68 responses so far ↓

• 1 HarfordProgressive // Nov 13, 2006 at 1:38 pm

  Hopefully the blog will be able to stay active for a long time, not just with criticism of corporate Democrats like Pelosi and O’Malley, but by having a honest discussion about Republican values and how they engage other political points of view. Check out the new Harford Progressive blog, criticize people with real ideas, and encourage others to get ready for healthy debates in 2008 and 2010.

  http://harfordprogressive.tripod.com/blog (Fancy domain name coming soon!)

• 2 NorthernGOPer // Nov 13, 2006 at 7:59 pm

  Glassman has been in office for years. He has great name recognition but can he fight a tough campaign? I think he is too timid- even if he polls ahead of Craig. Something happened to Glassman. He lost his nerve. If he can find it again, he is the one to knock off Craig. What happened to the Barry that took out Hooper years ago?

  Bane has a long history with the Sheriff’s Department. He is charming in a quiet way. His name sounds like a Sheriff. What happens if he cannot get crime under control south of 40? Cop politicians are always vulnerable to the sometimes uncontrollable demographics of crime. This may prove his eventual undoing. He may be wise to run against Craig in 4 rather than 8.

  Boniface had a tremendous debut, but he is going to have to prove himself in his new job for 4-8 years. He has a famous name, and the county is in honeymoon mode with him. Eventually, the honeymoon will end and Boniface will have to prove himself capable if he even WANTS to seek higher office. He has a farm to run you know. Man oh man he is going to be one busy gent.

  What about Susan McComas? If she was not so nervous she could go farther. She crushed Carey- yet was so worried about the race. If she undergoes some therapy, she might be ready to run for higher office. She is a very smary lady- ferret legislation aside…

• 3 someone at the fair // Nov 13, 2006 at 8:07 pm

  Harford Progressive wants to start a anti-SUV clean – air campaign. Now THAT sounds more REgressive than PROgressive. I like my truck just fine and have no problem with it getting terrible gas mileage. This is STILL a free country, last time I checked.

  But this does remind me, whatever became of “Steve” the guy who was threatening us all with Norm Cochran months ago, telling us we couldn’t exercise our first amendment rights without consequences, and telling us what a marvelous canidate Norm was……. Hmmmmm.

  Harford Progressive, keep your flyer OFF my truck!!!!!

• 4 GOPerative // Nov 13, 2006 at 9:47 pm

  Hardcore liberals are trying to paint themselves with this “new” term – progressive. I agree with you 100%. They are one of the most oppressive groups of people who actually promote feminism as a pillar of their movement. They are the most dangerous liberals because they do stupid things like ticket SUVs and they get press because of it. After it is in print two times it becomes a fact and one step closer to being normal and accepted. I would vote for a Communist before I would vote for a Green. They stand for almost everything I oppose. The Green Party takes votes away from democrats because it gives extreme liberals a candidate to vote for when the local democrat doesn’t hate men, successful businesses, or America enough. G.R.E.E.N. stands for Getting Republicans Elected Every November. It looks like it worked in District B.

• 5 Anonymous // Nov 13, 2006 at 10:26 pm

  so do ya think the ” Brian” on that new site is Bittner? If so the voters of Fallston have him and Roni’s dirty tricks to lame for the same old same old in that seat….

• 6 HarfordProgressive // Nov 13, 2006 at 10:36 pm

  Progressive action is not an attempt to constrain your freedom as much as it is an attempt to make changes that benefit all of us, even truck owners. I am not starting a campaign – a state-wide group called the Chesapeake Climate Action Network initiated it. Their point is to create awareness and demand for cleaner vehicles – you can buy as many trucks as you like, but they will be cheaper and more efficient (and cost less to fuel) if consumers demand new technologies from the manufacturers. Improving our markets and creating more product choice is a conservative issue.

  If you are implying I’m “Steve,” I’m not. I’m Brian.

  Putting phony tickets on SUVs might be stupid, but I don’t see how it’s dangerous. I also don’t see how promoting feminism is oppressive. I really don’t see how using this type of lanuage is going to make our political debates any better. Keep throwing out accusations about man-hating, Communism, and hating America. That’s a great way to build a united Republican Party. And check the numbers on the District B race. There’s no way the Green “stole” enough votes from the Dem to give the win to Roni.

• 7 someone at the fair // Nov 13, 2006 at 10:44 pm

  Sorry GOPerative, I forgot to comment on your article. That link from the pro(RE)gressives got my hackles up. I think the only reason we lost the sheriff slot was due to having a weak canidate. Let us hopefully learn our lessons from this election cycle and put forth strong contenders all the way across the board, and keep the county Republican.

  I heard a rumor that Craig is thinking of hiring certain member(s) of the outgoing sheriff’s administration. For him to do so would be a HUGE, and I mean GIGANTIC mistake. The GOBN has been shown the door at the HCSO and their time working for the county needs, seriously, to be done. How we are going to clean out the rest of the entrenched GOBNers until the next election? Don’t know but I surely hope that fresh blood can be infused into the party here in our county.

• 8 GOPerative // Nov 14, 2006 at 7:50 am

  Brian,
  I was using the extreme arguments against your movement but even those extreme arguments are somewhat based in truth. Feminism is wrong. We all know that women are capable of doing the same things as men but the question is should they? Feminists fail to recognize the fact that we were created as men and women each with different roles. Women have been told for decades that they don’t need to raise their kids and that a day care center can do just as good or better so they can be “liberated” to join the workforce. What we have now is a bunch of schools who can’t control their kids because they were raised by a company and not a parent. That’s just one example of how feminism hurts us all. There are many many more examples. When it comes to feminism I feel that you are dead wrong.

  When it comes to consumer choice, we see eye to eye. But certainly not by telling a person what they can or cannot buy. We do need to improve fuel economy in automobiles so we can ultimately cut off the Middle East. Some SUV’s get 30 MPG now. Make sure your not ticketing those cars.

  I didn’t say Greens are Communists. I said I prefer Communists to Greens. Communists don’t promote feminism.

  Instead of ticketing cars in Bel Air which will upset more people than enlighten, why don’t you use your mic to organize a bunch of people and go to a Baltimore City soup kitchen. Feed the hungry and make a real difference. That’s something everyone could get behind.

• 9 annon // Nov 14, 2006 at 11:56 am

  Why has GOPerative’s writing voice gone from slick urbanite riffing to high school-level sentence fragments? Because Steffen left town, that’s why.

• 10 BullElephant // Nov 14, 2006 at 2:04 pm

  “Putting phony tickets on SUVs might be stupid, but I don’t see how it’s dangerous”.
  Well its apparently illegal, as you already know, so why would you be so bold as to break the law to get you point across. Why would anyone want to afflilate themselves with a group that breaks the law?

• 11 hmmmm // Nov 14, 2006 at 2:31 pm

  I will say, I heard Brian Bittner at a debate talking about schools and I do have to agree with what he was saying. He put a big stress on alternative education and vouchers and charter schools. Very good policies.

• 12 Travis Seitler // Nov 14, 2006 at 2:37 pm

  Republicans for Bane! I love it.

  Chiming in on the whole feminism thing real quick here… the way I see it, the problem with feminism is that it implies that the only worthwhile endeavors in life are those that generate revenue. Feminism does more to chain a woman to a desk than it does to “free her from the home.”

  That being said, I think the ideal economic environment would allow both men and women to spend more time at (or near) the home, regardless of what work they may or may not be doing. While we have more “stuff” today, the Industrial Revolution practically destroyed the very concept of “community.”

  “Instead of ticketing cars in Bel Air…go to a Baltimore City soup kitchen. Feed the hungry and make a real difference. That’s something everyone could get behind.”

  Agreed! Let’s get on that, Mr. Progressive!

• 13 someone at the fair // Nov 14, 2006 at 4:47 pm

  “Putting phony tickets on SUVs might be stupid, but I don’t see how it’s dangerous.”

  It COULD be dangerous if you are caught messing with that person’s SUV, and the owner of that SUV is a part of the original target consumer – real men – not a soccer mom. Then you could be in for an ” attitude adjustment ” of your own…..not that I am advocating such behavior, but stranger things have been known to happen……

• 14 independent educator // Nov 14, 2006 at 6:21 pm

  Greed and rampant consumerism have done more to chain both men and women to their desks than feminism. It takes two salaries to afford the McMansions and the multiple SUVs etc. etc. I am all for both parents raising their own children- but our economy and value$ are the biggest obstacles.
  And then there are alot of people who are trying to make it on minimum wage. In those MANY cases, two salaries are an absolute must with things the way they are. Those women are not feminists by choice. Raising the minimum wage would be a step in the right direction to help men or women who would love to work less and spend more time parenting.

• 15 independent educator // Nov 14, 2006 at 8:43 pm

  Bull- If it weren’t for civil disobedience we would still have Jim Crow laws…NOT that I am equating SUV ticketing to the struggle for civil rights, but there is much historical precedence for peacefully breaking the law to make a point.

• 16 independent educator // Nov 14, 2006 at 9:02 pm

  Progressive- It was Roni C’s lies ( No matter how she tries to twist it) AND Brian Bittner’s stupidity and egotism that robbed the people of Fallston of honest, intelligent, improved representation. No “progress” there-that’s a for sure.

• 17 BullElephant // Nov 14, 2006 at 11:04 pm

  I just don’t see it. Comparing civil disobedience by individuals who changed the shape of this country to a group such as this makes no sense. Here’s an idea, why not trying to walk door to door and pass these things out to get your message out there? Why not go to the SUV owners homes! Papering a car to get a message across seems cowardly.

• 18 Greg Johnson // Nov 14, 2006 at 11:11 pm

  independent educator– wrong again. Raising the minimum wage is no solution at all. Anyone with knowledge of the most basic economic principles knows that as more earned income enters the marketplace, the cost of goods within the economy goes up. This, in turn, completely negates any positive impact of an increase in one’s salary. Additionally, minimum wage laws cause unemployment by forcing small companies to fire employees that they cannot afford to keep on the payroll. Also, for young workers entering the workforce, there are less job openings because what HR department is going to want to hire a 16 year old part-time for $9.00/hr? If the Democrats apply this vote-getting band-aid over the next two years, I challenge you to watch unemployment levels rise. I agree with your sentiment about consumer greed. Faith has opened my eyes to see the folly in materialism. But a higher minimum wage will do nothing to protect the family unit.

• 19 Greg Johnson // Nov 14, 2006 at 11:16 pm

  On election night, I talked to several Twanmoh poll workers. They said that Roni’s husband was witnessed ripping Twanmoh signs out of the ground and shouting obscenities and sexist remarks about her. I had no reason not to believe them, especially since two of them were registered Republicans. This kind of behavior doesn’t belong in our Party, and only serves to lend credibility to Democrats.

• 20 GOPerative // Nov 15, 2006 at 10:46 am

  Hearing all this information about Roni after the fact makes me wonder if we should set up an ethics commission. We may have one at the county level but we may need one in the Party. If what I am hearing is true she certainly operated her campaign unethically. I am disappointed in her and she may owe the voters an apology.

• 21 HarfordProgressive // Nov 15, 2006 at 1:00 pm

  A few responses to pariticpants in this discussion:

  GOPerative – This has got to be a joke, right? “Feminists fail to recognize the fact that we were created as men and women each with different roles…”

  someone at the fair – Don’t listen to GOperative’s lessons on gender roles, like “It COULD be dangerous if you are caught messing with that person’s SUV, and the owner of that SUV is a part of the original target consumer – real men.” The size of your car does not make you a real man. Real men ought to care about leaving a healthy planet for their children.

  BullElephant – Stunts like phony tickets call attention to issues in ways that going door-to-door cannot. Tickets are a legal and moral disincentive for a particular behavior. Even if a phony ticket from an environmental group has no legal ramification, it can still provide a moral disincentive.

  independent educator – I was with you for a while until the insults started.
  Please tell me how “Brian Bittner’s stupidity and egotism robbed the people of Fallston of honest, intelligent, improved representation.” I would really love to hear it.

  And to everyone who thinks I ought to be quiet and go down to a soup kitchen in the city…Harford County is my home and that’s where I’m going to try and change things for the better. There’s a thousand wonderful causes out there, but we all get to pick which ones inspire us. If I was only interested in doing things that everyone on this blog “could get behind,” than I’d become a Republican.

• 22 someone at the fair // Nov 15, 2006 at 1:25 pm

  Here! Here! I think we need to police our own strictly so we do not end up with any future Foleys within the GOP….tolerating unethical or inappropriate behavior within our own ranks can only come back to haunt us as it did this year. The GOP is supposed to be made up of morally strong, conservative people of good character. When we allow bad behavior of any kind to exist unpunished or unaddressed, that hurts us all.

• 23 bel air republican // Nov 15, 2006 at 4:07 pm

  Bittner is just the lunatic fringe and merely a distraction. Ignore him. Hopefully, the fine Bel Air Police department know of the planned “the law doesn’t apply to me” SUV ticketing plan and puts him in a cell with Bubba before one of teh SUV owners break his arm for vandalizing their vehicle.

• 24 GOPerative // Nov 15, 2006 at 4:30 pm

  Brian,
  I guess the way I live my life is a joke to you. Me and my wife have different roles and have a much better chance at succeeding because we recognize this. I’m sorry you don’t understand that.

  Have fun ticketing SUVs. Will you be ticketing Minivans? They get about 20 MPG. If so you should go to all the soccer games in the county. You could easily upset hundreds instead of the 15 or so SUVs in Bel Air.

  I understand your passion but you are one misguided person. Ticketing cars will not help leave this world a better place for our children. That is the biggest joke of all.

• 25 BullElephant // Nov 15, 2006 at 8:35 pm

  I too see your passion but you said it yourself; its a stunt. How can you expect people to believe your legitimate by doing this stuff? You also say this ticketing thing is “mostly ineffective agitation”. So you know you just pissing off people? Are you going to ticket the Sheriff’s Office SUV’s too?

• 26 independent educator // Nov 15, 2006 at 9:43 pm

  Brian- It is clear that IF BB hadn’t launched what he knew would be a failed campaign, those who voted for him would have voted for Twanmoh. I believe that is common sense politics. Add those numbers to the folk that fell for weeping Woni’s deceptions and VOILA…. Sometimes ya gotta be realistic if you want to make any progress. To me, some movement toward moderation is better than none.

  Greg- Ok. I’ll bite. What would you suggest could help the working poor woman or man stay home to raise their child ? Here’s the scenario:
  They work three 32.5 hour minimum wage jobs ( the employers won’t give them more hours because that might require group health ins.) They have to pay rent, utilities, food, transportation, insurance, day care, clothing, FICA, taxes and medical expenses. Don’t forget to adjust their paychecks for taxes and FICA. Can one stay home? What if somebody gets sick?
  Another thought. How can we encourage corporate America to reconsider their necessary profit margin? Do they have any responsibility to support family values in our society? Seems to me that the folks on top are doing ok.

• 27 HarfordProgresive // Nov 15, 2006 at 10:43 pm

  No, your life is not a joke. That was uncool of me. You will live how you want, but I believe your overall attitude toward women’s rights is narrow-minded. To actually answer your original point, yes, men and women can do the same things and yes, they should. It is more important for each member of a family to take responsibilty for how it develops than for women to be expected to accept their “role”. No one should be expected to accept the role that others define for them. That, in my opinion, would be misguided.

• 28 hmmmm // Nov 16, 2006 at 7:57 am

  HarfordProgressive,

  I agree with you that no one should accept a role given to them… unless they choose to. I am guessing that in GOPerative’s life, his wife chooses to remain at home with the children and be a full time mother. She (and he) thinks that is the best way for her to live her life, in service to her children, to make sure that they are raised in a stable environment. That is one of the difficulties that Republicans have with many liberal and progressive ideas, is that it eliminates all choice (except in the case of abortion). Just because everybody is doing something, doesn’t mean you have to, but if you choose to, that doesn’t mean that you are following along out of blindness. People can actually make an informed decision to do something mainstream and still be their own person.

• 29 HarfordProgresive // Nov 16, 2006 at 11:21 am

  I don’t think a progressive viewpoint eliminates the possibility of a woman (or a man) deciding to devote themself to raising a child if that’s what they want to do. It is true that not everyone who chooses to do this is following their role blindly, but the type of discourse in this discussion (“we were created as men and women each with different roles”) is more likely to produce someone who will follow their “role” because they were never told that it might be different than what is expected in the “mainstream”.

  In a way, the progressive project is all about playing with roles and finding out what works, even though we never thought it would. Who knows who you might reach with a phony ticket stunt? It doesn’t matter if you’re “legitimate” if no one knows about you. I want to find out if you can get legitimacy after you get attention for doing something outrageous.

  And when it comes to politics, it’s a shame that we only talk about who and what our leaders shoud be every four years. So when the opportunity comes, you have to take it. You have to take the opportunity to say that I don’t think these two “mainstream” parties are doing a good job, and we need more choices. If running a third candidate is outrageous, than you’ve got to be ready to do that do (and a Democrat has to be ready to show why they are the better choice). But if having more than two choices (the same two choices, by the way, that District B had in 2002 and 1998) is important, than it’s certainly not stupid and egotistical to give someone that option. More than 500 people took it.

• 30 Greg Johnson // Nov 16, 2006 at 7:07 pm

  The simple fact of the matter, Mr(s). Educator, is that two-income families that have children are NOT WORKING MINIMUM WAGE JOBS. Minimum wage workers are generally between the ages of 16 and 25, and do NOT have children. I work at a credit union making twice the minimum wage and only have an Associates’ degree. It doesn’t take much to find a challenging, rewarding job– just a little drive and some American manifest destiny spirit. By the way, this farse about businesses avoiding paying for healthcare is laughable, and the judiciary knows it. That’s why the Wal-Mart bill that would have been a clarion call to every business NOT to operate in Maryland got declared unconstitutional. Every business I have ever worked at (and there have been over 15 since I was 16 years of age) has been more than happy to pay for my health plan as long as I was willing to give 40 hours of my time to them (with the exception of small businesses that I worked at while under my father’s health insurance coverage). Your socialist tendencies are starting to show a bit here. Maybe you should consult Canada and Europe as to how glowingly their health care systems are functioning, and ask their taxpayers how they like their 50% tax rates. I do, however, agree that those FICA withholdings and taxes are a horrible burden. Perhaps making the Bush tax cuts permanent would be a step in the right direction, in addition to allowing ME and YOU to decide where OUR money should go instead of robbing it from us and throwing it into a worn-out, broken social safety net that won’t even be there when I retire.

• 31 independent educator // Nov 17, 2006 at 12:38 am

  I really don’t know why you have to adopt such a nasty tone with me Greg. I was seriously wondering what you would suggest that could solve a real and serious social problem. I am still waiting for your solution- but I guess first you would have to recognize that the problem does exist. I know people- some with bachelors degrees- that are being offered 32.5 hour a week jobs w/o health insurance at just a bit more than minimum wage. I am glad that you haven’t had that experience- but I assure you that it exists. I also know of many HS grads who did not have the where- with- all to pursue higher ed who are in the very position I describe. I agree that there should be minimal taxes for families in such straits, but I am concerned that they would use the extra funds to pay their everyday expenses if the govt did not require a retirement investment- private or otherwise. I have cousins who live in Italy who are extremely happy with their health care coverage and are happily paying the taxes to support it- and Italy certainly doesn’t have hw resources that our country has. They feel sorry for US! And Greg- even with your 2x the min.wage job-could you afford to pay all the necessary bills for a child and a stay at home spouse?
  Also, I have looked carefully at the Bush tax cuts. They put a very few dollars in the pockets of middle and low income folks. The people in the upper income levels made out like champions though.
  Now, to touch on what is our sore subject, I’ve got to say, that it never ceases to surprise me that deeply religious folks don’t seem to care about the plight of those who are less fortunate and struggling in our society. I’m not trying to insult-please don’t get angry. I am just trying to understand why taking care of the “least of our brothers” is so scathingly dismissed?

• 32 BullElephant // Nov 17, 2006 at 5:39 pm

  All this proves that the Republican party is losing touch with the middle class populace. I am tired of paying an astronomical amount of money for health insurance coverage every two weeks only to have it accepted randomly and pay very little at best for what I need. No this is not an HOM it is BCBS. What am I paying for? The more money I make each year my insurance costs keep rising as well. I for one am tired to taking care of those who choose to abuse the healthcare system. Thats a huge part of the problem we are facing. Trust me I see it all the time.

• 33 independent educator // Nov 17, 2006 at 10:09 pm

  So, Bull, what would you suggest to solve this health insurance/ medical care mess? And could you elaborate on “those who abuse the healthcare system” ? What are they doing and how could that be addressed?

• 34 Greg Johnson // Nov 17, 2006 at 10:23 pm

  Indy- why is it incumbent upon the government to take care of people who are “less advantaged?” The concept of government-sponsored wealth redistribution completely undermines the fundamental American economic structure. It kills the spirit of entrepreneurism and dashes the hopes of those who want to achieve their dreams independently. The mere fact that a constitutional amendment had to be added to achieve the level of spending our government engages in (109th Congress included) should alarm any freedom-loving American. Whatever happened to individual responsibility? Has the virtue of picking oneself up by the bootstraps (i.e.: Ben Carson, Michael Steele, Mother Theresa, Oprah Winfrey, Ronald Reagan) ceased to be honorable? You are right– I could NOT support a family on my income alone. That is why I have chosen to remain abstinent and not HAVE a family until I am ready to financially support one. As far as your question about Christian responsibility, the very nucleus of charity is one’s heart. Our LORD commands US to be responsible for taking care of the “‘least of our brothers’;” not the government. That is why the church has taken on the responsibility of handling charity. That is why people tithe. It is why we give clothing, diapers, wipes, and food to Birthright. It is why my church has a village in Africa that houses 55 African orphans, most of whom have AIDS. It is why there is a collection every year that spans the length of our narthex of food, toys, and other material supplies that go directly to the destitude residents of Appalachia in West Virginia. Look at the response to the tsunamis in Indonesia and the hurricane in New Orleans. Compare the abysmal response of a government-run entity in FEMA with the tremendous outpouring of support from church groups, missionaries, and just plain old American citizens who wanted to help out their brothers and sisters around the globe. THIS is individual charity. And it accomplishes infinitely more good than any social program could ever hope to.

• 35 BullElephant // Nov 18, 2006 at 10:42 am

  Independant, no I don’t have the answer to solve the crisis but I feel the crunch and so do many others. Government run healthcare isn’t really a solution. What works in other parts of the world most likely would never work here. Prescription drug choice is just one nightmare that would be created with such a system.
  As for those who abuse the healthcare system just take a look at the stories about emergency rooms clogged with individuals who use those facilities as their primary doctor. Thats just one example. No insurance equals free care anyway which translates into higher rates for you and I. I don’t know what to do myself but it is getting costlier and costlier for me year after year. I work hard so others don’t have to.

• 36 independent educator // Nov 18, 2006 at 11:32 am

  My guess is that your definition and my definition of government are fundamentally different. I believe that our democracy should be “of the people, by the people and for the people” and that it exists to protect and insure everyone’s basic human rights. I want our government to embody family values. In a family, all members are given the level of support that each requires. I have raised children and some are capable of independence at an early age. Others require a lifetime of support.
  I think there is a middle ground in economic philosophy. Insuring that all citizens have basic needs will not eliminate the desire for more. If that were true, there would be no McMansions and SUVs.
  Our government uses our tax dollars to pay for services that provide for the common good. If we all can pay for roads and libraries- why not basic health care for all? Where do you draw the line?
  As far as the federal budget goes, a huge percentage of our money goes to the military. With just a little tweaking- not nearly enough to jeopardize our homeland security in any way- education through college and basic health care could be a reality for all. As a citizen -that is where I want my money to go- and I would be happy to pay my taxes if that was how the $$ were distributed.

• 37 independent educator // Nov 18, 2006 at 11:48 am

  And- I have only the highest regard for the charity of churches and individuals. But those charities do not address the needs of the working poor who struggle to pay the basic bills on a minimum wage. Or the granny who has to chose between medicine or food. Or the stay at home Mom- dumped late in life by her spouse who has no retirement safety net. These issues are complex and have moral as well as economic implications. If our government can protect the rights of the investor class certainly we shoud be able to find a way to protect the basic rights of the systemically poor.

• 38 Greg Johnson // Nov 18, 2006 at 5:23 pm

  My mother lives in Worcester County. Worcester County is going through a veritable medical crisis right now because doctors are leaving the county in flocks, unable to afford the incredible amount of malpractice insurance required to maintain a practice. The amount of tort that is tying up the legal system and absolutely crushing private-run practices is astronomical. And it doesn’t take one long to realize who makes out by extension: the trial lawyers. And to what party do the trial lawyers give all of their money? That’s right, the Democrats. What party nominated a trial lawyer to be VP in 2004? Oh, yeah… the Democrats. The reason that patients pay so much for medical treatment now is because doctors have to offset these astronomical insurance costs in order to keep feeding their families. Perhaps we could look into the OTHER side of the equation and come up with proactive tort reform solutions to reduce health care costs instead of implementing Hillarycare.

• 39 Sgt. Bilko // Nov 18, 2006 at 10:44 pm

  i.e. and G.J.-
  I am enjoying yoiur discussion on the role of government. As a veteran, I have had government run health care- my experience with private systems has been much better. I would prefer the government have nothing to do with my healthcare, as I want critical decisions being made by ME, my doctor, and my family- not politicians trying to buy votes. I hear politicians touting the numbers of uninsured and I personally think they are inflated. How many teen agers and people in their 20’s and maybe even 30’s don’t get health insurance because they feel healthy and don’t think they need it? If politicians really want to help they should cut the red tape to make individual health savings accounts more accessible. This will rein in costs, as people will be writing the checks themselves, and improve the quality of care, since people will be able to go where they want instead of taking who their HMO gives them. I don’t think the government should pay for people’s health care in most circumstances, but they can and should get rid of some of these road blocks. I don’t agree with ie’s road analogy. The are many privately owned toll roads around the country that function efficiently, so I don’t think that necessarily has to be done by the government. Back in the 1800’s, even police and investigative services were often carried out by private agencies like Pinkerton, not always government agents. The state provided the sheriff, judge, and gallows. My point is simply to show that all the things we tend to think “can ONLY be done by government” may possibly be done as well as or better than by the private sector.
  As far as the military goes, I can tell you first hand there is a tremendous amount of waste in that section of government. I do support the war in Iraq, but even before the war there was enormous waste. I wonder if the states were responsible for their militias ( National Guard, etc), and we increased the numbers in the Guard, and we moved away from the standing army we have now (which is forbidden by the constitution anyway- another part we ignore) if that would help. You would also have a greater level of state control when there is a war that folks don’t to get involved in. Just a thought. If we saved some $$ here, you would have more in your pocket to pay for college, SUV’s, or your could feed your mother steak instead of dog food.
  I don’t understand the whining about SUV’s. If you have a few kids, a Suburban is a better fit than a Prius, and I don’t think you should feel guilty about it. People get different types of vehicles for a variety of reasons.

• 40 independent educator // Nov 18, 2006 at 11:11 pm

  Bull-I am not sure that no insurance equals free care. I have seen reports about working families who became homeless because of the bills they continue to get after a family illness. And those without insurance are charged way more than the insurance companies rate. Most of the folks that clog the ERs are there because they can’t get or don’t have the $$$ to pay for individual insurance. I can’t imagine that many who could afford and get health insurance would choose to go to the ER and deal with the enormous bills and collection agency horrors.
  As far as the poor Drs who have to pay for malpractice insurance- MY Dr. lives in a 8000 square foot home with a home theater and a ballroom. He has his own airplane as well. His family is eating very well- and I challenge you to find ONE Dr whose family is starving. And do you really think that an irresponsible, Dr who cuts off the wrong leg or removes a health prostate should be exempt from severe penalty? I agree that there are abuses- there are irresponsible freeloaders, greedy suit happy mercenaries and ambulance chasing lawyers. But there are also hard working sick people who need decent health care who live in fear of an accident or illness taking every thing they have or will ever earn. And there are companies making gi-normous profits while they direct their uninsured employees to take advantage of state social services. It is a complicated, complicated problem. I think our leaders need to stop playing politics with this and other basic needs issues and put their heads together and find a better way. There is probably no perfect solution but there’s got to be someway to improve on the current situation. And Greg- I would have to research your claims about lawyers preferring democrats ( there seem to be many on both sides of the aisle) but regardless- if I had my way- special interest money would be removed from the equation and anyone with a willingness to serve would be allowed equal $$ to fund a campaign.

• 41 Joe Amic // Nov 19, 2006 at 3:23 am

  Greg, you make a very good point. I don’t want to seem like I am bashing all attorneys here, but it’s pretty clear what is driving much of what is wrong with American society. We have lawyers in the Congress and the various state legislatures passing laws that enrich the legal community at the expense of the rest of us. I’m sick of it. Doing anything without a lawyer is just about impossible these days, and they all charge an arm and a leg for their services. A close friend is going through a divorce right now. His attorney bills him at more than $200 per hour, and charges him a minimum of 2/10ths of an hour for any phone call or e-mail contact…that’s right, $40+ just to answer the phone or e-mail the client! I know a number of doctors who have been sued for malpractice, even when they have done absolutely nothing wrong. My wife’s doctor stopped delivering babies because of her high malpractice premiums. My own doctor is sooo careful, always covering his butt against any possible malpractice claim. Maybe that’s a good thing, maybe it makes for more careful doctors, but it also is making for some very rich lawyers, and it is driving up the cost of health insurance for all of us. Having your doctor make a mistake shouldn’t be like winning the lottery. The thing that frustrates me is that we all know the problem, but then we go ahead and elect more lawyers expecting them to solve it. It’s sort of like electing the fox to design a security system for the henhouse. If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny.

• 42 BullElephant // Nov 19, 2006 at 9:47 am

  Educator, Those who don’t have insurance are indeed charged just like you and I but are they going to pay? Look at the rates of return for hospital billing for that group. Yes no insurance does equal free care in the long run.
  Maybe I should just drop my coverage and let everyone else pay for me. I use it alot too. I get a few bills a month too for what percentage my insurance did or didn’t cover this time. Hey while we’re at it I have seen some physicians who don’t even accept insurance because they don’t get paid what they think is adequate or insurance doesn’t cover the type of care they provide yet.

• 43 Mrs. GOPerative // Nov 19, 2006 at 10:06 am

  HarfordProgressive,
  Your posts have sparked some great conversations between me and my husband, who happens to be the GOPerative.

  This may further explain the Christian conservative perspective on roles:

  “So God created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27

  “For god shows no partiality.” Romans 2:11

  “…there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

  As a woman I can say there is no question in my mind that I am equal to every other man or woman on the earth. However I do believe that I was made with a specific purpose and role.

  “Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him.” Genesis 2:18

  I have been a stay at home mom for my entire parenting life. I have carried, nursed and cared for all of our children. I have devoted much of my time to helping my husband succeed in his career. I have provided my family with many delicious meals (I am an amazing cook) and have made our home cozy and welcoming. I can honestly say there is nothing else I would rather be doing, and it brings me much joy to care for my family.

  I know that the most important thing to my husband and I is the happiness and success of our family. I believe that in any successful institution the people involved are assigned roles and that there is one person who usually has the final say (i.e. the CEO). Now I don’t minimize at all the other people involved, as the institution would not exist without them. So how this looks in our family is that in all our decisions my husband makes the final call. I am completely ok with this because one, I know he loves us and two, he always receives my wisdom and counsel.

  I don’t ever feel inferior to or less worthy than my husband (he could never do all that I do!), if anything I am thankful that I don’t have the huge responsibility of leading our family. I am confident in who I am as a strong, intelligent woman, and my husband and I both know that neither he nor our family would be who they are with out me.

  Thank you for your posts. I look forward to reading them in the future.

  Mrs. GOPerative

• 44 Greg Johnson // Nov 19, 2006 at 3:07 pm

  Mrs. GOPerative,
  How blessed your husband and family are to have a wife and mother like you. Thank God that there are women that didn’t buy into the lie of “feminism,” the outcome of which was ironically a win for men (i.e.: don’t feel like being chivalrous? That’s okay– we can do it without you. And then if you get us pregnant? Oh– it’s cool– we can just abort and make it easy on you.) Anyway, I hope one day to find a strong, selfless woman with a heart like yours to spend the rest of my life with.

• 45 independent educator // Nov 19, 2006 at 3:12 pm

  AH! Mrs. GOPerative is the epitome of true feminism! She has found and chosen her role in life- a role in which she has realized happiness and fulfillment. I applaud her and hope that every woman can have such a positive self actualizing experience! Even if their choices are different.

  Bull, Amic, Bilko and Greg- I appreciate the candor of this conversation. This is exactly what is needed- honest , problem recognition exchange.
  I do like the idea of self- insurance, but then shouldn’t individuals who pay out of pocket get at least the same rates as insurance companies? And if we eliminate costly malpractice insurances for Drs will they be rquired to roll back their fees? And don’t we need some sort of system that holds negligent or irresponsible Drs accountable- in some way? Any thing like the above would require some oversite and regulation- wouldn’t it? It would be nice if solutions that worked in the 1800s would work today- but things are very different so I’m not sure that I can buy the toll road analogy.
  I do so LIKE the idea of really cutting back on military expenses. Those $$ could go along way to pay for education, health care and basic needs.
  And Greg- I did research it and you are right the trial lawyers do give a pile of money to democrat candidates. On the other hand RJ Reynolds gives twice as much to republican candidates- so what is your take on that? I really think this special interest money has got to go. Maybe we can agree on that? Bull, I am sure there are lots of deadbeats who are irresponsible when it comes to health care bills. But there are also folks who tear their hair out every month trying to find some way to put a few bucks on the Dr. bills and who dread the harrassing phone calls. I don’t think they choose to be there. It would be great if we could look for solutions on both sides of that coin. IF we had some kind of required health coverage (and I am not saying that is the answer) everyone would be required to contribute- including individuals and employers- then maybe you and I would not be left holding the bag.

• 46 hmmmm // Nov 19, 2006 at 8:50 pm

  Independent,

  your research is very flawed on the RJ Reynolds aspect. According to Opensecrets.org, Trial lawyers in Maryland contributed 3.5 million in the 2004-2006 election cycle, more than any other group. Health care companies come in at 3rd at 2.2 million. RJ Reynolds or any other tobacco companies don’t even contribute more than 500,000 a year in Maryland. So I ask your source on such a claim.

• 47 independent educator // Nov 19, 2006 at 9:24 pm

  I was thinking a little more about this health care dilemma. IF a person can afford the best- ie privately funded health care or excellent health insurance- wouldn’t s/he have it? I mean, you would drive a great car if you could afford it wouldn’t you? But if you are hard up wouldn’t public transportation be way better than nothing? So maybe a partial solution would be to provide less than ideal but basic health care ( ala the military care Bilko mentioned) for all who cannot choose to do better. The incentive to earn better would still exist and yet it would be possible to get an antibiotic w/o clogging up the ER. Whatdya think?

• 48 GOPerative // Nov 20, 2006 at 7:15 am

  Independent,
  This is how it works in countries with socialized medicine. Everyone pays for it but you do have the option to go to a private doctor. Private doctors make a lot of money in countries with socialized medicine too. If we go the way of socialized medicine it will be the same here. You can kind of compare it to public schools. Many people I know pay the taxes for public school’s use and upkeep but when it comes time for their kids to use the seats, they are homeschooling or in a private school. The tax dollars are still being paid but additional money is used to educate their children. I think socialized medicine is a good concept but there is absolutely no practical way to implement it.

  This is a no win situation. Do you want to send you $400 per month to an insurance company or do you want to send it to the State of Maryland. And just like every other kind of tax, those who have succeeded in life will subsidize those who have not.

  I would need to see a concrete plan before I decided one way or another. The dems are not too good at coming up with plans. They have ideas but no plans. If they said to me, we will take $200 more in income tax per month I would say go for it (I pay over $400 a month now). I would want to know how this affected doctors as well. Maryland may become a place where no doctor wants to work. We certainly don’t need that. You don’t see too many American doctors moving to England.

  Eliminate Health Insurance- GOOD
  Help those without Health Insurance- GOOD
  6 month wait to get the lump on my chest checked out- BAD
  Doctors who don’t care because you have to sue the State not them- BAD
  Democrats in charge of making this decision- REALLY BAD

• 49 independent educator // Nov 20, 2006 at 7:48 am

  “The largest single contributor to Democrats is the American Trial Lawyers Association, which gave $1,747,725. The Republican champion is Philip Morris, which gave $2,131,955.” Carol Beach/Slate
  Sorry- I had the wrong tobacco company…..

• 50 hmmmm // Nov 20, 2006 at 10:01 am

  independent,

  Talk about Tort reform in Maryland. Phil Morris contributes to national level Republicans — yes. Tort reform has been stymied on a state level by the trial lawyers and it has to be fixed at a state level. O’Malley wants to institute a state level a universal health care system similar to that of Massachusettes. He has stated so. So in the State of Maryland, Trial Lawyers are the number 1 contributing group and Phillip Morris is nowhere to be seen in the top 10 or 20.

• 51 BullElephant // Nov 20, 2006 at 10:14 am

  I have the best available health insurance package my company offers. Although it doesn’t suit me as I feel it should I am sure that most people who I work with find it adequate with them. Thats what I have to work with and I can’t battle HR anymore than I do to make changes because in the long run it is out of their hands. BCBS sets the levels they will cover. They are out to make money, period end of story. I suffer, you suffer, we all suffer due to this fact. It’s a case of what BCBS can do to pinch another penny while ******** the subscribers.
  I have to respectfully disagree with GOPerative on the last part of their post. No we can’t eliminate health insurance altogether. Where would that leave us all then with the direct physician costs? Also you said we need to help those without insurance. Can you elaborate on that one because that is a wide open statement.

• 52 ltlftc // Nov 20, 2006 at 3:43 pm

  Mrs GOPoperative:

  I just had to comment. Why have you fed into this marriage as a ‘corporation’ where the CEO, whom you as the board have named as your husband, has the final say on everything? What is wrong with a ‘partnership’ where all of the partners have the same say in the decisions? You have abdicated your responsibility to your shareholders – your children – by ceding your decision making ability to your husband. Sounds like you might need more corporate responsibility, or better yet just don’t use the corporation as an analogy if you don’t understand it.

• 53 independent educator // Nov 20, 2006 at 6:01 pm

  With the holidays coming and so many of our heros away from home and hearth , this might be a project that we can all get behind: http://www.mysoldier.com/about.htm

• 54 BullElephant // Nov 20, 2006 at 7:03 pm

  Correct me if I am wrong but in the corporate world the CEO answers to the shareholders and the BOD. If the CEO doesn’t produce then the CEO is outed.

• 55 GOPerative // Nov 21, 2006 at 3:01 pm

  BullElephant,
  I think we should work toward a system where everyone has health insurance. I am no Right Wing Nut Job (RWNJ) on this issue. Stop the presses; I actually think minimum wage should go up to $7. With health insurance we are talking about life and death. Currently people without health care use the emergency room as their primary care physician. When they can’t or don’t pay, the costs are passed on to those who do pay. If we are all covered and everything is paid for it might actually drive the cost of health coverage down.

  I am not sick that often so let’s say I do get sick and don’t have health insurance. My doctor will work with me on a price. Currently he charges/overcharges so that he can make sure he is making his profit after the insurance company nitpicks the claim. I have a friend who works for the Archdiocese of Baltimore and her health insurance would not cover a “personal” procedure (not an abortion). She went to her doctor and struck a deal. The price was less than half of what the doctor would have charged an insurance company. Direct physician costs are way below what they actually charge. Most basic procedures and even some small surgeries are affordable “over the counter.”

  To your CEO comment. The BOD in this case is probably the kids. Let’s let the kids make all the decisions for my family. A 13 year old can make great decisions, right? If everyone is in charge, no one is in charge. If no one is in charge we have chaos.

  Let’s create partnerships (I’m now running through the fields barefoot throwing flowers into the wind). America and the world are trying the partnership fiasco as we speak and it isn’t working. The proof is in the pudding. School shootings, school violence in general, drop-out rate, teenage pregnancy, divorce rate (50%+), depression, etc… I don’t think the partnership model is wrong it just doesn’t work. If it did we would not need principals, or CEO’s, or Governors. I am having a hard time thinking of an example of a working partnership where two individuals have equal decision making power and it is a success. I take that back. Bill and Hillary Clinton seem like they have a great partnership. Bill does whatever he wants with whoever he wants and Hillary gets to play Senator. Works great for them I guess.

• 56 BullElephant // Nov 21, 2006 at 7:56 pm

  GOP you said that “I am having a hard time thinking of an example of a working partnership where two individuals have equal decision making power and it is a success”

  To me equality is one of the building blocks of what a good marriage and strong family is based on. I consider my family and my marriage a partnership; a union. I am not the CEO, nor do I feel as such, and I think it is somewhat demeaning to a woman in any relationship to be portrayed in this light. If it works for some then so be it but with todays generation I believe thats why alot of marriages fail because of the struggle to be the one to make the final decisions.

  As for the insurance issue I agree if everyone is covered and paid for then the costs will go down. How though would that affect businesses large and small if they were required to offer some sort of health care? The larger corporate giants should have to pay for their employees. How much would that really affect their bottom line? If they expend options to their executives then they certainly can cough up a few bucks for healthcare. But also on the other end of the spectrum what about the small businesses? Would that break them and cause an economic downspiral?

• 57 independent educator // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:16 pm

  Bull, My brother has a small business- 4-5 employees. He has a group insurance plan which covers them all. He is doing very well- just bought a million $ farm in Sykesville. He does not understand how the big guys- or his peers do not offer a health plan. When ya look at the profit margins of some of these businesses- I can’t help but think they could do better by their people. I am all for individual responsiblity- but shouldn’t businesses also be responsible?

• 58 GOPerative // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:16 pm

  BullElephant,
  I just reversed the order of the comments. Let me know if you liked it the old way. The newest comments are at the top now but the comment box is at the bottom. You make the call BullE.

  Now to your points. It is certainly not a matter of equality. We are equal but being equal as a human does not mean we have equal authority. I recognize my responsibility to make decisions with her best interest in mind. That is the only way to truly love and care for your spouse. We are bombarded with machismo at every turn and that is destructive to marriage. I feel that marriages are crumbling around us because men have abdicated their role as leader. Why? Because their fathers did too. Remember the hippies kids are now starting to have kids of their own. I wonder if they will accept the 50% marriage failure statistics of their parent’s generation. Either they won’t marry at all or they will return to traditional roles because they worked before. I wouldn’t normally drag a discussion like this on and on but I genuinely think the failure of the modern family has an impact on just about everything.

  Now to health care. I think requiring businesses to do anything other than pay modest taxes is a bad move. I read Atlas Shrugged when I was in college and it scared the **** out of me because I saw what Rand was talking about all around me. Businesses do not pay taxes or for health insurance. You and I pay for them. When we require these things we further encourage the exportation of jobs. Oh you want me to pay more for health insurance? Yi Xiu doesn’t need health insurance and she will work for 1/10 of what an American worker needs. I don’t fault businesses for thinking this way. If they didn’t there would be no businesses. The question is, where do you draw the line? Does the person who checks you out at Wal-Mart “deserve” health insurance from Wal-Mart. It is an extremely low skilled job that I can technically do myself with self checkout. Should Wal-Mart pay for the cashier’s health insurance? I’m not sure. I would hope that no one is planning on being a career cashier.

  Small businesses would be absolutely crushed by a requirement to pay for health insurance for all employees. Here is an example. Courtland Hardware cannot really compete with Home Depot. Let’s require every small business to give health insurance. Courtland Hardware’s prices will rise higher than Home Depot’s. Both will rise but Home Depot can spread it out much easier. That gives me more of a reason to go to the international conglomerate.

  It’s the law of unintended consequences that we need to look out for. Giving everyone health care may cause more problems than it solves. Lets reign in the lawyers first.

• 59 BullElephant // Nov 21, 2006 at 10:36 pm

  GOP I have to respectfully disagree with you on the equality issues. Sometimes my wife makes the important choices about our family and I respect her decisions; especially when I am not able to be there all the time. One day I might not be there at all and I want her to be able to function without me. I think it our generation because many of our friends feel the same way.

  I didn’t grow up in a family that believed the father was the leader. My parents shared that role and I learned from them that way. Similarly my wife grew up in the same type household. I do firmly believe that the failure of the family unit today is largely responsible for much of the problems we are facing in society with our children. We could go on and on about this as well.

  GOP, good idea about the replies.

• 60 hmmmm // Nov 22, 2006 at 8:44 am

  I liked it A LOT better the old way. mainly because if you want to respond you have to go back to the bottom anyway. But also because if you are trying to read a bunch of responses in order, you have to pass all the ones you haven’t read.

• 61 independent educator // Nov 22, 2006 at 8:57 pm

  http://www.examiner.com/a-413857~State_must_craft_innovative_health_plan.html

  Interesting commentary re: a health insurance solution. I didn’t know that the Mass. Health care plan was developed by a republican and EJ Pipkin is proposing a similar solution in MD…

• 62 Greg Johnson // Nov 30, 2006 at 10:26 am

  Independent Educator,
  My church was highlighted in a 20/20 episode with John Stossel last night. Stossel also interviewed the author of a book that you might be interested in: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/103-4653729-9510253. The author set out to prove that liberals are more charitable, and what he found surprised him quite a bit. The actual conclusion serves to confirm what conservatives have known to be true for years: we are not the money-grubbing, uncaring dollar-worshipers that liberals make us out to be. In fact, those who view the government as the entity responsible for handling wealth redistribution are the least charitable people of all. Of the states highlighted as the most giving in America, Maryland was the ONLY blue state. I guess there’s hope for us yet!

• 63 Mike German // Nov 30, 2006 at 7:00 pm

  A similar article was also in the Baltimore Sun today.

• 64 hmmmm // Dec 2, 2006 at 3:27 pm

  independent,

  I think the real problem is that people do not want to comprimise. I would be willing to support universal healthcare if the trial lawyers would accept limits on tort claims.

  Look at the times that major compromise has occured: Medicaid, it was a huge entitement change that conservatives were upset about, but it was not as much as the Democrats want and it pushes privatization. Now the Dems are saying it is the worst thing since No Child Left Behind.

  No Child Left Behind, it was a standardized testing system and major expansion of the Federal Government’s intervention in state rights in their own education process. It was written by Bush and Teddy Kennedy but now the Democrats have made it out to be the worst thing ever.

  The point of this is that when major changes occur, it is usually through compromise that no one wants to take responsibility for later out of fear of having to answer for what they have done. Compromise is not a bad thing in the long run, unless you’re a politician running for re-election.

• 65 independent educator // Dec 3, 2006 at 3:16 pm

  Hmmmm- I agree with you. Compromise is the heart of any real solution. I too would support tort limits if universal health care was part of the deal. We so need some thoughtful, non- partisan leadership in this country. The hacks have been in charge too long.
  I like the idea of a new emphasis on “responsibility”. Across the board, individuals and businesses, the rich the poor- all ethnicities, all political persuasions and political leaders. I think we need to get back to the ” what can we do for our country ” mantra.
  GregJ- I don’t think I have ever said that conservatives are less generous- I’d just like more of my tax dollar going to people in true need.

• 66 Greg Johnson // Dec 5, 2006 at 12:43 pm

  Indy– I didn’t want to accuse you personally in my post. I have grown leary of hostility and prefer to keep the conversation civil and thoughtful. I was calling out liberals in general. However, you did say the following (verbatim) in your November 17th post:

  “Now, to touch on what is our sore subject, I’ve got to say, that it never ceases to surprise me that deeply religious folks don’t seem to care about the plight of those who are less fortunate and struggling in our society.”

  I don’t know how else one can interpret that comment.

  In the Stossel piece, ABC investigative reporters stationed two Salvation Army volunteers and tracked the receipts to the charity– one in San Francisco (inarguably the most liberal, secular part of the nation) and one in Sioux Falls, South Dakota (where folks are deeply religious Christians and very conservative). The investigators found that the Salvation Army bucket in Sioux Falls was stuffed with 30% more donations than the San Francisco bucket, even though the San Franciscans were MUCH wealthier and could afford to give more. More details can be found here: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1.

  You might also be interested in checking this out:
  http://abcnews.go.com/2020/HolidayTheme/story?id=2682100&page=1

  Lastly, I personally believe that military families should be included in the “people in true need” category.

• 67 independent educator // Dec 9, 2006 at 10:02 pm

  To clarify Greg, in the context of the larger discussion, I was remarking on the lack of support that conservatives show for governmental initiatives that benefit the poor. I have no doubt that many religious conservatives are personally charitable. Interesting study there, though. I wonder what impact the fact that the charity was the Salvation Army had on the donations in San Francisco? Perhaps the *** and *** tolerant populace there does not donate to organizations that are actively and openly anti- ***? Maybe if the same study was done with a more liberal charity group the results would be different? Context is key.

• 68 independent educator // Dec 9, 2006 at 10:06 pm

  Oh, and I agree with you wholeheartedly- our military families are very much in need and they certainly deserve more than lip service support.

Leave a Comment