Bush Up By 8!!
 

This really surprises me. I thought we Kerry making Bush look like a dummy
in the 3 debates it would be enough to swing the noncommittal to his side.
It appears he has lost all of the increase from his first 2 debates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Pre...chart3way.html

I think his often repeated comment about Cheney's daughter being a lesbian
is backfiring on him. I am a conservative who believe homosexuality is not
a choice, a homosexual is born that way. I also believe God does not make a
mistake so it must be ok with him. What I do believe is tacky is for any
candidate to emphasize their opponents family during a campaign. If he had
red hair or was left handed and it was mentioned in each of his opponents
campaign speeches it would sound tacky, but if they were in a wheelchair,
mentally ill, or was born with a sexual preference of 2-3% of the population
it is even tackier.
If Cheney's daughter wants to use her fathers campaign to push her agenda
that is her choice.

It appears that many people think Kerry has crossed the line.



"George Orwell" wrote in message
...
Bush Up By 8!!

The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll has Bush up 52% to 44% among likely
voters. That's an 8 point lead!

Interviews with 1,013 adult Americans, including 788 likely voters and 942
registered voters, conducted by telephone on October 14-16, 2004
Although Americans think John Kerry did the best job in the debates, that
has not translated into an increase in his popularity, which in turn means
that he appears to have lost a little ground to Bush. Among registered
voters, a 48%-48% tie is now a 49%-46% edge for Bush -- not much of a
difference and, with the sampling error, not a significant change. The
Gallup likely voter model, which identified those respondents who are most
likely to cast a ballot, is magnifying those shifts, with a 49%-48%
advantage for Kerry turning into a 52%-44% lead for Bush. What's going on?

For one thing, the charge that Kerry is too liberal, which Bush emphasized
mostly in the third and last debate on Wednesday night, seems to be
sticking. Nearly half say Kerry's political views are too liberal. (Four
in
ten say Bush is too conservative.) But didn't Kerry win the debate? Yes,
as
with the first two debates, the public thinks Kerry did the better job on
Wednesday night. But as Al Gore learned in 2000, winning a debate on
points
does not necessarily translate into votes or make a candidate more
popular.
As in 2000, Bush's favorable ratings -- Americans view of him as a person
-- went up after a debate that he lost. Kerry's favorable rating has
remained flat. Republicans seem more enthusiastic about the election, and
thus more likely to vote, as reflected in the Gallup likely voter model.

Bush may have energized his base in the final debate at the expense of not
appealing to a wider audience -- but he managed to do so in a way that
made
him more popular than Kerry.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:37:24 +0000, Jon Smithe wrote:

This really surprises me. I thought we Kerry making Bush look like a
dummy in the 3 debates it would be enough to swing the noncommittal to his
side. It appears he has lost all of the increase from his first 2 debates.

I wouldn't weight the Gallup poll to seriously. Gallup polls are designed
to be sensitive to movement, and admittedly, can exaggerate a party's
turnout.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/news-bearman.php

This is an extremely close race. It will probably be decided by Ohio or,
once again, Florida, or, perhaps again, the Supreme Court.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone who has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this election. He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for Bush this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least Bush the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:37:24 +0000, Jon Smithe wrote:

This really surprises me. I thought we Kerry making Bush look like a
dummy in the 3 debates it would be enough to swing the noncommittal to
his
side. It appears he has lost all of the increase from his first 2
debates.

I wouldn't weight the Gallup poll to seriously. Gallup polls are designed
to be sensitive to movement, and admittedly, can exaggerate a party's
turnout.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/news-bearman.php

This is an extremely close race. It will probably be decided by Ohio or,
once again, Florida, or, perhaps again, the Supreme Court.



Gallup was "called out" a couple of weeks ago for packing its caller
lists with significantly more Republicans than Democrats.

Most of the polls are very close, and probably will remain that way. I
don't think the polls in this election are really reflecting the
significant changes in the voter base the last few years, or the big
push for voter registration that has been taking place.

More than in recent years, voter turnout is going to play a major role.
I'm no prognosticator, but my impression is that the Democrats are more
fired up than the Republicans. If that remains the case, and if the
Republicans don't get away with too much election day cheating, we may
well have a new President-election in about two weeks.

HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone who has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this election.
He cannot stomach George W. Bush.

Something the Democrats have recently realized is that they may be losing
some of the Jewish vote that they had so readily relied upon in past
elections. In 2000, Bush carried only 19% of the Jewish vote in Florida..
I've seen recent polls where Bush is currently getting the support of
anywhere from 24 to 35% of the Jewish vote in Florida. Since 90% of Jews
are registered to vote (compared to 2/3's of the general population), they
make up roughly 5% of the Florida vote. That equates to nearly 300,000
votes (based on 2000 results). If Bush got 19% (56,645 votes) in 2000, and
increases that to 30% (90,000) this time, that means that he gains nearly
24,000 votes (and Kerry gets 24,000 fewer votes than Gore got). It'll take
a helluva lot of Harry's relatives staying home in order to make up for a
48,000 vote swing towards Bush.

Don't think it can happen? Just look at the comments from guys like Ed Koch
and Joe Lieberman regarding Bush's pro-Israel policies:

" We also should not forget that President Bush, in my opinion, has been the
greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House " --Ed Koch

"We are dealing with a president who's had a record of strong, consistent
support for Israel. You can't say otherwise,"-- Joseph Lieberman in Delray
Beach, Fla

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone who has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this election.
He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for Bush this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least Bush the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

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.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone who
has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this
election.
He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for Bush
this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least Bush
the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

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.

The fact is that the support for Kerry is shallow, more "anti Bush" than
"pro Kerry" In past elections, the turn out is usually less when there is
not the energy "for" a candidate. On the other hand, Bush's support is
quite strong.

Which is probably why the dems are reving up the 'suppressed vote" lie and
mobilizing the trial lawyers.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:52:43 -0400, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone who
has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this
election.
He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for Bush
this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least Bush
the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

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.

The fact is that the support for Kerry is shallow, more "anti Bush" than
"pro Kerry" In past elections, the turn out is usually less when there is
not the energy "for" a candidate. On the other hand, Bush's support is
quite strong.

Which is probably why the dems are reving up the 'suppressed vote" lie and
mobilizing the trial lawyers.



Judging from the posts in this newsgroup that seems to focus on criticisms
of Bush rather than promote any substansive merit of Kerry and his "plans",
I guess I tend to agree with you.

"John S" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:52:43 -0400, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone
who
has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this
election.
He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for
Bush
this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least
Bush
the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

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.

The fact is that the support for Kerry is shallow, more "anti Bush"
than
"pro Kerry" In past elections, the turn out is usually less when
there is
not the energy "for" a candidate. On the other hand, Bush's support
is
quite strong.

Which is probably why the dems are reving up the 'suppressed vote"
lie and
mobilizing the trial lawyers.



Judging from the posts in this newsgroup that seems to focus on
criticisms
of Bush rather than promote any substansive merit of Kerry and his
"plans",
I guess I tend to agree with you.

The dems have made the same mistake that the Repubs did in
1996.......there was a weakened incumbant, and they put up an even weaker
candidate.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John S" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:52:43 -0400, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


HEre's an interesting data point: one of my relatives, someone
who
has
voted Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, is sitting out this
election.
He
cannot stomach George W. Bush.

I hope whatever ails him is spreading to other Republicans.

It has. I know of several Republicans that will not vote for
Bush
this
time. I also agree that the Democrats are fired up. At least
Bush
the
"uniter" has united one group, the Democrats.

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.

The fact is that the support for Kerry is shallow, more "anti Bush"
than
"pro Kerry" In past elections, the turn out is usually less when
there is
not the energy "for" a candidate. On the other hand, Bush's support
is
quite strong.

Which is probably why the dems are reving up the 'suppressed vote"
lie and
mobilizing the trial lawyers.



Judging from the posts in this newsgroup that seems to focus on
criticisms
of Bush rather than promote any substansive merit of Kerry and his
"plans",
I guess I tend to agree with you.

The dems have made the same mistake that the Repubs did in
1996.......there was a weakened incumbant, and they put up an even weaker
candidate.


In 1992, Clinton garnered only 43% of the vote. It's pathetic that a
President can be elected with such a low percentage of the population
supporting him. There was plenty of anti-Bush sentiment that year, but I
doubt many of the Perot supporters would have cast their votes for Clinton
if Perot wasn't in the race. Most would have either stayed home, or voted
for Bush as the lesser of two evils (at least in their minds). This year,
there is no viable alternative to the incumbent...and Kerry hasn't done
anything to help his own chances. I still predict a Bush win by 4 to 6
percentage points.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:38:17 -0400, NOYB wrote:


In 1992, Clinton garnered only 43% of the vote. It's pathetic that a
President can be elected with such a low percentage of the population
supporting him. There was plenty of anti-Bush sentiment that year, but I
doubt many of the Perot supporters would have cast their votes for Clinton
if Perot wasn't in the race. Most would have either stayed home, or voted
for Bush as the lesser of two evils (at least in their minds). This year,
there is no viable alternative to the incumbent...and Kerry hasn't done
anything to help his own chances. I still predict a Bush win by 4 to 6
percentage points.

Well, I see even you think the race is getting closer. Your prediction is
down from a 5-7% landslide. ;-)

http://www.google.com/groups?q=lands...ink.net&rnum=2

Still, my guess is it's going to be considerable closer. Close enough
that we may not know the winner on Nov. 3.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

The fact is that the support for Kerry is shallow, more "anti Bush" than
"pro Kerry" In past elections, the turn out is usually less when there
is
not the energy "for" a candidate. On the other hand, Bush's support is
quite strong.


Past elections don't mean a whole lot. I agree that normall when people are
not
"for" a candidate they stay home. But this year that are a lot of people
that
will go to the polls to get Bush out even if they aren't "for" Kerry.
And yes, I'll freely admit that there are many Bush supporters, and
many that will be energized to vote for him.

Actually, on second thought, you are absolutly correct, Bush's support IS
quite strong,
no need for you to go vote whatsoever.



Which is probably why the dems are reving up the 'suppressed vote" lie
and
mobilizing the trial lawyers.

Not that the professional & armchair dems don't spread crap too, but I kinda
figured we could *all* get behind the idea that everyone that is eligable
and wants
to should be able to vote and have it counted. After the fiasco of hanging
chads
in Florida - which was a disaster as far as counting every person's vote, no
matter what side you were one - I really would hope everyone could get
behind
efforts to make the vote safe. But whenever a person mentions efforts to
make
all the votes count correctly I see the responce of "oh, it's just a big lie
so when
the Dems loose...."

Harry Krause wrote:

[...ot...]
What I am woondering: Last time when babybush stole the election, protestors
only yelled nasty words at him. This time will they shoot him, when/if he
does it again? I'd hate to see Babybush erected as an Icon next to Kennedy,
but I will surely smile if that retarded minor is executed.

So, that will make me lots of friends ;-)

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

begin msblaster.pif

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:38:17 -0400, NOYB wrote:


In 1992, Clinton garnered only 43% of the vote. It's pathetic that a
President can be elected with such a low percentage of the population
supporting him. There was plenty of anti-Bush sentiment that year, but I
doubt many of the Perot supporters would have cast their votes for
Clinton
if Perot wasn't in the race. Most would have either stayed home, or
voted
for Bush as the lesser of two evils (at least in their minds). This
year,
there is no viable alternative to the incumbent...and Kerry hasn't done
anything to help his own chances. I still predict a Bush win by 4 to 6
percentage points.

Well, I see even you think the race is getting closer. Your prediction is
down from a 5-7% landslide. ;-)

LOL. Yup. If it's 4% or 7%, I guess I look like the dummy. But I can
always hold out hope that it's 5 or 6%...and then I can brag that I've been
right all along.





http://www.google.com/groups?q=lands...ink.net&rnum=2

Still, my guess is it's going to be considerable closer. Close enough
that we may not know the winner on Nov. 3.

Due to the provisional ballots, it doesn't have to be very close at all for
us to still not know the winner on Nov. 3rd. Somebody could win Ohio by
40,000 votes, and if there are 50,000 provisional ballots to be counted,
the provisional ballot lawsuits could keep the results in limbo for quite
awhile.

I think the provisional ballots are absurd...particularly if you request one
because you "forgot to register". If you have a current valid voter
registration card and a picture ID, and you show up at the correct polling
booth, there should be no need for a provisional ballot.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...-ballots_x.htm

"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.

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

[...ot...]
What I am woondering: Last time when babybush stole the election,
protestors
only yelled nasty words at him. This time will they shoot him, when/if he
does it again? I'd hate to see Babybush erected as an Icon next to
Kennedy,
but I will surely smile if that retarded minor is executed.

So, that will make me lots of friends ;-)



It's not appropriate to talk or even think about shooting the president.

I suspect ol' jelle should be hearing from the USSS pretty soon.

NOYB wrote:


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

[...ot...]
What I am woondering: Last time when babybush stole the election,
protestors
only yelled nasty words at him. This time will they shoot him, when/if
he does it again? I'd hate to see Babybush erected as an Icon next to
Kennedy,
but I will surely smile if that retarded minor is executed.

So, that will make me lots of friends ;-)



It's not appropriate to talk or even think about shooting the president.

I suspect ol' jelle should be hearing from the USSS pretty soon.

And NOYB marked another trait of a facist and opressive regime, I think
Harry was right in that respect.

Where I live the USSS has not much too say luckily, but they are very
welcome to call me. I hear intercontinental rates are pretty low these
days.

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

begin executebushprogram.exe

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


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

[...ot...]
What I am woondering: Last time when babybush stole the election,
protestors
only yelled nasty words at him. This time will they shoot him, when/if
he does it again? I'd hate to see Babybush erected as an Icon next to
Kennedy,
but I will surely smile if that retarded minor is executed.

So, that will make me lots of friends ;-)



It's not appropriate to talk or even think about shooting the president.

I suspect ol' jelle should be hearing from the USSS pretty soon.

And NOYB marked another trait of a facist and opressive regime, I think
Harry was right in that respect.

Where I live the USSS has not much too say luckily, but they are very
welcome to call me.

And I'm sure they will.

Where I live the USSS has not much too say luckily, but they are very
welcome to call me. I hear intercontinental rates are pretty low these
days.

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

begin executebushprogram.exe

You don't get it, Jelle. The USSS won't even be involved. If you live, you'll
be bedmates with a sweaty, 300-pound "terrorist" gangster down in Guantanamo.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Where I live the USSS has not much too say luckily, but they are very
welcome to call me. I hear intercontinental rates are pretty low these
days.

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

begin executebushprogram.exe

You don't get it, Jelle. The USSS won't even be involved. If you live,
you'll
be bedmates with a sweaty, 300-pound "terrorist" gangster down in
Guantanamo.

....naked, with a leash around your neck.

NOYB wrote:

[...]
begin executebushprogram.txt

to start the bush program type ./bush --steal=election
to stop it type killall -9 bush


You don't get it, Jelle. The USSS won't even be involved. If you live,
you'll
be bedmates with a sweaty, 300-pound "terrorist" gangster down in
Guantanamo.
Yeah now that you mention it, these kinds of violations of the Geneva
convention (as going on in guantanamo) were not comitted by the european
fascist regimes, so that makes the USA less fascist in fact.

...naked, with a leash around your neck.
And when does this feast begin?
I do love homophobic and sadistic references. After all, what can you
expect when trolling in these waters ;)
Homophobics of the world, united, take cover!

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

begin dial911toreelectshrubby.exe

"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.

NOYB wrote:



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.

I wasn't looking for co-pays or prescription coverage. All I wanted was
a decent major medical plan for catastrophic illness or injury (like
what was common prior to the invention of HMO's). My company would pay
for all other medical expenses. It was still less expensive than paying
the HMO premiums.

The consumer is partly to blame for this mess. A co-payment of only 5
or 10 bucks looks like too good of a deal to pass up, which is the
primary reason the HMO's caught on. Long term though, it is not in any
body's best interests.

Now, seniors on fixed incomes is another matter entirely. Their medical
coverage needs are quite different than those in their working years
with families. An entirely different systems is needed for them.

Eisboch

JohnH wrote:



Kerry promises Blue Cross for all, but never says that federal
employees pay a share of their insurance. For my wife, the share is
about $225 per month. Kerry leaves out the fact that the federal
workers, whose insurance he wants to give everyone, are earning a
salary which enables them to pay a share. He acts as though no one
will pay anything. What a hypocrite.

John H


Exactly right, which is why his "plan" is flawed.
Kerry needs to step out of his protected little world full of government
bennies, backed up by a safety net of Heinz ketchup and see what the
real world has to deal with.

Eisboch

JohnH wrote:
Where have I excused oafish behavior?

Where have you criticised oafish behavior, except by those who disagree
with your political opinions?

DSK

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



The model Kerry refers to is the FEHBA- Federal Employes Health Benefit
Association. Under this program, dozens, perhaps hundreds of health
plans are offered to federal employees, with the government paying about
80% of the average premium of several of the biggest plans.

How can the government pay 80% of everyone's health insurance premium *and*
cut the deficit, while raising only the taxes on those folks earning over
$200,000? Kerry's a liar, and only the dumbest of the dumb would believe
that he's not going to raise taxes on the middle class.

Harry Krause wrote:




Exactly wrong. Really. Neither of you understand what Kerry is discussing.


Maybe that's part of Kerry's problem. You can't consider it if you
can't understand it.

If (as you explained in another post) Kerry is modeling his plan after
FEHBA:

1. He should say so. All he has said is that everybody should have the
same health plan options that those in Congress do. He states that he
chose Blue Cross. He has said nothing about FEHBA.

2. I suspect (but can't prove) that it will never work. The deep
pockets of government can afford to pay 80 percent of federal employee's
premiums. There is no accountability. In private industry, where most
are employed, health care premiums can break the bank, particularly in
small businesses.

3. Is Kerry suggesting that the federal government will pay the premiums
for private industry? This I have to see, because I KNOW that will
never fly.

Eisboch

JohnH wrote:

[...]
I know the majority of folks in the Netherlands prefer the election of
Kerry. I have an ongoing discussion with a good friend almost weekly
on this very matter. He gets most of his US news (the television
variety) from CNN or one of the Netherlands stations. Most of the US
media is biased towards the liberal philosophy, as is most of the
European news. Perhaps this has some bearing on the attitudes in
Europe.

I have some trouble interpreting liberal in this respect. Speaking in terms
of left and right: liberal is considered right-wing over here and socialist
left. (democrats, christian democrats and social democrats are somewhere in
between) Common sense here, in your eyes would be far left probably. The
media are spread out more or less over the political spectrum. Media from
the states (mostly cnn here) are considered to be ultra rightwing (to be
taken with so large a grain of salt that you will get some kidney
problems).


My comment on your manners had nothing to do with your politics. It
had to do with your manners. You have not shown the manners I
associate with Netherlanders, a wonderful people and very mannered.

You're generalizing, you know that? It borders on rasicm. Telling me to
behave more like you expect from your image is ridiculous.

There are some very ill-mannered children in Amsterdam, of course!
I don't really get what you are hinting at? There are ill mannered children
everywhere, that is inherent with kids. Some older child, but still bad
mannered, is residing in your white house btw.


--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

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



Kerry promises Blue Cross for all, but never says that federal
employees pay a share of their insurance. For my wife, the share is
about $225 per month. Kerry leaves out the fact that the federal
workers, whose insurance he wants to give everyone, are earning a
salary which enables them to pay a share. He acts as though no one
will pay anything. What a hypocrite.

John H


Exactly right, which is why his "plan" is flawed.
Kerry needs to step out of his protected little world full of government
bennies, backed up by a safety net of Heinz ketchup and see what the
real world has to deal with.

Eisboch


Exactly wrong. Really. Neither of you understand what Kerry is discussing.

Therein lies the root of the Kerry problem. If Kerry cannot communicate his
plans in a manner that a majority of the voting public can understand Kerry
is doomed to loose the election.

JohnH wrote:
I was accused of 'excusing', not 'not criticizing'.

Can't you keep one simple subject straight? You attacked Jelle for
having "bad manners." I then pointed out that your concept of "bad
manners" depends on political affiliation. Now you're blabbering about
excuses.

... If you check,
you'll find that I have criticized behavior on both sides.

Uh huh. When have you criticised any of the Bush-Cheney cheerleading squad?

... You happen
to have two on your 'side' who are extreme in their name calling.

Really? I'm not aware that anybody is on my 'side.'

I suppose you think that everybody who thinks you're a moron is somehow
all on the same 'side.' Maybe it's a coalition of those who can see the
obvious.

DSK

Exactly, No one does. If you look at his web site, he doesn't tell you a
thing, except it will be great.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Exactly wrong. Really. Neither of you understand what Kerry is discussing.

NYOB,
It would be nice if Kerry discussed the specifics of his health plan,
without the details people will either assume it is a "free health plan" for
all or a plan that will bankrupt businesses.

It would be possible to come up with a health plan that would be better for
small businesses and their employers than the one they currently have, but
you can't tell because Kerry isn't telling anyone.


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

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



The model Kerry refers to is the FEHBA- Federal Employes Health Benefit
Association. Under this program, dozens, perhaps hundreds of health
plans are offered to federal employees, with the government paying about
80% of the average premium of several of the biggest plans.

How can the government pay 80% of everyone's health insurance premium
*and* cut the deficit, while raising only the taxes on those folks earning
over $200,000? Kerry's a liar, and only the dumbest of the dumb would
believe that he's not going to raise taxes on the middle class.