开云体育

The ibmpension board rarely has any discussion about the IBM pension these days. Most of the discussion is about layoffs, about how rich and evil the IBM executives, are general IBM bashing. Should anyone disagree even slightly with the negative commentary about IBM, they are labeled a manager or corporate apologist and are bombarded will all sorts of emotional posts from the board's party faithful. Interest in this board seems to be slowly dying out, but it could become a hotbed if IBM does something stupid like derisking or just flat out terminating the pension that retirees now receive.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, "teamb562" wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but the intension of this forum is not to discuss the ibm pension, that is discussed on Yahoo board ibmpension. This forum was established to bitch about and discuss problems and issues with the ibmpension board, that's it.
>
> --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon wrote:
> >
> >
> > This forum IS supposed to be about IBM pension issues. Please, the next time someone else brings up an issue that is outside of the group's subject matter, feel free to immediately interject and tell them that they're off topic. But if someone doesn't do that, then it's unfair to get upset and/or criticize the people who reply to their off topic postings. People replying to an off topic subject aren't responsible for it being brought up, and shouldn't be chastised for replying - yet I was.
> >
> > Any time a new initiative gets pushed by the party in power, it gets airtime to try to educate people about the good things about the initiative. This is not a new thing - it's not like Obama invented propaganda, after all. Obamacare is about getting more and better healthcare to more people. Its goal is not to tax people, although one of the ways that it does try to REACH its goal is by taxing the wealthier among us in order to help out those who weren't able to get affordable health care on their own.
> >
> > There hasn't been anything to sign up for yet - and so, it's not surprising that no one has signed up yet. The sign up is still months away. Yet you think that people have been failing to sign up..... hmmmm. They can't have signed up yet, yet you think that we can come to some conclusion about them not signing up yet? Really?
> >
> > A young person, unless they are the 'inventor' of Facebook or someone similar, can't save enough in a 401 to take care of the costs of a serious illness, much less a catastrophic illness. Yeah, most young people won't face those bankrupting costs, so for them, health care insurance isn't the wisest way for them to invest their money. But no insurance is a good "investment", unless the thing you're investing is in piece of mind. So it's not about how they could have saved more had they put that money into a 401K account. It's about how we, as a nation, can afford to provide care to people who are uninsured due to no bad choices on their part. It's about providing care to young adults who haven't yet gotten a job that provides health care. It's about finding affordable care for people who have a pre-existing condition. It's about finding healthcare options for those who have hit lifetime maximums. It helps seniors who were stuck in the donut hole. It extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by quite a few years. And it's about helping those who work for a living but don't have an employer who can/will provide them with an employer-funded healthcare option.
> >
> > With Obamacare, there are multiple cost-savings measures built into the bill, and there are also some additional taxes - and those two things combined end up cutting our long term debt while funding a greatly expanded healthcare offering for millons of Americans.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: GM
> > To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:07 pm
> > Subject: Re: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sue,
> >
> > Are you a cotmmunist? Business and technology advances are about delivering efficiencies in this case health care. Choice and market efficiencies should help lower costs while ensuring as many people can get the help they need. ACA is nothing more than a tax and power grab. The Obama administration will spend the rest of the summer and at least east 15 million trying to get kids to sign up because his 20 something constituency is not signing up for the ACA to help defer the cost that those are incurring by aging patients. Its stupid to pay more when that money can be grown
> > in a 401k which I thought what this group was about.
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 5:18 PM EDT Sue Runyon wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Yet again, you show us that you don't actually know what you're talking about, Sam.
> > >
> > >But yeah, there WILL BE some increased costs because young people get to tag on to their parents' coverage for a few more years. We WILL be providing coverage to people who previously lost it due to lifetime caps. There'll be people who were uninsurable at any reasonable cost because of pre-existing conditions who can now get coverage, and that will be a cost too.
> > >
> > >But we're also pulling in many people who chose to not have coverage who'll now be forced to get coverage or pay a penalty, and bringing more healthy people into the system will help cover those increased costs for the people listed above. So yeah, those who haven't had insurance in the past who are forced to pay for it now will either be ABLE to afford it and will have to pay for it, or will be poor enough that they'll get subsidies to help pay for that coverage! ONLY those people who were already rich enough to have coverage will pay for the full cost of that coverage. Only those who were being selfish beforehand, hoping that they wouldn't get sick, and figuring that the rest of us suckers would pay for them if they DID get sick, will have to carry the burden they should have been carrying all along!
> > >
> > >And we're going to see the wealthier among us have to pay a little more - again, people who CAN afford to pay more WILL pay more - that's a system that the American public strongly supports!
> > >
> > >There's no "scam" being presented by anyone on the left - the scams come directly from the right side of the political aisle nowadays. One of the scams is that Obamacare is some kind of leftist wet dream, when the FACTS are that almost ALL of the features of Obamacare are things that Republicans either thought up or supported in the past.
> > >
> > >The CBS poll didn't show that MOST people don't support it. What it showed is that more people than before don't support it - and that's a direct reflection of the MILLIONS of dollars in negative advertising that the rightwing has done. It is NOT a reflection of people actually rejecting what's IN Obamacare.
> > >
> > >What you alleged is that it was a demonstration that what's in the bill isn't supported - and a poll that demonstrates that people don't know what's in the bill due to misinformation from those on the right doesn't, in fact, demonstrate that the stuff that's in the bill isn't supported.
> > >
> > >As I already explained, if you have more than 50 workers, whether that's 50 actual workers, or more than that with part time equivalents, you're under the employer mandate. It doesn't do them any good to hire twice as many part time workers! Yet you STILL THINK it does, despite the fact that the FACT disprove what you believe.
> > >
> > >It's YOU who has demonstrated, repeatedly, that you've drunk the Kool Aid.
> > >
> > >Keep digging that hole you're already in! Please, keep it up.
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Sam Cay
> > >To: ibmpensionissues <mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2013 6:18 am
> > >Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >It appears you have bought into the scam being presented by the obamaites. If you read the bill you will see there are still a lot of undefined portions of the bill. It seems these get filled in during the middle of the night. The few cherry picked items like the coverage up to 26 seemed to be a hit to some but it also raised the cost to cover this. You also seem to believe that the 2 sources you select are above reproach with their data. Unless you cross check their info is questionable also. To most of us who are retired and stuck with medicare we have a supplemental IBM plan and won't be affected by the ACA. Maybe IBM will drop our plans in the future but until then we'll watch from the outside. We recently just went through the math in our town to reduce it's budget. Part of the strategy was to cut most of the town employees hours to now call them part time. We will be dropping their insurance so they will now shop the exchanges. They did not get an
> > increase to pay for the plans and they will most likely get a second job to supplement their income. A similar approach was taken by the owner of 2 local restaurants . The actual results of this bill will be in who pays what and how much. Also anybody who has never had insurance will see a 100% increase in their cost.All data today is speculation so wait until the real numbers come in. I wish luck to all who have to fish for insurance. This country has a lot of ignorant people who won't know what they are doing when signing up for the ACA.
> > >
> > >--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sheila Beaudry wrote:
> > >>
> > >> No, it shows the disinformation and fear campaign against it is working.?? Plus if you actually ask people about specific things that are in the ACA they do like it and want it.?? Personally I would rather have a single payer plan.?? When you add the liberals who would rather have a single payer plan to the conservatives who don't like changing the current healthcare system, you get a larger per cent.?? This is what happens when you have a law that is a compromise, neither side really likes it.?? It has a lot of good things in it though:?? you can get coverage with pre-existing conditions, no more ceiling limits, kids can stay on parents plan till 26, more people will have coverage, helps people who can't afford it to get insurance,?? will reduce uncovered people getting expensive care in emergency room?? which?? in the past has?? increased everyone else's costs.?? I don't think it is perfect, but it is a good start and changes can be made in
> > the future if
> > >> needed to tweak it.??
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: "zimowski@"
> > >> To: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com
> > >> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:34 PM
> > >> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
> > >>
> > >> ??
> > >> The CBS poll is not a FOX poll - precisely the reason I cited it first. You cannot dispute the fact that the most recent opinion polls clearly demonstrate that most Americans do not want ACA. The more they understand ACA and the more they realize that Obama has hoodwinked them once again, the more they wish it would be repealed.
> > >>
> > >> Your supposed facts are the same talking points that the smooth talking Obama used to hoodwink so many Americans, including the press, in the first place. He repeated them over and over again, just like you are doing, until a critical mass began to believe him. If you hear it often enough, it must be true. Right? But now many Americans are beginning to wake up.
> > >>
> > >> As your post clearly indicates, you think that talking points, repeated as nauseum, are facts. And, you think that browbeating is debating. These are the same tactics that Obama, the finger pointer in chief, uses. But they're no longer working on the majority of Americans, as the polls indicate, and those same tactics will not work on this board. Most participants here are just too intelligent to be hoodwinked by you.
> > >>
> > >> --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, Sue Runyon wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -----Repeating the same assertions over and over again, and claiming they are facts over and over again, does not make them facts. And, browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you, still does not make them facts.
> > >> >
> > >> > Of course it doesn't, and IF I'd been doing that, you'd have a point. But I haven't been doing that - and so, yet again, you don't have a point!
> > >> >
> > >> > On the other hand, claiming that a fact is a fact and not an opinion, as YOU'VE tried to claim - that facts we're presenting to you are simply opinions, or the other claim you've made, that there are alternative facts dependent upon one's beliefs - now THAT'S a boguw way to behave.
> > >> >
> > >> > The problematic behavior has been all yours. All yours. You own it, and I've pointed it out, repeatedly, and I understand that you don't like that. Too bad, so sad.
> > >> >
> > >> > And YET AGAIN you strip stuff of its context when you assert that I was saying that the vast majority of Americans want ACA. I didn't. You're either being dishonest or showing a stunning lack of reading comprehension yet again.
> > >> >
> > >> > The vast majority of Americans want what we got in ACA OR MORE! And when Americans are polled on the individual aspects of the program, they like them too.
> > >> >
> > >> > Now, because of the disinformatiion campaign from the right side of the political aisle, it doesn't have the amount of support it would have if people had the actual facts at hand. In addition, if there wasn't the factor of people hating anything that Obama and Demcrats did, it'd have even MORE support. As I've explained, repeatedly, the lack of Republican VOTES for this isn't equivalent to the lack of support from Republicans for the things included in the ACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >> >
> > >> > Geesh, you're easy to debunk.
> > >> >
> > >> > And then you think it's legitimate to cite a Fox News poll? REALLY? And after the disinformation campaign from the rightwing, I'm not surprised at all that many Americans mistakenly think that ACA will cost them.
> > >> >
> > >> > THE FACT IS THAT IT WON'T. Again, this is a fact. ACA will only adversely financially impact the wealthier among us - and, not strangely enough, this is EXACTLY what I've typed about 6 times in this back and forth!!!
> > >> >
> > >> > Geez - make it harder next time for me to use your own words to make you look foolish.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: zimowski
> > >> > To: ibmpensionissues ;;
> > >> > Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:42 am
> > >> > Subject: [ibmpensionissu (Message over 64 KB, truncated) From DummyAddressAndDate Thu Sep 16 11:42:17 2010 X-Yahoo-Msgnum: 377 Return-Path: X-Sender: zimowski@... X-Apparently-To: ibmpensionissues@... X-Received: (qmail 648 invoked by uid 102); 29 Jul 2013 04:47:40 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mtaq2.grp.bf1.yahoo.com) (10.193.84.33) by m11.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2013 04:47:40 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 7467 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2013 04:47:40 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO ng25-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com) (98.138.121.157) by mtaq2.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2013 04:47:40 -0000 X-Received: from [98.138.101.138] by ng25.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jul 2013 04:47:40 -0000 X-Received: from [10.193.94.43] by tg8.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jul 2013 04:47:40 -0000 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:47:40 -0000 To: ibmpensionissues@... Message-ID: 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@..." Subject: The Inequality President X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u1132242; y=4l453AYLqDfQ59WOuMBevComIXBmjZaK6284crxfGWEimWWSQPZfONORZLdRYzwbLw X-Yahoo-Profile: zimowski@... The Inequality President The rich have done fine under Obamanomics, not so the middle class. I found this WSJ article to be very thought provoking. How exactly does Obama expect to help the middle class if he's unwilling to compromise on his socialistic views and reach across the aisle to work with Republicans? I know he's an intelligent man. What I don't understand is why he thinks speeches filled with partisan tenor will help him achieve his goals any more than they have over the past 4+ years. Here's the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323610704578626142861572144.html. President Obama made his fourth or fifth, or maybe it's the seventh or eighth, pivot to the economy on Wednesday, and a revealing speech it was. We counted four mentions of "growth" but "inequality" got five. This goes a long way to explaining why Mr. Obama is still bemoaning the state of the economy five years into his Presidency. The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country." Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority." Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by th