¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Your challenge to Sue about not being an IBMer is pretty silly. And I challenged you in return in an attempt to show you how silly it is.
But you still don't get it.

Perhaps if I called IBM, they might tell me that Mel Z. is a retiree. But how would we know that you didn't simply pluck the name of an IBMer off the internet and use that as your Yahoo id? You see, you can't really prove you are indeed an IBMer.

Suppose that Sue and I are not really IBMers. Do you think we joined this group just to bother you because.... because... because...
Well, I can't even come up with a good reason for that one.

How about we are just real IBMers who happen to disagree with you? Sue has tried to back up her side of the argument with lots of facts. And you do lots of hand waving about why none of it is true and they can't be facts while presenting very little data to back up your side. Instead, you seem to have a need to disenfranchise anyone who does not share your opinions.


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

You can call IBM and verify the fact that I an an IBM retiree. I think it's very clear that Sue is not part of the IBM club. Given that you're so intent on defending her, I am now also beginning to wonder about you.

Thanks for showing us that your responses don't have anything to do with the facts we've been talking about, and they solely relate to your hatred of Obama and your opinions.

See, that's what we've been saying all along.

Neither Sheila nor I brought up Obama or Obamacare on this board, yet you personally attack ME over replying to those posts, rather than the people who originally brought up those topics.

When you behave in that way, you show yourself to be an insincere hypocrite.



-----Original Message-----
From: GM <mandaringoby@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Tue, Jul 30, 2013 12:53 am
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare







Why not create a new forum called "standing around the water cooler" or "I wish I was a level 59" and move all the ACA and Valerie Jarrett .. I mean Sue responses there.

Lets have the Pension room for Pension & cost and the occasional investment blurb as well as any flash announcements about great golf club deals. Do any retirees actually do any investment research?

The last 210 comments were mostly about a president whose name I don't want to ever actually say.

Whaddah ya say, more Lettuce management less o'bama care in here?






From: "KenSP@..." <KenSP@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare



If that is the case why are we going to have state exchanges and not one natioanl exchange?

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick b Cool
Date: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
To: ibmpensionissues@...

"A state issue, not a federal issue. One size does not fit all."

Sorry, I disagree. It is long past the time that we are an
isolated conglomerate of states. It is useful to have s few
states try different experiments and to observe before we come
up with national plans. Useful but not always necessary.
Economic efficiencies require large scale. Free market economics
require balancing forces, open accurate information, and freedom
of choice without collusion on either side of any market. The
world has done many economic and structural experiments in
delivering health care at a national level. The systems are
presently convergent and we are the very bad example of a
failing system. Implementations of federal programs are already
done by states with state by state inputs and adjustments
adjustments. The adjustments needed between NYC and Watertowen
are probably far greater than between NYC and Philadelphia or
Watertown, NY and Buckhannon, WV

"Should be a state issue" is just shorthand for I don't have a reason.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:

That is my point. Healthcare should be a state issue and not

a federal issue. One size does not fit every state. An example
is the definition of poverty and entitlement to Medicaid. In
New York, if you family income is less than $26,000 a year you
are considered living in poverty. But Texas has a different
amount and raising it to $26,000 would have triple those
entitled to Medicaid. That is why they did not accept the
changes in the Medicare and Medicaid bills. I like how President
Obama said that the penalty was not a tax but use the tax
argument to win the ACA case in the Supreme Court. I wonder if
he told the nation, it was a tax would it have passed in
Congress.I have no problem with the citizens of Mass. electing
and paying for their Healthcare Insurance Plan. It is what they
wanted and voted for those who supported their position. Here,
at the Federal level if you believe the polls, 50% are against
ACA.Let's see what happens in the House and Senate at the next
election.----- Original Message -----From: edward_berkline Date:
Monday, July 29, 2013 12:12 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re:
Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo:
ibmpensionissues@...> > To have low premiums, the
government must convince at least three> > million young people
to buy higher cost medical insurance rather> > than paying an
additional tax (per Supreme Court) of $700. Why buy> > something
you do not need merely to help others. > > Perhaps young people
will buy health insurance because they > actually get something
in return for the premiums they pay, such > as preventative care
and the peace of mind that if something > serious happens, it
won't bankrupt them.> > In Massachusetts under Romneycare,
people are required to buy > health insurance or pay a penalty.
It's been working for about > 6 years already. And only 6% of
the young adults there are > going without health insurance. So
it seems like your argument > doesn't hold water.> > > > --- In
ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > It is
interesting that the government is planning to spend > $700
million on convincing people and the young that ACA is a > good
thing and they should buy insurance. To have low premiums, > the
government must convince at least three million young people >
to buy higher cost medical insurance rather than paying an >
additional tax (per Supreme Court) of $700. Why buy something >
you do not need merely to help others. So words and arguments >
about fairness or having the rich pay more is not going to do >
it. Even if you tax the rich 100%, it does not cover the annual

deficits. You must raise everyone's tax and I think the same

is > going to take place here. If the young do not buy into the

purchasing insurance, (and why should they buy something they
don't need), the cost will be going up for everyone else.I

think > this debate is useless since in the end people,
especially the > young, will vote with their pocket books
regardless of their > opinion on whether ACA is good or bad. In
the end, this will > force the middle class to vote at the
polls. They will probably > not support those who voted in
something that increased their > cost. The parties will blame
each other but the truth will be > the young were not convinced
to buy something they really don't > need and pay more than the
$700 additional tax.> >

Yes, there are probably thousands of dead people still on the voter rolls. But there is scant evidence that ballots were cast for large numbers of them.

In the first article you linked to, it says:

"A closer look at the data revealed that SOME of the dead people were not only registered, but somehow, even voted."

You managed to read this and concluded that this means MANY of them voted.

California has around 18 million registered voters. And 25,000 of them appear to be dead, according to the article. Overall, that's just 0.14% of registered voters.

But if the number examples of possibly fraudulent votes cited in the article are typical (e.g. 6 out of 100 in Contra Costa County), that works out to a state-wide fraud rate of 0.008%. That's just 8 one thousandth of 1 percent.

And you want to argue that voter fraud is a significant problem?

The dead voter problem is easy to fix, without voter ID laws. All they have to do is purge the registration rolls using reliable data. There's no need to make it more difficult to register to vote.

Switching over to the topic of voter suppression, here is a quote from PA:

"Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done," Turzai said at Saturday's Republican State Committee.



Not a word about illegitimate votes or making the election more fair... just a blatent attempt to ensure that there will be fewer votes from Democrats.

The trouble with Republicans is that they keep slipping up at the most inconvenient times and allowing the truth to come out. And it helped Ombama win by a wide margin. Those dumb-ass Republicans!



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

I have not read or heard everything, but I have never read or heard about a member of the Republican leadership stating that their intent is to suppress any votes that are legitimately cast. However, I would not be surprised if a Republican leader stated that he/she believed that a voter id law suppressed illegitimate votes for Democratic candidates thereby making an election fairer.

For those of you who believe that voter fraud does not exist, please take a look at the following:

(1) In the 2012 presidential election, over 25 thousand dead people were still on the voter rolls and many of these people actually voted in the election. Regardless of the cause, this is voter fraud.

Read the article and listen to the video of the NBC news cast that reported this problem.


(2) A PEW center study has concluded that nearly 2 million dead people are on voter rolls nationwide.



(3) 53,000 dead voters were found in Florida



None of this, as well as other types of voter fraud is widely publicized. After all, we as Americans take great pride in believing that our elections are fair, as fair elections are the cornerstone of our democratic republic.

You can call IBM and verify the fact that I an an IBM retiree. I think it's very clear that Sue is not part of the IBM club. Given that you're so intent on defending her, I am now also beginning to wonder about you.

I have not read or heard everything, but I have never read or heard about a member of the Republican leadership stating that their intent is to suppress any votes that are legitimately cast. However, I would not be surprised if a Republican leader stated that he/she believed that a voter id law suppressed illegitimate votes for Democratic candidates thereby making an election fairer.

For those of you who believe that voter fraud does not exist, please take a look at the following:

(1) In the 2012 presidential election, over 25 thousand dead people were still on the voter rolls and many of these people actually voted in the election. Regardless of the cause, this is voter fraud.

Read the article and listen to the video of the NBC news cast that reported this problem.


(2) A PEW center study has concluded that nearly 2 million dead people are on voter rolls nationwide.



(3) 53,000 dead voters were found in Florida



None of this, as well as other types of voter fraud is widely publicized. After all, we as Americans take great pride in believing that our elections are fair, as fair elections are the cornerstone of our democratic republic.

You seem to think that the free exchange of ideas is great, as long as those ideas align with your own. The moment someone disagrees, call them a pest and claim they must not be an IBMer.

How do we know you are an IBMer, Mel? If you want to have a discussion where only your views are expressed, go off and start a new "Only_Mel" group.

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

Cat got your tongue? Just trying to understand what your motivation is for bombarding a message board originally set up to allow a more free exchange of ideas and thoughts among IBMers and IBM retirees. I don't think you are one of us.

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

Sue, I have to ask, do you or did you ever work for IBM? Or are you just posting to tis board because you have nothing better to do?

In some states, such as CA and NY, insurance companies have already announced their rates for the insurance exchanges. So we do know something about what it will cost.

I guess you are wrong again, Mel.

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

Reality check: No one know how much obamacare healthcare will cost because the exchanges are not yet open. Just like those of us who have IBM healthcare coverage will not know what our 2014 costs will be until the IBM October exchange is open.

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

Well, uh, the people who paid more when parents added their adult children to their policies are the parents themselves. Since additional person(s) were covered, they paid additional premiums. But they got something they wanted in return: HEALTH INSURANCE ! Oh, the tragedy! They had to actually PAY for it!!!! And it was all voluntary!

Since the majority of young adults are healthy and can be expected to have few claims, the premiums their parents pay are most likely helping to keep the cost lower for everyone else. Oh, what a tragedy!!

If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:

The FACT is that very few people will pay more for healthcare?coverage with Obamacare?as compared to how much they would have paid out before Obamacare.How is this a fact. Someone had to pay for putting children on a parent's health insurance policy.? Isn't this a result of Obamacare?and didn't the insurance companies increase their premiums to cover this.? So how can you say that this is a fact very few people will be paying more for their insurance.? Tell it to those people who do not have children under the age of 26 and now have to pay more. Everyone paid more because of this change.This is proof how you make general statements which are opinions and then call the facts.?

Wow, look what you started about 10 days ago & this collection of
screen shots about sums it all up:



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

Soooo glad I never joined a union...

This is a bad re-distribution of wealth for sure.

One has to deny the reality that far to many in the Republican leadershi0p have clearly stated that their intent is to win elections by suppressing Democratic votes. When the reality of what the Republican leadership says fits the reality of what the laws they propose actually do and the simple fact that none of these laws in any real effective way attack, limit or address any actual real voter fraud which they have never shown actually exists. Why impose new laws to solve a problem that does not exist.

All the actual documented voting fraud has been carried out by insider political operatives. No by unqualified voters showing up and voting. The new ID laws will do nothing to address any real problem. They simply suppress minority, handicapped, poor, and elderly votes.

Now, what purpose does restricted voting hours serve? Again, out o0f the mouths of Republican leaders, to suppress Democratic votes and win elections for Republicans.

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

My perspective is a bit different than yours. Voter ID laws are not typically passed the day before an election. Those who wish to vote have plenty of time to get one, even if they think it's inconvenient to do so. I know that North Carolina requires a government issued photo id, but having to take off work in order to get one? Isn't the DMV or some other issuing entity open on Saturday? In California they are and you can even schedule an appointment in advance so there is no waiting when you get there. If it's too hard to obtain a government issued photo id in NC, then perhaps the laws or policies need to be changed to make it easier. I can remember instances in the past when I have been required to have multiple ids. I investigated what was required ahead of time and brought what was needed. Is being disorganized really a valid excuse for not being able to obtain an id? On to the homeless - I seriously doubt that the homeless vote. Without an address they will nor be assigned a polling place, which means they probably need to go to some government office to vote, which I suspect few would do. As another member of this forum has pointed out, the homeless have more immediate basic survival issues to focus on.

People can come up with all sorts of excuses for not doing this that or the other thing. All of us have needed to provide ids to initially register to vote. We obtained an id if we didn't already have one and followed the process because we felt that it was important to be able to vote. People without the proper id have plenty of time to obtain one before one is required. They are inexpensive and in many cases free to those that cannot afford them. People who care about their elderly family members or friends will assist them through the process if they need help. People who claim that the requirement for having an id is so burdensome that it prohibits them from voting simply don't think that casting their vote is that important. It's just not a priority for them.

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

NC just passed a new Voter ID law and it requires a copy of your photo ID to be sent with your absentee ballot.?? So if you don't have a scanner/printer at home it involves going out somewhere to get that copy and you still need to have that photo ID.?? Also they won't accept a college ID or your companies photo ID.?? It has to be a government issued ID.?? Also if your college student votes at their college area instead of coming home to vote or by absentee ballot, then the parents lose their tax deduction for the student on their NC taxes.?? My 90 year old arthritic mother will not be able to vote because her driver's license expired years ago as she can no longer drive.?? To be able to vote my brother will have to take off from work and take her to get an ID made.?? If you think that this doesn't discourage people from voting because it just isn't worth all the hassle, then you are not being realistic.?? Another problem is what is required to get that
ID.?? The elderly TN woman who was denied ID even though she brought them her birth certificate because she didn't also have her marriage license is an example of the problems.?? The homeless who live under a bridge are suppose to constitutionally be able to vote, but how do you establish proof of residence??? They certainly don't have a bank statement or an electric bill to show.?? I would have little problem with requiring voter ID if there were actually a lot of people-impersonation type of fraud, but there isn't.?? ID will not stop the most prevalent problems and requiring it with these strict rules??can disenfranchise millions of people who should be able to vote.?? See
??

From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:20 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

??
It took some time to explore these links.

I think the propublica site seems to very objectively report what others say or think. However, it doesn't really endorse or refute anyone's argument or position. Here's an example:

"How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by the laws, and could they really affect the election?

Answer: It's not clear."

My conclusion: This site does not support or refute your claim that some will have trouble obtaining ids.

Regarding the timesleader reference, you state "Multiple voters who no longer have ID's (but did when they initially registered to vote) who would be disenfranchised are cited in this news story." Multiple, in this case, is a grand total of 3. They are are homebound seniors who need to rely on others to help then get ids, and I understand that this makes getting an id more of a challenge. However, you fail to mention that each of these voters could get around the photo id requirement in Pennsylvania simply by casting an absentee ballot.

Bottom line: Any of these folks can easily submit an absentee ballot. Wouldn't it, in fact, be more convenient for them to do so, given their frail health and dependencies on others to get around? Seems like a politically motivated law suit.

The policymic web site is a Harvard University discussion forum. The article you reference is clearly an opinion based on the author's political slant. His conclusion says it all: "This voter identification phenomonon is scary in a way, in that Americans are all too willing to accept another way of feeling "safe" that assumes one is guilty until he or she proves himself innocent. We endure airport searches, Type 1 and Type 2 identification checks, and increased scrutiniy of our credit history and social networking in the name of safety, whether it be for individuals or organizations. Should every state implement a photogrpahic voter ID law, we will have succeeded in creating a national identifcation system in fact if not in name. What could be next, DNA samples taken at birth or when granted legal status? RFID chip implanatation to establish our whereabouts at all times? The more we subscribe to this need to feel safe, to this culture of fear, the less
free we will be, and the upshot of it all is that these measures are invariably sponsored by those who think government is too big and must reduce its role in our lives."

My conclusion: Nothing very objective about this article. Clearly just an opinion. Not convincing in any way, unless you already agree with the author prior to reading the article.

The CNN article seems to be a rehash of the earlier links, and in general, CNN is to liberal Democrats what FOX is to conservative Republicans. Since you so vehemently dismiss anything reported by FOX, I choose to do the same for CNN, despite the fact that I do agree that FOX tends to be one-sided. CNN, likewise, tends to be one-sided.

Finally the unnamed law professor. Could it, by any chance, be Barack Obama? Just kidding, but it's hard to verify the objectivity of unnamed sources.

It's only the opinions in these articles, not the facts, that support your view.


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

I swear, why do we KEEP having to spoonfeed you factual information? You should have learned by now that we don't write stuff we can't back up with multiple links.



According to a study from NYU's Brennan Center, 11 percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices.

In Pennsylvania, nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voter base, don't own state-issued ID cards, according to an analysis of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State officials, on the other hand, place this number at between 80,000 and 90,000.
In Indiana and Georgia, states with the earliest versions of photo ID laws, about 1,300 provisional votes were discarded in the 2008 general election, later analysis has revealed.
As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by Nate Silver at the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent. It doesn't sound like a very wide margin, but it all depends on the electoral landscape.
"We don't know exactly how much these news laws will affect turnout or skew turnout in favor of Republicans," said Hasen, author of the recently released The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown. "But there's no question that in a very close election, they could be enough to make a difference in the outcome."



Multiple voters who no longer have ID's (but did when they initially registered to vote) who would be disenfranchised are cited in this news story.



Read this whole article, with many links, to see all the disenfranchisement that could happen. It's a solution looking for a problem.



Written by a law professor.

Now, can most people get ID's? Yes. Will a person who really wants to vote get whatever ID they can? Sure. But is it almost certain that a not-insignificant number of people will be dissuaded from voting because of these hurdles - and there's no justifiable reason to do so, as voter fraud is an insignificant problem.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life












From: "zimowski@" <zimowski@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 4:08 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life



What is the evidence that some people will have a problem getting IDs?

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

1. There are some good arguments here, now lets add to them.

Please, please, add some good arguments... but sadly, you fail to do so below.

2. 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?

The states have determined that to protect our environment, to protect and maintain our waterways and our fish, we'll take advantage of use-specific fees to help fund those protections. It IS a regressive tax that affects the poorest among us more than the wealthier among us. If you think that's so wrong, feel free to lobby your state legislature to provide some income-based exemptions to the fishing license requirement. Please, do it!!! Or simply be a insincere hypocrite. Our nation has all kinds of user-based fees. That way, only those people who actually use the services pay for them. However, that doesn't work for large-scale projects like roads, schools, government in general, etc, and that's why we have progressive rate taxes to cover those costs.

3. 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.

Again, people had to show ID to vote in the first place. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to show ID to prove their identity when they enroll in a program or first register to vote. The problem is the ongoing burden to provide ID every time they vote! And you're right, it's going to be a burden to those people to provide that ID in order to qualify for that exchange, but THAT'S BECAUSE there's plenty of evidence of fraud that happened with regard to health care provision. It makes sense to have that barrier there, because there's a known problem. With voting, there is NOT evidence of any kind of significant voter fraud that would be fixed with Voter ID requirements. Your argument falls on its face when you acknowledge that fact - yet you make that argument anyway, even though it's ludicrously laughable.

4. 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.

The fact that your family members never had any issues getting ID's is IRRELEVANT to the documented fact that millions of Americans will have a difficult time getting ID's. OF COURSE most people have ID's. Most people don't have difficult hurdles to surmount to get ID. No one claimed that it's a problem for everyone, so you can stop beating that strawman argument any time now. The ISSUE is that some people WILL have a problem getting ID's, and without evidence that there's a problem that needs a solution, there's no reason to put those hurdles in their path so that they have to get over them in order to vote! That's the issue - and, not strangely at all, it's the ISSUE I mentioned prominently in my post below!! Geesh.

5. 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.

Your failure/unwillingness to acknowledge a documented problem is your shortcoming. It's not evidence that the documented problem doesn't exist. Nonpartisan people have documented that millions of Americans who are registered voters and who would otherwise vote will find it difficult to get and keep ID's so that they can continue to vote as they have been doing.

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

Okay, they are hiring people to help citizens sign up for health insurance through the Exchanges - a good thing.???'??'???€???????? They are verifying the person's information through other government database information to reduce the chances of fraud - another good thing.???'??'???€???????? I see no difference in hiring people to help people sign up for ACA than for social security or any other government program.???'??'???€???????? I certainly needed help figuring all that out.???'??'???€???????? The data will be no less secure than the data the social security database.???'??'???€????????
???'??'???€????????
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.???'??'???€???????? 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.???'??'???€???????? The next step is they will try to defund it.???'??'???€???????? Check out information you receive through independent fact checking sites.???'??'???€???????? 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 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Personal Life

???'??'???€????????
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.

White Castle is affected too:



White Castle has offered their employees health insurance since before the Great Depression, and Mr. Richardson testified that this law and the uncertainty it creates is harming his company's employees, its ability to offer health insurance, and its capability to create jobs.

He said that White Castle's growth was directly and negatively impacted by this law. Richardson said, "I would like to tell you we've continued to open more restaurants in more neighborhoods, providing more jobs, and serving more customers. I'd like to tell you that, but I can't. In fact, White Castle's growth has halted."

Coupons for above & more:

Must be true...it's in the NYT:



Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the Senate was responsible for the provision requiring lawmakers and many aides to get insurance in the exchanges.

"We had to take the Senate version of the health care bill," Ms. DeGette said. "This is not anything we spent time talking about here in the House."

Another House Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "This was a stupid provision that never should have gotten into the law."
.....
Over 400 comments below article...hilarity ensues
.....
(How will they get their little blue pills?)

Cat got your tongue? Just trying to understand what your motivation is for bombarding a message board originally set up to allow a more free exchange of ideas and thoughts among IBMers and IBM retirees. I don't think you are one of us.

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

Sue, I have to ask, do you or did you ever work for IBM? Or are you just posting to tis board because you have nothing better to do?

Reality check: No one know how much obamacare healthcare will cost because the exchanges are not yet open. Just like those of us who have IBM healthcare coverage will not know what our 2014 costs will be until the IBM October exchange is open.

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

Well, uh, the people who paid more when parents added their adult children to their policies are the parents themselves. Since additional person(s) were covered, they paid additional premiums. But they got something they wanted in return: HEALTH INSURANCE ! Oh, the tragedy! They had to actually PAY for it!!!! And it was all voluntary!

Since the majority of young adults are healthy and can be expected to have few claims, the premiums their parents pay are most likely helping to keep the cost lower for everyone else. Oh, what a tragedy!!

If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:

The FACT is that very few people will pay more for healthcare?coverage with Obamacare?as compared to how much they would have paid out before Obamacare.How is this a fact. Someone had to pay for putting children on a parent's health insurance policy.? Isn't this a result of Obamacare?and didn't the insurance companies increase their premiums to cover this.? So how can you say that this is a fact very few people will be paying more for their insurance.? Tell it to those people who do not have children under the age of 26 and now have to pay more. Everyone paid more because of this change.This is proof how you make general statements which are opinions and then call the facts.?

I keep seeing notes posted from "no_reply@..."
When I Google the email I see a bunch of scam warnings

plus

searching the membership of this yahoo group I get:
(No members matching 'no_reply@...')

So how is this person posting? I see the same email in many other IBM yahoo groups also.

Doesn't this bother anyone?

Soooo glad I never joined a union...

This is a bad re-distribution of wealth for sure.