¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

What ARE you talking about - the projections from the nonpartisan CBO are the progressive party line? Documented lower insurance rates in several states' exchanges already are the progressive party line?

Ah.......no. As I've had to repeatedly explain to you, FACTS ARE FACTS. They aren't owned by one side of the political spectrum, but only one side of the political spectrum consistently thumbs their noses at facts - that'd be your side. Only one side thinks that making bogus arguments is a valid way to discuss things - that'd be your side.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:59 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




Oh sorry that would be the progressive party line but I'm sure you understood that. Lets see what the cost curve looks like in January.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

Oh, so you were simply behaving as a troll, and you weren't actually interested in having an honest debate?

Thanks for admitting it in public for everyone on this forum to see. I just LOVE it when people like you out themselves! I swear.....



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:37 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




It appears you've swallowed the bait. Good luck and enjoy the weekend.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

I did no such thing. I've ONLY been directly responding to other's dishonest and/or disingenuous postings on this topic. As such, accusing ME of turning it into a political discussion isn't fair or accurate. If one looks at the first postings on this subject, one sees claims that Obama wants us to eat dog food, for example. Claiming that *I* have turned it into a political discussion? Ha!

We have already seen the positive bending of the cost curve. We've already seen families be able to get and keep healthcare coverage as a result.We already know that people who couldn't afford coverage in the past who can now get it.

We COULD have a cost to those who already have insurance, it's true. But when one compares that to the benefits to millions of families, and when one sees that only those most able to bear the financial burdens of some additional costs will see more money coming out of their pockets, it's truly hard to argue against it using factual info.

And that's why my side of the argument has been using facts, and your side has only been using opinions that one can't support with the known facts.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:52 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




You've watered down the conversation now to a political discussion. I have no interest in playing the political game. The benefits or failings of the ACA will be demonstrated in the cost and quality of the plan to those who presently have insurance. To those who do not have insurance they now will have a 100% increase in cost .

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

Yeah, but see, unlike you, who wasn't aware of the Republican-genesis of healthcare reform, we already knew that no Republicans voted for it.

But what we ALSO know is that politicians not voting for something can mean several things - that they never supported something, or it can mean that they refrained from voting for it due to purely partisan reasons. And the evidence we have available tells us that it wasn't due to anything other than partisan reasons.

Read the article by a reliable conservative voice, Norman Ornstein, who works for a conservative think tank, AEI. That will give you some insight, if you'll ONLY be open to another opinion other than your own, as to how unfair the Republican leadership has been on this topic.

I understand that you want to believe what you want to believe - but that doesn't change the facts in this issue. "Obamacare" is what Republicans, for years, said that they wanted from healthcare reform - but when a Democrat pushed for it, and when a Democratic majority in Congress created it with a ton of Republican input during the process, they failed to vote for it in the end.

I previously provided 4 links to info about Obamacare that gave you info about how it's full of Republican ideals. Here's some more info.
(Oh, and here's a clue - attacking the source, rather than the info which the source provides, is a logical fallacy, and an illegitimate way to argue. You should stop doing it.)

The idea that all Americans should purchase health insurance so that the rest of us don't have to pay up when the uninsured get sick has its origins in a 1989 brief ("Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,") by the conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation. In fact, several Republican leaders, including presidential nominee Mitt Romney himself, once embraced the idea. Romney famously spearheaded such a mandate in Massachusetts when he was governor there. Now, of course, the concept is being compared to Stalinist dictate.

Or here are some more pieces of info. Again, you can refuse to acknowledge the undeniable, but that's your shortcoming, not ours.


Includes personal responsibility incentives: Allows health insurance premium to vary based on participation in proven employer wellness programs
(Sources: H.R. 3468, ???????????????€????????Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act???????????????€???????? (Castle bill); H.R. 4038, ???????????????€????????Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act???????????????€???????? (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3400, ???????????????€????????Empowering Patients First Act???????????????€???????? (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 3970, ???????????????€????????Medical Rights & Reform Act???????????????€???????? (Kirk bill), "Coverage, Prevention and Reform Act")

Advances medical liability reform through grants to States: Provides grants to States to jump-start and evaluate promising medical liability reform ideas to put patient safety first, prevent medical errors, and reduce liability premiums.
(Sources: S. 1783, ???????????????€????????Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act???????????????€???????? (Enzi bill); H.R. 3400, ???????????????€????????Empowering Patients First Act???????????????€???????? (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 4529, ???????????????€????????Roadmap for America???????????????€????????s Future Act???????????????€???????? (Ryan bill); S. 1099, ???????????????€????????Patients???????????????€???????? Choice Act???????????????€???????? (Burr-Coburn, Ryan-Nunes bill))

Extends dependent coverage to age 26: Gives young adults new options.
(Sources: H.R. 4038, ???????????????€????????Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act???????????????€???????? (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3970, ???????????????€????????Medical Rights & Reform Act???????????????€???????? (Kirk bill))

Allows automatic enrollment by employers in health insurance: Allows employee to opt-out.
(Sources: House Republican Substitute; H.R. 3400, ???????????????€????????Empowering Patients First Act???????????????€???????? (Republican Study Committee bill); ???????????????€????????Coverage, Prevention, and Reform Act???????????????€???????? )

Mechanisms to improve quality.
(Sources: H.R. 4529, ???????????????€????????Roadmap for America???????????????€????????s Future Act;???????????????€???????? S. 1099, ???????????????€????????Patients???????????????€???????? Choice Act;???????????????€???????? H.R. 3400, Republican Study Group bill; S. 1783, ???????????????€????????Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act???????????????€???????? (Enzi bill))


Community Mental Health Centers. The President???????????????€????????s Proposal ensures that individuals have access to comprehensive mental health services in the community setting, but strengthens standards for facilities that seek reimbursement as community mental health centers by ensuring these facilities are providing appropriate care and not taking advantage of Medicare patients or the taxpayers.
(Source: H.R. 3970, ???????????????€????????Medical Rights & Reform Act???????????????€????????)






~From: zimowski <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 2:35 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






My first reaction was: "An article from the **opinion** pages of the New York Times, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country? How objective, factual and convincing could it be?" After reading through the article, much to my surprise, it wasn't as bad as I expected. I agree that Obamacare may be at least partially based on conservative economic principles, but this does not mean that Obamacare is a Republican invention. Conservative economist is not equivalent to Republican. Further, there is a difference between principles and implementation (i.e. between a viewpoint and how the viewpoint materialized in the legislation). Once again, I have to point at the voting records of those involved. As the voting record of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate clearly indicate, no Republican voted in favor of the ACA. This fact cannot be disputed. It's a matter of public record. And it's not someone's view expressed on an opinion page, but even this opinion page article states that "The White House could not have been more ham-fisted in the way it rammed the bill through Congress."

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@> wrote:

Perhaps this will give you a clue. ????????????????
"The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system ???????????????????????????????€" principles originally???????????????? embraced by Republicans???????????????? as a market alternative to the???????????????? Clinton planin the early 1990s. " ???????????????? It is the basically the same plan implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. ????????????????


________________________________
From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 1:16 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare



????????????????
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that I'm wrong if you can point me to a web site that supports your assertion.

I've tried to find such a web site and have failed. Here's what I did find:

Basic information about ACA:


Voting record in the Senate: Not a single Republican yes vote.


Voting record in the House of Representatives: Not a single Republican yes vote. Quite a few Democratic no votes as well.


If ACA were a Republican invention, then why is it that not even a single Republican in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives voted for it?

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" <rickb_cool@> wrote:

It may be laughable, but, on the other hand, it's completely accurate and reveals how much you will misrepresent the truth. Yes, in detail it is not the original plan. Legislation never is. It is however, the basic principle and operational structure proposed by Republicans.

Thanks for revealing yourself so clearly.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

Your continued assertions that the ACA was a Republican invention is well, for lack of a better word, laughable. Everyone knows that ACA was ramrodded through both the Senate and the House during the first year of Obama's presidency when the Democrats held the majority in both the Senate and House. As I recall, the final text of the law was distributed almost last minute, which due to its size and complexity made it impossible for anyone to actually read and study it before the votes were taken. And I also seem to recall that many complained about not having the opportunity to amend it prior to the vote.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" <rickb_cool@> wrote:

Until we get simple single payer universal medical insurance we will suffer with sub-optimal performance and businesses will continue to suffer competitive and economic disadvantages. Only when everyone is covered and business no longer pay for the coverage will we get good medical insurance and regain free market competitive advantages because business will no loner need to decide to provide medical insurance or not and will not have to deal with medical insurance operationally. This was a step created by conservative Republicans to delay such universal single payer medical insurance. The complexity comes from a divided Congress and control by industry lobbyists.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:

The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.???????????????? I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.???????????????? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.???????????????? Members of my family???????????????? live under Medicaid and???????????????? others like myself live under Medicare.???????????????? But you seem to have a dosed???????????????? mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care???????????????? programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.???????????????? Who will prevail the ACA???????????????? supporters or those who oppose..???????????????? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo:

ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA???????????????? is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care???????????????? insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.???????????????? The point I was
making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA???????????????? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder???????????????? but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA???????????????? as the answer.???????????????? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will
have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.???????????????? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.???????????????? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare???????????????? doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA???????????????? you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.???????????????? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor
who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.???????????????? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA???????????????? has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.???????????????? My Medicare???????????????? doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon???????????????? a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at
all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA???????????????? is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of >
doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single
payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.???????????????? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors,
in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.???????????????? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.???????????????? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter
who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.???????????????? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.???????????????? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears >
Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ???????????????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ???????????????? > > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > >
OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the
ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like >
socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > >

--- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > >

This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >