开云体育

Digest Number 82

Rich Waksman All Messages By This Member #437 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 toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----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 > 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) From DummyAddressAndDate Thu Sep 16 11:42:17 2010 X-Yahoo-Msgnum: 448 Return-Path: <zimowski@...> X-Sender: zimowski@... X-Apparently-To: ibmpensionissues@... X-Received: (qmail 74932 invoked by uid 102); 29 Jul 2013 19:59:54 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mtaq3.grp.bf1.yahoo.com) (10.193.84.142) by m5.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2013 19:59:54 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 23618 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2013 19:59:54 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO ng17-ip10.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com) (98.139.165.156) by mtaq3.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2013 19:59:54 -0000 X-Received: from [98.139.164.123] by ng17.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jul 2013 19:59:54 -0000 X-Received: from [10.193.94.108] by tg4.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jul 2013 19:59:53 -0000 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:59:50 -0000 To: ibmpensionissues@... Message-ID: <kt6hjo+5nq4@...> In-Reply-To: <8D05AAC15F9B48F-E9C-3B59@...> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 69.181.36.135 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:3:4:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 69.181.36.135 From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...> Subject: Re: Digest Number 82 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u1132242; y=K5Wme589mwSYRoXabBTq1R04EdcRSfe-xRljbg7PoCszItSKXtc4t0wlu0XcQJOYZg X-Yahoo-Profile: zimowski@... Interesting post. I have to admit that I've not attempted to obtain my own health insurance estimates for comparison. Given your comment, I plan to do so before the enrollment deadline this year. --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Rich Waksman <RJWaksman@...> wrote: 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 (Message over 64 KB, truncated) From DummyAddressAndDate Thu Sep 16 11:42:17 2010 X-Yahoo-Msgnum: 449 Return-Path: <rjwaksman@...> X-Sender: rjwaksman@... X-Apparently-To: ibmpensionissues@... X-Received: (qmail 80453 invoked by uid 102); 29 Jul 2013 20:05:07 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mtaq4.grp.bf1.yahoo.com) (10.193.84.143) by m7.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2013 20:05:07 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 8118 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2013 20:05:07 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO omr-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.108.134) by mtaq4.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2013 20:05:07 -0000 X-Received: from mtaomg-db01.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db01.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.199]) by omr-d10.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 1A1D7700498B8 for <ibmpensionissues@...>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:05:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Received: from core-mna003c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mna003.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.106.9]) by mtaomg-db01.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id E3A2AE000086 for <ibmpensionissues@...>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:05:06 -0400 (EDT) To: ibmpensionissues@... X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8D05AAE0D6D70A2_E9C_EE32_webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 37938-STANDARD X-Received: from 72.248.181.2 by webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com (64.12.101.139) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:05:05 -0400 Message-Id: <8D05AAE0D6D70A2-E9C-3CCA@...> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:05:05 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:203519728:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33c751f6caf22d25 X-Originating-IP: 10.193.84.143 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0 From: Rich Waksman <RJWaksman@...> Subject: Re: Interesting Podcast to Listen To: ObamaCare Invades Your Persona X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u1911761; y=cVBMC7PhYMfmideS7Nze57NVzF_7C9dYtr13WKnbAjPS-IFWYCU-RRfC X-Yahoo-Profile: richardjwaksman ----------MB_8D05AAE0D6D70A2_E9C_EE32_webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 ----------MB_8D05AAE0D6D70A2_E9C_EE32_webmail-m149.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <font color='black' size='2' face='arial'><font color="black" face="arial" size="2">You should be a<font size="2">ware 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.</font></font><font color="black" face="arial" size="2"> <div> <br> </div> <div> <br> </div> <div style="clear:both">Regards,<br> <br> Rich Waksman <br> 93 Deerfield Lane North<br> Pleasantville, NY 10570<br> (914) 747-0281</div> </font></font> ------

Previous Topic Next Topic