Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
- Ibmpension
- Messages
Search
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
It appears you've swallowed the bait. Good luck and enjoy the weekend.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
There are not different sets of facts, Sam - you can keep repeating your assertion that we're using different facts like a spoiled child, but repitition won't make it magically become true. There's one set of facts upon which we can all then come to different opinions.
?
One can't "agree to disagree" about facts.
?
And again, your unfair smear of me is YOUR character flaw, not mine.
?
I grasp that you can't sustain your argument when confronted with the facts others and?I've provided. Feel free to bow out of the discussion short of acknowledging that fact - that your argument is unsupportable - but your refusal to acknowledge reality doesn't magically change reality. -----Original Message----- From: Sam Cay To: ibmpensionissues Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:57 pm Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare ?
Once again your facts are not the same as mine. So I agree to disagree. Simple as that and a much simpler response.It appears you are trying to justify your arguement by talking us to death. Have a nice weekend.
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., 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 <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 ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote: > > > > > > Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you get from them is truly a fact. > > > > Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however. > > > > And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting the healthcare they've needed all along. > > > > In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country. > > > > That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a good idea. > > > > I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured through an active choice they've made are those who are young and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare coverage but hasn't been able to get it. > > > > I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's everyone's to share. > > > > And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sam Cay > > To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...> > > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > > > > I guess this makes the assumption that your source of data is correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you believe but what data you want to believe. I am concerned when the cost of any government program reaches in my pocket to pay for others who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word subsidy comes into a program this is my trigger for taking food out of my families mouth. So does your data tell us that we will or will not be paying for someone unwilling to make their life better. > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote: > > > > > > > > > Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different from another person, but we all share the same database of factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to differing opinions. > > > > > > Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support with factual information. > > > > > > One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA treats part-time employees as ????????????fulltime equivalents???????????? by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd be detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers total who might opt for coverage. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rick b Cool > > > To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...> > > > Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK, but revealing sinmple facts is denigrating. > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" wrote: > > > > > > > > Rick I have to agree with zimowski you b definitely not cool. Your typical mode of operation here is to denigrate or insult those who don't agree with your point of view. > > > > I've watched you call people ignorant, uneducated, biased, prejudice all because they believe something different than you. > > > > If I was a practicing conservative I'd call it "typical liberal methodology" where they all believe they are superior to everyone else and have "THE" right answer. If you don't believe me, simply ask one, they will tell you. > > > > As far as the ACA, it is a good idea but a bad piece of legislation. It was not thought out and the consequences ignored. > > > > For the past several years companies have been accelerating the removal of full time job positions and replacing them with part time, under 29-32 hours to avoid the medical mandate. Go to any retail establishment, since you seem to favor all things NY, drop by Macy's, talk to any sales person over the age of 40 who has a history long enough to know what is going on. Their hours are cut, not due to economy but due to planning for benefits cuts and avoidance of the ACA. > > > > Our current administration does nothing but blame the previous one for its woes, no responsibility just finger pointing, but try to play that game with the prior one for the one before it and you get screams of foul play. Obviously what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander. > > > > If congress and the administration wanted the people to follow them,they would have ensured they took up such coverage as their only means of medical care before imposing it on the people. Using the excuse that it has always been done, doesn't hold water. Wasn't this administration supposed to be different? Supposed to work "for the people". Yeah, I know, those damned evil republicans in congress won't let our poor president and the democrats get anything done. Again nothing more than lack of taking responsibility. Like the outcome or not, at least the prior president took responsibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > An interesting conclusion. Solely based on complete circular reasoning, obviously starting with the conclusion. > > > > > > > > > > Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly because of industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give big corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from regulations. > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "The real issue on this forum is getting back on topic." Really? Unlike the ibmpension group, the moderators of this group do not censor participant appends. It seems that your style for participation is to criticize others that you don't agree with politically and then to suggest that anybody who responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think it's now becoming quite clear that ACA is complicated, poorly understood, difficult to implement, and that it will be more expensive for most Americans, providing affordable care only to those who could not previously obtain/afford health care coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added stain that will be placed on the entire health care system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
I did no such thing. I've ONLY been directly responding to other's dishonest and/or disingenuous postings on this topic. As such, accusing ME of turning it into a political discussion isn't fair or accurate. If one looks at the first postings on this subject, one sees claims that Obama wants us to eat dog food, for example. Claiming that *I* have turned it into a political discussion? Ha!
?
We have already seen the positive bending of the cost curve. We've already seen families be able to get and keep healthcare coverage as a result.We already know that people who couldn't afford coverage in the past who can now get it.
?
We COULD have a cost to those who already have insurance, it's true. But when one compares that to the benefits to millions of families, and when one sees that only those most able to bear the financial burdens of some additional costs will see more money coming out of their pockets, it's truly hard to argue against it using factual info.
?
And that's why my side of the argument has been using facts, and your side has only been using opinions that one can't support with the known facts. -----Original Message----- From: Sam Cay To: ibmpensionissues Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:52 pm Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare ?
You've watered down the conversation now to a political discussion. I have no interest in playing the political game. The benefits or failings of the ACA will be demonstrated in the cost and quality of the plan to those who presently have insurance. To those who do not have insurance they now will have a 100% increase in cost .
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote: > > > Yeah, but see, unlike you, who wasn't aware of the Republican-genesis of healthcare reform, we already knew that no Republicans voted for it. > > But what we ALSO know is that politicians not voting for something can mean several things - that they never supported something, or it can mean that they refrained from voting for it due to purely partisan reasons. And the evidence we have available tells us that it wasn't due to anything other than partisan reasons. > > Read the article by a reliable conservative voice, Norman Ornstein, who works for a conservative think tank, AEI. That will give you some insight, if you'll ONLY be open to another opinion other than your own, as to how unfair the Republican leadership has been on this topic. > > I understand that you want to believe what you want to believe - but that doesn't change the facts in this issue. "Obamacare" is what Republicans, for years, said that they wanted from healthcare reform - but when a Democrat pushed for it, and when a Democratic majority in Congress created it with a ton of Republican input during the process, they failed to vote for it in the end. > > I previously provided 4 links to info about Obamacare that gave you info about how it's full of Republican ideals. Here's some more info. > (Oh, and here's a clue - attacking the source, rather than the info which the source provides, is a logical fallacy, and an illegitimate way to argue. You should stop doing it.) > > The idea that all Americans should purchase health insurance so that the rest of us don't have to pay up when the uninsured get sick has its origins in a 1989 brief ("Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,") by the conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation. In fact, several Republican leaders, including presidential nominee Mitt Romney himself, once embraced the idea. Romney famously spearheaded such a mandate in Massachusetts when he was governor there. Now, of course, the concept is being compared to Stalinist dictate. > > Or here are some more pieces of info. Again, you can refuse to acknowledge the undeniable, but that's your shortcoming, not ours. > > > Includes personal responsibility incentives: Allows health insurance premium to vary based on participation in proven employer wellness programs > (Sources: H.R. 3468, ???Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act??? (Castle bill); H.R. 4038, ???Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act??? (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3400, ???Empowering Patients First Act??? (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 3970, ???Medical Rights & Reform Act??? (Kirk bill), "Coverage, Prevention and Reform Act") > > Advances medical liability reform through grants to States: Provides grants to States to jump-start and evaluate promising medical liability reform ideas to put patient safety first, prevent medical errors, and reduce liability premiums. > (Sources: S. 1783, ???Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act??? (Enzi bill); H.R. 3400, ???Empowering Patients First Act??? (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 4529, ???Roadmap for America???s Future Act??? (Ryan bill); S. 1099, ???Patients??? Choice Act??? (Burr-Coburn, Ryan-Nunes bill)) > > Extends dependent coverage to age 26: Gives young adults new options. > (Sources: H.R. 4038, ???Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act??? (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3970, ???Medical Rights & Reform Act??? (Kirk bill)) > > Allows automatic enrollment by employers in health insurance: Allows employee to opt-out. > (Sources: House Republican Substitute; H.R. 3400, ???Empowering Patients First Act??? (Republican Study Committee bill); ???Coverage, Prevention, and Reform Act??? ) > > Mechanisms to improve quality. > (Sources: H.R. 4529, ???Roadmap for America???s Future Act;??? S. 1099, ???Patients??? Choice Act;??? H.R. 3400, Republican Study Group bill; S. 1783, ???Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act??? (Enzi bill)) > > > Community Mental Health Centers. The President???s Proposal ensures that individuals have access to comprehensive mental health services in the community setting, but strengthens standards for facilities that seek reimbursement as community mental health centers by ensuring these facilities are providing appropriate care and not taking advantage of Medicare patients or the taxpayers. > (Source: H.R. 3970, ???Medical Rights & Reform Act???) > > > > > > > ~From: zimowski > To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...> > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 2:35 pm > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > My first reaction was: "An article from the **opinion** pages of the New York Times, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country? How objective, factual and convincing could it be?" After reading through the article, much to my surprise, it wasn't as bad as I expected. I agree that Obamacare may be at least partially based on conservative economic principles, but this does not mean that Obamacare is a Republican invention. Conservative economist is not equivalent to Republican. Further, there is a difference between principles and implementation (i.e. between a viewpoint and how the viewpoint materialized in the legislation). Once again, I have to point at the voting records of those involved. As the voting record of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate clearly indicate, no Republican voted in favor of the ACA. This fact cannot be disputed. It's a matter of public record. And it's not someone's view expressed on an opinion page, but even this opinion page article states that "The White House could not have been more ham-fisted in the way it rammed the bill through Congress." > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sheila Beaudry wrote: > > > > Perhaps this will give you a clue. ?? > > "The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system ????" principles originally?? embraced by Republicans?? as a market alternative to the?? Clinton planin the early 1990s. " ?? It is the basically the same plan implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. ?? > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: "zimowski@" > > To: ibmpensionissues@... > > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 1:16 AM > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > > ?? > > I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that I'm wrong if you can point me to a web site that supports your assertion. > > > > I've tried to find such a web site and have failed. Here's what I did find: > > > > Basic information about ACA: > > > > > > Voting record in the Senate: Not a single Republican yes vote. > > > > > > Voting record in the House of Representatives: Not a single Republican yes vote. Quite a few Democratic no votes as well. > > > > > > If ACA were a Republican invention, then why is it that not even a single Republican in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives voted for it? > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > > > > > > It may be laughable, but, on the other hand, it's completely accurate and reveals how much you will misrepresent the truth. Yes, in detail it is not the original plan. Legislation never is. It is however, the basic principle and operational structure proposed by Republicans. > > > > > > Thanks for revealing yourself so clearly. > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote: > > > > > > > > Your continued assertions that the ACA was a Republican invention is well, for lack of a better word, laughable. Everyone knows that ACA was ramrodded through both the Senate and the House during the first year of Obama's presidency when the Democrats held the majority in both the Senate and House. As I recall, the final text of the law was distributed almost last minute, which due to its size and complexity made it impossible for anyone to actually read and study it before the votes were taken. And I also seem to recall that many complained about not having the opportunity to amend it prior to the vote. > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Until we get simple single payer universal medical insurance we will suffer with sub-optimal performance and businesses will continue to suffer competitive and economic disadvantages. Only when everyone is covered and business no longer pay for the coverage will we get good medical insurance and regain free market competitive advantages because business will no loner need to decide to provide medical insurance or not and will not have to deal with medical insurance operationally. This was a step created by conservative Republicans to delay such universal single payer medical insurance. The complexity comes from a divided Congress and control by industry lobbyists. > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.?? I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.?? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.?? Members of my family?? live under Medicaid and?? others like myself live under Medicare.?? But you seem to have a dosed?? mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care?? programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.?? Who will prevail the ACA?? supporters or those who oppose..?? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > > ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA?? is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care?? insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.?? The point I was > > making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA?? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder?? but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA?? as the answer.?? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will > > have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.?? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.?? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare?? doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA?? you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.?? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor > > who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.?? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA?? has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.?? My Medicare?? doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon?? a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at > > all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA?? is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > > > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single > > payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.?? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, > > in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.?? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.?? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter > > who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.?? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.?? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > > > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ?? > > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the > > ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > > > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
Once again your facts are not the same as mine. So I agree to disagree. Simple as that and a much simpler response.It appears you are trying to justify your arguement by talking us to death. Have a nice weekend.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
It isn't something to "agree" with or disagree with - it's a fact, and as has been REPEATEDLY explained to you and others, no one is entitled to their own facts!!!
?
He didn't say, first off, that it's a Republican invention. He asserted that most of the stuff IN Obamacare were ideas supported first by Republicans. That's undeniably true - in other words, a fact.
?
What you've posted has been the unsupportable opinion in this back and forth.
?
And thanks for demonstrating, yet again, that rather than read through information, learn that your opinion is unsupportable with the facts of this issue, and changing your mind, you'll take your ball and go home. I love it, love it, love it when people out themselves the way you did here. And no, I don't believe you when you say that you're not opposed to health care for everyone. You've explicitly stated that you are oppose to that on several occasions. -----Original Message----- From: zimowski To: ibmpensionissues Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 5:10 pm Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare ?
I originally responded to rick b cool's append, because he claimed that ACA was a Republican invention. I still don't agree with this characterization and still believe that much of what he posts is opinion and not fact. Having said that, I do not intend to further argue this point with anyone because I think this discussion must be very annoying to many who follow this forum, and because, in truth, the history of how ACA came into being is no longer even of much interest to me - certainly not interesting enough to wade through all the links you have provided. What's of more importance to me is the degree to which it might affect my health care coverage and costs. This is still unclear, but the first inkling will become apparent when IBM provides the list of health care choices for retirees in Northern California in October. I think it's unlikely that ACA will do anything to make my costs more affordable. If I'm wrong, it's likely my views on ACA may change. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not opposed to health care for everyone as long as it doesn't adversely affect the quality and cost of my health care.
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote: > > > Yeah, but see, unlike you, who wasn't aware of the Republican-genesis of healthcare reform, we already knew that no Republicans voted for it. > > But what we ALSO know is that politicians not voting for something can mean several things - that they never supported something, or it can mean that they refrained from voting for it due to purely partisan reasons. And the evidence we have available tells us that it wasn't due to anything other than partisan reasons. > > Read the article by a reliable conservative voice, Norman Ornstein, who works for a conservative think tank, AEI. That will give you some insight, if you'll ONLY be open to another opinion other than your own, as to how unfair the Republican leadership has been on this topic. > > I understand that you want to believe what you want to believe - but that doesn't change the facts in this issue. "Obamacare" is what Republicans, for years, said that they wanted from healthcare reform - but when a Democrat pushed for it, and when a Democratic majority in Congress created it with a ton of Republican input during the process, they failed to vote for it in the end. > > I previously provided 4 links to info about Obamacare that gave you info about how it's full of Republican ideals. Here's some more info. > (Oh, and here's a clue - attacking the source, rather than the info which the source provides, is a logical fallacy, and an illegitimate way to argue. You should stop doing it.) > > The idea that all Americans should purchase health insurance so that the rest of us don't have to pay up when the uninsured get sick has its origins in a 1989 brief ("Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,") by the conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation. In fact, several Republican leaders, including presidential nominee Mitt Romney himself, once embraced the idea. Romney famously spearheaded such a mandate in Massachusetts when he was governor there. Now, of course, the concept is being compared to Stalinist dictate. > > Or here are some more pieces of info. Again, you can refuse to acknowledge the undeniable, but that's your shortcoming, not ours. > > > Includes personal responsibility incentives: Allows health insurance premium to vary based on participation in proven employer wellness programs > (Sources: H.R. 3468, ???Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act??? (Castle bill); H.R. 4038, ???Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act??? (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3400, ???Empowering Patients First Act??? (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 3970, ???Medical Rights & Reform Act??? (Kirk bill), "Coverage, Prevention and Reform Act") > > Advances medical liability reform through grants to States: Provides grants to States to jump-start and evaluate promising medical liability reform ideas to put patient safety first, prevent medical errors, and reduce liability premiums. > (Sources: S. 1783, ???Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act??? (Enzi bill); H.R. 3400, ???Empowering Patients First Act??? (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 4529, ???Roadmap for America???s Future Act??? (Ryan bill); S. 1099, ???Patients??? Choice Act??? (Burr-Coburn, Ryan-Nunes bill)) > > Extends dependent coverage to age 26: Gives young adults new options. > (Sources: H.R. 4038, ???Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act??? (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3970, ???Medical Rights & Reform Act??? (Kirk bill)) > > Allows automatic enrollment by employers in health insurance: Allows employee to opt-out. > (Sources: House Republican Substitute; H.R. 3400, ???Empowering Patients First Act??? (Republican Study Committee bill); ???Coverage, Prevention, and Reform Act??? ) > > Mechanisms to improve quality. > (Sources: H.R. 4529, ???Roadmap for America???s Future Act;??? S. 1099, ???Patients??? Choice Act;??? H.R. 3400, Republican Study Group bill; S. 1783, ???Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act??? (Enzi bill)) > > > Community Mental Health Centers. The President???s Proposal ensures that individuals have access to comprehensive mental health services in the community setting, but strengthens standards for facilities that seek reimbursement as community mental health centers by ensuring these facilities are providing appropriate care and not taking advantage of Medicare patients or the taxpayers. > (Source: H.R. 3970, ???Medical Rights & Reform Act???) > > > > > > > ~From: zimowski > To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...> > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 2:35 pm > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > My first reaction was: "An article from the **opinion** pages of the New York Times, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country? How objective, factual and convincing could it be?" After reading through the article, much to my surprise, it wasn't as bad as I expected. I agree that Obamacare may be at least partially based on conservative economic principles, but this does not mean that Obamacare is a Republican invention. Conservative economist is not equivalent to Republican. Further, there is a difference between principles and implementation (i.e. between a viewpoint and how the viewpoint materialized in the legislation). Once again, I have to point at the voting records of those involved. As the voting record of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate clearly indicate, no Republican voted in favor of the ACA. This fact cannot be disputed. It's a matter of public record. And it's not someone's view expressed on an opinion page, but even this opinion page article states that "The White House could not have been more ham-fisted in the way it rammed the bill through Congress." > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sheila Beaudry wrote: > > > > Perhaps this will give you a clue. ?? > > "The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system ????" principles originally?? embraced by Republicans?? as a market alternative to the?? Clinton planin the early 1990s. " ?? It is the basically the same plan implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. ?? > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: "zimowski@" > > To: ibmpensionissues@... > > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 1:16 AM > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > > ?? > > I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that I'm wrong if you can point me to a web site that supports your assertion. > > > > I've tried to find such a web site and have failed. Here's what I did find: > > > > Basic information about ACA: > > > > > > Voting record in the Senate: Not a single Republican yes vote. > > > > > > Voting record in the House of Representatives: Not a single Republican yes vote. Quite a few Democratic no votes as well. > > > > > > If ACA were a Republican invention, then why is it that not even a single Republican in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives voted for it? > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > > > > > > It may be laughable, but, on the other hand, it's completely accurate and reveals how much you will misrepresent the truth. Yes, in detail it is not the original plan. Legislation never is. It is however, the basic principle and operational structure proposed by Republicans. > > > > > > Thanks for revealing yourself so clearly. > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote: > > > > > > > > Your continued assertions that the ACA was a Republican invention is well, for lack of a better word, laughable. Everyone knows that ACA was ramrodded through both the Senate and the House during the first year of Obama's presidency when the Democrats held the majority in both the Senate and House. As I recall, the final text of the law was distributed almost last minute, which due to its size and complexity made it impossible for anyone to actually read and study it before the votes were taken. And I also seem to recall that many complained about not having the opportunity to amend it prior to the vote. > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Until we get simple single payer universal medical insurance we will suffer with sub-optimal performance and businesses will continue to suffer competitive and economic disadvantages. Only when everyone is covered and business no longer pay for the coverage will we get good medical insurance and regain free market competitive advantages because business will no loner need to decide to provide medical insurance or not and will not have to deal with medical insurance operationally. This was a step created by conservative Republicans to delay such universal single payer medical insurance. The complexity comes from a divided Congress and control by industry lobbyists. > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.?? I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.?? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.?? Members of my family?? live under Medicaid and?? others like myself live under Medicare.?? But you seem to have a dosed?? mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care?? programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.?? Who will prevail the ACA?? supporters or those who oppose..?? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > > ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA?? is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care?? insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.?? The point I was > > making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA?? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder?? but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA?? as the answer.?? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will > > have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.?? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.?? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare?? doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA?? you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.?? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor > > who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.?? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA?? has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.?? My Medicare?? doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon?? a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at > > all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA?? is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > > > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single > > payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.?? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, > > in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.?? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.?? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter > > who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.?? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.?? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > > > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ?? > > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the > > ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > > > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
You've watered down the conversation now to a political discussion. I have no interest in playing the political game. The benefits or failings of the ACA will be demonstrated in the cost and quality of the plan to those who presently have insurance. To those who do not have insurance they now will have a 100% increase in cost .
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
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 ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote: > > > Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you get from them is truly a fact. > > Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however. > > And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting the healthcare they've needed all along. > > In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country. > > That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a good idea. > > I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured through an active choice they've made are those who are young and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare coverage but hasn't been able to get it. > > I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's everyone's to share. > > And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Cay > To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...> > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > I guess this makes the assumption that your source of data is correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you believe but what data you want to believe. I am concerned when the cost of any government program reaches in my pocket to pay for others who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word subsidy comes into a program this is my trigger for taking food out of my families mouth. So does your data tell us that we will or will not be paying for someone unwilling to make their life better. > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote: > > > > > > Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different from another person, but we all share the same database of factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to differing opinions. > > > > Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support with factual information. > > > > One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA treats part-time employees as ??????fulltime equivalents?????? by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd be detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers total who might opt for coverage. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rick b Cool > > To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...> > > Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK, but revealing sinmple facts is denigrating. > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" <nowwicked@> wrote: > > > > > > Rick I have to agree with zimowski you b definitely not cool. Your typical mode of operation here is to denigrate or insult those who don't agree with your point of view. > > > I've watched you call people ignorant, uneducated, biased, prejudice all because they believe something different than you. > > > If I was a practicing conservative I'd call it "typical liberal methodology" where they all believe they are superior to everyone else and have "THE" right answer. If you don't believe me, simply ask one, they will tell you. > > > As far as the ACA, it is a good idea but a bad piece of legislation. It was not thought out and the consequences ignored. > > > For the past several years companies have been accelerating the removal of full time job positions and replacing them with part time, under 29-32 hours to avoid the medical mandate. Go to any retail establishment, since you seem to favor all things NY, drop by Macy's, talk to any sales person over the age of 40 who has a history long enough to know what is going on. Their hours are cut, not due to economy but due to planning for benefits cuts and avoidance of the ACA. > > > Our current administration does nothing but blame the previous one for its woes, no responsibility just finger pointing, but try to play that game with the prior one for the one before it and you get screams of foul play. Obviously what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander. > > > If congress and the administration wanted the people to follow them,they would have ensured they took up such coverage as their only means of medical care before imposing it on the people. Using the excuse that it has always been done, doesn't hold water. Wasn't this administration supposed to be different? Supposed to work "for the people". Yeah, I know, those damned evil republicans in congress won't let our poor president and the democrats get anything done. Again nothing more than lack of taking responsibility. Like the outcome or not, at least the prior president took responsibility. > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > > > > > > > An interesting conclusion. Solely based on complete circular reasoning, obviously starting with the conclusion. > > > > > > > > Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly because of industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give big corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from regulations. > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "The real issue on this forum is getting back on topic." Really? Unlike the ibmpension group, the moderators of this group do not censor participant appends. It seems that your style for participation is to criticize others that you don't agree with politically and then to suggest that anybody who responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic. > > > > > > > > > > Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think it's now becoming quite clear that ACA is complicated, poorly understood, difficult to implement, and that it will be more expensive for most Americans, providing affordable care only to those who could not previously obtain/afford health care coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added stain that will be placed on the entire health care system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
I originally responded to rick b cool's append, because he claimed that ACA was a Republican invention. I still don't agree with this characterization and still believe that much of what he posts is opinion and not fact. Having said that, I do not intend to further argue this point with anyone because I think this discussion must be very annoying to many who follow this forum, and because, in truth, the history of how ACA came into being is no longer even of much interest to me - certainly not interesting enough to wade through all the links you have provided. What's of more importance to me is the degree to which it might affect my health care coverage and costs. This is still unclear, but the first inkling will become apparent when IBM provides the list of health care choices for retirees in Northern California in October. I think it's unlikely that ACA will do anything to make my costs more affordable. If I'm wrong, it's likely my views on ACA may change. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not opposed to health care for everyone as long as it doesn't adversely affect the quality and cost of my health care.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
Yeah, but see, unlike you, who wasn't aware of the Republican-genesis of healthcare reform, we already knew that no Republicans voted for it.
?
But what we ALSO know is that?politicians not voting for something can mean several things - that they never supported something, or it can mean that they refrained from voting for it due to purely partisan reasons. And the evidence we have available tells us that it wasn't due to anything other than partisan reasons.
?
Read the article by a reliable conservative voice, Norman Ornstein, who works for a conservative think tank, AEI. ?That will give you some insight, if you'll ONLY be open to another opinion other than your own, as to how unfair the Republican leadership has been on this topic.
?
I understand that you want to believe what you want to believe - but that doesn't change the facts in this issue. "Obamacare" is what Republicans, for years, said that they wanted from healthcare reform?- but when a Democrat pushed for it, and when a Democratic majority in Congress created it with a ton of Republican input during the process, they failed to vote for it in the end.
?
I previously provided 4 links to info about Obamacare that gave you info about how it's full of Republican ideals. Here's some more info.
(Oh, and here's a clue - attacking the source, rather than the info?which the source provides, is a logical fallacy, and an illegitimate way to argue. You should stop doing it.)
?
The so that the rest of us don't have to pay up when the uninsured get sick has its origins in a 1989 brief ("Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,") by the conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation. In fact, several Republican leaders, including presidential nominee Mitt Romney himself, once embraced the idea. Romney famously spearheaded such a mandate in Massachusetts when he was governor there. Now, of course, the concept is being compared to Stalinist dictate.
?
Or here are some more pieces of info. Again, you can refuse to acknowledge the undeniable, but that's your shortcoming, not ours.
?
?
?
?
?
My first reaction was: "An article from the **opinion** pages of the New York Times, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country? How objective, factual and convincing could it be?" After reading through the article, much to my surprise, it wasn't as bad as I expected. I agree that Obamacare may be at least partially based on conservative economic principles, but this does not mean that Obamacare is a Republican invention. Conservative economist is not equivalent to Republican. Further, there is a difference between principles and implementation (i.e. between a viewpoint and how the viewpoint materialized in the legislation). Once again, I have to point at the voting records of those involved. As the voting record of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate clearly indicate, no Republican voted in favor of the ACA. This fact cannot be disputed. It's a matter of public record. And it's not someone's view expressed on an opinion page, but even this opinion page article states that "The White House could not have been more ham-fisted in the way it rammed the bill through Congress." --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sheila Beaudry wrote: > > Perhaps this will give you a clue. ?? > "The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system ??" principles originally??embraced by Republicans??as a market alternative to the??Clinton planin the early 1990s. " ??It is the basically the same plan implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. ?? > > > ________________________________ > From: "zimowski@..." > To: ibmpensionissues@... > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 1:16 AM > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > ?? > I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that I'm wrong if you can point me to a web site that supports your assertion. > > I've tried to find such a web site and have failed. Here's what I did find: > > Basic information about ACA: > > > Voting record in the Senate: Not a single Republican yes vote. > > > Voting record in the House of Representatives: Not a single Republican yes vote. Quite a few Democratic no votes as well. > > > If ACA were a Republican invention, then why is it that not even a single Republican in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives voted for it? > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > > > It may be laughable, but, on the other hand, it's completely accurate and reveals how much you will misrepresent the truth. Yes, in detail it is not the original plan. Legislation never is. It is however, the basic principle and operational structure proposed by Republicans. > > > > Thanks for revealing yourself so clearly. > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote: > > > > > > Your continued assertions that the ACA was a Republican invention is well, for lack of a better word, laughable. Everyone knows that ACA was ramrodded through both the Senate and the House during the first year of Obama's presidency when the Democrats held the majority in both the Senate and House. As I recall, the final text of the law was distributed almost last minute, which due to its size and complexity made it impossible for anyone to actually read and study it before the votes were taken. And I also seem to recall that many complained about not having the opportunity to amend it prior to the vote. > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > > > > > > > Until we get simple single payer universal medical insurance we will suffer with sub-optimal performance and businesses will continue to suffer competitive and economic disadvantages. Only when everyone is covered and business no longer pay for the coverage will we get good medical insurance and regain free market competitive advantages because business will no loner need to decide to provide medical insurance or not and will not have to deal with medical insurance operationally. This was a step created by conservative Republicans to delay such universal single payer medical insurance. The complexity comes from a divided Congress and control by industry lobbyists. > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.??I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.?? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.?? Members of my family?? live under Medicaid and?? others like myself live under Medicare.?? But you seem to have a dosed??mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care??programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.?? Who will prevail the ACA??supporters or those who oppose..?? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo:
> ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA??is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care??insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.?? The point I was > making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA?? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder??but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA??as the answer.?? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will > have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.?? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.?? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare??doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA??you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.?? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor > who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.?? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA??has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.?? My Medicare??doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon??a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at > all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA??is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single > payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.?? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, > in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.?? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.?? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter > who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.?? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.?? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ??> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the > ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
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.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
My first reaction was: "An article from the **opinion** pages of the New York Times, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country? How objective, factual and convincing could it be?" After reading through the article, much to my surprise, it wasn't as bad as I expected. I agree that Obamacare may be at least partially based on conservative economic principles, but this does not mean that Obamacare is a Republican invention. Conservative economist is not equivalent to Republican. Further, there is a difference between principles and implementation (i.e. between a viewpoint and how the viewpoint materialized in the legislation). Once again, I have to point at the voting records of those involved. As the voting record of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate clearly indicate, no Republican voted in favor of the ACA. This fact cannot be disputed. It's a matter of public record. And it's not someone's view expressed on an opinion page, but even this opinion page article states that "The White House could not have been more ham-fisted in the way it rammed the bill through Congress."
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Is there a way to limit what topics I want to follow
ret99_99
boomer4199,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
See my response to stevek_99sub in: I also just switched you from Individual Emails to Daily Digest. You might try it for a few days and see if you like it better. You can switch it back to Individual Emails or switch it to No Email if you wish or let me know and I can do it for you. --- In ibmpensionissues@..., boomer4199@... wrote:
|
|
Re: Is there a way to limit what topics I want to follow
ret99_99
There are 2 options that you may like better than the Individual Emails message option you subscribed with:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
1. Daily Digest. This option sends you a single email each day with a summary of the message posts for that day followed by the text of each message. This option allows you to scan the topics to see which ones you are interested in, read only those topics, and skip the others. 2. Web only/No Email. None of the board messages will go to your email with this option. You can go to the web page to review the list of messages whenever you want to and then read only the ones you care to read. Both of these options are selectable by the member via email or via the web site through Edit Membership. I can also switch your message delivery option for you. I just switched you to Daily Digest. You might try it for a few days and see if you like it better. You can switch it back to Individual Emails or switch it to No Email if you wish or let me know and I can do it for you. --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Koz60" <stevek_99sub@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
You'll need to type this comment again if you want me to be able to reply to it. I have no idea what your point is when you wrote "Whether you vote for something or don't vote for something, one is responsible for what one is voting on."
?
MY point about Republicans not voting for ACA was that they didn't vote against it because of its content - as the bill was mostly made up of Republican ideas.
Republicans ARE responsible/can be held accountable for their beliefs on this topic, and ideas they've pushed and supported in the past. And as a result of them (and anyone else) being held to account for what they've previously said they'd support, there's no way to proclaim that they didn't support the basic premises behind ACA. ?
If Democrats have long supported an idea, and then suddenly change course and reject it when a Republican suggests the same thing, then THEY would be guilty of disingenuous behavior. And if I then tried to claim that since they didn't vote for it, it can't be said that they supported the idea - it'd be fair to laugh me out of town.
?
But see, I wouldn't say that.
?
But a conservative on this site DID say/write that. They DID that disingenuous move, claiming that the lack of Republican votes for ACA should tell us something that it doesn't really tell us, since Republicans didn't vote against the bill as a result of them not believing in those features that ended up in ACA!
?
Simple, basic and easy to understand - yet it either baffles you, or you simply like making unfair ad hominem attacks that have no relevance to what's been discussed.
?
Democrats wanted a much different ACA then what we ended up with. What we ended up with is much closer to RomneyCare. It's much more similar to proposals that Republicans made as a counter to Clinton's healthcare initiative. ACA had a TON of input and adjustments to fit Republicans' demands.
?
Denying the reality that "Obamacare" is almost everything that Republicans have said in the past that they wanted is, well, denying reality. Pointing that out isn't flawed logic. -----Original Message----- From: KenSP To: ibmpensionissues Cc: ibmpensionissues Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:52 am Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare ?
Now I have heard it all. Whether you vote for something or don't vote for something, one is responsible for what one is voting on.
Colleagues, Does this make sense? Is it logical? What this means is that even if you write a bill and then later change your mind, you are responsible even if you vote against it. All you have to say on any bill passage that the side trying to pass and voted for bill including things in the bill that try to accommodate the other side you. So it seems, just being there makes you responsible and voting for or against still makes you responsible. So when the budget bill fight in the House starts, the Democrats are responsible for anything that passes since the Republican who are in control will try to accommodate them by making changes to get it passed even though they have the majority. This is "Heads I win, tails you lose" when we flip a coin. Great logic - so in the end Republicans and Democrats are responsible for what is in a bill irrespective of how they vote and who controls the House or the Senate. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sue Runyon Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 2:37 am Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare To: ibmpensionissues@... > > So, because I don't do things on YOUR timetable (while I'm > spending a TON of time on another message as well as other > things going on in my life), it necessarily means something else? > > I hope you don't run your life on leaping to such unsupportable > conclusions. > I AM, in fact, very well-informed on ACA. Too bad that you seem > to think that it's a disadvantage to be well-informed. > > In fact, MUCH of the final ACA?was created as it stands now as a > result of Democrats trying to win Repubican?support. And much of > the framework for ACA?was created by Republicans and supported > by them in the past 15-20 years. It's undeniable. > > The fact that Republicans didn't vote for it in the end has > almost NOTHING to do with what was IN the bill, and everything > to do with how Republicans behave in politics nowadays. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: zimowski? > To: ibmpensionissues? > Sent: Fri, Jul?26, 2013 12:45 am > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > You seem to be an expert on ACA. Was it a Republican invention > as Rick b Cool claims? Also, why haven't you commented on the > accuracy of the facts in Rick b Cool's posts? How factual are > they? Should we conclude that you view them as accurate because > you haven't commented on them? > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon > wrote: > > > > > > Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's > demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different > from another person, but we all share the same database of > factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to > differing opinions. > > > > Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't > insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's > honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are > SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge > that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, > they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people > "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to > their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is > that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion > that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan > beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an > opinion that one can't support with factual information. > > > > One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false > meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to eliminate > full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for > companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's > not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with > over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of > that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the > Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid > paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA > treats part-time employees as ???fulltime equivalents??? by > adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part- > timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it > doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than > an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd be > detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers > total who might opt for coverage. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rick b Cool > > To: ibmpensionissues > > Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive > Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK, but revealing > sinmple facts is denigrating. > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" > wrote: > > > > > > Rick I have to agree with zimowski you b definitely not > cool. Your typical mode of operation here is to denigrate or > insult those who don't agree with your point of view. > > > I've watched you call people ignorant, uneducated, biased, > prejudice all because they believe something different than you. > > > If I was a practicing conservative I'd call it "typical > liberal methodology" where they all believe they are superior > to everyone else and have "THE" right answer. If you don't > believe me, simply ask one, they will tell you. > > > As far as the ACA, it is a good idea but a bad piece of > legislation. It was not thought out and the consequences ignored. > > > For the past several years companies have been accelerating > the removal of full time job positions and replacing them with > part time, under 29-32 hours to avoid the medical mandate. Go > to any retail establishment, since you seem to favor all things > NY, drop by Macy's, talk to any sales person over the age of 40 > who has a history long enough to know what is going on. Their > hours are cut, not due to economy but due to planning for > benefits cuts and avoidance of the ACA. > > > Our current administration does nothing but blame the > previous one for its woes, no responsibility just finger > pointing, but try to play that game with the prior one for the > one before it and you get screams of foul play. Obviously what > is good for the goose isn't good for the gander. > > > If congress and the administration wanted the people to > follow them,they would have ensured they took up such coverage > as their only means of medical care before imposing it on the > people. Using the excuse that it has always been done, doesn't > hold water. Wasn't this administration supposed to be > different? Supposed to work "for the people". Yeah, I know, > those damned evil republicans in congress won't let our poor > president and the democrats get anything done. Again nothing > more than lack of taking responsibility. Like the outcome or > not, at least the prior president took responsibility. > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote: > > > > > > > > An interesting conclusion. Solely based on complete > circular reasoning, obviously starting with the conclusion. > > > > > > > > Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly because of > industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give big > corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from regulations. > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "The real issue on this forum is getting back on topic." > Really? Unlike the ibmpension group, the moderators of this > group do not censor participant appends. It seems that your > style for participation is to criticize others that you don't > agree with politically and then to suggest that anybody who > responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic. > > > > > > > > > > Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think it's > now becoming quite clear that ACA is complicated, poorly > understood, difficult to implement, and that it will be more > expensive for most Americans, providing affordable care only to > those who could not previously obtain/afford health care > coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of > pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added > stain that will be placed on the entire health care system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
Re: Is there a way to limit what topics I want to follow
If you find one please let me know. ?This is getting annoying? From: Koz60 To: ibmpensionissues@... Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:26 AM Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Is there a way to limit what topics I want to follow
?
Is there a setting where I can chose to stop receiving messages about a topic I don't want to follow? I've been using the delete key but thought there might be a better way like flipping a setting.
Thanks. |
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then what you get from them isn't?a fact, so no, it doesn't matter what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you get from them is truly a fact.
?
Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however.
?
And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting the healthcare they've needed all along.
?
In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country.
?
That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a good idea.
?
I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured through an active choice they've made are those who are young and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare coverage but hasn't been able to get it.
?
I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's everyone's to share.
?
And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of?themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control. -----Original Message----- From: Sam Cay To: ibmpensionissues Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare ?
I guess this makes the assumption that your source of data is correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you believe but what data you want to believe. I am concerned when the cost of any government program reaches in my pocket to pay for others who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word subsidy comes into a program this is my trigger for taking food out of my families mouth. So does your data tell us that we will or will not be paying for someone unwilling to make their life better.
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote: > > > Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different from another person, but we all share the same database of factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to differing opinions. > > Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support with factual information. > > One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA treats part-time employees as ???fulltime equivalents??? by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd be detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers total who might opt for coverage. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick b Cool > To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...> > Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK, but revealing sinmple facts is denigrating. > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" wrote: > > > > Rick I have to agree with zimowski you b definitely not cool. Your typical mode of operation here is to denigrate or insult those who don't agree with your point of view. > > I've watched you call people ignorant, uneducated, biased, prejudice all because they believe something different than you. > > If I was a practicing conservative I'd call it "typical liberal methodology" where they all believe they are superior to everyone else and have "THE" right answer. If you don't believe me, simply ask one, they will tell you. > > As far as the ACA, it is a good idea but a bad piece of legislation. It was not thought out and the consequences ignored. > > For the past several years companies have been accelerating the removal of full time job positions and replacing them with part time, under 29-32 hours to avoid the medical mandate. Go to any retail establishment, since you seem to favor all things NY, drop by Macy's, talk to any sales person over the age of 40 who has a history long enough to know what is going on. Their hours are cut, not due to economy but due to planning for benefits cuts and avoidance of the ACA. > > Our current administration does nothing but blame the previous one for its woes, no responsibility just finger pointing, but try to play that game with the prior one for the one before it and you get screams of foul play. Obviously what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander. > > If congress and the administration wanted the people to follow them,they would have ensured they took up such coverage as their only means of medical care before imposing it on the people. Using the excuse that it has always been done, doesn't hold water. Wasn't this administration supposed to be different? Supposed to work "for the people". Yeah, I know, those damned evil republicans in congress won't let our poor president and the democrats get anything done. Again nothing more than lack of taking responsibility. Like the outcome or not, at least the prior president took responsibility. > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > > > > > An interesting conclusion. Solely based on complete circular reasoning, obviously starting with the conclusion. > > > > > > Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly because of industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give big corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from regulations. > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote: > > > > > > > > "The real issue on this forum is getting back on topic." Really? Unlike the ibmpension group, the moderators of this group do not censor participant appends. It seems that your style for participation is to criticize others that you don't agree with politically and then to suggest that anybody who responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic. > > > > > > > > Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think it's now becoming quite clear that ACA is complicated, poorly understood, difficult to implement, and that it will be more expensive for most Americans, providing affordable care only to those who could not previously obtain/afford health care coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added stain that will be placed on the entire health care system. > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
One should not be considered to be on the left simply because they present facts and expose lies. I know it seems fitting considering the behavior of the Republican leadership and some radical reactionary posters on bulletin boards. Still, I believe that the majority of Republicans are quietly honest despite their bias towards Republican candidates. The fact that they are highly misinformed and often believe lies is just a condition unfortunately supported by the MSM through their failure to support facts in an attempt to provide balance in an unbalanced conversation.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon <Slouise217@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
No, the facts are that it is quite dominated by one political party - and that party is not the Democrats. I can provide 3 undeniable examples - you, and others, should stop with the nonsense that "both sides do it". False equivalency arguments make you look insincere or ill-informed.
?
1. Filibusters
2. Politifact Pants on Fire lies
3. FlipFlopping on political stances when the other party supports them.
?
No one on the left side of the aisle has committed such politically partisan behavior in the same levels.
?
And we've seen it here in this string of comments - snide remarks from those on the right who can't debunk the facts presented by those on the left. Rejection of factual arguments made by the left?that are easily supported with all kinds of supporting links. A total lack of support for the arguments made by those on the right.
?
It's not an issue of "both sides do it equally". It's just demonstrably not.
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin W To: ibmpensionissues Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 8:33 am Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
?
Please be aware, this blind loyalty to a side, spinning of untruths and spreading fear and propaganda is not a republican issue. It is a political issue shared equally by both sides and both sides are for something until it suits them to not support it.
A liberal will find lies out of anything conservative and a conservative will find lies out of anything liberal. Neither will acknowledge their own lies until it is shoved in their face and even then they will excuse it and derail the conversation with their lies are worse. Very few of us are unbiased, even fewer of us know and acknowledge our own biases and try to see around them. It simply hurts too much... --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote: > > > But, but, but..... you're ruining the fearmongering and the conspiracy theories of those who have a kneejerk hatred of almost everything and anything associated with Democrats and Obama - even if that stuff is incredibly similar to things that sane Republicans pushed a few years or decades ago. > > A nonpartisan site, Factcheck.org, soundly and emphatically debunked the false meme that Congress exempted themselves from the same requirements as everyone else. > > If you check out any of the well-known factchecking/urban legend sites, what you'll see if that almost all of the pants-on-fire dishonesty comes from the right. You'll see that there's a ton of misinformation about Obama which is easily debunked - yet it keeps being spread around in viral emails and spread as gospel on talk radio. And there seems to be a dearth of people on the right side of the political aisle who stand up and refute such nonsense and tell their supporters to stop pushing it. Occassionally you'll see someone do it - John McCain did it when someone in a town hall meeting told him that Obama was an "Arab", for example. > > So, if you're actually interested in whether or not it's true or false that Congress somehow exempted themselves, look at this article. > > or this one - FreedomWorks, a favorite of Glenn Beck, by the way > > or this one, where Politifact.com rated it "Pants On Fire" false, citing conservative Norman Ornstein and nonpartisan snopes.com > > > If someone were really interested in knowing the truth about whether or not Congress had to participate, they'd already KNOW this answer. They'd KNOW that the rightwing spin about this topic was just that - dishonest spin. Instead, we get comments like this one - "If ACA is so great why did Congress and the President exempt themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of ACA? No one seems to talk about that." > > But it's not true that "no one" talked about this - MANY rightwingers talked about this, ad nauseum, despite the fact that it was NEVER TRUE. So, no one SHOULD HAVE talked about this, since it was nonsense from the very beginning. If someone made an honest mistake, and thought it was true, as soon as they knew it wasn't true, they would have apologized for their error, and straightened others out when they heard the misinformation repeated. > > But as snopes.com has pointed out for years, most people will believe what they want to believe. Someone below said "Government exempts itself from everything." But that's not true. They haven't, they don't, they won't. Yet many won't believe it when the FACTS disprove their CT. In fact, the government actually has the same or even tougher regulations in almost every arena as compared to the private sector. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sheila Beaudry > To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...> > Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 10:15 pm > Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > > It is the same for IBMers and anyone else getting insurance through their companies. You don't have to change your IBM insurance to get your insurance from one of the Exchanges. But you can if you want to. Why should they be singled out by not letting them do the same as others. Isn't that the point; they shouldn't be treated any differently? > > > > > > > From: Kevin W > To: ibmpensionissues@... > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:59 AM > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > Now here is what I see when I read that link. Tell me what I missed. While congress did not create any special exemptions for itself, no congressperson is required to give up any special coverage and cadillac plans they may have and be required to only have choices available to the bulk of the American people. The article goes out of its way to avoid stating such things until a short paragraph at the very end where it mentions a Republican wanted to amend the bill to state that federal officials must only be able to choose from those new plans created by the ACA. In other words making our government eat its own dog food. Apparently according to the article which gives one entire sentence to it, maybe hoping people would be bored by the time they got this far in the article the change was added but only if the leadership and committee heads were exemption from the change. So they don't have to eat the dog food they are serving. > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sheila Beaudry wrote: > > > > Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.?? Stop spreading untruths.?? See > > > > > > From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@> > > To: ibmpensionissues@... > > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:34 AM > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > ?? > > Really? > > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA. > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote: > > > > > > If ACA?? is so great why did Congress and the President exempt themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt national corporation who have health care?? insurance for employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally missed my point.?? The point I was making is it does not matter if you have or do not have insurance including ACA?? If doctors do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single payer? As a retired > > person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political discussion or as do gooder?? but are based on real life experience which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same age.I do not see ACA?? as the answer.?? Since like Medicare, in order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance companies or the government will have to reduce the reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.?? Based on actual personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one that does not.?? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on everything. A Medicare?? doctor is earning his income by seeing volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No > > Doctor can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the ACA?? you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.?? In Canada, you are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical needs and the test you need to take.?? In the ACA, a nurse is made your primary care person who determines the tests you need and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA?? has only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create the ACA.?? My Medicare?? doctor told me that I should do the two knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think you have to live the law. to see what you have lost.RegardsFreon?? a > > retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;; Very good. Thanks for the analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > No ACA?? is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we need to have access to good health care > severely limited to more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue on this forum is > getting > > back on topic. We don't need the political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote:> >> > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > who have retired.?? It is reasonably price. The issue is not the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. > > Some will advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting Medicare / Medicaid > patients.?? The reason is that the government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.?? A medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of their patients where under > > Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.?? She had to pay his fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the fee.?? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you want but it won't > by you medical services if a > > doctor does not accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards single payer.> > > > > > ?? > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;; > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, now > > tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;; > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this thread can get back on topic> > without the radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;; > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole time. Obviously less the> > changes currently being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > they receive at others > > expense, or the great > benefits of> > have a great society that supports all the > people, grows> > the economy, and increases the standard of > living. They> > simply dream of how good it would be if they retained> > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use words like > socialist and> > communist and have no idea what either term actually> > means. They certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All they do is whine and hope that someone> > will give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > themselves that they are independent individuals> > supporting themselves outside all that exists > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when only white> > male protestants who own landed estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;; > pawnedmyrolex wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;; > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;; > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > |
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
No, Kevin, facts are facts. No one owns "facts". They're available for everyone.
?
And while someone's feelings might be hurt when another exposes their dishonesty, it's not an insult to call a liar a liar when the discussion revolves around whether or not that person is being honest.. That's not what an insult is.
?
Opinions are related to a personal belief set. Facts are not.
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin W To: ibmpensionissues Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 8:25 am Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
?
Untruths can be refuted without denigration and insult. Facts can be presented without being insulting. As many of the posts have shown, facts don't equate to truth. What is fact for you because it suits your personal belief set, living situation, context may not apply to someone else in different situation.
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK, but revealing sinmple facts is denigrating. > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" wrote: > > > > Rick I have to agree with zimowski you b definitely not cool. Your typical mode of operation here is to denigrate or insult those who don't agree with your point of view. > > I've watched you call people ignorant, uneducated, biased, prejudice all because they believe something different than you. > > If I was a practicing conservative I'd call it "typical liberal methodology" where they all believe they are superior to everyone else and have "THE" right answer. If you don't believe me, simply ask one, they will tell you. > > As far as the ACA, it is a good idea but a bad piece of legislation. It was not thought out and the consequences ignored. > > For the past several years companies have been accelerating the removal of full time job positions and replacing them with part time, under 29-32 hours to avoid the medical mandate. Go to any retail establishment, since you seem to favor all things NY, drop by Macy's, talk to any sales person over the age of 40 who has a history long enough to know what is going on. Their hours are cut, not due to economy but due to planning for benefits cuts and avoidance of the ACA. > > Our current administration does nothing but blame the previous one for its woes, no responsibility just finger pointing, but try to play that game with the prior one for the one before it and you get screams of foul play. Obviously what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander. > > If congress and the administration wanted the people to follow them,they would have ensured they took up such coverage as their only means of medical care before imposing it on the people. Using the excuse that it has always been done, doesn't hold water. Wasn't this administration supposed to be different? Supposed to work "for the people". Yeah, I know, those damned evil republicans in congress won't let our poor president and the democrats get anything done. Again nothing more than lack of taking responsibility. Like the outcome or not, at least the prior president took responsibility. > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > > > > > An interesting conclusion. Solely based on complete circular reasoning, obviously starting with the conclusion. > > > > > > Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly because of industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give big corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from regulations. > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" wrote: > > > > > > > > "The real issue on this forum is getting back on topic." Really? Unlike the ibmpension group, the moderators of this group do not censor participant appends. It seems that your style for participation is to criticize others that you don't agree with politically and then to suggest that anybody who responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic. > > > > > > > > Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think it's now becoming quite clear that ACA is complicated, poorly understood, difficult to implement, and that it will be more expensive for most Americans, providing affordable care only to those who could not previously obtain/afford health care coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added stain that will be placed on the entire health care system. > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
You make a good point. Just why did not a single Republican vote for that which they invented? Oh, that answer is quite obvious. It's not very nice. It reflects on Republicans in Congress extremely poorly. But we all know that very well. Yet, historical fact is still historical fact. Republicans invented this form of government health insurance regulation. A few Republicans took the lead and had great input into the plan. The poison pills were rejected. Industry advantaged parts were adopted. The Republican vote was purely political. No one liked the bill. If anyone wanted this form of health insurance it was Republicans. The trivial surface often obscures the reality. Democrats voted for it because it was the best they could get. Better than nothing.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Just Puttin' <JustPutt2@...> wrote:
|
to navigate to use esc to dismiss