"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message


Do either of you guys live in a Battleground state? If not, then the
opinions of people you know in those states do not matter. There are
three
people in my office (plus their spouses) who didn't vote for Bush in
2000.
All have stated that they will be supporting him this year.


They're hoping by saying that you'll stop pestering them.


Maybe. Of course,just to be sure that they don't vote for Kerry, then
I'm
dropping the bomb on November 1st:

"Should *my* taxes go up (which they will) so that Kerry can pay for his
unaffordable, government-run health plan, then I'm dropping our group
health
insurance policy (which I pay 85% of) and everybody is on their own. I
also
won't be hiring the extra assistant that I usually hire when season
comes...which means we must struggle through our busy time with the
people
we currently have, and everybody works that much harder."



That's not a threat. It's a reality. I provide health insurance for my
employees. If Kerry thinks he can provide it for them by hitting me with
higher taxes, then best of luck to him. If he thinks he is able to
provide
them with government-controlled health insurance, and he uses my tax
money
to do it, then effectively, I'm still paying for their insurance anyhow.




Reason enough for health insurance to be taken out of the hands of
employers. Threatening employees...is this what we've devolved to in
this country?


I just told you that it's not a threat. It's reality.

Like most people, I have a budget. My budget was created using numbers
worked out according to Bush's tax code. If the Democrats raise my taxes,
which causes me to exceed my budget, I'll have no choice but to make a cut
*somewhere*. Since Kerry is raising my taxes to pay for health care, then
it makes sense that the "somewhere" should be my health insurance benefits
to my employees. It's simple cause and effect...and there are thousands of
small businesses that will take the same path. I feel that I owe it to my
employees to help them understand just how their vote could have a negative
effect on their pocketbooks...even if *their* taxes don't go up under
Kerry's so-called "plan".

"Jelle" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

[...]


Don't hold your breath, jelle. I'm not opening your attachment. And when I
forwarded your post (with headers) to the Secret Service, I made sure to
first remove the attachment. If I were you, I'd stay at a friend's house
for the next...oh...say...10 years.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message


Do either of you guys live in a Battleground state? If not, then the
opinions of people you know in those states do not matter. There are
three
people in my office (plus their spouses) who didn't vote for Bush in
2000.
All have stated that they will be supporting him this year.


They're hoping by saying that you'll stop pestering them.


Maybe. Of course,just to be sure that they don't vote for Kerry, then
I'm
dropping the bomb on November 1st:

"Should *my* taxes go up (which they will) so that Kerry can pay for
his
unaffordable, government-run health plan, then I'm dropping our group
health
insurance policy (which I pay 85% of) and everybody is on their own. I
also
won't be hiring the extra assistant that I usually hire when season
comes...which means we must struggle through our busy time with the
people
we currently have, and everybody works that much harder."



That's not a threat. It's a reality. I provide health insurance for
my
employees. If Kerry thinks he can provide it for them by hitting me
with
higher taxes, then best of luck to him. If he thinks he is able to
provide
them with government-controlled health insurance, and he uses my tax
money
to do it, then effectively, I'm still paying for their insurance
anyhow.




Reason enough for health insurance to be taken out of the hands of
employers. Threatening employees...is this what we've devolved to in
this country?


I just told you that it's not a threat. It's reality.

Like most people, I have a budget. My budget was created using numbers
worked out according to Bush's tax code. If the Democrats raise my taxes,
which causes me to exceed my budget, I'll have no choice but to make a cut
*somewhere*. Since Kerry is raising my taxes to pay for health care, then
it makes sense that the "somewhere" should be my health insurance benefits
to my employees. It's simple cause and effect...and there are thousands
of
small businesses that will take the same path. I feel that I owe it to my
employees to help them understand just how their vote could have a
negative
effect on their pocketbooks...even if *their* taxes don't go up under
Kerry's so-called "plan".

That is exactly why the"Big 3" would love to see a guvmint helath insurance
plan......funny thing is.....all of harry's union thugs .....I mena
brothers.....would be the ones to suffer.......they would drop from the gold
plated health insurance they now have and get the Kmart bluelight specail
offered by the guvmint

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message


Do either of you guys live in a Battleground state? If not, then the
opinions of people you know in those states do not matter. There are
three
people in my office (plus their spouses) who didn't vote for Bush in
2000.
All have stated that they will be supporting him this year.


They're hoping by saying that you'll stop pestering them.


Maybe. Of course,just to be sure that they don't vote for Kerry, then
I'm
dropping the bomb on November 1st:

"Should *my* taxes go up (which they will) so that Kerry can pay for
his
unaffordable, government-run health plan, then I'm dropping our group
health
insurance policy (which I pay 85% of) and everybody is on their own. I
also
won't be hiring the extra assistant that I usually hire when season
comes...which means we must struggle through our busy time with the
people
we currently have, and everybody works that much harder."



That's not a threat. It's a reality. I provide health insurance for
my
employees. If Kerry thinks he can provide it for them by hitting me
with
higher taxes, then best of luck to him. If he thinks he is able to
provide
them with government-controlled health insurance, and he uses my tax
money
to do it, then effectively, I'm still paying for their insurance
anyhow.




Reason enough for health insurance to be taken out of the hands of
employers. Threatening employees...is this what we've devolved to in
this country?


I just told you that it's not a threat. It's reality.

Like most people, I have a budget. My budget was created using numbers
worked out according to Bush's tax code. If the Democrats raise my
taxes,
which causes me to exceed my budget, I'll have no choice but to make a
cut
*somewhere*. Since Kerry is raising my taxes to pay for health care,
then
it makes sense that the "somewhere" should be my health insurance
benefits
to my employees. It's simple cause and effect...and there are thousands
of
small businesses that will take the same path. I feel that I owe it to
my
employees to help them understand just how their vote could have a
negative
effect on their pocketbooks...even if *their* taxes don't go up under
Kerry's so-called "plan".

It's a threat...and once again, reason enough why health care for
workers should not be in the hands of employers.

You think I like paying $1400/month to insure three employees? You think I
like paying $1100/mo to insure myself and my family? Nope. But
government-run healthcare isn't the answer.

"Jon Smithe" wrote in message
news:1xUcd.263432$MQ5.116482@attbi_s52...
Harry has a problem understanding simple economics. If the government
raises the taxes to a level that will not allow you to make a profit with
your current cost structure, you will have to reduce your overhead, and
labor costs in many small businesses is their number one expense.

Precisely.

NOYB wrote:


"Jelle" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

[...]


Don't hold your breath, jelle. I'm not opening your attachment. And when
I forwarded your post (with headers) to the Secret Service, I made sure to
first remove the attachment. If I were you, I'd stay at a friend's house
for the next...oh...say...10 years.

LOL ! (there is no attachment, never was, only a figment of outlook's
imagination)

But please do forward all you can find to your secret service. Bury them in
evidence, they need it all, it is not up to you to make a selection. The
more time they spend on me, the less they can spend on being really evil.
Besides, if I might really turn fruitloop, I'd have a reason to be paranoid!

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

begin youareafraidofthis?.exe

JohnH wrote:


If you are a Netherlander, jelle, then you should learn some manners.
The vast majority of your countrymen have them.

wow! you must be a genius. You can read, and understand what you are reading
and write a somewhat coherent response. On top of that you can
translate .nl to the netherlands. Do you realize that you belong to a
minority that can do that?

What is wrong with my manners? Are you upset that I am making fun of your
unelected president? There is also a vast majority here that does not like
your village idiot either.

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

JohnH wrote:
My comment on your manners had nothing to do with your politics.

Malarkey. If he was drooling on himself and babbling about how
magnificent Bush Jr is, you'd excuse his manners the same way you excuse
the oafish behavior of all the other fascist louts & cretins who infest
this supposedly boating newsgroup.

DSK

Harry Krause wrote:



It's a threat...and once again, reason enough why health care for
workers should not be in the hands of employers.




I agree that health care should not be in the hands of employers, but
for different reasons.

Business, small and large, operate to provide a product or service,
hopefully making a profit in the course of doing so. Success benefits
the owners, stockholders and employees and usually causes the business
to grow which creates the need for more jobs and employment.

The advent of HMO's back in the late 70's, early 80's added the cost of
administrating and often paying for the bulk of private health insurance
leading to a disparity in coverage. Some businesses can afford decent
plans and pay for the bulk of the cost. Other struggling businesses have
to settle for second rate plans and pass more or all of the cost to the
employees. IMHO, this is not right ... one's job status should not
determine the quality of health care one or one's family receives.

Which brings a question to mind. I happened to listen to John Kerry
giving his stump speech in Florida this afternoon. In it, he repeated
his pledge to enable everyone to choose their health plan and doctors,
just like those in Congress do.

I don't know how he plans on doing this. In our mutual home state of
Massachusetts, a small business (less than 50 employees last time I
checked) is required to have 100 per cent participation in a particular
health plan in order for the company to participate. This means that if
you want Blue Cross/Blue Shield, all the employees of the company must
sign up for it (unless the employee is covered by a spouse's plan by
another employer). Same is true for Harvard, Pilgrim or any of the
group plans. This causes problems because not all doctors participate
in all the plans. For those potential employees whose doctor does not
participate in the chosen company plan must either change doctors or
decline the job.

So, is Kerry saying he is going to completely disassemble and then
reassemble group health plans is the US? I don't think so.

I did an analysis several years ago when I still owned a small company.
Using one of the employees who represented a "typical" family (wife and
two young children) and looking at the number of times one of the family
members visited a doctor during the course of a year I discovered that
it would be less costly to provide a major medical plan for catastrophic
illness or injury and have my company pay 100 percent of all the normal
medical costs, doctor visits and prescriptions for his entire family.
The employee had a son with a chronic health problem that required
frequent doctor visits and still it would have been less expensive to
pay cash for all the visits and medication *and* pay for 100 percent of
the major medical plan compared to the monthly HMO premiums and
restrictions on choice of doctors.

I approached Blue Cross, Pilgrim and Tuffs with this concept. All
refused to provide a major medical plan.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:



It's a threat...and once again, reason enough why health care for
workers should not be in the hands of employers.



I agree that health care should not be in the hands of employers, but for
different reasons.

Business, small and large, operate to provide a product or service,
hopefully making a profit in the course of doing so. Success benefits the
owners, stockholders and employees and usually causes the business to grow
which creates the need for more jobs and employment.

The advent of HMO's back in the late 70's, early 80's added the cost of
administrating and often paying for the bulk of private health insurance
leading to a disparity in coverage. Some businesses can afford decent
plans and pay for the bulk of the cost. Other struggling businesses have
to settle for second rate plans and pass more or all of the cost to the
employees. IMHO, this is not right ... one's job status should not
determine the quality of health care one or one's family receives.

Which brings a question to mind. I happened to listen to John Kerry
giving his stump speech in Florida this afternoon. In it, he repeated his
pledge to enable everyone to choose their health plan and doctors, just
like those in Congress do.

I don't know how he plans on doing this. In our mutual home state of
Massachusetts, a small business (less than 50 employees last time I
checked) is required to have 100 per cent participation in a particular
health plan in order for the company to participate. This means that if
you want Blue Cross/Blue Shield, all the employees of the company must
sign up for it (unless the employee is covered by a spouse's plan by
another employer). Same is true for Harvard, Pilgrim or any of the group
plans. This causes problems because not all doctors participate in all
the plans. For those potential employees whose doctor does not participate
in the chosen company plan must either change doctors or decline the job.

So, is Kerry saying he is going to completely disassemble and then
reassemble group health plans is the US? I don't think so.

I did an analysis several years ago when I still owned a small company.
Using one of the employees who represented a "typical" family (wife and
two young children) and looking at the number of times one of the family
members visited a doctor during the course of a year I discovered that it
would be less costly to provide a major medical plan for catastrophic
illness or injury and have my company pay 100 percent of all the normal
medical costs, doctor visits and prescriptions for his entire family. The
employee had a son with a chronic health problem that required frequent
doctor visits and still it would have been less expensive to pay cash for
all the visits and medication *and* pay for 100 percent of the major
medical plan compared to the monthly HMO premiums and restrictions on
choice of doctors.

I approached Blue Cross, Pilgrim and Tuffs with this concept. All refused
to provide a major medical plan.


What you suggested are now known as HSA's. I looked into them. BC/BS has
some available in my area, but they weren't very attractive. It's a high
deductible plan, but it can't offer per-visit copays and can't have
prescription coverage. I figured that I would put the money I saved on
premiums into each employees HSA to use as they needed. Unfortunately, one
employee is on expensive meds, and the premium savings on the
high-deductible plan would not have been enough to pay for her meds.