U.S. HEALTH CARE IS A "SECURITY ISSUE", JUST AS IS STOPPING A TERRORIST ATTACK

…US Soldier providing security overseas






Not having universal health care is making America into a “third world nation”.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attack in America, the government has taken great strides, and has gone to great expense, in attempting to ensure the security of all Americans.

However, I still continually question the lack of success of the previous administration in dealing with the monitoring of our seaports and the closing of our borders with Canada and Mexico, which today, are still totally open. In addition, the country still hasn’t decided on how to find, or what to do with its millions of illegal immigrants. For the so called “security focus” of the previous Bush Administration, those major failures seem to be some pretty big holes in their “focus” on America’s safety.

I have also previously made the statement that “health care for all” is a constitutional right for all Americans as part of every American citizen’s endeavors for the pursuit of “life, liberty and happiness”. But in reality, for everyone to have universal health care is much more than just something for every American’s life-style pursuit.

“Providing health care is as important of an American ‘security issue’, as is dealing with the threats of an enemy terrorist group or any other threatening military organization.”

Just ask yourself, “What is more threatening to any American than that of potentially losing one’s life, or a family member, due to a catastrophic illness, and of not being able to afford the necessary medical coverage for dealing with such a life-threatening issue?”

To emphasize the point, over the past two “de-regulated” decades, other than the recent home mortgage crisis, the number one reason for US mortgage foreclosures has been for individuals that have lost their incomes due to having cancer or other catastrophic illnesses. Being unable to work and to pay for their medical bills is the number one reason in the US for a home owner to lose their life savings, their retirement and eventually, their homes. (Please note: This is a ”non-issue” in other industrialized countries.)

Up to this point, since the Republicans have been running the country, they have had no problem in going into an unnecessary war or spending vast sums of taxpayer dollars on so called “American defense and security programs”. But the concept of providing medical coverage for individual American families with serious health issues has been totally ignored.

Under the Bush presidency, it was OK for trillions of dollars to be spent on a war of choice in the Middle East. But if any American happened to contract cancer, they were all on their own.

And if that cancer victim was lucky enough to have insurance coverage, and if they were successful in fighting the cancer, they had better not have lost their job or their insurance. This is because, due to the insurance companies’ “pre-existing conditions requirements”, that cancer survivor would no longer be insurable.

No other major industrialized nation in the world has these medical restrictions on their citizens. And all of the citizens of these other countries have universal health care. Therefore: “Why is the US, the wealthiest nation in the world, the only modern country whose citizens can, and have, lost all of their savings, their retirement and their homes, solely due to a catastrophic illness….?”

This is the ultimate example of how health care is just as big of a “security issue” as is a potential “terrorist attack”.

"Today, the risk of dying from an American health issue is a million times higher than that of being killed in a terrorist attack." And yet, up to today, the GOP members in the US Congress are hell-bent on NOT approving either “single-payer” or a “public health care plan” for all Americans.

Apparently, the reason for this totally “American problem” is due to our allowing strong and wealthy US lobbying companies and the lack of publicly funded national and state elections. In other words, the powerful, corporately funded lobbyists virtually “own” both houses of the US Congress due to their donations to those elected officials.

In fact, according to all of the statistics, US drug company lobbyists have never lost a fight in getting their own way when dealing with both houses of the US Congress.

And also according to the stats, the medical insurance companies’ lobbyists have only lost some ”minor battles” in dealing with the elected members of Congress.

Today, billions of lobbyist dollars are being spread around in DC in order to keep the “status quo” of America NOT having a “public health care plan”.

At this time, the Democrats, President Obama, and even the GOP members of Congress, they ALL have their own “public health care plans” that, we as tax-payers, foot their health care bills. I am today hoping that these individuals will all finally realize and understand that ~80% of the voting public have declared that they also want (and deserve) a “real public health care plan”.

In addition, it has been documented that if the current and rising health care costs are not brought under control soon, within ten years, America’s health care will be the number one expense item within the US economy.

I’m hoping that everyone lets their Senators, Congresspersons and President Obama know with phone calls, e-mail and letters that without providing a real “public plan” for America, they will NOT get our votes in either 2010 or 2012.

Here are the ways to contact the White House, your Senators and Representatives:

White House e-mail: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

White House Phone #’s: Comments: 202-456-1111, Switchboard: 202-456-1414, FAX: 202-456-2461

White House Mail:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Senators and Representatives: Go to this web site and follow the instructions: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml


It’s time to say; “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not taking it anymore!”

Power to the people……Now please!

Copyright G.Ater 2009

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

AS US TROOPS BEGIN TO LEAVE IRAQ, WHAT ABOUT PHASE 2 AND BEYOND?

…Iraqi’s celebrate pull-back of US troops


The jury is still out as to whether US troops leaving Iraq’s major cities will actually work out for Iraq in the long run.

The reason for the latest concerns for peace in Iraq is the renewed realization that the Muslim Shiia’s have been at war with the Muslim Sunni’s as far back as the 6th century. And today, many of the Sunni’s that were in charge during Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime, now feel that they are currently being punished for Saddam’s past torture of the Shiia, by the new “ruling-majority” Shiites.

With the US troops pulling back, some of the Sunni’s that were being paid with US dollars to stop fighting with the ruling Shiites, may go back to their old ways. It is believed that some unemployed Sunni’s have already become insurgents once more, since their monthly US payments have become less and less.

And as the US troops pull out of the cities, the Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is continuing to act more and more like a ruling dictator. He now has a network of security agencies that report directly to him, which is reminiscent of Saddam’s private police and his Republican Army. He has also built a countrywide patronage system to bribe and pay off his tribal allies, in anticipation of the up-coming 2010 elections.

Just as Saddam did, Maliki has shown no reservations against using the army, the police, and the secret agencies he controls to eliminate his potential election competition. According to news reports, he's has also used “divide-and-conquer” tactics to outflank the Sunni-led Sahwa movement.

This was the group that agreed to stop rebelling and to also accept US dollars to take on the al Qaeda in Iraq. They are also known as the “Awakening” or the Sons of Iraq, and the Prime minister is driving some of them back into armed resistance and others into strong resentments or at least, a fear for their lives.

Day after day, it is continuing to look to the local Sunni’s like a “reverse Shiia version” of; A New Saddam Hussein - Part II.

In other words, Maliki is beginning to appear as the “American” dictator just as the ruthless “Shah of Iran” was, after he was installed and supported by the US and Western nations back in the 50’s and 60’s.

On top of all this, as a long-time vocal Shiia, Maliki also has close (but difficult) ties to their next door neighbor, Iran, which is also a Shiite Muslim nation. And with Iran now being confirmed as a virtual; religious, fundamentalist-run, Shiia military dictatorship, it is expected that due to their past war with Iraq, Iran will also act ruthlessly toward Iraq. So if Maliki wants to stay in power, he will pretty much have to go along with Iran’s religious leaders.

Most Americans today are not aware that the numbers of Iraqi’s, both Shiite’s and Sunni’s, that have died since the invasion by the US, is tens-of–thousands more than died, or fled, while under the 35 year oppressive rule of Saddam. This is not to say that Saddam was a “nice guy”, but it does put the current situation with Iraq and Iran into a different perspective.

And it is disturbing that President Bush was so ignorant about the different tribes within Iraq before he decided to go after Saddam. Most Americans are not aware that President Bush needed to have Muslim experts come to the White House, after the US invaded Iraq, just to fully explain the difference between Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims and the Kurds.

These experts had to explain Iraq’s history to the president and exactly how much the two Muslim sects disliked each other and that they had been in a religious war for almost 1,400 years. Yes, Bush knew that there were Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq, but he was totally unaware of these details of their histories.

For President Bush to think that the US could invade Iraq and quickly install democracy in the middle of a region filled with centuries of warring Muslim tribes, is bizarre at best, and tragic at worst.

But for today, as much as we all want our troops to come home from Iraq or to eventually win in Afghanistan, there's little to immediately celebrate at this time about the US pullback in Iraq. It is now just a “wait and see” situation.

The reality in Iraq is that Maliki is still dependent on the United States.

Despite his pushing for the US to withdraw from Iraq's cities, Maliki desperately needs America’s backing in order to remain in power and to build up his armed forces. And Maliki is also dependent on the good will of Iran, who could topple him instantly if he crossed Iran’s religious leaders in Tehran.

Unfortunately, with all that’s on President Obama’s domestic plate, Obama really doesn't want to think about Iraq right now.

With all that’s going on in the America today, it’s almost as if he wished that Iraq and the insurgents would just go away. This would allow him to worry about the current problems in domestic America that Bush & Co. has left him. And he would then just have to deal with No. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Israel-Palestine situation. But of course, Iraq and subsequently, Guantanamo Bay, are not going away soon, if ever at all.

During the election campaign, Obama had promised to convene an international, United Nations conference on Iraq. And that's exactly what should still happen. The goal of the meeting should to be to first, rewrite Iraq's bizarre Constitution, which currently empowers the ruling ethnic and sectarian parties who wrote it.

Short of that, Iraq is still likely to explode at some point, probably this year, in advance of their 2010 elections, or soon thereafter. But as the US presence in Iraq shrinks, Maliki will have less and less incentive to cooperate with any UN effort. As it is, Maliki will fight the UN and it may already be too late.

The US, the UN and Obama must eventually come to an understanding with Iran over Iraq. This is why there is such a push for US diplomacy with Iran. The final agreement must be one that involves the full participation of Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey, so that neither the United States nor Iran can be allowed to use Iraq as a battlefield for their competing ambitions in the region.

Today, the chances of this occurring are virtually non-existent under the current regime in Iran. If the latest election "up-rising" in Iran continues to grow, as it is now showing, with some of the high level Iranian clerics agreeing that the election was bogus, the people of Iran might end up making some regime changes of their own.

But don't hold your breath and as I had said, until then, the long-term resolution of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan will continue to be a very long and grueling “wait and see” situation.

Unfortunately, this current “conundrum” is an example of what happens when an ignorant leader of the world’s strongest military nation, preemptively invades a Middle Eastern nation, without an exit plan or strategy, or even an “Optional Plan B”.

Now, President Obama is being forced to pick up the pieces and hopefully and eventually clean up this Middle-Eastern mess that actually started over 1,400 years ago. I wish the president good luck, but there is not much real hope for a complete success.

Yes, good luck Mr. President. But for now, I’m afraid we will just have to continue to; “wait and see”.

Copyright G.Ater 2009-07-05

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

ALASKA GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN QUITS: "SO WHAT?"

...Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin



Most political pundits think her quitting is a stupid move, but do we know the whole story…?

As author Todd Purdum said in a long, recent article in Vanity Fair Magazine, which he called; It Came from Wasilla;

“Despite her disastrous performance in the 2008 election, Sarah Palin is still the sexiest brand in Republican politics, with a lucrative book contract for her story. But what Alaska’s charismatic governor wants the public to know about herself doesn’t always jibe with reality.”

As John McCain’s top campaign officials talk more candidly than ever before about the meltdown of his vice-presidential pick, the VF author tracks the signs, both political and personal, that Palin was big trouble, and he also looked at the forecast for her future.”

But now, unknowingly of author Purdum, Governor Palin was planning and has since announced, in a rambling almost non-coherent, 18 minute speech that she is resigning as Alaska’s Governor after only 2 ½ years in office.

The TV pundits immediately jumped on the subject and only about 1 out of 20 thought that this move by Palin was a very good move for a potential presidential run. With her poor 2008 election performance, and the carnival atmosphere since the election, plus virtually no background in foreign affairs and now an even thinner resume as a state governor, the prospects for a presidential run in 2012 look pretty grim.

During her very strange news conference, Governor Palin Stated that, "I love my job and I love Alaska, and it hurts to make this choice, but I'm doing what's best for them [Alaska and her children]."

However, the state of Alaska has already spent almost $300,000 investigating ethics complaints against Palin and her staff. This includes the investigation called "Troopergate", of her firing of a public safety commissioner who had refused to dismiss a state trooper involved in a messy divorce with the governor's sister. And Palin has stated that she and her husband, Todd, have spent $500,000 "just to set the record straight."

She has also been the subject of 15 ethics probes, 13 of which have been resolved by the Alaska State Personnel Board with no findings of wrongdoing. (Please note that the board ultimately reports to the governor.) However, the other two probes are still pending. One of the resolved complaints led to Palin's agreement to reimburse the state $8,100 for costs associated with political trips she took along with her children while charging them to the state.

Governor Palin offered few clues about her ambitions but said she arrived at her decision in part to protect her family, which has faced withering criticism and occasional mockery. It will also allow her to escape ethics probes that have drained her family's finances and hampered her ability to govern. She said she is “leaving office in the best interest of the state and will allow her to more effectively advocate for issues of importance to her, including energy independence and national security”.

The other reason is more likely, and Palin hinted that she has decided that she cannot further develop her position within the GOP, while working way up in the 49th state, with a minimum 6 hour flight away from the “lower 48 states”. And while her current popularity in her state continues to plummet. (At the beginning of her VP campaign, she had an 80% state approval that is now at the lower 50% level and falling.)

If she were to continue as Alaska’s Governor, and then digresses to where she loses her re-election, that would be disastrous. In addition, the state of Alaska needs a full-time governor which is a duty that she has not been performing seriously since she was chosen by Senator John McCain as a running mate.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael S. Steele said after her resignation statement that Palin is "an important and galvanizing voice" in the GOP and will help the party's gubernatorial candidates this fall in Virginia and New Jersey. And Nick Ayers, executive director of the Republican Governors Association, said Palin plans to expand her role in the national party. "Part of her decision is she wants to spend more time campaigning for candidates," Ayers told Fox News.

He added that some lawmakers and activists in Alaska have been doing "everything they can to stymie her progress" and that Palin determined she could no longer "make significant change in the state."

As one of the Republican Party's most popular grass-roots politicians, Governor Palin’s decision to leave office has sent shockwaves through the GOP. This is a party still reeling from its 2008 electoral losses and from the sudden fall of Senator John Ensign (Nev.) and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, two GOP stars once considered presidential hopefuls.

But it is obvious that Sarah Palin can make some big money for both herself and her party while working the “rubber chicken” circuit for the GOP and the up-coming 2010 / 2012 elections. As Ms. Palin is only 45 years old, she could also take this time to “bone-up” on her qualifications and knowledge of foreign affairs, national defense and in other areas to make her a potential, viable presidential candidate even well after the 2012 election.

Unfortunately, based on the comments from a number of the McCain campaign workers, Governor Palin is either unwilling or unable to spend the time necessary to become properly prepared for the intensive grilling as occurs when running for a national office. The McCain campaign went to great efforts to bring the governor “up to snuff” for both the disastrous Katy Couric interviews and the national vice presidential debate with then Senator Joe Biden. McCain’s people have stated that the Alaska governor was very combative during these teaching review sessions and she apparently either walked out or just stopped communicating during the sessions.

There have also been rumors, which are now circulating again with this latest resignation announcement, of the governor being part of a confidential, on-going criminal investigation in Alaska. However, for now it’s only rumors unless she did resign in order to distance herself and her family. I guess we’ll soon see.

In either situation, Governor Palin is back in the news and Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live will probably be back to work and will be seen once more in doing political parodies of Ms. Palin as she starts spending more time in the “lower 48 states”.

I’m really looking forward to seeing Tina on SNL again soon.

Copyright G.Ater 2009

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

JOHN BOLTON: A TRUE REPUBLICAN WAR MONGER

…John R. Bolton



Bush’s Ambassador; John Bolton makes John McCain look like a pacifist.

As a number of today’s media pundits have stated, “If Bush and the GOP were still in power today, we would probably be fighting a war in Iran.”

When I first heard this comment, I seriously questioned it because I thought that even Bush and Cheney wouldn’t go that far with a two US wars in the Middle-East already in progress and heading toward a full 8 years of duration.

However, based on a recent article in the Washington Post from a well known, Senior Fellow at the ultra-conservative American Enterprise Institute, the pundits were probably correct.

Mr. John Bolton, who was also Bush’s U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006, wrote the article in question. (FYI: John Bolton’s term at the UN was so short because even a Republican controlled Senate would not confirm the “War-Monger Bolton” as the US Ambassador to the UN.)

As stated in Mr. Bolton’s article and as with Bush & Cheney, his idea for dealing with Iran can be summed up with the title of his WP article: “Time for an Israeli Strike?”

Bolton’s assumptions are that since, “Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has.” His interruption is that: “The stolen Iranian election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan.“

Per Bolton: “With regime change [in Iran] off the table for the coming critical [4 year] period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.“

In other words, “Forget any ideas of diplomacy, just bomb the hell out of them to let them know that we really mean business.”

Let’s ignore the fact that the clerics that actually run the show in Iran have divided up the nuclear development program and they have spread it all over Tehran and other Iranian cities. They have also buried the multiple development facilities in hardened underground facilities and these are surrounded by Iranian residential communities and their citizen’s open markets.

Should Mr. Bolton’s idea come to fruition, if Israel were to attack all of Iran’s nuclear locations that they have identified to date, “tens-of-thousands” of innocent Iranians would be killed. Any progress with the younger generation of Iranians that protested the recent elections would disappear virtually overnight. It would also solidify even more than today, both the Iranian population and the world’s Shiite Muslims against the Israeli’s, plus all of Western Europe. And of course, America, “the great Satan” would ultimately carry most of the blame.

Mr. Bolton feels that ”Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its [recent] presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.“ In other words, since the elections and the protestors didn’t change the current theological leadership regime, let’s get out the big guns and start another war that says; “It’s our way or the highway”.

I am not naïve enough to believe that negotiations would do all that is needed to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But ask yourself, what has a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq done for America in our relationships within all of the Middle East? Wasn’t it al Qaeda’s, Osama bin Laden that said that “he wanted the US to invade a Muslim nation so that it would inflame the Muslim world”? And didn’t we not only do just what he asked for, we even went and did it using torture and faulty intelligence.

Most world leaders today admit that the big winners of the US invasion of Iraq were Osama bin Laden and Iran. The big losers were the Iraqi’s general population, the United States and all those that joined with the US in attacking Saddam Hussein while using bad intelligence on WMD’s.

We not only lost our precious young American men and women, but we also lost our world reputation for equality and fairness, plus billions of US tax-payer dollars in the process. And today, Iran is now considered the most powerful Muslim nation in the Middle East. When Saddam was still around, that was not the case.

Apparently, according to Mr. Bolton, we now need to do what we did in Iraq, to Iran.

Bolton actually thinks that because of the citizen uprising during the recent Iranian elections, Israel today could attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and the Israeli’s, with the US, could then explain it to all of the Iranian people, to quote Mr. Bolton: “that such an attack [was] directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people.” Pardon me, but just as a minor little issue, other than sending a “Tweet” from “Twitter”, just how would this message be transmitted to all the citizens of Iran?

And I’m truly sorry, but with thousands of dead, innocent Iranian citizens laying around the formally hidden underground facilities that took “Bunker Busting Bombs” to destroy, I don’t think the remaining Iranian citizens would be buying much of Mr. Bolton’s explanation.

Everyone is aware that Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. They haven’t for the past six years with the European Union and they won't start now. And Secretary Clinton has already stated that, “Iran has a huge credibility gap because of its electoral fraud”.

I agree that with Iran's nuclear progress, even if Obama’s stronger sanctions could be agreed upon, they probably would not prevent Iran from fabricating nuclear weapons and delivery systems as they have been striving to do for the past 20 years. I also agree that time is short, and using sanctions failed long ago. But is bombing Iran’s general population all that is left?

Up to this point, due to Bush’s cowboy program of “we’re not talking except on our terms”, the US has stayed out of dealing directly with Iran. Even with the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 60’s, JFK didn’t pull out the ole six gun and start blasting away. He used a sea-going blockade and proceeded to communicate with the Soviet Union.

The US has learned the hard way what happens when we do a pre-emptive military strike instead of taking other approaches for dealing with a conflict. And it is especially difficult when our intelligence is either “cherry picked” or is sparse and from countries where we have few reliable intelligence agents, as it was with Iraq and it is today with Iran.

To not even sit down and discuss different ways to go forward, while trying to depend on our European surrogates, as they are having to depend on getting their petroleum products from Iran, is not a good way to do business.

But doesn’t Iran also depend on doing business in other areas of the world. Can’t the US have some “arm-twisting” influence in those areas? In a worst case scenario, couldn’t the US Navy stop Iran from shipping their petroleum products?

My point is, we need to do much more before we, or Israel, decides to just bring out the “big guns”. America’s world reputation is already in question and we first, need to show some real restraint.

We should at least try to do something “face to face” before we consider taking such a a big step.

Copyright G.Ater 2009

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

MINNESOTA’S GOVERNOR PAWLENTY IS LIKE MOST REPUBLICANS, HE JUST DOESN’T GET IT!

...Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty




The governor’s idea about American public versus private business is beyond bizarre.

While listening to Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty on CNN’s, State of the Union show with John King on Sunday morning, the difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party was clearly demonstrated once again. And the bizarre case of what the Republicans say regarding how American Capitalism should work versus how it actually does work, was also stated loud and clear by the governor.

I was also very disappointed with John King’s lack of follow up questions on the governor’s comments. But the governor did make his statements with such commitment and belief, (and with such a straight face), it appeared that John King just didn’t let it sink in and he then just let it pass.

Here is one of the governor’s comments about a potential future American public health care plan to demonstrate what I’m referring to:

Governor Pawlenty:

“Well, what's wrong with it [a public health care plan] is, you have a government option in a market that is supposed to be driven by private choices.”

“So it would be equivalent to say, you know, John, you're a corn farmer and the government is going to put up a row of corn or a farm next to you and compete with you. “

“We don't do that in the United States.”


Yes, as the governor of a large state in the United States, he actually made this statement with strong commitment and a very straight face.

First, Governor Pawlenty, where did you go to school and did you ever take any classes on how America’s state and federal governments actually work and are currently structured? Apparently not.

Please show me where it is in America that regarding the government competing with private businesses, you can truthfully demonstrate, that: ”We don't do that in the United States.”

Based on the governor’s comment, he apparently doesn’t believe that the following examples actually exist in the United States:


TODAY’S PUBLIC BUSINESSES THAT COMPETE WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS:

>>> The US Post Office competing with UPS & FedEx.

>>> Private Schools competing with Public Schools

>>> Private Colleges & Universities competing with Public, State & Community Colleges

>>> City Police Depts. competing with Private Security companies.

>>> Public Highways & Bridges versus private Toll Roads & Toll Bridges

>>> Amtrak trains competing with the private Airlines

>>> Medicare users having Supplemental Private Insurance Policies

>>> US Corp of Engineers competing with Private Construction Companies

>>> And unfortunately in Iraq: Private mercenary soldiers competing with the US Military

When will the Republican party finally come to the realization that there are some areas, besides providing a standing army and navy, that need to be provided by the government for the benefit of all the citizens?

This has been part of the magic of a country like America. This country has proven that if the basics are available for every citizen to pursue their own; “life, liberty and happiness”, (i.e.: education, police, mail, military, dams, levees, clean water, minimum housing & food stamps, etc), then each individual can be in a position to compete with anyone by building their own “private entities”.

“Health care for all”, is now one of those areas that is being added to the public list because the “private entities” of health care insurance have become so greedy that they have priced themselves out of the market. They have done this solely for increasing their corporate profits by increasing their premiums and denying coverage for “pre-existing conditions”.

This is evidenced by the fact that prior to the recent mortgage crisis, the number one reason for America’s increases in personal bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures was due to high medical bills from many Americans loss of health care coverage. This was usually from job losses due to having a catastrophic illnesses.

Even with the recent catastrophes on Wall Street and within the US Real Estate Market, which were basically caused by the failed, GOP’s unregulated “free market approach”. The Republicans are still trying to say that the US still has the “best health care in the world”. They however, fail to add that this great health care is only available for those that are already healthy, have a job and can afford to pay the new, higher insurance premiums.

The reason that the Republican party is in its worst condition since the original Republican party started with Abraham Lincoln, is that they have forgotten what this country is all about. Their “free market approach” has never worked for any country in the history of the world (including most of America’s history). This is because, just as it was in the past, with every American community today, if each community member doesn’t contribute for taking care of the whole, the community will eventually fail.

Today, every successful democratic country in the world works hard at providing free or affordable education and they protect their citizens jobs instead of increasing school tuitions and outsourcing jobs to other countries. These well educated citizens, by their later efforts of working within their communities, will then return “many fold”, the costs of the educational investments made by their country.

And today, all major industrialized countries also provide some level of universal health care for all of their citizens.

So why not in America?

Governor Pawlenty and his political party are so far away from what the people in this country actually want and need, without their awakening, the GOP may just eventually disappear. And that is unfortunate, as every democratic country needs a strong two party (or more) political system in order to keep all the parties as honest as possible.

I just hope that the GOP finally does wake up to the understanding that they are on the wrong side of the equation. Without understanding where they are today, they will eventually be replaced, just as they had replaced the Whig Party, back in the middle of the 1800’s.

And you really know your party is in very big trouble when your chief spokesperson is the conservative right-winger; Rush Limbaugh. This un-elected, prescription drug-addict talk show host, apparently does speak for the party. And this is happening while the clueless, elected GOP officials are embarrassingly just being ignored.

In any case, the coming years are going to be very interesting and possibly very scary for the GOP.

Copyright G.Ater 2009

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

“PUBLIC OPINION” MAY MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON A PUBLIC HEALTH OPTION

Actions by the GOP continue to be “too little too late”.


It took a long time, but public opinion on a public health care plan has finally gotten to a point that the current momentum could actually overcome the billions spent by the private insurance company lobbyists.

Today, the majority of the polls say that 72% of all Americans, and 87% of all Democrats would prefer a “public health plan”.

This situation has become even more obvious because some of the big private insurance companies have, in their desparation, actually sent a letter last week to Senate Health Chairman, Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). The letter stated that expanding the government's role in health care would lead to "devastating consequences," including steep reductions in employer-sponsored health coverage.

What they are really concerned about is that for the first time, they may have competition that might give the small business owners an option to provide their employees with “affordable health care” instead of telling their employee that they can no longer afford to provide the service.

I recently heard a conservative caller on a talk show trying to say that a “public health care option wouldn’t work”, because it would put the private companies out of business. Well, from my point-of-view, when companies such as United Healthcare, can afford to pay their CEO a $1.7 billion annual salary while continuing to cut insurance benefits for people with pre-existing conditions, perhaps they should all go out of business.

But perhaps the real reason that public opinion is against the private companies and the lobbyists is that they finally just went way too far. Today, the average American worker’s income has shrunk by over $1000 per year since 2000. While, during that same period, the average health insurance premium has increased by 36%. They “pushed the envelope” just a bit too far and the people have just had it with private insurance.

Now, let’s look at just how strong that “public opinion” for a “public option health plan” is today:

>>> The Washington Post wrote this week that: “The ‘public option’ has emerged as the crux of the unfolding debate over health-care reform on Capitol Hill, an ideological flash point that has become perhaps the greatest challenge for the Senate negotiators attempting to reach a compromise that could actually become law.”

>>> Even President Obama had this to say at his recent press conference: ”The notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision [as to] what's the best deal, that defies logic."

>>> MoveOn.org is running ads criticizing Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), a moderate Democrat, for voicing objections to a government-sponsored health care plan. And President Obama has countered that a federal presence in the marketplace is the only way to ensure that all Americans will have access to affordable coverage and that spiraling health-care costs will be contained.

>>> Former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, will lead a coalition of advocacy groups to Capitol Hill this week to rally for the public plan cause.

>>> On the right, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has delivered at least 10 speeches in recent weeks blasting the public plan idea, and has pledged unified Republican opposition if the Democrats proceed. But very few expect that the GOP will be very successful in the end.

>>> Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a health care co-op advocate over a “public plan”, said the goal was to make the co-ops "strong, significant competitors to private insurance." However, so far they have become less and less appealing, even to the Republicans, many of whom had initially welcomed the concept of a co-op as a promising compromise.

>>> Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), said: "I'm losing confidence that Senate Republicans would ever agree with the types of changes to a co-op that could make it a viable [public plan] substitute. We can only bend so much to win over opponents of health care reform. We cannot say we're putting something else out there and not have it being able to do the job."

>>> Senate negotiators appear to be moving forward. Members of the Finance Committee said they had drastically reduced an initial $1.6 trillion price tag for the 10-year health care bill that the panel will debate in July. Senator Conrad said the cost is now "in the range" of less than the $1 trillion target set by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

>>> "We have wanted to do a bipartisan bill," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.). "That's not saying we need half the caucus to come with us. We only need about three or four Republican senators to join with us to have a bipartisan bill." But a bipartisan bill is not a requirement to make it pass.

It must be understood that of the bills that were passed just after the Great Depression had begun in the 1930’s, such as Social Security, the FDIC insurance for savings accounts and many other bills that are still in force today, none at that time were voted “yes” by the Republicans.

Public opinion and the Democrats may have to go that route again in 2009 on health care.

Copyright G.Ater 2009

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

THE GOP’S “MORALITY BUCKET” HAS A HOLE IN IT

At 25% approval, the Republican party is less popular than Dick Cheney, and conservative talker, Rush Limbaugh, is even less popular with a 21% approval rating.




Apparently, for the Republicans today, “the hits just keep on coming”.

Unfortunately for them, instead of big hit songs, it more like the GOP is dealing with the effects of an amateur boxer spending his time sparring with a heavy-weight champion. Needless to say, it’s not a pretty sight.

For a party that had their most recent resurgence coming from the support of the deeply religious South, which has grown the party’s strength on the basis of their support for “High Morals and Family Values”, this latest “fall-from-grace” for adulterous sex by South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, is just another large rock on a very big pile.

I am in no way trying to say that the Democrats are the “party of virtues”, as can be determined by the past circumstance with John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton and others before them.

But I think that in today’s high-tech era, where it’s almost impossible for anyone with a high public profile, to successfully hide these “affairs of the heart” or of the libido; what were these people thinking?

Here is the latest list of the Republicans that have fallen from grace for sexual scandals or other illegal activities. The numbers for the GOP seems to be about 4 to 1 as compared to the Democrats, and that’s just for the past 10 years:

Disgraced Elected GOP Officials:

• Mark Sanford
• John Ensign
• Larry Craig
• Mark Foley
• David Vitter
• Ted Stevens
• Scooter Lobby
• Newt Gingrich
• Tom DeLay
• Ed Schrock (R-VA)
• Helen Chenowith (R-ID)
• Bob Allen (R-FL)

High Profile-GOP Supporters – w/ Past illegal activity, indiscretions or “Family Value” Issues

• Bill O’Reilly
• Ted Haggard
• Rush Limbaugh
• Jack Abramoff
• Dr. Laura Schlessenger

If you question any of those on these lists, just Google their name with the word “scandal” after their name and you will find out what their issues were all about.

FYI: Virtually all of those elected officials listed above, that were involved with their own sexual scandals, were also the strongest supporters in calling for Bill Clinton to resign due to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

The point I’m trying to make is that the “holier than thou” attitude that the GOP has been selling themselves as, continues to not ring true, especially when their leaders don’t seem to have any problems in lying about their own personal indiscretions.

Now, coming a week after Senator John Ensign (R-Nev.) admitted to an extramarital affair, this latest scandal will now impact the Republicans in a number of ways.

Initially, it further damages the GOP brand, which will probably drive away more voters. It will also make it more difficult to win back some of those who abandoned the party in the past two elections.

It might finally disillusion social and religious conservatives, which are a critically important part of the Republican coalition. And finally, the latest Sanford situation removes one more potential, new-generational GOP leader from a small field of prospective 2012 candidates.

Per Peter Wehner, a former Bush White House adviser, "It's bad news", regarding the back-to-back confessions by Sanford and Ensign. "It reflects on them individually, but it reflects on the party. The Democrats are vulnerable on a number of areas. They've had their own [scandals] on a range of issues. But if you accept as I do that the Republican brand is hurt, this does more damage to it."

A GOP strategist, John Weaver, stated: "The voters have chosen new management [in the White House] for a reason, and this just reinforces it. It just makes the hill a little steeper for us."

I would say it is not a “little steeper”, it’s now a whole lot steeper.

Copyright G.Ater 2009

Follow me on Twitter: gater01