¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Nope good old unbiased chuck todd put it up on the screen. Are you saying MSNBC misrepresented the facts?

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sheila Beaudry wrote:
>
> Then you misheard.?? Only around 4 % of people are on welfare. ()?? Perhaps what you heard was that 45% of people depend upon the government.?? That would include people on Medicare and Medicaid,??people working for the government, people working on government contracts??and people on welfare.
>
>
> From: Sam Cay
> To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 9:06 AM
> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
>
> ??
> Funny I just saw a stat on MSNBC that 45% of americans are on welfare. I wonder who they voted for??
>
> --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "Kevin W" wrote:
> >
> > What you might want to do, to balance out your stand is list the items where Obama changed in his short tenure. All the things he promised to people and suddenly ended up with the Bush evil side and inaction.
> > Where we saw the daily total of Bush murders in the wars to the complete lack of attention once Obama came to power and did not end the wars, close Gitmo, reverse the spying on citizens that were all part of his platform.
> > You might want to look at when the Republicans agreed to take up the energy agenda and the democrats said, no, we have vacation to take and book signings to attend.
> > Then of course you can look at the thousand of inconsequential things where individual Dems and Repubs daily flipflop but the media only called it out on Republicans, ignoring it as or dismissing it as "change in view based upon new facts" for the Democrats.
> > You see according to the press the only time a Democrat changes their mind is when it makes sense, but anytime a Republican does it, it is for vote getting or putting money in their pocket.
> > I listen to FOX and MSNBC views of the same stories for more humorous reasons than anything else. It reaffirms the bias and bigotry of both sides.
> >
> > What would be very good would be to pick up a book called, The Righteous Mind by Haidt. Here is a far left liberal by his own admission who started the book project with the idea of affirming that his side are the fact tellers and the other side is nothing more than uneducated, bigoted idiots. Kudos to him for seeing the project through and realizing why both sides exist and why both sides are important to the survival of a civilization.
> >
> > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > No, it's not my opinion that filibusters have been used more by the Republicans than ever before in the history of our nation. That's a demonstrable fact. There are graphs that show this change in behavior.
> > >
> > > The same with the difference between the political sides of the aisle with respect to Politifact Pants on Fire lies and True statements. There is an overwhelming majority of PoF lies from the right as compared to those coming from the left - the last time I checked, it was like 8 to 1. And a similar comparison can be made with comments that Politifact, a nonpartisan site, has rated "True". It's a fact - not my opinion, that many more Democrats, Progressives and liberal groups have been given "True" ratings than those on the right.
> > >
> > > And it's not my opinion that the Republicans have abandoned things that they've supported in the past when those same things get the buy-in from Democrats. It's a fact.
> > >
> > > Both sides don't engage in these things at the same levels of involvement. I never said, nor would I ever say, that the left is angelic and the right is the devil incarnate - but when someone tries to claim that both sides are equally guilty in these bad behaviors, I present evidence that it's a false equivalency argument to claim that they are both equally guilty.
> > >
> > > And, the facts are that the Democrats have shown a great willingness to compromise since Obama was elected, and the Republicans have not. I could list countless examples of that - and you couldn't provide countless examples of the contrary.
> > >
> > > Facts are powerful things.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kevin W
> > > To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;
> > > Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 4:27 pm
> > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sue your statements are nothing more than opinions in this matter. Both sides engage in the same 3 items you quote below. Both sides excuse it for their side as minimal and called it out on the other as extreme. This self imposed bias becomes a blindness and allows them to make statements as you have below.
> > > Realizing/admitting a fact doesn't mean you have to like it, doesn't mean you have to change sides, it only means acknowledging the lunacy you claim for the other side exists on your side as well.
> > > In the long run it tends to make a person more balanced and understanding.
> > > Otherwise we get what we have today, two political parties unable and unwilling to compromise because their acolytes will take them to task or call them weak.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, the facts are that it is quite dominated by one political party - and that party is not the Democrats. I can provide 3 undeniable examples - you, and others, should stop with the nonsense that "both sides do it". False equivalency arguments make you look insincere or ill-informed.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Filibusters
> > > > 2. Politifact Pants on Fire lies
> > > > 3. FlipFlopping on political stances when the other party supports them.
> > > >
> > > > No one on the left side of the aisle has committed such politically partisan behavior in the same levels.
> > > >
> > > > And we've seen it here in this string of comments - snide remarks from those on the right who can't debunk the facts presented by those on the left. Rejection of factual arguments made by the left that are easily supported with all kinds of supporting links. A total lack of support for the arguments made by those on the right.
> > > >
> > > > It's not an issue of "both sides do it equally". It's just demonstrably not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kevin W
> > > > To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;
> > > > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 8:33 am
> > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please be aware, this blind loyalty to a side, spinning of untruths and spreading fear and propaganda is not a republican issue. It is a political issue shared equally by both sides and both sides are for something until it suits them to not support it.
> > > >
> > > > A liberal will find lies out of anything conservative and a conservative will find lies out of anything liberal. Neither will acknowledge their own lies until it is shoved in their face and even then they will excuse it and derail the conversation with their lies are worse. Very few of us are unbiased, even fewer of us know and acknowledge our own biases and try to see around them. It simply hurts too much...
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But, but, but..... you're ruining the fearmongering and the conspiracy theories of those who have a kneejerk hatred of almost everything and anything associated with Democrats and Obama - even if that stuff is incredibly similar to things that sane Republicans pushed a few years or decades ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > A nonpartisan site, Factcheck.org, soundly and emphatically debunked the false meme that Congress exempted themselves from the same requirements as everyone else.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you check out any of the well-known factchecking/urban legend sites, what you'll see if that almost all of the pants-on-fire dishonesty comes from the right. You'll see that there's a ton of misinformation about Obama which is easily debunked - yet it keeps being spread around in viral emails and spread as gospel on talk radio. And there seems to be a dearth of people on the right side of the political aisle who stand up and refute such nonsense and tell their supporters to stop pushing it. Occassionally you'll see someone do it - John McCain did it when someone in a town hall meeting told him that Obama was an "Arab", for example.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, if you're actually interested in whether or not it's true or false that Congress somehow exempted themselves, look at this article.
> > > > >
> > > > > or this one - FreedomWorks, a favorite of Glenn Beck, by the way
> > > > >
> > > > > or this one, where Politifact.com rated it "Pants On Fire" false, citing conservative Norman Ornstein and nonpartisan snopes.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If someone were really interested in knowing the truth about whether or not Congress had to participate, they'd already KNOW this answer. They'd KNOW that the rightwing spin about this topic was just that - dishonest spin. Instead, we get comments like this one - "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."
> > > > >
> > > > > But it's not true that "no one" talked about this - MANY rightwingers talked about this, ad nauseum, despite the fact that it was NEVER TRUE. So, no one SHOULD HAVE talked about this, since it was nonsense from the very beginning. If someone made an honest mistake, and thought it was true, as soon as they knew it wasn't true, they would have apologized for their error, and straightened others out when they heard the misinformation repeated.
> > > > >
> > > > > But as snopes.com has pointed out for years, most people will believe what they want to believe. Someone below said "Government exempts itself from everything." But that's not true. They haven't, they don't, they won't. Yet many won't believe it when the FACTS disprove their CT. In fact, the government actually has the same or even tougher regulations in almost every arena as compared to the private sector.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Sheila Beaudry
> > > > > To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;
> > > > > Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 10:15 pm
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is the same for IBMers and anyone else getting insurance through their companies. You don't have to change your IBM insurance to get your insurance from one of the Exchanges. But you can if you want to. Why should they be singled out by not letting them do the same as others. Isn't that the point; they shouldn't be treated any differently?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Kevin W
> > > > > To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:59 AM
> > > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now here is what I see when I read that link. Tell me what I missed. While congress did not create any special exemptions for itself, no congressperson is required to give up any special coverage and cadillac plans they may have and be required to only have choices available to the bulk of the American people. The article goes out of its way to avoid stating such things until a short paragraph at the very end where it mentions a Republican wanted to amend the bill to state that federal officials must only be able to choose from those new plans created by the ACA. In other words making our government eat its own dog food. Apparently according to the article which gives one entire sentence to it, maybe hoping people would be bored by the time they got this far in the article the change was added but only if the leadership and committee heads were exemption from the change. So they don't have to eat the dog food they are serving.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sheila Beaudry wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.???'???'???€????€? Stop spreading untruths.???'???'???€????€? See
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Rick b Cool
> > > > > > To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:34 AM
> > > > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ???'???'???€????€?
> > > > > > 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 mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, 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: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;; 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 mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, 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 clo (Message over 64 KB, truncated) From DummyAddressAndDate Thu Sep 16 11:42:17 2010 X-Yahoo-Msgnum: 518 Return-Path: X-Apparently-To: ibmpensionissues@... X-Received: (qmail 25597 invoked by uid 102); 30 Jul 2013 17:45:27 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mtaq3.grp.bf1.yahoo.com) (10.193.84.142) by m2.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2013 17:45:27 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 16007 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2013 17:45:27 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO ng20-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com) (98.138.214.210) by mtaq3.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2013 17:45:27 -0000 X-Received: from [98.138.217.182] by ng20.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jul 2013 17:45:27 -0000 X-Received: from [10.193.94.43] by tg7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jul 2013 17:45:27 -0000 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:45:26 -0000 To: ibmpensionissues@... Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:3:4:0:0 From: weinerisnospitzer Reply-To: no_reply@... X-Yahoo-Post-EncIP: URI76dwwhWj942N3Rx16uO_ptvWkRXFuOqzNEI2-mIWVzUl8nA Subject: Fed. Lawmakers & Staffies Freak Over ACA X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u0868138; y=v0zDO1fQLm7rMMFvJRrpFSeEb1kkErnyUxEWhA_xRPQ; email=no X-Yahoo-Profile: weinerisnospitzer Must be true...it's in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/us/politics/wrinkle-in-health-law-vexes-lawmakers-aides.html?hp&_r=0 Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the Senate was responsible for the provision requiring lawmakers and many aides to get insurance in the exchanges. "We had to take the Senate version of the health care bill," Ms. DeGette said. "This is not anything we spent time talking about here in the House." Another House Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "This was a stupid provision that never should have gotten into the law." ..... Over 400 comments below article...hilarity en