What healthcare reform means for you as a skier?

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. The Presiding Officer need not necessarily follow the advice of the Parliamentarian, and the Parliamentarian can be replaced by the Senate Majority Leader.[7]. However, this hasn't been done since 1975.[8]

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

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

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

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

From the Dictionary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson -

"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now." 

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny"

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

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

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus).The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. The Presiding Officer need not necessarily follow the advice of the Parliamentarian, and the Parliamentarian can be replaced by the Senate Majority Leader.[7]. However, this hasn't been done since 1975.[8]

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

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

According to wiki...

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

So if wiki's correct, in pure communism, there wouldn't be any government.

I'm amused by this thread for so many reasons.  First of all, that it is on newschoolers at all.  Second, that a discussion about healthcare reforms in the US are being equated to socialism or communism.  Third, that wikipedia is being quoted as the definitive source for political rhetoric. 

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

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

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