¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

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.

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.

I am retired and under Medicare. I am against the ACA because they
took $750 billion from Medicare

You are correct. But if it costs a 25 year old less under his/her parent's plan then buying on the exchange as an individual what do you think he/she will do and what will it do to insurance premium cost of others buying on the exchange. Remember IBM is self insured so they can charge anything IBM likes for adding adult children to IBM employee plan. If I were IBM I would make it costly for an employee to add an adult child to employee heath insurance policy,Remember if you are retired, the retiree health plans such as IBM are exempt from the ACA?and you cannot add your adult child to your insurance plan. So why would IBM want current employees to add adult children to their policy,I am retired and under Medicare. I am against the ACA?because they took $750 billion from Medicare. This is the reason the elderly population is against the ACA?and want it repealed. If treatment is not covered by Medicare, it is not covered by any supplement insurance policy including IBM's. They will reduce treatments to save this $750.? The committee of 15 will do it.----- Original Message -----From: Sheila Beaudry?Date: Monday, July 29, 2013 9:58 pmSubject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: "ibmpensionissues@..." > Although parents can keep children under their insurance > coverage they don't have to if they don't want to.> > ?> > From: "KenSP@..." > To: ibmpensionissues@...?> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 9:13 PM> Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > Consequences From Obamacare> > ? > 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.> > How is this a fact. Someone had to pay for putting children on a > parent's health insurance policy.? Isn't this a result of > Obamacare?and didn't the insurance companies increase their > premiums to cover this.? So how can you say that this is a fact > very few people will be paying more for their insurance.? Tell > it to those people who do not have children under the age of 26 > and now have to pay more. Everyone paid more because of this change.> > This is proof how you make general statements which are opinions > and then call the facts.? > > ----- Original Message -----> From: "zimowski@..." > Date: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:36 pm> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > Consequences From Obamacare> To: ibmpensionissues@...> > > In this case, I think the following quote is very appropriate: > > "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a > duck, > > it must be a duck"> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon > > 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 > > > To: ibmpensionissues > > > Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:18 pm> > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > > Consequences From Obamacare> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The statements "You have your right to your own opinions and > > beliefs. Not your own facts." have been popping up on this > forum > > quite a bit lately. I thought that this was a quote from Keith > > Olbermann, but decided to verify and was surprised to learn > that > > it is in fact a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. This fact > > was found in a Washington Post opinions article by Ted Koppel > > about opinionated well-known personalities. > > > > > > Ted notes: "Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation > > that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own > > facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts > > opinions as though they were facts."> > > > > > Here's another Ted Koppel quote from the article:> > > > > > "We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the > > opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn > > Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up > > the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are > > encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because > their > > brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable."> > > > > > Finally a Koppel quote about Olbermann, who uses the > "everyone > > is entitled" quote more than anyone: "To witness Keith > Olbermann > > - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-> baiting, > > money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for > > making financial contributions to Democratic political > > candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a > long-> > gone era of television journalism, when the networks > considered > > the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased > > news to be a public trust.> > > > > > Back then, a policy against political contributions would > have > > aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, > > when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers > to > > his program every night precisely because he is avowedly, > > unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what > > misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?"> > > > > > My opinion is that it's hard to trust the arguments of > anyone > > who thinks that Keith Olbermann's style of debate is one that > > should be emulated as being non-partisan and convincing. Gets > > more amusing with every re-use of Moynihan's observation.> > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > > wrote:> > > >> > > > Spoken like a true person who doesn't like the facts and > > what they mean or imply. You have your right to your own > > opinions and beliefs. Not your own facts. You have the right > to > > not believe simple facts. That is nothing more than political > > zeal or religious fervor in denial of objective reality. A > > common trait among us humans, but not a particularly useful > > trait in optimizing outcomes.> > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Sam Cay" > > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > OK no problem , you believe your facts and I'll believe > > mine. I know mine are correct but not sure of yours. I'd > rather > > choose who/what I give my money to but unfortunately the > crooks > > in government don't let me do that. I'll leave the charity > > giving to people like you. You must not be on twitter based on > > the length of your post. Sorry I made you ramble. > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon > > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, > then > > what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter > > what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you > > get from them is truly a fact.> > > > > > > > > > > > Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the > costs > > of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're > > entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however.> > > > > > > > > > > > And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently > > can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. > > We're already paying for a significant portion of the care > they > > DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion > > of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local > > taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of > > pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier > > among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who > > aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting > > the healthcare they've needed all along.> > > > > > > > > > > > In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to > > the community's benefit to share resources so that we all > > benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school > > taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school > system > > - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated > > populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even > > if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very > careful > > people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled > or > > leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured > > that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few > > examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country.> > > > > > > > > > > > That's something our nation, as a whole, has > determined > > is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and > > that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think > that > > it's a good idea.> > > > > > > > > > > > I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided > > healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to > adequate > > healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that > > at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it > > either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to > > help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most > > uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to > an > > active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't > insured > > through an active choice they've made are those who are young > > and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT > > you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be > > subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for > > health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing > that > > group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare > > coverage but hasn't been able to get it.> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's > > everyone's to share. > > > > > > > > > > > > And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among > us > > who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to > > millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - > you > > do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that > extra > > cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care > of > > themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence > of > > YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The > > FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will > be > > getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying > to > > help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves > or > > unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due > to > > pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----> > > > > > From: Sam Cay > > > > > > To: ibmpensionissues > > > > > > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am> > > > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive > > Consequences From Obamacare> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess this makes the assumption that your source of > > data is correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you > believe > > but what data you want to believe. I am concerned when the > cost > > of any government program reaches in my pocket to pay for > others > > who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word > subsidy > > comes into a program this is my trigger for taking food out of > > my families mouth. So does your data tell us that we will or > > will not be paying for someone unwilling to make their life > > better. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon > > wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something > that's > > demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different > > from another person, but we all share the same database of > > factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to > > differing opinions.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the > > facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant > > facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that > some > > people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with > > the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been > > debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has > nothing > > to do with people "believing something different". Again, > > everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own > > facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and > > reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, > > disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon > facts. > > One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support > with > > factual information.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the > > false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to > > eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY > > works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 > > workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any > > businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT > find > > evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides > > that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers > to > > avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The > > ACA treats part-time employees as ???????€????fulltime > > equivalents???????€??? by adding up the total number of hours > > per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an > amount > > of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to > > hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-> timers. > > In fact, it'd be detrimental to their cause, as there'd then > be > > more workers total who might opt for coverage.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----> > > > > > > From: Rick b Cool > > > > > > > To: ibmpensionissues > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >

Now you are stating that the people in one group pays more for this
and the other group - with no children pay less but still pay for
this change. So this other group did pay something for the
Obama-care change.

You are correct that the people who paid more were the people who added children to their policy. BUT previously you said that "very few people will pay more because Obamacare". Now you are stating that the people in one group pays more for this and the other group - with no children pay less but still pay for this change. So this other group did pay something for the Obama-care change. So by your own words it is not a fact that very few people will pay more because of Obamacare?- but a hope, opinion or belief.It is a fact, that insurance companies are required by law to create the reserve for this exposure.? They do not charge the full reserve to the people who added children but spread a balance to all others in the pool. Of course, many used this as an excuse to raise the premium higher than what was need because of the profit motive.Finally, do you really believe that a young person who may have an annual doctor's fees of $200 a year is going to buy health insurance for two or three thousand when they believe they are going to live forever.Ask them and hear their response.? Don't you wonder why the US government did not draft or does not take people over the age of 26into the army except in the world wars.----- Original Message -----From: edward_berkline?Date: Monday, July 29, 2013 9:50 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Well, uh, the people who paid more when parents added their > adult children to their policies are the parents themselves. > Since additional person(s) were covered, they paid additional > premiums. But they got something they wanted in return: HEALTH > INSURANCE ! Oh, the tragedy! They had to actually PAY for > it!!!! And it was all voluntary!> > Since the majority of young adults are healthy and can be > expected to have few claims, the premiums their parents pay are > most likely helping to keep the cost lower for everyone else. > Oh, what a tragedy!!> > If you can prove otherwise, please do so. > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > 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.How is this a fact. Someone > had to pay for putting children on a parent's health insurance > policy.? Isn't this a result of Obamacare?and didn't the > insurance companies increase their premiums to cover this.? So > how can you say that this is a fact very few people will be > paying more for their insurance.? Tell it to those people who do > not have children under the age of 26 and now have to pay more. > Everyone paid more because of this change.This is proof how you > make general statements which are opinions and then call the > facts.? > > >

So, did you LEARN from your copy and paste from Wikipedia that what you've been talking about is SOCIALISM, not COMMUNISM?

Socialism is whenever it has to do with economic issues. That means taxes. That means Obamacare.

Now, I'm not a socialist either, but when you baselessly try to insult someone because you can't defeat their argument, you should at least be in the same ballpark as they are.

Now, why you thought you needed to educate the rest of us, when WE already KNEW the difference between communism and socialism, is beyond me.

Geesh.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 11:55 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system consists of a system of production and distribution organised to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services are produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital.[5] Accounting is based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[6][7] Distribution is based on the principle to each according to his contribution. Marxist theory holds that the development of the socialist mode of production will give rise to a communist society, in which classes and the state are no longer present, there is access abundance to final goods, and thus distribution is based on to each according to his need.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership.[8] Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic political system.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism irrespective of the solutions to those problems. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative system based on some form of social ownership.[9] Marxists expanded further on this, attributing scientific assessment and democratic planning as critical elements of socialism.[10]

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

Don't worry. The word communist is thrown around by those who neither know what the word means nor have any real desire to communicate honestly.

When a person uses the word communist as it was used they most often mean Stalinist. They are falsely trying to imply that you are an unprincipled, violent autocrat. The same with their use of the word socialist, liberal, or progressive. All intentional pejorative distortions to propagate a terminating intimidating lie.

The fact that many communists hated Stalin and his violent autocracy means nothing to such ignorant liars. Nor does the fact that most socialists did not want to associate with either Stalinists or communists.

It's all about the ignorant dishonest intimidation of those they disagree with and a desire to terminate the conversation without having to support their ignorant views.

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

No, I'm not a communist. I'm representative of the American public, in general - the same public that agreed with the TVA - the only way many rural Americans got affordable electricity, because of subsidies from wealthier Americans. The same public that overwhelmingly supports local fire departments, and good roads, and public schools and parks and libraries, etc, etc. The same public that supports Social Security and Medicare.

We're a nation that's a mixture of socialism and captalism. If you had a clue about what you were talking about, you'd know that it's socialism, not communism.

If you don't like living in a nation that's a strong mixture of socialism and captalism, then you should move elsewhere, because the vast majority of Americans are very happy with that mix - in fact, most of them would prefer that we have more socialism and less laissez faire capitalism - the stuff that's made banks and hedge fund managers so rich and left most of the rest of us off the gravy train.

You're the outlier here, not me.

Anecdotal info about how in a FEW cases, it's better to travel to another country for health care isn't evidence that everything about the care in the other nation is perfect for every resident of that country. Yet you seem to be under the delusion that it is. Yes, in a very few cases, Canadians DO travel to the USA for health care, but for the most part, they are quite happy with their heathcare system, and they don't have millions of people left out in the cold without coverages like we have here in the USA. If people in the USA who have an issue with our healthcare system could resolve those issues by travelling to another nation, we'd have a lot more people going to Canada than we have Canadians coming here.

Yet you think that your argument is a winning one. I'm not surprised.

So, now to your totally disingenuous arguments below.

1. There is an issue that some unions with healthcare plans that are called "non-profit" are having. They don't want an exemption from Obamacare. They don't want to be denied participation in the healthcare exchanges, and right now that's what might happen. You might want to read the link that includes the whole text of their letter to the Obama Administration, instead of the cherry-picked version your rightwing blog link chose to go with. They say they still support the effort - just that it needs to be tweaked.

2. The second link is simply another recapping of the same issue, and again, unions like the bill - they just feel like they're being disadvantaged by one part of the bill, and they want it fixed. They don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

3. And, not surprisingly, the 3rd link is about the same exact topic - did you really not understand that it's not 3 separate issues?

4 & 5. Same thing, 4th and 5th verse. Really?

6. Finally, a second topic, but townhall.com - really? REALLY? We DO need young people who've been forgoing coverage to sign up. That's not a new issue. And acting as though advertising that need is a sign of desperation is ludicrous - but exactly what I'd expect from you.

7. And a FoxBusiness poll? A cable network that has virtually no audience? Really? If people hadn't been so misinformed by those on the right, they wouldn't be so reluctant to sign up. It's not because Obamacare is a bad plan. It's the best we could get because the Dems were trying to be conciliatory towards the Republicans - that's why it's so much like what Republicans for the past 2 decades have said that they wanted, because the Democrats were hoping that the Republicans could and would act in a bipartisan fashion if the Democrats did too.

Try harder next time - this was way too easy.




-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 10:43 pm
Subject: Fw: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare







I apologize for my misspellings. My android phone auto corrected.

Now back to Sue. You are a Liberal Communist, correct?

I am guessing that from your quote: " try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own. " My response is: "Hell no!! You cannot have my Lettuce to put on your
hamburger when you have high cholesterol". Socialized medicine is a failure. Do you know or have you head of any one that needs heart surgery leaving the U.S. to go to Canada or an MRI for that matter? I do not. However, there many Canadians that travel to the U.S. to get urgent life saving care and that MRI so they do not die waiting.

These articles listed below go against your idea Obama care and its policy management is going to get more
medicine to the unwashed Masses.

1. IRS wants exemption from O'Bama care. I guess they do not want to personally help those with needs.



2. Huffington Post reports: Oops, Union medical plans could get scuttled by ACA cost and fees.



3. Forbes, Hoffa writes to Reid and Palozzi, that middle class could be shattered by ACA.



4. The Hill: Food workers union 1.3 Million strong not happy about the impact to healthcare plan by ACA.


5. Legislators and staff want ACA exemption.



6. From Town Hill, a little CNN action on the 2.7 million needed to sign up might take the fine instead.



7. Fox Business Poll: Young People to Skip Coverage, Opt for Penalty Tax Instead



Back to taxing the wealthier for healthcare. Sue, why not go to a window at the Federal reserve and give them more
of your money to help offset any government expenses? After all, Karl Marx did say: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs:.






----- Forwarded Message -----
From: teamb562 <teamb562@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:32 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare





I'm sorry but the intension of this forum is not to discuss the ibm pension, that is discussed on Yahoo board ibmpension. This forum was established to bitch about and discuss problems and issues with the ibmpension board, that's it.

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

This forum IS supposed to be about IBM pension issues. Please, the next time someone else brings up an issue that is outside of the group's subject matter, feel free to immediately interject and tell them that they're off topic. But if someone doesn't do that, then it's unfair to get upset and/or criticize the people who reply to their off topic postings. People replying to an off topic subject aren't responsible for it being brought up, and shouldn't be chastised for replying - yet I was.

Any time a new initiative gets pushed by the party in power, it gets airtime to try to educate people about the good things about the initiative. This is not a new thing - it's not like Obama invented propaganda, after all. Obamacare is about getting more and better healthcare to more people. Its goal is not to tax people, although one of the ways that it does try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own.

There hasn't been anything to sign up for yet - and so, it's not surprising that no one has signed up yet. The sign up is still months away. Yet you think that people have been failing to sign up..... hmmmm. They can't have signed up yet, yet you think that we can come to some conclusion about them not signing up yet? Really?

A young person, unless they are the 'inventor' of Facebook or someone similar, can't save enough in a 401 to take care of the costs of a serious illness, much less a catastrophic illness. Yeah, most young people won't face those bankrupting costs, so for them, health care insurance isn't the wisest way for them to invest their money. But no insurance is a good "investment", unless the thing you're investing is in piece of mind. So it's not about how they could have saved more had they put that money into a 401K account. It's about how we, as a nation, can afford to provide care to people who are uninsured due to no bad choices on their part. It's about providing care to young adults who haven't yet gotten a job that provides health care. It's about finding affordable care for people who have a pre-existing condition. It's about finding healthcare options for those who have hit lifetime maximums. It helps seniors who were stuck in the donut hole. It extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by quite a few years. And it's about helping those who work for a living but don't have an employer who can/will provide them with an employer-funded healthcare option.

With Obamacare, there are multiple cost-savings measures built into the bill, and there are also some additional taxes - and those two things combined end up cutting our long term debt while funding a greatly expanded healthcare offering for millons of Americans.


-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:07 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare








Sue,

Are you a cotmmunist? Business and technology advances are about delivering efficiencies in this case health care. Choice and market efficiencies should help lower costs while ensuring as many people can get the help they need. ACA is nothing more than a tax and power grab. The Obama administration will spend the rest of the summer and at least east 15 million trying to get kids to sign up because his 20 something constituency is not signing up for the ACA to help defer the cost that those are incurring by aging patients. Its stupid to pay more when that money can be grown
in a 401k which I thought what this group was about.

----------------------------
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:18 PM EDT Sue Runyon wrote:

Yet again, you show us that you don't actually know what you're talking about, Sam.

But yeah, there WILL BE some increased costs because young people get to tag on to their parents' coverage for a few more years. We WILL be providing coverage to people who previously lost it due to lifetime caps. There'll be people who were uninsurable at any reasonable cost because of pre-existing conditions who can now get coverage, and that will be a cost too.

But we're also pulling in many people who chose to not have coverage who'll now be forced to get coverage or pay a penalty, and bringing more healthy people into the system will help cover those increased costs for the people listed above. So yeah, those who haven't had insurance in the past who are forced to pay for it now will either be ABLE to afford it and will have to pay for it, or will be poor enough that they'll get subsidies to help pay for that coverage! ONLY those people who were already rich enough to have coverage will pay for the full cost of that coverage. Only those who were being selfish beforehand, hoping that they wouldn't get sick, and figuring that the rest of us suckers would pay for them if they DID get sick, will have to carry the burden they should have been carrying all along!

And we're going to see the wealthier among us have to pay a little more - again, people who CAN afford to pay more WILL pay more - that's a system that the American public strongly supports!

There's no "scam" being presented by anyone on the left - the scams come directly from the right side of the political aisle nowadays. One of the scams is that Obamacare is some kind of leftist wet dream, when the FACTS are that almost ALL of the features of Obamacare are things that Republicans either thought up or supported in the past.

The CBS poll didn't show that MOST people don't support it. What it showed is that more people than before don't support it - and that's a direct reflection of the MILLIONS of dollars in negative advertising that the rightwing has done. It is NOT a reflection of people actually rejecting what's IN Obamacare.

What you alleged is that it was a demonstration that what's in the bill isn't supported - and a poll that demonstrates that people don't know what's in the bill due to misinformation from those on the right doesn't, in fact, demonstrate that the stuff that's in the bill isn't supported.

As I already explained, if you have more than 50 workers, whether that's 50 actual workers, or more than that with part time equivalents, you're under the employer mandate. It doesn't do them any good to hire twice as many part time workers! Yet you STILL THINK it does, despite the fact that the FACT disprove what you believe.

It's YOU who has demonstrated, repeatedly, that you've drunk the Kool Aid.

Keep digging that hole you're already in! Please, keep it up.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 6:18 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






It appears you have bought into the scam being presented by the obamaites. If you read the bill you will see there are still a lot of undefined portions of the bill. It seems these get filled in during the middle of the night. The few cherry picked items like the coverage up to 26 seemed to be a hit to some but it also raised the cost to cover this. You also seem to believe that the 2 sources you select are above reproach with their data. Unless you cross check their info is questionable also. To most of us who are retired and stuck with medicare we have a supplemental IBM plan and won't be affected by the ACA. Maybe IBM will drop our plans in the future but until then we'll watch from the outside. We recently just went through the math in our town to reduce it's budget. Part of the strategy was to cut most of the town employees hours to now call them part time. We will be dropping their insurance so they will now shop the exchanges. They did not get an

increase to pay for the plans and they will most likely get a second job to supplement their income. A similar approach was taken by the owner of 2 local restaurants . The actual results of this bill will be in who pays what and how much. Also anybody who has never had insurance will see a 100% increase in their cost.All data today is speculation so wait until the real numbers come in. I wish luck to all who have to fish for insurance. This country has a lot of ignorant people who won't know what they are doing when signing up for the ACA.

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

No, it shows the disinformation and fear campaign against it is working.???????€?? Plus if you actually ask people about specific things that are in the ACA they do like it and want it.???????€?? Personally I would rather have a single payer plan.???????€?? When you add the liberals who would rather have a single payer plan to the conservatives who don't like changing the current healthcare system, you get a larger per cent.???????€?? This is what happens when you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes it.???????€?? It has a lot of good things in it though:???????€?? you can get coverage with pre-existing conditions, no more ceiling limits, kids can stay on parents plan till 26, more people will have coverage, helps people who can't afford it to get insurance,???????€?? will reduce uncovered people getting expensive care in emergency room???????€?? which???????€?? in the past has???????€?? increased everyone else's costs.???????€?? I don't think it is perfect, but it is a good start and changes can be made in

the future if

needed to tweak it.???????€??


From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

???????€??
The CBS poll is not a FOX poll - precisely the reason I cited it first. You cannot dispute the fact that the most recent opinion polls clearly demonstrate that most Americans do not want ACA. The more they understand ACA and the more they realize that Obama has hoodwinked them once again, the more they wish it would be repealed.

Your supposed facts are the same talking points that the smooth talking Obama used to hoodwink so many Americans, including the press, in the first place. He repeated them over and over again, just like you are doing, until a critical mass began to believe him. If you hear it often enough, it must be true. Right? But now many Americans are beginning to wake up.

As your post clearly indicates, you think that talking points, repeated as nauseum, are facts. And, you think that browbeating is debating. These are the same tactics that Obama, the finger pointer in chief, uses. But they're no longer working on the majority of Americans, as the polls indicate, and those same tactics will not work on this board. Most participants here are just too intelligent to be hoodwinked by you.

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

-----Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts.

Of course it doesn't, and IF I'd been doing that, you'd have a point. But I haven't been doing that - and so, yet again, you don't have a point!

On the other hand, claiming that a fact is a fact and not an opinion, as YOU'VE tried to claim - that facts we're presenting to you are simply opinions, or the other claim you've made, that there are alternative facts dependent upon one's beliefs - now THAT'S a boguw way to behave.

The problematic behavior has been all yours. All yours. You own it, and I've pointed it out, repeatedly, and I understand that you don't like that. Too bad, so sad.

And YET AGAIN you strip stuff of its context when you assert that I was saying that the vast majority of Americans want ACA. I didn't. You're either being dishonest or showing a stunning lack of reading comprehension yet again.

The vast majority of Americans want what we got in ACA OR MORE! And when Americans are polled on the individual aspects of the program, they like them too.

Now, because of the disinformatiion campaign from the right side of the political aisle, it doesn't have the amount of support it would have if people had the actual facts at hand. In addition, if there wasn't the factor of people hating anything that Obama and Demcrats did, it'd have even MORE support. As I've explained, repeatedly, the lack of Republican VOTES for this isn't equivalent to the lack of support from Republicans for the things included in the ACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geesh, you're easy to debunk.

And then you think it's legitimate to cite a Fox News poll? REALLY? And after the disinformation campaign from the rightwing, I'm not surprised at all that many Americans mistakenly think that ACA will cost them.

THE FACT IS THAT IT WON'T. Again, this is a fact. ACA will only adversely financially impact the wealthier among us - and, not strangely enough, this is EXACTLY what I've typed about 6 times in this back and forth!!!

Geez - make it harder next time for me to use your own words to make you look foolish.




-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;;
Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:42 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts.

Let's look at one example. You state: " And yeah, I get that you're selfish. But our nation, as a whole, isn't, and as we're a representative democracy, what the majority of Americans want is what we hopefully, as a nation, provide to our citizens. And the vast majority of Americans favor this. You don't. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

Now, let's focus on your assertion "The vast majority of Americans favor this.", which you assert as if it is a fact. It's not. Here are some facts for you to think about:

CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want Obamacare repealed



Note that these poll results were posted on the web on July 24, 2013 at 10:10AM.

(CBS News) A new CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want the Affordable Care Act repealed.

According to the poll, 36 percent of Americans want Congress to expand or keep the health care law while 39 percent want Congress to repeal it - the highest percentage seen in CBS News polls. The poll also found a majority of Americans - 54 percent - disapprove of the health care law, 36 percent of Americans approve of it and 10 percent said they don't know about it.

The health care law is a chronic issue for the White House, CBS News political director John Dickerson said on "CBS This Morning." "There's an operational part to this, which is that the White House has got to get people to sign up for these health exchanges, particularly younger, healthier Americans, and so they are tactically running a campaign much like the presidential campaign, reaching out, using the techniques of that campaign to get younger people to sign up for these health exchanges."

The poll also found just 13 percent of Americans say the health care law will personally "help me" while 38 percent said they believe the law will personally "hurt me."

And then, there's the Fox News Poll:

Voters say repeal ObamaCare, expect new law will cost them

Read more:

Note that this article was posted on the web on July 25, 2013.

Voters think ObamaCare is going to hurt their wallet and over half want the law repealed, according to a new Fox News national poll.

By a large 47-11 percent margin, voters expect the 2010 health care law will cost them rather than save them money in the coming year. Another 34 percent think the law won't change their family's health care costs.

Those negative expectations come at a time when a majority of the public remains unhappy with the way thing are going in the country (63 percent dissatisfied), and over half say they haven't seen any signs the economy has started to turn the corner (57 percent).

Republicans are three times as likely as Democrats to think ObamaCare will cost them money over the next year (70 percent vs. 23 percent). One Democrat in five expects the law will result in savings for their family (21 percent).

The poll asks people to take an up-or-down vote on ObamaCare: 40 percent say they would vote to keep the law in place, while just over half -- 53 percent -- would repeal it.

Over half of those under age 45 (51 percent) as well as those 45 and over (56 percent) would vote to repeal ObamaCare.

Most Republicans want the law repealed (by 85-13 percent) and so do independents (by 65-25 percent). Most Democrats favor keeping ObamaCare (by 72-21 percent).

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

Do you REALLY think that you can argue that I provided TOO MANY FACTS to refute your argument - that attacking the length of my post is a valid debate tactic? Really? I didn't "ramble" at all. But thanks for showing everyone that when you can't refute a thing I've written, you'll resort to making a baseless personal attack - thanks for outing yourself as an insincere, insulting debater much better than I could have done myself.

So, did you LEARN from your copy and paste from Wikipedia that what you've been talking about is SOCIALISM, not COMMUNISM?

Socialism is whenever it has to do with economic issues. That means taxes. That means Obamacare.

Now, I'm not a socialist either, but when you baselessly try to insult someone because you can't defeat their argument, you should at least be in the same ballpark as they are.

Now, why you thought you needed to educate the rest of us, when WE already KNEW the difference between communism and socialism, is beyond me.

Geesh.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 11:55 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system consists of a system of production and distribution organised to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services are produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital.[5] Accounting is based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[6][7] Distribution is based on the principle to each according to his contribution. Marxist theory holds that the development of the socialist mode of production will give rise to a communist society, in which classes and the state are no longer present, there is access abundance to final goods, and thus distribution is based on to each according to his need.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership.[8] Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic political system.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism irrespective of the solutions to those problems. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative system based on some form of social ownership.[9] Marxists expanded further on this, attributing scientific assessment and democratic planning as critical elements of socialism.[10]

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

Don't worry. The word communist is thrown around by those who neither know what the word means nor have any real desire to communicate honestly.

When a person uses the word communist as it was used they most often mean Stalinist. They are falsely trying to imply that you are an unprincipled, violent autocrat. The same with their use of the word socialist, liberal, or progressive. All intentional pejorative distortions to propagate a terminating intimidating lie.

The fact that many communists hated Stalin and his violent autocracy means nothing to such ignorant liars. Nor does the fact that most socialists did not want to associate with either Stalinists or communists.

It's all about the ignorant dishonest intimidation of those they disagree with and a desire to terminate the conversation without having to support their ignorant views.

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

No, I'm not a communist. I'm representative of the American public, in general - the same public that agreed with the TVA - the only way many rural Americans got affordable electricity, because of subsidies from wealthier Americans. The same public that overwhelmingly supports local fire departments, and good roads, and public schools and parks and libraries, etc, etc. The same public that supports Social Security and Medicare.

We're a nation that's a mixture of socialism and captalism. If you had a clue about what you were talking about, you'd know that it's socialism, not communism.

If you don't like living in a nation that's a strong mixture of socialism and captalism, then you should move elsewhere, because the vast majority of Americans are very happy with that mix - in fact, most of them would prefer that we have more socialism and less laissez faire capitalism - the stuff that's made banks and hedge fund managers so rich and left most of the rest of us off the gravy train.

You're the outlier here, not me.

Anecdotal info about how in a FEW cases, it's better to travel to another country for health care isn't evidence that everything about the care in the other nation is perfect for every resident of that country. Yet you seem to be under the delusion that it is. Yes, in a very few cases, Canadians DO travel to the USA for health care, but for the most part, they are quite happy with their heathcare system, and they don't have millions of people left out in the cold without coverages like we have here in the USA. If people in the USA who have an issue with our healthcare system could resolve those issues by travelling to another nation, we'd have a lot more people going to Canada than we have Canadians coming here.

Yet you think that your argument is a winning one. I'm not surprised.

So, now to your totally disingenuous arguments below.

1. There is an issue that some unions with healthcare plans that are called "non-profit" are having. They don't want an exemption from Obamacare. They don't want to be denied participation in the healthcare exchanges, and right now that's what might happen. You might want to read the link that includes the whole text of their letter to the Obama Administration, instead of the cherry-picked version your rightwing blog link chose to go with. They say they still support the effort - just that it needs to be tweaked.

2. The second link is simply another recapping of the same issue, and again, unions like the bill - they just feel like they're being disadvantaged by one part of the bill, and they want it fixed. They don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

3. And, not surprisingly, the 3rd link is about the same exact topic - did you really not understand that it's not 3 separate issues?

4 & 5. Same thing, 4th and 5th verse. Really?

6. Finally, a second topic, but townhall.com - really? REALLY? We DO need young people who've been forgoing coverage to sign up. That's not a new issue. And acting as though advertising that need is a sign of desperation is ludicrous - but exactly what I'd expect from you.

7. And a FoxBusiness poll? A cable network that has virtually no audience? Really? If people hadn't been so misinformed by those on the right, they wouldn't be so reluctant to sign up. It's not because Obamacare is a bad plan. It's the best we could get because the Dems were trying to be conciliatory towards the Republicans - that's why it's so much like what Republicans for the past 2 decades have said that they wanted, because the Democrats were hoping that the Republicans could and would act in a bipartisan fashion if the Democrats did too.

Try harder next time - this was way too easy.




-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 10:43 pm
Subject: Fw: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare







I apologize for my misspellings. My android phone auto corrected.

Now back to Sue. You are a Liberal Communist, correct?

I am guessing that from your quote: " try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own. " My response is: "Hell no!! You cannot have my Lettuce to put on your
hamburger when you have high cholesterol". Socialized medicine is a failure. Do you know or have you head of any one that needs heart surgery leaving the U.S. to go to Canada or an MRI for that matter? I do not. However, there many Canadians that travel to the U.S. to get urgent life saving care and that MRI so they do not die waiting.

These articles listed below go against your idea Obama care and its policy management is going to get more
medicine to the unwashed Masses.

1. IRS wants exemption from O'Bama care. I guess they do not want to personally help those with needs.



2. Huffington Post reports: Oops, Union medical plans could get scuttled by ACA cost and fees.



3. Forbes, Hoffa writes to Reid and Palozzi, that middle class could be shattered by ACA.



4. The Hill: Food workers union 1.3 Million strong not happy about the impact to healthcare plan by ACA.


5. Legislators and staff want ACA exemption.



6. From Town Hill, a little CNN action on the 2.7 million needed to sign up might take the fine instead.



7. Fox Business Poll: Young People to Skip Coverage, Opt for Penalty Tax Instead



Back to taxing the wealthier for healthcare. Sue, why not go to a window at the Federal reserve and give them more
of your money to help offset any government expenses? After all, Karl Marx did say: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs:.






----- Forwarded Message -----
From: teamb562 <teamb562@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:32 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare





I'm sorry but the intension of this forum is not to discuss the ibm pension, that is discussed on Yahoo board ibmpension. This forum was established to bitch about and discuss problems and issues with the ibmpension board, that's it.

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

This forum IS supposed to be about IBM pension issues. Please, the next time someone else brings up an issue that is outside of the group's subject matter, feel free to immediately interject and tell them that they're off topic. But if someone doesn't do that, then it's unfair to get upset and/or criticize the people who reply to their off topic postings. People replying to an off topic subject aren't responsible for it being brought up, and shouldn't be chastised for replying - yet I was.

Any time a new initiative gets pushed by the party in power, it gets airtime to try to educate people about the good things about the initiative. This is not a new thing - it's not like Obama invented propaganda, after all. Obamacare is about getting more and better healthcare to more people. Its goal is not to tax people, although one of the ways that it does try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own.

There hasn't been anything to sign up for yet - and so, it's not surprising that no one has signed up yet. The sign up is still months away. Yet you think that people have been failing to sign up..... hmmmm. They can't have signed up yet, yet you think that we can come to some conclusion about them not signing up yet? Really?

A young person, unless they are the 'inventor' of Facebook or someone similar, can't save enough in a 401 to take care of the costs of a serious illness, much less a catastrophic illness. Yeah, most young people won't face those bankrupting costs, so for them, health care insurance isn't the wisest way for them to invest their money. But no insurance is a good "investment", unless the thing you're investing is in piece of mind. So it's not about how they could have saved more had they put that money into a 401K account. It's about how we, as a nation, can afford to provide care to people who are uninsured due to no bad choices on their part. It's about providing care to young adults who haven't yet gotten a job that provides health care. It's about finding affordable care for people who have a pre-existing condition. It's about finding healthcare options for those who have hit lifetime maximums. It helps seniors who were stuck in the donut hole. It extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by quite a few years. And it's about helping those who work for a living but don't have an employer who can/will provide them with an employer-funded healthcare option.

With Obamacare, there are multiple cost-savings measures built into the bill, and there are also some additional taxes - and those two things combined end up cutting our long term debt while funding a greatly expanded healthcare offering for millons of Americans.


-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:07 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare








Sue,

Are you a cotmmunist? Business and technology advances are about delivering efficiencies in this case health care. Choice and market efficiencies should help lower costs while ensuring as many people can get the help they need. ACA is nothing more than a tax and power grab. The Obama administration will spend the rest of the summer and at least east 15 million trying to get kids to sign up because his 20 something constituency is not signing up for the ACA to help defer the cost that those are incurring by aging patients. Its stupid to pay more when that money can be grown
in a 401k which I thought what this group was about.

----------------------------
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:18 PM EDT Sue Runyon wrote:

Yet again, you show us that you don't actually know what you're talking about, Sam.

But yeah, there WILL BE some increased costs because young people get to tag on to their parents' coverage for a few more years. We WILL be providing coverage to people who previously lost it due to lifetime caps. There'll be people who were uninsurable at any reasonable cost because of pre-existing conditions who can now get coverage, and that will be a cost too.

But we're also pulling in many people who chose to not have coverage who'll now be forced to get coverage or pay a penalty, and bringing more healthy people into the system will help cover those increased costs for the people listed above. So yeah, those who haven't had insurance in the past who are forced to pay for it now will either be ABLE to afford it and will have to pay for it, or will be poor enough that they'll get subsidies to help pay for that coverage! ONLY those people who were already rich enough to have coverage will pay for the full cost of that coverage. Only those who were being selfish beforehand, hoping that they wouldn't get sick, and figuring that the rest of us suckers would pay for them if they DID get sick, will have to carry the burden they should have been carrying all along!

And we're going to see the wealthier among us have to pay a little more - again, people who CAN afford to pay more WILL pay more - that's a system that the American public strongly supports!

There's no "scam" being presented by anyone on the left - the scams come directly from the right side of the political aisle nowadays. One of the scams is that Obamacare is some kind of leftist wet dream, when the FACTS are that almost ALL of the features of Obamacare are things that Republicans either thought up or supported in the past.

The CBS poll didn't show that MOST people don't support it. What it showed is that more people than before don't support it - and that's a direct reflection of the MILLIONS of dollars in negative advertising that the rightwing has done. It is NOT a reflection of people actually rejecting what's IN Obamacare.

What you alleged is that it was a demonstration that what's in the bill isn't supported - and a poll that demonstrates that people don't know what's in the bill due to misinformation from those on the right doesn't, in fact, demonstrate that the stuff that's in the bill isn't supported.

As I already explained, if you have more than 50 workers, whether that's 50 actual workers, or more than that with part time equivalents, you're under the employer mandate. It doesn't do them any good to hire twice as many part time workers! Yet you STILL THINK it does, despite the fact that the FACT disprove what you believe.

It's YOU who has demonstrated, repeatedly, that you've drunk the Kool Aid.

Keep digging that hole you're already in! Please, keep it up.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 6:18 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






It appears you have bought into the scam being presented by the obamaites. If you read the bill you will see there are still a lot of undefined portions of the bill. It seems these get filled in during the middle of the night. The few cherry picked items like the coverage up to 26 seemed to be a hit to some but it also raised the cost to cover this. You also seem to believe that the 2 sources you select are above reproach with their data. Unless you cross check their info is questionable also. To most of us who are retired and stuck with medicare we have a supplemental IBM plan and won't be affected by the ACA. Maybe IBM will drop our plans in the future but until then we'll watch from the outside. We recently just went through the math in our town to reduce it's budget. Part of the strategy was to cut most of the town employees hours to now call them part time. We will be dropping their insurance so they will now shop the exchanges. They did not get an

increase to pay for the plans and they will most likely get a second job to supplement their income. A similar approach was taken by the owner of 2 local restaurants . The actual results of this bill will be in who pays what and how much. Also anybody who has never had insurance will see a 100% increase in their cost.All data today is speculation so wait until the real numbers come in. I wish luck to all who have to fish for insurance. This country has a lot of ignorant people who won't know what they are doing when signing up for the ACA.

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

No, it shows the disinformation and fear campaign against it is working.???????€?? Plus if you actually ask people about specific things that are in the ACA they do like it and want it.???????€?? Personally I would rather have a single payer plan.???????€?? When you add the liberals who would rather have a single payer plan to the conservatives who don't like changing the current healthcare system, you get a larger per cent.???????€?? This is what happens when you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes it.???????€?? It has a lot of good things in it though:???????€?? you can get coverage with pre-existing conditions, no more ceiling limits, kids can stay on parents plan till 26, more people will have coverage, helps people who can't afford it to get insurance,???????€?? will reduce uncovered people getting expensive care in emergency room???????€?? which???????€?? in the past has???????€?? increased everyone else's costs.???????€?? I don't think it is perfect, but it is a good start and changes can be made in

the future if

needed to tweak it.???????€??


From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

???????€??
The CBS poll is not a FOX poll - precisely the reason I cited it first. You cannot dispute the fact that the most recent opinion polls clearly demonstrate that most Americans do not want ACA. The more they understand ACA and the more they realize that Obama has hoodwinked them once again, the more they wish it would be repealed.

Your supposed facts are the same talking points that the smooth talking Obama used to hoodwink so many Americans, including the press, in the first place. He repeated them over and over again, just like you are doing, until a critical mass began to believe him. If you hear it often enough, it must be true. Right? But now many Americans are beginning to wake up.

As your post clearly indicates, you think that talking points, repeated as nauseum, are facts. And, you think that browbeating is debating. These are the same tactics that Obama, the finger pointer in chief, uses. But they're no longer working on the majority of Americans, as the polls indicate, and those same tactics will not work on this board. Most participants here are just too intelligent to be hoodwinked by you.

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

-----Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts.

Of course it doesn't, and IF I'd been doing that, you'd have a point. But I haven't been doing that - and so, yet again, you don't have a point!

On the other hand, claiming that a fact is a fact and not an opinion, as YOU'VE tried to claim - that facts we're presenting to you are simply opinions, or the other claim you've made, that there are alternative facts dependent upon one's beliefs - now THAT'S a boguw way to behave.

The problematic behavior has been all yours. All yours. You own it, and I've pointed it out, repeatedly, and I understand that you don't like that. Too bad, so sad.

And YET AGAIN you strip stuff of its context when you assert that I was saying that the vast majority of Americans want ACA. I didn't. You're either being dishonest or showing a stunning lack of reading comprehension yet again.

The vast majority of Americans want what we got in ACA OR MORE! And when Americans are polled on the individual aspects of the program, they like them too.

Now, because of the disinformatiion campaign from the right side of the political aisle, it doesn't have the amount of support it would have if people had the actual facts at hand. In addition, if there wasn't the factor of people hating anything that Obama and Demcrats did, it'd have even MORE support. As I've explained, repeatedly, the lack of Republican VOTES for this isn't equivalent to the lack of support from Republicans for the things included in the ACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geesh, you're easy to debunk.

And then you think it's legitimate to cite a Fox News poll? REALLY? And after the disinformation campaign from the rightwing, I'm not surprised at all that many Americans mistakenly think that ACA will cost them.

THE FACT IS THAT IT WON'T. Again, this is a fact. ACA will only adversely financially impact the wealthier among us - and, not strangely enough, this is EXACTLY what I've typed about 6 times in this back and forth!!!

Geez - make it harder next time for me to use your own words to make you look foolish.




-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;;
Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:42 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts.

Let's look at one example. You state: " And yeah, I get that you're selfish. But our nation, as a whole, isn't, and as we're a representative democracy, what the majority of Americans want is what we hopefully, as a nation, provide to our citizens. And the vast majority of Americans favor this. You don't. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

Now, let's focus on your assertion "The vast majority of Americans favor this.", which you assert as if it is a fact. It's not. Here are some facts for you to think about:

CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want Obamacare repealed



Note that these poll results were posted on the web on July 24, 2013 at 10:10AM.

(CBS News) A new CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want the Affordable Care Act repealed.

According to the poll, 36 percent of Americans want Congress to expand or keep the health care law while 39 percent want Congress to repeal it - the highest percentage seen in CBS News polls. The poll also found a majority of Americans - 54 percent - disapprove of the health care law, 36 percent of Americans approve of it and 10 percent said they don't know about it.

The health care law is a chronic issue for the White House, CBS News political director John Dickerson said on "CBS This Morning." "There's an operational part to this, which is that the White House has got to get people to sign up for these health exchanges, particularly younger, healthier Americans, and so they are tactically running a campaign much like the presid

No, the Democrats NEVER said that, nor did they behave that way either.

As I've recently linked to MULTIPLE times, read the piece by Norman Ornstein about the Republicans despicable behavior when it comes to Obamacare.
uh
And if you're too freaking lazy to link to a story about this supposed ONE instance of this disreputable behavior by the Democrats, that's your shortcoming, not mine. And AGAIN, I've never claimed that Democrats are a

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 8:59 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




Sue, somehow I missed this response, but you state:

emember, whether or not one political party is less interested in behaving collegially than the other to a significant degree of difference. Republicans in the House have a firm stance that they won't allow ANY votes on ANY bills that don't have majority Republican support.

This is the exact tact taken by Democrats when they lost the majority under Bush. Their words to the public were they would block any and all legislation at any cost. The folks supporting the Dems didn't bat an eye, they supported their representatives whole heartedly. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, those same folks cry foul and how horrible it is. Again, good for the goose, good for the gander.

No, I am not distorting the facts. Check your history on the energy bill walkout.

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

One of the outstanding problems in the MSM is the principle of balance, balance between two equivalent sides. It is a problem because we presently do not have two equivalent sides with equivalent legitimacy. The MSM would do everyone a favor if they simply reported real facts rather tan play the game of R said this, D said this while providing no real context or fact checking. This false equivalence is a major part of the problem. Treating all of the American people as dumb is a major part of the problem. Birthers need to be CLEARLY presented as dishonest liars, not just as an alternative opinion or alternative "fact".

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

I'm fully aware of the many shortcomings of President Obama. I don't need to "balance out my stand", as MY stand is an accurate one that has documented a few of the many ways in which the "both sides do it" argument is invalid.

Politifact is a nonpartisan factchecking site, and there's an overwhelming difference between the two sides of the political aisle in how they tell lies and how they tell the truth.

Again, I've never said that Democrats are angelic and Republicans are the devil, and so you pointing out ONE instance where the Democrats behaved badly doesn't refute my stance in ANY WAY - yet you delusionally think it does. The flaw is with your thinking, not with what I've written here.

I have no idea what you're going off on when you cite that the Democrats refused to work with Republicans on an energy plan, but I suspect you're distorting what truly happened - but even if you aren't, it's not evidence that the Dems are less interested in working with the other party - and that's what THIS sub-thread is about, remember, whether or not one political party is less interested in behaving collegially than the other to a significant degree of difference. Republicans in the House have a firm stance that they won't allow ANY votes on ANY bills that don't have majority Republican support. Now, in the past few months, they've had to ignore that rule to get a couple of very important bills passed, but they hold pretty darn firm to that ideal, and you want to carp about ONE instance where the Democrats didn't want to go along with the Republicans? Really?



-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 8:58 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




What you might want to do, to balance out your stand is list the items where Obama changed in his short tenure. All the things he promised to people and suddenly ended up with the Bush evil side and inaction.
Where we saw the daily total of Bush murders in the wars to the complete lack of attention once Obama came to power and did not end the wars, close Gitmo, reverse the spying on citizens that were all part of his platform.
You might want to look at when the Republicans agreed to take up the energy agenda and the democrats said, no, we have vacation to take and book signings to attend.
Then of course you can look at the thousand of inconsequential things where individual Dems and Repubs daily flipflop but the media only called it out on Republicans, ignoring it as or dismissing it as "change in view based upon new facts" for the Democrats.
You see according to the press the only time a Democrat changes their mind is when it makes sense, but anytime a Republican does it, it is for vote getting or putting money in their pocket.
I listen to FOX and MSNBC views of the same stories for more humorous reasons than anything else. It reaffirms the bias and bigotry of both sides.

What would be very good would be to pick up a book called, The Righteous Mind by Haidt. Here is a far left liberal by his own admission who started the book project with the idea of affirming that his side are the fact tellers and the other side is nothing more than uneducated, bigoted idiots. Kudos to him for seeing the project through and realizing why both sides exist and why both sides are important to the survival of a civilization.

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

No, it's not my opinion that filibusters have been used more by the Republicans than ever before in the history of our nation. That's a demonstrable fact. There are graphs that show this change in behavior.

The same with the difference between the political sides of the aisle with respect to Politifact Pants on Fire lies and True statements. There is an overwhelming majority of PoF lies from the right as compared to those coming from the left - the last time I checked, it was like 8 to 1. And a similar comparison can be made with comments that Politifact, a nonpartisan site, has rated "True". It's a fact - not my opinion, that many more Democrats, Progressives and liberal groups have been given "True" ratings than those on the right.

And it's not my opinion that the Republicans have abandoned things that they've supported in the past when those same things get the buy-in from Democrats. It's a fact.

Both sides don't engage in these things at the same levels of involvement. I never said, nor would I ever say, that the left is angelic and the right is the devil incarnate - but when someone tries to claim that both sides are equally guilty in these bad behaviors, I present evidence that it's a false equivalency argument to claim that they are both equally guilty.

And, the facts are that the Democrats have shown a great willingness to compromise since Obama was elected, and the Republicans have not. I could list countless examples of that - and you couldn't provide countless examples of the contrary.

Facts are powerful things.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 4:27 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






Sue your statements are nothing more than opinions in this matter. Both sides engage in the same 3 items you quote below. Both sides excuse it for their side as minimal and called it out on the other as extreme. This self imposed bias becomes a blindness and allows them to make statements as you have below.
Realizing/admitting a fact doesn't mean you have to like it, doesn't mean you have to change sides, it only means acknowledging the lunacy you claim for the other side exists on your side as well.
In the long run it tends to make a person more balanced and understanding.
Otherwise we get what we have today, two political parties unable and unwilling to compromise because their acolytes will take them to task or call them weak.

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

No, the facts are that it is quite dominated by one political party - and that party is not the Democrats. I can provide 3 undeniable examples - you, and others, should stop with the nonsense that "both sides do it". False equivalency arguments make you look insincere or ill-informed.

1. Filibusters
2. Politifact Pants on Fire lies
3. FlipFlopping on political stances when the other party supports them.

No one on the left side of the aisle has committed such politically partisan behavior in the same levels.

And we've seen it here in this string of comments - snide remarks from those on the right who can't debunk the facts presented by those on the left. Rejection of factual arguments made by the left that are easily supported with all kinds of supporting links. A total lack of support for the arguments made by those on the right.

It's not an issue of "both sides do it equally". It's just demonstrably not.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 8:33 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






Please be aware, this blind loyalty to a side, spinning of untruths and spreading fear and propaganda is not a republican issue. It is a political issue shared equally by both sides and both sides are for something until it suits them to not support it.

A liberal will find lies out of anything conservative and a conservative will find lies out of anything liberal. Neither will acknowledge their own lies until it is shoved in their face and even then they will excuse it and derail the conversation with their lies are worse. Very few of us are unbiased, even fewer of us know and acknowledge our own biases and try to see around them. It simply hurts too much...

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

But, but, but..... you're ruining the fearmongering and the conspiracy theories of those who have a kneejerk hatred of almost everything and anything associated with Democrats and Obama - even if that stuff is incredibly similar to things that sane Republicans pushed a few years or decades ago.

A nonpartisan site, Factcheck.org, soundly and emphatically debunked the false meme that Congress exempted themselves from the same requirements as everyone else.

If you check out any of the well-known factchecking/urban legend sites, what you'll see if that almost all of the pants-on-fire dishonesty comes from the right. You'll see that there's a ton of misinformation about Obama which is easily debunked - yet it keeps being spread around in viral emails and spread as gospel on talk radio. And there seems to be a dearth of people on the right side of the political aisle who stand up and refute such nonsense and tell their supporters to stop pushing it. Occassionally you'll see someone do it - John McCain did it when someone in a town hall meeting told him that Obama was an "Arab", for example.

So, if you're actually interested in whether or not it's true or false that Congress somehow exempted themselves, look at this article.

or this one - FreedomWorks, a favorite of Glenn Beck, by the way

or this one, where Politifact.com rated it "Pants On Fire" false, citing conservative Norman Ornstein and nonpartisan snopes.com


If someone were really interested in knowing the truth about whether or not Congress had to participate, they'd already KNOW this answer. They'd KNOW that the rightwing spin about this topic was just that - dishonest spin. Instead, we get comments like this one - "If ACA is so great why did Congress and the President exempt themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of ACA? No one seems to talk about that."

But it's not true that "no one" talked about this - MANY rightwingers talked about this, ad nauseum, despite the fact that it was NEVER TRUE. So, no one SHOULD HAVE talked about this, since it was nonsense from the very beginning. If someone made an honest mistake, and thought it was true, as soon as they knew it wasn't true, they would have apologized for their error, and straightened others out when they heard the misinformation repeated.

But as snopes.com has pointed out for years, most people will believe what they want to believe. Someone below said "Government exempts itself from everything." But that's not true. They haven't, they don't, they won't. Yet many won't believe it when the FACTS disprove their CT. In fact, the government actually has the same or even tougher regulations in almost every arena as compared to the private sector.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@>
To: ibmpensionissues <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 <sbbeaudry@> wrote:

Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.???????????????????????????????? Stop spreading untruths.???????????????????????????????? See .


From: Rick b Cool <rickb_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.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >

If Obama or any other president wanted to make our lives better
they would have focused on one thing and one thing alone, that
would have been finding a way to help create jobs. Even if the
jobs were on the government debt, rebuilding our infrastructure,
failing bridges, roads, the grid, anything that makes the country
more efficient and incents business to feel things are better.

Poor people create no jobs.

There is nothing that I can credit him with that has improved my life in the past 6 years, I haven't seen anything he has done that will after he is gone help improve my life.
You see, this country has spent more money than it has taken in every year since 1957. We have some play numbers out there people use to say Clinton had us on the road to recovery, but no matter where you stand on that issue, if you use the Treasury numbers where the debt has been published/tracked for every year you will see that very few of us here have lived long enough to have seen the debt reduced.
If Obama or any other president wanted to make our lives better they would have focused on one thing and one thing alone, that would have been finding a way to help create jobs. Even if the jobs were on the government debt, rebuilding our infrastructure, failing bridges, roads, the grid, anything that makes the country more efficient and incents business to feel things are better.
Rich people create lots of jobs when they believe they can make more money.
Middle society people create some jobs as they find money to spare for having things done for them and eating out, etc.
Poor people create no jobs.

Making rich people and the middle class poor because somehow being rich is evil does nothing but accelerate us towards the end.