开云体育

In this case, I think the following quote is very appropriate: "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck"

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon >
>
> Show me a post where anyone here has said that they admire Keith Olbermann or agreed with the way he behaved..... oh, that's right, you can't, 'cuz it never happened.
>
> His usage of that phrase has nothing to do with us.
>
> YOUR usage of him is an example of a logical fallacy - look it up. All of your arguments are bogus and ridiculous, in fact. You can't refute a thing we've been writing, and so you choose to make ludicrous statements that have nothing to do with what we've been saying.
>
> It's undeniably TRUE. One can't legitimately demand respect for an opinion that's not based upon the facts. That's why Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
>
> And there aren't a different set of facts upon which we can each rely upon. There's one set of facts. That's undeniable. Your personal attacks on me, or Keith Olbermann, don't change that FACT that there's one set of facts that we can all avail ourselves of. You can't possibly know that your "facts are correct", because you havent' been relying upon facts! The FACT is that very few people will pay more for healthcare coverage with Obamacare as compared to how much they would have paid out before Obamacare.
>
> The only people who will pay more without getting a significant benefit are the wealthiest among us and those healthy young people who chose to not have insurance before and who remain healthy. That's a fact. We're getting economies of scale, we're getting savings from people getting better care at lower costs, and we're taxing a few people and bringing more people into the system. Obamacare actually helps our nation's long term deficit.
>
> All facts.
>
> Now, you can hold the opinion that you don't WANT anyone to pay ANY more in order to get millions more people covered by health insurance. I'm of the opinion that it's a great thing to allow more people to live healthier lives. I'm of the opinion that it's better to stop tons of people every year from dying as a result of not having healthcare insurance. You can certainly hold the opinion that you aren't willing to help them out. But you can't legitimately claim that your opinions are backed up by facts, because they aren't.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zimowski
> To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
> Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:18 pm
> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
>
>
>
>
> The statements "You have your right to your own opinions and beliefs. Not your own facts." have been popping up on this forum quite a bit lately. I thought that this was a quote from Keith Olbermann, but decided to verify and was surprised to learn that it is in fact a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. This fact was found in a Washington Post opinions article by Ted Koppel about opinionated well-known personalities.
>
> Ted notes: "Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts."
>
> Here's another Ted Koppel quote from the article:
>
> "We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable."
>
> Finally a Koppel quote about Olbermann, who uses the "everyone is entitled" quote more than anyone: "To witness Keith Olbermann - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust.
>
> Back then, a policy against political contributions would have aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers to his program every night precisely because he is avowedly, unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?"
>
> My opinion is that it's hard to trust the arguments of anyone who thinks that Keith Olbermann's style of debate is one that should be emulated as being non-partisan and convincing. Gets more amusing with every re-use of Moynihan's observation.
>
> --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote:
> >
> > Spoken like a true person who doesn't like the facts and what they mean or imply. You have your right to your own opinions and beliefs. Not your own facts. You have the right to not believe simple facts. That is nothing more than political zeal or religious fervor in denial of objective reality. A common trait among us humans, but not a particularly useful trait in optimizing outcomes.
> >
> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Sam Cay" wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 ibmpensionissues@..., 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 <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 ibmpensionissues@..., 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 <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 ibmpensionissues@..., "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 ibmpensionissues@..., "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 ibmpensionissues@..., "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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>