Sen. Dan Sullivan finally took the gloves off this week and called out his Democrat opponent Al Gross for his radical plans to create a government health care plan for all — nationalized medical care.

“After months of trying to hide his well-documented support for Medicare for all, Al Gross was just caught on camera admitting to donors his support for this radical government takeover of healthcare – which would eliminate private, employer, union and even military sponsored healthcare,” Sullivan’s ad says.

In interviews and on TV, Gross denies his support for Medicare for all, but in closed door fundraisers he admits the truth.

Sullivan’s campaign, however, found Zoom meetings where Gross appears to be promoting Medicare for all, and hopes that COVID-19 will have the silver lining of creating such a system. When asked directly if he supports Medicare for all, he said “it’s a matter of what you can get through.”

Then he explained how COVID-19 could lead to nationalized health care.

“What I’m hoping is that as an aftermath of COVID-19, and having so many people on Medicaid, that they will finally understand that they need to come up with that.”

Medicare for all would slash reimbursements to medical professionals by at least 50 percent, which means doctors, nurses, and technicians would all take a big pay cut.

Now that Gross is not practicing medicine as much, this won’t affect him or his family’s bank account. He has told reporters that while only working 3-4 days a week in Juneau as a surgeon, he made over $3 million a year. He left that practice in 2013 after being sued for malpractice.

Today, Gross gets paid as an expert witness by a law firm that defends doctors accused of medical malpractice.

According to his 2019 financial disclosure, he has worked as an expert witness for Hoffman & Blasco LLC in Juneau since January, 2014, shortly after he quit his practice after being sued. That suit was finally settled in 2017.

Sen. Dan Sullivan was among the first senators to meet with the Trump nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Amy Coney Barrett is making the rounds to meet with senators who will be sitting in judgment of her confirmation. Hearings in the Senate begin Oct. 12.

Sullivan spent 45 minutes with the judge and came away impressed with her as “a thoughtful and intelligent jurist with many credentials to her name. Some of the topics we covered right at the outset — the role of a judge on the federal judiciary … it’s the role of a judge to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench. I think she was in full agreement on that.”

Sullivan said their discussion focused on Alaska-specific topics, and the unique aspects of Alaska, including the complex laws surrounding the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and ANILCA, the Trans Alaska Pipeline Act, the Tax Act of 2017, which has a section on the opening of ANWR.

“We went into depth about how federal courts often misinterpret these very important laws for our state, which could do huge damage to Alaska. I told her to keep an eye on these kinds of cases, and then we went into depth on the Sturgeon vs. Frost case. This is an example of lower courts, in this case, the Ninth Circuit, really misinterpreting federal law. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, in two different opinions, finally got ANILCA and Alaska right in the Sturgeon case. I respectfully gave her this case and asked her to read it,” Sullivan said.

“We talked a lot about the Second Amendment. She is a strong, strong defender of the Second Amendment,” – Sen. Dan Sullivan

“We had a deep discussion also on the issue of the power and limitations of federal agencies, administrative agencies. She had written an opinion on limiting the power of the Waters of the United States (Rule) that I thought was very important, and we had a long discussion on that as well. We covered other topics as well. But I would say I’m certainly looking forward to seeing more of her views as the Judiciary Committee hearings kick into gear. But, overall, it was an important meeting today. I think she came away with a sense of just how important and unique many of the federal laws that come before the U. S. Supreme Court relate to Alaska, and that was my goal today.”

COULD KKK, ANTIFA PUT BANNERS ON PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDING?

The Ombudsman for the Municipality of Anchorage received a complaint about the Black Lives Matter banners placed on the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts building in downtown Anchorage.

Darrel Hess, in a memo, says after looking into the matter, he sees the use of the building to showcase advocacy groups creates a public forum for the exterior of the downtown structure, and that is problematic.

“The ACPA building is a Municipal facility, although it is managed by a nonprofit. Placing the BLM banners on the building is problematic, as it potentially creates a public forum. If the Municipality allows community organizations to place non-Municipal banners, posters and other materials on or in Municipal buildings, it can create a public forum. This means that we would have to allow ‘Blue Lives Matter Banners’, ‘All Lives Matter Banners’, ‘White Lives Matter Banners’, or even Klu Klux Klan or neo-Nazi banners,” he wrote in a memo.

The Black Lives Matter banner was allowed to be hung, and municipal resources were used to hang it last month after the Alaska Black Caucus contacted the Berkowitz Administration about hanging the banners.

Chris Schutte, director of Economic Development for the city, talked over the matter with the director of the Alaska Performing Arts Center, and they approved the three banners, which were paid for by the Alaska Black Caucus.

But the Alaska Black Caucus did not pay a fee to have them placed. Normally, the shows that rent space in the building pay the facility a fee to hang banners for upcoming performances.

“Hanging the BLM banners for free makes this more problematic and sets a bad precedent,” Hess wrote.

The Municipality and Performing Arts Center committed to keeping the banners up through Oct. 2.

“Regardless of what Legal determines about hanging banners moving forward, removing the banners early might be more problematic than keeping them up through October 2nd,” Hess wrote.

“The Performing Arts Center banner policy implies that only show banners will be placed. Legal probably needs to work with the ACPA regarding their banner policy.  Non-show related banners also most likely violate the sign code if permits are not obtained,” Hess wrote.

Members of the grassroots group “Save Anchorage” are beginning an initiative to request that their banner be put on the side of the building.