The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis
Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law
United States v. George W. Bush et al.
The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush
The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens
The Case for Impeachment
Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney
George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying
Verdict and Findings of Fact
Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l Graphical Novel About the Worstest Pres'dent in the History of Forevar
Pretensions to Empire: Notes on the Criminal Folly of the Bush Admin- istration
The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America
Next Waxman Surprise: Hearings On War Profiteers
The US News Political Bulletin has learned Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is planning a broader and deeper series of investigations of the Bush administration than many expect. Waxman, a veteran Democratic representative from California, is already making news by looking into political activities in the Executive
Branch that may run afoul of the law, and the administration's erroneous claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
But Capitol Hill insiders tell the Political Bulletin this is only the beginning. "Waxman is doing a great job of holding his powder and picking his shots," says a strategist with close ties to House Democrats. One of Waxman's next objectives will be not only to examine false claims by administration officials to justify invading Iraq but also to expose people and companies that have profited disproportionately from the war, congressional sources say. Hill Democrats think this line of inquiry will be explosive and will tarnish both the Bush administration and Republicans in general.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070503.htm
www.VelvetRevolution.us
YEEEEEE-hah!
Tear it up, Mr. Waxman, and KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK! ;-)
Fascists want your votes
Henry Waxman and Dennis Kucinich are American heroes. If all Democrats were like them, I would still be voting Democratic. But they aren't so I'm not.
Most "Democrats" have joined the wave of fascism that has swept over America starting with the Reagan Administration. Characterizing them as fascist isn't rhetorical name-calling; it's a mere statement of fact.
Fascism results when corporations and government team up against citizens. They collude for their mutual benefit, and us citizens lose. Corporations contribute heavily to the campaign funds of corporate parties. Yes, even the "Democrats".
In return, the politicians on the take pass laws to help corporations increase their power and profits. Clinton and Gore passed NAFTA and GATT, and saddled us with the WTO to pay back the corporations that contributed to their campaigns. Imagine -- they sold us out to the corporations to finance their campaigns!
The corporate Republicans and the corporate Democrats stand united against single-payer universal health care to pay back the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations that finance them.
And the corporate media was very helpful to the Bush Administration in convincing about HALF of the US that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, and that Iraq was working with Al Qaida. Then, when the lies were found out, the corporate media helped with the new Bush Administration lies that it was all due to "faulty intelligence".
The Democrats seem content to ignore the rampant and recurring Republican voting fraud that has occurred in 2002, 2004, and 2006. Likewise, they refuse to acknowledge the substantial amount of evidence that the 9-11 attacks were staged by the Bush Administration to accelerate the fascist takeover of our (former) democracy.
Don't let Waxman and Kucinich fool you into supporting this mostly-fascist organization calling themselves "Democrats". The fact that they're running against a totally-fascist party doesn't make them any better.
The Green Party doesn't accept ANY corporate money, and is totally non-fascist.
Vote Green!
Take It One Step Further
Alan:
You make a critical point:
"Fascism results when corporations and government team up against citizens."
Many take the perspective that "evil" corporations take over "our" government. But it is, as you say, a "teaming up" towards mutual benefit.
But in order to do so, the MEANS must be in place.
And the means, on the government side, consist of the authority to impliment "...single-payer universal health care..."
While that may represent a change in the status quo to the detriment of the current corporate interests being served (i.e.,"...the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations that finance them."), it constitutes a centralized coercive power structure. History shows these are INVARIABLY taken over by those with the greatest material incentive. Again, as you say, "Fascism results when corporations and government team up against citizens."
The only way to prevent this "teaming up" is to remove the power of government to assist corporations in limiting consumer choices. The only way to remove the power of government to assist corporations is to separate government and economics.
Thus, decisions on such matters as expenditures on medical care, to use your example, must be left to the individual, rather than be vested in bureaucratic authority, as "...single-payer universal health care..." requires.
Don't confuse the establishment's opposition to a change in the material status quo with fundamental structural change.
Socialized (i.e., government financed, and therefore, government run) medicine will require it's own bureaucray, and will foster it's own fascist corporate system dedicated to it's manipulation.
And no you can't micro-manage the problem away with detailed regulations. These, by their very nature, can always be circumvented, or at worst, complied with; the cost past on to the payer. The benefit, insulation from competition and the inherent absence of objective performance standards that ONLY free market competitve forces can provide.
"The Green Party doesn't accept ANY corporate money, and is totally non-fascist."
Up until around the middle of the last century third partys fulfilled a vital role in American politics, giving voice to ideas contrary to the vested interests of the major partys.
It's time for people to realize that working for change through the established major partys is futile.
http://www.bostontea.us/
---The Bikemessenger
I think I heard Kucinich say his plan would deal only with NPO's
I think I heard on Maher show that Kucinich say his plan would deal with NPO Medical Insurances. Not sure, but I guess that means he would not allow corporate companies in his plan (publicly-traded with stockholders not allowed ?)
Single-payer is a great solution
Bikemessenger,
I'm not sure what your problem is with single-payer health care. You go in, and THE DOCTOR decides your treatment -- not a for-profit insurance corporation that's highly motivated to deny you treatment.
Then everything's paid for. No exclusions, copays, deductables, or "pre-existing conditions" (in reality this means "existing" conditions, but we're pre-stuck with this term).
The bureaucracy is nothing compared the the thousands of bureaucracies of individual insurance companies that people have to deal with, and the resulting waste from duplication of effort.
It sounds like you've been listening to propaganda from sources that want to avoid ending the billions of dollars the insurance corporations make at our expense.
No It's Not...
Alan:
Sorry if I'm not making myself clear. First of all, understand that I do not advocate the status quo.
To the contrary, I advocate a free market system. All the "...individual insurance companies that people have to deal with, and the resulting waste from duplication of effort."you rightly complain about are a product of governmental regulation.
But lets be honest and name the "single payer" in your single payer system. That payer is the government. In any system, it's the payer that calls the shots, there's no getting around that. And it's not you or your doctor that's doing the paying, it's the government.
From: "America’s Socialized Health Care"
by Lawrence Wilson, M.D., Posted January 24, 2005
"Health-care systems in most developed nations are in financial trouble. Health benefits are being cut back because of exploding costs. Degenerative illnesses such as diabetes and cancer are at epidemic levels in spite of new drugs and treatments. While doctors, politicians, and insurers blame each other, they rarely mention the real problem.
Skyrocketing costs are due to the structure of health care in all these nations. All are mainly socialized, including America’s. This means they operate as top-down bureaucracies, out of touch with people’s real needs. Almost no market forces are allowed to operate for rational decision-making and cost control."
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409g.asp
It's a system that encourages and rewards comsumption rather than production, then must resort to rationing to control costs. Rationing necessarily administered by bureaucratic edit rather than individual choice. It's nature is best illustrated by the flow of what is called "medical tourism". Medical tourists always go from countries of higher government regulation to areas of low regulation.
From Canada to the U.S.; from the U.S. to Pacific Asia.
If you want to end the "...the billions of dollars the insurance corporations make at our expense." Don't consolidate and expand the system that protects them from competition, DISSOLVE IT!
The problems you focus on are a direct result of the solutions you would apply.
In regards to listening to propaganda, consider this. Everything you propose consists of expansion of government power. One area where government holds a virtual monopoly is education. It never surprises me that most issues are debated in terms of "what should the government do.." or how should the government be expanded to deal with a given problem.
By controlling education, those who govern provide themselves with a succeptable and captive audience. Government is subtly presented as something quiet different from it's true nature.
But the founders of this country attained an unfortunately rare epiphany of understanding, best expressed by George Washington:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Lew Rockwell recently gave a speech on the subject.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-govt-nowin.html
Consider his opening remarks:
"Ludwig von Mises said that the great accomplishment of economists was to draw attention to the extreme limits on the power of government. His point was not merely that government should be limited, but that it is limited by the very structure of reality. It cannot make all people rich by its own initiative. It cannot provide universal housing, literacy, and health. It cannot raise wages across the board. It cannot ban products. Those who seek to accomplish economic ends such as these are choosing the wrong means. That is because there is something more powerful than government: namely economic law."
I would add that it is the nature of the power of government that precludes is usefulness to honest economic ends,as the nature of that power is to coerce, not to produce.
"Single payer" medical schemes cannot be made to work for the same reason that invasion and military occupation cannot bring freedom and prosperity to Iraq.
So what's the solution? Again, Dr. Wilson:
"Perhaps 2 percent of the health-care system is private or free-market. It is composed of the unregulated, non-mainstream holistic and alternative healing schools and practitioners. People pay cash for their services and products. Practitioners and suppliers must respond to people’s needs to stay in business.
I have a medical degree but have worked as an unlicensed nutrition consultant (not a dietitian) for 23 years. My attention is focused 100 percent on what clients need, not on getting grants or subsidies, receiving insurance reimbursement, or paying lobbyists to plead my case in Washington. In the free-market sector, costs for vitamins, for example, have decreased."
---The Bikemessenger
BikeMan, noone is "competing" to cover disabled adult dependants
Bikemessenger, I know you mean well, but what you propose is WORSE than the status quo. Letting so-called "Free Market" completely take over without government regulation and Medicaid would be like letting foxes run henhouses... it would be MONEY first, PEOPLE last. Corporations would have freedom, NOT the people!
I am living in a real world scenario, guardian of adult with disability. I am "lucky" because my insurance covers disabled adult dependants, which is rare. I had to fill out a lot of paperwork to make sure that happened, and of course I had to ask because noone volunteered the information to me. Medicaid takes care of other stuff, like meds, but not all doctors specializing in this rare disability will accept Medicaid, so that's why I keep the insurance on disabled adult dependant as well. Two is better than none when it comes to disabled folks. One of my adult disabled dependant's specialized doctors accepts neither, so I pay credit card to that doctor and get a partial refund by filing my own insurance's "out of physician network" paperwork, because it is a PPO (PPO's are better than HMO's, I have learned.)
I know another family whose insurance company will cover "significant partners", but NOT their adult disabled daughter who is dependant upon them. They are trying to get her qualified for Medicaid, but they have no medical insurance on her now as we speak.
The stress can sometimes be insurmountable for the caretakers, which causes a second tier of disability within families with disabled dependants > clinical depression. So then you have caretakers taking meds because they cannot adequately care for their disabled dependants due to inadequate or lack of medical insurance coverage. It's a vicious cycle, and it's one that will get worse as more and more Iraq War Disabled Veterans come home.
It may be selfish to say this, but its true: Iraq War Disabled Veterans will give a new voice to ALL disabled adult dependants in America. We are all in this country together, and interdependant on each other, whether we realize it or not.
No, Bikemessenger, the free market is NOT "competing" to get disabled folks covered in the real world, especially if they are disabled adult dependants with rare conditions.
The government IS the people when is comes to Universal Health Care. The free market is NOT the people, it is the corporate system, and I am sick of these fascists profitting from "health care" at my expense.
Generally speaking, Disabled Adult Dependants don't assemble in large powerful lobbies to Washington DC, and they don't march in rallies and make a lot of news, not even on the alternate news. Their parents/guardians have to do all of the legwork to make sure the disabled adult dependants get the medical coverage they need. Caretakers ARE the unofficial "lobby" for Disabled Adult Dependants.
American insurance companies will cover disabled kids while they are young and cute , and treat them like society's rejects when they are adult dependants. America is among the worst of the Western industrialized nations when it comes to health care. Even for my adult dependant's rare condition, Europe is about 50 years ahead of America for awareness about it, and healthcare and life needs in general.
I want my money to go back INTO the health care system, NOT into pockets of shareholders. I want Universal HealthCare Plan like Kucinich proposes, by using NPO medical insurances instead of for-profits.
Owen Rides Again...
Yank:
Whoa! That's got to be a record for you here--ten paragraphs. Ha Ha
"I know you mean well, but what you propose is WORSE than the status quo.."
Oh, well, at least I get a point for good intentions. Now, let's have a look at the staus quo, shall we?
Tourism industry news website Hotelmarketing.com. reports:
http://www.hotelmarketing.com/index.php/content/article/060410_medical_t...
"Abacus International President and CEO Don Birch says, “The lure of low-cost, high quality healthcare in Asia is estimated to be attracting more than 1.3 million tourists a year to the key locations – Thailand, Singapore, India, South Korea and Malaysia.”
"Medical tourism is growing rapidly, far outstripping the 4 to 6 per cent growth in general travel bookings predicted for 2006, with the number of medical tourist visits to many countries swelling by 20 to 30 per cent a year..."
"Mr Birch says...efforts to woo medical tourists have added further impetus to the growth."
"India’s medical tourism business is growing at 30 per cent per year and is forecast to generate at least US$2.2 billion a year by 2012. Singapore is targeting to attract one million foreign patients annually and push the GDP contribution from this sector above US$1.6 billion, while Malaysia expects medical tourism receipts to be in the region of US$590 million in five years’ time."
"More than 1 million tourists receive healthcare in Thailand, be it inpatient or day surgery at facilities such as Bumrungrad International Hospital, which offers a full spectrum of services from executive health tests to cardiac packages, cancer therapy, eye surgery, liposuction and other cosmetic options."
"The cost of treatments in Singapore, such as a hip replacement, can be less than a third of the price in the United States. In some cases, the cost is less than a tenth of what people would pay in America or Europe."
"Mr Birch says that while low cost maybe a draw-card for some patients, the assurance of a good quality healthcare system is important.
“Many hospitals and medical institutions that cater to the tourist market are among the best in the world.”
"India promotes its private healthcare sector as a tourist attraction, providing first-class service at a third-world price."
"The Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre in New Delhi boast a death rate for coronary bypass patients of 0.8 per cent. This compares with 2.35 per cent for the same procedure in New York, says Escorts’ cardiovascular surgeon Mr Naresh Trehan."
But who cares about "death rates for coronary bypass patients of 0.8 per cent" or "hip replacement...less than a third of the price in the United States...", what's really important here is that evil capitalists are orchestrating all these events in order to turn a profit. The fact that they're performing a geniune service dosn't matter in the least. It's only their "bad" intent that we should focus on.
After all, medical care is much too important to be left in the hands of evil free market entrepenuers. Only well-intended socialist bureaucrats should be allowed to administer health care. Who cares about results; we must be sure that those who manage "our" (it's not as though it's some sort of individual need) health care is acting with "good" intentions. To hell with results.
In 2000, Val Venis, the Canadian wrestling star, came to the U. S. for hip surgery. As a Canadian citizen by birth, he was "entitled" to "free" medical care.
http://www.azlp.org/ISSUES/issue.shtml?t=Health_Care
So why pay for expensive hip surgery in the U.S.? As with thousands of Canadians each year, Venis was willing to pay to avoid the months or years of waiting for care of doubtful quality; the unavoidable result of a system wherein the natural link between cost-causing and cost-bearing is severed to no one's benefit accept bureaucrats and their 20th century socialist dogmas. While consumers, reduced to the standing of beggars, must take what they're handed for "free" by their socialist benefactor/masters.
Of course, it's actually worse than that, as these same "beggars" must also play the role of taxpayer, bearing their proportion of the total cost of everyone's "free" medical care.
Meanwhile, Americans are well known for their charitable inclinations:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/298992_givemoney10.html
http://www.christianet.com/cardonations/charitablecontributions.htm
I deliberately use these two examples because I'm neither a "conservative" nor a Christian; I'm a Libertarian and an Atheist.
And those in need who cannot pay are better served and far less humiliated as beneficiaries of those giving freely and in good will.
"Letting so-called "Free Market" completely take over without government regulation and Medicaid would be like letting foxes run henhouses..."
See my response to Alan above.
"it would be MONEY first, PEOPLE last. Corporations would have freedom, NOT the people!
Explain how, if your only recourse to obtaining money was to have people give it to you freely in exchange for something they choose to value of their own free will allows you to Put "...MONEY first, PEOPLE last?
Sorry, you may have been indoctrinated by public "education" into conflating the free market with georgewbush's facsist oppression, but in fact, it is what you advocate that differs from fascism only at the superficial level where beneficiaries are determined. The free market is not merely a "horse of a different color", it is a distinct species. As Peruvian economist Hernando Desoto descirbed it, "the third way".
I truly sympathize with your situation, Yank, and the other real life situations to which you allude, but the fact is, all your problems are a result of you being forced to cede control (through regulation) of your options to corporations and of your resources to deal with them (through taxation and restrictions on competition).
"No, Bikemessenger, the free market is NOT "competing" to get disabled folks covered in the real world, especially if they are disabled adult dependants with rare conditions."
No, of course it's not; it's strictly prohibited from doing so by law.
"The government IS the people when is comes to Universal Health Care. The free market is NOT the people, it is the corporate system, and I am sick of these fascists profitting from "health care" at my expense."
In the "real" world, I believe I live there too, the government is the politician and bureaucrat that makes the final decision.
"The free market is NOT the people, it is the corporate system..."
On the contrary, in the absense of coercion,which is the essence of the free market (what do you suppose we mean by "free"?) results are not determined by organizational or authoritarian edit. They are the manifestation of the cumulative effect of each individual acting in his own self-interest, in a medium of free exchange amoungst all.
" want my money to go back INTO the health care system, NOT into pockets of shareholders. I want Universal HealthCare Plan like Kucinich proposes, by using NPO medical insurances instead of for-profits."
And you should have whatever you please. But explain why I should'nt.
In 1825, Welsh utopian socialist and social reformer Robert Owen founded a Socialist community at New Harmony, Indiana. (Try that in today's heavily regulated facsist U.S.A. of today, LOL).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen#Community_Experiment_in_America...
But back then, Owen faced a much freer America. One that allowed for socialist experimentation. The experiment failed. It failed not due to sabotage or bad luck; it failed for stepping outside the parameters of socio-economic organization that human nature allows.
Those of you who remain stubbornly unconvinced should be free (regrettably, you're not) to repeat the experiment, if you wish. You should be free to limit the experiment to the matter of health care, if you wish.
But you should not be free to enlist the cooperation of those of us who do not wish to cooperate.
---The Bikemessenger
P.S.---Sorry to take so long to respond, but I'm working on the Iraq Oil Law. Remember the Iraq Constitution?
http://www.smallgov.org/?p=67
The Oil Law is of the same material.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0228-05.htm
Emad Mekay doesn't bother to substantiate his assertions. It may be easy for sceptics to dismiss a Common Dreams article as leftist propaganda. But I'll go through it article by article and show how Mekay is right. Stay tuned.
Government power preferable to corporate power
Bikemessenger,
Yankhadenuf put it more eloquently than I could. The alternative to the "government power" you're concerned with is corporate power, which is predatory and corrupt. You have not proposed a viable alternative.
The government is the appropriate entity to implement projects that benefit all of us, but which would not be profitable for a private corporation to do, like the interstate highway system. I believe that national health care also falls into this category.
Violence Or Cooperation?
Alan:
You say "corporate power...(is)The alternative to the "government power" but if all are free to compete, as we are in a situation of strict separation of government and economics, where is the "corporate power" that you're so afraid of?
If a corporation consistently fails it's obligations to it's customers, there's no "government power" to protect them from competition.
They'll invite competition and there would be nothing there to stop it.
There is just no way around it. Again, the unique aspect that distingishes government from all other institutions is that we mutually and by acclamation sanction it's use of force and coercion to impose it's will.
Stop to think what happens to your "corporate power" bugaboo if we were to include strict prohibitions of the use of that sanction to intercede in economics.
There is no such thing as "corporate power", only the power of government misapplied to the benefit of corporations.
Additionally, corporations are an artificial invention of government authority. Consider an a repeal of corporate personhood.
In a true free market, private, profit-making organizations would be forced to organize in the manner best suited to providing the particular product/service they sell. The freely given exchange with their clientele being the ONLY available source of profit.
Makes you wonder if large multi-national conglomerates, or corporations, for that matter would even exist at all.
You can by-pass critical, dispassion scrutiny and just unthinkingly repeat your "... government is the appropriate entity to implement projects that benefit all of us..." mantra from the government "education" system. (Hey, what the hell do you expect them to teach you?)
But in essence, what I advocate is the absence of coercion; what you advocate must be imposed through threat of violence.
No? I, for one would not cooperate willingly...
---The Bikemessenger