¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

"Practicing good health"...I do not really know what that means..Other than the beliefthat people get sick because of their actions.
If you are sick, it must be your fault....
For instance, it is agreed by most urologist that as you age, you will get some cancer of the prostate. For some people, it will be benign, as in BPH; for others it will be a slow growing tumor which will not kill them, and for some others, they will get an aggressive cancer of said prostate, and it will kill them.
Could you please explain to me how to avoid getting the nasty ones, by "practicing good health."
Of course it seems that, were you to die young, you would not get such cancers.
Is it your opinion, that we should commit seppuku, so that folks like you can be relieved of the awful fear of, potentially, paying for somebody's else medical bill?

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Sam Cay" <ceome60@> wrote:

I can somewhat agree with your position. I would also support forming an insurance pool but it should be US wide and not only for pre-existing conditions but for all insurance. This should not be state specific but country wide. Let them all compete for customers. As for insuring kids through medicare/medicaid I don't agree. They should be covered by the parents insurance . Unfortunately I had to go to medicare after reaching age 65. It would not have been my insurance choice but because I had paid in it I have purchased the rights to use it. I am paying for others through my past and present medicare payments and I don't believe we should be forced to again pick up the tab for the new ACA recipients. Healthcare is not a right especially if you don't practice good health which a high percentage of us don't. A single payer program takes the burden off of the recipient. It then becomes an entitlement which it should not be.

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

Pre-condition is interesting.If you do not buy insurance and pay the fine, the day you find out you have cancer, you buy insurance.? The insurance company can only charge you a premium of three times what it charges others of your age.? After you are cured, you drop your insurance and go back to merely paying the fine.? The insurance company will have to cover this loss by raising premiums on the others that have stayed in the plan.I would have rather see the government force all insurance companies to participate in a pool for those that have pre-condition and if necessary supplement payments to the pool to keep those who have a previous condition covered and pay a reasonable premium. Also, I believe all children should have health care coverage and should have been placed under Medicare and Medicaid. Who would argue against this? It could have been covered by the $750 billion taken out of these programs. Then I would like see the government proceed to dealing with each issue separately in a thoughtful manner.What I don't like about the ACA?is that it was rushed and forced through without thought and consideration.? People believe that it is going to reduce premiums, The above example shows that it will not. Allowing children to be on a parents plan has increased everyone's insurance so that a few can get a benefit. My approach wouldnot?have increase the cost and perhaps reduced premiums.The ACA?was sold on the basis that it would reduce health insurance costs and not that it was a plan solely to cover those who have no insurance.----- Original Message -----From: Sheila Beaudry?Date: Saturday, July 27, 2013 11:33 pmSubject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: "ibmpensionissues@..." > No, it shows the disinformation?and fear campaign against it is > working.? Plus if you actually ask people about specific things > that are in the ACA?they do like it and want it.? Personally I > would rather have a single payer plan.? When you add the > liberals who would rather have a single payer plan to the > conservatives who don't like changing the current healthcare?> system, you get a larger per cent.? This is what happens when > you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes > it.? It has a lot of good things in it though:? you can get > coverage with pre-existing conditions, no more ceiling limits, > kids can stay on parents plan till 26, more people will have > coverage, helps people who can't afford it to get > insurance,?will reduce uncovered people getting expensive care > in emergency room?which?in the past has?increased everyone > else's costs.? I don't think it is perfect, but it is a good > start and changes can be made in the future if> needed to tweak it.? > > > From: "zimowski@" > To: ibmpensionissues@...?> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:34 PM> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > Consequences From Obamacare> > ? > The CBS poll is not a FOX poll - precisely the reason I cited it > first. You cannot dispute the fact that the most recent opinion > polls clearly demonstrate that most Americans do not want ACA. > The more they understand ACA and the more they realize that > Obama has hoodwinked them once again, the more they wish it > would be repealed.> > Your supposed facts are the same talking points that the smooth > talking Obama used to hoodwink so many Americans, including the > press, in the first place. He repeated them over and over again, > just like you are doing, until a critical mass began to believe > him. If you hear it often enough, it must be true. Right? But > now many Americans are beginning to wake up.> > As your post clearly indicates, you think that talking points, > repeated as nauseum, are facts. And, you think that browbeating > is debating. These are the same tactics that Obama, the finger > pointer in chief, uses. But they're no longer working on the > majority of Americans, as the polls indicate, and those same > tactics will not work on this board. Most participants here are > just too intelligent to be hoodwinked by you. > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon > wrote:> >> > > > > > -----Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and > claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them > facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still > does not make them facts.> > > > Of course it doesn't, and IF I'd been doing that, you'd have a > point. But I haven't been doing that - and so, yet again, you > don't have a point!> > > > On the other hand, claiming that a fact is a fact and not an > opinion, as YOU'VE tried to claim - that facts we're presenting > to you are simply opinions, or the other claim you've made, that > there are alternative facts dependent upon one's beliefs - now > THAT'S a boguw way to behave.> > > > The problematic behavior has been all yours. All yours. You > own it, and I've pointed it out, repeatedly, and I understand > that you don't like that. Too bad, so sad.> > > > And YET AGAIN you strip stuff of its context when you assert > that I was saying that the vast majority of Americans want ACA. > I didn't. You're either being dishonest or showing a stunning > lack of reading comprehension yet again.> > > > The vast majority of Americans want what we got in ACA OR > MORE! And when Americans are polled on the individual aspects of > the program, they like them too.> > > > Now, because of the disinformatiion campaign from the right > side of the political aisle, it doesn't have the amount of > support it would have if people had the actual facts at hand. In > addition, if there wasn't the factor of people hating anything > that Obama and Demcrats did, it'd have even MORE support. As > I've explained, repeatedly, the lack of Republican VOTES for > this isn't equivalent to the lack of support from Republicans > for the things included in the > ACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!> > > Geesh, you're easy to debunk.> > > > And then you think it's legitimate to cite a Fox News poll? > REALLY? And after the disinformation campaign from the > rightwing, I'm not surprised at all that many Americans > mistakenly think that ACA will cost them.> > > > THE FACT IS THAT IT WON'T. Again, this is a fact. ACA will > only adversely financially impact the wealthier among us - and, > not strangely enough, this is EXACTLY what I've typed about 6 > times in this back and forth!!!> > > > Geez - make it harder next time for me to use your own words > to make you look foolish.> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----> > From: zimowski > > To: ibmpensionissues > > Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:42 am> > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > Consequences From Obamacare> > > > > > > > > > Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and > claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them > facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still > does not make them facts.> > > > Let's look at one example. You state: " And yeah, I get that > you're selfish. But our nation, as a whole, isn't, and as we're > a representative democracy, what the majority of Americans want > is what we hopefully, as a nation, provide to our citizens. And > the vast majority of Americans favor this. You don't. You're > entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."> > > > Now, let's focus on your assertion "The vast majority of > Americans favor this.", which you assert as if it is a fact. > It's not. Here are some facts for you to think about:> > > > CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want Obamacare repealed> > > > > finds-more-americans-than-ever-want-obamacare-repealed/ > > > > Note that these poll results were posted on the web on July > 24, 2013 at 10:10AM.> > > > (CBS News) A new CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever > want the Affordable Care Act repealed.> > > > According to the poll, 36 percent of Americans want Congress > to expand or keep the health care law while 39 percent want > Congress to repeal it - the highest percentage seen in CBS News > polls. The poll also found a majority of Americans - 54 percent -> disapprove of the health care law, 36 percent of Americans > approve of it and 10 percent said they don't know about it.> > > > The health care law is a chronic issue for the White House, > CBS News political director John Dickerson said on "CBS This > Morning." "There's an operational part to this, which is that > the White House has got to get people to sign up for these > health exchanges, particularly younger, healthier Americans, and > so they are tactically running a campaign much like the > presidential campaign, reaching out, using the techniques of > that campaign to get younger people to sign up for these health > exchanges."> > > The poll also found just 13 percent of Americans say the > health care law will personally "help me" while 38 percent said > they believe the law will personally "hurt me."> > > > And then, there's the Fox News Poll:> > > > Voters say repeal ObamaCare, expect new law will cost them> > > > Read more: > poll-voters-say-repeal-obamacare-expect-new-law-will-cost-them/> > > > Note that this article was posted on the web on July 25, 2013.> > > > Voters think ObamaCare is going to hurt their wallet and over > half want the law repealed, according to a new Fox News national poll.> > > > By a large 47-11 percent margin, voters expect the 2010 health > care law will cost them rather than save them money in the > coming year. Another 34 percent think the law won't change their > family's health care costs.> > > > Those negative expectations come at a time when a majority of > the public remains unhappy with the way thing are going in the > country (63 percent dissatisfied), and over half say they > haven't seen any signs the economy has started to turn the > corner (57 percent).> > > > Republicans are three times as likely as Democrats to think > ObamaCare will cost them money over the next year (70 percent > vs. 23 percent). One Democrat in five expects the law will > result in savings for their family (21 percent).> > > > The poll asks people to take an up-or-down vote on ObamaCare: > 40 percent say they would vote to keep the law in place, while > just over half -- 53 percent -- would repeal it.> > > > Over half of those under age 45 (51 percent) as well as those > 45 and over (56 percent) would vote to repeal ObamaCare.> > > > Most Republicans want the law repealed (by 85-13 percent) and > so do independents (by 65-25 percent). Most Democrats favor > keeping ObamaCare (by 72-21 percent).> > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon > wrote:> > >> > > > > > Do you REALLY think that you can argue that I provided TOO > MANY FACTS to refute your argument - that attacking the length > of my post is a valid debate tactic? Really? I didn't "ramble" > at all. But thanks for showing everyone that when you can't > refute a thing I've written, you'll resort to making a baseless > personal attack - thanks for outing yourself as an insincere, > insulting debater much better than I could have done myself.> > > > > > Again, there's not "my" facts and "your" facts.> > > > > > There are "FACTS". They don't change based upon who is > referencing them. I am baffled as to why you would think that > they do! And I'm baffled about what "facts" you think you've > provided. All YOU provided below was your belief that there is a > large percentage of people who'll be getting insurance on your > dime who were simply unwilling to get coverage before - people > who could have gotten coverage, but just were too > lazy/shiftless/etc to do so.> > > > > > But that's not true.> > > > > > 1. Obamacare stops women from paying higher rates simply > because of their gender. That's not something that WOMEN who > will be receiving that benefit can be faulted for. I assume you > won't deny THAT fact - that it's not that they were unwilling to > change their gender to get lower insurance rates, right?> > > > > > 2. Obamacare removes the donut hole - something that no > senior had any control over - so, yet another thing that can't > be laid at the feet of lazy people unwilling to pay for their > own care.> > > > > > 3. A large percentage of Americans have pre-existing > conditions that could have denied them affordable healthcare > coverage. It wasn't a matter of will with that added benefit > either - those people had a medical condition; it wasn't a > choice for them to have diabetes or cancer or anything else.> > > > > > 4. 50 million Americans will now have access to preventative > care that they didn't get previously. How is that related to > them being lazy? Here's a clue - it's not.> > > > > > 5. Obamacare helps bend the cost curve - saving all of us > money in the long run. The nonpartisan CBO has documented that > many times. Facts - they're wonderful things - too bad for you > it seems like you only like facts when they support your > opinion, and you dislike them when they don't support the > conclusions you've leapt to. Too bad, so sad.> > > > > > 6. Outrageous medical expenses has made millions of people > have to file for bankruptcy. Almost none of those people went > into their lives hoping to file for bankruptcy, and the vast > majority of them would have rather not had to do that. Obamacare > will stop that from happening so often.> > > > > > 7. Young, healthy Americans will pay more as compared to > what they were having to spend prior to Obamacare. Most of the > rest of us will pay less. Again, I understand that THIS FACT is > inconvenient to your false meme, but that inconvenience doesn't > mean that you get to state things that are contrary to the known > facts!> > > > > 8. Families making up to 400% of the poverty level won't be > paying more for insurance - they'll be paying less. Only those > well-able to afford it will have to pay more.> > > > > > So, it's on YOUR SHOULDERS now to provide US with evidence > that there are significant numbers of people who, right now, > will be getting coverage that they could have afforded on their > own - but they chose not to - but you'll be paying for that care.> > > > > > Remember, the healthy young people who avoided getting > insurance are the ones who are going to be paying more. They > aren't getting the coverage for free, unless they're poor - and > if they're poor, then they didn't previously go without > insurance BY CHOICE - which is what your allegation was - that > they were simply unwilling to purchase coverage on their own. > > > > > > Oh, and by the way, if you are so destitute that helping to > pay for other's healthcare will take food out of your family's > mouth, it WILL NOT take food out of their mouths - the least > among us will NOT be helping subsidize the health care expenses > of those who aren't covered nowadays. ONLY those who can afford > it will have to help subsidize that care. In fact, if you're > really on the edge, where providing food to your family is at > risk, or even close to that edge, you'll end up paying LESS for > your care, overall, then you used to pay! It will HELP YOU OUT - > so if your concern were really that "food will be taken from > your family's mouth", you should be aware that THE FACT IS that > this will not happen!!!> > > > > > You don't have "facts" that are correct. You have opinions > that aren't backed up with the facts, and in a kneejerk > reaction, you lashed out at me for no good reason. > > > > > > And yeah, I get that you're selfish. But our nation, as a > whole, isn't, and as we're a representative democracy, what the > majority of Americans want is what we hopefully, as a nation, > provide to our citizens. And the vast majority of Americans > favor this. You don't. You're entitled to your own opinions, but > not your own facts. And there are no facts that support your > assertion that there's a vast army of people who could get > affordable health care if they just weren't so damned lazy.> > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----> > > From: Sam Cay > > > To: ibmpensionissues > > > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 2:49 pm> > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > Consequences From Obamacare> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK no problem , you believe your facts and I'll believe > mine. I know mine are correct but not sure of yours. I'd rather > choose who/what I give my money to but unfortunately the crooks > in government don't let me do that. I'll leave the charity > giving to people like you. You must not be on twitter based on > the length of your post. Sorry I made you ramble. > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon > wrote:> > > >> > > > > > > > Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then > what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter > what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you > get from them is truly a fact.> > > > > > > > Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs > of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're > entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however.> > > > > > > > And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently > can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. > We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they > DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion > of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local > taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of > pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier > among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who > aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting > the healthcare they've needed all along.> > > > > > > > In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the > community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. > That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, > whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - > because it benefits our society to have a well-educated > populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even > if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful > people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or > leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured > that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few > examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country.> > > > > > > > That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is > in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's > your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a > good idea.> > > > > > > > I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided > healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate > healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that > at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it > either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to > help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most > uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an > active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured > through an active choice they've made are those who are young > and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT > you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be > subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for > health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that > group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare > coverage but hasn't been able to get it.> > > > > > > > I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's > everyone's to share. > > > > > > > > And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us > who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to > millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you > do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra > cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of > themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of > YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The > FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be > getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to > help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or > unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to > pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----> > > > From: Sam Cay > > > > To: ibmpensionissues > > > > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am> > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > Consequences From Obamacare> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess this makes the assumption that your source of data > is correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you believe but > what data you want to believe. I am concerned when the cost of > any government program reaches in my pocket to pay for others > who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word subsidy > comes into a program this is my trigger for taking food out of > my families mouth. So does your data tell us that we will or > will not be paying for someone unwilling to make their life > better. > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue > Runyon wrote:> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's > demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different > from another person, but we all share the same database of > factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to > differing opinions.> > > > > > > > > > Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts > isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! > It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people > are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the > knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked > long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do > with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is > entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What > that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for > an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or > partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" > to an opinion that one can't support with factual information.> > > > > > > > > > One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the > false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to > eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY > works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 > workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any > businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find > evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides > that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to > avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The > ACA treats part-time employees as > ???????????????€????????fulltime equivalents???????????????€??????? by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd be> detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers > total who might opt for coverage.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----> > > > > From: Rick b Cool > > > > > To: ibmpensionissues > > > > > Sent: Thu, > Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm> > > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > Consequences From Obamacare> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK, but > revealing sinmple facts is denigrating.> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "Kevin > W" wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Rick I have to agree with zimowski you b definitely > not cool. Your typical mode of operation here is to denigrate or > insult those who don't agree with your point of view.> > > > > > I've watched you call people ignorant, uneducated, > biased, prejudice all because they believe something different > than you.> > > > > > If I was a practicing conservative I'd call it > "typical liberal methodology" where they all believe they are > superior to everyone else and have "THE" right answer. If you > don't believe me, simply ask one, they will tell you.> > > > > > As far as the ACA, it is a good idea but a bad piece > of legislation. It was not thought out and the consequences ignored.> > > > > > For the past several years companies have been > accelerating the removal of full time job positions and > replacing them with part time, under 29-32 hours to avoid the > medical mandate. Go to any retail establishment, since you seem > to favor all things NY, drop by Macy's, talk to any sales person > over the age of 40 who has a history long enough to know what is > going on. Their hours are cut, not due to economy but due to > planning for benefits cuts and avoidance of the ACA.> > > > > > Our current administration does nothing but blame the > previous one for its woes, no responsibility just finger > pointing, but try to play that game with the prior one for the > one before it and you get screams of foul play. Obviously what > is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.> > > > > > If congress and the administration wanted the people > to follow them,they would have ensured they took up such > coverage as their only means of medical care before imposing it > on the people. Using the excuse that it has always been done, > doesn't hold water. Wasn't this administration supposed to be > different? Supposed to work "for the people". Yeah, I know, > those damned evil republicans in congress won't let our poor > president and the democrats get anything done. Again nothing > more than lack of taking responsibility. Like the outcome or > not, at least the prior president took responsibility.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > An interesting conclusion. Solely based on complete > circular reasoning, obviously starting with the conclusion.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly because of > industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give big > corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from regulations.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > "The real issue on this forum is getting back on > topic." Really? Unlike the ibmpension group, the moderators of > this group do not censor participant appends. It seems that your > style for participation is to criticize others that you don't > agree with politically and then to suggest that anybody who > responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think > it's now becoming quite clear that ACA is complicated, poorly > understood, difficult to implement, and that it will be more > expensive for most Americans, providing affordable care only to > those who could not previously obtain/afford health care > coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of > pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added > stain that will be placed on the entire health care system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > >