开云体育

When Obama was elected in 2008, he had the unique opportunity as the first black president to make a real difference for black Americans. If the Washington Times is correct (and I suspect they are at least close to being correct), he has completely squandered this opportunity:

The Washington Times reports:
"Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20 percent, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42 percent.

Black teenage unemployment fell by 16 percent under Reagan, but has risen by 56 percent under Mr. Obama.

The increase in unemployment rates has been far worse for blacks under Mr. Obama than for whites and Hispanics.

Inflation-adjusted real incomes are slightly higher for Hispanics and whites than they were in 2008, but are lower for blacks.

The labor force participation rate has fallen for all groups, but remains far lower for blacks than for whites and Hispanics."

Instead, he has divided the country into opposing camps in every imaginable way: Democrat vs Republican, rich vs not so rich, blacks and people of color vs everyone else, etc. etc. etc.. He has incited racial discord and violence at a time when his success at being elected should have convinced all that anyone from any background and of any color can become the most powerful person in the world. And for what? Just so hard to understand......

You claim that Obama rarely visits our troops at war. I'm not sure what you consider "rarely" but if you think that applies to Obama, then it would apply to Bush43 as well. Just historical fact:

Bush made 4 trips to Iraq, 2 to Afghanistan and 2 to Korea during his 8 years in office.

Obama has made 1 trip to Iraq, 3 to Afghanistan and 3 to Korea during his 4.5 years in office. The fact that he made only one trip to Iraq is understandable since all troops were withdrawn by the end of 2011.

Bottom line so far:
Bush - 8 trips in 8 years
Obama - 7 trips in 4.5 years

Overall, I'd say that Obama is doing much better than Bush did at visiting the troops.

Suggest you check your facts next time.






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

Orenstein is from academia.
Obama is from academia.

And, our commander in chief rarely visits our troops at war.

No surprise, and that is historical fact.

Zim,
Please, read the comment from Gloves Donahue, Jr. over at:


and feel the love and support for what you are saying!

source:


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

If Obama truly wants to work with Republicans, then why does he continue to alienate Republicans in the speeches he gives?

Orenstein is from academia.
Obama is from academia.

And, our commander in chief rarely visits our troops at war.

No surprise, and that is historical fact.

If Obama truly wants to work with Republicans, then why does he continue to alienate Republicans in the speeches he gives?

The WSJ used a distortion of historical fact to attack Obama - that's why I discussed historical fact.

Attacking Obama for the problems the middle class has currently, and has had for decades, isn't fair.

Obama can't bring the opposing side to him if they won't move from their spots. Obama HAS moved from his spot time after time after time. He wanted to close Guantanamo, but the Republicans in Congress haven't allowed him to - so it hasn't been closed. Obama wanted to have much more stimulus in the original stimulus bill, but they allowed the Republicans to insist upon and GET almost half of the stimulus bill to be tax cuts. Obama wanted to get rid of all of the Bush tax cuts, but in an effort to compromise with Republicans, he gave up on that demand several times. I could cite 20 more instances very easily. The idea that the problem is Obama not reaching out to the other side, that Obama's too politically partisan, that he's too far left, is disproven by every fact we have available. Again, I'm talking about factual information, not opinion.

Obama's speech was to the American public. We have to get the American public to put pressure on their Republican representatives to make them understand that the public interest is best served by a Republican party that's willing to compromise, so that we have TWO parties that are both willing to compromise. We already have one party that's willing to compromise - the Democrats.

It defies reality to suggest that Obama isn't willing to compromise, and that this speech is a demonstration of that lack of desire.

Oh, and I DID talk about "the purpose" of your post in MY post replying to you. Maybe next time you can read my entire post instead of stopping after a couple of paragraphs.


-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 11:25 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: The Inequality President






The purpose of my post was to talk about the here and now. Can you please explain how Obama's Galesburg speech did anything to bring the two opposing sides together to facilitate a discussion that might benefit the middle class?

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

The middle class has been having issues for 30 years. It didn't suddenly start with Obama.

For decades, basically since the Industrial Revolution, as the productivity of workers increased, their wages increased..... until about 1980, and the advent of the PC, and Reagan getting into office, that is.

Since that point in time, workers wages have stagnated, while the richest people in America have seen their wealth jump by leaps and bounds. Again, these are FACTS, remember, not my opinion - unlike the OPINION piece you cite below, where the author talks about her opinion about what Obama's has had as his focus.

So, when worker's productivity soared as a result of computers being more and more involved in speeding up the way they could accomplish their jobs, their wages didn't go up to keep up with those productivity gains as it has in the past.

That's not Obama's fault.

And then your comment about Obama not being willing to compromise? That's demonstrably false too - he has compromised a great deal. The FACTS show us that it's the other side of the aisle that's unwilling to compromise - like with the amount of filibusters from Republican Senators, for example. Like with the content of Obamacare being things that the Republicans had proposed and supported in years past, rather than it being a universal care offering that Democrats had long supported. Like the stimulus bill being almost half tax cuts, although tax cuts aren't nearly so stimulative as other ways to spend money to help out when consumer spending gets greatly restricted during a terrible recession. Asserting that he's not willing to compromise, that Democrats aren't willing to compromise, just isn't an honest attempt to discuss this topic.

And you act as though Obama is the first politically partisan president ever. He's not. They all are.



-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:47 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] The Inequality President




The Inequality President
The rich have done fine under Obamanomics, not so the middle class.

I found this WSJ article to be very thought provoking. How exactly does Obama expect to help the middle class if he's unwilling to compromise on his socialistic views and reach across the aisle to work with Republicans? I know he's an intelligent man. What I don't understand is why he thinks speeches filled with partisan tenor will help him achieve his goals any more than they have over the past 4+ years.

Here's the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest at
.

President Obama made his fourth or fifth, or maybe it's the seventh or eighth, pivot to the economy on Wednesday, and a revealing speech it was. We counted four mentions of "growth" but "inequality" got five. This goes a long way to explaining why Mr. Obama is still bemoaning the state of the economy five years into his Presidency.

The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country."

Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."

Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by the middle class in modern times.

Speaking of Socialist, our lead socialist still refuses to release:

The marriage license of his father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), adoption records, records of his and his mother's repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia, baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) records, Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, record with Illinois State Bar Association, files from his terms as an Illinois state senator, his law client list, medical records and passport records.

++++++++
OK, NSA I'm sorry I posted this so please delete if all this is already public.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., dan finn <dfinn1@> wrote:

Let me educate you. Single payer is socialist. Obamacare is many things including a gift horse to the medical industry but it is far from socialist.

You "have to ask"? It's somehow relevant to this discussion? Nope, that's right, it's not. It's a failed argument that attacks another person - and in this case, you're doing it because you can't refute a thing that I, or Edward Berkline, or Sheila has written.

A much more appropriate question would be, why do you feel so compelled to continue to post misinformation, push opinion as fact, fail to acknowledge when you've been proven wrong, and why do you think that making personal attacks is a valid substitute for a reasoned argument?

In the case below, it's not that unions aren't fully on board with the underlying premise behind Obamacare - in fact, they wanted even more than what we've gotten - and so it's either disingenuous or dishonest to make the claim that they don't want Obamacare. They're currently fighting to get an exemption from some treatment within Obamacare that they feel treats them unfairly. That's not equivalent to them wanting to get rid of Obamacare entirely, or anything like that.

But despite the reality of what the unions are arguing for, the rightwing media and those who read it and treat it as gospel have alleged that the unions "don't want Obamacare", and they've done so in a dishonest attempt to smear Obamacare. ACA is not perfect. So, as Norman Ornstein explained, honest people try to fix a flawed bill so that it becomes a better bill - that's what the unions are trying to do.


-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 11:52 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: obama care and a a link to grow on.






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.脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� Plus if you actually ask people about specific things that are in the ACA they do like it and want it.脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� Personally I would rather have a single payer plan.脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� 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.脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� This is what happens when you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes it.脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� It has a lot of good things in it though:脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� 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,脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� will reduce uncovered people getting expensive care in emergency room脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� which脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� in the past has脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� increased everyone else's costs.脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� 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.脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> 脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗�� > >> 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 脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧� '脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧� '脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��'脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗拧脙茠脗鈥毭冣�毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��'脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧� '脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗傗�毭冣�毭偮�脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧� '脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��'脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗��"fulltime equivalents脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧� '脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧� '脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��'脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧�脗拧脙茠脗鈥毭冣�毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��'脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧� '脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗傗�毭冣�毭偮�脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙垄脗鈧� '脙茠脗茠脙鈥�'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��'脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗偲捗冣��' 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. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

I don't see why you say it was rushed.脗听 they took about a year to pass it.


From: "KenSP@..." <KenSP@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

脗听
Pre-condition is interesting.

If you do not buy insurance and pay the fine, the day you find out you have cancer, you buy insurance.脗听 The insurance company can only charge you a premium of three times what it charges others of your age.脗听 After you are cured, you drop your insurance and go back to merely paying the fine.脗听 The insurance company will have to cover this loss by raising premiums on the others that have stayed in the plan.

I would have rather see the government force all insurance companies to participate in a pool for those that have pre-condition and if necessary supplement payments to the pool to keep those who have a previous condition covered and pay a reasonable premium. Also, I believe all children should have health care coverage and should have been placed under Medicare and Medicaid. Who would argue against this? It could have been covered by the $750 billion taken out of these programs. Then I would like see the government proceed to dealing with each issue separately in a thoughtful manner.

What I don't like about the ACA脗听is that it was rushed and forced through without thought and consideration.脗听 People believe that it is going to reduce premiums, The above example shows that it will not. Allowing children to be on a parents plan has increased everyone's insurance so that a few can get a benefit. My approach wouldnot脗听have increase the cost and perhaps reduced premiums.

The ACA脗听was sold on the basis that it would reduce health insurance costs and not that it was a plan solely to cover those who have no insurance.

----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Beaudry脗听
Date: Saturday, July 27, 2013 11:33 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
To: "ibmpensionissues@..."

No, it shows the disinformation脗听and fear campaign against it is
working.脗听 Plus if you actually ask people about specific things
that are in the ACA脗听they do like it and want it.脗听 Personally I
would rather have a single payer plan.脗听 When you add the
liberals who would rather have a single payer plan to the
conservatives who don't like changing the current healthcare脗听
system, you get a larger per cent.脗听 This is what happens when
you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes
it.脗听 It has a lot of good things in it though:脗听 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,脗听will reduce uncovered people getting expensive care
in emergency room脗听which脗听in the past has脗听increased everyone
else's costs.脗听 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.脗听


From: "zimowski@..."
To: ibmpensionissues@...脗听
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive
Consequences From Obamacare

脗听
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
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
To: ibmpensionissues
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

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:

poll-voters-say-repeal-obamacare-expect-new-law-will-cost-them/

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

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
To: ibmpensionissues
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

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 mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, 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
脙茠脝'脙鈥毭�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙鈥毭⑩偓拧脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭⑩�毬�脙茠��'脙鈥毭⑩偓拧脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭�"fulltime equivalents脙茠脝'脙鈥毭�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙鈥毭⑩偓拧脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭⑩�毬�脙茠��'脙鈥毭⑩偓拧脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥� 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 mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "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 mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,

"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 mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,

"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 don't expect it would only be脗听an inconvenience脗听 and manageable expense for people like us.脗听 Unfortunately not everyone is like us.脗听 If you are a single mother working two jobs to make ends meet and your employer is already upset about you not being at work because of taking care of a sick child, if you are handicapped and cannot drive, if you are elderly and confuse easily and can't drive, if you are a student away from home and no car and DMV not on a bus line, then you might find脗听getting that ID just too hard to deal with.
脗听
Here are the hours of our one DMV office in the county:
Sunday Closed
Monday 8:00am - 4:30pm
Tuesday 8:00am - 4:30pm
Wednesday 8:00am - 4:30pm
Thursday 8:00am - 4:30pm
Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm
Saturday Closed

From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:08 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

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

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

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

NC just passed a new Voter ID law and it requires a copy of your photo ID to be sent with your absentee ballot.脙鈥毭偺� So if you don't have a scanner/printer at home it involves going out somewhere to get that copy and you still need to have that photo ID.脙鈥毭偺� Also they won't accept a college ID or your companies photo ID.脙鈥毭偺� It has to be a government issued ID.脙鈥毭偺� Also if your college student votes at their college area instead of coming home to vote or by absentee ballot, then the parents lose their tax deduction for the student on their NC taxes.脙鈥毭偺� My 90 year old arthritic mother will not be able to vote because her driver's license expired years ago as she can no longer drive.脙鈥毭偺� To be able to vote my brother will have to take off from work and take her to get an ID made.脙鈥毭偺� If you think that this doesn't discourage people from voting because it just isn't worth all the hassle, then you are not being realistic.脙鈥毭偺� Another problem is what is

required to get that

ID.脙鈥毭偺� The elderly TN woman who was denied ID even though she brought them her birth certificate because she didn't also have her marriage license is an example of the problems.脙鈥毭偺� The homeless who live under a bridge are suppose to constitutionally be able to vote, but how do you establish proof of residence?脙鈥毭偺� They certainly don't have a bank statement or an electric bill to show.脙鈥毭偺� I would have little problem with requiring voter ID if there were actually a lot of people-impersonation type of fraud, but there isn't.脙鈥毭偺� ID will not stop the most prevalent problems and requiring it with these strict rules脙鈥毭偺齝an disenfranchise millions of people who should be able to vote.脙鈥毭偺� See
脙鈥毭偺�

From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:20 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

脙鈥毭偺�
It took some time to explore these links.

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

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

Answer: It's not clear."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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



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



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



Written by a law professor.

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



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












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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

Okay, they are hiring people to help citizens sign up for health insurance through the Exchanges - a good thing.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� They are verifying the person's information through other government database information to reduce the chances of fraud - another good thing.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� I see no difference in hiring people to help people sign up for ACA than for social security or any other government program.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� I certainly needed help figuring all that out.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� The data will be no less secure than the data the social security database.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮�
脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮�
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.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� 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.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� The next step is they will try to defund it.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� Check out information you receive through independent fact checking sites.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� 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

脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮�
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.

If you were serious about your right to vote you would make arrangements to get the ID. Your post assumes none of these people have a drivers licence or a birth certificate. We didn't cause the "single" mother so she should be able to be responsible for her and her child's life.After all it was her body and her decision.

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

I don't expect it would only be脗听an inconvenience脗听 and manageable expense for people like us.脗听 Unfortunately not everyone is like us.脗听 If you are a single mother working two jobs to make ends meet and your employer is already upset about you not being at work because of taking care of a sick child, if you are handicapped and cannot drive, if you are elderly and confuse easily and can't drive, if you are a student away from home and no car and DMV not on a bus line, then you might find脗听getting that ID just too hard to deal with.
脗听
Here are the hours of our one DMV office in the county:
Sunday Closed
Monday 8:00am - 4:30pm
Tuesday 8:00am - 4:30pm
Wednesday 8:00am - 4:30pm
Thursday 8:00am - 4:30pm
Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm
Saturday Closed

From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:08 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

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

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

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

NC just passed a new Voter ID law and it requires a copy of your photo ID to be sent with your absentee ballot.脙鈥毭偺� So if you don't have a scanner/printer at home it involves going out somewhere to get that copy and you still need to have that photo ID.脙鈥毭偺� Also they won't accept a college ID or your companies photo ID.脙鈥毭偺� It has to be a government issued ID.脙鈥毭偺� Also if your college student votes at their college area instead of coming home to vote or by absentee ballot, then the parents lose their tax deduction for the student on their NC taxes.脙鈥毭偺� My 90 year old arthritic mother will not be able to vote because her driver's license expired years ago as she can no longer drive.脙鈥毭偺� To be able to vote my brother will have to take off from work and take her to get an ID made.脙鈥毭偺� If you think that this doesn't discourage people from voting because it just isn't worth all the hassle, then you are not being realistic.脙鈥毭偺� Another problem is what is

required to get that

ID.脙鈥毭偺� The elderly TN woman who was denied ID even though she brought them her birth certificate because she didn't also have her marriage license is an example of the problems.脙鈥毭偺� The homeless who live under a bridge are suppose to constitutionally be able to vote, but how do you establish proof of residence?脙鈥毭偺� They certainly don't have a bank statement or an electric bill to show.脙鈥毭偺� I would have little problem with requiring voter ID if there were actually a lot of people-impersonation type of fraud, but there isn't.脙鈥毭偺� ID will not stop the most prevalent problems and requiring it with these strict rules脙鈥毭偺齝an disenfranchise millions of people who should be able to vote.脙鈥毭偺� See
脙鈥毭偺�

From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:20 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

脙鈥毭偺�
It took some time to explore these links.

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

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

Answer: It's not clear."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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



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



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



Written by a law professor.

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



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












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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

Okay, they are hiring people to help citizens sign up for health insurance through the Exchanges - a good thing.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� They are verifying the person's information through other government database information to reduce the chances of fraud - another good thing.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� I see no difference in hiring people to help people sign up for ACA than for social security or any other government program.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� I certainly needed help figuring all that out.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� The data will be no less secure than the data the social security database.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮�
脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮�
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.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� 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.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� The next step is they will try to defund it.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� Check out information you receive through independent fact checking sites.脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮� 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

脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠脗垄脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙鈥γ偮�
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.

Some of the dead who are voting are those that submitted absentee ballots and died before election day.脗听Those votes can't be counted.脗听There will always be some of those.脗听 Some are just clerical errors where the poll worker marked the wrong line on the poll book脗听and some are also poll worker errors where they marked a person with the same name but wrong address or person, for instance marking the father who died when the son with the same name came to vote.脗听When these things are investigated little actual voter fraud脗听is found.脗听 For people who vote more than once it usually ends up being an elderly person who voted by absentee or early voting脗听and forgot and voted again on election day.脗听

From: edward_berkline <no_reply@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:04 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

脗听
Yes, there are probably thousands of dead people still on the voter rolls. But there is scant evidence that ballots were cast for large numbers of them.

In the first article you linked to, it says:

"A closer look at the data revealed that SOME of the dead people were not only registered, but somehow, even voted."

You managed to read this and concluded that this means MANY of them voted.

California has around 18 million registered voters. And 25,000 of them appear to be dead, according to the article. Overall, that's just 0.14% of registered voters.

But if the number examples of possibly fraudulent votes cited in the article are typical (e.g. 6 out of 100 in Contra Costa County), that works out to a state-wide fraud rate of 0.008%. That's just 8 one thousandth of 1 percent.

And you want to argue that voter fraud is a significant problem?

The dead voter problem is easy to fix, without voter ID laws. All they have to do is purge the registration rolls using reliable data. There's no need to make it more difficult to register to vote.

Switching over to the topic of voter suppression, here is a quote from PA:

"Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done," Turzai said at Saturday's Republican State Committee.



Not a word about illegitimate votes or making the election more fair... just a blatent attempt to ensure that there will be fewer votes from Democrats.

The trouble with Republicans is that they keep slipping up at the most inconvenient times and allowing the truth to come out. And it helped Ombama win by a wide margin. Those dumb-ass Republicans!

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

I have not read or heard everything, but I have never read or heard about a member of the Republican leadership stating that their intent is to suppress any votes that are legitimately cast. However, I would not be surprised if a Republican leader stated that he/she believed that a voter id law suppressed illegitimate votes for Democratic candidates thereby making an election fairer.

For those of you who believe that voter fraud does not exist, please take a look at the following:

(1) In the 2012 presidential election, over 25 thousand dead people were still on the voter rolls and many of these people actually voted in the election. Regardless of the cause, this is voter fraud.

Read the article and listen to the video of the NBC news cast that reported this problem.


(2) A PEW center study has concluded that nearly 2 million dead people are on voter rolls nationwide.



(3) 53,000 dead voters were found in Florida



None of this, as well as other types of voter fraud is widely publicized. After all, we as Americans take great pride in believing that our elections are fair, as fair elections are the cornerstone of our democratic republic.

There have been lawsuits and some have been said to be unconstitutional and more lawsuits are coming. The Attorney General is already after Texas.脗听 The NC law was just signed so give it time.


From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:40 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

脗听
If you read the entire article and watched the video, you would have gotten a different impression of how many votes were cast by dead people. I did not say that there were more than 25 thousand votes cast by dead people because neither the article nor the video stated so. However, this was a huge issue in the Bay Area when discovered and I believe that the actual number of votes cast by the dead is not being fully disclosed. Dead people voting, of course, is not the only possible type of voter fraud, but it is a type that is documented and it is real. If you want to argue that the number of votes cast is too small to be consequential, then I'll argue that, given the evidence provided thus far on this forum, that the number of votes not cast due to a requirement for voter ids is likewise inconsequential.

I've seen the politico article and the Rachael Maddox reporting on this topic and have concluded that Turzai's quote was taken out of context and misinterpreted. Maddox, of course, put her ultra-left spin on it.

If the voter id laws are so egregious and discriminatory, then why haven't there been successful lawsuits resulting in their repeal? They clearly would be unconstitutional if they are doing what you claim they are.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, edward_berkline <no_reply@> wrote:

Yes, there are probably thousands of dead people still on the voter rolls. But there is scant evidence that ballots were cast for large numbers of them.

In the first article you linked to, it says:

"A closer look at the data revealed that SOME of the dead people were not only registered, but somehow, even voted."

You managed to read this and concluded that this means MANY of them voted.

California has around 18 million registered voters. And 25,000 of them appear to be dead, according to the article. Overall, that's just 0.14% of registered voters.

But if the number examples of possibly fraudulent votes cited in the article are typical (e.g. 6 out of 100 in Contra Costa County), that works out to a state-wide fraud rate of 0.008%. That's just 8 one thousandth of 1 percent.

And you want to argue that voter fraud is a significant problem?

The dead voter problem is easy to fix, without voter ID laws. All they have to do is purge the registration rolls using reliable data. There's no need to make it more difficult to register to vote.

Switching over to the topic of voter suppression, here is a quote from PA:

"Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done," Turzai said at Saturday's Republican State Committee.



Not a word about illegitimate votes or making the election more fair... just a blatent attempt to ensure that there will be fewer votes from Democrats.

The trouble with Republicans is that they keep slipping up at the most inconvenient times and allowing the truth to come out. And it helped Ombama win by a wide margin. Those dumb-ass Republicans!



--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

I have not read or heard everything, but I have never read or heard about a member of the Republican leadership stating that their intent is to suppress any votes that are legitimately cast. However, I would not be surprised if a Republican leader stated that he/she believed that a voter id law suppressed illegitimate votes for Democratic candidates thereby making an election fairer.

For those of you who believe that voter fraud does not exist, please take a look at the following:

(1) In the 2012 presidential election, over 25 thousand dead people were still on the voter rolls and many of these people actually voted in the election. Regardless of the cause, this is voter fraud.

Read the article and listen to the video of the NBC news cast that reported this problem.


(2) A PEW center study has concluded that nearly 2 million dead people are on voter rolls nationwide.



(3) 53,000 dead voters were found in Florida



None of this, as well as other types of voter fraud is widely publicized. After all, we as Americans take great pride in believing that our elections are fair, as fair elections are the cornerstone of our democratic republic.