开云体育

7/29/13 This is the Technical corrections bill to several of the bills passed.脗听 See


From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 1:07 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

脗听
The date on my reference is July 27, 2013. How current is your reference?

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

This is where I read it:SECTION 14.(b) G.S. 163-166.12 reads as rewritten:
"脙鈥毭偮� 163-166.12. Requirements for certain voters who register by mail.
(a) Voting in Person. 脙垄芒鈥毬�" An individual who has registered to vote by mail on or after January 1, 2003, and has not previously voted in an election that includes a ballot item for federal office in North Carolina, shall present to a local election official at a voting place before voting there one of the following:
(1) A current and valid photo identification.
(2) A copy of one of the following documents that shows the name and address of the voter: a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document.
(b) Voting Mail-In Absentee. 脙垄芒鈥毬�" An individual who has registered to vote by mail on or after January 1, 2003, and has not previously voted in an election that includes a ballot item for federal office in North Carolina, in order to cast a mail-in absentee vote, shall submit with the mailed-in absentee ballot one of the following:
(1) A copy of a current and valid photo identification.
(2) A copy of one of the following documents that shows the name and address of the voter: a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document.

From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 11:27 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

脙鈥毭偺�
There are some that disagree with you. They quote from H589. Are they wrong?



Here's an extract from the article:

From the text of the H589:

PART 2. PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

SECTION 2.1. Article 14A of Chapter 163 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:

"脙鈥毭偮� 163脙垄芒鈥毬琡166.13. Photo identification requirement for voting in person.

(a) Every qualified voter voting in person in accordance with this Article, G.S. 163脙垄芒鈥毬琡227.2, or G.S. 163脙垄芒鈥毬琡182.1A shall present photo identification bearing any reasonable resemblance to that voter to a local election official at the voting place before voting, except as follows: [bold emphasis added by me above]

The requirement to show an ID to vote is limited to those voting in person, with an allowance made for curbside voting outside a precinct where a poll worker comes to the car (this is considered in person). If you request an absentee ballot you do have to provide some identifying information in written form; options include providing a NC DL number, the last 4 digits of a Social Security number, etc [see 脙鈥毭偮� 163脙垄芒鈥毬琡230.2. (4)].

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

In NC the voter ID is required for absentee too.
脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偺�

From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 12:22 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偺�
My, my, my.... you do like to twist what others say. Not a winning argument if you're really trying to convince that I'm mistaken and should change my mind about the need for voter ids. You and I both know that I believe very strongly in everyone's right to vote. I also believe that legal immigrants should obtain their citizenship as quickly as possible so they can participate.

There are clear disadvantages to living in rural areas. If you get sick, the health care you need may not be readily available. You'll probably not be able to watch the latest movies when they're first released. You may or may not have good internet support or reliable cell phone service, etc.. And you may not be able to obtain a voter id as easily as you might like. But, if you get sick, you go to where the proper healthcare is available. Likewise, if voting is important to you and you need a voter id , then you do what it takes to get one. But having said that, it's my understanding that a voter id is not required to vote by absentee ballot. So is having to have a voter id a real problem for anyone? Why can't they just vote by absentee ballot? Their signature will be on file from when they originally registered to vote. Which reminds me, we are not talking about registering to vote, which is what you last post is all about. We're just talking about

the

requirement for the voter id.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, edward_berkline <no_reply@> wrote:

So your argument is that it is ok to make it inconvenient and difficult to register to vote and disenfranchise voters so long as those votes wouldn't make a difference in the outcome of the election? Something that can't be known with 100% certainty in advance!

Shouldn't the policy be that no citizen, no matter what party, should not be disenfranchised and should be allowed to register to vote with no unnecessary roadblocks?

Oh, I know, next you'll argue that the massive degree of voter fraud makes this necessary. But the truth is, the actual level of voter fraud is far, far below the level of being significant.



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

It is possible to convince me that my view on something may be incorrect. Arguments that teach me something new and that support the point being made will have the best chance of success.

As far as Texas is concerned, I stand by the statement I made. Most rural Texans are Republican. If, in fact, a few rural Texans were unable to vote in the 2012 presidential election due to burdensome voter id laws, then I seriously doubt that these uncast votes if cast for Obama would have made any difference at all. From the wikipedia web site:

,_2012

"Mitt Romney won the state of Texas with 57.17%, over Barack Obama's 41.38%. As in past elections, President Obama and the Democrats won in major metropolitan areas such as Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston, but Republicans were able to overwhelm the urban vote by sweeping the vast rural areas and suburbs of Texas by large margins."

Take a look at the pictorial county by county results and draw your own conclusions:

脙鈥毭偺�

Video of the Day:

IRS chief Daniel Werfel says he wants to keep his health care plan, not switch to Obamacare



Maybe, his testimony today could be career-limiting as acting commissioner of the IRS.

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

You left out the most important part...

"In battles over the health care law in 2009-10, Republicans proposed a requirement for lawmakers and aides to join the exchanges, and Democrats accepted it.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who proposed an early version of the idea, said he wanted to make sure that "members of Congress and Congressional staff get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges as our constituents."

It has been a headache for many in Congress ever since."

So it was a Republican idea that is causing all the problems!
How about those dumb-ass Republicans? They screwed things up again.

This is where I read it:SECTION 14.(b) G.S. 163-166.12 reads as rewritten:
"脗搂 163-166.12. Requirements for certain voters who register by mail.
(a) Voting in Person. 芒鈧�" An individual who has registered to vote by mail on or after January 1, 2003, and has not previously voted in an election that includes a ballot item for federal office in North Carolina, shall present to a local election official at a voting place before voting there one of the following:
(1) A current and valid photo identification.
(2) A copy of one of the following documents that shows the name and address of the voter: a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document.
(b) Voting Mail-In Absentee. 芒鈧�" An individual who has registered to vote by mail on or after January 1, 2003, and has not previously voted in an election that includes a ballot item for federal office in North Carolina, in order to cast a mail-in absentee vote, shall submit with the mailed-in absentee ballot one of the following:
(1) A copy of a current and valid photo identification.
(2) A copy of one of the following documents that shows the name and address of the voter: a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document.

From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 11:27 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

脗听
There are some that disagree with you. They quote from H589. Are they wrong?



Here's an extract from the article:

From the text of the H589:

PART 2. PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

SECTION 2.1. Article 14A of Chapter 163 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:

"脗搂 163芒鈧琡166.13. Photo identification requirement for voting in person.

(a) Every qualified voter voting in person in accordance with this Article, G.S. 163芒鈧琡227.2, or G.S. 163芒鈧琡182.1A shall present photo identification bearing any reasonable resemblance to that voter to a local election official at the voting place before voting, except as follows: [bold emphasis added by me above]

The requirement to show an ID to vote is limited to those voting in person, with an allowance made for curbside voting outside a precinct where a poll worker comes to the car (this is considered in person). If you request an absentee ballot you do have to provide some identifying information in written form; options include providing a NC DL number, the last 4 digits of a Social Security number, etc [see 脗搂 163芒鈧琡230.2. (4)].

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

In NC the voter ID is required for absentee too.
脙鈥毭偺�

From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 12:22 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

脙鈥毭偺�
My, my, my.... you do like to twist what others say. Not a winning argument if you're really trying to convince that I'm mistaken and should change my mind about the need for voter ids. You and I both know that I believe very strongly in everyone's right to vote. I also believe that legal immigrants should obtain their citizenship as quickly as possible so they can participate.

There are clear disadvantages to living in rural areas. If you get sick, the health care you need may not be readily available. You'll probably not be able to watch the latest movies when they're first released. You may or may not have good internet support or reliable cell phone service, etc.. And you may not be able to obtain a voter id as easily as you might like. But, if you get sick, you go to where the proper healthcare is available. Likewise, if voting is important to you and you need a voter id , then you do what it takes to get one. But having said that, it's my understanding that a voter id is not required to vote by absentee ballot. So is having to have a voter id a real problem for anyone? Why can't they just vote by absentee ballot? Their signature will be on file from when they originally registered to vote. Which reminds me, we are not talking about registering to vote, which is what you last post is all about. We're just talking about

the

requirement for the voter id.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, edward_berkline <no_reply@> wrote:

So your argument is that it is ok to make it inconvenient and difficult to register to vote and disenfranchise voters so long as those votes wouldn't make a difference in the outcome of the election? Something that can't be known with 100% certainty in advance!

Shouldn't the policy be that no citizen, no matter what party, should not be disenfranchised and should be allowed to register to vote with no unnecessary roadblocks?

Oh, I know, next you'll argue that the massive degree of voter fraud makes this necessary. But the truth is, the actual level of voter fraud is far, far below the level of being significant.



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

It is possible to convince me that my view on something may be incorrect. Arguments that teach me something new and that support the point being made will have the best chance of success.

As far as Texas is concerned, I stand by the statement I made. Most rural Texans are Republican. If, in fact, a few rural Texans were unable to vote in the 2012 presidential election due to burdensome voter id laws, then I seriously doubt that these uncast votes if cast for Obama would have made any difference at all. From the wikipedia web site:

,_2012

"Mitt Romney won the state of Texas with 57.17%, over Barack Obama's 41.38%. As in past elections, President Obama and the Democrats won in major metropolitan areas such as Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston, but Republicans were able to overwhelm the urban vote by sweeping the vast rural areas and suburbs of Texas by large margins."

Take a look at the pictorial county by county results and draw your own conclusions:

脗听

Medicare has greatly lowered our medical insurance costs.脗听 Previously even with $7000 IBM subsidy, had to pay over $15000 a year and it was taking the majority of the pension.


From: weinerisnospitzer <no_reply@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 12:55 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: The Inequality President

脗听
HA!脗听脗听
Let's all share how government has fixed your most recent social problem!

The politics of Washington Monthly are left of center. Founder Charles Peters refers to himself as a New Deal Democrat and advocates the effective use of government to address social problems.脗听

ref:脗听

Publisher Diane Straus Tucker worked with wacko Howard Dean脗听 at the DNC.脗听脗听脗听脗听脗听 <<<===(Watch last 4 seconds)

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sheila Beaudry wrote:

Lots of hope and change for me.

Lots of hope and change for me.


脗听

From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:02 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: The Inequality President

脗听


--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, edward_berkline <no_reply@> wrote:

Still not interested in how Obama compares to previous presidents.
It's not relevant, ...

And yet, you are the one who brought up the record of previous presidents by quoting the article from the Washington Times that compared Obama to Reagan!

Your better get your story straight, Mel. You're making yourself look foolish.

I just copied a section from the article referenced by the post I was responding to. For me the import of the copied material were the Obama numbers, not the Reagan numbers. I was just too lazy to delete them. Feel free to compare Obama to anyone you choose. Still not relevant because doing so doesn't change his numbers. I'm still looking for some of the "hope and change" we were all promised.

As to Obama inciting violence, here is a quote from his speech after the Zimmerman verdict:

"Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do."

Please explain how you think that this incites violence.

What you quote is only part of his speech. Here's the part that just proceeds what you've quoted:

"You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

And I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws -- everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is na脙炉ve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they're disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It's not to make excuses for that fact -- although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that's unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African American community is also not na脙炉ve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there's no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

For emphasis, let me repeat the part that I view as being the most inciting:

"And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

I don't understand why the President of the United States felt compelled to say anything about this to begin with. He surely must have realized what effect his comments would have on the black community.

You've told us all what a wonderful life you have. And you're disappointed that Obama has squandered (in your opinion) his opportunity to improve things for blacks. And yet you are complaining that Obama hasn't done anything to improve YOUR life! So, do you want him to focus on improving things for the people who need it most, or just you? Again, you are being very inconsistent.

Not being inconsistent. Isn't it possible that he could improve the lives of all Americans? I know that's not his focus, but I think it should be.

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

Still not interested in how Obama compares to previous presidents. It's not relevant, because past presidents, especially deceased ones, are no longer in the position that Obama is in to make a difference.

Let me give you an example of how I think Obama has incited racial discord and violence. There are many things he could have said and done following both the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the verdict in the George Zimmerman case. He chose to make comments that energized the racial divide in this country and that I believe incited and emboldened some within the black community (e.g. in Oakland, CA) to break windows and destroy the property of those who had nothing to do with what happened in Florida.

I am so disappointed by what Obama has achieved as president, I view him as the president of no Americans. He has achieved little and I can not point to a single thing he has done that has improved my life. In fact, he has achieved just the opposite. As the recent polls suggest, this is not an isolated view.

Their income will be verified when they file their taxes.脗听 The unions are not脗听against it, just want some changes.脗听 I脗听know some on military pay who wished the ACA applied to them but it doesn't.脗听 Some people don't like parts and others who don't have it wish they could.脗听 No law is perfect for everyone.


From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 1:14 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

脗听
Unfortunately, perception is reality. How do you expect Americans to feel about ACA given the fact that the Obama Administration has decided to proceed with the program despite the fact that the infrastructure will not be in place for verifying income when the exchanges open and for verifying consumers' claims that they do not receive health insurance from their employer? The federal government has had nearly 3 years to put the infrastructure in place. What else will not be ready when the exchanges open on October 1st? Many wonder. How is the Department of Health and Human Services coming along with setting up exchanges in the states that have declined to setup their own exchange or participate in the State Partnership Exchange? Many wonder. These are reasonable questions that should be asked following the recently announced delays.

Why are so many of the unions who strongly supported Obama and the passage of ACA now backing away from their support for ACA? Are you arguing that these organizations are not capable of sorting through the misinformation and recognizing this fear campaign for what it is?

If ACA is a compromise, then it's a compromise between liberal and conservative Democrats. Republicans were never given a fair opportunity to amend the legislation in any meaningful way. This is one of the primary reasons that not a single Republican in either the House or Senate voted for ACA.

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

No, it shows the disinformation and fear campaign against it is working.脙鈥毭偺� Plus if you actually ask people about specific things that are in the ACA they do like it and want it.脙鈥毭偺� Personally I would rather have a single payer plan.脙鈥毭偺� 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.脙鈥毭偺� This is what happens when you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes it.脙鈥毭偺� It has a lot of good things in it though:脙鈥毭偺� 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,脙鈥毭偺齱ill reduce uncovered people getting expensive care in emergency room脙鈥毭偺齱hich脙鈥毭偺齣n the past has脙鈥毭偺齣ncreased everyone else's costs.脙鈥毭偺� 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.脙鈥毭偺�


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

脙鈥毭偺�
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'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥�'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠��'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙茠��'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠��'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥�"fulltime equivalents脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥�'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠��'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙茠��'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠��'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧 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.

In NC the voter ID is required for absentee too.
脗听

From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 12:22 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

脗听
My, my, my.... you do like to twist what others say. Not a winning argument if you're really trying to convince that I'm mistaken and should change my mind about the need for voter ids. You and I both know that I believe very strongly in everyone's right to vote. I also believe that legal immigrants should obtain their citizenship as quickly as possible so they can participate.

There are clear disadvantages to living in rural areas. If you get sick, the health care you need may not be readily available. You'll probably not be able to watch the latest movies when they're first released. You may or may not have good internet support or reliable cell phone service, etc.. And you may not be able to obtain a voter id as easily as you might like. But, if you get sick, you go to where the proper healthcare is available. Likewise, if voting is important to you and you need a voter id , then you do what it takes to get one. But having said that, it's my understanding that a voter id is not required to vote by absentee ballot. So is having to have a voter id a real problem for anyone? Why can't they just vote by absentee ballot? Their signature will be on file from when they originally registered to vote. Which reminds me, we are not talking about registering to vote, which is what you last post is all about. We're just talking about the
requirement for the voter id.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, edward_berkline <no_reply@> wrote:

So your argument is that it is ok to make it inconvenient and difficult to register to vote and disenfranchise voters so long as those votes wouldn't make a difference in the outcome of the election? Something that can't be known with 100% certainty in advance!

Shouldn't the policy be that no citizen, no matter what party, should not be disenfranchised and should be allowed to register to vote with no unnecessary roadblocks?

Oh, I know, next you'll argue that the massive degree of voter fraud makes this necessary. But the truth is, the actual level of voter fraud is far, far below the level of being significant.



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

It is possible to convince me that my view on something may be incorrect. Arguments that teach me something new and that support the point being made will have the best chance of success.

As far as Texas is concerned, I stand by the statement I made. Most rural Texans are Republican. If, in fact, a few rural Texans were unable to vote in the 2012 presidential election due to burdensome voter id laws, then I seriously doubt that these uncast votes if cast for Obama would have made any difference at all. From the wikipedia web site:

,_2012

"Mitt Romney won the state of Texas with 57.17%, over Barack Obama's 41.38%. As in past elections, President Obama and the Democrats won in major metropolitan areas such as Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston, but Republicans were able to overwhelm the urban vote by sweeping the vast rural areas and suburbs of Texas by large margins."

Take a look at the pictorial county by county results and draw your own conclusions:

Their income will be verified when they file their taxes.脗听 The unions are not脗听against it, just want some changes.脗听 I脗听know some on military pay who wished the ACA applied to them but it doesn't.脗听 Some people don't like parts and others who don't have it wish they could.脗听 No law is perfect for everyone.


From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 1:14 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

脗听
Unfortunately, perception is reality. How do you expect Americans to feel about ACA given the fact that the Obama Administration has decided to proceed with the program despite the fact that the infrastructure will not be in place for verifying income when the exchanges open and for verifying consumers' claims that they do not receive health insurance from their employer? The federal government has had nearly 3 years to put the infrastructure in place. What else will not be ready when the exchanges open on October 1st? Many wonder. How is the Department of Health and Human Services coming along with setting up exchanges in the states that have declined to setup their own exchange or participate in the State Partnership Exchange? Many wonder. These are reasonable questions that should be asked following the recently announced delays.

Why are so many of the unions who strongly supported Obama and the passage of ACA now backing away from their support for ACA? Are you arguing that these organizations are not capable of sorting through the misinformation and recognizing this fear campaign for what it is?

If ACA is a compromise, then it's a compromise between liberal and conservative Democrats. Republicans were never given a fair opportunity to amend the legislation in any meaningful way. This is one of the primary reasons that not a single Republican in either the House or Senate voted for ACA.

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

No, it shows the disinformation and fear campaign against it is working.脙鈥毭偺� Plus if you actually ask people about specific things that are in the ACA they do like it and want it.脙鈥毭偺� Personally I would rather have a single payer plan.脙鈥毭偺� 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.脙鈥毭偺� This is what happens when you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes it.脙鈥毭偺� It has a lot of good things in it though:脙鈥毭偺� 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,脙鈥毭偺齱ill reduce uncovered people getting expensive care in emergency room脙鈥毭偺齱hich脙鈥毭偺齣n the past has脙鈥毭偺齣ncreased everyone else's costs.脙鈥毭偺� 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.脙鈥毭偺�


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

脙鈥毭偺�
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'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥�'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠��'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙茠��'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠��'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥�"fulltime equivalents脙茠脝'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥�'脙茠脝'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧脙鈥毭偮⒚兤捗�'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠��'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈧�拧脗卢脙茠��'脙鈥�'脙茠芒鈧�拧脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠��'脙垄芒鈥毬�脜隆脙茠芒鈧�拧 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.

At the 11th hour, Aetna announced that it and its newly acquired subsidiary, Coventry Health Care, would not participate in Georgia's exchange.

OMG Obama Must Go

and, a +ive spin:

So your argument is that it is ok to make it inconvenient and difficult to register to vote and disenfranchise voters so long as those votes wouldn't make a difference in the outcome of the election? Something that can't be known with 100% certainty in advance!

Shouldn't the policy be that no citizen, no matter what party, should not be disenfranchised and should be allowed to register to vote with no unnecessary roadblocks?

Oh, I know, next you'll argue that the massive degree of voter fraud makes this necessary. But the truth is, the actual level of voter fraud is far, far below the level of being significant.



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

It is possible to convince me that my view on something may be incorrect. Arguments that teach me something new and that support the point being made will have the best chance of success.

As far as Texas is concerned, I stand by the statement I made. Most rural Texans are Republican. If, in fact, a few rural Texans were unable to vote in the 2012 presidential election due to burdensome voter id laws, then I seriously doubt that these uncast votes if cast for Obama would have made any difference at all. From the wikipedia web site:

,_2012

"Mitt Romney won the state of Texas with 57.17%, over Barack Obama's 41.38%. As in past elections, President Obama and the Democrats won in major metropolitan areas such as Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston, but Republicans were able to overwhelm the urban vote by sweeping the vast rural areas and suburbs of Texas by large margins."

Take a look at the pictorial county by county results and draw your own conclusions: