The story dominating American conversation this week is the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona. In shock, after a mentally troubled assassin named Jared Lee Loughner shoots a round from his 9mm Glock through the brain of beloved Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and then turns his weapon on the crowd and kills 6 bystanders while wounding 13 others — America mourns.

Giffords is alive today and fighting for her life, the extent of the damage caused by her wound still unknown. There are positive signs, and we can all be thankful for that. But there are 6 people who will never breathe another breath, amongst them a federal judge and a 9 year old girl named Christina Taylor Green.

President Obama, speaking at the memorial services held at the University of Arizona, attempted to call all Americans to a higher principle. He asked us to imagine our democracy through the eyes of a child, to recall the hope and awe it inspired in our own childhoods, to behold it as did Christina Green. The President spoke to the soul of America and shared his vision, “I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it.”

These were moving moments in the shadow of a national tragedy. The President was truly presidential, and for the most part, was recognized as such by pundits of all political persuasions. Even relentless Obama antagonist, Glenn Beck was moved by the speech, saying that “This is probably the best speech he has ever given, and with all sincerity, thank you Mr. President, for becoming the president of the United States of America last night.” But as well received as the President’s solemn call was, the reception was far from all positive.

Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin, who live-blogged the memorial, called it a “bizarre pep rally.” Steve Doocy, of Fox and Friends, said the event “seemed like a political rally.” Both complained about the “Together We Thrive” branding that was labeled by the Red State blog as “the Marxist message behind the memorial.”

Many were the conservative voices who found fault with the President’s speech or were quick to cast him as a “political opportunist,” proving to some degree that it really doesn’t matter what the man does. But the pond scum moment from the right has to be Rush Limbaugh’s criticism of the President for suggesting that American “society is not all together what it should be” and that we have any “duty to live up to” the “dreams and expectations” of a “nine year old little girl who was snuffed out.”

Perhaps Limbaugh and others are to be forgiven for spinning this tragedy for their own gain while accusing the President of doing the same, because that is the way the game is played in 21^st Century America. But the unanimity on the right in denying any potential influence born of the vitriolic rancor that pervades our political discourse is beyond comprehension.

The fact is that Sarah Palin published a map that had gun-sight crosshairs targeted at Gabrielle Giffords. The half-term Alaskan governor who’s famous for saying “Don’t Retreat: Reload,” the woman who announced the map as the “first salvo,” now wants us to believe the symbols were surveyor’ sights. Now, isn’t that just a bit suspicious?

Palin is a key voice in the divisive fear-mongering that plagues our nation. From her “death panel” rhetoric to her narcissistic response to the Tucson tragedy, she has proven repeatedly that she’s a one trick pony with a wafer-thin comprehension of anything beyond the art of whipping up emotions. For Palin or any of her fright-wing allies to deny any culpability whatsoever in events born of the atmosphere of hate and mistrust bred by their self-serving rain of incendiary lies and distortions is patently absurd. It’s akin to shouting fire in a crowded assembly and accepting no responsibility for the toll of the ensuing stampede.

The truth of the matter is that there are consequences of our actions — all of our actions. You can’t shout fire and insulate yourself from the results, neither can you label the opposition as the “enemy,” replete of any redeeming quality and expect to incite anything but hatred. When people like Rush Limbaugh cast all liberals as evil, when the Sharron Angles of our country speak of Second Amendment remedies, when even a clarion call from President Obama for unity in the face of tragedy is labeled “socialist,” a line has been crossed. When people are cast in the same light as the most despicable of villains, charged with “government takeovers” that threaten to bring about Armageddon, when they are washed in hate and labeled with every epithet of the worst of humankind — there are consequences.

Our nation has lost its ability to deal with issues in an intelligent manner because of the polarization brought about by rhetoric so heated that the eventual outcome was guaranteed. The question has long been when, not if, violence would occur. The writing has been on the wall for quite some time, as evidenced by Gabrielle Giffords’ prediction of her own tragic shooting when Palin’s target map first appeared.

Nobody has accused Sarah Palin of causing the shooting in Tucson, and no responsible person would do so. Responsibility for that crime lies with a deranged murderer who sits in an Arizona jail. But Palin, Limbaugh, Bachmann, Beck and all the other voices of division, fear and hatred are responsible for creating an environment where such tragedies are much more likely to occur. There’s really no legitimate debate on the topic. The only real question is will they continue, and if they do, when will the next calamity strike.

Article first published as Tea Party; GOP Friend, Foe, or Foil? on Technorati.

Many people scoffed when the Tea Party first appeared on the political scene last year. The nascent movement was labeled “fringe” and dismissed as inconsequential. But now, more than a year and a half later, polls show around 20% of Americans claim to be a part of the Tea Party. The growth and success of the movement cannot be denied. Thus far, the GOP has been the beneficiary of the movement’s enthusiasm. But as we press nearer the November election, one serious question remains unanswered — is the Tea Party really helping or hurting the GOP?

When the movement originally began to gather steam, certain prominent figures in the Republican Party took notice and positioned themselves to leverage the excitement. Former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey was amongst the first, throwing the support of his FreedomWorks behind the Tea Party, he embraced the movement and helped craft their “Contract from America” in time for “Tax Day” 2009.

Sarah Palin was another early proponent. The former Republican candidate for vice president actually resigned her post as Governor of Alaska three months after the “Contract” was formed and soon thereafter became a vocal advocate of the movement. The half-term governor solidified her position as co-figurehead of the movement, sharing her influence with Fox News political barker Glen Beck, when she appeared as the keynote speaker at the Tea Party’s inaugural convention this past February.

The first fruits of the movement were harvested shortly before the convention, when Scott Brown rode a Tea Party endorsement into being the first Republican elected to represent Massachusetts in the Senate since 1972. Tea Partiers basked in the glory of the first successful candidate, but in certain ways, the thrill was short-lived. Being more than a little moderate for the Tea Party, before February was done, Brown split from the GOP and became one of five Republicans to vote in favor of the jobs bill.

Since February, much more has happened. Sarah Palin has been fully engaged in the Tea Party speaking tour, often handing out her sought after endorsement and amassing a respectable record of primary victories. To date, Palin has made 43 endorsements of which 24 have been for Tea Party candidates, and 23 have been women and 21 men. She’s presently batting nearly .700 with 25 victories and only 11 losses, and just over half of the wins were by Tea Partiers.

But in the midst of the reverie surrounding the trail of victory are growing concerns that the momentum may be taking the Republican Party far right — right off the edge of a cliff. Four of Palin’s endorsees, including her most recent, are signaling cause for alarm. One early endorsement, Rand Paul of Kentucky, spoke out against portions of the Civil Rights Act that made it illegal for business owners to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Another of her Tea Party candidates, Sharon Angle of Nevada, ran on the “transitioning out” of Social Security and the elimination of the “unconstitutional” Department of Education.

Palin’s more recent endorsements include Joe Miller, Senate candidate from Alaska, another advocate for privatizing Social Security and eliminating the Department of Education, who also believes that unemployment benefits are unconstitutional. But the crown jewel of Palin’s string of primary victories has to be Christine O’Donnell, who formed a successful underdog campaign and beat former Republican Congressman Mike Castle to be Delaware’s Republican candidate for the Senate.

O’Donnell, who also ran for the Senate in 2006 and 2008, is an avowed fiscal conservative who has spoken strongly against “spending money we don’t have,” yet seems to have trouble practicing what she preaches. Accused of criminal activity, the records indicate that O’Donnell misappropriated campaign funds, spending the money on personal expenses. She is on record stating that “America is now a socialist economy” and is on video talking about her teen years dabbling in witchcraft and how she believes that scientists experimenting with cross-breeding have created mice with “fully-functioning” human brains.

Obvious to the most casual observer is the fact that all of these Tea Party candidates are empty vessels. They consistently take positions popular to the far-right and routinely state opinions with little to no basis in reality. Not a one of this gang of four believe that global warming is an issue for America. They are all against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Each of them is in favor of radical shrinking of the federal government and further cutting of taxes without being able to articulate how they would achieve the balanced budgets they promote. They’re all against cap and trade, in favor of the repeal of the healthcare legislation, and none of them will speak to the media except under the protected umbrella of Fox News.

These bagger candidates are the Frankenstein monsters of the leadership of the Republican Party. People like Armey, Gingrich, McConnell and Boehner seem to think that words and rhetoric are transitory, that they can spread whatever lies, distortions and half-truths they wish in order to promote their positions and obfuscate the truth. But the fact is that speech has creative power: it triggers emotional and intellectual responses that impact perception, direct opinion and in the end define political “reality.”

The problem for these Republicans is that their complete lack of veracity and substance has created a movement fueled by belief in a veneer of talking points. There is no substance beneath the surface. Guys like McConnell and Boehner, Gingrich and Demint all know how things really work, but none of them have spoken the truth in years. When you profess to support average people but in reality sacrifice them for the top 2%, you can’t speak the truth. So, now the dishonesty of these self-serving manipulators has taken the form of an army of zombies who have nothing to offer but the talking points through which they were created.

Palin, Paul, Angle, O’Donnell, or Miller, it doesn’t matter. None of them have a clue beyond their “government is bad” rhetoric. They all actually believe that tax cuts pay for themselves. They buy into “small government” blindly, without even evaluating what it might mean. The country needs thinkers, and the Tea Party is giving us winkers. What will they do when more than a sound bite is needed? Sadly, they’ve all gained power because American culture is so easily exploited, never looking for substance or asking for facts. Hopefully, they will fulfill their Frankenstein destinies and ruin their creators before they have a chance to govern and take a real toll on the nation.

Article first published as Affordable Healthcare in America — Fighting Fiction and Facing Facts on Technorati.

Healthcare insurers are at it again, only this time they’re blaming their rate increases on the Affordable Care Act passed earlier this year. Late last week, Aetna Inc., certain BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers asked for rate increases from 1% to 9%, allegedly to cover costs stemming from the new law.

Republicans were quick to jump on the news and leverage it for political gain by posting the news on the Republican Senate’s website. But this is nothing new. The Republicans have railed against the legislation since day-one, most often with gross distortions, like Sarah Palin’s “Death Panels.” Most recently, during his August 24 speech at the City Club of Cleveland, House Minority Leader, John Boehner attacked the law, illegitimately labeling it “a government takeover of healthcare.” Of course it’s actually nothing of the sort, as it continues to rely upon the existing system of private insurers and providers, but Boehner would never let the truth get in the way of a good talking point.

Not to miss an opportunity to ding the Democrats, Rand Paul released a new campaign ad attacking what he calls, “the Obama-Pelosi healthcare scheme,” claiming that it “puts Washington bureaucrats in charge, destroying the doctor-patient relationship.” And according to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, “People are finding out what’s in [the law], they don’t like it, and I think it’s going to play a big factor in this election.” Such serious assertions make a person wonder what changes within the new law could possibly be responsible.

The issues cited by the insurers looking for rate hikes were: allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance policies until age 26, eliminating co-payments for preventive care, barring insurers from denying coverage for children with pre-existing conditions, and changes to annual and lifetime coverage caps. Just how these regulations will “destroy doctor-patient relationships” or why Grassley’s “people” would raise an objection to them is hard to fathom. But fact-free Republican spin is a constant in 21^st Century America, so Democrats are left with a vigilant effort to combat fiction with actual facts.

The fact is that the Obama administration was expecting small premium increases in the short term, between 1% and 2%, stemming from the new regulations. But they are also counting on the state managed insurance exchanges to provide much needed competition and rate reductions as time moves forward. Another fact is that rate increases vary amongst carriers. The high mark is currently Celtic Insurance Co., in Wisconsin and North Carolina, who claim that half of their 18% increase is the result of the new federal regulations. BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon sets their hit at 3.4% of an overall 17.1% increase, and HMO Colorado actually filed for a 1.8% rate reduction associated with the new laws.

Regardless of what the costs resulting from new regulations are in reality, they are but a small part of the overall thrust toward ever escalating healthcare costs. Few can forget the 39% increase requested by Anthem BlueCross earlier this year, a request that turned out to be based on erroneous calculations. But erroneous or not, costs are on a steep upward trajectory and so are insurance company profits.

Real costs continue to rise for multiple reasons. With Baby Boomers aging, there is a steady increase of elderly patients, and at the same time, the population is increasing and people are living longer. New and expensive medical technology is another contributor of rising costs, as is increasing obesity, currently estimated to affect 34% of American adults. Inadequate medical records and a lack of preventative care also contribute, both of which are now being addressed through Obama administration initiatives — preventative medicine through the healthcare bill and medical records through $20 billion in Stimulus funding.

But none of these issues should be viewed as the main culprit, though each one does have more impact than the Republican’s favorite diversion — malpractice insurance, which only accounts for around 2% of overall costs. Fortunately, the main culprit is completely controllable, but it will require structural change: that factor is our reliance upon a fee-for-service based insurance system. Inherent in the design of fee-for-service systems are incentives that promote the consumption of unneeded and marginally effective services, and disincentives for leveraging preventative care. This dynamic is the driving force behind the fact that, while we trail most other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations in almost all healthcare metrics, we also spend twice as much on healthcare — currently 17% of GDP.

Ironically, the main people really benefitting from continuously escalating healthcare costs are the very same people now asking for rate increases — the medical insurers. While the nation is struggling under the weight of average insurance rates that have climbed 131% since 1999, the insurers have enjoyed a ridiculous 250% increase in profits. Even in the current economic times, the nation’s five biggest for-profit health insurance companies posted record profits, booking $3.2 billion in the first three months of this year, a 31% increase over the same period in 2009. They’re doing so well that the top 10 firms have been able to raise CEO pay to an average $23 million each, a 167% increase in 2009 alone.

Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act didn’t address most of the issues responsible for driving up healthcare costs, and at present, there is no movement in Washington to do so. Until these issues are given the focus they need and fee-for-service is replaced with some sort of managed care system, more emphasis is placed on preventative medicine, and a system is created to provide real competition amongst both insurers and providers, costs will continue to skyrocket and insurers will keep smiling all the way to the bank.