开云体育

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

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

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

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



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







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

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

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

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






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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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