开云体育

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 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
> 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 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
> > 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 > > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > 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.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > & (Message over 64 KB, truncated) From DummyAddressAndDate Thu Sep 16 11:42:17 2010 X-Yahoo-Msgnum: 436 Return-Path: X-Sender: rickb_cool@... X-Apparently-To: ibmpensionissues@... X-Received: (qmail 11262 invoked by uid 102); 29 Jul 2013 18:54:59 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mtaq1.grp.bf1.yahoo.com) (10.193.84.32) by m11.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2013 18:54:59 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 405 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2013 18:54:59 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO ng16-ip2.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com) (98.139.165.138) by mtaq1.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2013 18:54:59 -0000 X-Received: from [66.196.81.182] by ng16.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jul 2013 18:54:59 -0000 X-Received: from [10.193.94.44] by tg10.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jul 2013 18:54:59 -0000 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:54:58 -0000 To: ibmpensionissues@... Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 72.68.213.102 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:3:4:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 72.68.213.102 From: "Rick b Cool" Subject: Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u2914745; y=LZctlLfaY4xjEJPxfxTkNhUNToJufjBDT5kC2PS_KfAvTUfxrw X-Yahoo-Profile: rickb_cool ROFLMAO --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@..." wrote: > > The statements "You have your right to your own opinions and beliefs. Not your own facts." have been popping up on this forum quite a bit lately. I thought that this was a quote from Keith Olbermann, but decided to verify and was surprised to learn that it is in fact a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. This fact was found in a Washington Post opinions article by Ted Koppel about opinionated well-known personalities. > > Ted notes: "Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts." > > Here's another Ted Koppel quote from the article: > > "We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable." > > Finally a Koppel quote about Olbermann, who uses the "everyone is entitled" quote more than anyone: "To witness Keith Olbermann - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust. > > Back then, a policy against political contributions would have aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers to his program every night precisely because he is avowedly, unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?" > > My opinion is that it's hard to trust the arguments of anyone who thinks that Keith Olbermann's style of debate is one that should be emulated as being non-partisan and convincing. Gets more amusing with every re-use of Moynihan's observation. > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" wrote: > > > > Spoken like a true person who doesn't like the facts and what they mean or imply. You have your right to your own opinions and beliefs. Not your own facts. You have the right to not believe simple facts. That is nothing more than political zeal or religious fervor in denial of objective reality. A common trait among us humans, but not a particularly useful trait in optimizing outcomes. > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Sam Cay" wrote: > > > > > > OK no problem , you believe your facts and I'll believe mine. I know mine are correct but not sure of yours. I'd rather choose who/what I give my money to but unfortunately the crooks in government don't let me do that. I'll leave the charity giving to people like you. You must not be on twitter based on the length of your post. Sorry I made you ramble. > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you get from them is truly a fact. > > > > > > > > Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however. > > > > > > > > And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting the healthcare they've needed all along. > > > > > > > > In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country. > > > > > > > > That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a good idea. > > > > > > > > I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured through an active choice they've made are those who are young and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare coverage but hasn't been able to get it. > > > > > > > > I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's everyone's to share. > > > > > > > > And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Sam Cay > > > > To: ibmpensionissues > > > > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am > > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess this makes the assumption that your source of data is correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you believe but what data you want to believe. I am concerned when the cost of any government program reaches in my pocket to pay for others who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word subsidy comes into a program this is my trigger for taking food out of my families mouth. So does your data tell us that we will or will not be paying for someone unwilling to make their life better. > > > > > > > > --- In 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. > > > > > > > > > > >