BoatBanter.com - OT--WOOHOOO! Bush up 11 points in latest Time poll

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - OT--WOOHOOO! Bush up 11 points in latest Time poll (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/22333-re-ot-woohooo-bush-up-11-points-latest-time-poll.html)

OT--WOOHOOO! Bush up 11 points in latest Time poll

"NOYB" wrote in message

...and an 11 point post-convention bounce. Ironically, Kerry had a
*negative* bounce following his Convention.

But McAuliffe et al explained at the time that there was no post convention
Dem bounce because the race was so tight there simply were not enough free
voters available to form the bounce numbers.

Therefore, we must presume that this post-convention W bounce is merely a
fig-newton of our imaginations. It simply can't be there. :-)

"NOYB" wrote in message
...
Eleven points is huge...well outside the poll's margin of error. On
August
5th, Bush was *down* 7 points in the Time poll. On 8/26/04, Bush and
Kerry
were even. On 9/3, he's up 11. That's an 18 point swing in less than a
month...and an 11 point post-convention bounce. Ironically, Kerry had a
*negative* bounce following his Convention.

snip
Since little Bush is doing so well in the polls you don't have to waste any
time voting this fall!

;-)

Mark Browne

It's sad that attacks from documented liars, "Swift Boat Truth Tellers"
influence peoples vote.

We get what we deserve.

Some of the founding fathers suggested that voting rights be restricted to
owners of property.

Maybe the modern qualifier should be an IQ test. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It's sad that attacks from documented liars, "Swift Boat Truth Tellers"
influence peoples vote.

We get what we deserve.

Some of the founding fathers suggested that voting rights be restricted to
owners of property.

Maybe the modern qualifier should be an IQ test. :-)

I'd be for that...or a test with 10 questions about the candidates who are
running.

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 13:43:32 -0400, NOYB wrote:

Some of the founding fathers suggested that voting rights be restricted
to owners of property.

Maybe the modern qualifier should be an IQ test. :-)

I'd be for that...or a test with 10 questions about the candidates who are
running.

Why not just give the candidates and IQ test? That would be one way to
send GWB back to Crawford. ;-)

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 13:43:32 -0400, NOYB wrote:

Some of the founding fathers suggested that voting rights be restricted
to owners of property.

Maybe the modern qualifier should be an IQ test. :-)

I'd be for that...or a test with 10 questions about the candidates who
are
running.

Why not just give the candidates and IQ test? That would be one way to
send GWB back to Crawford. ;-)

You might be supprised at the IQ's of certain people. What is your IQ? I am
just shy of getting into the club.

Bert Robbins wrote:

You might be supprised at the IQ's of certain people. What is your IQ? I am
just shy of getting into the club.

The club of folks with triple-digit IQs, Bertie? No surprise. Too rigid
for reality.

I really wonder about your intellect...you think medical savings plans
are the answer for the 43 million Americans without health insurance?
Yeah, some of them might be able to save, what, $20 a week? Priced any
serious prescriptions lately?

The best cure for right-wing smug****s like you is to have to experience
some of life's financial angst.

--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 21:20:27 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

You might be supprised at the IQ's of certain people. What is your IQ? I am
just shy of getting into the club.

The club of folks with triple-digit IQs, Bertie? No surprise. Too rigid
for reality.

I really wonder about your intellect...you think medical savings plans
are the answer for the 43 million Americans without health insurance?
Yeah, some of them might be able to save, what, $20 a week? Priced any
serious prescriptions lately?

The best cure for right-wing smug****s like you is to have to experience
some of life's financial angst.

Awww, are you upset at the poll figures? Seems like not everyone in the US
believes like you!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

You might be supprised at the IQ's of certain people. What is your IQ? I
am
just shy of getting into the club.

The club of folks with triple-digit IQs, Bertie? No surprise. Too rigid
for reality.

I really wonder about your intellect...you think medical savings plans
are the answer for the 43 million Americans without health insurance?

Nope. I looked into them when I was renewing my health insurance policy for
my employees. My current policy's premiums went up 40%. I was willing to
contribute the money I'd save on premiums with a high deductible plan to
each employee's HSA, and then they could kick in whatever they wanted. It
made sense except for one thing. By definition, HSA high deductible plans
*cannot* have prescription drug coverage, and they can't have physician
office visit co-pays. I had one employee who would have gotten slammed
because of the high cost of her meds. I would have broken out about even
(based on last year's health claims for my family) because my kids make a
lot of trips to the pediatrician and only have to pay $15 with our current
plan. It would have saved some money for the other employees, but not
enough to punish the one who's on a lot of expensive Rx.

Yeah, some of them might be able to save, what, $20 a week? Priced any
serious prescriptions lately?

The best cure for right-wing smug****s like you is to have to experience
some of life's financial angst.

Now there's just another example of the mean-spirited nature of your
side...and an example of your socialistic spirit. "Equal suffering for
all".

You want to know how to get more people insured with health insurance? Get
Congress to pass Association Health Plans. Bush mentioned them in his
speech (not exactly by name though) when he said:
"In a new term, we must allow small firms to join together to purchase
insurance at the discounts available to big companies. "

Currently, the McCarron-Ferguson Act exempts insurance companies from being
regulated by the Federal Government. Insurance is regulated by each state,
and, consequently, the insurance companies cherry-pick the states which are
most profitable to them. States like Florida (which has an aging
population, and a lot of expensive state-mandated laws for insurance
companies) have ridiculously high premiums...or very few insurance companies
which are even willing to do business here. If I were a big corporation
with workers in many states, or a union, or the federal government, I could
negotiate rates under a plan in a state with more favorable insurance laws,
and a younger and healthier population. Small businesses can't do that.
AHP's would allow them to. There are a few groups who obviously oppose it:
1) congressmen from states which already have cheaper premiums
2) any group which already can buy insurance across state lines (unions,
corporations, the federal government)
3) insurance companies
4) insurance agents

The reason that groups 1 and 2 oppose them is because they know that if
rates fall for small businesses in one state(Florida, or NJ, or NY, or CA),
then they're going to have to go up a little in another state if the
insurance company wants its profits to remain the same or increase

The reason that groups 3 and 4 oppose them is because they know that
anything that increases the other side's negotiating power will ultimately
drive their profits down.

Bush came out strongly in his first term in favor of AHP's. He still
supports them, but realistically knows that he's going to have a hard time
convincing Congressmen from states with low rates, and Congressmen from
states with big insurance companies headquartered there, to vote for them.
I think he's only mentioning HSA's because he realistically doesn't think
that in today's political climate AHP's have much of a chance.

However, should he win reelection in November, he'll be in a lot better
position to brow-beat the opponents to pass AHP's...especially leading up to
the mid-term elections.

Whoops! I forgot to tell you how AHP's will lead to more people being
insured.

More than half of the people working for small businesses have no insurance.
Most workers are employeed by small businesses. Ergo, most of the uninsured
are likely working for small businesses.

Small businesses don't insure the employees because of the tremendous
expense. In addtion to AHP's, Congress must provide a tax incentive to
entice small businesses to provide insurance. I'll leave it to Congress to
decide how to *entice* small businesses to spend money on AHP's...it may
even have to include a little bit of arm-twisting and penalties if they
don't. However, small businesses should also be rewarded if they do. AHP's
would allow me to spend far less on premiums so that I don't have to look
for a way to cut rates (and benefits) every year.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

You might be supprised at the IQ's of certain people. What is your IQ?
I
am
just shy of getting into the club.

The club of folks with triple-digit IQs, Bertie? No surprise. Too rigid
for reality.

I really wonder about your intellect...you think medical savings plans
are the answer for the 43 million Americans without health insurance?

Nope. I looked into them when I was renewing my health insurance policy
for
my employees. My current policy's premiums went up 40%. I was willing to
contribute the money I'd save on premiums with a high deductible plan to
each employee's HSA, and then they could kick in whatever they wanted. It
made sense except for one thing. By definition, HSA high deductible plans
*cannot* have prescription drug coverage, and they can't have physician
office visit co-pays. I had one employee who would have gotten slammed
because of the high cost of her meds. I would have broken out about even
(based on last year's health claims for my family) because my kids make a
lot of trips to the pediatrician and only have to pay $15 with our current
plan. It would have saved some money for the other employees, but not
enough to punish the one who's on a lot of expensive Rx.

Yeah, some of them might be able to save, what, $20 a week? Priced any
serious prescriptions lately?

The best cure for right-wing smug****s like you is to have to experience
some of life's financial angst.

Now there's just another example of the mean-spirited nature of your
side...and an example of your socialistic spirit. "Equal suffering for
all".

You want to know how to get more people insured with health insurance?
Get
Congress to pass Association Health Plans. Bush mentioned them in his
speech (not exactly by name though) when he said:
"In a new term, we must allow small firms to join together to purchase
insurance at the discounts available to big companies. "

Currently, the McCarron-Ferguson Act exempts insurance companies from
being
regulated by the Federal Government. Insurance is regulated by each
state,
and, consequently, the insurance companies cherry-pick the states which
are
most profitable to them. States like Florida (which has an aging
population, and a lot of expensive state-mandated laws for insurance
companies) have ridiculously high premiums...or very few insurance
companies
which are even willing to do business here. If I were a big corporation
with workers in many states, or a union, or the federal government, I
could
negotiate rates under a plan in a state with more favorable insurance
laws,
and a younger and healthier population. Small businesses can't do that.
AHP's would allow them to. There are a few groups who obviously oppose
it:
1) congressmen from states which already have cheaper premiums
2) any group which already can buy insurance across state lines (unions,
corporations, the federal government)
3) insurance companies
4) insurance agents

The reason that groups 1 and 2 oppose them is because they know that if
rates fall for small businesses in one state(Florida, or NJ, or NY, or
CA),
then they're going to have to go up a little in another state if the
insurance company wants its profits to remain the same or increase

The reason that groups 3 and 4 oppose them is because they know that
anything that increases the other side's negotiating power will ultimately
drive their profits down.

Bush came out strongly in his first term in favor of AHP's. He still
supports them, but realistically knows that he's going to have a hard time
convincing Congressmen from states with low rates, and Congressmen from
states with big insurance companies headquartered there, to vote for them.
I think he's only mentioning HSA's because he realistically doesn't think
that in today's political climate AHP's have much of a chance.

However, should he win reelection in November, he'll be in a lot better
position to brow-beat the opponents to pass AHP's...especially leading up
to
the mid-term elections.

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

You might be supprised at the IQ's of certain people. What is your IQ? I
am
just shy of getting into the club.

The club of folks with triple-digit IQs, Bertie? No surprise. Too rigid
for reality.

I really wonder about your intellect...you think medical savings plans
are the answer for the 43 million Americans without health insurance?
Yeah, some of them might be able to save, what, $20 a week? Priced any
serious prescriptions lately?

The best cure for right-wing smug****s like you is to have to experience
some of life's financial angst.

It sucks being in the minority doesn't it Krause?

Yeah, I'm one of the few Americans with first-class health care insurance.

--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!