¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

---

From: pawnedmyrolex
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:49 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: it's that time of the month?

?

agree! since so few have pensions they grind away on union stuff and layoff nums, with a touch of aviation companies' stuff.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., lowinfoneocon wrote:
>
> Once again, IBMpension is in a cycle of meta-discussion about individuals and not the pension program.
>

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.

---

From: Sue Runyon
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

?

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
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 <nowwicked@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
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 ibmpensionissues@..., Sheila Beaudry wrote:
>
> Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.?? Stop spreading untruths.?? See
>
>
> From: Rick b Cool
> To: ibmpensionissues@...
> 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 closed because a > majority of their patients where under
> Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.?? She had to pay his fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the fee.?? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you want but it won't > by you medical services if a
> doctor does not accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards single payer.> > > > > > ??> > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>; > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, now
> tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>; > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this thread can get back on topic> > without the radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>; > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole time. Obviously less the> > changes currently being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > they receive at others
> expense, or the great > benefits of> > have a great society that supports all the > people, grows> > the economy, and increases the standard of > living. They> > simply dream of how good it would be if they retained> > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use words like > socialist and> > communist and have no idea what either term actually> > means. They certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All they do is whine and hope that someone> > will give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > themselves that they are independent individuals> > supporting themselves outside all that exists > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > >
> > > > > > Back to the good old days when only white> > male protestants who own landed estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>; > pawnedmyrolex wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>; > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>; > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >
>

---

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

?

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

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

Basic information about ACA:


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


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


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

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote:
>
> It may be laughable, but, on the other hand, it's completely accurate and reveals how much you will misrepresent the truth. Yes, in detail it is not the original plan. Legislation never is. It is however, the basic principle and operational structure proposed by Republicans.
>
> Thanks for revealing yourself so clearly.
>
> --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote:
> >
> > Your continued assertions that the ACA was a Republican invention is well, for lack of a better word, laughable. Everyone knows that ACA was ramrodded through both the Senate and the House during the first year of Obama's presidency when the Democrats held the majority in both the Senate and House. As I recall, the final text of the law was distributed almost last minute, which due to its size and complexity made it impossible for anyone to actually read and study it before the votes were taken. And I also seem to recall that many complained about not having the opportunity to amend it prior to the vote.
> >
> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" <rickb_cool@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Until we get simple single payer universal medical insurance we will suffer with sub-optimal performance and businesses will continue to suffer competitive and economic disadvantages. Only when everyone is covered and business no longer pay for the coverage will we get good medical insurance and regain free market competitive advantages because business will no loner need to decide to provide medical insurance or not and will not have to deal with medical insurance operationally. This was a step created by conservative Republicans to delay such universal single payer medical insurance. The complexity comes from a divided Congress and control by industry lobbyists.
> > >
> > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.?I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.? Members of my family? live under Medicaid and? others like myself live under Medicare.? But you seem to have a dosed?mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care?programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.? Who will prevail the ACA?supporters or those who oppose..? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA?is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care?insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.? The point I was making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder?but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA?as the answer.? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare?doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA?you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA?has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.? My Medicare?doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon?a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA?is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ?> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

---

From: Sue Runyon <Slouise217@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

?

Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different from another person, but we all share the same database of factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to differing opinions.

?

Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are?SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support with factual information.

?

One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false meme (see below)?that there has been a mad rush to eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA treats part-time employees as ¡°fulltime equivalents¡± by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers.?In fact, it'd be detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers total who might opt for coverage.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick b Cool
To: ibmpensionissues Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

?

Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK, but revealing sinmple facts is denigrating.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" wrote:
>
> Rick I have to agree with zimowski you b definitely not cool. Your typical mode of operation here is to denigrate or insult those who don't agree with your point of view.
> I've watched you call people ignorant, uneducated, biased, prejudice all because they believe something different than you.
> If I was a practicing conservative I'd call it "typical liberal methodology" where they all believe they are superior to everyone else and have "THE" right answer. If you don't believe me, simply ask one, they will tell you.
> As far as the ACA, it is a good idea but a bad piece of legislation. It was not thought out and the consequences ignored.
> For the past several years companies have been accelerating the removal of full time job positions and replacing them with part time, under 29-32 hours to avoid the medical mandate. Go to any retail establishment, since you seem to favor all things NY, drop by Macy's, talk to any sales person over the age of 40 who has a history long enough to know what is going on. Their hours are cut, not due to economy but due to planning for benefits cuts and avoidance of the ACA.
> Our current administration does nothing but blame the previous one for its woes, no responsibility just finger pointing, but try to play that game with the prior one for the one before it and you get screams of foul play. Obviously what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
> If congress and the administration wanted the people to follow them,they would have ensured they took up such coverage as their only means of medical care before imposing it on the people. Using the excuse that it has always been done, doesn't hold water. Wasn't this administration supposed to be different? Supposed to work "for the people". Yeah, I know, those damned evil republicans in congress won't let our poor president and the democrats get anything done. Again nothing more than lack of taking responsibility. Like the outcome or not, at least the prior president took responsibility.
>
>
> --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote:
> >
> > An interesting conclusion. Solely based on complete circular reasoning, obviously starting with the conclusion.
> >
> > Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly because of industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give big corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from regulations.
> >
> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote:
> > >
> > > "The real issue on this forum is getting back on topic." Really? Unlike the ibmpension group, the moderators of this group do not censor participant appends. It seems that your style for participation is to criticize others that you don't agree with politically and then to suggest that anybody who responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic.
> > >
> > > Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think it's now becoming quite clear that ACA is complicated, poorly understood, difficult to implement, and that it will be more expensive for most Americans, providing affordable care only to those who could not previously obtain/afford health care coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added stain that will be placed on the entire health care system.
> > >
> > >
>

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

Thanks for revealing yourself so clearly.

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

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

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

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

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

The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.?I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.? Members of my family? live under Medicaid and? others like myself live under Medicare.? But you seem to have a dosed?mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care?programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.? Who will prevail the ACA?supporters or those who oppose..? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA?is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care?insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.? The point I was making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder?but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA?as the answer.? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare?doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA?you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA?has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.? My Medicare?doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon?a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA?is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ?> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >

---

From: pawnedmyrolex
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:49 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: it's that time of the month?

?

agree! since so few have pensions they grind away on union stuff and layoff nums, with a touch of aviation companies' stuff.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., lowinfoneocon wrote:
>
> Once again, IBMpension is in a cycle of meta-discussion about individuals and not the pension program.
>

This is not the IBMpension board.

agree! since so few have pensions they grind away on union stuff and layoff nums, with a touch of aviation companies' stuff.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., lowinfoneocon <no_reply@> wrote:

Once again, IBMpension is in a cycle of meta-discussion about individuals and not the pension program.

Once again, IBMpension is in a cycle of meta-discussion about individuals and not the pension program.

I currently have Blue Shield PPO with a high deductible, $45/visit, $500 med deductible, 40% I pay for hospital.

The CA ObamaCare plan costing me $12k less per year has a lower deductible. I'm high income, so paying at the higher CA rate and it's still $1k/mo less. And I'm in the higher age group, just before Medicare.

Younger and with less income looked really good for CA as well. The calculator works well.

---

From: Rick b Cool
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:42 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] A Little Macroeconomics. A Little Social Responsibility

?

More people will be covered by ACA, young students, cheapskates, poor people, and people who previously could not afford health insurance.

Yes, since more people and people who could not previously afford health insurance will be covered their will be more demand for health services and the total cost of health services will go up. Average costs will also go up since more sick people will be covered. Through some macroeconomic avenue care given to poor people will through some avenue need to be paid by those with greater means to pay.

On the other side costs will go down because y=the outrageously expensive us of emergency rooms will go down. A burden already included in current costs. I have seen no analysis of the net effect.

The health care lobby, supported by members of Congress, decided to not include significant real cost savings measures that could easily been implemented and would be effective, Why, because they would cut for profit health insurance company profits, they would cut for profit hospital profits, and most importantly they may have required cuts in health care company executive compensations.

Instead, a requirement that 85% of health care insurance company revenue be used for health care. That sounds quite good until you look at what the average annual return to client by the insurance industry was prior to demutualization and creating the for profit insurance industry. The average annual return to clients had been 120% (as compared to the required 85%) This was possible due to the investment profit from insurance companies investing the revenues. The 85% looks pretty meager in comparison. That leaves a net 35% in the insurance companies. That also does not include any accounting games like "contingency for future expenses". A slush fund cast as an expense.

Now to the social side.

More people will be sick without ACA. More people will be more sick without ACA. More people will die without ACA.

More macroeconomics:

More work will be missed due to sickness without ACA. More people will work less efficiently without ACA. Employers will suffer more sick time expenses without ACA.

No, ACA will not be anywhere near as effective as universal single payer would be. No ACA will not save as much money as it could have if it had included more industry standards and operational efficiencies. BUt it doesn't because a dysfunctional Congress would not let efficiencies be included in the bill.

Yes, it is complicated. Why, because the industry is complicated, fractured, and inefficient. Because lobbyists had their hands in it making it complicated for industry profit. Still, it's a step in the right direction.

Universal single payer heath care would have had a major economic boost effect in our economy. It would have leveled the competitive field, taken the health care burden off of companies and unions, and pensions, and encouraged investment in the United States. But it didn't happen. Too many vested interests who don't want it to happen for their own reasons of large wealth accumulation.

Follow the money.

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.

---

From: Rick b Cool
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:12 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

?

The day of the average doctor being self employees is long gone. It hasn't existed for a very long time. Currently over 90% of all physicians are employees of a large organization, like a HMO. If they are lucky they are one of the owns. If they are unlucky they are in the ever increasing class of doctors employees by a hospital and are subject to relatively low wages and summary termination which is not uncommon. Again, a development that has noting to do with ACA. It os preexisting. Yes, the divergence in how doctors a run their practices has been diverging strongly. Again, it has had and continues to have nothing to do with ACA. That is simply another distortion. Am intentional distortion of those with a preexisting prejudice feed to those who want to rationalize their preexisting prejudices. If it is driven by anything it has been driven by large health insurance companies. Again, long before ACA.

Ter another rationalization.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Penny Brewster wrote:
>
> Not sure what is meant by a "private physician". There are self-employed concierge physicians, there are hospital or other organization-employed physicians, and there are self-employed non-concierge physicians. These seem to be the main groupings; there may be some that do not fit into these categories. Self-employed physicians are decreasing in number as they huddle under hospital umbrellas to stay afloat with all the office overhead, at least for primary care, which has become a "loss leader", perhaps unable to generate enough revenue through office visits to keep itself going, but feeding the "mother ship" with orders for labs and radiology, referrals for admissions or surgeries, etc. It is a response to the fact that hospitals need primary care, and primary care has difficulty staying in business without help. I am referring here to what I know about primary care. Specialists may be able to make a go of it without needing help.
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 7/24/13, weinerisnospitzer <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> To: ibmpensionissues@...
> Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 7:44 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> true:
>
> In 2012, there were 4,400 private physicians - a 25%
> increase from 2011.
>
>
>
> source:
>
>
>
> --- In ibmpensionissues@...,
> "Steve" wrote:
>
> >
>
> > "Concierge medicine started LONG before Obama got
> involved."
>
> >
>
> > Absolutely right.
>

The day of the average doctor being self employees is long gone.

Not sure what is meant by a "private physician". There are self-employed concierge physicians, there are hospital or other organization-employed physicians, and there are self-employed non-concierge physicians. These seem to be the main groupings; there may be some that do not fit into these categories. Self-employed physicians are decreasing in number as they huddle under hospital umbrellas to stay afloat with all the office overhead, at least for primary care, which has become a "loss leader", perhaps unable to generate enough revenue through office visits to keep itself going, but feeding the "mother ship" with orders for labs and radiology, referrals for admissions or surgeries, etc. It is a response to the fact that hospitals need primary care, and primary care has difficulty staying in business without help. I am referring here to what I know about primary care. Specialists may be able to make a go of it without needing help.
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/24/13, weinerisnospitzer <no_reply@...> wrote:

Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 7:44 PM
















??









true:

In 2012, there were 4,400 private physicians - a 25%
increase from 2011.



source:



--- In ibmpensionissues@...,
"Steve" <stevejm1935@> wrote:

>

> "Concierge medicine started LONG before Obama got
involved."

>

> Absolutely right.