¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

You are correct. But if it costs a 25 year old less under his/her parent's plan then buying on the exchange as an individual what do you think he/she will do and what will it do to insurance premium cost of others buying on the exchange. Remember IBM is self insured so they can charge anything IBM likes for adding adult children to IBM employee plan. If I were IBM I would make it costly for an employee to add an adult child to employee heath insurance policy,

Remember if you are retired, the retiree health plans such as IBM are exempt from the ACA?and you cannot add your adult child to your insurance plan. So why would IBM want current employees to add adult children to their policy,

I am retired and under Medicare. I am against the ACA?because they took $750 billion from Medicare. This is the reason the elderly population is against the ACA?and want it repealed. If treatment is not covered by Medicare, it is not covered by any supplement insurance policy including IBM's. They will reduce treatments to save this $750.? The committee of 15 will do it.

----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Beaudry?
Date: Monday, July 29, 2013 9:58 pm
Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
To: "ibmpensionissues@..."

> Although parents can keep children under their insurance
> coverage they don't have to if they don't want to.
>
> ?
>
> From: "KenSP@..."
> To: ibmpensionissues@...?
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 9:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive
> Consequences From Obamacare
>
> ?
> The FACT is that very few people will pay more for
> healthcare?coverage with Obamacare?as compared to how much they
> would have paid out before Obamacare.
>
> How is this a fact. Someone had to pay for putting children on a
> parent's health insurance policy.? Isn't this a result of
> Obamacare?and didn't the insurance companies increase their
> premiums to cover this.? So how can you say that this is a fact
> very few people will be paying more for their insurance.? Tell
> it to those people who do not have children under the age of 26
> and now have to pay more. Everyone paid more because of this change.
>
> This is proof how you make general statements which are opinions
> and then call the facts.?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "zimowski@..."
> Date: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:36 pm
> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive
> Consequences From Obamacare
> To: ibmpensionissues@...
>
> > In this case, I think the following quote is very appropriate:
> > "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a
> duck,
> > it must be a duck"
> >
> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Show me a post where anyone here has said that they admire
> > Keith Olbermann?or agreed with the way he behaved..... oh,
> > that's right, you can't, 'cuz?it never happened.
> > >
> > > His usage of that phrase has nothing to do with us.
> > >
> > > YOUR usage of him is an example of a logical fallacy - look
> it
> > up. All of your arguments are bogus and ridiculous, in fact.
> You
> > can't refute a thing we've been writing, and so you choose to
> > make ludicrous statements that have nothing to do with what
> > we've been saying.
> > >
> > > It's undeniably TRUE. One can't legitimately demand respect
> > for an opinion that's not based upon the facts. That's why
> > Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan?said that everyone is entitled
> > to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
> > >
> > > And there aren't a different set of facts upon which we can
> > each rely upon. There's one set of facts. That's undeniable.
> > Your personal attacks on me, or Keith Olbermann, don't change
> > that FACT that there's one set of facts that we can all avail
> > ourselves of. You can't possibly know that your "facts are
> > correct", because you havent' been relying upon facts! The
> FACT
> > is that very few people will pay more for healthcare coverage
> > with Obamacare as compared to how much they would have paid
> out
> > before Obamacare.
> > >
> > > The only people who will pay more without getting a
> > significant benefit are the wealthiest among us and those
> > healthy young people who chose to not have insurance before
> and
> > who remain healthy. That's a fact. We're getting economies of
> > scale, we're getting savings from people getting better care
> at
> > lower costs, and we're taxing a few people and bringing more
> > people into the system. Obamacare actually helps our nation's
> > long term deficit.
> > >
> > > All facts.
> > >
> > > Now, you can hold the opinion that you don't WANT anyone to
> > pay ANY more in order to get millions more people covered by
> > health insurance. I'm of the opinion that it's a great thing
> to
> > allow more people to live healthier lives. I'm of the opinion
> > that it's better to stop tons of people every year from dying
> as
> > a result of not having healthcare insurance. You can certainly
> > hold the opinion that you aren't willing to help them out. But
> > you can't legitimately claim that your opinions are backed up
> by
> > facts, because they aren't.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: zimowski
> > > To: ibmpensionissues
> > > Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:18 pm
> > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive
> > Consequences From Obamacare
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The statements "You have your right to your own opinions and
> > beliefs. Not your own facts." have been popping up on this
> forum
> > quite a bit lately. I thought that this was a quote from Keith
> > Olbermann, but decided to verify and was surprised to learn
> that
> > it is in fact a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan. This fact
> > was found in a Washington Post opinions article by Ted Koppel
> > about opinionated well-known personalities.
> > >
> > > Ted notes: "Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation
> > that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own
> > facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts
> > opinions as though they were facts."
> > >
> > > Here's another Ted Koppel quote from the article:
> > >
> > > "We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the
> > opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn
> > Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up
> > the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are
> > encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because
> their
> > brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable."
> > >
> > > Finally a Koppel quote about Olbermann, who uses the
> "everyone
> > is entitled" quote more than anyone: "To witness Keith
> Olbermann
> > - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-
> baiting,
> > money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for
> > making financial contributions to Democratic political
> > candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a
> long-
> > gone era of television journalism, when the networks
> considered
> > the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased
> > news to be a public trust.
> > >
> > > Back then, a policy against political contributions would
> have
> > aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today,
> > when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers
> to
> > his program every night precisely because he is avowedly,
> > unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what
> > misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?"
> > >
> > > My opinion is that it's hard to trust the arguments of
> anyone
> > who thinks that Keith Olbermann's style of debate is one that
> > should be emulated as being non-partisan and convincing. Gets
> > more amusing with every re-use of Moynihan's observation.
> > >
> > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool"
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Spoken like a true person who doesn't like the facts and
> > what they mean or imply. You have your right to your own
> > opinions and beliefs. Not your own facts. You have the right
> to
> > not believe simple facts. That is nothing more than political
> > zeal or religious fervor in denial of objective reality. A
> > common trait among us humans, but not a particularly useful
> > trait in optimizing outcomes.
> > > >
> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Sam Cay"
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > OK no problem , you believe your facts and I'll believe
> > mine. I know mine are correct but not sure of yours. I'd
> rather
> > choose who/what I give my money to but unfortunately the
> crooks
> > in government don't let me do that. I'll leave the charity
> > giving to people like you. You must not be on twitter based on
> > the length of your post. Sorry I made you ramble.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Facts are facts. If your data source isn't correct,
> then
> > what you get from them isn't a fact, so no, it doesn't matter
> > what your data source is - it matters whether or not what you
> > get from them is truly a fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your OPINION that you would rather not pay for the
> costs
> > of providing health care to others is your opinion, and you're
> > entitled to it. You aren't entitled to your own facts, however.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And yeah, providing healthcare to those who currently
> > can't get it will cost the wealthier among us a little bit.
> > We're already paying for a significant portion of the care
> they
> > DO receive - the poorest among us only pay for a small portion
> > of their care - the rest of us already pay for it via local
> > taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for out of
> > pocket medical expenses. But yeah, it WILL cost the wealthier
> > among us more to subsidize the healthcare costs of those who
> > aren't covered now and who have mostly refrained from getting
> > the healthcare they've needed all along.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In our nation, we've long ago determined that it's to
> > the community's benefit to share resources so that we all
> > benefit. That's why we require the community to all pay school
> > taxes, whether they have no kids or 12 kids in the school
> system
> > - because it benefits our society to have a well-educated
> > populace. We ALL pay for the fire department to be there, even
> > if we never have a fire in our lifetimes and we're very
> careful
> > people. We ALL pay SSI, so that *if* we ever become disabled
> or
> > leave dependents without an income source, we can rest assured
> > that they'll not be out on the street. Those are only a few
> > examples of how we've behaved over the past century, as a country.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's something our nation, as a whole, has
> determined
> > is in our best interests. You might not think that way, and
> > that's your choice, but the nation, as a whole, DOES think
> that
> > it's a good idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I, myself, don't begrudge anyone else being provided
> > healthcare. I think that everyone should have access to
> adequate
> > healthcare, and if it costs me a little bit, I don't mind that
> > at all. The majority of the American public doesn't mind it
> > either. Your snide remark about people who are "unwilling to
> > help themselves" is contrary to the FACTS about why most
> > uninsured people are uninsured. Most aren't uninsured due to
> an
> > active choice they've made. And most of those who aren't
> insured
> > through an active choice they've made are those who are young
> > and healthy, and in their cases, it'll be them as a group, NOT
> > you, who has a new financial burden to bear. They'll be
> > subsidizing those who truly have had a need, as a group, for
> > health insurance. And so will the rest of us be subsidizing
> that
> > group - the group who's had a need for better healthcare
> > coverage but hasn't been able to get it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't have any of *my* data. There's data that's
> > everyone's to share.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that data tells us that it WILL cost those among
> us
> > who can well afford it a small amount to provide coverage to
> > millions of Americans. I don't begrudge them that service -
> you
> > do. But the data does NOT tell us that, by and large, that
> extra
> > cost will be going to people who aren't willing to take care
> of
> > themselves. THAT conclusion that you've leapt to is evidence
> of
> > YOUR beliefs coloring YOUR interpretation of the FACTS. The
> > FACTS don't change. A tiny percentage of the people who will
> be
> > getting healthcare insurance now are people who aren't trying
> to
> > help themselves. Most of them are too poor to help themselves
> or
> > unable to get coverage at any sort of an affordable price due
> to
> > pre-existing conditions or other issues out of their control.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Sam Cay
> > > > > > To: ibmpensionissues
> > > > > > Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:20 am
> > > > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears
> Destructive
> > Consequences From Obamacare
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess this makes the assumption that your source of
> > data is correct.It's not just a matter of who's data you
> believe
> > but what data you want to believe. I am concerned when the
> cost
> > of any government program reaches in my pocket to pay for
> others
> > who are unwilling to help themselves. Whenever the word
> subsidy
> > comes into a program this is my trigger for taking food out of
> > my families mouth. So does your data tell us that we will or
> > will not be paying for someone unwilling to make their life
> > better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sue Runyon
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Facts are facts. One can't "believe" something
> that's
> > demonstrably false. One can have opinions that are different
> > from another person, but we all share the same database of
> > factual information upon which we should rely upon to come to
> > differing opinions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pointing out that some people are ignorant of the
> > facts isn't insulting if they truly are ignorant of relevant
> > facts! It's honestly portraying them. And pointing out that
> some
> > people are SO politically partisan that, when confronted with
> > the knowledge that they're pushing a false meme that's been
> > debunked long ago, they can't/won't acknowledge it, has
> nothing
> > to do with people "believing something different". Again,
> > everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own
> > facts. What that means is that one cannot demand respect and
> > reverence for an opinion that's formed based upon lies,
> > disinformation, and/or partisan beliefs rather than upon
> facts.
> > One is not "entitled" to an opinion that one can't support
> with
> > factual information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One of those "opinions" that is unsupportable is the
> > false meme (see below) that there has been a mad rush to
> > eliminate full time workers for part time workers. That ONLY
> > works for companies that are right on the cusp of having 50
> > workers! It's not relevant for really small companies or any
> > businesses with over 50 workers - and so, NO, one could NOT
> find
> > evidence of that happening at Macy's, for example! And besides
> > that, the Affordable Care Act limits the ability of employers
> to
> > avoid paying penalties by hiring only part-time employees. The
> > ACA treats part-time employees as ???????€????fulltime
> > equivalents???????€??? by adding up the total number of hours
> > per month worked by the part-timers. So, if they have an
> amount
> > of work to be done, it doesn't HELP them, not in ANY way, to
> > hire more part-timers than an equivalent number of full-
> timers.
> > In fact, it'd be detrimental to their cause, as there'd then
> be
> > more workers total who might opt for coverage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Rick b Cool
> > > > > > > To: ibmpensionissues
> > > > > > > Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2013 7:44 pm
> > > > > > > Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears
> > Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really, Spreading lies and distoertions is OK, but
> > revealing sinmple facts is denigrating.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Kevin W"
> > 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" 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@" 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.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>