First ones in the books: Healthcare

The first set of Democratic Presidential debates is in the books, and the one issue that stood out to me was health care.

Our health care system might be one of the worst in the world. We, as a nation, spend the most money and have mediocre results when compared to what we spend.

I, like many, have an employer-based healthcare plan and it is atrocious. I pay the insurance company roughly 6 percent of my earnings in good faith every pay period and they reward me with deductibles, co-pays and life-time caps. And to makes matters worse, the protections for pre-existing conditions is under assault since the election of the least-informed president in American history in 2016. On top of deductibles, co-pays and life-time caps, insurance companies (which I think only serve as catastrophe insurance) can charge more if you have been previously diagnosed with high blood pressure for example.

The candidates vying for the Democratic nomination have two plans on health care from what I was able to garner after watching four hours of one-minute answers over the last two days, and dare I say it, Barack Obama had this right way back when.

Some candidates, the Medicare-for-all candidates, appear to want to outlaw private insurance and make just a government-run healthcare system. The others favor a public option. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, it was originally part of the Affordable Care Act, but it was removed so the ACA could get the votes back in 2010. Removing the public option was a mistake, and that's why the ACA has struggled to work.

I support the public option plan. It gives people choice when it comes to health care. If a person likes their employer's healthcare plan, keep it. If they do not, they can buy into the public option (a Medicare-like system). However, in order for the public option to work, the option offered must dispose of deductibles, life-time caps and co-pays.

If the government takes 6 percent of my earnings and gives me healthcare where I don't have to worry about co-pays, and deductibles, sign me up. My mother is on Medicare, and she receives no bills for her healthcare, and I wouldn't mind paying for that same piece of mind. I pay six-percent now and get very little in return.

Real reform on healthcare is long overdue, and this reform to ACA would be a huge step in the right direction. Don't believe me, just look at the polling on ACA.

SCOTUS does what???

It's official, the Supreme Court of the United States is no longer unbias or impartial.

In fourth grade, or so, my teachers gave us a civics lesson, and they explained that the reason Supreme Court justices receive life-time appointments was so they didn't have to be beholden to a political party, president or even the electorate and thus could make decisions completely based on the law. What a load of you know what!!!!!!!

We have seen just how political and contentious a Supreme Court selection has become. We have even seen Mitch McConnell hold a Supreme Court justice seat open for six months - in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution - to prevent a moderate justice from being appointed by Barack Obama. Obama appointed Merrick Garland, who was a member of U.S. District Court of Appeals for D.C. Garland was confirmed to D.C. Court by the Senate in 1997 by a 76-23 vote, but yet he did not even receive a judicial committee hearing in 2016, let alone a vote. Mitch McConnell swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and again is in violation.

We are all old enough to remember just what a debacle the Brett Kavanaugh hearing was. I'm not going to go into further detail about this hearing because I can not say definitely whether Kavanaugh was guilty or innocent of the charges of sexual assault, but what a mess those hearings turned out to be regardless or your opinion on Justice Kavanaugh.

All that being said, the Supreme Court today ruled on yet another decision that boggles the mind and they did it strictly on a party-line vote. The conservative justices voted 5-4 that the federal courts DO NOT have a role to play in terms of Partisan Gerrymandering.

For those of you who do not know, Gerrymandering is when the party in power in a given state redraws the congressional district lines in such a way to ensure that they remain in power. So if you think you live in a democracy, surprise, you do not. The Supreme Court should rule on this and make Gerrymandering unconstitutional. FULL STOP! This seems clear as day to me, and it transcends party, because both sides have used this to stifle democracy. Yet the Supreme Court does nothing.

Unfortunately, this is not a isolated incident for the Supreme Court. They have failed time and time again on issues that 90 percent of the electorate would think are no brainers - Citizens United comes to mind. The Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010) decision basically allows people with a lot of money to contribute as much as they want to a political campaign because according to the court, that person, or corporation, which the court deemed a person, has the right to freedom of speech. WHAT? Thanks to Citizens United, if I contribute $100 to a candidate, they are less likely to listen to my thoughts, when person B or corporation B gives that candidate $100,000. Citizens United did not level the playing field, it minimized my first amendment right, because I do not have $100,000 to give to a candidate.

If you think Citizens United was not partisan, than you have not been paying attention. The conservative justices, seeing their party shrink and their influence wane, decided to give some of their pals more influence. Almost as disgraceful as America's biggest Congressional disgrace, Mitch McConnell.

Flood the swamp

Donald Trump made a lot of promises during the 2016 election. Anyone who was paying attention at the time knew that he was lying to the American people repeatedly. Among the countless lies this charlatan told us was that he was going to "drain the swamp." This snake-oil-salesmen tested the phrase at a few rallies, and when his loyalists began chanting it with regularity, it stuck. Of course the idea that this felonious president was going to get rid of corruption in Washington D.C. is just laughable. He has had a number of hand-picked cabinet members resign due to scandal in just two years. The Trump crime syndicate makes the Teapot Dome Scandal of the Warren G. Harding administration of the early 1920s, look like romper room. The list of scandals is to long to enumerate in this blog post, but here are some of the headliners:

National Security Advisor - Michael Flynn, of lock-her-up fame, likely on his way to jail for lying to the everyone, but specifically the FBI.

Health and Human Services Secretary - Tom Price, spent over $1 million dollars of tax-payer money on private flights. Not to mention the fact that he used his position on House committee's to pick winners and losers in the stock market, and one of the winners was a company he had personally invested $15,000 in. Information Trump had before picking him to run HHS.

Price Scandal - USA Today

EPA Secretary - Scott Pruitt, multiple ethics scandals.

Pruitt Scandal

This brings us to the latest violator of law under the Trump Administration, Kellyanne Conway. Conway, advisor to the Liar-in-Chief, has repeatedly violated the Hatch Act according to the 17-page report issued by the Office of Special Counsel, who is a permanent independent federal investigate and prosecutorial agency charged with overseeing violations of the Hatch Act among others.

The US Office of Special Counsel, run by a Trump-appointed Republican, recommended in its 17-page report that Conway be fired for being a repeat offender of the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, was designed to prevent people who worked in the executive branch of the government from getting involved in electoral politics, and Conway has repeatedly broken this law by criticizing candidates running for office, and using her position to influence voters. She even has mocked the Hatch Act by telling reporters, "let me know when the jail sentence begins"

Hatch Act

Of course, this White House, dripping with felons, came to Conway's defense today. It remains to be seen if the pressure on Conway will lead to her dismal or resignation, but if recent history is any indication, Trump will say something outlandish and the focus will move elsewhere, and the Conway controversy will be forgotten. BUT let's be clear, she broke the law, and this "drain the swamp" President will do nothing about it because this is his sycophant.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN - Remember when America was great and being run by criminals, who saw themselves as above the law.

This is still America right?

I want to be clear on this topic for full disclosure sake because the argument I am about to make has nothing to do with the underlying issue of abortion, but instead has to do with the citizens' right to make law in this country via referendum.

So for full disclosure sake: I am personally against abortion because of my faith, but I also believe in a women's right to choose. I favor bans on abortion after a reasonable amount of time (16-18 weeks), which a women a chance to realize she is even pregnant. I also favor exceptions in the case when taking the pregnancy to term could be medically harmful to the woman. There are also reasonable exceptions to be made in the case of rape and Incest especially, since the women or child, might not come forward right away because of fear.

THAT BEING SAID:
The state of Missouri decided today unilaterally that two abortion referendums would not be allowed to proceed to the petition stage for the 2020 ballot. Missouri's Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft said he could not allow the referendums on abortion because Missouri had passed one of the recent heart-beat bills, and part of those bills was declared an "emergency", meaning he has no choice but to prevent it from going to the petition stage. WRONG!

The Missouri law states the following. It is legal to get an abortion in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. After 8 weeks only medical emergencies would allow for a legal abortion. Rape and incest are not exceptions to the 8-week ban. The law also states that in the case of a minor trying to have a pregnancy terminated, they would need to get notification to both parents, which in some cases might be impossible!

Ashcroft's argument is that because a law has been passed, that it can't be put to a referendum. That is complete garbage. Referendums that change law happen in every election cycle in every single state in the Union. In my state, citizens recently passed a recreational marijuana bill via referendum, much to my objection, that changed existing law. It was illegal prior to the referendum, but the citizens choose to change that law. SO ASHCROFT's argument is pure hokum. One of the proposed referendums was actually submitted by GOP Mega-donor David Humphreys, which tells you that their is not a consensus on this issue even among the far right. Humphreys teamed up with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) on this issue. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the ACLU has filed suit to stop Ashcroft's attempted violation of the Constitution.

If Ashcroft believes that his argument is sound and supported by the people of his state, let them VOTE! I believe whole-heartedly that citizens are much better equipped to vote on a law via referendum that will impact their lives before I would put that in the hands of some partisan hack of either party!!!

Ashcroft unilaterally turns down petitions
Ashcroft article
Humphreys article on proposed referendum:
Humphrey article

Contact Jay Ashcroft
600 West Main St.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
info@sos.mo.gov
(573)-751-4936

D-Day remembrance

Yesterday, June 6, 2019, marked the 75th anniversary of the most consequential military operation in human history. The allied endeavor, designated Operation Overlord, included more than 5,000 ships carrying 160,000 allied soldiers to a heavily fortified, 50-mile stretch of coastline in northern France known as Normandy. The success of this invasion would determine the future of the allied effort in World War II. The beachhead was necessary to give the allied forces a toehold on the continent of Europe, which would serve as a staging point for the push to Berlin.

American, Canadian and English soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy, codenamed Omaha, Utah, Sword, Gold, and Juno. On Omaha Beach alone, Allied forces - mostly Americans - suffered 2,000 casualties by day's end. These soldiers, mostly young men in their late teens, put their lives on the line, and some made the ultimate sacrifice, in order to preserve freedom around the world. Their sacrifice must never be forgotten. Take the time today to thank a veteran for their service, and before you lay your head on the pillow take time to pray for the souls of those who provided the freedom we enjoy as Americans.

I have added some video clips on the history of Designated Day. Take the time to watch and comment if you feel so inclined:

Franklin D. Roosevelt's D-Day Prayer

Veterans, in their own words, tell the story of Omaha Beach:

God Bless all our soldiers serving around the world, and god bless the United States.