I just hear that recently...
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-19-2010, 9:58 AM Reply   
I'm telling ya Ron.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-19-2010, 10:01 AM Reply   
Jeremy, someone who lives paycheck to paycheck has been making bad choices for a while. Those of us that manage our finances better, don't want to have to use our money to "prop up" those who don't.....
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-19-2010, 10:14 AM Reply   
"Insurance is not for use. It is a just in case."

That is not how healthcare should work. Preventative measures taken today, saves money down the road. I can spend 20 dollars changing my oil, or spend 2000 down the road when my engine seizes by saving that 20 dollars. Do you go to the dentist for routine checkups or do you wait until all of your teeth have rotted out? Does that make sense? Today's doctors (I have a friend that is a MD) are advocates of preventative medicine.

I also resent your classification of "gubment" schools. I am tutoring, MATH, this semester in a "gubment" school and I work hard preparing lesson plans for my students which does not consist of rap videos. If you are dissatisfied with what is happening in schools, why not spend some of your time volunteering instead of stereotyping inner-city schools?

I'll find the article I discussed earlier and post it.

According to CNN, the projected ten-year cost of the health care bill is 1 trillion dollars, which ironically is the same cost of the ten-year projections of the Afghan and Iraqi wars.

Pertaining to seat belts. If you don't wear one, expect to get pulled over. Same as speeding or DUI or any other violation; it's the law.

Govt running things. I think you are wanting to say Democrat lawmakers cannot run things. If this was a GOP plan, I suspect your feelings would be different.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-19-2010, 10:20 AM Reply   
Cliff, the majority of Americans (~71% found in 2008) are living paycheck to paycheck. Do you think that all of them are Democrats?

30% of Americans making > $100,000 live paycheck to paycheck.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-19-2010, 10:23 AM Reply   
"If this was a GOP plan, I suspect your feelings would be different"

No they wouldn't.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-19-2010, 10:59 AM Reply   
That is exactly how insurance works. You use it, you pay more.

I agree preventative medicine does reduce costs. That is not what the discussion is about but I do see how that ties into a usage issue. Preventative medicine does not typically require the use of MRI's, Cat Scans, Nuclear Medicine, Surgeons, and so on. The dental field allows for preventative care on a twice a year basis for most plans. After that they have a very defined pay schedule for what is a fairly small number of well know procedures. Almost all those pay schedules require a pretty decent contribution from the insured. The market is well defined and cost analysis is well understood. Very little dental coverage will include continuing benefits that could range in the hundreds of thousand of dollars. You will not go to a dentist and they charge you $8000 dollars for an x-ray and a checkup, if it is an emergency.

Who said I was stereotyping inner city schools? You have some sort of racial/ social bias? Rap video's are just as prevelent in the suburbs as they are in the city. Trust me, I have teenagers in the house. Also, I don't think you understand sarcasm too well. Even if the schools did a half way job teaching math, they still don't do a darn with teaching finance and critical thinking.

Predicitons I have saw for healthcare are initial costs of 15% of our GNP. I do not believe that 100 billion a year number at all. Considering I just cited an article that sports injuries for kids under the age of 15 cost us almost 50 billion a year. According the article that was just 1 in 5 emergency visits. Then throw in that majority of healthcare costs happen in the last year of life, you have a much much bigger number than 100 billion a year.

Still missing the point on setbelts I see. Either that or you are being obtuse for argument sake or you don't read for content. Seatbelt laws are in place against against the will of a vast amount of the publics will because it was deemed to be in the interest of public safety.

I don't care if it was a GOP plan or not. I was against Bush and his Medicine plan too. I am not a huge fan of government ran institutions for the sake of having the government run them.

I don't think you understand either, is the counties typically have a public ran hospitals already. My wife had at least 2 surgeries there when she was younger and did not have insurance. I went to the emergency room as a teen. A lady pulled in front of me on my bicycle and I had a pre-existing cut on my hand that opened up. The cop talked me into going over to get checked out. I rode over with him and I got bandaged up and a shot. I cost $70 dollars for the visit. The facilities are already there, it is people don't like to have to go there.

(Message edited by deltahoosier on February 19, 2010)
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-19-2010, 11:10 AM Reply   
I didn't say anything about Dems or Reps. But I do know that Obama has come out and publicly stated a "Robin Hood" type of philosophy. I am absolutely opposed to that. I do think that those who REALLY need help should have avenues, but I am certain that Obama doesn't have the plan to fix things. He will only make things worse, and keep blaming someone else...
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       02-19-2010, 12:04 PM Reply   
"They dont have it because they dont want to pay for it. Anybody can get health insurance for less then a car payment."

You must have quite the car.

My latest plan costs me $900.00 a month with $2500 ded. 80% I've paid as high as $1300 per month, with $500 ded.

And here I complain about my $350 a month car payment, what am I thinking
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       02-19-2010, 2:16 PM Reply   
"My latest plan costs me $900.00 a month with $2500 ded. 80% I've paid as high as $1300 per month, with $500 ded.

And here I complain about my $350 a month car payment, what am I thinking"

Yeah Scott, that's what happens when you run your own business.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-19-2010, 2:29 PM Reply   
Just think Scott. Obama is going to tax you because you have one of those cadillac plans.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-19-2010, 3:06 PM Reply   
Hey delta. I found a bit of info on what I discussed with you a few posts ago. This is part of the timeline from pbs.org.

"Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan."

William Kristol was a chief conservative strategist, I believe he passed away a few months ago. Google "Republican Universal Health Care Plan 1993" and you will find a bit more info.

I'm gone for the evening.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-19-2010, 4:05 PM Reply   
Sounds like he was not proposing healthcare but a strategy to fight democrats. Sounds like the piece was writen as what the author thought the memo/ strategy meant to the republicans in it's battle with the democrat party. It is purely an opinion/ speculation piece of the author as to what grounds healthcare was being fought on.
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       02-19-2010, 4:20 PM Reply   
"Yeah Scott, that's what happens when you run your own business."

I couldn't afford it if I had to go it on my own, that's through my wifes employer. She has to work to get coverage for herself. Oregon does not have exlusionary (sp) policies, they either cover your whole body or nothing. My wife destroyed her elbow on her last job, and now she's un-insurable on her own.

"Just think Scott. Obama is going to tax you because you have one of those cadillac plans."

Tell me deltahoosier, how thick is your bubble that you live in?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-19-2010, 7:00 PM Reply   
I live in the real world bud. I did not have insurance growing up and I had to move 2500 miles away to find the type of job that could give me the benefits I need. Both my parents are dead and a brother all before the age of thirty. During college we could not afford our family home and we had to abandon it. I was basically homeless. I went almost my entire 3rd semester without books because the finance department would not believe how little I lived on. You tell me how big of a bubble I live in?

If you just want to talk about insurance facts, how is your government program going to cut costs to make healthcare affordable? Also, you are right about the cusp of what Obama called a cadillac plan that he wants to tax (that is if you got it through an employer). That is until he made a deal with the unions to not tax theirs.
Old    Dhtige Hill (dh03r6)      Join Date: Mar 2007       02-19-2010, 7:49 PM Reply   
Scott you need to shop around i pay 120.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       02-20-2010, 7:31 AM Reply   
$900-1300 a month for health care? Is that for a family of ten? I just checked blue cross here, and for a 40 year-old male, you're looking at about $100 a month:

http://www.individualhealth.com/bluecross/bccrsp.htm
Old    Dhtige Hill (dh03r6)      Join Date: Mar 2007       02-20-2010, 8:14 AM Reply   
Thank you brett did the wheels just fall off the "we have to have the gov do everything" machine.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-20-2010, 8:31 AM Reply   
I looked up the website for a family of 4 in california it was roughly $300 a month. I am 39 and wife 40. I can get other plans with prefered provider for around $500 a month with less of yearly out of pocket. Even with that, I think most of the yearly out of pocket is for non basic care. Checkups are included with a copay, but, it still keeps people out of the bankrupt claim game. Also, if you know you have this payment every month you can also write it off on your taxes.

I have seen 20 and 30 somethings down at the bar dropping more than that for the month on drinks. Maybe Obama is on to something. Maybe he should mandate everyone buy a minimum insurance plan. In Indiana where I grew up, the $300 amonth gets you a zero co-pay policy.

(Message edited by deltahoosier on February 20, 2010)
Old    Dhtige Hill (dh03r6)      Join Date: Mar 2007       02-20-2010, 8:35 AM Reply   
And just imagine what would happen if the government stepped aside and allowed companies nationwide to compete. Throw in tort reform and maybe some type of malpractice protection for doctors and we could have it made. Ahhhh free market capitalism and small government.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-20-2010, 8:58 AM Reply   
$1650/mo for HI for a family of 4 here. My wife has Lyme disease and we pay about $3000/mo out of pocket to get proper medical care. The HI won't cover treatment past 30 days, or even proper medical treatment during that time because the "medical guidelines" are a joke for the handling of Lyme.

What's ironic is that if we didn't pay ourselves for treatment my wife could file for disability and get $800 a month from the govt until 65 when you go on SS.
Old    Dhtige Hill (dh03r6)      Join Date: Mar 2007       02-20-2010, 9:02 AM Reply   
Check out blue cross blue shield
Old    Jeff Baker (innov8)      Join Date: May 2005       02-20-2010, 9:14 AM Reply   
So you spend about 55 grand a year on Health Care John?
Or does the 3000 a month include the 1650?
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-20-2010, 9:18 AM Reply   
Heaviest Element Yet Known to Science Discovered
February 15, 2010 - 14:09 ET
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has now identified with certainty the heaviest element known to science.
The new element, Pelosium (PL), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Pelosium is inert, and has no charge and no magnetism. Nevertheless, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Pelosium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
Pelosium has a normal half-life of 2 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a biennial reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
Pelosium mass will increase over time, since each reorganization will promote many morons to become isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Pelosium becomes Senatorium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Pelosium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-20-2010, 9:51 AM Reply   
I can tell you for a fact LLNL did not discover Pelosium though I think the rest of the country already knew about it.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:30 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us