 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
| Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry |  |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
Time for change's Journal
Health care is too important to the well being of the American people to entrust it to for-profit corporations.
A 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine noted the amazingly ironic fact that, although the United States leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy country in the world that does not offer universal health care to its citizens. The report noted 18,000 unnecessary American deaths every year resulting from lack of access to health care. There are currently 47 million Americans without any health insurance, and the health insurance carried by a large portion of the more than a quarter billion Americans who are insured is woefully inadequate. To understand why our country’s mostly privately run health care system is so inadequate, let’s start by looking at the issue of health care fraud. A brief look at health care fraud in “fee for service” systems in the United States An excellent discussion of health care fraud in the United States is provided by Malcolm Sparrow’s 1996 book, “License to Steal – Why Fraud Plagues America’s Health Care System”. Though somewhat outdated, the good majority of principles discussed in Sparrow’s book are as valid today as they were then. On the scope of the problem, Sparrow has this to say: The proportion of the nation’s health care budget lost to fraud and abuse remains unknown. Conventional wisdom, crystallized in a 1992 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, puts it at 10%. But the 10% figure has no basis in fact. The GAO report merely says, “Estimates vary widely on the losses resulting from fraud and abuse but the most common is 10%... of our total health care spending…” The 10% estimate has been politically useful: high enough to be credible in the face of continuing media revelations about fraud and to justify the “get tough on fraud” rhetoric, yet low enough not to disturb the medical profession too much. The truth is, of course, that nobody knows the true figure, because nobody systematically measures it… The true level of fraud losses could be lower than 10%, or it could be significantly higher. None of that has changed in the 11 years since Sparrow wrote it. There has still been no systematic measurement of the fraud problem, in spite of a multitude of evidence that it is massive. Why is there so much health care fraud Sparrow spends several chapters detailing the many reasons for health care fraud, and those details are beyond the scope of this post. The general principle can be gleaned by asking yourself if you would ever leave your wallet containing several hundred dollars unattended in public. Regardless of how positive a view we have of our fellow citizens, few people would answer yes to that question. It simply would present too tempting of a target. Our health care system can be looked at in the same way. It presents too tempting of a target to individuals or corporations whose main purpose for existence is to make as large of a profit as possible. I don’t know what percent of corporations are honest. But any system as complex and non-transparent as health care requires great vigilance in order to prevent fraud. Unless that vigilance is routinely exerted (which has never been the case) the system provides an open invitation to fraud. The so-called “free-market” principles that right wing ideologues believe always are fair and work to benefit everyone simply do not apply to health care. In order for free-market principles to be fair, among other factors, people have to understand what they’re buying. Health care is way too complicated for that. If you buy a car and it breaks down a month later, it’s a pretty good bet that the car was defective. The same cannot be said about health care because there are way too many other factors that influence people’s health. Nobody can understand the value of the health care (or health care insurance) that they purchase unless they are highly intelligent and spend tremendous amounts of time analyzing it. Few people have that much time. We need a federally run Food and Drug Administration because ordinary people do not have the capacity or time to evaluate the safety of every food and drug that they need. The same thing can be said about health care. Health care fraud in “managed care” capitation systems When Sparrow wrote his book our country was in the initial process of turning towards “managed care” capitation systems for health care. This change was driven largely by the awareness of health care fraud. Under managed care capitation systems, money (premiums) is paid up front to the corporation, which is then responsible for supplying medical care to the customer, as needed. Thus, the corporation serves as an insurance carrier, and at the same time it is also a provider of health care – though the health care may be sub-contracted out to others. Since the money is paid up front at the beginning, the need for billing separately for each service or drug is largely or totally eliminated. Since a major type of health care fraud under “fee for service” systems had been billing for services that were not needed or not even provided, it was recognized that capitation systems would eliminate that type of fraud. Thus, it was widely believed that capitation systems would eliminate the great majority of health care fraud. But such a belief was very naïve. It is of course true that under capitation systems corporations cannot commit fraud by billing for services that are not needed or not provided, since the corporations do not bill for services under these systems. But rather than eliminate health care fraud, capitation systems merely change the way that it’s perpetrated. Instead of billing for services that they don’t provide, fraudulent managed care systems merely refuse to provide services that have already been paid for up front. They have all sorts of tricks for doing that, and it’s extremely difficult when it happens to prove that it’s fraud, rather than mere incompetence or “clerical error”. Therefore, whereas fraud under “fee for service” systems manifested as additional costs (for taxpayers or individual patients), fraud under capitation systems is manifested as the withholding of needed medical care. Sparrow saw all this coming before it happened: Under fee-for-service, the most damaging forms of fraud are perpetrated by providers, at the financial expense of payers. Under managed care, most fraud will be perpetrated by the middle layer of intervening corporations, and the victims will be the patients. Not only will the new forms of fraud be more damaging to human health; they will be extraordinarily difficult to detect. My personal experiences with health care fraud I relate my personal experiences here just to give an example of how it’s done and how widespread health care fraud is. Anyone who saw Michael Moore’s great documentary, Sicko, will recognize this type of situation. Sicko revealed in much detail how some insurance companies utilize processes such as rejecting all claims above a certain amount of money, in order to increase their profits. Here’s a recent example. There doesn’t have to be any basis in reality for rejecting the claims, other than the corporation’s desire to make large profits. The insurance company might even routinely cave in easily in certain types of cases to customers who complain. But there will always be those who don’t complain, so the potential for profit can be tremendous. And there is no penalty to the insurance company for initially rejecting valid claims, unless it can be proven in court that they committed fraud – which is extremely difficult to do. In the early 1990s I had health insurance through the state of Pennsylvania (which contracted with private insurance companies), which was supposed to be pretty good, relatively speaking. Yet a great many, if not the majority of my valid insurance claims were initially rejected. One rule my insurance company appeared to have was that whenever medical care was received from a provider who was not an “approved provider” the claim would be rejected unless it was a medical emergency. I had two occasions to test that rule with respect to my children, whom I had to take to emergency rooms on one occasion each. On one occasion I took my son in for treatment for a migraine headache, and on another occasion I took my daughter in for evaluation of symptoms that were indistinguishable from appendicitis. Both migraine headache and appendicitis are medical emergencies – there can be no question about that. Migraine headache is a medical emergency mainly because the pain is typically so severe that it is tantamount to torture. And appendicitis is a medical emergency because if untreated the appendix can rupture and lead to a fatal infection. Yet my insurance claims in both of these instances were rejected, on the basis of my insurance company’s assertion that they did not represent medical emergencies. The claim that the migraine headache was not a medical emergency was patently ridiculous, since the emergency room physician documented “migraine headache” in my son’s emergency room medical chart. Furthermore, my son was having unbearable pain, so even without a diagnosis of a condition known to constitute a medical emergency, the pain alone should have been considered a medical emergency. In the case of my daughter’s suspected appendicitis, it turned out after blood tests were drawn and after extended observation that she didn’t have appendicitis after all. However, on the basis of what I knew when I took her to the emergency room, she was having a medical emergency. Therefore, it was a medical emergency. Her symptoms were identical to those of appendicitis. I immediately recognized the fraudulent nature my insurance company’s assertions that these two instances did not constitute medical emergencies, since I am a physician. Consequently I wrote lengthy letters of outrage in both cases, appealing the insurance company’s decision to reject my claims. In both cases they must have recognized that they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if they were taken to court, and they quickly reversed their decision and paid up. But how would most people who aren’t medical professionals respond to an insurance company’s assertion that a medical emergency was not a medical emergency? I imagine that many or most people would simply reason, “Oh, I guess my insurance company knows what a medical emergency is”. And that’s how many insurance companies make much of their profit. How many? Nobody knows. The case for universal federal government sponsored health care 18,000 unnecessary deaths per year in our country due to lack of access to needed medical care speaks of a dire need for a health care system that provides access to care for all Americans. One of the most ridiculous objections that the right wing ideologues / wealthy conservative elites frequently bring up with respect to government sponsored health insurance is cost. Certainly these people must be aware that market-driven health care is far more expensive than government provided health care, due to all the bureaucratic administrative costs required for any multi-player system. It has been estimated that one third of health care spending in our country goes towards administrative costs. Nobody knows how much of that is lost in fraud or efforts to control fraud, but it’s undoubtedly quite a bit. But in a health care system provided by the federal government the motive and opportunity for fraud is greatly reduced (unless we have a Bush/Cheney type of Executive Branch that refuses to comply with Congressional subpoenas AND Congress lacks the will to respond appropriately to executive tyranny). Without the involvement of corporations, the profit motive, and hence the driving force for fraud, is absent. Civil service health care professionals who work in government are generally trained and indoctrinated to provide high quality health care, rather than to produce profits for their employer. Their whole approach towards the issue is different than what we see with much corporate health care. Thus, any rise in taxes to pay for a government sponsored health care system will be more than compensated for by the money that people will save by not having to pay out-of-pocket expenditures for health care. Another objection we often hear from the right wing ideologues is that government provided health care is “socialized medicine”.  Spreading the fear of “socialized” anything is always good for fighting the passage of programs that benefit ordinary people, such as Medicare or Social Security, or any of the multitude of New Deal programs that FDR used to lift so many people out of poverty. But hey. If Congress dislikes “socialized medicine” so much, why do all of our Congresspersons receive it? Closing comments Though the United States spends 53% more per capita on health care than the next highest country, its health care is ranked only 37th among the world’s nations by the World Health Organization. That is just plain sick, and signifies an urgent need for radical changes in our health care system, especially with regard to improving access to care. Dennis Kucinich, alone among 2008 presidential candidates, has drawn up plans for a single payer universal health system. There is no reason at all why we shouldn’t adopt such a system – except that our corporate media will be sure to parrot right wing talking points if it looks like it might be enacted into law. Although John Edwards’ health care plan doesn’t go as far as Kucinich’s towards eliminating unnecessary corporate for-profit components from our health care system, he does propose a universal health care plan, along with a surefire way to get Congress to pass it: If Congress refuses to enact a health care plan that will ensure universal access to health care for the American people, he promises to take away their federally funded health care program from them. Edwards and Kucinich have the right idea. In today’s corporate for-profit U.S. health care system, fraud doesn’t just cost us a lot of money. It prevents thousands of people from getting the medical care that they need to live or remain healthy. Getting that fraud under control is a monumental task which has never been attained and isn’t likely to be attained any time in the foreseeable future unless the problem is attacked at its roots. By far the best option for doing so is to simply remove the root cause of that fraud – provision of medical care by corporations whose main goal is to make huge profits – from our health care system. |
A summary of my DU posts
Time for change  The good majority of my DU posts consist of one of six general subjects: The need to remove from office the current cancer upon our nation; election fraud; the tragedy of the Bush administration; my ideas on the liberal values that we all hope will some day replace the values that our current government runs on; historical events that I believe cast light upon our current situation; and other political ideas. The need to remove Bush and Cheney from office In 2006, John Conyers wrote a 198 page report, documented with 1,401 references, titled “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”. The title of his report reflected the primary reasons why George Bush and Dick Cheney must be removed from office: They have made a mockery of our Constitution – the foundation for the rule of law in our nation – by consistently violating it. Our Constitution, if we can keep it in fact and not just in name, makes our nation much more than just a democracy. By providing protections for minorities and the powerless, our Constitution adds civility, humanity, and decency to what could otherwise be a barbaric nation – democratic or not. Aside from the continuing damage that Bush and Cheney can do to our country in their remaining time in office, including their potential to involve us in ever expanding new wars, failing to remove from office the most lawless presidential administration in our history will set an awful precedent in our nation – a precedent for doing away with our Constitution. Providing in our Constitution a mechanism for impeachment and removal from office was of utmost priority to our Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles…” Many arguments have been put forward against impeachment. This post answers those arguments. Some opponents of impeachment mistakenly advocate the view that the impeachment of public officials requires evidence of the commitment of an actual crime – and would not be justified by such things as gross violation of the public trust, corruption, negligence, or incompetence. Leaving aside the fact that such an interpretation would leave our nation subject to rule by people who would do great and possibly irreparable harm to it, the preponderance of evidence flatly contradicts that interpretation. Others claim that we don’t have enough evidence to proceed with impeachment. I argue here that the current evidence for impeachment is so abundant, arguing that we need more sets the impeachment bar at an absurdly high level. Others argue we don’t have the votes for impeachment – which implies that we must not bring individuals to trial until we have counted the votes, rather the using the trial to get the votes. Such an argument ignores the likelihood that votes will accumulate as Americans watch the impeachment trial and become intensely exposed for the first time to the many outrageous crimes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it also ignores the fact that Senators who refuse to vote for conviction will probably be putting their seats in jeopardy. But perhaps the most urgent reason for moving to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as possible is that their continuing refusal to be bound by the laws and the Constitution of our nation raises the spectacle that they may be planning a coup d’etat. Why else would they go to such lengths to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law in our nation? We must preempt them by moving as quickly as possible on this. Election fraud The DU apparently was born as a result of the 2000 November-December election fraud that began the long nightmare that is the George W. Bush administration. I went to bed on Election Day 2000, shortly after Bush was announced as our new President, feeling as if the end of world civilization was near at hand. My wife woke me up a couple hours later to tell me the good news that the announcement of Bush’s Presidency had been temporarily cancelled. Thus began a period of 36 days that I followed more intensely than any other news event of my life – ending in the infamous and disastrous Supreme Court decision that marked the beginning of our long road to dictatorship. My son (EOTE) joined DU in January 2001, a few days after it began, but I did not, for reasons that now escape me. I did, however, do a lot of writing about the 2000 election, including a desperate plea to my Maryland Senators, to please demand a real recount of the 2000 Florida vote. And I also contributed an article to DU on that subject, in my son’s name (I did not use my own name because I was a federal employee and I was afraid that I could get into trouble for writing such an article), in the spring of 2001. The fraudulent 2004 Presidential election is what brought me into DU. I had worked as a volunteer in the Kerry/Edwards campaign, I had followed the presidential polls obsessively, and by Election Day 2004 I was about as confident as I could be that John Kerry would be our next President. Thus, the reported results of that election were both profoundly disappointing and difficult for me to believe, as they were for the great majority of DUers. I immediately began an effort to acquire as many election statistics as I could, in a feverish and desperate attempt to prove that the election was a fraud, which I hoped would aid in its overturning. In late November I had my son post an analysis that I did of the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official election results (Note: My son supplied the title, which I feel is too strong, which you can see if you read the article). And finding that it was awkward to have my son post my articles, I joined DU a few days later. Since then I have posted dozens of election fraud related threads, a small number of the most important of which I have included in my journal. In particular, I have come to believe that the main mechanism by which the 2004 election was stolen was the massive and illegal targeted purging of Democratic voters in Ohio, especially in Cleveland. This thread contains a great amount of evidence to support that contention. In addition, I believe that there is good evidence that says that large numbers of votes in Cuyahoga County were deleted by its central tabulator, as explained in this thread, which also discusses an early 2006 partial audit of Cuyahoga County. And, I think that the death of Raymond Lemme, who while investigating Clint Curtis’ sworn allegations of vote switching computer programs, was found dead in a Georgia hotel room, just a couple weeks after telling Curtis that he had traced the corruption “all the way to the top”, is extremely suspicious to say the least. Here is my explanation of the controversy over the discrepancy between the 2004 exit polls and the official 2004 vote count. And here is a summary of several reasons I have written about for believing that the 2004 election was stolen. Finally, here are my ideas for preventing another stolen election in 2006 and 2008. The tragedy of the Bush administration The fake war on terrorism I believe that a crucial requirement for a good understanding of the Bush administration’s actions since September 11, 2001, is the realization that its “War on Terrorism” is nothing but a colossal fake. Only with that realization do numerous Bush administration characteristics and actions make sense, including: Its disinterest in Osama bin Laden; its great urge to rush into a war with Iraq at any cost; its utter contempt for international law and the rest of the world; its succession of no-bid contracts for its wealthy friends; its lavish tax cuts for the wealthiest of our citizens and corporations during ‘time of war’; the Dubai port deals; and, its attempt to turn our democracy into a dictatorship. With that in mind, I wrote in this post about the main reasons why I believe that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9-11 attacks. There are many reasons why I believe that now, but the initial and still most important reason is the utter failure of our military, the mightiest military that the world has ever known, despite repeated warnings and more than ample time on 9-11 itself, to protect its own capital city. Abuse of the human rights of prisoners for no apparent purpose To me, the most sickening and disgraceful aspect of the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” is its complete lack of concern for human rights, demonstrated among other ways by the indefinite confinement, without trial or even bringing of charges, of thousands of prisoners of war, and its frequent use of torture. I have discussed this issue in several OPs, starting with this one. Here I describe the issue as seen through the eyes of a U.S. Army Muslim Chaplain who had ministerial responsibilities for hundreds of our prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, who witnessed the severe and daily abuse of his charges over a period of several months, and who eventually was imprisoned himself when it was felt that he was making too many waves over what he had seen. Here is my summary of what the great journalist Seymour Hersh had to say on this subject, based on his numerous high level sources. Jimmy Carter felt so strongly about this issue that he broke the unwritten rule against ex-Presidents criticizing sitting Presidents, with one of the most scathing attacks on this policy that I have ever seen. And Senator Richard Durbin was the victim of continued public verbal abuse from the right for daring to make public how our government was treating its prisoners. Lying us into war It is evident to most informed people that one of the biggest motivations for Bush's "War on Terror" was to provide a justification for the invasion of Iraq. Seymour Hersh’s excellent account of how the Bush administration manipulated and twisted intelligence in order justify a preemptive war against Iraq is a must read for anyone who still supports this administration and thinks that the Iraq war was necessary. And as for Bush's excuse that we are now fighting that war for the benefit of the Iraqi people, Democrats should start talking about how the Iraqi people actually feel about us being in their country. Just how bad are Bush and his cronies and how much danger do they pose to American democracy? George w. Bush and his administration and fellow travellers in today's Republican Party are about as bad as they come. They are anti-science ignoramuses. They are chicken hawks. They have no consciences. They are torturers. They are cowards. They are evil. And I doubt that there are any moral boundaries beyond which they will not go to get their way. I think that in the interest of preserving our democracy, we should be aware of the similarities between the Bush administration and Hitler’s Nazis (which I wrote about even before the revelations about Bush’s warantless wiretapping), and understand that if we aren’t vigilant, yes it CAN happen here too. Moral values that separate us from today’s Republicans It makes me so mad to hear people ridicule what they consider to be “liberal values” and compare them unfavorably to the wonderful moral values of George W. Bush and his Republicans friends. In the vast majority of cases these people don’t even have a vague idea about what liberal values really are. They have simply been conditioned by our corporate media over several years or decades to believe that liberals encourage irresponsibility, are ‘soft’ on national defense and ‘law and order’, and are wild spenders. These ridiculous myths about liberals have in turn encouraged the Democratic Party to disavow the liberal label and in some cases to veer way to the right. I submit that, rather than running away from the liberal label we should be proud of it, and we should challenge those that seek to disparage it. And to further make this point I posted a tribute to several historical and current political leaders who have been unafraid to speak out loudly for what they believe in, and I suggested an answer to those Republican morons who accuse liberals of hating America. Let's take a look at some of the specific moral values that separate Democrats from Republicans: Republicans like to pretend that they're more moral than us because they're more "religious" Many of those who disparage liberals are fundamentalist Christians who repeatedly invoke the name of Jesus Christ, and who believe that the superiority of their moral values to those of liberals and Democrats is proven by their repeated references to Jesus. Don’t these people understand that Jesus was a liberal, whose moral values were much closer to those of the Democratic Party than to those of the Republican Party, with whom they align themselves and vote for? Isn't it an astounding paradox that the Republican Party has usurped for their own purposes one of the most liberal religious leaders in world history, while at the same time showing nothing but contempt for liberals and liberal principles? The movement for privatization of government functions One of the biggest threats to our democracy is the privatization movement. In the name of “freedom” and “self-reliance”, the leaders of this movement advocate the freedom of powerful corporations to destroy our environment and to run our elections, our schools, our social safety net programs, and our prison system, as well as every other program which has long been considered a legitimate function of government. The fact that government is elected by the people to serve public functions, whereas the purpose of private corporations is to make profits for their investors, is either totally lost on these people, or else they simply feel that the above mentioned programs should be run for profit rather than for service. Al Gore alluded to this issue in his great film, "An Inconvenient Truth", where he discussed the unholy alliance between government, private industry, and the press, whereby a corrupt government, in exchange for legal bribes from the industries they are supposed to control, propagates false information and policies that are favorable to those industries instead of the public that they are elected to serve. I discuss my own personal experience with that unholy alliance, where the FDA withdrew an about to be published scientific article I had written, under pressure from a manufacturer who stood to be economically hurt by the information in that article. The need for a free and independent press Another great threat to our democracy is the ownership of our country’s news media by a very small group of wealthy individuals who have strong ties to the Republican Party, and whose motivation in providing “news” is to maintain satisfaction with the status quo, rather than to report what is important and true. Two prime examples of corporate media shills and pseudo-journalists who pretend to be real journalists are Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Bill Moyers explains how this situation threatens to destroy our democracy, and how this came about through the dismantling of rules and regulations which were meant to prevent the monopolization of our news. And Robert Parry explains why he started his web site to help combat the misinformation we get from our corporate media. Health care Liberals, and most other decent people, believe that people should be entitled to decent health care. That is why, prior to the "pro-life" administration of George W. Bush, infant mortality rate in the United States had been steadily declining for several decades. But shortly into the Bush administration, due to the starving of women and infant health programs for federal funds, infant mortality rate began a steady rise. Nor do Republicans care much about veterans' health, as indicated by the rejecting of this much needed veteran's health bill in the U.S. Senate by virtually a strict party line vote. An enquiring mind One of the many tricks that our corporate media uses to squelch alternative viewpoints is to label anyone who substantially disagrees with their “correct” version of the news as “conspiracy theorists”. Well, I have news for them. The views of us “conspiracy theorists” are usually much more closely aligned with reality than is most of the trash that we hear from the corporate news media these days, such as the stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which were used to justify our illegal preemptive invasion of that country. We “conspiracy theorists” believe that it is not only the right of American citizens to challenge the corporate news media story lines, but it is our responsibility as well, as good citizens who care about our country. The dignity of all human beings Perhaps the most important value held by liberals is a belief in the dignity of all human beings – hence the 19th century movement by liberals to abolish slavery. Here is one of my favorite stories on that subject. A summary And here is a post where I talk about all the major values that separate Democrats from Republicans. Historical events that help us understand our present Though there is little doubt that George W. Bush is by far the worst president we’ve ever had, our past history is at least partly responsible for preparing the way for this tragedy. The history of our nation is full of examples of failures to live up to our ideals. In addition to our long history of slavery and our near extermination of the Native American population of our present day country, we began a long history of overseas imperialism beginning in the late 19th Century. The long standing history of extreme hostility to socialism by the elites of our country has been responsible for much of this imperialism, as well as domestic repression against labor unions and others who would speak out against the status quo. The usurpation by our Executive Branch of the war making powers given to Congress by our Founding Fathers did not originate with George W. Bush. And the attitudes fostered by our long history of slavery are still with us today, especially in the areas of our country where slavery thrived for so long. Today, as the transgressions of George Bush and Dick Cheney threaten the existence of our nation as we know it, we would do well to recall how the German nation was led into tyranny more than six decades ago. The parallels between Hitler’s war on terror and George Bush’s war on terror are extraordinarily striking in my opinion. And the better able we are to recognize the danger, the more likely we are to take steps to prevent a similar fate. Political ideas Republicans have 3 great advantages in elections against Democrats, whereas the only advantage that the Democratic Party has is that its policies are meant to serve all Americans, rather than just the select few. In addition to electoral fraud and huge sums of money donated to the GOP by their corporate masters as legalized bribery, Democrats have to contend with a multitude of news media whores. But those advantages are not sufficient for a Party that has nothing of value to offer to our country. So, when we suggest investigation of their corrupt deeds they call us conspiracy theorists. When we suggest policies such as making basic affordable health care available to all Americans they accuse us of class warfare. And when we criticize the rampant corruption at the highest levels of government they accuse us of "hating America". And when none of that works they try to scare us by telling us that if we don't give them unlimited power over us we risk being killed by terrorists. If there was ever a presidential administration that needed to be impeached, this is it. Grass roots efforts are under way to accomplish this, and we can all help. Our Democratic leaders need to seriously consider and talk about this. And they must be united and avoid inter-party warfare. Profile Information Time for change
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
