¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Sue, I have to ask, do you or did you ever work for IBM? Or are you just posting to tis board because you have nothing better to do?

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

It's not true that unions in general and James Hoffa in particular don't want Obamacare. They just don't want their unions to be disadvantaged. They want to tweak what Obamacare is. They actually wanted MORE from Obamacare, but since this was the best we could get while trying to compromise with the Republicans, it's what they've accepted as a first start.

It was NOT shown in the links that Hoffa doesn't want Obamacare. That's either a lie on your part or your inadequate reading comprehension.

Communism and Socialism aren't the same thing. Never have been, and never will be. You might want to look up their definitions to learn more about them - or not, and stay misinformed. It's your choice, but that doesn't change the FACT that they aren't the same thing.

Anyone who's actually interested in learning more about this topic, and seeing how badly the Republicans are behaving now, should read the opinion piece that I've linked to before, from Norman Ornstein, a dyed in the wool Republican and conservative who works for a conservative think tank called the American Enterprise Institute. Here's the link. Notice the piece's title.



As his last paragraph says

.... to do everything possible to undercut and destroy its implementation -- which in this case means finding ways to deny coverage to many who lack any health insurance; to keep millions who might be able to get better and cheaper coverage in the dark about their new options; to create disruption for the health providers who are trying to implement the law, including insurers, hospitals, and physicians; to threaten the even greater disruption via a government shutdown or breach of the debt limit in order to blackmail the president into abandoning the law; and to hope to benefit politically from all the resulting turmoil -- is simply unacceptable, even contemptible. One might expect this kind of behavior from a few grenade-throwing firebrands. That the effort is spearheaded by the Republican leaders of the House and Senate -- even if Speaker John Boehner is motivated by fear of his caucus, and McConnell and Cornyn by fear of Kentucky and Texas Republican activists -- takes one's breath away.


-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 2:09 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] obama care and a a link to grow on.








Does it get any more Union than a Hoffa, with the exception of Richard Trumka?

James Hoffa doesn't want Obama care which was shown in those links that were critiqued. Isn't that Union and tell tale sign enough
for the well informed communists/socialist/progressives in our government and journalistic cronies and maybe more than half
of our unwashed masses?

Socialism / Progressivism is the new Communism its just wrapped up with a sexy bow and it has sparkly things to distract.
The unwashed masses might not want socialism if they were not singing about said elected official in our elementary schools.
This winning policy recently brought us the out come we call Detroit. "Outlie" that.

I am not a fan of Wall St types either. If you have lost money I am sorry to hear that. My family was impacted by the 1987 correction as well as 2000. But we "individually" are ultimately responsible for our own "purses". And I want my purse to get me some new golf clubs not pay for someone else's cell phone, flat panel or health care.

It is Wall Street that keeps the Business of Business running around the world even if health care and Pensions and 401Ks are going to Zero. It is Capitalism that pays the bills as well as the government entitlements commmunists/socialist/progressives want.
Government doesn't create anything or create new private sector jobs or inventories and stuff like that, right? It just takes what is ours. Like they took the Ark of the Covenant in Indiana Jones. (Just kidding).

No I am not. I would be very impressed to see the Ark though if any one here has "connections".

I could be wrong. Like it really matters here.

:-)




From: Sue Runyon <Slouise217@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




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%3E?;;; > >> > 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. > >> > > > >> > > Again, there's not "my" facts and "your" facts. > >> > > > >> > > There are "FACTS". They don't change based upon who is referencing them. I am baffled as to why you would think that they do! And I'm baffled about what "facts" you think you've provided. All YOU provided below was your belief that there is a large percentage of people who'll be getting insurance on your dime who were simply unwilling to get coverage before - people who could have gotten coverage, but just were too lazy/shiftless/etc to do so. > >> > > > >> > > But that's not true. > >> > > > >> > > 1. Obamacare stops women from paying higher rates simply because of their gender. That's not something that WOMEN who will be receiving that benefit can be faulted for. I assume you won't deny THAT fact - that it's not that they were unwilling to change their gender to get lower insurance rates, right? > >> > > > >> > > 2. Obamacare removes the donut hole - something that no senior had any control over - so, yet another thing that can't be laid at the feet of lazy people unwilling to pay for their own care. > >> > > > >> > > 3. A large percentage of Americans have pre-existing conditions that could have denied them affordable healthcare coverage. It wasn't a matter of will with that added benefit either - those people had a medical condition; it wasn't a choice for them to have diabetes or cancer or anything else. > >> > > > >> > > 4. 50 million Americans will now have access to preventative care that they didn't get previously. How is that related to them being lazy? Here's a clue - it's not. > >> > > > >> > > 5. Obamacare helps bend the cost curve - saving all of us money in the long run. The nonpartisan CBO has documented that many times. Facts - they're wonderful things - too bad for you it seems like you only like facts when they support your opinion, and you dislike them when they don't support the conclusions you've leapt to. Too bad, so sad. > >> > > > >> > > 6. Outrageous medical expenses has made millions of people have to file for bankruptcy. Almost none of those people went into their lives hoping to file for bankruptcy, and the vast majority of them would have rather not had to do that. Obamacare will stop that from happening so often. > >> > > > >> > > 7. Young, healthy Americans will pay more as compared to what they were having to spend prior to Obamacare. Most of the rest of us will pay less. Again, I understand that THIS FACT is inconvenient to your false meme, but that inconvenience doesn't mean that you get to state things that are contrary to the known facts! > >> > > > >> > > 8. Families making up to 400% of the poverty level won't be paying more for insurance - they'll be paying less. Only those well-able to afford it will have to pay more. > >> > > > >> > > So, it's on YOUR SHOULDERS now to provide US with evidence that there are significant numbers of people who, right now, will be getting coverage that they could have afforded on their own - but they chose not to - but you'll be paying for that care. > >> > > > >> > > Remember, the healthy young people who avoided getting insurance are the ones who are going to be paying more. They aren't getting the coverage for free, unless they're poor - and if they're poor, then they didn't previously go without insurance BY CHOICE - which is what your allegation was - that they were simply unwilling to purchase coverage on their own. > >> > > > >> > > Oh, and by the way, if you are so destitute that helping to pay for other's healthcare will take food out of your family's mouth, it WILL NOT take food out of their mouths - the least among us will NOT be helping subsidize the health care expenses of those who aren't covered nowadays. ONLY those who can afford it will have to help subsidize that care. In fact, if you're really on the edge, where providing food to your family is at risk, or even close to that edge, you'll end up paying LESS for your care, overall, then you used to pay! It will HELP YOU OUT - so if your concern were really that "food will be taken from your family's mouth", you should be aware that THE FACT IS that this will not happen!!! > >> > > > >> > > You don't have "facts" that are correct. You have opinions that aren't backed up with the facts, and in a kneejerk reaction, you lashed out at me for no good reason. > >> > > > >> > > 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. And there are no facts that support your assertion that there's a vast army of people who could get affordable health care if they just weren't so damned lazy. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Sam Cay <ceome60@> > >> > > To: ibmpensionissues <?"mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com%3E?;;; > >> > > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 2:49 pm > >> > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 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 mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, 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 <?"mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com%3E?;;; > >> > > > 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 mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, 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 <?"mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com%3E?;;; > >> > > > > 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 mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, "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 mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, "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 mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, "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. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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



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

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



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



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



Written by a law professor.

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



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












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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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