Campaigning with "Uncle Steny" shows Kratovil's true liberal colors
Easton - Sunday afternoon, Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer joined Frank Kratovil for a campaign event. "Frank Kratovil is once again showing his true liberal colors by campaigning with Steny Hoyer," said Chris Meekins, Harris Campaign Manager.
The Hoyer-Kratovil relationship is decades old. Steny Hoyer has known Frank Kratovil since he was a kid. Frank Kratovil grew up as part of the Prince George's County political machine. Frank Kratovil then transplanted himself to the Eastern Shore to prepare to run for political office.
Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer leads a Congress with the lowest approval rating in history. Under his leadership, Congress has failed to provide real solutions to our energy crisis, failed to prevent the current financial crisis, and failed to end wasteful government spending. The only thing Congress has done under his leadership, is attempt to raise taxes by billions of dollars on hardworking Americans. "We don't need a liberal puppet of Steny Hoyer in Congress. Voters want a change, and by campaigning with Steny Hoyer, Kratovil shows he is more of the same," said Meekins.
Liberal Washington Democrats are funneling thousands of dollars to Frank Kratovil because Frank Kratovil supports their liberal values. Kratovil supports liberal policies of raising taxes, increasing wasteful government spending, giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, and implementing universal socialized medicine.
"Frank Kratovil will be a lapdog of the liberal Washington Democrats. Voters in the first district do not want a congressman who will raise their taxes, increase wasteful spending, and impose his liberal policies on them," said Chris Meekins.
25 comments:
I love how GOPers claim they are against wasteful spending yet, when they won the White House they were handed a balanced budget, now we have the largest defiect in history. Thanks.
How many times can you use "liberal" in a single post? Kratovil can only be considered "liberal" by those on the far right. Ask Andy Harris why he was one of only two state senators who voted against a bill that required insurers to provide colorectal cancer screening in accordance with American Cancer Society guidelines (SB 100, 2001).
and you wonder why the democrats did not invite you on Sunday?
... not to mention grab their lands.
If you're an undecided voter and read this blog, you'll come to one of two conclusions...
First, you might decide that these opinions, slanted and close-minded as they are, agree fundamentally with what you believe, and you realize that you're really a repub and should vote accordingly....
OR, you might decide that the opinions of this blog are, in fact, slanted and close-minded and you DISAGREE with the content AND the presentation ("this is how I think and you're stupid if you think otherwise") and vote accordingly.
Either way,vote.
Tell Chris Meekins to speak for himself.
Steny Hoyer has a lot more clout in Congress that Harris ever will, which will be "NONE"!
In the interest of educating the voters, everyone should know that Harris opposed a requirement for insurers to allow a woman to have direct access to ob/gyn services from specified providers (SB 567, 2000). He was one of the few who did this, by the way. I know you support the guy, Joe, so I appreciate your willingness to post this comment and others critical of Harris. Let the dialogue be based on facts, and may the best man win!
I love how they are dredging out a bill from 2001 as the only thing against Harris. That bill is just another case of government oversight going waaaaaaaaaaaaay to far. I don't want the government mandating my healthcare, or making its cost go up. I will choose my plan on my own, thanks!
anon@12:28. I agree with you that Republicans screwed up. That's why the voters fired 'em in 2006. Yet, the new DEMOCRAT controlled congress has yet to do anything about it...it's business as usual. Harris is backed by Maryland GOPers who have a solid record of true fiscal Conservatism...so he will be changing the way things are done in DC. Kratovil? Just another Pelosi/Hoyer/O'Malley clone. Who incidentally just put Maryland into one of the worst budget crunches of all time.
I'm sure it's just another overstep by the gov't into private business. If there is one thing Harris is consistent on, it's that gov't should stay out of private business...and God bless, I agree!
Anon 2:11,
Did it ever occur to you that the reason Harris was one of only 2 people who voted against this is that doctors (and insurance companies) would stand to lose money? He was voting in his own self-interest rather than requiring insurance companies to pay for a very simple procedure that saves thousands of lives a year. The fact that the American Cancer Society supported this legislation is crucial. If Joe lets me, I will be happy to supply a bunch more of Harris's votes that are pretty questionable. At least know what his background is before you vote for him! If you don't find the votes questionable, then by all means vote for him! I invite Kratovil's critics to do the same--let's have an honest conversation!
The law required insurance companies to cover colorectal screening--a proven measure that saves thousands of lives. Why in the world would you folks be against that?
Let me clear up some misinformation on the Harris insurance votes. For one, the person who said that Harris voted that way in order to line his pocket has no knowledge of how health care works. Andy is an anesthesiologist, so it wouldn't affect him at all. Furthermore, the more tests doctors run the more money they make. Requiring insurance to cover these tests actually helps doctors.
It also does nothing to hurt insurance companies. Sure, they must cover another procedure but they will simply raise rates. What I'm sure Andy knows is that mandating insurance companies cover these and other procedures raises the cost of insurance and means fewer people can afford it. States like Maryland which impose a large number of mandates on insurance companies have very, very high premiums. We also have a lack of competition because of this, with only two companies providing over 90% of the policies in the small group market.
Those liberals who are attacking Harris for opposing this insurance mandate are attacking him for trying to keep the cost of insurance affordable.
Oh... no more Mr. independant. Got to follow the Pelosi line now.
Dear 3:45 Harris Shill -
Horrible exposition on the justifications of denying coverage for colorectal screenings. Really a totally un-convincing argument.
Under your rubric, we keep the cost of insurance low by paying for screening ourselves.Rather than paying an insurance premium that might increase because of the mandated coverage, we pay the full price of the screening.Do you really think insurance premiums would increase MORE than the cost of paying for the screening out your own pocket? That's ludicrous and won't fool voters.
The other thing is this: Andy Harris wasn't the only person to consider this bill. 178 legislators voted on the bill, and only five opposed it. Andy Harris was one of only two Senators to vote against the bill. That means a lot Republicans disagreed with Andy Harris's reasoning. That means Andy Harris can't work with his own party, let alone cross party lines to get things done. Finally, it evidences that Andy Harris is a horrible advocate for his positions, and fails to convince even Republicans that he's right. That does not bode well for the interests of the First District.
Doctors get more money if you pay themout of pocket rather than have to get reimbursed by insurance companies. Check it out and you will see that I am right. Personally, I find it unconscionable that a doctor would oppose requiring insurance companies to cover something that is proven to save lives. Have you ever known anyone who died of colon cancer? it is a nasty way to go, but easily treatable if caught early. That Mr. Harris would side with the insurance lobby on this is really sad.
The fact that Andy stood virtually alone in opposing this insurance mandate means that he was one of the few legislators to actually understand the problem with it. Most seem willing to pander to voters like those posting here who seems to think the way to solve our problems is to impose mandates and raise the cost of insurance.
The fact is that mandating insurance cover certain procedures makes insurance more expensive. That's an undeniable fact. Maryland is a state with the second-highest number of mandates on insurance. It's also a state that has very unaffordable insurance rates. If you want to see health insurance become more affordable you will oppose these mandates and give insurance companies the freedom to design policies that meet the needs of those purchasing them. If someone wants to buy a policy that doesn't cover colorectal screening, they should be free to do so. If they want to pay a little more and buy one that does cover it, then they are free to do so, too. But when you start putting mandates on these policies you deprive consumers of choice. Maryland also mandates that policies cover infertility treatment. So even if you've got 10 kids and you don't want another one the state forces you to pay for a higher priced policy that covers this treatment.
And doctors love these mandates. They are the main ones pushing for them. I have a friend who lobbies for doctors in Annapolis. I was talking with him about ways to lower insurance rates in the state. He agreed that they are too high, but then said "just don't touch our mandate!" The doctors know that if something is "free" for people (that is, insurance is paying for it), then they will use it even if they don't need it. That means more procedures performed by doctors and more money in their pockets.
And you whined about the Democrats ignoring you on Sunday? I hope they continue to ignore you!
Dear 8:19 Harris Shill -
I don't think your logic will convince anyone.
First, let's get some perspective here on the good Dr. Harris's decision to make you pay for your colon cancer screenings.
Colon cancer is almost completely curable if detected early enough, but remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the country. Getting a colonoscopy can reduce the average person's risk of dying from colon cancer by NINETY PERCENT. A colonoscopy costs anywhere from $800-$2,000, a virtual colonoscopy costs anywhere from $500-$900.
And this Harris shill is trying to convince us that mandating insurance companies cover such screenings would make insurance too expensive. Well Shill, I don't think very many people can afford to pay $500-$2,000 out of their own pocket to get screened for cancer, exposing them to higher risk of the condition.
Bottom line: this is a DOCTOR who is AGAINST having insurance companies pay for those screenings. A DOCTOR who wants you to pay $500-$2,000 out of your pocket because of some convoluted reasoning about insurance premiums going up.
I ask whoever is reading, would you rather your premiums go up a few dollars, or pay $500-$2,000 yourself for screenings. This is clearly a case of Harris allowing his idealogical principles getting in the way of being a good doctor and a good legislator.
george w. -- again, people should be free to buy insurance that covers a colonoscopy. But for those who may not be as rich as you, or who don't have a family history of colon cancer, or are too young to worry about colon cancer, or who just don't care, they should be free to purchase a policy that doesn't cover it.
You are right that this one mandate likely won't raise the price of premiums very much. But when you add it onto the sixty or so other mandates, that's a significant price hike imposed by the General Assembly. Your support of these mandates means that people who otherwise would have been able to afford insurance cannot do so. Those like you are the ones who lead to people being uninsured, since in your zeal to force insurance to cover every conceivable procedure (even if people don't need them or want them), you increase the price of insurance. I think it would be a much better alternative if you allow insurance companies and consumers the freedom to design policies to meet individuals' needds. It's better to have a low-cost policy that only covers a few thing than an unaffordable policy that covers everything, isn't it?
You espouse the typical liberal view that because you think something is good for people to do that the government should force them to do it. Unlike you, though, I trust people to make their own decisions. I'm glad that Andy was one of the few legislators with good sense to oppose this mandate. Again, it shows that he truly understands how the insurance market works, unlike most of his colleagues and most of the general public.
Dear Harris Shill -
Fortunately for Maryland residents Andy Harris was so far out in right field on this issue that the bill passed, and now these screenings are covered by insurance. And you just admitted in your last post that this particular mandate did not in fact raise the cost of premiums much, if at all, which is the basis of your entire argument against the mandate.
If it didn't raise premiums then what is your problem with this particular mandate. If it didn't raise premiums it didn't do anything to prevent already uninsured individuals from purchasing insurance. You just contradicted the basis of your entire argument, that a single mandate raises premiums so much that the uninsured can not afford insurance.
What it did do is encourage, promote, and make more affordable early detection and screening of the second deadliest cancer in America. This is common sense. This is not a mandate to cover breast augmentation, a rhinoplasty, or a tummy tuck. We are talking about cancer, and Andy Harris is a doctor. He should know better.
george w. -- read my post carefully. Yes, this one mandate may not have raise the price that much, but when you add all these single mandates together the price is raised significantly. These mandates add up, one-by-one. First it's a mandate that insurarance covers colonoscopies, then it's a mandate that they cover alcoholism treatment, then it's a mandate that they cover chlamydia treatment, then it's a mandate that they cover in vitro fertalization, etc. (these are all mandates that are placed on Maryland insurance, btw). They get put in place one at a time.
So it's vital that we have legislators like Harris standing up and saying "no" to the special interest groups (usually doctors who perform these procedures) who are pushing for them. Each one incrementally increases the cost until eventually the cost is unaffordable for many in the state. That's the situation we are at today. If we had more legislators like Andy Harris voting against these insidious mandates then we'd be in a much better position today, with far more Marylanders able to afford health insurance.
Your failure to see the big picture and understand the costs -- not just the benefits -- of these actions indicates that you'd do well by reading an essay by Fredric Bastiat called "What is Seen and What is not Seen." You only look at the intended benefits of this mandate without looking at the unintended consequences. That's a very incomplete view of the world. Read the essay here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/BasEss1.html. If you take Bastiat's lesson to heart it will help you truly understand the problems with many of the laws we live under.
Dear Harris Shill -
It sounds an awful lot like you are implying that Dr. Harris is against any and all mandates. I'd like to clear up this misinformation. We both know that is not the truth, and that he cherry-picks which mandates to support and which to oppose. So after reading the following list of mandated coverages he supported, ask yourself again about the colon cancer screenings. It then becomes a matter of judgment on which mandates are beneficial, and not some idealogical principle about restricting free choice, government intrusion, etc. Your whole argument falls apart upon reading the following list of mandates Harris has supported, and shows he just simply missed the mark on the colon cancer screenings and showed poor judgment, both as a legislator and a doctor.
Mandates he has supported:
2006: HB 1405 - mandated coverage for part-time students with disabilities
2005: HB 458 - mandated coverage for psychological and neuropsychological testing
2005: SB 779 - mandated coverage for HPV testing
2003: SB 39 - mandated coverage for home visits after a masectomy or surgical removal of a testicle
2002: HB 896 - mandated coverage for medically necessary residential crisis services
2001: SB 615 - mandated coverage for hearing aids for children
2000: HB 6 - mandated coverage for habilitative services for children
1999: SB 181 - mandated coverage for a prothesis
1999: HB 109 - mandated coverage for the costs of medical clinical trials
So how do you respond Mr. Shill? Your house of cards comes tumbling down.
george w. -- interesting list. It seems quite convenient that you happen to have it. You wouldn't be employed or connected with the Kratovil campaign, would you? I can't imagine a regular citizen doing that much digging on this obscure of an issue.
Fine, if he did so, then Harris was wrong to support those mandates. By doing so he is responsible for driving up the cost of insurance in Maryland. Perhaps he saw the error of his ways and decided to oppose the colon cancer mandate. I'm not sure. Either way, it doesn't change my view that these mandates are a bad thing. You won't here me defending Harris or any politician who supports them.
Post a Comment