Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Time for change's Journal
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion
Wed Oct 08th 2008, 10:31 PM
Under the Obama plan, health care in our country will become substantially more affordable, health insurance coverage will substantially increase, and discrimination against the unhealthy or the genetically unfit is likely to disappear.
The use of private health insurance, though better than no health insurance at all, has long posed serious problems for the American people. Given that the primary purpose of these corporations is to accumulate profits, they frequently resort to such tactics as denial of coverage to those whom they consider to be at high risk of disease or fraudulent denial of claims. That, combined with the rapidly rising cost of health care, has resulted in a rising wave of health care related bankruptcies.

The rapid rise in scientific knowledge in the field of genetics, with the consequent proliferation of genetic testing procedures, though producing many benefits, also poses new dangers to the American public. One of the most serious dangers posed by the rapid rise of genetic testing is the potential for abuse by the health insurance industry.


Genetic discrimination by the health insurance industry

The Medical Information Bureau (MIB) is a massive databank, comprising information on millions of U.S. citizens, used by America’s health insurance industry to check out medical information on its insured clients. The availability of genetic testing data has added tremendously to the amount of data contained by the MIB. What are their plans for the use of this information?

Denial of health care coverage to those considered to be at “high risk”
Edwin Black, in his book “War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race”, explains that one use of genetic information by the insurance industry will be to use it to exclude additional people from coverage – those who are said to have “pre-existing conditions”:

Insurers increasingly consider genetic traits “pre-existing conditions” that should either be excluded or factored into premiums. A healthy individual may be without symptoms, or asymptomatic, but descend from a family with a history of a disease… Many in the insurance world argue that their industry cannot survive without such information, and the resulting coverage restrictions, exclusions and denials that would protect company liquidity.

The health insurance industry has been discussing these issues for some time now. In 2002 the American Academy of Actuaries released a paper titled “The Use of Genetic Information In Disability Income And Long-Term Care Institutions”. In that paper, the health insurance industry puts forth an argument for why it needs access to genetic data:

Insurers are concerned that if they were prohibited from obtaining genetic information from the medical records of applicants, then those applicants would know more about their genetic predisposition than the insurance company, and more substandard and uninsurable individuals would qualify for insurance. Premiums could not be adjusted adequately to cover the deterioration of the insured population because the higher prices would drive out the healthy…. The increase in premiums would further reduce the number of health policy holders and could eventually cause the insurers to become insolvent.

This process is already occurring. An article in Risk Management, titled “Genetic Discrimination: A New Frontier”, found that 22% of families participating in genetic disorder support groups had been denied health insurance and 13% had been fired from their jobs because of their genetic status.

Denial of claims based on accusation of fraud
More ominous than refusing coverage is the denial of health care claims based on the presumption that the insured individual knew or should have known about the genetic status of his/her ancestors or family members. Edwin Black explains:

Some insurers may also want genetic data so they can use the information to rescind insurance, claiming that an individual fraudulently or even inadvertently omitted ancestral information from an application – even if the insurance claim is unrelated to the medical condition.

Black goes on to describe the case of a Quebec man who was killed in a car crash. The man carried a gene for the disease myotonic dystrophy and knew that his father had that disease, but he omitted that information from his life insurance application. The man’s widow was denied her life insurance payment based on the genetic information.

Black notes that the Quebec precedent is spreading to other countries and also expanding to include cases even where the insurance applicant was unaware of the genetic information, on the basis that he should have known about it.


My commentary on insurance industry use of genetic testing to deny coverage or claims

The insurance industry claims that they need genetic information on insurance applicants to prevent raising insurance premiums on healthy individuals. But think about it. They have expressed the intention of using the information to exclude from coverage people who are at “high risk”, based on genetic testing. Even if the excess risk is very small they can use the information to raise premiums on individuals found to be at “high risk”. This will undoubtedly increase their profits. Does anyone believe that they will balance these actions by decreasing health insurance premiums on individuals found to have a stellar genetic record? That seems highly doubtful. The end result will be more Americans with either no health care coverage or more expensive health care coverage. The health insurance industry will profit, and large segments of the American public will suffer for that.

The ability to deny claims for individuals who have paid insurance premiums for years holds even more potential for abuse. The propensity of health insurance companies to deny coverage for any questionable reason they can find is well known. With the availability of genetic test results they will be able to expand their excuses for denial of coverage. Those denials may often involve cases where the insured individual had no knowledge of the test results when s/he applied for insurance. No matter. How many people have the money or the time to fight insurance companies?

The health insurance companies argue and whine that their inability to use genetic information for these purposes may cause them to become insolvent. Well, I have an answer to that argument: Go ahead and become insolvent. WE DON’T NEED YOU.


How Obama’s health insurance plan will prevent genetic discrimination

The Obama health care plan addresses the problem of genetic discrimination in two ways.

First, it prohibits private insurance companies from excluding individuals from coverage based on pre-existing health conditions. If insurance companies can’t exclude individuals based on pre-existing conditions, then it’s difficult to see how they could deny claim payments based on pre-existing conditions. But let’s suppose that they somehow manage, based on their disproportionate wealth and power, to get away with those things from time to time.

The more important way in which Obama’s health care plan prevents genetic discrimination is that it directly offers its own health insurance to any American to who wants it. This plan is similar to Medicare, except that it applies to the whole U.S. population, not just the elderly and the disabled. To make sure that all Americans can easily afford this public health insurance plan, individuals, families, and small businesses will be offered tax credits on a sliding scale.


How McCain’s health insurance plan will prevent genetic discrimination

McCain’s health plan will absolutely NOT prevent genetic discrimination. John McCain is an anti-regulatory ideologue. Consequently, he is opposed to the idea of requiring private insurance companies to abide by regulations that prohibit discrimination against individuals with pre-existing illnesses. Just three weeks ago McCain bragged about this when he said in an article titled “McCain: We Should Deregulate Health Insurance Like we Deregulated Wall Street”:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Nor does McCain provide an alternative to private health insurance, as Obama’s plan does.


Comparison of coverage: The Obama vs. the McCain plan

Of course, one of major reasons why a good quality national health insurance plan is needed in the United States is to reduce the number of Americans who are not covered by health insurance, which currently stands at about 46 million.

McCain offers a $2,500 tax credit to individuals and a $5,000 tax credit to families to help them cover the cost of health insurance. However, at the same time his plan will eliminate the tax break for employer provided health insurance, which of course will cause many employers to drop their employee health care coverage. An article by Paul Krugman estimates that this will result in about 20 million Americans losing their health care coverage. And McCain’s $5,000 tax credit for families will hardly enable them to purchase health care insurance, since the average family plan is currently about $12,000 annually. The end result, according to virtually all analyses of McCain’s health care plan, is that any increase it produces in health care coverage will be marginal if not zero. Furthermore, as Krugman explains:

The total number of uninsured Americans might decline marginally under the McCain plan – although many more Americans would be without insurance than under the Obama plan.

But the people gaining insurance would be those who need it least: relatively healthy Americans with high incomes. Why? Because insurance companies want to cover only healthy people, and even among the healthy only those able to pay a lot in addition to their tax credit would be able to afford coverage.


The increase in coverage resulting from Obama’s plan is debatable, but universally recognized to be substantially greater than with McCain’s plan. Some people will undoubtedly choose not to purchase health insurance despite the tax credits they receive for doing so. I’ve found estimates that his plan will result in 47% to 98% coverage of the currently uninsured, including all children. Krugman doesn’t provide a precise number, but summarizes the Obama plan thusly:

Barack Obama offers incremental reform: regulation of insurers to prevent discrimination against the less healthy, subsidies to help lower-income families buy insurance, and public insurance plans that compete with the private sector. His plan falls short of universal coverage, but it would sharply reduce the number of uninsured.


Summary

John McCain’s health care plan fails abysmally to produce any substantial benefits to the American people. It could even result in a net increase in the percent of uninsured Americans because of its taxing of employer-provided health care benefits, which will undoubtedly cause many employers to drop their employee health care plans.

Furthermore, McCain’s plan does nothing to discourage discrimination against the unhealthy or people who have or whose ancestors or family members have various genetic risks. Indeed, McCain’s plan probably will encourage such discrimination, by deregulating health insurance beyond its current lack of regulation.

And yet the cost of the McCain health care plan is only marginally less expensive than the Obama plan.

Krugman summarizes McCain’s plan by saying, “In short, the McCain plan makes no sense at all, unless you have faith that the magic of the marketplace can solve all problems. And Mr. McCain does”

Under the Obama plan, health care in our country will become substantially more affordable, health insurance coverage will substantially increase, and discrimination against the unhealthy or the genetically unfit is likely to disappear. With time, the private health insurance industry very well may disappear, as the American people come to recognize that government-sponsored, Medicare-like health insurance is far superior to private for-profit insurance.

Some may object to my cavalier attitude towards the fate of our health insurance industry, especially my saying that it doesn’t matter if they become insolvent, and saying WE DON”T NEED YOU. What about the people who lose their jobs if the private health insurance industry disappears? Well, their experience in the health insurance industry should qualify them for jobs with the government health insurance program. Why should the American people be held hostage to a for-profit industry that has so frequently defrauded them with respect to the health care that they so desperately need. They can either shape-up and offer a product comparable to Medicare, or they can disappear. As Barack Obama said in his second debate with John McCain, “Health care is a right”, not a privilege or a responsibility, as John McCain said.


Discuss (8 comments) | Recommend (7 votes)
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
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
8793 posts
Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004
Silver Spring, MD, US
Male
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.