开云体育

There goes the neighborhood... : - )

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., willbefree25 <no_reply@> wrote:

Awwwwwww, and here I thought you liked me.

As they say in Hollywood, any PR is good PR, so thank you.


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

The recent dramatic (hormonal?) verbiage stiff over in ibmpension proves a point to carefully shop for mental illness coverage when getting any supplemental stuff for medicare.

See also:

Maybe the water might be bad in the lower Hudson Valley, maybe since 2010:

Awwwwwww, and here I thought you liked me.

As they say in Hollywood, any PR is good PR, so thank you.


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

The recent dramatic (hormonal?) verbiage stiff over in ibmpension proves a point to carefully shop for mental illness coverage when getting any supplemental stuff for medicare.

See also:

Maybe the water might be bad in the lower Hudson Valley, maybe since 2010:

The recent dramatic (hormonal?) verbiage stiff over in ibmpension proves a point to carefully shop for mental illness coverage when getting any supplemental stuff for medicare.

See also:

Maybe the water might be bad in the lower Hudson Valley, maybe since 2010:

The recent dramatic (hormonal?) verbiage stiff over in ibmpension proves a point to carefully shop for mental illness coverage when getting any supplemental stuff for medicare.

See also:

Maybe the water might be bad in the lower Hudson Valley, maybe since 2010:

---

From: "zimowski@..."
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2013 12:29 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Health care law(PPACA) may help Baby Boomers

?

No need to call me names just because you disagree with me. Very childish and immature. Hard to believe that you were actually employed by IBM.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Just Puttin' wrote:
>
> What would you expect from a myopic with an constricted anal orifice/
> ??
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: edward_berkline <no_reply@...>
> >To: ibmpensionissues@...
> >Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:10 PM
> >Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Health care law(PPACA) may help Baby Boomers
> >
> >
> >??
> >So you are opposed to spending tax dollars for low cost tests and preventative treatment that have real value because those things don't directly benefit you, but you would support spending tax dollars on high cost tests like MRIs, even though in most cases they have been shown to have no value as a preventative measure?
> >
> >Doesn't sound like a smart way to keep the cost of medical care down.
> >
> >--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote:
> >>
> >> The point I was trying to make is that ACA preventative care does not provide significant coverage of any kind because the services that are covered are for the most part inexpensive and easily affordable. The real purpose of ACA preventative care was/is to make the middle class feel like they are getting something for all the tax money ACA will cost the average middle class American.
> >>
> >> I think I've made it clear that I don't think ACA is of value to me. It's not, and I'm opposed to spending U.S. tax dollars to put it in place and to fund it. This, however, does not mean that I don't understand what herpes zoster is and that I don't discuss my health needs with my doctor. As far as x-rays, CT scans and MRI scans go, I agree they are mostly for diagnostic purposes, but a doctor cannot see what's going on inside my body any better than I can. Much of what doctors do is guess and use a cookie cutter approach to align a diagnosis with observed symptoms. In my case, one guess was incorrect, and led to a much more serious situation. An MRI scan would have prevented this.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

---

From: "zimowski@..."
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2013 12:24 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Health care law(PPACA) may help Baby Boomers

?

I'm opposed to spending tax dollars on health care for those that refuse to live a healthy lifestyle. Why should my tax dollars be used to pay for the health care of those that abuse their bodies with alcohol, drugs, or who engage in sexual activities that result in HIV or other STDs? Let them pay for their own health care.

I'm opposed to ACA because I think it was not well thought through and that it has serious flaws.

I'm not opposed to spending tax dollars for low cost tests and preventative treatment that have benefit to those that do live a healthy lifestyle.

In my case, the MRI would have resulted in a correct diagnosis of a condition that caused me much reoccurring physical pain for decades. Without the correct diagnosis, I was not given any physical activity constraints, and as a result, I suffered a much more serious injury that I will now be living with for the rest of my life. Ultimately, the MRI was ordered following the more serious injury to diagnose the extent and true nature of the injury. So, the cost of the MRI was incurred in any case. The only difference is that I now have chronic pain that I will live with for the rest of my life. For this reason, I do believe that x-rays, and MRI and CT scans, should be part of the preventative care arsenal.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., edward_berkline wrote:
>
> So you are opposed to spending tax dollars for low cost tests and preventative treatment that have real value because those things don't directly benefit you, but you would support spending tax dollars on high cost tests like MRIs, even though in most cases they have been shown to have no value as a preventative measure?
>
> Doesn't sound like a smart way to keep the cost of medical care down.
>
>
>
> --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote:
> >
> > The point I was trying to make is that ACA preventative care does not provide significant coverage of any kind because the services that are covered are for the most part inexpensive and easily affordable. The real purpose of ACA preventative care was/is to make the middle class feel like they are getting something for all the tax money ACA will cost the average middle class American.
> >
> > I think I've made it clear that I don't think ACA is of value to me. It's not, and I'm opposed to spending U.S. tax dollars to put it in place and to fund it. This, however, does not mean that I don't understand what herpes zoster is and that I don't discuss my health needs with my doctor. As far as x-rays, CT scans and MRI scans go, I agree they are mostly for diagnostic purposes, but a doctor cannot see what's going on inside my body any better than I can. Much of what doctors do is guess and use a cookie cutter approach to align a diagnosis with observed symptoms. In my case, one guess was incorrect, and led to a much more serious situation. An MRI scan would have prevented this.
> >
>

What would you expect from a myopic with an constricted anal orifice/
??

________________________________
From: edward_berkline <no_reply@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:10 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Health care law(PPACA) may help Baby Boomers


??
So you are opposed to spending tax dollars for low cost tests and preventative treatment that have real value because those things don't directly benefit you, but you would support spending tax dollars on high cost tests like MRIs, even though in most cases they have been shown to have no value as a preventative measure?

Doesn't sound like a smart way to keep the cost of medical care down.

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

The point I was trying to make is that ACA preventative care does not provide significant coverage of any kind because the services that are covered are for the most part inexpensive and easily affordable. The real purpose of ACA preventative care was/is to make the middle class feel like they are getting something for all the tax money ACA will cost the average middle class American.

I think I've made it clear that I don't think ACA is of value to me. It's not, and I'm opposed to spending U.S. tax dollars to put it in place and to fund it. This, however, does not mean that I don't understand what herpes zoster is and that I don't discuss my health needs with my doctor. As far as x-rays, CT scans and MRI scans go, I agree they are mostly for diagnostic purposes, but a doctor cannot see what's going on inside my body any better than I can. Much of what doctors do is guess and use a cookie cutter approach to align a diagnosis with observed symptoms. In my case, one guess was incorrect, and led to a much more serious situation. An MRI scan would have prevented this.

So you are opposed to spending tax dollars for low cost tests and preventative treatment that have real value because those things don't directly benefit you, but you would support spending tax dollars on high cost tests like MRIs, even though in most cases they have been shown to have no value as a preventative measure?

Doesn't sound like a smart way to keep the cost of medical care down.



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

The point I was trying to make is that ACA preventative care does not provide significant coverage of any kind because the services that are covered are for the most part inexpensive and easily affordable. The real purpose of ACA preventative care was/is to make the middle class feel like they are getting something for all the tax money ACA will cost the average middle class American.

I think I've made it clear that I don't think ACA is of value to me. It's not, and I'm opposed to spending U.S. tax dollars to put it in place and to fund it. This, however, does not mean that I don't understand what herpes zoster is and that I don't discuss my health needs with my doctor. As far as x-rays, CT scans and MRI scans go, I agree they are mostly for diagnostic purposes, but a doctor cannot see what's going on inside my body any better than I can. Much of what doctors do is guess and use a cookie cutter approach to align a diagnosis with observed symptoms. In my case, one guess was incorrect, and led to a much more serious situation. An MRI scan would have prevented this.

---

From: teamb562
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:16 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Health care law(PPACA) may help Baby Boomers

?

I've always thought there is this kind of unwritten directive that
we as a society almost encourage(through advertising, sport events, lifestyle choices, etc). Almost subliminally, Americans are sort of encouraged to drink, smoke, do drugs, get fat, tv, video games, etc.

These bordering-on-sick people are the grease for exorbitant medical profits. In other words, how profitable would big medicine/pharma be today if everyone would drive the speed limit, had a normal BMI, did not drink, did not smoke, exercised 5 days a week, did not eat red meat and Fritos, etc, etc. This country really could do so much better on prevention and think of how much lower health care cost would be. So, in a sense, we are all subsidizing the bad habits orchestrated by the piggie mega-billion corporations. What a deal.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., don_m64015@... wrote:
>
> A Health Care System that focuses primarily on Prevention would be the best, and perhaps, Only Way to ever reduce our health care costs substantially. Half, or more of the health issues in this country are "Self Inflicted". Smoking and Obesity, for example, probably account for untold billions of dollars every year. If we could get Congress to quit accepting campaign donations from the tobacco industry, we might see a serious attempt at providing effective Smoking Cessation programs. Then, we Really Need a War on Obesity. These millions of Lardo's are costing us all a fortune with all the health issues they incur from their Gluttony.
>
> "Prevention is ALWAYS far more cost effective than CURE, but our For Profit system really has no interest in killing off its Golden Goose.
>
> Then, there is the issue of Medicare Fraud...somewhere between 50 to 100 billion a year that the thieves rake off from that program. Little more than lip service, and an occasional arrest, ever seems to take place in that arena of Crime.
>

A Health Care System that focuses primarily on Prevention would be the best, and perhaps, Only Way to ever reduce our health care costs substantially. Half, or more of the health issues in this country are "Self Inflicted". Smoking and Obesity, for example, probably account for untold billions of dollars every year. If we could get Congress to quit accepting campaign donations from the tobacco industry, we might see a serious attempt at providing effective Smoking Cessation programs. Then, we Really Need a War on Obesity. These millions of Lardo's are costing us all a fortune with all the health issues they incur from their Gluttony.

"Prevention is ALWAYS far more cost effective than CURE, but our For Profit system really has no interest in killing off its Golden Goose.

Then, there is the issue of Medicare Fraud...somewhere between 50 to 100 billion a year that the thieves rake off from that program. Little more than lip service, and an occasional arrest, ever seems to take place in that arena of Crime.

---

From: edward_berkline
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:10 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Health care law(PPACA) may help Baby Boomers

?

So you are opposed to spending tax dollars for low cost tests and preventative treatment that have real value because those things don't directly benefit you, but you would support spending tax dollars on high cost tests like MRIs, even though in most cases they have been shown to have no value as a preventative measure?

Doesn't sound like a smart way to keep the cost of medical care down.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@..." wrote:
>
> The point I was trying to make is that ACA preventative care does not provide significant coverage of any kind because the services that are covered are for the most part inexpensive and easily affordable. The real purpose of ACA preventative care was/is to make the middle class feel like they are getting something for all the tax money ACA will cost the average middle class American.
>
> I think I've made it clear that I don't think ACA is of value to me. It's not, and I'm opposed to spending U.S. tax dollars to put it in place and to fund it. This, however, does not mean that I don't understand what herpes zoster is and that I don't discuss my health needs with my doctor. As far as x-rays, CT scans and MRI scans go, I agree they are mostly for diagnostic purposes, but a doctor cannot see what's going on inside my body any better than I can. Much of what doctors do is guess and use a cookie cutter approach to align a diagnosis with observed symptoms. In my case, one guess was incorrect, and led to a much more serious situation. An MRI scan would have prevented this.
>

The point I was trying to make is that ACA preventative care does not provide significant coverage of any kind because the services that are covered are for the most part inexpensive and easily affordable. The real purpose of ACA preventative care was/is to make the middle class feel like they are getting something for all the tax money ACA will cost the average middle class American.

I think I've made it clear that I don't think ACA is of value to me. It's not, and I'm opposed to spending U.S. tax dollars to put it in place and to fund it. This, however, does not mean that I don't understand what herpes zoster is and that I don't discuss my health needs with my doctor. As far as x-rays, CT scans and MRI scans go, I agree they are mostly for diagnostic purposes, but a doctor cannot see what's going on inside my body any better than I can. Much of what doctors do is guess and use a cookie cutter approach to align a diagnosis with observed symptoms. In my case, one guess was incorrect, and led to a much more serious situation. An MRI scan would have prevented this.

I have had the measles, mumps and chicken pox so don't feel that
I need these immunizations.

...

I get a flu shot every year, but don't ever expect to need
immunization for herpes zoster

I guess you don't realize that herpes zoster is the virus that causes both chicken pox and shingles. If you've had chicken pox, that does NOT make you immune from shingles. In fact, it makes it more likely that you WILL get shingles at some point.

You should talk to your doctor about what you really *do* need instead of making bad assumptions.

X-rays, CT scans and MRIs are not done as preventative measures, but as diagnostic procedures when a problem is suspected. That's why they aren't included in the "preventative" list.

Overall, it sounds like you are really just struggling for excuses as to why you shouldn't like the ACA. If it's really of no value to you, that's fine. It's highly valuable to millions of others.

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

I'm an adult male, so here's what's covered for me:

16 Covered Preventive Services for Adults

1.Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
2.Alcohol Misuse screening and counseling
3.Aspirin use for men and women of certain ages
4.Blood Pressure screening for all adults
5.Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
6.Colorectal Cancer screening for adults over 50
7.Depression screening for adults
8.Type 2 Diabetes screening for adults with high blood pressure
9.Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
10.HIV screening for all adults at higher risk
11.Immunization vaccines for adults--doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Herpes Zoster
Human Papillomavirus
Influenza (Flu Shot)
Measles, Mumps, Rubella
Meningococcal
Pneumococcal
Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis
Varicella
Learn more about immunizations and see the latest vaccine schedules.
13.Obesity screening and counseling for all adults
14.Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
15.Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users
16.Syphilis screening for all adults at higher risk

Item 1 doesn't apply to me. I don't misuse alcohol, already manage my own diet and am not worried at all about obesity, do not smoke, and am not sexually active in a way that would expose me to sexually transmitted diseases, so items 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are of no use to me. I don't need guidance on how to use aspirin, so item 3 is of little value. I have never been depressed so item 7 is of no value. I exercise daily and and not overweight, so item 8 is of no value. items 4, 5, 6, and 11 could be of value, but my HMO already provides these services at no additional cost. Further, given my daily exercise and carefully managed diet, all of my tests for the last 20 years have confirmed that my blood pressure and cholesterol levels are consistently low, so I doubt that items 4 and 5 would ever be of value to me. Item 6 would be of value, but I think the screening is only called for once in every decade and my healthy lifestyle makes the risk low. Yes. I get a flu shot every year, but don't ever expect to need immunization for herpes zoster or human papillomavirus. I have had the measles, mumps and chicken pox so don't feel that I need these immunizations. Tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis could be of value, and might some day need the meningococcal and pneumococcal immunizations, although I think my chances of contacting either of these two diseases is remote. So yes, I am healthy. Do you really need to protect yourself from HIV and STDs? My feeling is that valuable and meaningful preventative care would cover more expensive procedures like x-rays or MRI and CT scans. Even if they weren't provided by my HMO, I can afford to pay for the immunizations that are covered, so the only item that is of any real value is item 6, and given that it is only needed every decade, I'm sure I could budget for it. ACA is of little value to me. In fact, I think it's a negative for me, because I think it may motivate IBM to drop the current health care plan that some of us retirees still have. Having to depend on the health exchanges might bring on depression.



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

Happy to know that you don't need flu, pneumonia, hepatitis, tetanus or many other vaccines; screenings for blood pressure, cholesterol, cancer, depression, diabetes, STDs, HIV, Osteoporosis,??etc;.?? You must be very healthy indeed.?? For those of us who are mortal you can find the full lists at .

--- On Sat, 12/29/12, zimowski@ <zimowski@> wrote:


From: zimowski@ <zimowski@>
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Health care law(PPACA) may help Baby Boomers
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Date: Saturday, December 29, 2012, 11:57 AM



??



The free preventative care that ACA offers is more hype than substance - just an ACA buzzword for those who have been tricked into voicing support for this program but never take the time to investigate what it really provides. There is a very short list of procedures that are covered, and when I perused the list, I could not find a single procedure that I think I'll need. What a joke....

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

Considering the high cost of the IBM insurance the private exchanges will probably be cheaper.???? Within????9 years our costs went from $60 to $1400/month for just the 2 of us.???? ACA makes them give free preventive care so over time this should lower costs as people take care of things before conditions worsen and become more expensive to treat.???? If right wingers hadn't made????such a fuss inaccurately claiming "death panels" there would be doctor sessions where the doctor could explain about palliative care as opposed to extreme measures for those who are terminal.???? There was a good article in Money magazine saying that palliative care was not only cheaper but actually extended the patient's life.???? The ACA also requires that the insurance companies spend more money on actual patient care and less on overhead like the millions to the CEO.???? Those companies that????spent too much money on overhead????had to give money back to the people or

in the case of

company provided coverage, to the company.????In August $1.1 billion in all was suppose to be returned.????I wonder if IBM used any of the money to lower premiums or just used it to increase their profit?
????????
--- On Fri, 12/28/12, Don Mininger <don_m64015@> wrote:


From: Don Mininger <don_m64015@>
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Health care law(PPACA) may help Baby Boomers
To: "ibmpensionissues@..." <ibmpensionissues@...>
Date: Friday, December 28, 2012, 1:42 PM



????





Anyone who thinks the ACA is going to reduce medical care costs is living in a dream world. ????There is a Reason why many of the provisions are being phased in over a period of several years. ????If all the rules in this legislation kicked in at once, the nation would go into Sticker Shock. ????Any fees, etc., added to the health care providers will Surely be passed along to the consumers and patients. ????The Private Insurance companies have their needs well protected under this legislation, and any costs they incur will be passed along to their subscribers in the form of higher premiums and co-pays. ????For Seniors, this combination of Medicare, and the IBM Supplemental plans, are probably one of the best deals out there....let's hope the government doesn't screw with them too much. ????


Ultimately, the medical costs are going to keep rising at a pace that makes care unaffordable for much of the nation....and we will be forced to adopt some form of a SP-UHC system similar to what most of the other nations have been using for years. ????I see that happening before this decade is out. ????We cannot keep paying twice as much for care, as most other nations...and continue to be ranked way down the list in terms of value received for that money. ????The data at the CDC indicates that over 80% ????of this nations medical costs are expended upon less than 15% of our population. ????Much of that is spent on the elderly in the last weeks of their lives, as our Health Care Industry uses them as Lab Rats to sustain life with every possible heroic measure. ????Then, we have to overcome the practice of Defensive Medicine...where doctors are having to order multiple, expensive tests...so as to protect themselves from the army of ambulance chasing

lawyers that are

just looking for an excuse to bring a multi-million dollar lawsuit for every perceived error in treatment. ????Many doctors pay well over $100K a year for Malpractice Insurance, so as to be protected from these Legal Buzzards....and you KNOW who pays for that. ???? ????


Our current health care system is destined to implode under its own weight...and the ACA is going to only hasten the day when that happens. ???? ???? ???? ???? ????????






From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:35 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Health care law(PPACA) may help Baby Boomers



????

The more interesting snip is the following: "Health insurance will not necessarily be less costly. It will be operated by state health insurance exchanges, which will offer a competitive private health insurance market that should provide one-stop shopping."

Can anyone explain how the ACA benefits those IBM retirees that are lucky enough to have IBM subsidized health care coverage? I don't see it.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "teamb562" <teamb562@> wrote:

snip:
The ACA is likely to spark many more changes. Employers that still offer retiree health benefits may decide to provide something different. For example, instead of a health insurance plan, they may give Boomer retirees a fixed amount of money, called a premium reimbursement, Fontanetta says. Retirees could use that money to select insurance at their state exchange marketplace.