开云体育

You are mistaken that IBM would have to pay ANY fine if they dropped health insurance coverage for retirees. There is a fine *only* for not providing coverage for full-time employees.

It's amusing that you compare the price of insurance on the exchanges to what you are paying through IBM. You are one of the folks who is covered under the old plan and not the FHA, correct? That means you get a subsidy of around $7000 from IBM. No wonder the numbers aren't even close! You haven't been paying real world prices! And you want to blame the ACA for the difference in cost?

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

There have been no posts on IBM pension issues for the longest time. If you have a pension issue that you would like to discuss, post something and we'll do our best to help you out.

I. BTW, am concerned that ACA may be an issue for IBM retirees. I fear that IBM may decide to drop the healthcare coverage that some of us have and just point us to the exchanges. Seems like it might be more cost effective for IBM to pay a smaller fine per retiree (about $2000 I read somewhere) rather than the roughly $7000 IBM currently contributes to coverage for each retiree that it still covers. This, I believe, is what started the whole ACA discussion. It morphed into something else. I've looked into ACA and the cost vs coverage that I would receive if I had to depend on the exchange for my coverage. What I've learned is based on information currently available for the California exchange. It's not a pretty picture for me.

There have been no posts on IBM pension issues for the longest time. If you have a pension issue that you would like to discuss, post something and we'll do our best to help you out.

I. BTW, am concerned that ACA may be an issue for IBM retirees. I fear that IBM may decide to drop the healthcare coverage that some of us have and just point us to the exchanges. Seems like it might be more cost effective for IBM to pay a smaller fine per retiree (about $2000 I read somewhere) rather than the roughly $7000 IBM currently contributes to coverage for each retiree that it still covers. This, I believe, is what started the whole ACA discussion. It morphed into something else. I've looked into ACA and the cost vs coverage that I would receive if I had to depend on the exchange for my coverage. What I've learned is based on information currently available for the California exchange. It's not a pretty picture for me.

It's not true that unions in general and James Hoffa in particular don't want Obamacare. They just don't want their unions to be disadvantaged. They want to tweak what Obamacare is. They actually wanted MORE from Obamacare, but since this was the best we could get while trying to compromise with the Republicans, it's what they've accepted as a first start.

It was NOT shown in the links that Hoffa doesn't want Obamacare. That's either a lie on your part or your inadequate reading comprehension.

Communism and Socialism aren't the same thing. Never have been, and never will be. You might want to look up their definitions to learn more about them - or not, and stay misinformed. It's your choice, but that doesn't change the FACT that they aren't the same thing.

Anyone who's actually interested in learning more about this topic, and seeing how badly the Republicans are behaving now, should read the opinion piece that I've linked to before, from Norman Ornstein, a dyed in the wool Republican and conservative who works for a conservative think tank called the American Enterprise Institute. Here's the link. Notice the piece's title.



As his last paragraph says

.... to do everything possible to undercut and destroy its implementation -- which in this case means finding ways to deny coverage to many who lack any health insurance; to keep millions who might be able to get better and cheaper coverage in the dark about their new options; to create disruption for the health providers who are trying to implement the law, including insurers, hospitals, and physicians; to threaten the even greater disruption via a government shutdown or breach of the debt limit in order to blackmail the president into abandoning the law; and to hope to benefit politically from all the resulting turmoil -- is simply unacceptable, even contemptible. One might expect this kind of behavior from a few grenade-throwing firebrands. That the effort is spearheaded by the Republican leaders of the House and Senate -- even if Speaker John Boehner is motivated by fear of his caucus, and McConnell and Cornyn by fear of Kentucky and Texas Republican activists -- takes one's breath away.


-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 2:09 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] obama care and a a link to grow on.








Does it get any more Union than a Hoffa, with the exception of Richard Trumka?

James Hoffa doesn't want Obama care which was shown in those links that were critiqued. Isn't that Union and tell tale sign enough
for the well informed communists/socialist/progressives in our government and journalistic cronies and maybe more than half
of our unwashed masses?

Socialism / Progressivism is the new Communism its just wrapped up with a sexy bow and it has sparkly things to distract.
The unwashed masses might not want socialism if they were not singing about said elected official in our elementary schools.
This winning policy recently brought us the out come we call Detroit. "Outlie" that.

I am not a fan of Wall St types either. If you have lost money I am sorry to hear that. My family was impacted by the 1987 correction as well as 2000. But we "individually" are ultimately responsible for our own "purses". And I want my purse to get me some new golf clubs not pay for someone else's cell phone, flat panel or health care.

It is Wall Street that keeps the Business of Business running around the world even if health care and Pensions and 401Ks are going to Zero. It is Capitalism that pays the bills as well as the government entitlements commmunists/socialist/progressives want.
Government doesn't create anything or create new private sector jobs or inventories and stuff like that, right? It just takes what is ours. Like they took the Ark of the Covenant in Indiana Jones. (Just kidding).

No I am not. I would be very impressed to see the Ark though if any one here has "connections".

I could be wrong. Like it really matters here.

:-)




From: Sue Runyon <Slouise217@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




No, I'm not a communist. I'm representative of the American public, in general - the same public that agreed with the TVA - the only way many rural Americans got affordable electricity, because of subsidies from wealthier Americans. The same public that overwhelmingly supports local fire departments, and good roads, and public schools and parks and libraries, etc, etc. The same public that supports Social Security and Medicare.

We're a nation that's a mixture of socialism and captalism. If you had a clue about what you were talking about, you'd know that it's socialism, not communism.

If you don't like living in a nation that's a strong mixture of socialism and captalism, then you should move elsewhere, because the vast majority of Americans are very happy with that mix - in fact, most of them would prefer that we have more socialism and less laissez faire capitalism - the stuff that's made banks and hedge fund managers so rich and left most of the rest of us off the gravy train.

You're the outlier here, not me.

Anecdotal info about how in a FEW cases, it's better to travel to another country for health care isn't evidence that everything about the care in the other nation is perfect for every resident of that country. Yet you seem to be under the delusion that it is. Yes, in a very few cases, Canadians DO travel to the USA for health care, but for the most part, they are quite happy with their heathcare system, and they don't have millions of people left out in the cold without coverages like we have here in the USA. If people in the USA who have an issue with our healthcare system could resolve those issues by travelling to another nation, we'd have a lot more people going to Canada than we have Canadians coming here.

Yet you think that your argument is a winning one. I'm not surprised.

So, now to your totally disingenuous arguments below.

1. There is an issue that some unions with healthcare plans that are called "non-profit" are having. They don't want an exemption from Obamacare. They don't want to be denied participation in the healthcare exchanges, and right now that's what might happen. You might want to read the link that includes the whole text of their letter to the Obama Administration, instead of the cherry-picked version your rightwing blog link chose to go with. They say they still support the effort - just that it needs to be tweaked.
2. The second link is simply another recapping of the same issue, and again, unions like the bill - they just feel like they're being disadvantaged by one part of the bill, and they want it fixed. They don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

3. And, not surprisingly, the 3rd link is about the same exact topic - did you really not understand that it's not 3 separate issues?

4 & 5. Same thing, 4th and 5th verse. Really?

6. Finally, a second topic, but townhall.com - really? REALLY? We DO need young people who've been forgoing coverage to sign up. That's not a new issue. And acting as though advertising that need is a sign of desperation is ludicrous - but exactly what I'd expect from you.

7. And a FoxBusiness poll? A cable network that has virtually no audience? Really? If people hadn't been so misinformed by those on the right, they wouldn't be so reluctant to sign up. It's not because Obamacare is a bad plan. It's the best we could get because the Dems were trying to be conciliatory towards the Republicans - that's why it's so much like what Republicans for the past 2 decades have said that they wanted, because the Democrats were hoping that the Republicans could and would act in a bipartisan fashion if the Democrats did too.

Try harder next time - this was way too easy.




-----Original Message----- From: GM <mandaringoby@...> To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...> Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 10:43 pm Subject: Fw: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare



I apologize for my misspellings. My android phone auto corrected.

Now back to Sue. You are a Liberal Communist, correct?

I am guessing that from your quote: " try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own. " My response is: "Hell no!! You cannot have my Lettuce to put on your
hamburger when you have high cholesterol". Socialized medicine is a failure. Do you know or have you head of any one that needs heart surgery leaving the U.S. to go to Canada or an MRI for that matter? I do not. However, there many Canadians that travel to the U.S. to get urgent life saving care and that MRI so they do not die waiting.

These articles listed below go against your idea Obama care and its policy management is going to get more
medicine to the unwashed Masses.

1. IRS wants exemption from O'Bama care. I guess they do not want to personally help those with needs.



2. Huffington Post reports: Oops, Union medical plans could get scuttled by ACA cost and fees.



3. Forbes, Hoffa writes to Reid and Palozzi, that middle class could be shattered by ACA.



4. The Hill: Food workers union 1.3 Million strong not happy about the impact to healthcare plan by ACA.


5. Legislators and staff want ACA exemption.



6. From Town Hill, a little CNN action on the 2.7 million needed to sign up might take the fine instead.



7. Fox Business Poll: Young People to Skip Coverage, Opt for Penalty Tax Instead



Back to taxing the wealthier for healthcare. Sue, why not go to a window at the Federal reserve and give them more
of your money to help offset any government expenses? After all, Karl Marx did say: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs:.



----- Forwarded Message -----
From: teamb562 <teamb562@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:32 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare



I'm sorry but the intension of this forum is not to discuss the ibm pension, that is discussed on Yahoo board ibmpension. This forum was established to bitch about and discuss problems and issues with the ibmpension board, that's it. --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote: > > > This forum IS supposed to be about IBM pension issues. Please, the next time someone else brings up an issue that is outside of the group's subject matter, feel free to immediately interject and tell them that they're off topic. But if someone doesn't do that, then it's unfair to get upset and/or criticize the people who reply to their off topic postings. People replying to an off topic subject aren't responsible for it being brought up, and shouldn't be chastised for replying - yet I was. > > Any time a new initiative gets pushed by the party in power, it gets airtime to try to educate people about the good things about the initiative. This is not a new thing - it's not like Obama invented propaganda, after all. Obamacare is about getting more and better healthcare to more people. Its goal is not to tax people, although one of the ways that it does try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own. > > There hasn't been anything to sign up for yet - and so, it's not surprising that no one has signed up yet. The sign up is still months away. Yet you think that people have been failing to sign up..... hmmmm. They can't have signed up yet, yet you think that we can come to some conclusion about them not signing up yet? Really? > > A young person, unless they are the 'inventor' of Facebook or someone similar, can't save enough in a 401 to take care of the costs of a serious illness, much less a catastrophic illness. Yeah, most young people won't face those bankrupting costs, so for them, health care insurance isn't the wisest way for them to invest their money. But no insurance is a good "investment", unless the thing you're investing is in piece of mind. So it's not about how they could have saved more had they put that money into a 401K account. It's about how we, as a nation, can afford to provide care to people who are uninsured due to no bad choices on their part. It's about providing care to young adults who haven't yet gotten a job that provides health care. It's about finding affordable care for people who have a pre-existing condition. It's about finding healthcare options for those who have hit lifetime maximums. It helps seniors who were stuck in the donut hole. It extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by quite a few years. And it's about helping those who work for a living but don't have an employer who can/will provide them with an employer-funded healthcare option. > > With Obamacare, there are multiple cost-savings measures built into the bill, and there are also some additional taxes - and those two things combined end up cutting our long term debt while funding a greatly expanded healthcare offering for millons of Americans. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: GM <mandaringoby@> > To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:07 pm > Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > > > Sue, > > Are you a cotmmunist? Business and technology advances are about delivering efficiencies in this case health care. Choice and market efficiencies should help lower costs while ensuring as many people can get the help they need. ACA is nothing more than a tax and power grab. The Obama administration will spend the rest of the summer and at least east 15 million trying to get kids to sign up because his 20 something constituency is not signing up for the ACA to help defer the cost that those are incurring by aging patients. Its stupid to pay more when that money can be grown > in a 401k which I thought what this group was about. > > ---------------------------- > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:18 PM EDT Sue Runyon wrote: > > > > >Yet again, you show us that you don't actually know what you're talking about, Sam. > > > >But yeah, there WILL BE some increased costs because young people get to tag on to their parents' coverage for a few more years. We WILL be providing coverage to people who previously lost it due to lifetime caps. There'll be people who were uninsurable at any reasonable cost because of pre-existing conditions who can now get coverage, and that will be a cost too. > > > >But we're also pulling in many people who chose to not have coverage who'll now be forced to get coverage or pay a penalty, and bringing more healthy people into the system will help cover those increased costs for the people listed above. So yeah, those who haven't had insurance in the past who are forced to pay for it now will either be ABLE to afford it and will have to pay for it, or will be poor enough that they'll get subsidies to help pay for that coverage! ONLY those people who were already rich enough to have coverage will pay for the full cost of that coverage. Only those who were being selfish beforehand, hoping that they wouldn't get sick, and figuring that the rest of us suckers would pay for them if they DID get sick, will have to carry the burden they should have been carrying all along! > > > >And we're going to see the wealthier among us have to pay a little more - again, people who CAN afford to pay more WILL pay more - that's a system that the American public strongly supports! > > > >There's no "scam" being presented by anyone on the left - the scams come directly from the right side of the political aisle nowadays. One of the scams is that Obamacare is some kind of leftist wet dream, when the FACTS are that almost ALL of the features of Obamacare are things that Republicans either thought up or supported in the past. > > > >The CBS poll didn't show that MOST people don't support it. What it showed is that more people than before don't support it - and that's a direct reflection of the MILLIONS of dollars in negative advertising that the rightwing has done. It is NOT a reflection of people actually rejecting what's IN Obamacare. > > > >What you alleged is that it was a demonstration that what's in the bill isn't supported - and a poll that demonstrates that people don't know what's in the bill due to misinformation from those on the right doesn't, in fact, demonstrate that the stuff that's in the bill isn't supported. > > > >As I already explained, if you have more than 50 workers, whether that's 50 actual workers, or more than that with part time equivalents, you're under the employer mandate. It doesn't do them any good to hire twice as many part time workers! Yet you STILL THINK it does, despite the fact that the FACT disprove what you believe. > > > >It's YOU who has demonstrated, repeatedly, that you've drunk the Kool Aid. > > > >Keep digging that hole you're already in! Please, keep it up. > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Sam Cay <ceome60@> > >To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com> > >Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 6:18 am > >Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > > > > > > > > > > > > > >It appears you have bought into the scam being presented by the obamaites. If you read the bill you will see there are still a lot of undefined portions of the bill. It seems these get filled in during the middle of the night. The few cherry picked items like the coverage up to 26 seemed to be a hit to some but it also raised the cost to cover this. You also seem to believe that the 2 sources you select are above reproach with their data. Unless you cross check their info is questionable also. To most of us who are retired and stuck with medicare we have a supplemental IBM plan and won't be affected by the ACA. Maybe IBM will drop our plans in the future but until then we'll watch from the outside. We recently just went through the math in our town to reduce it's budget. Part of the strategy was to cut most of the town employees hours to now call them part time. We will be dropping their insurance so they will now shop the exchanges. They did not get an > increase to pay for the plans and they will most likely get a second job to supplement their income. A similar approach was taken by the owner of 2 local restaurants . The actual results of this bill will be in who pays what and how much. Also anybody who has never had insurance will see a 100% increase in their cost.All data today is speculation so wait until the real numbers come in. I wish luck to all who have to fish for insurance. This country has a lot of ignorant people who won't know what they are doing when signing up for the ACA. > > > >--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@> wrote: > >> > >> No, it shows the disinformation and fear campaign against it is working.脙茠芒鈧��� Plus if you actually ask people about specific things that are in the ACA they do like it and want it.脙茠芒鈧��� Personally I would rather have a single payer plan.脙茠芒鈧��� When you add the liberals who would rather have a single payer plan to the conservatives who don't like changing the current healthcare system, you get a larger per cent.脙茠芒鈧��� This is what happens when you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes it.脙茠芒鈧��� It has a lot of good things in it though:脙茠芒鈧��� you can get coverage with pre-existing conditions, no more ceiling limits, kids can stay on parents plan till 26, more people will have coverage, helps people who can't afford it to get insurance,脙茠芒鈧��� will reduce uncovered people getting expensive care in emergency room脙茠芒鈧��� which脙茠芒鈧��� in the past has脙茠芒鈧��� increased everyone else's costs.脙茠芒鈧��� I don't think it is perfect, but it is a good start and changes can be made in > the future if > >> needed to tweak it.脙茠芒鈧��� > >> > >> > >> From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@> > >> To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com > >> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:34 PM > >> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > >> > >> 脙茠芒鈧��� > >> The CBS poll is not a FOX poll - precisely the reason I cited it first. You cannot dispute the fact that the most recent opinion polls clearly demonstrate that most Americans do not want ACA. The more they understand ACA and the more they realize that Obama has hoodwinked them once again, the more they wish it would be repealed. > >> > >> Your supposed facts are the same talking points that the smooth talking Obama used to hoodwink so many Americans, including the press, in the first place. He repeated them over and over again, just like you are doing, until a critical mass began to believe him. If you hear it often enough, it must be true. Right? But now many Americans are beginning to wake up. > >> > >> As your post clearly indicates, you think that talking points, repeated as nauseum, are facts. And, you think that browbeating is debating. These are the same tactics that Obama, the finger pointer in chief, uses. But they're no longer working on the majority of Americans, as the polls indicate, and those same tactics will not work on this board. Most participants here are just too intelligent to be hoodwinked by you. > >> > >> --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts. > >> > > >> > Of course it doesn't, and IF I'd been doing that, you'd have a point. But I haven't been doing that - and so, yet again, you don't have a point! > >> > > >> > On the other hand, claiming that a fact is a fact and not an opinion, as YOU'VE tried to claim - that facts we're presenting to you are simply opinions, or the other claim you've made, that there are alternative facts dependent upon one's beliefs - now THAT'S a boguw way to behave. > >> > > >> > The problematic behavior has been all yours. All yours. You own it, and I've pointed it out, repeatedly, and I understand that you don't like that. Too bad, so sad. > >> > > >> > And YET AGAIN you strip stuff of its context when you assert that I was saying that the vast majority of Americans want ACA. I didn't. You're either being dishonest or showing a stunning lack of reading comprehension yet again. > >> > > >> > The vast majority of Americans want what we got in ACA OR MORE! And when Americans are polled on the individual aspects of the program, they like them too. > >> > > >> > Now, because of the disinformatiion campaign from the right side of the political aisle, it doesn't have the amount of support it would have if people had the actual facts at hand. In addition, if there wasn't the factor of people hating anything that Obama and Demcrats did, it'd have even MORE support. As I've explained, repeatedly, the lack of Republican VOTES for this isn't equivalent to the lack of support from Republicans for the things included in the ACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >> > > >> > Geesh, you're easy to debunk. > >> > > >> > And then you think it's legitimate to cite a Fox News poll? REALLY? And after the disinformation campaign from the rightwing, I'm not surprised at all that many Americans mistakenly think that ACA will cost them. > >> > > >> > THE FACT IS THAT IT WON'T. Again, this is a fact. ACA will only adversely financially impact the wealthier among us - and, not strangely enough, this is EXACTLY what I've typed about 6 times in this back and forth!!! > >> > > >> > Geez - make it harder next time for me to use your own words to make you look foolish. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: zimowski <zimowski@> > >> > To: ibmpensionissues <?"mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com%3E?;;; > >> > Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:42 am > >> > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts. > >> > > >> > Let's look at one example. You state: " And yeah, I get that you're selfish. But our nation, as a whole, isn't, and as we're a representative democracy, what the majority of Americans want is what we hopefully, as a nation, provide to our citizens. And the vast majority of Americans favor this. You don't. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." > >> > > >> > Now, let's focus on your assertion "The vast majority of Americans favor this.", which you assert as if it is a fact. It's not. Here are some facts for you to think about: > >> > > >> > CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want Obamacare repealed > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Note that these poll results were posted on the web on July 24, 2013 at 10:10AM. > >> > > >> > (CBS News) A new CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want the Affordable Care Act repealed. > >> > > >> > According to the poll, 36 percent of Americans want Congress to expand or keep the health care law while 39 percent want Congress to repeal it - the highest percentage seen in CBS News polls. The poll also found a majority of Americans - 54 percent - disapprove of the health care law, 36 percent of Americans approve of it and 10 percent said they don't know about it. > >> > > >> > The health care law is a chronic issue for the White House, CBS News political director John Dickerson said on "CBS This Morning." "There's an operational part to this, which is that the White House has got to get people to sign up for these health exchanges, particularly younger, healthier Americans, and so they are tactically running a campaign much like the presidential campaign, reaching out, using the techniques of that campaign to get younger people to sign up for these health exchanges." > >> > > >> > The poll also found just 13 percent of Americans say the health care law will personally "help me" while 38 percent said they believe the law will personally "hurt me." > >> > > >> > And then, there's the Fox News Poll: > >> > > >> > Voters say repeal ObamaCare, expect new law will cost them > >> > > >> > Read more: > >> > > >> > Note that this article was posted on the web on July 25, 2013. > >> > > >> > Voters think ObamaCare is going to hurt their wallet and over half want the law repealed, according to a new Fox News national poll. > >> > > >> > By a large 47-11 percent margin, voters expect the 2010 health care law will cost them rather than save them money in the coming year. Another 34 percent think the law won't change their family's health care costs. > >> > > >> > Those negative expectations come at a time when a majority of the public remains unhappy with the way thing are going in the country (63 percent dissatisfied), and over half say they haven't seen any signs the economy has started to turn the corner (57 percent). > >> > > >> > Republicans are three times as likely as Democrats to think ObamaCare will cost them money over the next year (70 percent vs. 23 percent). One Democrat in five expects the law will result in savings for their family (21 percent). > >> > > >> > The poll asks people to take an up-or-down vote on ObamaCare: 40 percent say they would vote to keep the law in place, while just over half -- 53 percent -- would repeal it. > >> > > >> > Over half of those under age 45 (51 percent) as well as those 45 and over (56 percent) would vote to repeal ObamaCare. > >> > > >> > Most Republicans want the law repealed (by 85-13 percent) and so do independents (by 65-25 percent). Most Democrats favor keeping ObamaCare (by 72-21 percent). > >> > > >> > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Do you REALLY think that you can argue that I provided TOO MANY FACTS to refute your argument - that attacking the length of my post is a valid debate tactic? Really? I didn't "ramble" at all. But thanks for showing everyone that when you can't refute a thing I've written, you'll resort to making a baseless personal attack - thanks for outing yourself as an insincere, insulting debater much better than I could have done myself. > >> > > > >> > > Again, there's not "my" facts and "your" facts. > >> > > > >> > > There are "FACTS". They don't change based upon who is referencing them. I am baffled as to why you would think that they do! And I'm baffled about what "facts" you think you've provided. All YOU provided below was your belief that there is a large percentage of people who'll be getting insurance on your dime who were simply unwilling to get coverage before - people who could have gotten coverage, but just were too lazy/shiftless/etc to do so. > >> > > > >> > > But that's not true. > >> > > > >> > > 1. Obamacare stops women from paying higher rates simply because of their gender. That's not something that WOMEN who will be receiving that benefit can be faulted for. I assume you won't deny THAT fact - that it's not that they were unwilling to change their gender to get lower insurance rates, right? > >> > > > >> > > 2. Obamacare removes the donut hole - something that no senior had any control over - so, yet another thing that can't be laid at the feet of lazy people unwilling to pay for their own care. > >> > > > >> > > 3. A large percentage of Americans have pre-existing conditions that could have denied them affordable healthcare coverage. It wasn't a matter of will with that added benefit either - those people had a medical condition; it wasn't a choice for them to have diabetes or cancer or anything else. > >> > > > >> > > 4. 50 million Americans will now have access to preventative care that they didn't get previously. How is that related to them being lazy? Here's a clue - it's not. > >> > > > >> > > 5. Obamacare helps bend the cost curve - saving all of us money in the long run. The nonpartisan CBO has documented that many times. Facts - they're wonderful things - too bad for you it seems like you only like facts when they support your opinion, and you dislike them when they don't support the conclusions you've leapt to. Too bad, so sad. > >> > > > >> > > 6. Outrageous medical expenses has made millions of people have to file for bankruptcy. Almost none of those people went into their lives hoping to file for bankruptcy, and the vast majority of them would have rather not had to do that. Obamacare will stop that from happening so often. > >> > > > >> > > 7. Young, healthy Americans will pay more as compared to what they were having to spend prior to Obamacare. Most of the rest of us will pay less. Again, I understand that THIS FACT is inconvenient to your false meme, but that inconvenience doesn't mean that you get to state things that are contrary to the known facts! > >> > > > >> > > 8. Families making up to 400% of the poverty level won't be paying more for insurance - they'll be paying less. Only those well-able to afford it will have to pay more. > >> > > > >> > > So, it's on YOUR SHOULDERS now to provide US with evidence that there are significant numbers of people who, right now, will be getting coverage that they could have afforded on their own - but they chose not to - but you'll be paying for that care. > >> > > > >> > > Remember, the healthy young people who avoided getting insurance are the ones who are going to be paying more. They aren't getting the coverage for free, unless they're poor - and if they're poor, then they didn't previously go without insurance BY CHOICE - which is what your allegation was - that they were simply unwilling to purchase coverage on their own. > >> > > > >> > > Oh, and by the way, if you are so destitute that helping to pay for other's healthcare will take food out of your family's mouth, it WILL NOT take food out of their mouths - the least among us will NOT be helping subsidize the health care expenses of those who aren't covered nowadays. ONLY those who can afford it will have to help subsidize that care. In fact, if you're really on the edge, where providing food to your family is at risk, or even close to that edge, you'll end up paying LESS for your care, overall, then you used to pay! It will HELP YOU OUT - so if your concern were really that "food will be taken from your family's mouth", you should be aware that THE FACT IS that this will not happen!!! > >> > > > >> > > You don't have "facts" that are correct. You have opinions that aren't backed up with the facts, and in a kneejerk reaction, you lashed out at me for no good reason. > >> > > > >> > > And yeah, I get that you're selfish. But our nation, as a whole, isn't, and as we're a representative democracy, what the majority of Americans want is what we hopefully, as a nation, provide to our citizens. And the vast majority of Americans favor this. You don't. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And there are no facts that support your assertion that there's a vast army of people who could get affordable health care if they just weren't so damned lazy. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Sam Cay <ceome60@> > >> > > To: ibmpensionissues <?"mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com%3E?;;; > >> > > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 2:49 pm > >> > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > OK no problem , you believe your facts and I'll believe mine. I know mine are correct but not sure of yours. I'd rather choose who/what I give my money to but unfortunately the crooks in government don't let me do that. I'll leave the charity giving to people like you. You must not be on twitter based on the length of your post. Sorry I made you ramble. > >> > > > >> > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you get from them is truly a fact. > >> > > > > >> > > > Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however. > >> > > > > >> > > > And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting the healthcare they've needed all along. > >> > > > > >> > > > In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country. > >> > > > > >> > > > That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a good idea. > >> > > > > >> > > > I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured through an active choice they've made are those who are young and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare coverage but hasn't been able to get it. > >> > > > > >> > > > I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's everyone's to share. > >> > > > > >> > > > And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > From: Sam Cay <ceome60@> > >> > > > To: ibmpensionissues <?"mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com%3E?;;; > >> > > > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am > >> > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > I guess this makes the assumption that your source of data is correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you believe but what data you want to believe. I am concerned when the cost of any government program reaches in my pocket to pay for others who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word subsidy comes into a program this is my trigger for taking food out of my families mouth. So does your data tell us that we will or will not be paying for someone unwilling to make their life better. > >> > > > > >> > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, Sue Runyon <Slouise217@> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different from another person, but we all share the same database of factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to differing opinions. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support with factual information. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA treats part-time employees as 脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙鈥毭偮�脙茠��'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���"fulltime equivalents脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙鈥毭偮�脙茠��'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝' by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd > be > >> detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers total who might opt for coverage. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > > From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@> > >> > > > > To: ibmpensionissues <?"mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com%3E?;;; > >> > > > > Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm > >> > > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK, but revealing sinmple facts is denigrating. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, "Kevin W" <nowwicked@> wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Rick I have to agree with zimowski you b definitely not cool. Your typical mode of operation here is to denigrate or insult those who don't agree with your point of view. > >> > > > > > I've watched you call people ignorant, uneducated, biased, prejudice all because they believe something different than you. > >> > > > > > If I was a practicing conservative I'd call it "typical liberal methodology" where they all believe they are superior to everyone else and have "THE" right answer. If you don't believe me, simply ask one, they will tell you. > >> > > > > > As far as the ACA, it is a good idea but a bad piece of legislation. It was not thought out and the consequences ignored. > >> > > > > > For the past several years companies have been accelerating the removal of full time job positions and replacing them with part time, under 29-32 hours to avoid the medical mandate. Go to any retail establishment, since you seem to favor all things NY, drop by Macy's, talk to any sales person over the age of 40 who has a history long enough to know what is going on. Their hours are cut, not due to economy but due to planning for benefits cuts and avoidance of the ACA. > >> > > > > > Our current administration does nothing but blame the previous one for its woes, no responsibility just finger pointing, but try to play that game with the prior one for the one before it and you get screams of foul play. Obviously what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander. > >> > > > > > If congress and the administration wanted the people to follow them,they would have ensured they took up such coverage as their only means of medical care before imposing it on the people. Using the excuse that it has always been done, doesn't hold water. Wasn't this administration supposed to be different? Supposed to work "for the people". Yeah, I know, those damned evil republicans in congress won't let our poor president and the democrats get anything done. Again nothing more than lack of taking responsibility. Like the outcome or not, at least the prior president took responsibility. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, "Rick b Cool" <rickb_cool@> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > An interesting conclusion. Solely based on complete circular reasoning, obviously starting with the conclusion. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly because of industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give big corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from regulations. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com?, "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > "The real issue on this forum is getting back on topic." Really? Unlike the ibmpension group, the moderators of this group do not censor participant appends. It seems that your style for participation is to criticize others that you don't agree with politically and then to suggest that anybody who responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think it's now becoming quite clear that ACA is complicated, poorly understood, difficult to implement, and that it will be more expensive for most Americans, providing affordable care only to those who could not previously obtain/afford health care coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added stain that will be placed on the entire health care system. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

If you really want to helpful to the rest of us post something simple and concise that informs us of something specific that might impact us IBM retirees. Or ask the group to collectively help with a specific issue relating to IBM pensions. I have been overwhelmed by the recent posting from some you regarding the Affordable Care Act.

I would like to challenge you members who have been posting to stop using:
- Labels such as Republicans versus Democrats
- Name calling
->conservatives, right wing
->liberals, socialists, communists, Obamacare, etc...
->racist
- Using slang
->recent example of this is someone used "his lettuce" which I think is referring to his saved assets or retirement income
- Using rumors or unproven generalizations about the US government's intentions with regard to laws that have been passed

Using the above mentioned in your posts forces us all to take one side or the other with no aid in helping an IBM retiree better understand or deal with a pension issue.

A political party described as a Communist party includes those that advocate the application of the social and economic principles of communism through state policy. The name originates from the 1848 tract Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.[1] According to Leninist theory, a Communist party is the vanguard party of the working class (Proletariat), whether ruling or non-ruling, but when such a party is in power in a specific country, the party is said to be the highest authority of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Vladimir Lenin's theories on the role of a Communist party were developed as the early 20th-century Russian social democracy divided into Bolshevik (meaning "major") and Menshevik (meaning "minority") factions. Lenin, leader of the Bolsheviks, argued that a revolutionary party should be a small vanguard party with a centralized political command and a strict cadre policy; the Menshevik faction, however, argued that the party should be a broad-based mass movement. The Bolshevik party, which eventually became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, took power in Russia after the October Revolution in 1917. With the creation of the Communist International, the Leninist concept of party building was copied by emerging Communist parties worldwide.

The Chinese Communist Party is the world's largest political party,[2] claiming nearly 78 million members[3] at the end of 2009 which constitutes about 5.6% of the total population of mainland China.

Communist parties are illegal in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Indonesia, Romania, South Korea and Turkey.[4][5]


Table of Contents
1 Mass organizations
2 Naming
3 See also
4 Notes
Mass organizations
See also: Front organization and Communist front
As the membership of a Communist party was to be limited to active cadres in Lenin's theory, there was a need for networks of separate organizations to mobilize mass support for the party. Typically, Communist parties have built up various front organizations whose membership is often open to non-Communists. In many countries the single most important front organization of the Communist parties has been its youth wing. During the time of the Communist International, the youth leagues were explicit Communist organizations, using the name 'Young Communist League'. Later the youth league concept was broadened in many countries, and names like 'Democratic Youth League' were adopted.

Some trade unions, student, women's, peasant's and cultural organizations have been connected to Communist parties. Traditionally, these mass organizations were often politically subordinated to the political leadership of the party. However, in many contemporary cases mass organizations founded by communists have acquired a certain degree of independence. In some cases mass organizations have outlived the Communist parties in question.

At the international level, the Communist International organized various international front organizations (linking national mass organizations with each other), such as the Young Communist International, Profintern, Krestintern, International Red Aid, Sportintern, etc.. These organizations were dissolved in the process of deconstruction of the Communist International. After the Second World War new international coordination bodies were created, such as the World Federation of Democratic Youth, International Union of Students, World Federation of Trade Unions, Women's International Democratic Federation and the World Peace Council.

Historically, in countries where Communist Parties were struggling to attain state power, the formation of wartime alliances with non-Communist parties and wartime groups was enacted (such as the National Liberation Front of Albania). Upon attaining state power these Fronts were often transformed into nominal (and usually electoral) "National" or "Fatherland" Fronts in which non-communist parties and organizations were given token representation (a practice known as Blockpartei), the most popular examples of these being the National Front of East Germany (as a historical example) and the United Front of the People's Republic of China (as a modern-day example). Other times the formation of such Fronts were undertaken without the participation of other parties, such as the Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia and the National Front of Afghanistan, though the purpose was the same: to promote the Communist Party line to generally non-communist audiences and to mobilize them to carry out tasks within the country under the aegis of the Front.

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" <rickb_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" <ceome60@> 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 <Slouise217@> wrote:

Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you get from them is truly a fact.

Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however.

And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting the healthcare they've needed all along.

In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country.

That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a good idea.

I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured through an active choice they've made are those who are young and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare coverage but hasn't been able to get it.

I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's everyone's to share.

And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <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 <Slouise217@> wrote:

Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different from another person, but we all share the same database of factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to differing opinions.

Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support with factual information.

One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA treats part-time employees as 脙垄脗鈧�脗艙fulltime equivalents脙垄脗鈧�脗锟� by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd be detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers total who might opt for coverage.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






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

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

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


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" <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.

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

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

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

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

That's not Obama's fault.

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

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



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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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" <ceome60@> 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 <Slouise217@> wrote:

Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you get from them is truly a fact.

Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however.

And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting the healthcare they've needed all along.

In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country.

That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a good idea.

I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured through an active choice they've made are those who are young and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare coverage but hasn't been able to get it.

I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's everyone's to share.

And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <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 <Slouise217@> wrote:

Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different from another person, but we all share the same database of factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to differing opinions.

Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support with factual information.

One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA treats part-time employees as 脙垄脗鈧�脗艙fulltime equivalents脙垄脗鈧�脗锟� by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd be detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers total who might opt for coverage.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






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

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

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


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" <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.

Don't worry. The word communist is thrown around by those who neither know what the word means nor have any real desire to communicate honestly.

When a person uses the word communist as it was used they most often mean Stalinist. They are falsely trying to imply that you are an unprincipled, violent autocrat. The same with their use of the word socialist, liberal, or progressive. All intentional pejorative distortions to propagate a terminating intimidating lie.

The fact that many communists hated Stalin and his violent autocracy means nothing to such ignorant liars. Nor does the fact that most socialists did not want to associate with either Stalinists or communists.

It's all about the ignorant dishonest intimidation of those they disagree with and a desire to terminate the conversation without having to support their ignorant views.

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

No, I'm not a communist. I'm representative of the American public, in general - the same public that agreed with the TVA - the only way many rural Americans got affordable electricity, because of subsidies from wealthier Americans. The same public that overwhelmingly supports local fire departments, and good roads, and public schools and parks and libraries, etc, etc. The same public that supports Social Security and Medicare.

We're a nation that's a mixture of socialism and captalism. If you had a clue about what you were talking about, you'd know that it's socialism, not communism.

If you don't like living in a nation that's a strong mixture of socialism and captalism, then you should move elsewhere, because the vast majority of Americans are very happy with that mix - in fact, most of them would prefer that we have more socialism and less laissez faire capitalism - the stuff that's made banks and hedge fund managers so rich and left most of the rest of us off the gravy train.

You're the outlier here, not me.

Anecdotal info about how in a FEW cases, it's better to travel to another country for health care isn't evidence that everything about the care in the other nation is perfect for every resident of that country. Yet you seem to be under the delusion that it is. Yes, in a very few cases, Canadians DO travel to the USA for health care, but for the most part, they are quite happy with their heathcare system, and they don't have millions of people left out in the cold without coverages like we have here in the USA. If people in the USA who have an issue with our healthcare system could resolve those issues by travelling to another nation, we'd have a lot more people going to Canada than we have Canadians coming here.

Yet you think that your argument is a winning one. I'm not surprised.

So, now to your totally disingenuous arguments below.

1. There is an issue that some unions with healthcare plans that are called "non-profit" are having. They don't want an exemption from Obamacare. They don't want to be denied participation in the healthcare exchanges, and right now that's what might happen. You might want to read the link that includes the whole text of their letter to the Obama Administration, instead of the cherry-picked version your rightwing blog link chose to go with. They say they still support the effort - just that it needs to be tweaked.

2. The second link is simply another recapping of the same issue, and again, unions like the bill - they just feel like they're being disadvantaged by one part of the bill, and they want it fixed. They don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

3. And, not surprisingly, the 3rd link is about the same exact topic - did you really not understand that it's not 3 separate issues?

4 & 5. Same thing, 4th and 5th verse. Really?

6. Finally, a second topic, but townhall.com - really? REALLY? We DO need young people who've been forgoing coverage to sign up. That's not a new issue. And acting as though advertising that need is a sign of desperation is ludicrous - but exactly what I'd expect from you.

7. And a FoxBusiness poll? A cable network that has virtually no audience? Really? If people hadn't been so misinformed by those on the right, they wouldn't be so reluctant to sign up. It's not because Obamacare is a bad plan. It's the best we could get because the Dems were trying to be conciliatory towards the Republicans - that's why it's so much like what Republicans for the past 2 decades have said that they wanted, because the Democrats were hoping that the Republicans could and would act in a bipartisan fashion if the Democrats did too.

Try harder next time - this was way too easy.




-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 10:43 pm
Subject: Fw: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare







I apologize for my misspellings. My android phone auto corrected.

Now back to Sue. You are a Liberal Communist, correct?

I am guessing that from your quote: " try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own. " My response is: "Hell no!! You cannot have my Lettuce to put on your
hamburger when you have high cholesterol". Socialized medicine is a failure. Do you know or have you head of any one that needs heart surgery leaving the U.S. to go to Canada or an MRI for that matter? I do not. However, there many Canadians that travel to the U.S. to get urgent life saving care and that MRI so they do not die waiting.

These articles listed below go against your idea Obama care and its policy management is going to get more
medicine to the unwashed Masses.

1. IRS wants exemption from O'Bama care. I guess they do not want to personally help those with needs.



2. Huffington Post reports: Oops, Union medical plans could get scuttled by ACA cost and fees.



3. Forbes, Hoffa writes to Reid and Palozzi, that middle class could be shattered by ACA.



4. The Hill: Food workers union 1.3 Million strong not happy about the impact to healthcare plan by ACA.


5. Legislators and staff want ACA exemption.



6. From Town Hill, a little CNN action on the 2.7 million needed to sign up might take the fine instead.



7. Fox Business Poll: Young People to Skip Coverage, Opt for Penalty Tax Instead



Back to taxing the wealthier for healthcare. Sue, why not go to a window at the Federal reserve and give them more
of your money to help offset any government expenses? After all, Karl Marx did say: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs:.






----- Forwarded Message -----
From: teamb562 <teamb562@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:32 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare





I'm sorry but the intension of this forum is not to discuss the ibm pension, that is discussed on Yahoo board ibmpension. This forum was established to bitch about and discuss problems and issues with the ibmpension board, that's it.

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

This forum IS supposed to be about IBM pension issues. Please, the next time someone else brings up an issue that is outside of the group's subject matter, feel free to immediately interject and tell them that they're off topic. But if someone doesn't do that, then it's unfair to get upset and/or criticize the people who reply to their off topic postings. People replying to an off topic subject aren't responsible for it being brought up, and shouldn't be chastised for replying - yet I was.

Any time a new initiative gets pushed by the party in power, it gets airtime to try to educate people about the good things about the initiative. This is not a new thing - it's not like Obama invented propaganda, after all. Obamacare is about getting more and better healthcare to more people. Its goal is not to tax people, although one of the ways that it does try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own.

There hasn't been anything to sign up for yet - and so, it's not surprising that no one has signed up yet. The sign up is still months away. Yet you think that people have been failing to sign up..... hmmmm. They can't have signed up yet, yet you think that we can come to some conclusion about them not signing up yet? Really?

A young person, unless they are the 'inventor' of Facebook or someone similar, can't save enough in a 401 to take care of the costs of a serious illness, much less a catastrophic illness. Yeah, most young people won't face those bankrupting costs, so for them, health care insurance isn't the wisest way for them to invest their money. But no insurance is a good "investment", unless the thing you're investing is in piece of mind. So it's not about how they could have saved more had they put that money into a 401K account. It's about how we, as a nation, can afford to provide care to people who are uninsured due to no bad choices on their part. It's about providing care to young adults who haven't yet gotten a job that provides health care. It's about finding affordable care for people who have a pre-existing condition. It's about finding healthcare options for those who have hit lifetime maximums. It helps seniors who were stuck in the donut hole. It extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by quite a few years. And it's about helping those who work for a living but don't have an employer who can/will provide them with an employer-funded healthcare option.

With Obamacare, there are multiple cost-savings measures built into the bill, and there are also some additional taxes - and those two things combined end up cutting our long term debt while funding a greatly expanded healthcare offering for millons of Americans.


-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:07 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare








Sue,

Are you a cotmmunist? Business and technology advances are about delivering efficiencies in this case health care. Choice and market efficiencies should help lower costs while ensuring as many people can get the help they need. ACA is nothing more than a tax and power grab. The Obama administration will spend the rest of the summer and at least east 15 million trying to get kids to sign up because his 20 something constituency is not signing up for the ACA to help defer the cost that those are incurring by aging patients. Its stupid to pay more when that money can be grown
in a 401k which I thought what this group was about.

----------------------------
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:18 PM EDT Sue Runyon wrote:

Yet again, you show us that you don't actually know what you're talking about, Sam.

But yeah, there WILL BE some increased costs because young people get to tag on to their parents' coverage for a few more years. We WILL be providing coverage to people who previously lost it due to lifetime caps. There'll be people who were uninsurable at any reasonable cost because of pre-existing conditions who can now get coverage, and that will be a cost too.

But we're also pulling in many people who chose to not have coverage who'll now be forced to get coverage or pay a penalty, and bringing more healthy people into the system will help cover those increased costs for the people listed above. So yeah, those who haven't had insurance in the past who are forced to pay for it now will either be ABLE to afford it and will have to pay for it, or will be poor enough that they'll get subsidies to help pay for that coverage! ONLY those people who were already rich enough to have coverage will pay for the full cost of that coverage. Only those who were being selfish beforehand, hoping that they wouldn't get sick, and figuring that the rest of us suckers would pay for them if they DID get sick, will have to carry the burden they should have been carrying all along!

And we're going to see the wealthier among us have to pay a little more - again, people who CAN afford to pay more WILL pay more - that's a system that the American public strongly supports!

There's no "scam" being presented by anyone on the left - the scams come directly from the right side of the political aisle nowadays. One of the scams is that Obamacare is some kind of leftist wet dream, when the FACTS are that almost ALL of the features of Obamacare are things that Republicans either thought up or supported in the past.

The CBS poll didn't show that MOST people don't support it. What it showed is that more people than before don't support it - and that's a direct reflection of the MILLIONS of dollars in negative advertising that the rightwing has done. It is NOT a reflection of people actually rejecting what's IN Obamacare.

What you alleged is that it was a demonstration that what's in the bill isn't supported - and a poll that demonstrates that people don't know what's in the bill due to misinformation from those on the right doesn't, in fact, demonstrate that the stuff that's in the bill isn't supported.

As I already explained, if you have more than 50 workers, whether that's 50 actual workers, or more than that with part time equivalents, you're under the employer mandate. It doesn't do them any good to hire twice as many part time workers! Yet you STILL THINK it does, despite the fact that the FACT disprove what you believe.

It's YOU who has demonstrated, repeatedly, that you've drunk the Kool Aid.

Keep digging that hole you're already in! Please, keep it up.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 6:18 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






It appears you have bought into the scam being presented by the obamaites. If you read the bill you will see there are still a lot of undefined portions of the bill. It seems these get filled in during the middle of the night. The few cherry picked items like the coverage up to 26 seemed to be a hit to some but it also raised the cost to cover this. You also seem to believe that the 2 sources you select are above reproach with their data. Unless you cross check their info is questionable also. To most of us who are retired and stuck with medicare we have a supplemental IBM plan and won't be affected by the ACA. Maybe IBM will drop our plans in the future but until then we'll watch from the outside. We recently just went through the math in our town to reduce it's budget. Part of the strategy was to cut most of the town employees hours to now call them part time. We will be dropping their insurance so they will now shop the exchanges. They did not get an

increase to pay for the plans and they will most likely get a second job to supplement their income. A similar approach was taken by the owner of 2 local restaurants . The actual results of this bill will be in who pays what and how much. Also anybody who has never had insurance will see a 100% increase in their cost.All data today is speculation so wait until the real numbers come in. I wish luck to all who have to fish for insurance. This country has a lot of ignorant people who won't know what they are doing when signing up for the ACA.

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

No, it shows the disinformation and fear campaign against it is working.脙茠芒鈧��� Plus if you actually ask people about specific things that are in the ACA they do like it and want it.脙茠芒鈧��� Personally I would rather have a single payer plan.脙茠芒鈧��� When you add the liberals who would rather have a single payer plan to the conservatives who don't like changing the current healthcare system, you get a larger per cent.脙茠芒鈧��� This is what happens when you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes it.脙茠芒鈧��� It has a lot of good things in it though:脙茠芒鈧��� you can get coverage with pre-existing conditions, no more ceiling limits, kids can stay on parents plan till 26, more people will have coverage, helps people who can't afford it to get insurance,脙茠芒鈧��� will reduce uncovered people getting expensive care in emergency room脙茠芒鈧��� which脙茠芒鈧��� in the past has脙茠芒鈧��� increased everyone else's costs.脙茠芒鈧��� I don't think it is perfect, but it is a good start and changes can be made in

the future if

needed to tweak it.脙茠芒鈧���


From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

脙茠芒鈧���
The CBS poll is not a FOX poll - precisely the reason I cited it first. You cannot dispute the fact that the most recent opinion polls clearly demonstrate that most Americans do not want ACA. The more they understand ACA and the more they realize that Obama has hoodwinked them once again, the more they wish it would be repealed.

Your supposed facts are the same talking points that the smooth talking Obama used to hoodwink so many Americans, including the press, in the first place. He repeated them over and over again, just like you are doing, until a critical mass began to believe him. If you hear it often enough, it must be true. Right? But now many Americans are beginning to wake up.

As your post clearly indicates, you think that talking points, repeated as nauseum, are facts. And, you think that browbeating is debating. These are the same tactics that Obama, the finger pointer in chief, uses. But they're no longer working on the majority of Americans, as the polls indicate, and those same tactics will not work on this board. Most participants here are just too intelligent to be hoodwinked by you.

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

-----Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts.

Of course it doesn't, and IF I'd been doing that, you'd have a point. But I haven't been doing that - and so, yet again, you don't have a point!

On the other hand, claiming that a fact is a fact and not an opinion, as YOU'VE tried to claim - that facts we're presenting to you are simply opinions, or the other claim you've made, that there are alternative facts dependent upon one's beliefs - now THAT'S a boguw way to behave.

The problematic behavior has been all yours. All yours. You own it, and I've pointed it out, repeatedly, and I understand that you don't like that. Too bad, so sad.

And YET AGAIN you strip stuff of its context when you assert that I was saying that the vast majority of Americans want ACA. I didn't. You're either being dishonest or showing a stunning lack of reading comprehension yet again.

The vast majority of Americans want what we got in ACA OR MORE! And when Americans are polled on the individual aspects of the program, they like them too.

Now, because of the disinformatiion campaign from the right side of the political aisle, it doesn't have the amount of support it would have if people had the actual facts at hand. In addition, if there wasn't the factor of people hating anything that Obama and Demcrats did, it'd have even MORE support. As I've explained, repeatedly, the lack of Republican VOTES for this isn't equivalent to the lack of support from Republicans for the things included in the ACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geesh, you're easy to debunk.

And then you think it's legitimate to cite a Fox News poll? REALLY? And after the disinformation campaign from the rightwing, I'm not surprised at all that many Americans mistakenly think that ACA will cost them.

THE FACT IS THAT IT WON'T. Again, this is a fact. ACA will only adversely financially impact the wealthier among us - and, not strangely enough, this is EXACTLY what I've typed about 6 times in this back and forth!!!

Geez - make it harder next time for me to use your own words to make you look foolish.




-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:42 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts.

Let's look at one example. You state: " And yeah, I get that you're selfish. But our nation, as a whole, isn't, and as we're a representative democracy, what the majority of Americans want is what we hopefully, as a nation, provide to our citizens. And the vast majority of Americans favor this. You don't. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

Now, let's focus on your assertion "The vast majority of Americans favor this.", which you assert as if it is a fact. It's not. Here are some facts for you to think about:

CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want Obamacare repealed



Note that these poll results were posted on the web on July 24, 2013 at 10:10AM.

(CBS News) A new CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want the Affordable Care Act repealed.

According to the poll, 36 percent of Americans want Congress to expand or keep the health care law while 39 percent want Congress to repeal it - the highest percentage seen in CBS News polls. The poll also found a majority of Americans - 54 percent - disapprove of the health care law, 36 percent of Americans approve of it and 10 percent said they don't know about it.

The health care law is a chronic issue for the White House, CBS News political director John Dickerson said on "CBS This Morning." "There's an operational part to this, which is that the White House has got to get people to sign up for these health exchanges, particularly younger, healthier Americans, and so they are tactically running a campaign much like the presidential campaign, reaching out, using the techniques of that campaign to get younger people to sign up for these health exchanges."

The poll also found just 13 percent of Americans say the health care law will personally "help me" while 38 percent said they believe the law will personally "hurt me."

And then, there's the Fox News Poll:

Voters say repeal ObamaCare, expect new law will cost them

Read more:

Note that this article was posted on the web on July 25, 2013.

Voters think ObamaCare is going to hurt their wallet and over half want the law repealed, according to a new Fox News national poll.

By a large 47-11 percent margin, voters expect the 2010 health care law will cost them rather than save them money in the coming year. Another 34 percent think the law won't change their family's health care costs.

Those negative expectations come at a time when a majority of the public remains unhappy with the way thing are going in the country (63 percent dissatisfied), and over half say they haven't seen any signs the economy has started to turn the corner (57 percent).

Republicans are three times as likely as Democrats to think ObamaCare will cost them money over the next year (70 percent vs. 23 percent). One Democrat in five expects the law will result in savings for their family (21 percent).

The poll asks people to take an up-or-down vote on ObamaCare: 40 percent say they would vote to keep the law in place, while just over half -- 53 percent -- would repeal it.

Over half of those under age 45 (51 percent) as well as those 45 and over (56 percent) would vote to repeal ObamaCare.

Most Republicans want the law repealed (by 85-13 percent) and so do independents (by 65-25 percent). Most Democrats favor keeping ObamaCare (by 72-21 percent).

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

Do you REALLY think that you can argue that I provided TOO MANY FACTS to refute your argument - that attacking the length of my post is a valid debate tactic? Really? I didn't "ramble" at all. But thanks for showing everyone that when you can't refute a thing I've written, you'll resort to making a baseless personal attack - thanks for outing yourself as an insincere, insulting debater much better than I could have done myself.

Again, there's not "my" facts and "your" facts.

There are "FACTS". They don't change based upon who is referencing them. I am baffled as to why you would think that they do! And I'm baffled about what "facts" you think you've provided. All YOU provided below was your belief that there is a large percentage of people who'll be getting insurance on your dime who were simply unwilling to get coverage before - people who could have gotten coverage, but just were too lazy/shiftless/etc to do so.

But that's not true.

1. Obamacare stops women from paying higher rates simply because of their gender. That's not something that WOMEN who will be receiving that benefit can be faulted for. I assume you won't deny THAT fact - that it's not that they were unwilling to change their gender to get lower insurance rates, right?

2. Obamacare removes the donut hole - something that no senior had any control over - so, yet another thing that can't be laid at the feet of lazy people unwilling to pay for their own care.

3. A large percentage of Americans have pre-existing conditions that could have denied them affordable healthcare coverage. It wasn't a matter of will with that added benefit either - those people had a medical condition; it wasn't a choice for them to have diabetes or cancer or anything else.

4. 50 million Americans will now have access to preventative care that they didn't get previously. How is that related to them being lazy? Here's a clue - it's not.

5. Obamacare helps bend the cost curve - saving all of us money in the long run. The nonpartisan CBO has documented that many times. Facts - they're wonderful things - too bad for you it seems like you only like facts when they support your opinion, and you dislike them when they don't support the conclusions you've leapt to. Too bad, so sad.

6. Outrageous medical expenses has made millions of people have to file for bankruptcy. Almost none of those people went into their lives hoping to file for bankruptcy, and the vast majority of them would have rather not had to do that. Obamacare will stop that from happening so often.

7. Young, healthy Americans will pay more as compared to what they were having to spend prior to Obamacare. Most of the rest of us will pay less. Again, I understand that THIS FACT is inconvenient to your false meme, but that inconvenience doesn't mean that you get to state things that are contrary to the known facts!

8. Families making up to 400% of the poverty level won't be paying more for insurance - they'll be paying less. Only those well-able to afford it will have to pay more.

So, it's on YOUR SHOULDERS now to provide US with evidence that there are significant numbers of people who, right now, will be getting coverage that they could have afforded on their own - but they chose not to - but you'll be paying for that care.

Remember, the healthy young people who avoided getting insurance are the ones who are going to be paying more. They aren't getting the coverage for free, unless they're poor - and if they're poor, then they didn't previously go without insurance BY CHOICE - which is what your allegation was - that they were simply unwilling to purchase coverage on their own.

Oh, and by the way, if you are so destitute that helping to pay for other's healthcare will take food out of your family's mouth, it WILL NOT take food out of their mouths - the least among us will NOT be helping subsidize the health care expenses of those who aren't covered nowadays. ONLY those who can afford it will have to help subsidize that care. In fact, if you're really on the edge, where providing food to your family is at risk, or even close to that edge, you'll end up paying LESS for your care, overall, then you used to pay! It will HELP YOU OUT - so if your concern were really that "food will be taken from your family's mouth", you should be aware that THE FACT IS that this will not happen!!!

You don't have "facts" that are correct. You have opinions that aren't backed up with the facts, and in a kneejerk reaction, you lashed out at me for no good reason.

And yeah, I get that you're selfish. But our nation, as a whole, isn't, and as we're a representative democracy, what the majority of Americans want is what we hopefully, as a nation, provide to our citizens. And the vast majority of Americans favor this. You don't. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And there are no facts that support your assertion that there's a vast army of people who could get affordable health care if they just weren't so damned lazy.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 2:49 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




OK no problem , you believe your facts and I'll believe mine. I know mine are correct but not sure of yours. I'd rather choose who/what I give my money to but unfortunately the crooks in government don't let me do that. I'll leave the charity giving to people like you. You must not be on twitter based on the length of your post. Sorry I made you ramble.

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

Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you get from them is truly a fact.

Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however.

And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting the healthcare they've needed all along.

In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country.

That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a good idea.

I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured through an active choice they've made are those who are young and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare coverage but hasn't been able to get it.

I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's everyone's to share.

And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




I guess this makes the assumption that your source of data is correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you believe but what data you want to believe. I am concerned when the cost of any government program reaches in my pocket to pay for others who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word subsidy comes into a program this is my trigger for taking food out of my families mouth. So does your data tell us that we will or will not be paying for someone unwilling to make their life better.

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

Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different from another person, but we all share the same database of factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to differing opinions.

Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support with factual information.

One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA treats part-time employees as 脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙鈥毭偮�脙茠��'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���"fulltime equivalents脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙鈥毭偮�脙茠��'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝' by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd

be

detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers total who might opt for coverage.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






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

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

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


--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "Rick b Cool" <rickb_cool@> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Don't worry. The word communist is thrown around by those who neither know what the word means nor have any real desire to communicate honestly.

When a person uses the word communist as it was used they most often mean Stalinist. They are falsely trying to imply that you are an unprincipled, violent autocrat. The same with their use of the word socialist, liberal, or progressive. All intentional pejorative distortions to propagate a terminating intimidating lie.

The fact that many communists hated Stalin and his violent autocracy means nothing to such ignorant liars. Nor does the fact that most socialists did not want to associate with either Stalinists or communists.

It's all about the ignorant dishonest intimidation of those they disagree with and a desire to terminate the conversation without having to support their ignorant views.

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

No, I'm not a communist. I'm representative of the American public, in general - the same public that agreed with the TVA - the only way many rural Americans got affordable electricity, because of subsidies from wealthier Americans. The same public that overwhelmingly supports local fire departments, and good roads, and public schools and parks and libraries, etc, etc. The same public that supports Social Security and Medicare.

We're a nation that's a mixture of socialism and captalism. If you had a clue about what you were talking about, you'd know that it's socialism, not communism.

If you don't like living in a nation that's a strong mixture of socialism and captalism, then you should move elsewhere, because the vast majority of Americans are very happy with that mix - in fact, most of them would prefer that we have more socialism and less laissez faire capitalism - the stuff that's made banks and hedge fund managers so rich and left most of the rest of us off the gravy train.

You're the outlier here, not me.

Anecdotal info about how in a FEW cases, it's better to travel to another country for health care isn't evidence that everything about the care in the other nation is perfect for every resident of that country. Yet you seem to be under the delusion that it is. Yes, in a very few cases, Canadians DO travel to the USA for health care, but for the most part, they are quite happy with their heathcare system, and they don't have millions of people left out in the cold without coverages like we have here in the USA. If people in the USA who have an issue with our healthcare system could resolve those issues by travelling to another nation, we'd have a lot more people going to Canada than we have Canadians coming here.

Yet you think that your argument is a winning one. I'm not surprised.

So, now to your totally disingenuous arguments below.

1. There is an issue that some unions with healthcare plans that are called "non-profit" are having. They don't want an exemption from Obamacare. They don't want to be denied participation in the healthcare exchanges, and right now that's what might happen. You might want to read the link that includes the whole text of their letter to the Obama Administration, instead of the cherry-picked version your rightwing blog link chose to go with. They say they still support the effort - just that it needs to be tweaked.

2. The second link is simply another recapping of the same issue, and again, unions like the bill - they just feel like they're being disadvantaged by one part of the bill, and they want it fixed. They don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

3. And, not surprisingly, the 3rd link is about the same exact topic - did you really not understand that it's not 3 separate issues?

4 & 5. Same thing, 4th and 5th verse. Really?

6. Finally, a second topic, but townhall.com - really? REALLY? We DO need young people who've been forgoing coverage to sign up. That's not a new issue. And acting as though advertising that need is a sign of desperation is ludicrous - but exactly what I'd expect from you.

7. And a FoxBusiness poll? A cable network that has virtually no audience? Really? If people hadn't been so misinformed by those on the right, they wouldn't be so reluctant to sign up. It's not because Obamacare is a bad plan. It's the best we could get because the Dems were trying to be conciliatory towards the Republicans - that's why it's so much like what Republicans for the past 2 decades have said that they wanted, because the Democrats were hoping that the Republicans could and would act in a bipartisan fashion if the Democrats did too.

Try harder next time - this was way too easy.




-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 10:43 pm
Subject: Fw: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare







I apologize for my misspellings. My android phone auto corrected.

Now back to Sue. You are a Liberal Communist, correct?

I am guessing that from your quote: " try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own. " My response is: "Hell no!! You cannot have my Lettuce to put on your
hamburger when you have high cholesterol". Socialized medicine is a failure. Do you know or have you head of any one that needs heart surgery leaving the U.S. to go to Canada or an MRI for that matter? I do not. However, there many Canadians that travel to the U.S. to get urgent life saving care and that MRI so they do not die waiting.

These articles listed below go against your idea Obama care and its policy management is going to get more
medicine to the unwashed Masses.

1. IRS wants exemption from O'Bama care. I guess they do not want to personally help those with needs.



2. Huffington Post reports: Oops, Union medical plans could get scuttled by ACA cost and fees.



3. Forbes, Hoffa writes to Reid and Palozzi, that middle class could be shattered by ACA.



4. The Hill: Food workers union 1.3 Million strong not happy about the impact to healthcare plan by ACA.


5. Legislators and staff want ACA exemption.



6. From Town Hill, a little CNN action on the 2.7 million needed to sign up might take the fine instead.



7. Fox Business Poll: Young People to Skip Coverage, Opt for Penalty Tax Instead



Back to taxing the wealthier for healthcare. Sue, why not go to a window at the Federal reserve and give them more
of your money to help offset any government expenses? After all, Karl Marx did say: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs:.






----- Forwarded Message -----
From: teamb562 <teamb562@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:32 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare





I'm sorry but the intension of this forum is not to discuss the ibm pension, that is discussed on Yahoo board ibmpension. This forum was established to bitch about and discuss problems and issues with the ibmpension board, that's it.

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

This forum IS supposed to be about IBM pension issues. Please, the next time someone else brings up an issue that is outside of the group's subject matter, feel free to immediately interject and tell them that they're off topic. But if someone doesn't do that, then it's unfair to get upset and/or criticize the people who reply to their off topic postings. People replying to an off topic subject aren't responsible for it being brought up, and shouldn't be chastised for replying - yet I was.

Any time a new initiative gets pushed by the party in power, it gets airtime to try to educate people about the good things about the initiative. This is not a new thing - it's not like Obama invented propaganda, after all. Obamacare is about getting more and better healthcare to more people. Its goal is not to tax people, although one of the ways that it does try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own.

There hasn't been anything to sign up for yet - and so, it's not surprising that no one has signed up yet. The sign up is still months away. Yet you think that people have been failing to sign up..... hmmmm. They can't have signed up yet, yet you think that we can come to some conclusion about them not signing up yet? Really?

A young person, unless they are the 'inventor' of Facebook or someone similar, can't save enough in a 401 to take care of the costs of a serious illness, much less a catastrophic illness. Yeah, most young people won't face those bankrupting costs, so for them, health care insurance isn't the wisest way for them to invest their money. But no insurance is a good "investment", unless the thing you're investing is in piece of mind. So it's not about how they could have saved more had they put that money into a 401K account. It's about how we, as a nation, can afford to provide care to people who are uninsured due to no bad choices on their part. It's about providing care to young adults who haven't yet gotten a job that provides health care. It's about finding affordable care for people who have a pre-existing condition. It's about finding healthcare options for those who have hit lifetime maximums. It helps seniors who were stuck in the donut hole. It extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by quite a few years. And it's about helping those who work for a living but don't have an employer who can/will provide them with an employer-funded healthcare option.

With Obamacare, there are multiple cost-savings measures built into the bill, and there are also some additional taxes - and those two things combined end up cutting our long term debt while funding a greatly expanded healthcare offering for millons of Americans.


-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:07 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare








Sue,

Are you a cotmmunist? Business and technology advances are about delivering efficiencies in this case health care. Choice and market efficiencies should help lower costs while ensuring as many people can get the help they need. ACA is nothing more than a tax and power grab. The Obama administration will spend the rest of the summer and at least east 15 million trying to get kids to sign up because his 20 something constituency is not signing up for the ACA to help defer the cost that those are incurring by aging patients. Its stupid to pay more when that money can be grown
in a 401k which I thought what this group was about.

----------------------------
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:18 PM EDT Sue Runyon wrote:

Yet again, you show us that you don't actually know what you're talking about, Sam.

But yeah, there WILL BE some increased costs because young people get to tag on to their parents' coverage for a few more years. We WILL be providing coverage to people who previously lost it due to lifetime caps. There'll be people who were uninsurable at any reasonable cost because of pre-existing conditions who can now get coverage, and that will be a cost too.

But we're also pulling in many people who chose to not have coverage who'll now be forced to get coverage or pay a penalty, and bringing more healthy people into the system will help cover those increased costs for the people listed above. So yeah, those who haven't had insurance in the past who are forced to pay for it now will either be ABLE to afford it and will have to pay for it, or will be poor enough that they'll get subsidies to help pay for that coverage! ONLY those people who were already rich enough to have coverage will pay for the full cost of that coverage. Only those who were being selfish beforehand, hoping that they wouldn't get sick, and figuring that the rest of us suckers would pay for them if they DID get sick, will have to carry the burden they should have been carrying all along!

And we're going to see the wealthier among us have to pay a little more - again, people who CAN afford to pay more WILL pay more - that's a system that the American public strongly supports!

There's no "scam" being presented by anyone on the left - the scams come directly from the right side of the political aisle nowadays. One of the scams is that Obamacare is some kind of leftist wet dream, when the FACTS are that almost ALL of the features of Obamacare are things that Republicans either thought up or supported in the past.

The CBS poll didn't show that MOST people don't support it. What it showed is that more people than before don't support it - and that's a direct reflection of the MILLIONS of dollars in negative advertising that the rightwing has done. It is NOT a reflection of people actually rejecting what's IN Obamacare.

What you alleged is that it was a demonstration that what's in the bill isn't supported - and a poll that demonstrates that people don't know what's in the bill due to misinformation from those on the right doesn't, in fact, demonstrate that the stuff that's in the bill isn't supported.

As I already explained, if you have more than 50 workers, whether that's 50 actual workers, or more than that with part time equivalents, you're under the employer mandate. It doesn't do them any good to hire twice as many part time workers! Yet you STILL THINK it does, despite the fact that the FACT disprove what you believe.

It's YOU who has demonstrated, repeatedly, that you've drunk the Kool Aid.

Keep digging that hole you're already in! Please, keep it up.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 6:18 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






It appears you have bought into the scam being presented by the obamaites. If you read the bill you will see there are still a lot of undefined portions of the bill. It seems these get filled in during the middle of the night. The few cherry picked items like the coverage up to 26 seemed to be a hit to some but it also raised the cost to cover this. You also seem to believe that the 2 sources you select are above reproach with their data. Unless you cross check their info is questionable also. To most of us who are retired and stuck with medicare we have a supplemental IBM plan and won't be affected by the ACA. Maybe IBM will drop our plans in the future but until then we'll watch from the outside. We recently just went through the math in our town to reduce it's budget. Part of the strategy was to cut most of the town employees hours to now call them part time. We will be dropping their insurance so they will now shop the exchanges. They did not get an

increase to pay for the plans and they will most likely get a second job to supplement their income. A similar approach was taken by the owner of 2 local restaurants . The actual results of this bill will be in who pays what and how much. Also anybody who has never had insurance will see a 100% increase in their cost.All data today is speculation so wait until the real numbers come in. I wish luck to all who have to fish for insurance. This country has a lot of ignorant people who won't know what they are doing when signing up for the ACA.

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

No, it shows the disinformation and fear campaign against it is working.脙茠芒鈧��� Plus if you actually ask people about specific things that are in the ACA they do like it and want it.脙茠芒鈧��� Personally I would rather have a single payer plan.脙茠芒鈧��� When you add the liberals who would rather have a single payer plan to the conservatives who don't like changing the current healthcare system, you get a larger per cent.脙茠芒鈧��� This is what happens when you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes it.脙茠芒鈧��� It has a lot of good things in it though:脙茠芒鈧��� you can get coverage with pre-existing conditions, no more ceiling limits, kids can stay on parents plan till 26, more people will have coverage, helps people who can't afford it to get insurance,脙茠芒鈧��� will reduce uncovered people getting expensive care in emergency room脙茠芒鈧��� which脙茠芒鈧��� in the past has脙茠芒鈧��� increased everyone else's costs.脙茠芒鈧��� I don't think it is perfect, but it is a good start and changes can be made in

the future if

needed to tweak it.脙茠芒鈧���


From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

脙茠芒鈧���
The CBS poll is not a FOX poll - precisely the reason I cited it first. You cannot dispute the fact that the most recent opinion polls clearly demonstrate that most Americans do not want ACA. The more they understand ACA and the more they realize that Obama has hoodwinked them once again, the more they wish it would be repealed.

Your supposed facts are the same talking points that the smooth talking Obama used to hoodwink so many Americans, including the press, in the first place. He repeated them over and over again, just like you are doing, until a critical mass began to believe him. If you hear it often enough, it must be true. Right? But now many Americans are beginning to wake up.

As your post clearly indicates, you think that talking points, repeated as nauseum, are facts. And, you think that browbeating is debating. These are the same tactics that Obama, the finger pointer in chief, uses. But they're no longer working on the majority of Americans, as the polls indicate, and those same tactics will not work on this board. Most participants here are just too intelligent to be hoodwinked by you.

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

-----Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts.

Of course it doesn't, and IF I'd been doing that, you'd have a point. But I haven't been doing that - and so, yet again, you don't have a point!

On the other hand, claiming that a fact is a fact and not an opinion, as YOU'VE tried to claim - that facts we're presenting to you are simply opinions, or the other claim you've made, that there are alternative facts dependent upon one's beliefs - now THAT'S a boguw way to behave.

The problematic behavior has been all yours. All yours. You own it, and I've pointed it out, repeatedly, and I understand that you don't like that. Too bad, so sad.

And YET AGAIN you strip stuff of its context when you assert that I was saying that the vast majority of Americans want ACA. I didn't. You're either being dishonest or showing a stunning lack of reading comprehension yet again.

The vast majority of Americans want what we got in ACA OR MORE! And when Americans are polled on the individual aspects of the program, they like them too.

Now, because of the disinformatiion campaign from the right side of the political aisle, it doesn't have the amount of support it would have if people had the actual facts at hand. In addition, if there wasn't the factor of people hating anything that Obama and Demcrats did, it'd have even MORE support. As I've explained, repeatedly, the lack of Republican VOTES for this isn't equivalent to the lack of support from Republicans for the things included in the ACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geesh, you're easy to debunk.

And then you think it's legitimate to cite a Fox News poll? REALLY? And after the disinformation campaign from the rightwing, I'm not surprised at all that many Americans mistakenly think that ACA will cost them.

THE FACT IS THAT IT WON'T. Again, this is a fact. ACA will only adversely financially impact the wealthier among us - and, not strangely enough, this is EXACTLY what I've typed about 6 times in this back and forth!!!

Geez - make it harder next time for me to use your own words to make you look foolish.




-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:42 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts.

Let's look at one example. You state: " And yeah, I get that you're selfish. But our nation, as a whole, isn't, and as we're a representative democracy, what the majority of Americans want is what we hopefully, as a nation, provide to our citizens. And the vast majority of Americans favor this. You don't. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

Now, let's focus on your assertion "The vast majority of Americans favor this.", which you assert as if it is a fact. It's not. Here are some facts for you to think about:

CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want Obamacare repealed



Note that these poll results were posted on the web on July 24, 2013 at 10:10AM.

(CBS News) A new CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want the Affordable Care Act repealed.

According to the poll, 36 percent of Americans want Congress to expand or keep the health care law while 39 percent want Congress to repeal it - the highest percentage seen in CBS News polls. The poll also found a majority of Americans - 54 percent - disapprove of the health care law, 36 percent of Americans approve of it and 10 percent said they don't know about it.

The health care law is a chronic issue for the White House, CBS News political director John Dickerson said on "CBS This Morning." "There's an operational part to this, which is that the White House has got to get people to sign up for these health exchanges, particularly younger, healthier Americans, and so they are tactically running a campaign much like the presidential campaign, reaching out, using the techniques of that campaign to get younger people to sign up for these health exchanges."

The poll also found just 13 percent of Americans say the health care law will personally "help me" while 38 percent said they believe the law will personally "hurt me."

And then, there's the Fox News Poll:

Voters say repeal ObamaCare, expect new law will cost them

Read more:

Note that this article was posted on the web on July 25, 2013.

Voters think ObamaCare is going to hurt their wallet and over half want the law repealed, according to a new Fox News national poll.

By a large 47-11 percent margin, voters expect the 2010 health care law will cost them rather than save them money in the coming year. Another 34 percent think the law won't change their family's health care costs.

Those negative expectations come at a time when a majority of the public remains unhappy with the way thing are going in the country (63 percent dissatisfied), and over half say they haven't seen any signs the economy has started to turn the corner (57 percent).

Republicans are three times as likely as Democrats to think ObamaCare will cost them money over the next year (70 percent vs. 23 percent). One Democrat in five expects the law will result in savings for their family (21 percent).

The poll asks people to take an up-or-down vote on ObamaCare: 40 percent say they would vote to keep the law in place, while just over half -- 53 percent -- would repeal it.

Over half of those under age 45 (51 percent) as well as those 45 and over (56 percent) would vote to repeal ObamaCare.

Most Republicans want the law repealed (by 85-13 percent) and so do independents (by 65-25 percent). Most Democrats favor keeping ObamaCare (by 72-21 percent).

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

Do you REALLY think that you can argue that I provided TOO MANY FACTS to refute your argument - that attacking the length of my post is a valid debate tactic? Really? I didn't "ramble" at all. But thanks for showing everyone that when you can't refute a thing I've written, you'll resort to making a baseless personal attack - thanks for outing yourself as an insincere, insulting debater much better than I could have done myself.

Again, there's not "my" facts and "your" facts.

There are "FACTS". They don't change based upon who is referencing them. I am baffled as to why you would think that they do! And I'm baffled about what "facts" you think you've provided. All YOU provided below was your belief that there is a large percentage of people who'll be getting insurance on your dime who were simply unwilling to get coverage before - people who could have gotten coverage, but just were too lazy/shiftless/etc to do so.

But that's not true.

1. Obamacare stops women from paying higher rates simply because of their gender. That's not something that WOMEN who will be receiving that benefit can be faulted for. I assume you won't deny THAT fact - that it's not that they were unwilling to change their gender to get lower insurance rates, right?

2. Obamacare removes the donut hole - something that no senior had any control over - so, yet another thing that can't be laid at the feet of lazy people unwilling to pay for their own care.

3. A large percentage of Americans have pre-existing conditions that could have denied them affordable healthcare coverage. It wasn't a matter of will with that added benefit either - those people had a medical condition; it wasn't a choice for them to have diabetes or cancer or anything else.

4. 50 million Americans will now have access to preventative care that they didn't get previously. How is that related to them being lazy? Here's a clue - it's not.

5. Obamacare helps bend the cost curve - saving all of us money in the long run. The nonpartisan CBO has documented that many times. Facts - they're wonderful things - too bad for you it seems like you only like facts when they support your opinion, and you dislike them when they don't support the conclusions you've leapt to. Too bad, so sad.

6. Outrageous medical expenses has made millions of people have to file for bankruptcy. Almost none of those people went into their lives hoping to file for bankruptcy, and the vast majority of them would have rather not had to do that. Obamacare will stop that from happening so often.

7. Young, healthy Americans will pay more as compared to what they were having to spend prior to Obamacare. Most of the rest of us will pay less. Again, I understand that THIS FACT is inconvenient to your false meme, but that inconvenience doesn't mean that you get to state things that are contrary to the known facts!

8. Families making up to 400% of the poverty level won't be paying more for insurance - they'll be paying less. Only those well-able to afford it will have to pay more.

So, it's on YOUR SHOULDERS now to provide US with evidence that there are significant numbers of people who, right now, will be getting coverage that they could have afforded on their own - but they chose not to - but you'll be paying for that care.

Remember, the healthy young people who avoided getting insurance are the ones who are going to be paying more. They aren't getting the coverage for free, unless they're poor - and if they're poor, then they didn't previously go without insurance BY CHOICE - which is what your allegation was - that they were simply unwilling to purchase coverage on their own.

Oh, and by the way, if you are so destitute that helping to pay for other's healthcare will take food out of your family's mouth, it WILL NOT take food out of their mouths - the least among us will NOT be helping subsidize the health care expenses of those who aren't covered nowadays. ONLY those who can afford it will have to help subsidize that care. In fact, if you're really on the edge, where providing food to your family is at risk, or even close to that edge, you'll end up paying LESS for your care, overall, then you used to pay! It will HELP YOU OUT - so if your concern were really that "food will be taken from your family's mouth", you should be aware that THE FACT IS that this will not happen!!!

You don't have "facts" that are correct. You have opinions that aren't backed up with the facts, and in a kneejerk reaction, you lashed out at me for no good reason.

And yeah, I get that you're selfish. But our nation, as a whole, isn't, and as we're a representative democracy, what the majority of Americans want is what we hopefully, as a nation, provide to our citizens. And the vast majority of Americans favor this. You don't. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And there are no facts that support your assertion that there's a vast army of people who could get affordable health care if they just weren't so damned lazy.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 2:49 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




OK no problem , you believe your facts and I'll believe mine. I know mine are correct but not sure of yours. I'd rather choose who/what I give my money to but unfortunately the crooks in government don't let me do that. I'll leave the charity giving to people like you. You must not be on twitter based on the length of your post. Sorry I made you ramble.

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

Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you get from them is truly a fact.

Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however.

And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting the healthcare they've needed all along.

In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country.

That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a good idea.

I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured through an active choice they've made are those who are young and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare coverage but hasn't been able to get it.

I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's everyone's to share.

And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




I guess this makes the assumption that your source of data is correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you believe but what data you want to believe. I am concerned when the cost of any government program reaches in my pocket to pay for others who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word subsidy comes into a program this is my trigger for taking food out of my families mouth. So does your data tell us that we will or will not be paying for someone unwilling to make their life better.

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

Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different from another person, but we all share the same database of factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to differing opinions.

Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support with factual information.

One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA treats part-time employees as 脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙鈥毭偮�脙茠��'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���"fulltime equivalents脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙鈥毭偮�脙茠��'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝' by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd

be

detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers total who might opt for coverage.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






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

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

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


--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "Rick b Cool" <rickb_cool@> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Here is where I have to not attack Obama.
He is not different in my view than any other president with one exception, he makes a very good set of statements about nailing those evil rich, while behind the scenes getting the middle class. His brand of social warfare/division is pitting the rich against the poor with us in the middle sucking it up. No different than any prior administration, just prettier words and he gets to play the Bush excuse card over and over.

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

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.

No, I'm not a communist. I'm representative of the American public, in general - the same public that agreed with the TVA - the only way many rural Americans got affordable electricity, because of subsidies from wealthier Americans. The same public that overwhelmingly supports local fire departments, and good roads, and public schools and parks and libraries, etc, etc. The same public that supports Social Security and Medicare.

We're a nation that's a mixture of socialism and captalism. If you had a clue about what you were talking about, you'd know that it's socialism, not communism.

If you don't like living in a nation that's a strong mixture of socialism and captalism, then you should move elsewhere, because the vast majority of Americans are very happy with that mix - in fact, most of them would prefer that we have more socialism and less laissez faire capitalism - the stuff that's made banks and hedge fund managers so rich and left most of the rest of us off the gravy train.

You're the outlier here, not me.

Anecdotal info about how in a FEW cases, it's better to travel to another country for health care isn't evidence that everything about the care in the other nation is perfect for every resident of that country. Yet you seem to be under the delusion that it is. Yes, in a very few cases, Canadians DO travel to the USA for health care, but for the most part, they are quite happy with their heathcare system, and they don't have millions of people left out in the cold without coverages like we have here in the USA. If people in the USA who have an issue with our healthcare system could resolve those issues by travelling to another nation, we'd have a lot more people going to Canada than we have Canadians coming here.

Yet you think that your argument is a winning one. I'm not surprised.

So, now to your totally disingenuous arguments below.

1. There is an issue that some unions with healthcare plans that are called "non-profit" are having. They don't want an exemption from Obamacare. They don't want to be denied participation in the healthcare exchanges, and right now that's what might happen. You might want to read the link that includes the whole text of their letter to the Obama Administration, instead of the cherry-picked version your rightwing blog link chose to go with. They say they still support the effort - just that it needs to be tweaked.

2. The second link is simply another recapping of the same issue, and again, unions like the bill - they just feel like they're being disadvantaged by one part of the bill, and they want it fixed. They don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

3. And, not surprisingly, the 3rd link is about the same exact topic - did you really not understand that it's not 3 separate issues?

4 & 5. Same thing, 4th and 5th verse. Really?

6. Finally, a second topic, but townhall.com - really? REALLY? We DO need young people who've been forgoing coverage to sign up. That's not a new issue. And acting as though advertising that need is a sign of desperation is ludicrous - but exactly what I'd expect from you.

7. And a FoxBusiness poll? A cable network that has virtually no audience? Really? If people hadn't been so misinformed by those on the right, they wouldn't be so reluctant to sign up. It's not because Obamacare is a bad plan. It's the best we could get because the Dems were trying to be conciliatory towards the Republicans - that's why it's so much like what Republicans for the past 2 decades have said that they wanted, because the Democrats were hoping that the Republicans could and would act in a bipartisan fashion if the Democrats did too.

Try harder next time - this was way too easy.




-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 10:43 pm
Subject: Fw: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare







I apologize for my misspellings. My android phone auto corrected.

Now back to Sue. You are a Liberal Communist, correct?

I am guessing that from your quote: " try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own. " My response is: "Hell no!! You cannot have my Lettuce to put on your
hamburger when you have high cholesterol". Socialized medicine is a failure. Do you know or have you head of any one that needs heart surgery leaving the U.S. to go to Canada or an MRI for that matter? I do not. However, there many Canadians that travel to the U.S. to get urgent life saving care and that MRI so they do not die waiting.

These articles listed below go against your idea Obama care and its policy management is going to get more
medicine to the unwashed Masses.

1. IRS wants exemption from O'Bama care. I guess they do not want to personally help those with needs.



2. Huffington Post reports: Oops, Union medical plans could get scuttled by ACA cost and fees.



3. Forbes, Hoffa writes to Reid and Palozzi, that middle class could be shattered by ACA.



4. The Hill: Food workers union 1.3 Million strong not happy about the impact to healthcare plan by ACA.


5. Legislators and staff want ACA exemption.



6. From Town Hill, a little CNN action on the 2.7 million needed to sign up might take the fine instead.



7. Fox Business Poll: Young People to Skip Coverage, Opt for Penalty Tax Instead



Back to taxing the wealthier for healthcare. Sue, why not go to a window at the Federal reserve and give them more
of your money to help offset any government expenses? After all, Karl Marx did say: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs:.






----- Forwarded Message -----
From: teamb562 <teamb562@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:32 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare





I'm sorry but the intension of this forum is not to discuss the ibm pension, that is discussed on Yahoo board ibmpension. This forum was established to bitch about and discuss problems and issues with the ibmpension board, that's it.

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

This forum IS supposed to be about IBM pension issues. Please, the next time someone else brings up an issue that is outside of the group's subject matter, feel free to immediately interject and tell them that they're off topic. But if someone doesn't do that, then it's unfair to get upset and/or criticize the people who reply to their off topic postings. People replying to an off topic subject aren't responsible for it being brought up, and shouldn't be chastised for replying - yet I was.

Any time a new initiative gets pushed by the party in power, it gets airtime to try to educate people about the good things about the initiative. This is not a new thing - it's not like Obama invented propaganda, after all. Obamacare is about getting more and better healthcare to more people. Its goal is not to tax people, although one of the ways that it does try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own.

There hasn't been anything to sign up for yet - and so, it's not surprising that no one has signed up yet. The sign up is still months away. Yet you think that people have been failing to sign up..... hmmmm. They can't have signed up yet, yet you think that we can come to some conclusion about them not signing up yet? Really?

A young person, unless they are the 'inventor' of Facebook or someone similar, can't save enough in a 401 to take care of the costs of a serious illness, much less a catastrophic illness. Yeah, most young people won't face those bankrupting costs, so for them, health care insurance isn't the wisest way for them to invest their money. But no insurance is a good "investment", unless the thing you're investing is in piece of mind. So it's not about how they could have saved more had they put that money into a 401K account. It's about how we, as a nation, can afford to provide care to people who are uninsured due to no bad choices on their part. It's about providing care to young adults who haven't yet gotten a job that provides health care. It's about finding affordable care for people who have a pre-existing condition. It's about finding healthcare options for those who have hit lifetime maximums. It helps seniors who were stuck in the donut hole. It extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by quite a few years. And it's about helping those who work for a living but don't have an employer who can/will provide them with an employer-funded healthcare option.

With Obamacare, there are multiple cost-savings measures built into the bill, and there are also some additional taxes - and those two things combined end up cutting our long term debt while funding a greatly expanded healthcare offering for millons of Americans.


-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:07 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare








Sue,

Are you a cotmmunist? Business and technology advances are about delivering efficiencies in this case health care. Choice and market efficiencies should help lower costs while ensuring as many people can get the help they need. ACA is nothing more than a tax and power grab. The Obama administration will spend the rest of the summer and at least east 15 million trying to get kids to sign up because his 20 something constituency is not signing up for the ACA to help defer the cost that those are incurring by aging patients. Its stupid to pay more when that money can be grown
in a 401k which I thought what this group was about.

----------------------------
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:18 PM EDT Sue Runyon wrote:

Yet again, you show us that you don't actually know what you're talking about, Sam.

But yeah, there WILL BE some increased costs because young people get to tag on to their parents' coverage for a few more years. We WILL be providing coverage to people who previously lost it due to lifetime caps. There'll be people who were uninsurable at any reasonable cost because of pre-existing conditions who can now get coverage, and that will be a cost too.

But we're also pulling in many people who chose to not have coverage who'll now be forced to get coverage or pay a penalty, and bringing more healthy people into the system will help cover those increased costs for the people listed above. So yeah, those who haven't had insurance in the past who are forced to pay for it now will either be ABLE to afford it and will have to pay for it, or will be poor enough that they'll get subsidies to help pay for that coverage! ONLY those people who were already rich enough to have coverage will pay for the full cost of that coverage. Only those who were being selfish beforehand, hoping that they wouldn't get sick, and figuring that the rest of us suckers would pay for them if they DID get sick, will have to carry the burden they should have been carrying all along!

And we're going to see the wealthier among us have to pay a little more - again, people who CAN afford to pay more WILL pay more - that's a system that the American public strongly supports!

There's no "scam" being presented by anyone on the left - the scams come directly from the right side of the political aisle nowadays. One of the scams is that Obamacare is some kind of leftist wet dream, when the FACTS are that almost ALL of the features of Obamacare are things that Republicans either thought up or supported in the past.

The CBS poll didn't show that MOST people don't support it. What it showed is that more people than before don't support it - and that's a direct reflection of the MILLIONS of dollars in negative advertising that the rightwing has done. It is NOT a reflection of people actually rejecting what's IN Obamacare.

What you alleged is that it was a demonstration that what's in the bill isn't supported - and a poll that demonstrates that people don't know what's in the bill due to misinformation from those on the right doesn't, in fact, demonstrate that the stuff that's in the bill isn't supported.

As I already explained, if you have more than 50 workers, whether that's 50 actual workers, or more than that with part time equivalents, you're under the employer mandate. It doesn't do them any good to hire twice as many part time workers! Yet you STILL THINK it does, despite the fact that the FACT disprove what you believe.

It's YOU who has demonstrated, repeatedly, that you've drunk the Kool Aid.

Keep digging that hole you're already in! Please, keep it up.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 6:18 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






It appears you have bought into the scam being presented by the obamaites. If you read the bill you will see there are still a lot of undefined portions of the bill. It seems these get filled in during the middle of the night. The few cherry picked items like the coverage up to 26 seemed to be a hit to some but it also raised the cost to cover this. You also seem to believe that the 2 sources you select are above reproach with their data. Unless you cross check their info is questionable also. To most of us who are retired and stuck with medicare we have a supplemental IBM plan and won't be affected by the ACA. Maybe IBM will drop our plans in the future but until then we'll watch from the outside. We recently just went through the math in our town to reduce it's budget. Part of the strategy was to cut most of the town employees hours to now call them part time. We will be dropping their insurance so they will now shop the exchanges. They did not get an

increase to pay for the plans and they will most likely get a second job to supplement their income. A similar approach was taken by the owner of 2 local restaurants . The actual results of this bill will be in who pays what and how much. Also anybody who has never had insurance will see a 100% increase in their cost.All data today is speculation so wait until the real numbers come in. I wish luck to all who have to fish for insurance. This country has a lot of ignorant people who won't know what they are doing when signing up for the ACA.

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

No, it shows the disinformation and fear campaign against it is working.脙茠芒鈧��� Plus if you actually ask people about specific things that are in the ACA they do like it and want it.脙茠芒鈧��� Personally I would rather have a single payer plan.脙茠芒鈧��� When you add the liberals who would rather have a single payer plan to the conservatives who don't like changing the current healthcare system, you get a larger per cent.脙茠芒鈧��� This is what happens when you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes it.脙茠芒鈧��� It has a lot of good things in it though:脙茠芒鈧��� you can get coverage with pre-existing conditions, no more ceiling limits, kids can stay on parents plan till 26, more people will have coverage, helps people who can't afford it to get insurance,脙茠芒鈧��� will reduce uncovered people getting expensive care in emergency room脙茠芒鈧��� which脙茠芒鈧��� in the past has脙茠芒鈧��� increased everyone else's costs.脙茠芒鈧��� I don't think it is perfect, but it is a good start and changes can be made in

the future if

needed to tweak it.脙茠芒鈧���


From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

脙茠芒鈧���
The CBS poll is not a FOX poll - precisely the reason I cited it first. You cannot dispute the fact that the most recent opinion polls clearly demonstrate that most Americans do not want ACA. The more they understand ACA and the more they realize that Obama has hoodwinked them once again, the more they wish it would be repealed.

Your supposed facts are the same talking points that the smooth talking Obama used to hoodwink so many Americans, including the press, in the first place. He repeated them over and over again, just like you are doing, until a critical mass began to believe him. If you hear it often enough, it must be true. Right? But now many Americans are beginning to wake up.

As your post clearly indicates, you think that talking points, repeated as nauseum, are facts. And, you think that browbeating is debating. These are the same tactics that Obama, the finger pointer in chief, uses. But they're no longer working on the majority of Americans, as the polls indicate, and those same tactics will not work on this board. Most participants here are just too intelligent to be hoodwinked by you.

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

-----Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts.

Of course it doesn't, and IF I'd been doing that, you'd have a point. But I haven't been doing that - and so, yet again, you don't have a point!

On the other hand, claiming that a fact is a fact and not an opinion, as YOU'VE tried to claim - that facts we're presenting to you are simply opinions, or the other claim you've made, that there are alternative facts dependent upon one's beliefs - now THAT'S a boguw way to behave.

The problematic behavior has been all yours. All yours. You own it, and I've pointed it out, repeatedly, and I understand that you don't like that. Too bad, so sad.

And YET AGAIN you strip stuff of its context when you assert that I was saying that the vast majority of Americans want ACA. I didn't. You're either being dishonest or showing a stunning lack of reading comprehension yet again.

The vast majority of Americans want what we got in ACA OR MORE! And when Americans are polled on the individual aspects of the program, they like them too.

Now, because of the disinformatiion campaign from the right side of the political aisle, it doesn't have the amount of support it would have if people had the actual facts at hand. In addition, if there wasn't the factor of people hating anything that Obama and Demcrats did, it'd have even MORE support. As I've explained, repeatedly, the lack of Republican VOTES for this isn't equivalent to the lack of support from Republicans for the things included in the ACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geesh, you're easy to debunk.

And then you think it's legitimate to cite a Fox News poll? REALLY? And after the disinformation campaign from the rightwing, I'm not surprised at all that many Americans mistakenly think that ACA will cost them.

THE FACT IS THAT IT WON'T. Again, this is a fact. ACA will only adversely financially impact the wealthier among us - and, not strangely enough, this is EXACTLY what I've typed about 6 times in this back and forth!!!

Geez - make it harder next time for me to use your own words to make you look foolish.




-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:42 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts.

Let's look at one example. You state: " And yeah, I get that you're selfish. But our nation, as a whole, isn't, and as we're a representative democracy, what the majority of Americans want is what we hopefully, as a nation, provide to our citizens. And the vast majority of Americans favor this. You don't. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

Now, let's focus on your assertion "The vast majority of Americans favor this.", which you assert as if it is a fact. It's not. Here are some facts for you to think about:

CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want Obamacare repealed



Note that these poll results were posted on the web on July 24, 2013 at 10:10AM.

(CBS News) A new CBS News poll finds more Americans than ever want the Affordable Care Act repealed.

According to the poll, 36 percent of Americans want Congress to expand or keep the health care law while 39 percent want Congress to repeal it - the highest percentage seen in CBS News polls. The poll also found a majority of Americans - 54 percent - disapprove of the health care law, 36 percent of Americans approve of it and 10 percent said they don't know about it.

The health care law is a chronic issue for the White House, CBS News political director John Dickerson said on "CBS This Morning." "There's an operational part to this, which is that the White House has got to get people to sign up for these health exchanges, particularly younger, healthier Americans, and so they are tactically running a campaign much like the presidential campaign, reaching out, using the techniques of that campaign to get younger people to sign up for these health exchanges."

The poll also found just 13 percent of Americans say the health care law will personally "help me" while 38 percent said they believe the law will personally "hurt me."

And then, there's the Fox News Poll:

Voters say repeal ObamaCare, expect new law will cost them

Read more:

Note that this article was posted on the web on July 25, 2013.

Voters think ObamaCare is going to hurt their wallet and over half want the law repealed, according to a new Fox News national poll.

By a large 47-11 percent margin, voters expect the 2010 health care law will cost them rather than save them money in the coming year. Another 34 percent think the law won't change their family's health care costs.

Those negative expectations come at a time when a majority of the public remains unhappy with the way thing are going in the country (63 percent dissatisfied), and over half say they haven't seen any signs the economy has started to turn the corner (57 percent).

Republicans are three times as likely as Democrats to think ObamaCare will cost them money over the next year (70 percent vs. 23 percent). One Democrat in five expects the law will result in savings for their family (21 percent).

The poll asks people to take an up-or-down vote on ObamaCare: 40 percent say they would vote to keep the law in place, while just over half -- 53 percent -- would repeal it.

Over half of those under age 45 (51 percent) as well as those 45 and over (56 percent) would vote to repeal ObamaCare.

Most Republicans want the law repealed (by 85-13 percent) and so do independents (by 65-25 percent). Most Democrats favor keeping ObamaCare (by 72-21 percent).

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

Do you REALLY think that you can argue that I provided TOO MANY FACTS to refute your argument - that attacking the length of my post is a valid debate tactic? Really? I didn't "ramble" at all. But thanks for showing everyone that when you can't refute a thing I've written, you'll resort to making a baseless personal attack - thanks for outing yourself as an insincere, insulting debater much better than I could have done myself.

Again, there's not "my" facts and "your" facts.

There are "FACTS". They don't change based upon who is referencing them. I am baffled as to why you would think that they do! And I'm baffled about what "facts" you think you've provided. All YOU provided below was your belief that there is a large percentage of people who'll be getting insurance on your dime who were simply unwilling to get coverage before - people who could have gotten coverage, but just were too lazy/shiftless/etc to do so.

But that's not true.

1. Obamacare stops women from paying higher rates simply because of their gender. That's not something that WOMEN who will be receiving that benefit can be faulted for. I assume you won't deny THAT fact - that it's not that they were unwilling to change their gender to get lower insurance rates, right?

2. Obamacare removes the donut hole - something that no senior had any control over - so, yet another thing that can't be laid at the feet of lazy people unwilling to pay for their own care.

3. A large percentage of Americans have pre-existing conditions that could have denied them affordable healthcare coverage. It wasn't a matter of will with that added benefit either - those people had a medical condition; it wasn't a choice for them to have diabetes or cancer or anything else.

4. 50 million Americans will now have access to preventative care that they didn't get previously. How is that related to them being lazy? Here's a clue - it's not.

5. Obamacare helps bend the cost curve - saving all of us money in the long run. The nonpartisan CBO has documented that many times. Facts - they're wonderful things - too bad for you it seems like you only like facts when they support your opinion, and you dislike them when they don't support the conclusions you've leapt to. Too bad, so sad.

6. Outrageous medical expenses has made millions of people have to file for bankruptcy. Almost none of those people went into their lives hoping to file for bankruptcy, and the vast majority of them would have rather not had to do that. Obamacare will stop that from happening so often.

7. Young, healthy Americans will pay more as compared to what they were having to spend prior to Obamacare. Most of the rest of us will pay less. Again, I understand that THIS FACT is inconvenient to your false meme, but that inconvenience doesn't mean that you get to state things that are contrary to the known facts!

8. Families making up to 400% of the poverty level won't be paying more for insurance - they'll be paying less. Only those well-able to afford it will have to pay more.

So, it's on YOUR SHOULDERS now to provide US with evidence that there are significant numbers of people who, right now, will be getting coverage that they could have afforded on their own - but they chose not to - but you'll be paying for that care.

Remember, the healthy young people who avoided getting insurance are the ones who are going to be paying more. They aren't getting the coverage for free, unless they're poor - and if they're poor, then they didn't previously go without insurance BY CHOICE - which is what your allegation was - that they were simply unwilling to purchase coverage on their own.

Oh, and by the way, if you are so destitute that helping to pay for other's healthcare will take food out of your family's mouth, it WILL NOT take food out of their mouths - the least among us will NOT be helping subsidize the health care expenses of those who aren't covered nowadays. ONLY those who can afford it will have to help subsidize that care. In fact, if you're really on the edge, where providing food to your family is at risk, or even close to that edge, you'll end up paying LESS for your care, overall, then you used to pay! It will HELP YOU OUT - so if your concern were really that "food will be taken from your family's mouth", you should be aware that THE FACT IS that this will not happen!!!

You don't have "facts" that are correct. You have opinions that aren't backed up with the facts, and in a kneejerk reaction, you lashed out at me for no good reason.

And yeah, I get that you're selfish. But our nation, as a whole, isn't, and as we're a representative democracy, what the majority of Americans want is what we hopefully, as a nation, provide to our citizens. And the vast majority of Americans favor this. You don't. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And there are no facts that support your assertion that there's a vast army of people who could get affordable health care if they just weren't so damned lazy.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 2:49 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




OK no problem , you believe your facts and I'll believe mine. I know mine are correct but not sure of yours. I'd rather choose who/what I give my money to but unfortunately the crooks in government don't let me do that. I'll leave the charity giving to people like you. You must not be on twitter based on the length of your post. Sorry I made you ramble.

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

Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you get from them is truly a fact.

Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however.

And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting the healthcare they've needed all along.

In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country.

That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a good idea.

I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured through an active choice they've made are those who are young and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare coverage but hasn't been able to get it.

I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's everyone's to share.

And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




I guess this makes the assumption that your source of data is correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you believe but what data you want to believe. I am concerned when the cost of any government program reaches in my pocket to pay for others who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word subsidy comes into a program this is my trigger for taking food out of my families mouth. So does your data tell us that we will or will not be paying for someone unwilling to make their life better.

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

Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different from another person, but we all share the same database of factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to differing opinions.

Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support with factual information.

One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA treats part-time employees as 脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙鈥毭偮�脙茠��'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���"fulltime equivalents脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙鈥毭偮�脙茠��'脙茠芒鈧���'脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝'脙茠脗垄脙茠脝' by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd

be

detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers total who might opt for coverage.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;
Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






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

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

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


--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "Rick b Cool" <rickb_cool@> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

There are some good arguments here, now lets add to them.
Why should a poor, disenfranchised person be required to have a fishing license which costs money they don't have and prevents them from providing food for their family?
Why should that same individual be required to provide id to get on the medical exchange, are we assuming fraud again? To provide id even at the doctors office is an unmanageable burden for these people.
Somehow they managed to provide id to obtain utility assistance, food stamps and a host of other things.
Coming from a family where my father never made it to middle class and left overs were stretched to make the food budget every week, I never saw my parents or my grandmother without some form of id. They considered it a social responsibility to have an approved government issued form of id. Our birth certificates were kept and guarded jealously.
Now I admit there could be some people who live homeless on the street, no id, nothing through no fault of their own but as far as medical they walk into a hospital and must be given care. They also have little taste for finding a voting booth since survival, food, shelter are their prime considerations. The decision of, do I stand in the soup kitchen line versus vote for the next president or congressman just doesn't even occur.

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

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

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

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

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

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <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.

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 <Slouise217@> wrote:

Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct, then what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you get from them is truly a fact.

Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the costs of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however.

And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit. We're already paying for a significant portion of the care they DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting the healthcare they've needed all along.

In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to the community's benefit to share resources so that we all benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school system - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very careful people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled or leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country.

That's something our nation, as a whole, has determined is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think that it's a good idea.

I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to adequate healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to an active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't insured through an active choice they've made are those who are young and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing that group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare coverage but hasn't been able to get it.

I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's everyone's to share.

And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among us who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service - you do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that extra cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care of themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence of YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will be getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying to help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves or unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due to pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Cay <ceome60@>
To: ibmpensionissues <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 <Slouise217@> wrote:

Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something that's demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different from another person, but we all share the same database of factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to differing opinions.

Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that some people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has nothing to do with people "believing something different". Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies, disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon facts. One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support with factual information.

One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50 workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT find evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers to avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The ACA treats part-time employees as 脙垄脗鈧�脗艙fulltime equivalents脙垄脗鈧�脗锟� by adding up the total number of hours per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an amount of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-timers. In fact, it'd be detrimental to their cause, as there'd then be more workers total who might opt for coverage.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






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

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

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


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" <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.

I am retired and I have to tell you it is tough living on a reduced IBM pension and social security.听 I draw down my 401 to make ends meet.听 You have a right to be concerned. I do not know how those IBMers听who receive a small or no pension.My biggest concern is the talk about social security and Medicare听will be need based. So once the IRS has all your financial information - How much is in your 401 and if you have a coop apartment, they will be able to reduce or deny you these benefits until you spend everything you saved. This will be supported by those听who believe that the "rich could pay a little more"It is like the discussion of closing the tax loop holes.听 This includes denying mortgage, real estate, and state income tax deductions since the poor do not receive these benefits and 40% or more do not even pay any income tax so they do not care if income taxes are raised. So raise taxes and close loop holes is supported by many who believe in sharing the wealth. The rich alone cannot support the social programs, you must tax everyone who works. Democracy is destroyed when those who听 do not work become the majority and vote into office those who give them something for nothing or give them more then they put in by taking it away from those who work or save - the workers are the rich ones since they have more than those who do not work but vote.----- Original Message -----From: Kevin W Date: Monday, July 29, 2013 9:16 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Part Deux" o'bama听care and a a link to grow onTo: ibmpensionissues@...> I'm only an investor as it amounts to the money in my 401K. Of > course my 401K isn't where I wanted it to be by now, but that is > mostly my fault. yeah I got hit in the corrections but the > numbers would be meaningless if I had invested earlier and put > more of my money away. I also have the last version of the > pension. It'll be something less than 1/3 of my pay. Nothing > to brag about, but better than nothing. Push come to shove, my > wife and I could abandon everything and live on that pension as > long as we didn't care about medical.> Social security I truly did not expect it to be here. I > expected it to be a thing of the past. If it still happens to > be here when I retire I expect our dear feds will find a way to > say between my pension and my 401k that I am one of the rich > ones and don't deserve the money I unwillingly put aside in the > social security fund.> By then I expect if possible our government will have found a > way to absorb not only our 401Ks听but our remaining pensions and > will say it is for the safety and security of the people. I of > course will lose out since out any such event I will get 1/10th > of what I would get otherwise and those without will get my > money. It will show that hard work and perseverance meant nothing.> Sorry I got off on a tangent.> I continue to put away in my 401K, I look for a better job with > decent benefits which would then enable me to draw my pension as > additional money. I look for ways to balance the loss in my > home which is still severely underwater no matter what the news > pundits cheerily tell us. > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., GM wrote:> >> > 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> > > >> > >