I beleive him more than I believe Bush who is the pocket of the big
pharmaceutical companies. He gave them billions and he gave the
rest of us NOTHING. Bush has gone back on just about all of his
campaign promises, including allowing drugs from Canada and allowing
medicare to bargain for drug prices.

If you actually read what Kerry said, you would know that the
rest of what you've asked was answered thoroughly and completely.
Do us all a favor and read before you post.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

No. He clearly said in the last debate that no one would be forced to
join. Something similar would be just fine with me.

And you believe him??? Federalized health care is not a viable option
without participation at nearly 100%. Who's going to pay for all that
congressional-level coverage? You? Me? Yeah, and businesses--literally
all of them. At $7K per individual per year, which is what is being doled
out by taxpayers for members of Congress, it ain't gonna be up to the
individual, as you imply. Check out Britain's and Canada's system. You
can
pay for your own health care in either of those two countries, but you are
NOT allowed to buy your own, independent health coverage--only the
gummint's. Without full participation the system won't have adequate
funding.

Of course Kerry will change his position on this issue half a dozen times
or
more before anything becomes law, if he's elected.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I beleive him more than I believe Bush who is the pocket of the big
pharmaceutical companies. He gave them billions and he gave the
rest of us NOTHING. Bush has gone back on just about all of his
campaign promises, including allowing drugs from Canada and allowing
medicare to bargain for drug prices.

If you actually read what Kerry said, you would know that the
rest of what you've asked was answered thoroughly and completely.
Do us all a favor and read before you post.

Well it'll all be academic anyway, unless Kerry gets one or both houses of
Congress. With a GOP Congress, he'll not pass anything but gas.

Max

Hate to burst your bubble, but Clinton did a fair amount during the
republican
controlled Congress. It is possible. Not fun, not easy, but possible.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I beleive him more than I believe Bush who is the pocket of the big
pharmaceutical companies. He gave them billions and he gave the
rest of us NOTHING. Bush has gone back on just about all of his
campaign promises, including allowing drugs from Canada and allowing
medicare to bargain for drug prices.

If you actually read what Kerry said, you would know that the
rest of what you've asked was answered thoroughly and completely.
Do us all a favor and read before you post.

Well it'll all be academic anyway, unless Kerry gets one or both houses of
Congress. With a GOP Congress, he'll not pass anything but gas.

Max

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:40:16 GMT, wrote
this crap:

Bush Senior spent his whole term whining that he couldn't do anything because of
the mean old Dem's who controlled congress. He urged his followers to give him a
second term with a Republican congress and they woud see some action. Amazingly,
when Bill Clinton was handed a Republican congress, he had no trouble passing
more legislation in 6 months than Bush passed in his whole term. Republicans are
finger pointing, blame game, cry-babies, and always have been.


Nothing amazing about passing feel-good legislation.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Maxprop" wrote
In response to yours, Vito's and thunder's comments, there is a huge
difference between expanding the size of government and overspending.
Yes,
W has set a new precedent in spending, ..... But spending is reversible.

Beyond the Dept. of Homeland Security W hasn't expanded government as much
. ..... But even if it grows, it will be by necessity and not by
political whim.

Government-sponsored health care--socialized medicine, essentially--would
eclipse nearly every other bureaucracy now in existence. ......

The above isn't hypocracy - it is merely very wrong. Bush is no
concervative, fiscal or otherwise. Like Reagan and his daddy before him W
believes in "Reaganomics" in the same way he believes in Jesus Christ. But
Reaganomics is "Voodoo" based on the LIBERAL notion that we can 'spend
ourselves rich' - but spends by borrowing from outside our economy instead
of by raising taxes. Sorry, but the only thing more frightening than ever
bigger government is financing that growth by debt owed to foreign bankers
by our children and grandchildren. What happens when these foreigners
threaten to call their loans? We do what we're told, that's what! Even
something as idiotic as attacking Saddam - eh?

What on Earth makes you believe that a national police with Gestapo powers
will limit its own growth any more than a medical, or any other bureaucracy?
Where in human history has that ever happened?

The fact is cops or agents all want a promotion and a raise and a better
life just like the rest of us. There is only two ways for that to happen in
a bureaucracy. You can wait for your boss to retire and hope to beat out a
dozen other guys to get his job or you can work to grow the department. And
what grows a law enforcement agency? Why crime of course! There is nothing
like a major violent crime wave to get citizens howling for more cops - and
the more cops get hired the more sergeant, lieutenant and captain jobs open
up. 9/11 was the biggers boost federal law enforcement ever had - thank to
W. And it will grow and grow and grow until we all have cameras in our
bedrooms monitored by $7.50/hour pervs - you know like the ones checking
passengers on 9/11.

No, national health care isn't the answer. We need a free market. Trouble
is, we do not have one! We cannot go to any Doctor who will give us the
best rates, we must go to a state licensed MD. And who decides the license
criteria? Why the doctor's union of course - the AMA that won't allow MDs to
advertise rates. Worse, we cannot buy effective medicines without one of
these quack's permission. It's akin to not being allowed to buy a light
bulb without a prescription from a state licensed electrician. The answer is
to "Bust the Trust" and its monopoly on medical care and let the American
way prevail. Is W doing that? No! He has strengthened it by forbiding
reimportation of US manufactured drugs. Is Kerry's plan better? NO! But I
prefer a benevolent medical bureaucracy to W's Gestapo. YMMV

Is "increasing the size of government" a bad thing? If so, then why do
you support President George W. Bush, who has increased the size 7
expense of gov't considerably? You speculate that Kerry might do
something that Bush has already done, and condemn Kerry... hypocrisy,
nyet?

Maxprop wrote:
In response to yours, Vito's and thunder's comments, there is a huge
difference between expanding the size of government and overspending.

Oh yeah.

... Yes,
W has set a new precedent in spending, especially for a republican.

Since I'm not the recipient of a golden parachute from Halliburton, nor
hypnotized by the constant spew of KKK-esque rhetoric, I'd call it
"overspending."

... I'm
hardly pleased with that. Even the conservative side of the congressional
aisle is disturbed by his spending habits.

Mostly because it's cutting very heavily into their pork and raising a
very bad economic future.




Beyond the Dept. of Homeland Security W hasn't expanded government as much
as some presidents have in the past.

That may be, but most of the "new jobs" President Bush is touting in
this wonderful boom economy he has presided over, are gov't jobs.



Hypocrisy? It might be, only if one is unable to differentiate between
expanding government and overspending.

Or unwilling to look at naked facts without blushing and trying to cover
them up.

DSK

Horass is an expert whiner.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:20:26 -0400, Horvath
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:40:16 GMT, wrote
this crap:

Bush Senior spent his whole term whining that he couldn't do anything
because of
the mean old Dem's who controlled congress. He urged his followers to
give him a
second term with a Republican congress and they woud see some action.
Amazingly,
when Bill Clinton was handed a Republican congress, he had no trouble
passing
more legislation in 6 months than Bush passed in his whole term.
Republicans are
finger pointing, blame game, cry-babies, and always have been.


Nothing amazing about passing blame around when you are a republi-can't.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

He's a fag, I mean flag, winner whiner.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:10:32 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Horass is an expert whiner.

He's the winner whiner!

Other than that, he's a loser.

BB

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Hate to burst your bubble, but Clinton did a fair amount during the
republican
controlled Congress. It is possible. Not fun, not easy, but possible.

Hate to burst yours, Jon, but Clinton got absolutely no purely democrat
initiatives through that Congress, only bipartisan bills. His days as an
effective liberal died in January of '94.

Remember Hillary's ill-fated federalized health care initiative? Kerry
won't get his past the Senate restroom door.

Max

wrote in message

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:03:30 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I beleive him more than I believe Bush who is the pocket of the big
pharmaceutical companies. He gave them billions and he gave the
rest of us NOTHING. Bush has gone back on just about all of his
campaign promises, including allowing drugs from Canada and allowing
medicare to bargain for drug prices.

If you actually read what Kerry said, you would know that the
rest of what you've asked was answered thoroughly and completely.
Do us all a favor and read before you post.

Well it'll all be academic anyway, unless Kerry gets one or both houses
of
Congress. With a GOP Congress, he'll not pass anything but gas.

Max


Bush Senior spent his whole term whining that he couldn't do anything
because of
the mean old Dem's who controlled congress. He urged his followers to give
him a
second term with a Republican congress and they woud see some action.
Amazingly,
when Bill Clinton was handed a Republican congress, he had no trouble
passing
more legislation in 6 months than Bush passed in his whole term.
Republicans are
finger pointing, blame game, cry-babies, and always have been.

For someone claiming to have killfiled me, you certainly seem to have found
my posts. :-)

Max