开云体育

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no right to electricity in our Constitution either, yet we have done many things in our nation's history to help the poorest among us get electricity - and that has cost the wealthier among us something to subsidize the provision of electricity.

There's nothing in our Constitution about having an Interstate Highway System either. I know plenty of people who will never travel outside their own state, and who could care less if they get strawberries out of season from California.

But sometimes it benefits society as a whole to have the wealthier among us subsidize the provision of services to the poorer among us. That's why our nation, for about 100 years, has approved of and supported a progressive tax structure - to help fund those kinds of things, where the wealthier people, those better able to afford to give up some portion of their income, subsidize the provision of goods and services to other Americans.

Arguing that because there's no "right to healthcare" in our Constitution, we can't do it, is ridiculous and childlike. Even the lawyers arguing against Obamacare in the US Supreme Court didn't try that argument! It's settled law - there needn't be a direct mention in the Constitution.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 4:27 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life






I would tend to agree with you with one exception. I think rooting out fraud in a right is more important than rooting it out in a privilege.
On the healthcare I had a conversation some years ago with a Norwegian couple. The issue of course was healthcare. The wife was lecturing me on how health care is a right of all people, her husband commented the fact it is codified in their Constitution.
When they stopped long enough to listen I asked, "What makes healthcare a right?" Her husband repeated, it is in our Constitution. I laughed and said, have you read the US Constitution? There is nothing about providing healthcare unless you translate providing for the "general welfare". The wife started again telling me how it is common knowledge that healthcare is a God given right that all people have. Before I could reply her husband stopped her, asked her to wait a minute. He muttered something about it not being a "natural right" and then said, "you know, I never realized that healthcare is not part of the US Constitution. You are correct the people of the US don't have a right to healthcare."
I smiled and said, "Bingo."
He then understood the issue the same way I do, Until healthcare is part of our Constitution, we have no "right" to it. The government may try to provide it, others in the government may argue against it, but we do not have the right to healthcare.
Everyone is working this all jacked backwards. We are arguing over how and when when we haven't answered the basic question of right, and placed that right in our founding documents. Get that one thing done and the rest will follow.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Sam Cay" <ceome60@> wrote:

Pretty funny post but true even through the sarcasm. I would guess part of the problem is based on "rights" vs. "privileges" . Voting is a right and a drivers licence is a privilege. Health insurance used to be a privilege but it looks like it's becoming a right.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" <nowwicked@> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

脗听
Well in that case.... Since I am new to the group,脗听does any one know where I can pick up a set of Titleist CB irons?
The price脗听needs to beright脗听since Sue seems to believe I should pay for other peoples medicine instead of spending my
lettuce on pursuits I deem more worthy.
脗听
Keeping in the spirit of griping, we脗听will not recognize the company by the end of 2015.脗听 That stated,脗听better get your rebus t-shirts
and "Think" writing pads pronto while you aren't paying for "aca".
脗听
Now, more importantly lets go golf.
脗听

________________________________

How many investors do we have in here?听
听
I haphazardly joined thinking we would have more about 401Ks "up in听'here"听 as they say on my street.听听I have this little article听its a once upon a time story about an听IRS agent that lived to be 101.听 She survived the great depression and every investment听obstacle before her听and didn't need O'Bama care either.听 In a snap shot, bag your lunch wear your clothes until the last thread is wearable and save like mad and buy the stocks of the products you use and take the food from the Stockholders meetings.听 Her last two investments were Apple and MCI.听 She would have lost her ass on MCI听but听the estate would have grossed 75K on a 100 share Apple investment and that's because the system of Capitalism some times still works.听 If you can get a copy of the original article听 you can see her top 10 investments.听
听
This is my bible for investing.听 I am sharing this because I am a giver, and communists/socialist/progressives are takers.听听
听
End of story, period.
听

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts are powerful things.


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare







It is the same for IBMers and anyone else getting insurance through their companies. You don't have to change your IBM insurance to get your insurance from one of the Exchanges. But you can if you want to. Why should they be singled out by not letting them do the same as others. Isn't that the point; they shouldn't be treated any differently?






From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:59 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






Now here is what I see when I read that link. Tell me what I missed. While congress did not create any special exemptions for itself, no congressperson is required to give up any special coverage and cadillac plans they may have and be required to only have choices available to the bulk of the American people. The article goes out of its way to avoid stating such things until a short paragraph at the very end where it mentions a Republican wanted to amend the bill to state that federal officials must only be able to choose from those new plans created by the ACA. In other words making our government eat its own dog food. Apparently according to the article which gives one entire sentence to it, maybe hoping people would be bored by the time they got this far in the article the change was added but only if the leadership and committee heads were exemption from the change. So they don't have to eat the dog food they are serving.

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

Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� Stop spreading untruths.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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

脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌�
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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� The point I was making is it does not matter if you have or do not have insurance including ACA脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� as the answer.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� In Canada, you are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical needs and the test you need to take.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� has only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create the ACA.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� My Medicare脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� The reason is that the government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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>;;; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.> > > > > > 脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� > > > > > > 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.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >

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

GM <mandaringoby@...> wrote:

How many investors do we have in here?脗听
脗听
I haphazardly joined thinking we would have more about 401Ks "up in脗听'here"脗听 as they say on my street.脗听脗听I have this little article脗听its a once upon a time story about an脗听IRS agent that lived to be 101.脗听 She survived the great depression and every investment脗听obstacle before her脗听and didn't need O'Bama care either.脗听 In a snap shot, bag your lunch wear your clothes until the last thread is wearable and save like mad and buy the stocks of the products you use and take the food from the Stockholders meetings.脗听 Her last two investments were Apple and MCI.脗听 She would have lost her ass on MCI脗听but脗听the estate would have grossed 75K on a 100 share Apple investment and that's because the system of Capitalism some times still works.脗听 If you can get a copy of the original article脗听 you can see her top 10 investments.脗听
脗听
This is my bible for investing.脗听 I am sharing this because I am a giver, and communists/socialist/progressives are takers.脗听脗听
脗听
End of story, period.
脗听

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

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

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

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

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

Facts are powerful things.


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare







It is the same for IBMers and anyone else getting insurance through their companies. You don't have to change your IBM insurance to get your insurance from one of the Exchanges. But you can if you want to. Why should they be singled out by not letting them do the same as others. Isn't that the point; they shouldn't be treated any differently?






From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:59 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






Now here is what I see when I read that link. Tell me what I missed. While congress did not create any special exemptions for itself, no congressperson is required to give up any special coverage and cadillac plans they may have and be required to only have choices available to the bulk of the American people. The article goes out of its way to avoid stating such things until a short paragraph at the very end where it mentions a Republican wanted to amend the bill to state that federal officials must only be able to choose from those new plans created by the ACA. In other words making our government eat its own dog food. Apparently according to the article which gives one entire sentence to it, maybe hoping people would be bored by the time they got this far in the article the change was added but only if the leadership and committee heads were exemption from the change. So they don't have to eat the dog food they are serving.

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

Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� Stop spreading untruths.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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

脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌�
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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� The point I was making is it does not matter if you have or do not have insurance including ACA脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� as the answer.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� In Canada, you are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical needs and the test you need to take.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� has only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create the ACA.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� My Medicare脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� The reason is that the government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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.脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� 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>;;; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.> > > > > > 脙茠脗茠脙鈥毭傗赌� > > > > > > 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.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >

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

If someone says that it's a fact that a fetus in the womb has no rights, that'd be their opinion, not a fact. The same can be said for the rest of the opinions you say are facts. They're opinions, not facts.

But facts are facts.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 4:21 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






Well Sue then help us all since it seems the entire country cannot agree on a fact and neither can the law of the land.

Many people seem to say it is a fact the thing in the womb after conception is a fetus with no rights. Others say the child in the womb after conception is a human with all the rights of any human.

Fortunately for the country neither side claiming the facts has won total control of the argument.

I am sure we can all list other "facts" that are facts for only a single group of people and supported vehemently by selective association of information.

You cannot even define a color factually unless you get very strict in the definition, or ensure everyone associated with the definition has the same visual capabilities.

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

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 <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <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" <rickb_cool@> wrote:

Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK, but revealing sinmple facts is denigrating.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" <nowwicked@> wrote:

Rick I have to agree with zimowski you b definitely not cool. Your typical mode of operation here is to denigrate or insult those who don't agree with your point of view.
I've watched you call people ignorant, uneducated, biased, prejudice all because they believe something different than you.
If I was a practicing conservative I'd call it "typical liberal methodology" where they all believe they are superior to everyone else and have "THE" right answer. If you don't believe me, simply ask one, they will tell you.
As far as the ACA, it is a good idea but a bad piece of legislation. It was not thought out and the consequences ignored.
For the past several years companies have been accelerating the removal of full time job positions and replacing them with part time, under 29-32 hours to avoid the medical mandate. Go to any retail establishment, since you seem to favor all things NY, drop by Macy's, talk to any sales person over the age of 40 who has a history long enough to know what is going on. Their hours are cut, not due to economy but due to planning for benefits cuts and avoidance of the ACA.
Our current administration does nothing but blame the previous one for its woes, no responsibility just finger pointing, but try to play that game with the prior one for the one before it and you get screams of foul play. Obviously what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
If congress and the administration wanted the people to follow them,they would have ensured they took up such coverage as their only means of medical care before imposing it on the people. Using the excuse that it has always been done, doesn't hold water. Wasn't this administration supposed to be different? Supposed to work "for the people". Yeah, I know, those damned evil republicans in congress won't let our poor president and the democrats get anything done. Again nothing more than lack of taking responsibility. Like the outcome or not, at least the prior president took responsibility.


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

An interesting conclusion. Solely based on complete circular reasoning, obviously starting with the conclusion.

Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly because of industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give big corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from regulations.

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

"The real issue on this forum is getting back on topic." Really? Unlike the ibmpension group, the moderators of this group do not censor participant appends. It seems that your style for participation is to criticize others that you don't agree with politically and then to suggest that anybody who responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic.

Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think it's now becoming quite clear that ACA is complicated, poorly understood, difficult to implement, and that it will be more expensive for most Americans, providing affordable care only to those who could not previously obtain/afford health care coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added stain that will be placed on the entire health care system.

How many investors do we have in here?听
听
I haphazardly joined thinking we would have more about 401Ks "up in听'here"听 as they say on my street.听听I have this little article听its a once upon a time story about an听IRS agent that lived to be 101.听 She survived the great depression and every investment听obstacle before her听and didn't need O'Bama care either.听 In a snap shot, bag your lunch wear your clothes until the last thread is wearable and save like mad and buy the stocks of the products you use and take the food from the Stockholders meetings.听 Her last two investments were Apple and MCI.听 She would have lost her ass on MCI听but听the estate would have grossed 75K on a 100 share Apple investment and that's because the system of Capitalism some times still works.听 If you can get a copy of the original article听 you can see her top 10 investments.听
听
This is my bible for investing.听 I am sharing this because I am a giver, and communists/socialist/progressives are takers.听听
听
End of story, period.
听