¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Yes, I wrote ALL that.

It's YOUR reading comprehension fail to assume that I think I can see into the future, and that I wasn't talking about the PROJECTIONS of the CBO being a fact, and instead thought that I meant that it's a fact that we've already seen those cost savings that will happen in the future!

Geesh. Grasping at straws now.



-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Tue, Jul 30, 2013 12:09 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




Here's what you said:

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.

My reading is that "All facts." is meant to apply to at least the two previous paragraphs. If you really believe that you did not state that "Obamacare actually helps our nation's long term deficit" is a fact, then I think you are a very confused person. It's ok, BTW, to admit that you sometimes make mistakes.

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

Did I say that EVERYTHING in my post was a fact? Nope, I didn't - so, yet again, you make a baseless personal attack without cause.

I've never claimed that CBO projections are facts. It's a fact that the CBO has made projections that show that Obamacare will save us money in the long run, but I've never claimed that the projections themselves are facts. Since I am aware that we can't see into the future, OF COURSE I understood when I MADE that point that it's a projection - but THE FACT IS that the projection exists that it'll save us money.

What a sad life you must have in real life to lie so easily about someone who keeps debunking your nonsensical arguments.



-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 8:55 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




You are so emotional about your facts you quote you don't realize they are opinions. Let's look at just one example from this post. "Obamacare actually helps our nation's long term deficit." One might call this a hope, or perhaps a prediction or an estimate, but it's hardly a fact. Obamacare has not yet gone into effect in its entirety, so how does anyone know what the effect will be on the long term deficit. In reality, Obamacare is not yet even completely defined. You do know the difference between a CBO projection and a fact, don't you? By your own admission, the CBO projections have changed since Obamacare was first passed, and yet you continue to claim that their hopes/predictions/estimates/projections - whatever you want to call them - are facts. It's not a fact to me. However, I won't deny that it's a fact that the CBO has opinions.

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

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 <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" <rickb_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" <ceome60@> 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 <Slouise217@> 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 <ceome60@>
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 <Slouise217@> 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 <rickb_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" <nowwicked@> 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" <rickb_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@" <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.

My perspective is a bit different than yours. Voter ID laws are not typically passed the day before an election. Those who wish to vote have plenty of time to get one, even if they think it's inconvenient to do so. I know that North Carolina requires a government issued photo id, but having to take off work in order to get one? Isn't the DMV or some other issuing entity open on Saturday? In California they are and you can even schedule an appointment in advance so there is no waiting when you get there. If it's too hard to obtain a government issued photo id in NC, then perhaps the laws or policies need to be changed to make it easier. I can remember instances in the past when I have been required to have multiple ids. I investigated what was required ahead of time and brought what was needed. Is being disorganized really a valid excuse for not being able to obtain an id? On to the homeless - I seriously doubt that the homeless vote. Without an address they will nor be assigned a polling place, which means they probably need to go to some government office to vote, which I suspect few would do. As another member of this forum has pointed out, the homeless have more immediate basic survival issues to focus on.

People can come up with all sorts of excuses for not doing this that or the other thing. All of us have needed to provide ids to initially register to vote. We obtained an id if we didn't already have one and followed the process because we felt that it was important to be able to vote. People without the proper id have plenty of time to obtain one before one is required. They are inexpensive and in many cases free to those that cannot afford them. People who care about their elderly family members or friends will assist them through the process if they need help. People who claim that the requirement for having an id is so burdensome that it prohibits them from voting simply don't think that casting their vote is that important. It's just not a priority for them.

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

NC just passed a new Voter ID law and it requires a copy of your photo ID to be sent with your absentee ballot.?? So if you don't have a scanner/printer at home it involves going out somewhere to get that copy and you still need to have that photo ID.?? Also they won't accept a college ID or your companies photo ID.?? It has to be a government issued ID.?? Also if your college student votes at their college area instead of coming home to vote or by absentee ballot, then the parents lose their tax deduction for the student on their NC taxes.?? My 90 year old arthritic mother will not be able to vote because her driver's license expired years ago as she can no longer drive.?? To be able to vote my brother will have to take off from work and take her to get an ID made.?? If you think that this doesn't discourage people from voting because it just isn't worth all the hassle, then you are not being realistic.?? Another problem is what is required to get that
ID.?? The elderly TN woman who was denied ID even though she brought them her birth certificate because she didn't also have her marriage license is an example of the problems.?? The homeless who live under a bridge are suppose to constitutionally be able to vote, but how do you establish proof of residence??? They certainly don't have a bank statement or an electric bill to show.?? I would have little problem with requiring voter ID if there were actually a lot of people-impersonation type of fraud, but there isn't.?? ID will not stop the most prevalent problems and requiring it with these strict rules??can disenfranchise millions of people who should be able to vote.?? See
??

From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:20 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

??
It took some time to explore these links.

I think the propublica site seems to very objectively report what others say or think. However, it doesn't really endorse or refute anyone's argument or position. Here's an example:

"How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by the laws, and could they really affect the election?

Answer: It's not clear."

My conclusion: This site does not support or refute your claim that some will have trouble obtaining ids.

Regarding the timesleader reference, you state "Multiple voters who no longer have ID's (but did when they initially registered to vote) who would be disenfranchised are cited in this news story." Multiple, in this case, is a grand total of 3. They are are homebound seniors who need to rely on others to help then get ids, and I understand that this makes getting an id more of a challenge. However, you fail to mention that each of these voters could get around the photo id requirement in Pennsylvania simply by casting an absentee ballot.

Bottom line: Any of these folks can easily submit an absentee ballot. Wouldn't it, in fact, be more convenient for them to do so, given their frail health and dependencies on others to get around? Seems like a politically motivated law suit.

The policymic web site is a Harvard University discussion forum. The article you reference is clearly an opinion based on the author's political slant. His conclusion says it all: "This voter identification phenomonon is scary in a way, in that Americans are all too willing to accept another way of feeling "safe" that assumes one is guilty until he or she proves himself innocent. We endure airport searches, Type 1 and Type 2 identification checks, and increased scrutiniy of our credit history and social networking in the name of safety, whether it be for individuals or organizations. Should every state implement a photogrpahic voter ID law, we will have succeeded in creating a national identifcation system in fact if not in name. What could be next, DNA samples taken at birth or when granted legal status? RFID chip implanatation to establish our whereabouts at all times? The more we subscribe to this need to feel safe, to this culture of fear, the less
free we will be, and the upshot of it all is that these measures are invariably sponsored by those who think government is too big and must reduce its role in our lives."

My conclusion: Nothing very objective about this article. Clearly just an opinion. Not convincing in any way, unless you already agree with the author prior to reading the article.

The CNN article seems to be a rehash of the earlier links, and in general, CNN is to liberal Democrats what FOX is to conservative Republicans. Since you so vehemently dismiss anything reported by FOX, I choose to do the same for CNN, despite the fact that I do agree that FOX tends to be one-sided. CNN, likewise, tends to be one-sided.

Finally the unnamed law professor. Could it, by any chance, be Barack Obama? Just kidding, but it's hard to verify the objectivity of unnamed sources.

It's only the opinions in these articles, not the facts, that support your view.


--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

I swear, why do we KEEP having to spoonfeed you factual information? You should have learned by now that we don't write stuff we can't back up with multiple links.



According to a study from NYU's Brennan Center, 11 percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices.

In Pennsylvania, nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voter base, don't own state-issued ID cards, according to an analysis of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State officials, on the other hand, place this number at between 80,000 and 90,000.
In Indiana and Georgia, states with the earliest versions of photo ID laws, about 1,300 provisional votes were discarded in the 2008 general election, later analysis has revealed.
As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by Nate Silver at the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent. It doesn't sound like a very wide margin, but it all depends on the electoral landscape.
"We don't know exactly how much these news laws will affect turnout or skew turnout in favor of Republicans," said Hasen, author of the recently released The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown. "But there's no question that in a very close election, they could be enough to make a difference in the outcome."



Multiple voters who no longer have ID's (but did when they initially registered to vote) who would be disenfranchised are cited in this news story.



Read this whole article, with many links, to see all the disenfranchisement that could happen. It's a solution looking for a problem.



Written by a law professor.

Now, can most people get ID's? Yes. Will a person who really wants to vote get whatever ID they can? Sure. But is it almost certain that a not-insignificant number of people will be dissuaded from voting because of these hurdles - and there's no justifiable reason to do so, as voter fraud is an insignificant problem.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life












From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 4:08 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life



What is the evidence that some people will have a problem getting IDs?

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

1. There are some good arguments here, now lets add to them.

Please, please, add some good arguments... but sadly, you fail to do so below.

2. Why should a poor, disenfranchised person be required to have a fishing license which costs money they don't have and prevents them from providing food for their family?

The states have determined that to protect our environment, to protect and maintain our waterways and our fish, we'll take advantage of use-specific fees to help fund those protections. It IS a regressive tax that affects the poorest among us more than the wealthier among us. If you think that's so wrong, feel free to lobby your state legislature to provide some income-based exemptions to the fishing license requirement. Please, do it!!! Or simply be a insincere hypocrite. Our nation has all kinds of user-based fees. That way, only those people who actually use the services pay for them. However, that doesn't work for large-scale projects like roads, schools, government in general, etc, and that's why we have progressive rate taxes to cover those costs.

3. Why should that same individual be required to provide id to get on the medical exchange, are we assuming fraud again? To provide id even at the doctors office is an unmanageable burden for these people.

Again, people had to show ID to vote in the first place. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to show ID to prove their identity when they enroll in a program or first register to vote. The problem is the ongoing burden to provide ID every time they vote! And you're right, it's going to be a burden to those people to provide that ID in order to qualify for that exchange, but THAT'S BECAUSE there's plenty of evidence of fraud that happened with regard to health care provision. It makes sense to have that barrier there, because there's a known problem. With voting, there is NOT evidence of any kind of significant voter fraud that would be fixed with Voter ID requirements. Your argument falls on its face when you acknowledge that fact - yet you make that argument anyway, even though it's ludicrously laughable.

4. Somehow they managed to provide id to obtain utility assistance, food stamps and a host of other things.
Coming from a family where my father never made it to middle class and left overs were stretched to make the food budget every week, I never saw my parents or my grandmother without some form of id. They considered it a social responsibility to have an approved government issued form of id. Our birth certificates were kept and guarded jealously.

The fact that your family members never had any issues getting ID's is IRRELEVANT to the documented fact that millions of Americans will have a difficult time getting ID's. OF COURSE most people have ID's. Most people don't have difficult hurdles to surmount to get ID. No one claimed that it's a problem for everyone, so you can stop beating that strawman argument any time now. The ISSUE is that some people WILL have a problem getting ID's, and without evidence that there's a problem that needs a solution, there's no reason to put those hurdles in their path so that they have to get over them in order to vote! That's the issue - and, not strangely at all, it's the ISSUE I mentioned prominently in my post below!! Geesh.

5. Now I admit there could be some people who live homeless on the street, no id, nothing through no fault of their own but as far as medical they walk into a hospital and must be given care. They also have little taste for finding a voting booth since survival, food, shelter are their prime considerations. The decision of, do I stand in the soup kitchen line versus vote for the next president or congressman just doesn't even occur.

Your failure/unwillingness to acknowledge a documented problem is your shortcoming. It's not evidence that the documented problem doesn't exist. Nonpartisan people have documented that millions of Americans who are registered voters and who would otherwise vote will find it difficult to get and keep ID's so that they can continue to vote as they have been doing.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

People had to have ID's in the first place to GET a voter registration card.

Forcing them to have to provide that ID every time that they vote thereafter is the burden that concerns us.

There's so little vote fraud that it's a solution in search of a problem. What it does do is put a large burden on people of limited means to get and maintain a photo ID. They may not have access to their birth certificate anymore. They may have let their DL's lapse and therefore they'd have to pay to get a birth certificate, if they even can, so they can get the "free" State ID, if they can easily get to a place where the state would provide that free ID.

If vote fraud were any kind of a significant problem, I'd be in favor of finding a solution for it, and that might entail forcing people to show ID's every time they vote. But since it's not any kind of a significant problem, and forcing people to show ID whenever they vote will disenfranchise millions of people across the USA, I don't support it.

No caring, well-informed person should support forcing a solution that will deny a ton of people the right to vote while solving a problem that doesn't exist in any sort of significant way.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 10:48 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life






This is going to be more of a sarcasm comment than anything else, most likely not worthy of a reply, but here it is.
I find it interesting that we need to setup exchanges to verify peoples identify and status through a government funded database when we keep saying that doing the same thing to validate voters is bad, biased, racial etc. Wouldn't people have the same issue whether it be for health care or voting and wouldn't it be the same negatives?

I need an id to fish, I need an id to drive, I need and id to open a bank acoount, have health care but not one to vote the people who create all these other things.
And of course the idea of stopping fraud doesn't hold water either since the general statement around voting without id is that we have no basis for assuming or proving fraud. With no id we would have no basis for fraud on our healthcare, we should simply trust everyone.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@> wrote:

Okay, they are hiring people to help citizens sign up for health insurance through the Exchanges - a good thing.???'??'???€???????? They are verifying the person's information through other government database information to reduce the chances of fraud - another good thing.???'??'???€???????? I see no difference in hiring people to help people sign up for ACA than for social security or any other government program.???'??'???€???????? I certainly needed help figuring all that out.???'??'???€???????? The data will be no less secure than the data the social security database.???'??'???€????????
???'??'???€????????
I don't know whether you all have figured it out yet, but the Republicans have begun another campaign to make people fear the Affordable Care Act.???'??'???€???????? They are doing everything they can to confuse people and make them worried so they won't sign up for it because they lost in the election and in the Supreme Court, and can't repeal it.???'??'???€???????? The next step is they will try to defund it.???'??'???€???????? Check out information you receive through independent fact checking sites.???'??'???€???????? Both parties spin things their way, but I have to say the anti-Obama anything folks have brought it to a new level.

From: buckwildbeemer <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

???'??'???€????????
If you think the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is nosy, wait til you see how ObamaCare will know everything about you. John Merline of Investors.com joins Andrew Malcolm and Melissa Clouthier on the Malcolm & Melissa podcast to share his findings. Guaranteed to scare you!
===============
Listen here: (more fun that reading here!)

===============
It really only applies to those going into the Exchanges. I sure hope the databases, data hubs are hacker-proofed, especially regarding identity theft, etc.

In case any readers are job hunting, Navigators of the above are being hired:


I *hope* Navigators have a high school diploma and a background check.

A few more in Florida will have to pay more: (non-cropped)



--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote:

Yeah, you never said that. I did. But this fool is cropping it out of

context.

I've written that very few people will pay more because of Obamacare,

NC just passed a new Voter ID law and it requires a copy of your photo ID to be sent with your absentee ballot.?? So if you don't have a scanner/printer at home it involves going out somewhere to get that copy and you still need to have that photo ID.?? Also they won't accept a college ID or your companies photo ID.?? It has to be a government issued ID.?? Also if your college student votes at their college area instead of coming home to vote or by absentee ballot, then the parents lose their tax deduction for the student on their NC taxes.?? My 90 year old arthritic mother will not be able to vote because her driver's license expired years ago as she can no longer drive.?? To be able to vote my brother will have to take off from work and take her to get an ID made.?? If you think that this doesn't discourage people from voting because it just isn't worth all the hassle, then you are not being realistic.?? Another problem is what is required to get that
ID.?? The elderly TN woman who was denied ID even though she brought them her birth certificate because she didn't also have her marriage license is an example of the problems.?? The homeless who live under a bridge are suppose to constitutionally be able to vote, but how do you establish proof of residence??? They certainly don't have a bank statement or an electric bill to show.?? I would have little problem with requiring voter ID if there were actually a lot of people-impersonation type of fraud, but there isn't.?? ID will not stop the most prevalent problems and requiring it with these strict rules??can disenfranchise millions of people who should be able to vote.?? See
??

From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:20 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

??
It took some time to explore these links.

I think the propublica site seems to very objectively report what others say or think. However, it doesn't really endorse or refute anyone's argument or position. Here's an example:

"How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by the laws, and could they really affect the election?

Answer: It's not clear."

My conclusion: This site does not support or refute your claim that some will have trouble obtaining ids.

Regarding the timesleader reference, you state "Multiple voters who no longer have ID's (but did when they initially registered to vote) who would be disenfranchised are cited in this news story." Multiple, in this case, is a grand total of 3. They are are homebound seniors who need to rely on others to help then get ids, and I understand that this makes getting an id more of a challenge. However, you fail to mention that each of these voters could get around the photo id requirement in Pennsylvania simply by casting an absentee ballot.

Bottom line: Any of these folks can easily submit an absentee ballot. Wouldn't it, in fact, be more convenient for them to do so, given their frail health and dependencies on others to get around? Seems like a politically motivated law suit.

The policymic web site is a Harvard University discussion forum. The article you reference is clearly an opinion based on the author's political slant. His conclusion says it all: "This voter identification phenomonon is scary in a way, in that Americans are all too willing to accept another way of feeling "safe" that assumes one is guilty until he or she proves himself innocent. We endure airport searches, Type 1 and Type 2 identification checks, and increased scrutiniy of our credit history and social networking in the name of safety, whether it be for individuals or organizations. Should every state implement a photogrpahic voter ID law, we will have succeeded in creating a national identifcation system in fact if not in name. What could be next, DNA samples taken at birth or when granted legal status? RFID chip implanatation to establish our whereabouts at all times? The more we subscribe to this need to feel safe, to this culture of fear, the less
free we will be, and the upshot of it all is that these measures are invariably sponsored by those who think government is too big and must reduce its role in our lives."

My conclusion: Nothing very objective about this article. Clearly just an opinion. Not convincing in any way, unless you already agree with the author prior to reading the article.

The CNN article seems to be a rehash of the earlier links, and in general, CNN is to liberal Democrats what FOX is to conservative Republicans. Since you so vehemently dismiss anything reported by FOX, I choose to do the same for CNN, despite the fact that I do agree that FOX tends to be one-sided. CNN, likewise, tends to be one-sided.

Finally the unnamed law professor. Could it, by any chance, be Barack Obama? Just kidding, but it's hard to verify the objectivity of unnamed sources.

It's only the opinions in these articles, not the facts, that support your view.


--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

I swear, why do we KEEP having to spoonfeed you factual information? You should have learned by now that we don't write stuff we can't back up with multiple links.



According to a study from NYU's Brennan Center, 11 percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices.

In Pennsylvania, nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voter base, don't own state-issued ID cards, according to an analysis of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State officials, on the other hand, place this number at between 80,000 and 90,000.
In Indiana and Georgia, states with the earliest versions of photo ID laws, about 1,300 provisional votes were discarded in the 2008 general election, later analysis has revealed.
As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by Nate Silver at the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent. It doesn't sound like a very wide margin, but it all depends on the electoral landscape.
"We don't know exactly how much these news laws will affect turnout or skew turnout in favor of Republicans," said Hasen, author of the recently released The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown. "But there's no question that in a very close election, they could be enough to make a difference in the outcome."



Multiple voters who no longer have ID's (but did when they initially registered to vote) who would be disenfranchised are cited in this news story.



Read this whole article, with many links, to see all the disenfranchisement that could happen. It's a solution looking for a problem.



Written by a law professor.

Now, can most people get ID's? Yes. Will a person who really wants to vote get whatever ID they can? Sure. But is it almost certain that a not-insignificant number of people will be dissuaded from voting because of these hurdles - and there's no justifiable reason to do so, as voter fraud is an insignificant problem.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life












From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 4:08 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life



What is the evidence that some people will have a problem getting IDs?

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

1. There are some good arguments here, now lets add to them.

Please, please, add some good arguments... but sadly, you fail to do so below.

2. Why should a poor, disenfranchised person be required to have a fishing license which costs money they don't have and prevents them from providing food for their family?

The states have determined that to protect our environment, to protect and maintain our waterways and our fish, we'll take advantage of use-specific fees to help fund those protections. It IS a regressive tax that affects the poorest among us more than the wealthier among us. If you think that's so wrong, feel free to lobby your state legislature to provide some income-based exemptions to the fishing license requirement. Please, do it!!! Or simply be a insincere hypocrite. Our nation has all kinds of user-based fees. That way, only those people who actually use the services pay for them. However, that doesn't work for large-scale projects like roads, schools, government in general, etc, and that's why we have progressive rate taxes to cover those costs.

3. Why should that same individual be required to provide id to get on the medical exchange, are we assuming fraud again? To provide id even at the doctors office is an unmanageable burden for these people.

Again, people had to show ID to vote in the first place. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to show ID to prove their identity when they enroll in a program or first register to vote. The problem is the ongoing burden to provide ID every time they vote! And you're right, it's going to be a burden to those people to provide that ID in order to qualify for that exchange, but THAT'S BECAUSE there's plenty of evidence of fraud that happened with regard to health care provision. It makes sense to have that barrier there, because there's a known problem. With voting, there is NOT evidence of any kind of significant voter fraud that would be fixed with Voter ID requirements. Your argument falls on its face when you acknowledge that fact - yet you make that argument anyway, even though it's ludicrously laughable.

4. Somehow they managed to provide id to obtain utility assistance, food stamps and a host of other things.
Coming from a family where my father never made it to middle class and left overs were stretched to make the food budget every week, I never saw my parents or my grandmother without some form of id. They considered it a social responsibility to have an approved government issued form of id. Our birth certificates were kept and guarded jealously.

The fact that your family members never had any issues getting ID's is IRRELEVANT to the documented fact that millions of Americans will have a difficult time getting ID's. OF COURSE most people have ID's. Most people don't have difficult hurdles to surmount to get ID. No one claimed that it's a problem for everyone, so you can stop beating that strawman argument any time now. The ISSUE is that some people WILL have a problem getting ID's, and without evidence that there's a problem that needs a solution, there's no reason to put those hurdles in their path so that they have to get over them in order to vote! That's the issue - and, not strangely at all, it's the ISSUE I mentioned prominently in my post below!! Geesh.

5. Now I admit there could be some people who live homeless on the street, no id, nothing through no fault of their own but as far as medical they walk into a hospital and must be given care. They also have little taste for finding a voting booth since survival, food, shelter are their prime considerations. The decision of, do I stand in the soup kitchen line versus vote for the next president or congressman just doesn't even occur.

Your failure/unwillingness to acknowledge a documented problem is your shortcoming. It's not evidence that the documented problem doesn't exist. Nonpartisan people have documented that millions of Americans who are registered voters and who would otherwise vote will find it difficult to get and keep ID's so that they can continue to vote as they have been doing.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

People had to have ID's in the first place to GET a voter registration card.

Forcing them to have to provide that ID every time that they vote thereafter is the burden that concerns us.

There's so little vote fraud that it's a solution in search of a problem. What it does do is put a large burden on people of limited means to get and maintain a photo ID. They may not have access to their birth certificate anymore. They may have let their DL's lapse and therefore they'd have to pay to get a birth certificate, if they even can, so they can get the "free" State ID, if they can easily get to a place where the state would provide that free ID.

If vote fraud were any kind of a significant problem, I'd be in favor of finding a solution for it, and that might entail forcing people to show ID's every time they vote. But since it's not any kind of a significant problem, and forcing people to show ID whenever they vote will disenfranchise millions of people across the USA, I don't support it.

No caring, well-informed person should support forcing a solution that will deny a ton of people the right to vote while solving a problem that doesn't exist in any sort of significant way.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 10:48 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life






This is going to be more of a sarcasm comment than anything else, most likely not worthy of a reply, but here it is.
I find it interesting that we need to setup exchanges to verify peoples identify and status through a government funded database when we keep saying that doing the same thing to validate voters is bad, biased, racial etc. Wouldn't people have the same issue whether it be for health care or voting and wouldn't it be the same negatives?

I need an id to fish, I need an id to drive, I need and id to open a bank acoount, have health care but not one to vote the people who create all these other things.
And of course the idea of stopping fraud doesn't hold water either since the general statement around voting without id is that we have no basis for assuming or proving fraud. With no id we would have no basis for fraud on our healthcare, we should simply trust everyone.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@> wrote:

Okay, they are hiring people to help citizens sign up for health insurance through the Exchanges - a good thing.???'??'???€???????? They are verifying the person's information through other government database information to reduce the chances of fraud - another good thing.???'??'???€???????? I see no difference in hiring people to help people sign up for ACA than for social security or any other government program.???'??'???€???????? I certainly needed help figuring all that out.???'??'???€???????? The data will be no less secure than the data the social security database.???'??'???€????????
???'??'???€????????
I don't know whether you all have figured it out yet, but the Republicans have begun another campaign to make people fear the Affordable Care Act.???'??'???€???????? They are doing everything they can to confuse people and make them worried so they won't sign up for it because they lost in the election and in the Supreme Court, and can't repeal it.???'??'???€???????? The next step is they will try to defund it.???'??'???€???????? Check out information you receive through independent fact checking sites.???'??'???€???????? Both parties spin things their way, but I have to say the anti-Obama anything folks have brought it to a new level.

From: buckwildbeemer <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

???'??'???€????????
If you think the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is nosy, wait til you see how ObamaCare will know everything about you. John Merline of Investors.com joins Andrew Malcolm and Melissa Clouthier on the Malcolm & Melissa podcast to share his findings. Guaranteed to scare you!
===============
Listen here: (more fun that reading here!)

===============
It really only applies to those going into the Exchanges. I sure hope the databases, data hubs are hacker-proofed, especially regarding identity theft, etc.

In case any readers are job hunting, Navigators of the above are being hired:


I *hope* Navigators have a high school diploma and a background check.

Does an insurance company have to participate in the insurance exchange?

is very helpful.

Note: I am not on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits.

His questions are completely disingenuous. He already knows the answers or doesn't care about the answers. His purpose is to make himself and others who agree with him feel better and claim victory if you don't answer while ignoring that he never produces any factual support for his anti-factual positions. It's a game to have you spin your wheels. Such is the anti-objective denial crowd.

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

I swear, why do we KEEP having to spoonfeed you factual information? You should have learned by now that we don't write stuff we can't back up with multiple links.



According to a study from NYU's Brennan Center, 11 percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices.

In Pennsylvania, nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voter base, don't own state-issued ID cards, according to an analysis of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State officials, on the other hand, place this number at between 80,000 and 90,000.
In Indiana and Georgia, states with the earliest versions of photo ID laws, about 1,300 provisional votes were discarded in the 2008 general election, later analysis has revealed.
As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by Nate Silver at the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent. It doesn't sound like a very wide margin, but it all depends on the electoral landscape.
"We don't know exactly how much these news laws will affect turnout or skew turnout in favor of Republicans," said Hasen, author of the recently released The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown. "But there's no question that in a very close election, they could be enough to make a difference in the outcome."



Multiple voters who no longer have ID's (but did when they initially registered to vote) who would be disenfranchised are cited in this news story.



Read this whole article, with many links, to see all the disenfranchisement that could happen. It's a solution looking for a problem.



Written by a law professor.

Now, can most people get ID's? Yes. Will a person who really wants to vote get whatever ID they can? Sure. But is it almost certain that a not-insignificant number of people will be dissuaded from voting because of these hurdles - and there's no justifiable reason to do so, as voter fraud is an insignificant problem.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life












From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 4:08 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life



What is the evidence that some people will have a problem getting IDs?

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

1. There are some good arguments here, now lets add to them.

Please, please, add some good arguments... but sadly, you fail to do so below.

2. Why should a poor, disenfranchised person be required to have a fishing license which costs money they don't have and prevents them from providing food for their family?

The states have determined that to protect our environment, to protect and maintain our waterways and our fish, we'll take advantage of use-specific fees to help fund those protections. It IS a regressive tax that affects the poorest among us more than the wealthier among us. If you think that's so wrong, feel free to lobby your state legislature to provide some income-based exemptions to the fishing license requirement. Please, do it!!! Or simply be a insincere hypocrite. Our nation has all kinds of user-based fees. That way, only those people who actually use the services pay for them. However, that doesn't work for large-scale projects like roads, schools, government in general, etc, and that's why we have progressive rate taxes to cover those costs.

3. Why should that same individual be required to provide id to get on the medical exchange, are we assuming fraud again? To provide id even at the doctors office is an unmanageable burden for these people.

Again, people had to show ID to vote in the first place. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to show ID to prove their identity when they enroll in a program or first register to vote. The problem is the ongoing burden to provide ID every time they vote! And you're right, it's going to be a burden to those people to provide that ID in order to qualify for that exchange, but THAT'S BECAUSE there's plenty of evidence of fraud that happened with regard to health care provision. It makes sense to have that barrier there, because there's a known problem. With voting, there is NOT evidence of any kind of significant voter fraud that would be fixed with Voter ID requirements. Your argument falls on its face when you acknowledge that fact - yet you make that argument anyway, even though it's ludicrously laughable.

4. Somehow they managed to provide id to obtain utility assistance, food stamps and a host of other things.
Coming from a family where my father never made it to middle class and left overs were stretched to make the food budget every week, I never saw my parents or my grandmother without some form of id. They considered it a social responsibility to have an approved government issued form of id. Our birth certificates were kept and guarded jealously.

The fact that your family members never had any issues getting ID's is IRRELEVANT to the documented fact that millions of Americans will have a difficult time getting ID's. OF COURSE most people have ID's. Most people don't have difficult hurdles to surmount to get ID. No one claimed that it's a problem for everyone, so you can stop beating that strawman argument any time now. The ISSUE is that some people WILL have a problem getting ID's, and without evidence that there's a problem that needs a solution, there's no reason to put those hurdles in their path so that they have to get over them in order to vote! That's the issue - and, not strangely at all, it's the ISSUE I mentioned prominently in my post below!! Geesh.

5. Now I admit there could be some people who live homeless on the street, no id, nothing through no fault of their own but as far as medical they walk into a hospital and must be given care. They also have little taste for finding a voting booth since survival, food, shelter are their prime considerations. The decision of, do I stand in the soup kitchen line versus vote for the next president or congressman just doesn't even occur.

Your failure/unwillingness to acknowledge a documented problem is your shortcoming. It's not evidence that the documented problem doesn't exist. Nonpartisan people have documented that millions of Americans who are registered voters and who would otherwise vote will find it difficult to get and keep ID's so that they can continue to vote as they have been doing.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

People had to have ID's in the first place to GET a voter registration card.

Forcing them to have to provide that ID every time that they vote thereafter is the burden that concerns us.

There's so little vote fraud that it's a solution in search of a problem. What it does do is put a large burden on people of limited means to get and maintain a photo ID. They may not have access to their birth certificate anymore. They may have let their DL's lapse and therefore they'd have to pay to get a birth certificate, if they even can, so they can get the "free" State ID, if they can easily get to a place where the state would provide that free ID.

If vote fraud were any kind of a significant problem, I'd be in favor of finding a solution for it, and that might entail forcing people to show ID's every time they vote. But since it's not any kind of a significant problem, and forcing people to show ID whenever they vote will disenfranchise millions of people across the USA, I don't support it.

No caring, well-informed person should support forcing a solution that will deny a ton of people the right to vote while solving a problem that doesn't exist in any sort of significant way.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 10:48 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life






This is going to be more of a sarcasm comment than anything else, most likely not worthy of a reply, but here it is.
I find it interesting that we need to setup exchanges to verify peoples identify and status through a government funded database when we keep saying that doing the same thing to validate voters is bad, biased, racial etc. Wouldn't people have the same issue whether it be for health care or voting and wouldn't it be the same negatives?

I need an id to fish, I need an id to drive, I need and id to open a bank acoount, have health care but not one to vote the people who create all these other things.
And of course the idea of stopping fraud doesn't hold water either since the general statement around voting without id is that we have no basis for assuming or proving fraud. With no id we would have no basis for fraud on our healthcare, we should simply trust everyone.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@> wrote:

Okay, they are hiring people to help citizens sign up for health insurance through the Exchanges - a good thing.???'???€? They are verifying the person's information through other government database information to reduce the chances of fraud - another good thing.???'???€? I see no difference in hiring people to help people sign up for ACA than for social security or any other government program.???'???€? I certainly needed help figuring all that out.???'???€? The data will be no less secure than the data the social security database.???'???€?
???'???€?
I don't know whether you all have figured it out yet, but the Republicans have begun another campaign to make people fear the Affordable Care Act.???'???€? They are doing everything they can to confuse people and make them worried so they won't sign up for it because they lost in the election and in the Supreme Court, and can't repeal it.???'???€? The next step is they will try to defund it.???'???€? Check out information you receive through independent fact checking sites.???'???€? Both parties spin things their way, but I have to say the anti-Obama anything folks have brought it to a new level.

From: buckwildbeemer <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

???'???€?
If you think the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is nosy, wait til you see how ObamaCare will know everything about you. John Merline of Investors.com joins Andrew Malcolm and Melissa Clouthier on the Malcolm & Melissa podcast to share his findings. Guaranteed to scare you!
===============
Listen here: (more fun that reading here!)

===============
It really only applies to those going into the Exchanges. I sure hope the databases, data hubs are hacker-proofed, especially regarding identity theft, etc.

In case any readers are job hunting, Navigators of the above are being hired:


I *hope* Navigators have a high school diploma and a background check.

I swear, why do we KEEP having to spoonfeed you factual information? You should have learned by now that we don't write stuff we can't back up with multiple links.



According to a study from NYU's Brennan Center, 11 percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices.

In Pennsylvania, nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voter base, don't own state-issued ID cards, according to an analysis of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State officials, on the other hand, place this number at between 80,000 and 90,000.
In Indiana and Georgia, states with the earliest versions of photo ID laws, about 1,300 provisional votes were discarded in the 2008 general election, later analysis has revealed.
As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by Nate Silver at the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent. It doesn't sound like a very wide margin, but it all depends on the electoral landscape.
"We don't know exactly how much these news laws will affect turnout or skew turnout in favor of Republicans," said Hasen, author of the recently released The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown. "But there's no question that in a very close election, they could be enough to make a difference in the outcome."



Multiple voters who no longer have ID's (but did when they initially registered to vote) who would be disenfranchised are cited in this news story.



Read this whole article, with many links, to see all the disenfranchisement that could happen. It's a solution looking for a problem.



Written by a law professor.

Now, can most people get ID's? Yes. Will a person who really wants to vote get whatever ID they can? Sure. But is it almost certain that a not-insignificant number of people will be dissuaded from voting because of these hurdles - and there's no justifiable reason to do so, as voter fraud is an insignificant problem.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life












From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 4:08 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life



What is the evidence that some people will have a problem getting IDs?

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

1. There are some good arguments here, now lets add to them.

Please, please, add some good arguments... but sadly, you fail to do so below.

2. Why should a poor, disenfranchised person be required to have a fishing license which costs money they don't have and prevents them from providing food for their family?

The states have determined that to protect our environment, to protect and maintain our waterways and our fish, we'll take advantage of use-specific fees to help fund those protections. It IS a regressive tax that affects the poorest among us more than the wealthier among us. If you think that's so wrong, feel free to lobby your state legislature to provide some income-based exemptions to the fishing license requirement. Please, do it!!! Or simply be a insincere hypocrite. Our nation has all kinds of user-based fees. That way, only those people who actually use the services pay for them. However, that doesn't work for large-scale projects like roads, schools, government in general, etc, and that's why we have progressive rate taxes to cover those costs.

3. Why should that same individual be required to provide id to get on the medical exchange, are we assuming fraud again? To provide id even at the doctors office is an unmanageable burden for these people.

Again, people had to show ID to vote in the first place. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to show ID to prove their identity when they enroll in a program or first register to vote. The problem is the ongoing burden to provide ID every time they vote! And you're right, it's going to be a burden to those people to provide that ID in order to qualify for that exchange, but THAT'S BECAUSE there's plenty of evidence of fraud that happened with regard to health care provision. It makes sense to have that barrier there, because there's a known problem. With voting, there is NOT evidence of any kind of significant voter fraud that would be fixed with Voter ID requirements. Your argument falls on its face when you acknowledge that fact - yet you make that argument anyway, even though it's ludicrously laughable.

4. Somehow they managed to provide id to obtain utility assistance, food stamps and a host of other things.
Coming from a family where my father never made it to middle class and left overs were stretched to make the food budget every week, I never saw my parents or my grandmother without some form of id. They considered it a social responsibility to have an approved government issued form of id. Our birth certificates were kept and guarded jealously.

The fact that your family members never had any issues getting ID's is IRRELEVANT to the documented fact that millions of Americans will have a difficult time getting ID's. OF COURSE most people have ID's. Most people don't have difficult hurdles to surmount to get ID. No one claimed that it's a problem for everyone, so you can stop beating that strawman argument any time now. The ISSUE is that some people WILL have a problem getting ID's, and without evidence that there's a problem that needs a solution, there's no reason to put those hurdles in their path so that they have to get over them in order to vote! That's the issue - and, not strangely at all, it's the ISSUE I mentioned prominently in my post below!! Geesh.

5. Now I admit there could be some people who live homeless on the street, no id, nothing through no fault of their own but as far as medical they walk into a hospital and must be given care. They also have little taste for finding a voting booth since survival, food, shelter are their prime considerations. The decision of, do I stand in the soup kitchen line versus vote for the next president or congressman just doesn't even occur.

Your failure/unwillingness to acknowledge a documented problem is your shortcoming. It's not evidence that the documented problem doesn't exist. Nonpartisan people have documented that millions of Americans who are registered voters and who would otherwise vote will find it difficult to get and keep ID's so that they can continue to vote as they have been doing.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote:

People had to have ID's in the first place to GET a voter registration card.

Forcing them to have to provide that ID every time that they vote thereafter is the burden that concerns us.

There's so little vote fraud that it's a solution in search of a problem. What it does do is put a large burden on people of limited means to get and maintain a photo ID. They may not have access to their birth certificate anymore. They may have let their DL's lapse and therefore they'd have to pay to get a birth certificate, if they even can, so they can get the "free" State ID, if they can easily get to a place where the state would provide that free ID.

If vote fraud were any kind of a significant problem, I'd be in favor of finding a solution for it, and that might entail forcing people to show ID's every time they vote. But since it's not any kind of a significant problem, and forcing people to show ID whenever they vote will disenfranchise millions of people across the USA, I don't support it.

No caring, well-informed person should support forcing a solution that will deny a ton of people the right to vote while solving a problem that doesn't exist in any sort of significant way.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 10:48 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life






This is going to be more of a sarcasm comment than anything else, most likely not worthy of a reply, but here it is.
I find it interesting that we need to setup exchanges to verify peoples identify and status through a government funded database when we keep saying that doing the same thing to validate voters is bad, biased, racial etc. Wouldn't people have the same issue whether it be for health care or voting and wouldn't it be the same negatives?

I need an id to fish, I need an id to drive, I need and id to open a bank acoount, have health care but not one to vote the people who create all these other things.
And of course the idea of stopping fraud doesn't hold water either since the general statement around voting without id is that we have no basis for assuming or proving fraud. With no id we would have no basis for fraud on our healthcare, we should simply trust everyone.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@> wrote:

Okay, they are hiring people to help citizens sign up for health insurance through the Exchanges - a good thing.???'???€? They are verifying the person's information through other government database information to reduce the chances of fraud - another good thing.???'???€? I see no difference in hiring people to help people sign up for ACA than for social security or any other government program.???'???€? I certainly needed help figuring all that out.???'???€? The data will be no less secure than the data the social security database.???'???€?
???'???€?
I don't know whether you all have figured it out yet, but the Republicans have begun another campaign to make people fear the Affordable Care Act.???'???€? They are doing everything they can to confuse people and make them worried so they won't sign up for it because they lost in the election and in the Supreme Court, and can't repeal it.???'???€? The next step is they will try to defund it.???'???€? Check out information you receive through independent fact checking sites.???'???€? Both parties spin things their way, but I have to say the anti-Obama anything folks have brought it to a new level.

From: buckwildbeemer <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

???'???€?
If you think the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is nosy, wait til you see how ObamaCare will know everything about you. John Merline of Investors.com joins Andrew Malcolm and Melissa Clouthier on the Malcolm & Melissa podcast to share his findings. Guaranteed to scare you!
===============
Listen here: (more fun that reading here!)

===============
It really only applies to those going into the Exchanges. I sure hope the databases, data hubs are hacker-proofed, especially regarding identity theft, etc.

In case any readers are job hunting, Navigators of the above are being hired:


I *hope* Navigators have a high school diploma and a background check.