¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

One of the outstanding problems in the MSM is the principle of balance, balance between two equivalent sides. It is a problem because we presently do not have two equivalent sides with equivalent legitimacy. The MSM would do everyone a favor if they simply reported real facts rather tan play the game of R said this, D said this while providing no real context or fact checking. This false equivalence is a major part of the problem. Treating all of the American people as dumb is a major part of the problem. Birthers need to be CLEARLY presented as dishonest liars, not just as an alternative opinion or alternative "fact".

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

I'm fully aware of the many shortcomings of President Obama. I don't need to "balance out my stand", as MY stand is an accurate one that has documented a few of the many ways in which the "both sides do it" argument is invalid.

Politifact is a nonpartisan factchecking site, and there's an overwhelming difference between the two sides of the political aisle in how they tell lies and how they tell the truth.

Again, I've never said that Democrats are angelic and Republicans are the devil, and so you pointing out ONE instance where the Democrats behaved badly doesn't refute my stance in ANY WAY - yet you delusionally think it does. The flaw is with your thinking, not with what I've written here.

I have no idea what you're going off on when you cite that the Democrats refused to work with Republicans on an energy plan, but I suspect you're distorting what truly happened - but even if you aren't, it's not evidence that the Dems are less interested in working with the other party - and that's what THIS sub-thread is about, remember, whether or not one political party is less interested in behaving collegially than the other to a significant degree of difference. Republicans in the House have a firm stance that they won't allow ANY votes on ANY bills that don't have majority Republican support. Now, in the past few months, they've had to ignore that rule to get a couple of very important bills passed, but they hold pretty darn firm to that ideal, and you want to carp about ONE instance where the Democrats didn't want to go along with the Republicans? Really?



-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 8:58 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts are powerful things.


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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







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






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






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

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

Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.???????????????? Stop spreading untruths.???????????????? See .


From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:34 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

????????????????
Really?

Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote:

If ACA???????????????? is so great why did Congress and the President exempt themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt national corporation who have health care???????????????? insurance for employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally missed my point.???????????????? The point I was making is it does not matter if you have or do not have insurance including ACA???????????????? If doctors do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single payer? As a retired

person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political discussion or as do gooder???????????????? but are based on real life experience which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same age.I do not see ACA???????????????? as the answer.???????????????? Since like Medicare, in order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance companies or the government will have to reduce the reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.???????????????? Based on actual personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one that does not.???????????????? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on everything. A Medicare???????????????? doctor is earning his income by seeing volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No
Doctor can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the ACA???????????????? you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.???????????????? In Canada, you are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical needs and the test you need to take.???????????????? In the ACA, a nurse is made your primary care person who determines the tests you need and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA???????????????? has only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create the ACA.???????????????? My Medicare???????????????? doctor told me that I should do the two knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think you have to live the law. to see what you have lost.RegardsFreon???????????????? a
retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;; Very good. Thanks for the analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > No ACA???????????????? is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of the United > States. The one strategy which the modern
Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we need to have access to good health care > severely limited to more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue on this forum is > getting
back on topic. We don't need the political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote:> >> > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > who have retired.???????????????? It is reasonably price. The issue is not the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before he > is willing to even accept you as a patient.
Some will advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting Medicare / Medicaid > patients.???????????????? The reason is that the government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.???????????????? A medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of their patients where under
Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.???????????????? She had to pay his fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the fee.???????????????? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you want but it won't > by you medical services if a
doctor does not accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ???????????????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards single payer.> > > > > > ???????????????? > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, now
tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this thread can get back on topic> > without the radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole time. Obviously less the> > changes currently being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > they receive at others
expense, or the great > benefits of> > have a great society that supports all the > people, grows> > the economy, and increases the standard of > living. They> > simply dream of how good it would be if they retained> > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use words like > socialist and> > communist and have no idea what either term actually> > means. They certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All they do is whine and hope that someone> > will give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > themselves that they are independent individuals> > supporting themselves outside all that exists > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > >

Back to the good old days when only white> > male protestants who own landed estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > pawnedmyrolex wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >

Show me a post where anyone here has said that they admire Keith Olbermann or agreed with the way he behaved..... oh, that's right, you can't, 'cuz it never happened.

His usage of that phrase has nothing to do with us.

YOUR usage of him is an example of a logical fallacy - look it up. All of your arguments are bogus and ridiculous, in fact. You can't refute a thing we've been writing, and so you choose to make ludicrous statements that have nothing to do with what we've been saying.

It's undeniably TRUE. One can't legitimately demand respect for an opinion that's not based upon the facts. That's why Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

And there aren't a different set of facts upon which we can each rely upon. There's one set of facts. That's undeniable. Your personal attacks on me, or Keith Olbermann, don't change that FACT that there's one set of facts that we can all avail ourselves of. You can't possibly know that your "facts are correct", because you havent' been relying upon facts! 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.

The only people who will pay more without getting a significant benefit are the wealthiest among us and those healthy young people who chose to not have insurance before and who remain healthy. That's a fact. We're getting economies of scale, we're getting savings from people getting better care at lower costs, and we're taxing a few people and bringing more people into the system. Obamacare actually helps our nation's long term deficit.

All facts.

Now, you can hold the opinion that you don't WANT anyone to pay ANY more in order to get millions more people covered by health insurance. I'm of the opinion that it's a great thing to allow more people to live healthier lives. I'm of the opinion that it's better to stop tons of people every year from dying as a result of not having healthcare insurance. You can certainly hold the opinion that you aren't willing to help them out. But you can't legitimately claim that your opinions are backed up by facts, because they aren't.


-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:18 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




The statements "You have your right to your own opinions and beliefs. Not your own facts." have been popping up on this forum quite a bit lately. I thought that this was a quote from Keith Olbermann, but decided to verify and was surprised to learn that it is in fact a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. This fact was found in a Washington Post opinions article by Ted Koppel about opinionated well-known personalities.

Ted notes: "Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts."

Here's another Ted Koppel quote from the article:

"We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable."

Finally a Koppel quote about Olbermann, who uses the "everyone is entitled" quote more than anyone: "To witness Keith Olbermann - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust.

Back then, a policy against political contributions would have aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers to his program every night precisely because he is avowedly, unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?"

My opinion is that it's hard to trust the arguments of anyone who thinks that Keith Olbermann's style of debate is one that should be emulated as being non-partisan and convincing. Gets more amusing with every re-use of Moynihan's observation.

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

Spoken like a true person who doesn't like the facts and what they mean or imply. You have your right to your own opinions and beliefs. Not your own facts. You have the right to not believe simple facts. That is nothing more than political zeal or religious fervor in denial of objective reality. A common trait among us humans, but not a particularly useful trait in optimizing outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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




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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it a fact that until the fetus leaves the womb, it's a fetus.

But that isn't what you wrote. See, I can read, and I do it well, and you didn't simply say that it's a fetus until it leaves the womb before.

And that IS a fact. An indisputable fact. It's not an opinion that it's a fetus until it leaves the womb, it's a fact.

Whether or not it has rights is an opinion. Whether or not it's a human life that can force a woman to be an unwilling incubator while it's not viable outside the womb is an opinion.

But it's a fact that it's a fetus while in the womb.

See, I'm not, and never have been, confused about what's a fact and what's an opinion. Apparently you are, as you describe below both facts and opinions as facts.

I have NOT described opinions as facts in this ongoing discussion. Others have, it's true, but I haven't.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 8:47 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




Wow, interesting and you see I'd agree with you for the most part. However the entire "womans right to her own body above everything else crowd" has stated it is a medical fact that the thing in the womb is a fetus, not a child, not a human and it has no rights. Of course the other camp states it as a fact that the child in the womb is an innocent human and as the most defenseless among us has the right equal or greater protections than the mother.
Both state fact, you will never get them to move from their stand.

This is but one simple example of "facts" which are not facts. Most everything in this string that started the whole discussion is opinion based upon an individuals particular preference and the selective facts they choose to use to form that stand.

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

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

But facts are facts.


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

No, Kevin, facts are facts. No one owns "facts". They're available for everyone.

And while someone's feelings might be hurt when another exposes their dishonesty, it's not an insult to call a liar a liar when the discussion revolves around whether or not that person is being honest.. That's not what an insult is.

Opinions are related to a personal belief set. Facts are not.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 8:25 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






Untruths can be refuted without denigration and insult. Facts can be presented without being insulting. As many of the posts have shown, facts don't equate to truth. What is fact for you because it suits your personal belief set, living situation, context may not apply to someone else in different situation.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Without a doubt, Obama knows how to give a speech. But every speech he gives, pits some segment of the U.S. population against another. Rich vs not so rich. Moral vs immoral. Those with common sense vs those that lack it. Those that look like Travon Martin vs those that don't. Never ending - so divisive - so polarizing. Inflames one side and alienates the other side. Even if he is no different and I'm not so sure I agree, what has he done to improve your life in the 4+ years he's been president? In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W" <nowwicked@> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show me a post where anyone here has said that they admire Keith Olbermann or agreed with the way he behaved..... oh, that's right, you can't, 'cuz it never happened.

His usage of that phrase has nothing to do with us.

YOUR usage of him is an example of a logical fallacy - look it up. All of your arguments are bogus and ridiculous, in fact. You can't refute a thing we've been writing, and so you choose to make ludicrous statements that have nothing to do with what we've been saying.

It's undeniably TRUE. One can't legitimately demand respect for an opinion that's not based upon the facts. That's why Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

And there aren't a different set of facts upon which we can each rely upon. There's one set of facts. That's undeniable. Your personal attacks on me, or Keith Olbermann, don't change that FACT that there's one set of facts that we can all avail ourselves of. You can't possibly know that your "facts are correct", because you havent' been relying upon facts! 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.

The only people who will pay more without getting a significant benefit are the wealthiest among us and those healthy young people who chose to not have insurance before and who remain healthy. That's a fact. We're getting economies of scale, we're getting savings from people getting better care at lower costs, and we're taxing a few people and bringing more people into the system. Obamacare actually helps our nation's long term deficit.

All facts.

Now, you can hold the opinion that you don't WANT anyone to pay ANY more in order to get millions more people covered by health insurance. I'm of the opinion that it's a great thing to allow more people to live healthier lives. I'm of the opinion that it's better to stop tons of people every year from dying as a result of not having healthcare insurance. You can certainly hold the opinion that you aren't willing to help them out. But you can't legitimately claim that your opinions are backed up by facts, because they aren't.


-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:18 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




The statements "You have your right to your own opinions and beliefs. Not your own facts." have been popping up on this forum quite a bit lately. I thought that this was a quote from Keith Olbermann, but decided to verify and was surprised to learn that it is in fact a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. This fact was found in a Washington Post opinions article by Ted Koppel about opinionated well-known personalities.

Ted notes: "Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts."

Here's another Ted Koppel quote from the article:

"We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable."

Finally a Koppel quote about Olbermann, who uses the "everyone is entitled" quote more than anyone: "To witness Keith Olbermann - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust.

Back then, a policy against political contributions would have aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers to his program every night precisely because he is avowedly, unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?"

My opinion is that it's hard to trust the arguments of anyone who thinks that Keith Olbermann's style of debate is one that should be emulated as being non-partisan and convincing. Gets more amusing with every re-use of Moynihan's observation.

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

Spoken like a true person who doesn't like the facts and what they mean or imply. You have your right to your own opinions and beliefs. Not your own facts. You have the right to not believe simple facts. That is nothing more than political zeal or religious fervor in denial of objective reality. A common trait among us humans, but not a particularly useful trait in optimizing outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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




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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Then you misheard.?? Only around 4 % of people are on welfare. ()?? Perhaps what you heard was that 45% of people depend upon the government.?? That would include people on Medicare and Medicaid,??people working for the government, people working on government contracts??and people on welfare.


From: Sam Cay <ceome60@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 9:06 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

??
Funny I just saw a stat on MSNBC that 45% of americans are on welfare. I wonder who they voted for??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts are powerful things.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 4:27 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






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

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

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

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

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

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

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 8:33 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Sheila Beaudry <sbbeaudry@>
To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare







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






From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:59 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






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

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

Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.???'???'???€????€? Stop spreading untruths.???'???'???€????€? See


From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@>
To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:34 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

???'???'???€????€?
Really?

Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote:

If ACA???'???'???€????€? is so great why did Congress and the President exempt themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt national corporation who have health care???'???'???€????€? insurance for employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally missed my point.???'???'???€????€? The point I was making is it does not matter if you have or do not have insurance including ACA???'???'???€????€? If doctors do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality of

service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single payer? As a retired

person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political discussion or as do gooder???'???'???€????€? but are based on real life experience which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same age.I do not see ACA???'???'???€????€? as the answer.???'???'???€????€? Since like Medicare, in order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance companies or the government will have to reduce the reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.???'???'???€????€? Based on actual personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one that does not.???'???'???€????€? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on everything. A

Medicare???'???'???€????€? doctor is earning his income by seeing volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No

Doctor can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the ACA???'???'???€????€? you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.???'???'???€????€? In Canada, you are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical needs and the test you need to take.???'???'???€????€? In the ACA, a nurse is made your primary care person who determines the tests you need and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA???'???'???€????€? has only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create the ACA.???'???'???€????€? My Medicare???'???'???€????€? doctor told me that I should do the two knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was said, "You have to pass the

law, to know what is in it" I think you have to live the law. to see what you have lost.RegardsFreon???'???'???€????€? a

retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;; Very good. Thanks for the analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > No ACA???'???'???€????€? is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of the United > States. The one

strategy which the modern

Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we need to have access to good health care > severely limited to more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue on this forum is >

getting

back on topic. We don't need the political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote:> >> > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > who have retired.???'???'???€????€? It is reasonably price. The issue is not the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before he > is willing to even

accept you as a patient.

Some will advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting Medicare / Medicaid > patients.???'???'???€????€? The reason is that the government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.???'???'???€????€? A medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a >

majority of their patients where under

Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.???'???'???€????€? She had to pay his fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the fee.???'???'???€????€? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you want but it

won't > by you medical services if a

doctor does not accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ???'???'???€????€? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards single payer.> > > > > > ???'???'???€????€? > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > --- In

mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;; > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, now

tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;; > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this thread can get back on topic> > without the radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;; > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole time. Obviously less the> > changes currently being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > they receive at

others

expense, or the great > benefits of> > have a great society that supports all the > people, grows> > the economy, and increases the standard of > living. They> > simply dream of how good it would be if they retained> > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use words like > socialist and> > communist and have no idea what either term actually> > means. They certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All they do is whine and hope that someone> > will give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > themselves that they are independent individuals> > supporting themselves outside all that exists > and all that> > has gone before.>

> > > >

Back to the good old days when only white> > male protestants who own landed estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;; > pawnedmyrolex wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;; > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;; > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > >

>> > > > > > >> > >

Suppose the ACA health insurance exchanges did not exist and IBM discontinued retiree health insurance. Where would you get health insurance at a reasonable price as an individual?

And if you have a pre-existing condition, without the prohibitions against this in the ACA, you might not be able to find any health insurance at all.

A quick quote from Kaiser-Permanente shows a premium of $725 per month ($8,700 per year) for self-only coverage for a 60 year old.
A high deductible plan lowers that to as little as $317 per month with a $5000 deductible. Of course, these prices assume no pre-existing conditions.


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

"Without the ACA, that would most likely leave you without any insurance at all."

It would? Don't understand your basis for this conclusion.

"With the ACA, at least you will have an option, even if it does cost you more
than the IBM plan."

Not a very interesting option for me. I've investigated the details a bit. 99% of the preventative care covered doesn't benefit me. I have no children younger than 26. I don't have any pre-existing conditions. And so on.

"Without the ACA, that would most likely leave you without any insurance at all."

It would? Don't understand your basis for this conclusion.

"With the ACA, at least you will have an option, even if it does cost you more
than the IBM plan."

Not a very interesting option for me. I've investigated the details a bit. 99% of the preventative care covered doesn't benefit me. I have no children younger than 26. I don't have any pre-existing conditions. And so on.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

Okay, they are hiring people to help citizens sign up for health insurance through the Exchanges - a good thing.???? 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 <no_reply@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
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.

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

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

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

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

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

So your issue is a concern/fear that ACA will impact you negatively. What have you done to confirm or elevate your concern/fear? Have you tried to call IBM ESC and ask them? Sent a email to IBM HR with your concern? It would be helpful to all of us retirees to know what IBM is officially saying or not saying about changes to our benefits based on ACA versus us guessing causing unneeded arguments among us IBM retirees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that IBM will provide no hint of what they may be planning to do until they announce it, so I think doing any of the things you suggest would just be a waste of time.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., rspee7 <no_reply@> wrote:

So your issue is a concern/fear that ACA will impact you negatively. What have you done to confirm or elevate your concern/fear? Have you tried to call IBM ESC and ask them? Sent a email to IBM HR with your concern? It would be helpful to all of us retirees to know what IBM is officially saying or not saying about changes to our benefits based on ACA versus us guessing causing unneeded arguments among us IBM retirees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I'me even more worried!!

As noted in my post, I understand that IBM contributes $7K yearly to my health care coverage. I don't find anything amusing about my costs potentially going up. And I'm not blaming ACA for a potential increase in my costs, I'm just pointing out that it will provide me with less coverage at an increased cost if I need to rely on it. And I don't want to pay real world prices... As those on the IBM pension board have often pointed out, I earned the health care coverage that I have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But facts are facts.


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

No, Kevin, facts are facts. No one owns "facts". They're available for everyone.

And while someone's feelings might be hurt when another exposes their dishonesty, it's not an insult to call a liar a liar when the discussion revolves around whether or not that person is being honest.. That's not what an insult is.

Opinions are related to a personal belief set. Facts are not.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 8:25 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






Untruths can be refuted without denigration and insult. Facts can be presented without being insulting. As many of the posts have shown, facts don't equate to truth. What is fact for you because it suits your personal belief set, living situation, context may not apply to someone else in different situation.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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.> >

And if the young do not buy insurance what do you do? Raise the premiums for everyone who does.

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

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

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

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

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

Facts are powerful things.


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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







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






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






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

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

Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.???????? Stop spreading untruths.???????? See .


From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:34 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

????????
Really?

Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote:

If ACA???????? is so great why did Congress and the President exempt themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt national corporation who have health care???????? insurance for employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally missed my point.???????? The point I was making is it does not matter if you have or do not have insurance including ACA???????? If doctors do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single payer? As a retired

person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political discussion or as do gooder???????? but are based on real life experience which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same age.I do not see ACA???????? as the answer.???????? Since like Medicare, in order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance companies or the government will have to reduce the reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.???????? Based on actual personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one that does not.???????? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on everything. A Medicare???????? doctor is earning his income by seeing volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No
Doctor can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the ACA???????? you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.???????? In Canada, you are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical needs and the test you need to take.???????? In the ACA, a nurse is made your primary care person who determines the tests you need and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA???????? has only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create the ACA.???????? My Medicare???????? doctor told me that I should do the two knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think you have to live the law. to see what you have lost.RegardsFreon???????? a
retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;; Very good. Thanks for the analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > No ACA???????? is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of the United > States. The one strategy which the modern
Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we need to have access to good health care > severely limited to more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No on(Message over 64 KB, truncated)

You should be aware that while it is true that IBM provide $7K annually to your retiree medical ($3,500 if you are Medicare-eligible), it is a worthless benefit. They group you with only retired employees who have a very high experience of medical bills. You are not in the general employee pool. As such, your cost is higher than it would be if you went out and bought private insurance that was not subsidized. Don't worry about losing this benefit. It has no value unless you have a severe medical condition and cannot otherwise get insurance.




Regards,

Rich Waksman
93 Deerfield Lane North
Pleasantville, NY 10570
(914) 747-0281




-----Original Message-----
From: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 3:09 pm
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Digest Number 82








Issues with the ibmpension board Group








15 New Messages

Digest #82












1a

Re: Can we use this forum to collectively help the group? by "zimowski@..." zimowski@...





1b

Re: Can we use this forum to collectively help the group? by "zimowski@..." zimowski@...





1c

Re: Can we use this forum to collectively help the group? by "rspee7" rspee7





1d

Re: Can we use this forum to collectively help the group? by "edward_berkline" edward_berkline





1e

Re: Can we use this forum to collectively help the group? by "Rick b Cool" rickb_cool







2.1

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare by "Sue Runyon" louise217





2.2

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare by "edward_berkline" edward_berkline





2.3

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare by "edward_berkline" edward_berkline





2.4

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare by test2btrue





2.5

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare by "Sue Runyon" louise217





2.6

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare by "Rick b Cool" rickb_cool





2.7

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare by "edward_berkline" edward_berkline







3a

Retirees, Pensioners: Save on Travel! by "icarlosdanger" icarlosdanger





3b

Re: Retirees, Pensioners: Save on Travel! by "icarlosdanger" icarlosdanger







4a

Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Persona by "Sue Runyon" louise217












Messages



1a

Re: Can we use this forum to collectively help the group?





Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:07 am (PDT) . Posted by:

"zimowski@..." zimowski@...


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

Now I'me even more worried!!

As noted in my post, I understand that IBM contributes $7K yearly to my health care coverage. I don't find anything amusing about my costs potentially going up. And I'm not blaming ACA for a potential increase in my costs, I'm just pointing out that it will provide me with less coverage at an increased cost if I need to rely on it. And I don't want to pay real world prices... As those on the IBM pension board have often pointed out, I earned the health care coverage that I have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (9) . Top ^







1b

Re: Can we use this forum to collectively help the group?





Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:11 am (PDT) . Posted by:

"zimowski@..." zimowski@...


I believe that IBM will provide no hint of what they may be planning to do until they announce it, so I think doing any of the things you suggest would just be a waste of time.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., rspee7 <no_reply@> wrote:

So your issue is a concern/fear that ACA will impact you negatively. What have you done to confirm or elevate your concern/fear? Have you tried to call IBM ESC and ask them? Sent a email to IBM HR with your concern? It would be helpful to all of us retirees to know what IBM is officially saying or not saying about changes to our benefits based on ACA versus us guessing causing unneeded arguments among us IBM retirees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (9) . Top ^







1c

Re: Can we use this forum to collectively help the group?





Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:21 am (PDT) . Posted by:

"rspee7" rspee7


I am not sure which is a waste of time here. Discussions amongst our group based on not really knowing what IBM is going to do. OR badgering IBM to give us retirees information so that we can plan appropriately. It would seem forcing IBM to respond to retirees is more productive than guessing at what might be.

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

I believe that IBM will provide no hint of what they may be planning to do until they announce it, so I think doing any of the things you suggest would just be a waste of time.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., rspee7 <no_reply@> wrote:

So your issue is a concern/fear that ACA will impact you negatively. What have you done to confirm or elevate your concern/fear? Have you tried to call IBM ESC and ask them? Sent a email to IBM HR with your concern? It would be helpful to all of us retirees to know what IBM is officially saying or not saying about changes to our benefits based on ACA versus us guessing causing unneeded arguments among us IBM retirees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (9) . Top ^







1d

Re: Can we use this forum to collectively help the group?





Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:24 am (PDT) . Posted by:

"edward_berkline" edward_berkline


Yes, you should be worried about IBM taking away retiree health insurance. Sooner or later, the greed of the executives will overcome any reluctance they might have kill it.

Without the ACA, that would most likely leave you without any insurance at all. With the ACA, at least you will have an option, even if it does cost you more than the IBM plan.

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

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

Now I'me even more worried!!

As noted in my post, I understand that IBM contributes $7K yearly to my health care coverage. I don't find anything amusing about my costs potentially going up. And I'm not blaming ACA for a potential increase in my costs, I'm just pointing out that it will provide me with less coverage at an increased cost if I need to rely on it. And I don't want to pay real world prices... As those on the IBM pension board have often pointed out, I earned the health care coverage that I have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (9) . Top ^







1e

Re: Can we use this forum to collectively help the group?





Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:09 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Rick b Cool" rickb_cool


Sorry,

I am not aware of any law that required corporations to supply any benefits to their employees. In fact I would guess that IBM has reached the point where it is paying close to nothing for current employee benefits. It is certainly spending close to nothing on retirement benefits for employees hired after 1993. I imagine that employees support the full negotiated cost of the benefits plans they are offered and retirees the full cost of the benefit plans they are offered. These two groups were split to reduce the cost of current employee plans. The only costs to IBM are for the residual accounts to meet past expected benefits they offered before they basically cut out their contributions to benefits, e.g. past obligations.

That said, ACA does have provisions designed to prevent those currently supplying plans to drop those plans and force employees onto the exchanges. I doubt those provisions are some clearly stated as to really prevent such dumping. Just strong enough to prevent obvious radical immediate dumping. There will still be methods to get employees to choose to leave corporate plans over the long term. IBM is a patient company well aware of it's image.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (9) . Top ^







2.1

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare





Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:17 am (PDT) . Posted by:

"Sue Runyon" louise217



Well, it a fact that until the fetus leaves the womb, it's a fetus.

But that isn't what you wrote. See, I can read, and I do it well, and you didn't simply say that it's a fetus until it leaves the womb before.

And that IS a fact. An indisputable fact. It's not an opinion that it's a fetus until it leaves the womb, it's a fact.

Whether or not it has rights is an opinion. Whether or not it's a human life that can force a woman to be an unwilling incubator while it's not viable outside the womb is an opinion.

But it's a fact that it's a fetus while in the womb.

See, I'm not, and never have been, confused about what's a fact and what's an opinion. Apparently you are, as you describe below both facts and opinions as facts.

I have NOT described opinions as facts in this ongoing discussion. Others have, it's true, but I haven't.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 8:47 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

Wow, interesting and you see I'd agree with you for the most part. However the entire "womans right to her own body above everything else crowd" has stated it is a medical fact that the thing in the womb is a fetus, not a child, not a human and it has no rights. Of course the other camp states it as a fact that the child in the womb is an innocent human and as the most defenseless among us has the right equal or greater protections than the mother.
Both state fact, you will never get them to move from their stand.

This is but one simple example of "facts" which are not facts. Most everything in this string that started the whole discussion is opinion based upon an individuals particular preference and the selective facts they choose to use to form that stand.

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

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

But facts are facts.


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

No, Kevin, facts are facts. No one owns "facts". They're available for everyone.

And while someone's feelings might be hurt when another exposes their dishonesty, it's not an insult to call a liar a liar when the discussion revolves around whether or not that person is being honest.. That's not what an insult is.

Opinions are related to a personal belief set. Facts are not.


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 8:25 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare






Untruths can be refuted without denigration and insult. Facts can be presented without being insulting. As many of the posts have shown, facts don't equate to truth. What is fact for you because it suits your personal belief set, living situation, context may not apply to someone else in different situation.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (190) . Top ^







2.2

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare





Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:19 am (PDT) . Posted by:

"edward_berkline" edward_berkline


In case you hadn't noticed, under the ACA, health insurance is operated at the state level, not the federal level. Health insurance rates are set by the insurance companies in each state and will vary from one state to another.

Although the penalty for no health insurance is set at the federal level, I doubt it will matter much. It might make it slightly more attractive to not buy insurance in a state with higher rates vs a state with lower rates, but based on the results on Massachusetts, most people will buy health insurance anyway.

Your arguments still don't hold water.

--- 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.> >

Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (190) . Top ^







2.3

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare





Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:33 am (PDT) . Posted by:

"edward_berkline" edward_berkline


Or, they could increase the amount of the penalty to make it more attractive to just buy the insurance.

There are lots of simple tweaks that can be made to address any problems like this.

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

And if the young do not buy insurance what do you do? Raise the premiums for everyone who does.

Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (190) . Top ^







2.4

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare





Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:43 am (PDT) . Posted by:

test2btrue


But remember you must increase the penalty on everyone and not just based on age because this is discrimination. Increasing the penalty will go over big with the voters. What party will lead the charge.----- Original Message -----From: edward_berkline Date: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:33 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Or, they could increase the amount of the penalty to make it > more attractive to just buy the insurance. > > There are lots of simple tweaks that can be made to address any > problems like this. > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > And if the young do not buy insurance what do you do? Raise > the premiums for everyone who does.> >



Reply to sender . Reply to group . Reply via Web Post . All Messages (190) . Top ^







2.5

Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare





Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:43 am (PDT) . Posted by:

"Sue Runyon" louise217



I'm fully aware of the many shortcomings of President Obama. I don't need to "balance out my stand", as MY stand is an accurate one that has documented a few of the many ways in which the "both sides do it" argument is invalid.

Politifact is a nonpartisan factchecking site, and there's an overwhelming difference between the two sides of the political aisle in how they tell lies and how they tell the truth.

Again, I've never said that Democrats are angelic and Republicans are the devil, and so you pointing out ONE instance where the Democrats behaved badly doesn't refute my stance in ANY WAY - yet you delusionally think it does. The flaw is with your thinking, not with what I've written here.

I have no idea what you're going off on when you cite that the Democrats refused to work with Republicans on an energy plan, but I suspect you're distorting what truly happened - but even if you aren't, it's not evidence that the Dems are less interested in working with the other party - and that's what THIS sub-thread is about, remember, whether or not one political party is less interested in behaving collegially than the other to a significant degree of difference. Republicans in the House have a firm stance that they won't allow ANY votes on ANY bills that don't have majority Republican support. Now, in the past few months, they've had to ignore that rule to get a couple of very important bills passed, but they hold pretty darn firm to that ideal, and you want to carp about ONE instance where the Democrats didn't want to go along with the Republicans? Really?

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 8:58 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts are powerful things.


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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







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






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






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

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

Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.???????? Stop spreading untruths.???????? See .


From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:34 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

????????
Really?

Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote:

If ACA???????? is so great why did Congress and the President exempt themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt national corporation who have health care???????? insurance for employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally missed my point.???????? The point I was making is it does not matter if you have or do not have insurance including ACA???????? If doctors do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single payer? As a retired

person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political discussion or as do gooder???????? but are based on real life experience which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same age.I do not see ACA???????? as the answer.???????? Since like Medicare, in order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance companies or the government will have to reduce the reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.???????? Based on actual personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one that does not.???????? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on everything. A Medicare???????? doctor is earning his income by seeing volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No
Doctor can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the ACA???????? you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.???????? In Canada, you are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical needs and the test you need to take.???????? In the ACA, a nurse is made your primary care person who determines the tests you need and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA???????? has only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create the ACA.???????? My Medicare???????? doctor told me that I should do the two knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think you have to live the law. to see what you have lost.RegardsFreon???????? a
retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;; Very good. Thanks for the analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse all insurance. They have done so > fo

Yes, you should be worried about IBM taking away retiree health insurance. Sooner or later, the greed of the executives will overcome any reluctance they might have kill it.

Without the ACA, that would most likely leave you without any insurance at all. With the ACA, at least you will have an option, even if it does cost you more than the IBM plan.


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

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

Now I'me even more worried!!

As noted in my post, I understand that IBM contributes $7K yearly to my health care coverage. I don't find anything amusing about my costs potentially going up. And I'm not blaming ACA for a potential increase in my costs, I'm just pointing out that it will provide me with less coverage at an increased cost if I need to rely on it. And I don't want to pay real world prices... As those on the IBM pension board have often pointed out, I earned the health care coverage that I have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm fully aware of the many shortcomings of President Obama. I don't need to "balance out my stand", as MY stand is an accurate one that has documented a few of the many ways in which the "both sides do it" argument is invalid.

Politifact is a nonpartisan factchecking site, and there's an overwhelming difference between the two sides of the political aisle in how they tell lies and how they tell the truth.

Again, I've never said that Democrats are angelic and Republicans are the devil, and so you pointing out ONE instance where the Democrats behaved badly doesn't refute my stance in ANY WAY - yet you delusionally think it does. The flaw is with your thinking, not with what I've written here.

I have no idea what you're going off on when you cite that the Democrats refused to work with Republicans on an energy plan, but I suspect you're distorting what truly happened - but even if you aren't, it's not evidence that the Dems are less interested in working with the other party - and that's what THIS sub-thread is about, remember, whether or not one political party is less interested in behaving collegially than the other to a significant degree of difference. Republicans in the House have a firm stance that they won't allow ANY votes on ANY bills that don't have majority Republican support. Now, in the past few months, they've had to ignore that rule to get a couple of very important bills passed, but they hold pretty darn firm to that ideal, and you want to carp about ONE instance where the Democrats didn't want to go along with the Republicans? Really?



-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W <nowwicked@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 8:58 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts are powerful things.


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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







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






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






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

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

Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.???????????????? Stop spreading untruths.???????????????? See .


From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:34 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

????????????????
Really?

Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote:

If ACA???????????????? is so great why did Congress and the President exempt themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt national corporation who have health care???????????????? insurance for employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally missed my point.???????????????? The point I was making is it does not matter if you have or do not have insurance including ACA???????????????? If doctors do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single payer? As a retired

person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political discussion or as do gooder???????????????? but are based on real life experience which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same age.I do not see ACA???????????????? as the answer.???????????????? Since like Medicare, in order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance companies or the government will have to reduce the reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.???????????????? Based on actual personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one that does not.???????????????? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on everything. A Medicare???????????????? doctor is earning his income by seeing volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No
Doctor can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the ACA???????????????? you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.???????????????? In Canada, you are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical needs and the test you need to take.???????????????? In the ACA, a nurse is made your primary care person who determines the tests you need and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA???????????????? has only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create the ACA.???????????????? My Medicare???????????????? doctor told me that I should do the two knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think you have to live the law. to see what you have lost.RegardsFreon???????????????? a
retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;; Very good. Thanks for the analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > No ACA???????????????? is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of the United > States. The one strategy which the modern
Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we need to have access to good health care > severely limited to more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue on this forum is > getting
back on topic. We don't need the political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote:> >> > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > who have retired.???????????????? It is reasonably price. The issue is not the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before he > is willing to even accept you as a patient.
Some will advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting Medicare / Medicaid > patients.???????????????? The reason is that the government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.???????????????? A medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of their patients where under
Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.???????????????? She had to pay his fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the fee.???????????????? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you want but it won't > by you medical services if a
doctor does not accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>;;;; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ???????????????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards single payer.> > > > > > ???????????????? > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, now
tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this thread can get back on topic> > without the radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole time. Obviously less the> > changes currently being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > they receive at others
expense, or the great > benefits of> > have a great society that supports all the > people, grows> > the economy, and increases the standard of > living. They> > simply dream of how good it would be if they retained> > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use words like > socialist and> > communist and have no idea what either term actually> > means. They certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All they do is whine and hope that someone> > will give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > themselves that they are independent individuals> > supporting themselves outside all that exists > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > >

Back to the good old days when only white> > male protestants who own landed estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > pawnedmyrolex wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,>;;;; > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >