The Far-Right Conspiracy against the NHS

[Terry Mauro]

Simon Stevens and the Mobile Death Squads

Sept. 17, 2009 (LPAC)--Royal Family courtier Simon Stevens was

Britain's "Death Minister," simultaneously advising P.M. Blair

and successive Health Ministers from 1997 to 2004.

In 1999, he established N.I.C.E to ration health care.

In 2000, he crafted the Plan for creeping privatization of

the National Health Service.

In 2002, as fascist financiers claimed that the elderly were

"clogging the beds," Stevens arranged a National Health Service

contract with UnitedHealth company's Evercare Hospice unit, to

conduct pilot studies on how to restrict hospital access for

older patients.

Based on the mind-set in the Evercare contract and

Evercare's pilot-project report, Stevens then put into effect the

Liverpool Care Pathway experimental program of killing the frail

elderly.

In 2004, Stevens officially left the Blair government, to

become chief executive of UnitedHealth company's European

division. Stevens remained a Blair confidante, seen frequently

huddling with the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street.

In 2007, Stevens moved to the U.S.A. to become chief

executive of the elderly ("Ovations") division of UnitedHealth,

where he personally oversees the Evercare Hospice unit. Blair

resigned as Prime Minister and began working directly with Wall

Street on managing Change in America. And Prince Charles' "King's

Fund" agency, with the Atlantic-hopping Stevens as strategist and

trustee, made Stevens' Liverpool killing experiment the general

program of the National Health Service, snuffing out one in six

of all Britons who die.

Minneapolis-based UnitedHealth was founded in 1974 as an

outgrowth of the 1971 corrupt deal with Richard Nixon to

establish Managed Care Organizations (HMOs). Mergers and

acquisitions built it up, but by 1987, the company (like the

speculation-driven national economy) was virtually bankrupt.

That year Warburg-Pincus bought a 40% share of UnitedHealth

and took control.

The investment bank's 87-year-old founder, Eric Warburg, was

Max Warburg's son. Eric had stayed in Nazi Germany until 1938 as

his father's junior partner, while Max served as advisor to

Hjalmar Schacht in the build-up of the Nazi war machine, and Max

was the leading stockholder of I.G. Farben. The Warburg family

bank in New York, Kuhn Loeb, had been the American partner agency

for Sir Ernst Cassell, personal financier of King Edward VIII and

the Fabian Society and the Round Table. Under Eric's cousins,

Kuhn Loeb refinanced Hitler's bonds and ran their American Jewish

Committee to counter Jewish anti-Hitler political activity. After

WWII, Eric was instrumental in the British/McCloy/Dulles

integration of Nazi intelligence resources into Western agencies.

In 1987, Eric's Wall Street firm worked up a new initiative

for their UnitedHealth: {Evercare}, as the means to subject old

age homes to the HMO parasites. The idea was not to own hospice

buildings, but to make nurse-practitioners and social workers

(and perhaps clergymen) into a mobile hospice -- visiting elderly

patients in their homes or retirement facilities and managing (or

bringing about) their last days.

UnitedHealth company and its allies in the Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation meanwhile put millions of dollars into the

spurious Jack Wennberg/Dartmouth Atlas propaganda (the RWJ

executive on top of the Wennberg project, Lewis G. Sandy, is now

UnitedHealth Senior Vice President for Clinical Advancement).

This is the operation which Britain's "Death Minister" Simon

Stevens took over in 2007, when he established a home in

Minnesota.

Simon Stevens' photograph is displayed on the Web site of

the American Association of Retired Persons. The 40 million

elderly members are advised to buy AARP-endorsed insurance --

from Evercare. In fact, UnitedHealth has simply bought AARP for

this purpose, paying for this promotion.

During the Spring of 2009, Stevens was all over the American

media, beating the drums for Reform. Quoting the phony Wennberg

statistics, Stevens demanded $540 billion be cut from payments

for medical services to the elderly and poor.

Working with the Soros apparatus of SEIU's Dennis Rivera,

Stevens is now a central player of the London-Wall Street axis

that is driving Obama's health care reform. Business Week (August

17) gloating under the headline "Why Health Insurers are

Winning," featured a full-page photo of Simon Stevens

overshadowing the U.S. Capitol Building. So the question for AARP members is, when the "insurance"

you pay for sends a minister, is it the Minister of Death?

[Guest Tom Scully]

And in any case, should Andy be denied a drug under the NICE regulations, he is free to "go private" and consult a non-NHS doctor. He obviously couldn't do this if he were poor, but then he wouldn't have this option over in the United States, either, would he?

Sure he could in the good old US of A. In additon to private donations that fund free clinics, Medicare, Medicade and other state run programs, and doctors that work pro-bono, those evil free market capitalistic pigs "big pharma" rountinely provides life saving drugs free of charge.

BTW, can Andy, should he decide he want to "go private" take his taxes paid to the NHS and instead spend them on the private insurance of HIS CHOICE?

Most of us ugly americans favor personal CHOICE over a govermental mandate. In fact I think thats kind of how we became AMERICANS...

No.....we became Americans, for the most part....at least the living population, by an accident of birth. We prove we are among the most indoctrinated and "programmed population" in the community of ODC's, everday, in nearly every way....

For instance....."death panels" originated via proposals of the likes of right wingers like Johnnie Isakson, with the intent of saving the government money:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090814/ap_on_...6QwjTCWSdl0fNdF

GOP backs away from end-of-life counseling

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Ben Evans, Associated Press Writer – Fri Aug 14, 6:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Until last week, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson was among the most enthusiastic backers of end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare.

That was before conservatives called it a step toward euthanasia and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin likened the idea to a bureaucratic "death panel" that would decide whether sick people get to live. And even though those claims have been widely discredited, the issue remains a political weapon in the increasingly bitter health care debate.

Now, Isakson and other Republicans who eagerly backed the idea are distancing themselves from it or lying low in the face of a backlash from the right.

"Until last week this was basically a nonpartisan issue," said John Rother, executive vice president for policy at AARP, the seniors lobbying group. "People across the political spectrum recognize that far too often people's wishes aren't respected at the end of life and there is a lot of unnecessary suffering."

The idea for government-backed end-of-life counseling — while delicate given the subject matter — has garnered significant consensus on Capitol Hill, fueled in part by cases such as that of Terri Schiavo, whose divided family fought for years over whether she would want to be kept alive in a vegetative state.

Just a year ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. And the government already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support, under a 1992 law passed under Republican President George H.W. Bush.....

....Isakson and other Republicans such as Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Susan Collins of Maine have co-sponsored legislation in recent years promoting the counseling, including in initial Medicare visits and through a proposed government-run insurance program for long-term care.

In the House, Republican Reps. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Patrick Tiberi of Ohio co-sponsored legislation from Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., that would authorize Medicare to pay for the counseling. That measure served as a model for the current House language.

Earlier this summer, Isakson sponsored an arguably more far-reaching measure that would have required that new Medicare patients have a living will or other advance directive.

But the Georgia conservative found himself in a storm of criticism when President Barack Obama said at a town hall meeting this week that Isakson was a chief architect of the House approach. Isakson quickly issued a statement repudiating the proposal.

"The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice," he said.

Pressed later to explain his opposition, Isakson and his spokeswoman, Joan Kirchner, said he doesn't like the fact that the House bill would expand Medicare costs by paying for the consultations and giving doctors an incentive to conduct them. He also said the House bill is too specific in detailing what must be discussed in the sessions.

"There are similarities ... but there are substantial difference," Isakson said. "I'm not running away from anything but I'm not going to accept the president of the United States telling people I wrote something that I didn't."

Isakson, who initially called Palin's "death panel" characterization "nuts" in an interview Monday, declined later in the week to criticize Palin's statement, in which she said the measure would force people like her baby Trig, who has Down syndrome, "to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide ... whether they are worthy of health care."

"The best I can read she's applying the House bill and using her child with Down syndrome as an example," Isakson said. "I would never question anyone's defense of their child."

Spokesmen for Lugar and Collins — two other longtime proponents of end-of-life planning — declined to comment on the House bill.

Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican and a lead negotiator on health care legislation, told constituents at a community meeting last week that they have good reason to fear the proposal.

"I don't have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family," he said. "We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma."

Grassley said Thursday that lawmakers negotiating on the Senate version of the health care bill had dropped the provision from consideration, citing how it could be misinterpreted.

Comments like Grassley's puzzle Rother, who said "it's been a little disappointing" that more Republicans haven't stepped forward to defend the legislation.

He and Jon Keyserling, a vice president at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, say there is little difference between the current proposal and past legislation that Republicans have supported. The current bill specifies that the counseling would be covered only every five years to prevent people from overusing it, and describes what the consultations must include.

Keyserling said many people wrongly assume that end-of-life counseling is about terminating treatment. But it really is about making sure a patient's wishes are known, he said, including if that means continuing life-sustaining treatment in all circumstances.

He said he's been surprised at the backlash, particularly given the close attention that Congress paid to Schiavo's case, which he said clearly highlighted the need for better end-of-life planning.

But facts will not get in Sarah Palin's way.....she is back...."programming the faithful", with more of her right wing nonsense:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/200...h-panel-debate/

Sarah Palin wades back into the ‘death panel’ debate

By Matthew Shaer | 09.09.09

....The “death panel” myths were eventually debunked. But a poll conducted by Pew Research at the end of August found that 86 percent of respondents had heard of the “death panel” controversy. Of those people, 30 percent said it was true.

Now, on the eve of Obama’s historic speech to a joint session of congress — and in the midst of a heated national debateon healthcare — Sarah Palin is again raising the specter of “death panels.”

Keep in mind that it was Palin who is credited with coining the term. Writing on her Facebook account in August, Palin argued that President Obama’s version of healthcare would let bureaucrats “decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether [patients] are worthy of health care.”

Today, Palin argued her case on the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal — a space historically friendly to conservative commentators. “Is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by — dare I say it — death panels?” Palin wrote. “Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.”

Palin is referring specifically to page 5 of H.R. 3200, the heathcare proposal backed by the White House. (The text of the full bill is available here.) The language on that page would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life counseling sessions with a healthcare practitioner. But according to factcheck.org, a non-profit, non-partisan site, there is no basis for the “death panel” claims....

....and in Craig Lamson's alternative universe, it is the likes of whipping boy, "ACORN", recipient of less than $3.5 million average annual federal subsidy to aid the all powerful poor and have nots who are blamed for "taking" the fruits of our so highly and revered "free markets" system, demonized to distract from the failure of a system corrupted and pillaged by the actual controlling POWER class:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...eria/index.html

Earlier this week, I wrote about how the Fox-News/Glenn-Beck/Rush-Limbaugh leadership trains its protesting followers to focus the vast bulk of their resentment and anxieties on largely powerless and downtrodden factions, while ignoring, and even revering, the outright pillaging by virtually omnipotent corporate interests that own and control their Government (and, not coincidentally, Fox News). It's hard to imagine a more perfectly illustrative example of all of that than the hysterical furor over ACORN.

ACORN has received a grand total of $53 million in federal funds over the last 15 years -- an average of $3.5 million per year. Meanwhile, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of public funds have been, in the last year alone, transferred to or otherwise used for the benefit of Wall Street. Billions of dollars in American taxpayer money vanished into thin air, eaten by private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Halliburton subsidiary KBR. All of those corporate interests employ armies of lobbyists and bottomless donor activities that ensure they dominate our legislative and regulatory processes, and to be extra certain, the revolving door between industry and government is more prolific than ever, with key corporate officials constantly ending up occupying the government positions with the most influence over those industries.

Exactly as one would expect, the prime beneficiaries of all of that pillaging continue to grow. The banks that almost brought the world economy to collapse but then received massive public largesse because they were "too big to fail" are now bigger than ever; as The Washington Post delicately put it: "The crisis may be turning out very well for many of the behemoths that dominate U.S. finance." Everything involving the government turns out well for these "behemoths" because they own and control the U.S. Government. Just this week, The Post detailed how the government and Wall St. are now so intertwined that banking executives are spending vast resources to increase their presence in Washington:....

......UPDATE: John Cole highlights what might be the most telling aspect of all of this: demands for a "Special Prosecutor" into Obama's so-called "relationship with ACORN" from the very same circles that vehemently objected to investigations into torture, illegal government spying, politicized prosecutions, military contractor theft, Lewis Libby's obstruction of justice, and virtually every other instance of Bush-era criminality. Those, of course, are the very same people who, before that, demanded endless inquiries into Whitewater and Vince Foster's "murder." There's nothing more valuable than petty, dramatic "scandals" to distract attention from what is actually taking place.......

....I have no doubt that there are people attending these protests who are non-partisan, non-discriminating and principled in their opposition to government corruption, expansion and excesses. That's because there's no real coherent message to these protests; it's just amorphous anger which likely has numerous causes among the various participating constituents: ...

.....But look at who the lead supporters are: Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio generally, business groups led by Dick Armey. Does anyone actually believe that what motivates them is concern over the excessive, corrupting influence of Wall Street and large corporations in government? Please. They are pure GOP partisans who are exploiting citizen anger to undermine Democratic politicians in order to return the GOP to political power. It's nothing more noble or profound than that. In fact, many of the movement leaders are among the most vocal advocates for unfettered corporate power. From the expansions of the Surveillance State and endless imperial power to strident opposition to lobbyist reforms, they support the very policies that most empower those corrupting groups and further the government-corporate merger. If they're so concerned about excessive government power, debt and corporate influence and corruption, where were they during the Bush era? Cheering it all on. They didn't discover their "small-government principles" until Barack Obama was inaugurated and it became a means for undermining his administration and recovering from Republican political ruin.

As for ACORN, nobody is apologizing for them or suggesting that they've done nothing wrong. ....

.....The issue is one of proportion. If someone ostensibly opposes government waste and unfairness in tax policy yet spends most of their time focusing on a tiny group that helps the poor and receives a miniscule amount of government money -- all while ignoring or even revering the enormous, omnipotent industries which eat up trillions in taxpayer waste and dwarf the impact of ACORN by many, many magnitudes -- then any rational person would question what the real motives are .....

.....ACORN isn't just being mentioned in passing as something that needs an examination; it's dominating headlines and the obsessions of the Fox News movement, despite the fact that it's a tiny, microscopic drop in the bucket even when assessed by the principles the protesters claim to support (by a vote of 345-75, the Democratic-led House just joined the Senate in voting to cut off all funds to ACORN; I'm sure the courageous Congress will be doing that to Blackwater, KBR, Citibank, lawbreaking telecoms and many other corrupt corporations who own them any moment now). Claiming you're worried about large government and taxpayer waste while fixating on ACORN proves the insincerity of the ostensible concern, let alone doing so while cheering on the same Wall Street banks, defense contractors, and insurance industries that control and expand government power for their own benefit.

Craig, your steadfast defense of a failed, expensive per capita to a world record level, not to mention fiscally unsustainable, broken system of distribution of medical care and therapuetic drugs would only be curious, and even amusing, if this was not such a critical issue. You argue for leaving things as they are in the US. Why not consider that the entire economic system is epitomized in the example of the special interests dominated US healthcare system, as it is in the now obviously failed "private" economic model that has literally eaten the US Treasury because AIG, CITI, Goldman, grew "too big to fail", and had to be rescured when they fell on their faces because the banks and the rest of the financial system was looted to the point of collapse by the same corporatist power whose pockets you come out for continuing to line, if you get your wish.

This is over....watch as it continues to dry up and blow away....this everyman for himself, "choice" that you say is so AMERICAN. Kiss good-bye, economic growth and the ability of the government to continue to borrow enough to hold the whole failed mess, up, as well.

Find a complaint about the French medical system, and post it, Craig.....I can't see you doing it. The French government is billed for 70 percent of any treatment procedure, the French resident can insure himself for coverage of the balance, at an affordable premium, or pay it out of pocket. The intent of the system is that the 30 percent consumer responsibilty promotes choice and holds down the price of medical services provided.

Our American "system" is a failed system. It is unique in that respect, both in it's free markets where price is free to seek its own level, and is transparent....but isn't...it is corrupt, and price is hidden by government bailout and law breaking that avoids liquidation of all of the now failed banks if there "assets" were actually PRICED.

it is failed in the way it distributes medicine and medical care....the price per capita shows this as well as the number of uninsured.

America is the only ODC to enjoy a mess like this one. Voters in all other ODC's compromised to provide affordable care for all residents. The UK readers and those of other ODCs who read posts with sentiments like in your last one on this thread, can only shrug their shoulders at what you believe, vs. what they perceive, and what I've described.

Meet you back here in five years time....we will see if you still are of opinions similar to the ones you've posted.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Guest Tom Scully]

I listen to right wing talk radio on my drive to and from work, and one of the loudest and most oft repeated assertions is that government "can do nothing right.....doesn't work.....Medicare is a collosal failure....etc....etc...."

Who has made it that way? Why.....it looks like it is the same parasitic oligarchy (allies of owners of right wing radio....) that is the cause of our larger, general American predicament:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../12/MN63168.DTL

Medicare bilked for billions in bogus claims

Private watchdogs rife with conflicts make system an easy target for fraud

- Reynolds Holding, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, January 12, 2003

The system of private contractors policing the $250 billion-a-year Medicare program is riddled with conflicts of interest, financial disincentives and regulatory breakdowns so severe that fraud and abuse bleed tens of billions of dollars from the program every year.

Several of the most egregious frauds have involved the watchdogs themselves -- private insurance companies the government hires to examine and pay Medicare claims -- court records show.

But even reputable companies lack incentive to search for fraud. They serve at the behest of medical trade groups and, in some cases, are business partners with doctors and hospitals. They skimp on oversight, checking for the proper completion of claims forms but rarely for deceit.....

....CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Medicare's persistent breakdowns derive in part from its size. The program, created in 1965 to guarantee health care coverage for Americans over 65 or with certain disabilities, covered more than 40 million Americans last year and paid about a billion claims.

But critics say the system's fraud problems stem from a compromise Congress struck with the health care establishment 38 years ago. Fearing socialized medicine, doctors and hospital owners agreed to participate in the program only after being allowed to select the insurance companies that process the claims and serve as the program's watchdogs.

Today, 49 private insurance companies work for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that runs Medicare.

The insurance companies receive bills from doctors and hospitals that treat Medicare patients, examine the bills for mistakes and then pay them with checks drawn on two federal trust funds. The trust funds are financed through payroll taxes, patient premiums and general tax revenues.

The government reimburses the companies for their costs of processing claims, and grants them a fixed budget for administrative tasks such as controlling fraud and abuse.

Typically, the U.S. government awards contracts through competitive bidding.

But the compromise with Congress allowed the American Hospital Association, an advocacy group for hospitals, to decide which insurance companies should handle hospitals' Medicare bills.

Virtually all the companies turned out to be members of the National Association of Blue Shield Plans, now the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, a frequent political ally of the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association.

"'No sooner had the ink dried on that compromise than we began . . . to have horror stories," says Richard Kusserow, inspector general in the Department of Health and Human Services from 1982-1991. For every abuse the government tried to stop, says Kusserow, three would appear in its place.

Bilking Medicare became so lucrative that professional criminals got involved. In 1993, Gabriel Hernandez, a former "logistics coordinator" for the Medellin, Colombia, cocaine cartel, opened a chain of Florida health clinics that billed Medicare and state Medicaid programs for fictitious patients with phony ailments. Over two years, he received checks for more than $1.7 million.

"Everything was easy compared with being in the trafficking business," he says. "All I was doing was picking up checks every week. And I got caught, but I didn't get killed."

Hernandez was convicted in April 1997 of racketeering and spent five years in prison.

Three years ago, the General Accounting Office (GAO) cited "fundamental" conflicts of interest as a factor in the watchdogs' poor performance.

Hospitals and doctors not only help select their overseers, they go into business with them. Many of these companies also run health maintenance organizations. The HMOs funnel business to hospitals and doctors that the insurers may regulate.

Some of the companies even own hospitals. For example, one subsidiary of Cigna Corp. reviews and pays Medicare claims for doctors. Another subsidiary owns Lovelace Health Systems, a hospital and physician group in Albuquerque, N. M. Last month,. Lovelace agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a whistle- blower suit charging that the company had submitted tens of millions of dollars in false claims to Medicare over 10 years. Cigna did not review the Lovelace claims.

And when a private insurer and Medicare cover the same patient, the insurer is primarily responsible for paying the patient's claims, with Medicare picking up anything left over. But some insurers exploit their Medicare roles by making Medicare the primary payer, a violation that has cost the national Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Transamerica, Travelers and other insurers more than $100 million in legal settlements.

"Government contractors policing themselves," says Kusserow, "is not a very healthy situation to have."....

Edited September 18, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Guest]

Most of us ugly americans favor personal CHOICE over a govermental mandate. In fact I think thats kind of how we became AMERICANS...

Free choice is only free choice if everyone has it. If they haven't its called something different....... 'privilege'.

[Craig Lamson]

And in any case, should Andy be denied a drug under the NICE regulations, he is free to "go private" and consult a non-NHS doctor. He obviously couldn't do this if he were poor, but then he wouldn't have this option over in the United States, either, would he?

Sure he could in the good old US of A. In additon to private donations that fund free clinics, Medicare, Medicade and other state run programs, and doctors that work pro-bono, those evil free market capitalistic pigs "big pharma" rountinely provides life saving drugs free of charge.

BTW, can Andy, should he decide he want to "go private" take his taxes paid to the NHS and instead spend them on the private insurance of HIS CHOICE?

Most of us ugly americans favor personal CHOICE over a govermental mandate. In fact I think thats kind of how we became AMERICANS...

No.....we became Americans, for the most part....at least the living population, by an accident of birth. We prove we are among the most indoctrinated and "programmed population" in the community of ODC's, everday, in nearly every way....

For instance....."death panels" originated via proposals of the likes of right wingers like Johnnie Isakson, with the intent of saving the government money:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090814/ap_on_...6QwjTCWSdl0fNdF

GOP backs away from end-of-life counseling

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Ben Evans, Associated Press Writer – Fri Aug 14, 6:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Until last week, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson was among the most enthusiastic backers of end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare.

That was before conservatives called it a step toward euthanasia and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin likened the idea to a bureaucratic "death panel" that would decide whether sick people get to live. And even though those claims have been widely discredited, the issue remains a political weapon in the increasingly bitter health care debate.

Now, Isakson and other Republicans who eagerly backed the idea are distancing themselves from it or lying low in the face of a backlash from the right.

"Until last week this was basically a nonpartisan issue," said John Rother, executive vice president for policy at AARP, the seniors lobbying group. "People across the political spectrum recognize that far too often people's wishes aren't respected at the end of life and there is a lot of unnecessary suffering."

The idea for government-backed end-of-life counseling — while delicate given the subject matter — has garnered significant consensus on Capitol Hill, fueled in part by cases such as that of Terri Schiavo, whose divided family fought for years over whether she would want to be kept alive in a vegetative state.

Just a year ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. And the government already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support, under a 1992 law passed under Republican President George H.W. Bush.....

....Isakson and other Republicans such as Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Susan Collins of Maine have co-sponsored legislation in recent years promoting the counseling, including in initial Medicare visits and through a proposed government-run insurance program for long-term care.

In the House, Republican Reps. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Patrick Tiberi of Ohio co-sponsored legislation from Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., that would authorize Medicare to pay for the counseling. That measure served as a model for the current House language.

Earlier this summer, Isakson sponsored an arguably more far-reaching measure that would have required that new Medicare patients have a living will or other advance directive.

But the Georgia conservative found himself in a storm of criticism when President Barack Obama said at a town hall meeting this week that Isakson was a chief architect of the House approach. Isakson quickly issued a statement repudiating the proposal.

"The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice," he said.

Pressed later to explain his opposition, Isakson and his spokeswoman, Joan Kirchner, said he doesn't like the fact that the House bill would expand Medicare costs by paying for the consultations and giving doctors an incentive to conduct them. He also said the House bill is too specific in detailing what must be discussed in the sessions.

"There are similarities ... but there are substantial difference," Isakson said. "I'm not running away from anything but I'm not going to accept the president of the United States telling people I wrote something that I didn't."

Isakson, who initially called Palin's "death panel" characterization "nuts" in an interview Monday, declined later in the week to criticize Palin's statement, in which she said the measure would force people like her baby Trig, who has Down syndrome, "to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide ... whether they are worthy of health care."

"The best I can read she's applying the House bill and using her child with Down syndrome as an example," Isakson said. "I would never question anyone's defense of their child."

Spokesmen for Lugar and Collins — two other longtime proponents of end-of-life planning — declined to comment on the House bill.

Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican and a lead negotiator on health care legislation, told constituents at a community meeting last week that they have good reason to fear the proposal.

"I don't have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family," he said. "We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma."

Grassley said Thursday that lawmakers negotiating on the Senate version of the health care bill had dropped the provision from consideration, citing how it could be misinterpreted.

Comments like Grassley's puzzle Rother, who said "it's been a little disappointing" that more Republicans haven't stepped forward to defend the legislation.

He and Jon Keyserling, a vice president at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, say there is little difference between the current proposal and past legislation that Republicans have supported. The current bill specifies that the counseling would be covered only every five years to prevent people from overusing it, and describes what the consultations must include.

Keyserling said many people wrongly assume that end-of-life counseling is about terminating treatment. But it really is about making sure a patient's wishes are known, he said, including if that means continuing life-sustaining treatment in all circumstances.

He said he's been surprised at the backlash, particularly given the close attention that Congress paid to Schiavo's case, which he said clearly highlighted the need for better end-of-life planning.

But facts will not get in Sarah Palin's way.....she is back...."programming the faithful", with more of her right wing nonsense:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/200...h-panel-debate/

Sarah Palin wades back into the ‘death panel’ debate

By Matthew Shaer | 09.09.09

....The “death panel” myths were eventually debunked. But a poll conducted by Pew Research at the end of August found that 86 percent of respondents had heard of the “death panel” controversy. Of those people, 30 percent said it was true.

Now, on the eve of Obama’s historic speech to a joint session of congress — and in the midst of a heated national debateon healthcare — Sarah Palin is again raising the specter of “death panels.”

Keep in mind that it was Palin who is credited with coining the term. Writing on her Facebook account in August, Palin argued that President Obama’s version of healthcare would let bureaucrats “decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether [patients] are worthy of health care.”

Today, Palin argued her case on the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal — a space historically friendly to conservative commentators. “Is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by — dare I say it — death panels?” Palin wrote. “Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.”

Palin is referring specifically to page 5 of H.R. 3200, the heathcare proposal backed by the White House. (The text of the full bill is available here.) The language on that page would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life counseling sessions with a healthcare practitioner. But according to factcheck.org, a non-profit, non-partisan site, there is no basis for the “death panel” claims....

....and in Craig Lamson's alternative universe, it is the likes of whipping boy, "ACORN", recipient of less than $3.5 million average annual federal subsidy to aid the all powerful poor and have nots who are blamed for "taking" the fruits of our so highly and revered "free markets" system, demonized to distract from the failure of a system corrupted and pillaged by the actual controlling POWER class:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...eria/index.html

Earlier this week, I wrote about how the Fox-News/Glenn-Beck/Rush-Limbaugh leadership trains its protesting followers to focus the vast bulk of their resentment and anxieties on largely powerless and downtrodden factions, while ignoring, and even revering, the outright pillaging by virtually omnipotent corporate interests that own and control their Government (and, not coincidentally, Fox News). It's hard to imagine a more perfectly illustrative example of all of that than the hysterical furor over ACORN.

ACORN has received a grand total of $53 million in federal funds over the last 15 years -- an average of $3.5 million per year. Meanwhile, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of public funds have been, in the last year alone, transferred to or otherwise used for the benefit of Wall Street. Billions of dollars in American taxpayer money vanished into thin air, eaten by private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Halliburton subsidiary KBR. All of those corporate interests employ armies of lobbyists and bottomless donor activities that ensure they dominate our legislative and regulatory processes, and to be extra certain, the revolving door between industry and government is more prolific than ever, with key corporate officials constantly ending up occupying the government positions with the most influence over those industries.

Exactly as one would expect, the prime beneficiaries of all of that pillaging continue to grow. The banks that almost brought the world economy to collapse but then received massive public largesse because they were "too big to fail" are now bigger than ever; as The Washington Post delicately put it: "The crisis may be turning out very well for many of the behemoths that dominate U.S. finance." Everything involving the government turns out well for these "behemoths" because they own and control the U.S. Government. Just this week, The Post detailed how the government and Wall St. are now so intertwined that banking executives are spending vast resources to increase their presence in Washington:....

......UPDATE: John Cole highlights what might be the most telling aspect of all of this: demands for a "Special Prosecutor" into Obama's so-called "relationship with ACORN" from the very same circles that vehemently objected to investigations into torture, illegal government spying, politicized prosecutions, military contractor theft, Lewis Libby's obstruction of justice, and virtually every other instance of Bush-era criminality. Those, of course, are the very same people who, before that, demanded endless inquiries into Whitewater and Vince Foster's "murder." There's nothing more valuable than petty, dramatic "scandals" to distract attention from what is actually taking place.......

....I have no doubt that there are people attending these protests who are non-partisan, non-discriminating and principled in their opposition to government corruption, expansion and excesses. That's because there's no real coherent message to these protests; it's just amorphous anger which likely has numerous causes among the various participating constituents: ...

.....But look at who the lead supporters are: Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio generally, business groups led by Dick Armey. Does anyone actually believe that what motivates them is concern over the excessive, corrupting influence of Wall Street and large corporations in government? Please. They are pure GOP partisans who are exploiting citizen anger to undermine Democratic politicians in order to return the GOP to political power. It's nothing more noble or profound than that. In fact, many of the movement leaders are among the most vocal advocates for unfettered corporate power. From the expansions of the Surveillance State and endless imperial power to strident opposition to lobbyist reforms, they support the very policies that most empower those corrupting groups and further the government-corporate merger. If they're so concerned about excessive government power, debt and corporate influence and corruption, where were they during the Bush era? Cheering it all on. They didn't discover their "small-government principles" until Barack Obama was inaugurated and it became a means for undermining his administration and recovering from Republican political ruin.

As for ACORN, nobody is apologizing for them or suggesting that they've done nothing wrong. ....

.....The issue is one of proportion. If someone ostensibly opposes government waste and unfairness in tax policy yet spends most of their time focusing on a tiny group that helps the poor and receives a miniscule amount of government money -- all while ignoring or even revering the enormous, omnipotent industries which eat up trillions in taxpayer waste and dwarf the impact of ACORN by many, many magnitudes -- then any rational person would question what the real motives are .....

.....ACORN isn't just being mentioned in passing as something that needs an examination; it's dominating headlines and the obsessions of the Fox News movement, despite the fact that it's a tiny, microscopic drop in the bucket even when assessed by the principles the protesters claim to support (by a vote of 345-75, the Democratic-led House just joined the Senate in voting to cut off all funds to ACORN; I'm sure the courageous Congress will be doing that to Blackwater, KBR, Citibank, lawbreaking telecoms and many other corrupt corporations who own them any moment now). Claiming you're worried about large government and taxpayer waste while fixating on ACORN proves the insincerity of the ostensible concern, let alone doing so while cheering on the same Wall Street banks, defense contractors, and insurance industries that control and expand government power for their own benefit.

Craig, your steadfast defense of a failed, expensive per capita to a world record level, not to mention fiscally unsustainable, broken system of distribution of medical care and therapuetic drugs would only be curious, and even amusing, if this was not such a critical issue. You argue for leaving things as they are in the US. Why not consider that the entire economic system is epitomized in the example of the special interests dominated US healthcare system, as it is in the now obviously failed "private" economic model that has literally eaten the US Treasury because AIG, CITI, Goldman, grew "too big to fail", and had to be rescured when they fell on their faces because the banks and the rest of the financial system was looted to the point of collapse by the same corporatist power whose pockets you come out for continuing to line, if you get your wish.

This is over....watch as it continues to dry up and blow away....this everyman for himself, "choice" that you say is so AMERICAN. Kiss good-bye, economic growth and the ability of the government to continue to borrow enough to hold the whole failed mess, up, as well.

Find a complaint about the French medical system, and post it, Craig.....I can't see you doing it. The French government is billed for 70 percent of any treatment procedure, the French resident can insure himself for coverage of the balance, at an affordable premium, or pay it out of pocket. The intent of the system is that the 30 percent consumer responsibilty promotes choice and holds down the price of medical services provided.

Our American "system" is a failed system. It is unique in that respect, both in it's free markets where price is free to seek its own level, and is transparent....but isn't...it is corrupt, and price is hidden by government bailout and law breaking that avoids liquidation of all of the now failed banks if there "assets" were actually PRICED.

it is failed in the way it distributes medicine and medical care....the price per capita shows this as well as the number of uninsured.

America is the only ODC to enjoy a mess like this one. Voters in all other ODC's compromised to provide affordable care for all residents. The UK readers and those of other ODCs who read posts with sentiments like in your last one on this thread, can only shrug their shoulders at what you believe, vs. what they perceive, and what I've described.

Meet you back here in five years time....we will see if you still are of opinions similar to the ones you've posted.

Are you finished with your standard far left wing wacko diatribe yet Scully? Yes why don't we meet back here in 5 years IF the wacko left gets their wish. The government can't tie its own shoes yet you feel safe to trust it it yet another large peice of the US economy AND your life. That is simply insane.

Is healthcare perfect now? Of course not. Can it be better? sure. Government as the cure, surely you jest. But hey, lets give tham a chance. Fix medicare, medicade and the VA first and THEN get back to us with results.

Until then they..and you..can pound sand.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Most of us ugly americans favor personal CHOICE over a govermental mandate. In fact I think thats kind of how we became AMERICANS...

Free choice is only free choice if everyone has it. If they haven't its called something different....... 'privilege'.

Perhaps you can point out those americans who lack the ability to make personal choices.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Guest]

Most of us ugly americans favor personal CHOICE over a govermental mandate. In fact I think thats kind of how we became AMERICANS...

Free choice is only free choice if everyone has it. If they haven't its called something different....... 'privilege'.

Perhaps you can point out those americans who lack the ability to make personal choices.

They're the ones without the 'do re mi' Craig. I believe that there are many of them in the 'land of the free'.

[Craig Lamson]

Most of us ugly americans favor personal CHOICE over a govermental mandate. In fact I think thats kind of how we became AMERICANS...

Free choice is only free choice if everyone has it. If they haven't its called something different....... 'privilege'.

Perhaps you can point out those americans who lack the ability to make personal choices.

They're the ones without the 'do re mi' Craig. I believe that there are many of them in the 'land of the free'.

So its is now your contention that it requries MONEY to make a personal chioce? This is getting quite interesting to say the least!

[Guest]

So its is now your contention that it requries MONEY to make a personal chioce? This is getting quite interesting to say the least!

Sorry if you find this complicated Craig but if I cannot afford private health insurance I cannot choose to take it out.

[Craig Lamson]

So its is now your contention that it requries MONEY to make a personal chioce? This is getting quite interesting to say the least!

Sorry if you find this complicated Craig but if I cannot afford private health insurance I cannot choose to take it out.

Ah but its a bit more complicated than you seem to be able to understand Andy.

What personal choices might you be making that is putting the cost of private insurance out of your reach? Cigs, a few cases of beer each week, that pickup truck in the driveway, the flat screen in the living room, steak and ribs each weekend, lottery tickets, etc.? Did you drop out of school or otherwise fail to take advantage of the opportunities life presents? Did you choose to take a handout rather than a hand up? Is personal responsibility beyond you? Do you demand the fruits of anothers labor be given to you as if it was your own?

How about if you are young and decide to forgo insurance at this point of your life, or if your simply decide NOT to sign up for free or deeeply discounted healthcare from a local clinic, medicare or medicade?

Personal choice is not simply about money, but then again given you live in a land of the governmental teat, personal choice must be a strange concept.

[Guest Tom Scully]

So its is now your contention that it requries MONEY to make a personal chioce? This is getting quite interesting to say the least!

Sorry if you find this complicated Craig but if I cannot afford private health insurance I cannot choose to take it out.

Ah but its a bit more complicated than you seem to be able to understand Andy.

What personal choices might you be making that is putting the cost of private insurance out of your reach? Cigs, a few cases of beer each week, that pickup truck in the driveway, the flat screen in the living room, steak and ribs each weekend, lottery tickets, etc.? Did you drop out of school or otherwise fail to take advantage of the opportunities life presents? Did you choose to take a handout rather than a hand up? Is personal responsibility beyond you? Do you demand the fruits of anothers labor be given to you as if it was your own?

How about if you are young and decide to forgo insurance at this point of your life, or if your simply decide NOT to sign up for free or deeeply discounted healthcare from a local clinic, medicare or medicade?

Personal choice is not simply about money, but then again given you live in a land of the governmental teat, personal choice must be a strange concept.

Craig,

Please read my last post....it contains documentation supporting the observation that your post is a poster child for the "divide and conquer" strategy intended to channel resentment against the most powerless folk in America, so that it is not channeled in the direction of the concentrated power that owns and controls the government and the "ownership".

The sentiments in your post harken to Reagan's. spoken more than 30 years ago:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22...n&scoring=a

Reagan's sly with racism .

Eugene Register-Guard - Google News Archive - Feb 16, 1976

Everyone knows that "strapping buck" is a code phrase that conjures up images of of some "burly" black male, chomping down T-bones courtesy of the food ...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DBMRA...an+linda+taylor

Eugene Register-Guard - Google News Archive - Feb 9, 1976

real- it, but Linda Taylor, a 47-year-old Chicago welfare recipient, ... Former California Ronald Reagan has referred to her at nearly every stop, ...

Your words imply the same message,. with the racist overtones removed, but my reaction to reading them is that I am embarrassed to be your fellow countryman, especially under the watchful eye of Andy, who cannot help but to judge you by the influence of your sentiments.

You have it backwards, Craig....you focus on those with the least power, maintaining somehow, that they are THE PROBLEM.

The bottom 50 percent of the American population own just 2-1/2 percent of privately held assets. They cannot hurt you, but your claim is, that, if they change their spending and living habits, the problem of 50 million uninsured Americans and exclusion from health insurance enrollment due to pre-existing medical conditions, will somehow be significantly solved.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/20...3/200613pap.pdf

Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth, 1989–2004

January 30, 2006 (from page 27)

".....MOST STRIKING is the 62.3 percent share of business assets OWNED BY THE WEALTHIEST 1 percent of the wealth distribution in 2004 (table 11a); the NEXT-WEALTHIEST 4 percent OWNED ANOTHER 22.4 percent of the total. Other key items subject to capital gains also show strong disproportions: THE WEALTHIEST 5 PERCENT OF FAMILIES OWNED 61.9 percent of residential real estate other than principal residences, 71.7 percent of nonresidential real estate, and 65.9 PERCENT OF DIRECTLY- AND INDIRECTLY HELD STOCKS.

For bonds, 93.7 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL WERE HELD BY THIS GROUP...."

What is it about the poorest 20 percent, that captures your focus and your condemnation Craig? They have the least power and money of any group in the country. You live in the ODC with the most intense wealth inequity and the most barriers to upward mobility, but somehow ypu've convinced yourself that the focus of your criticism is best directed at the least of us!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#External_links

The New York Times offers a graphic about social mobility, overall trends, income elasticity and country by country. European nations such as Denmark and France, are ahead of the US.

This, included in my last post, describes your way of thinking, uncannily accurately, and your words above, confirm it:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...eria/index.html

Earlier this week, I wrote about how the Fox-News/Glenn-Beck/Rush-Limbaugh leadership trains its protesting followers to focus the vast bulk of their resentment and anxieties on largely powerless and downtrodden factions, while ignoring, and even revering, the outright pillaging by virtually omnipotent corporate interests that own and control their Government (and, not coincidentally, Fox News). It's hard to imagine a more perfectly illustrative example of all of that than the hysterical furor over ACORN.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Craig Lamson]

So its is now your contention that it requries MONEY to make a personal chioce? This is getting quite interesting to say the least!

Sorry if you find this complicated Craig but if I cannot afford private health insurance I cannot choose to take it out.

Ah but its a bit more complicated than you seem to be able to understand Andy.

What personal choices might you be making that is putting the cost of private insurance out of your reach? Cigs, a few cases of beer each week, that pickup truck in the driveway, the flat screen in the living room, steak and ribs each weekend, lottery tickets, etc.? Did you drop out of school or otherwise fail to take advantage of the opportunities life presents? Did you choose to take a handout rather than a hand up? Is personal responsibility beyond you? Do you demand the fruits of anothers labor be given to you as if it was your own?

How about if you are young and decide to forgo insurance at this point of your life, or if your simply decide NOT to sign up for free or deeeply discounted healthcare from a local clinic, medicare or medicade?

Personal choice is not simply about money, but then again given you live in a land of the governmental teat, personal choice must be a strange concept.

Craig,

Please read my last post....it contains documentation supporting the observation that your post is a poster child for the "divide and conquer" strategy intended to channel resentment against the most powerless folk in America, so that it is not channeled in the direction of the concentrated power that owns and controls the government and the "ownership".

The sentiments in your post harken to Reagan's. spoken more than 30 years ago:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22...n&scoring=a

Reagan's sly with racism .

Eugene Register-Guard - Google News Archive - Feb 16, 1976

Everyone knows that "strapping buck" is a code phrase that conjures up images of of some "burly" black male, chomping down T-bones courtesy of the food ...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DBMRA...an+linda+taylor

Eugene Register-Guard - Google News Archive - Feb 9, 1976

real- it, but Linda Taylor, a 47-year-old Chicago welfare recipient, ... Former California Ronald Reagan has referred to her at nearly every stop, ...

Your words imply the same message,. with the racist overtones removed, but my reaction to reading them is that I am embarrassed to be your fellow countryman, especially under the watchful eye of Andy, who cannot help but to judge you by the influence of your sentiments.

You have it backwards, Craig....you focus on those with the least power, maintaining somehow, that they are THE PROBLEM.

The bottom 50 percent of the American population own just 2-1/2 percent of privately held assets. They cannot hurt you, but your claim is, that, if they change their spending and living habits, the problem of 50 million uninsured Americans and exclusion from health insurance enrollment due to pre-existing medical conditions, will somehow be significantly solved.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/20...3/200613pap.pdf

Currents and Undercurrents: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth, 1989–2004

January 30, 2006 (from page 27)

".....MOST STRIKING is the 62.3 percent share of business assets OWNED BY THE WEALTHIEST 1 percent of the wealth distribution in 2004 (table 11a); the NEXT-WEALTHIEST 4 percent OWNED ANOTHER 22.4 percent of the total. Other key items subject to capital gains also show strong disproportions: THE WEALTHIEST 5 PERCENT OF FAMILIES OWNED 61.9 percent of residential real estate other than principal residences, 71.7 percent of nonresidential real estate, and 65.9 PERCENT OF DIRECTLY- AND INDIRECTLY HELD STOCKS.

For bonds, 93.7 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL WERE HELD BY THIS GROUP...."

What is it about the poorest 20 percent, that captures your focus and your condemnation Craig? They have the least power and money of any group in the country. You live in the ODC with the most intense wealth inequity and the most barriers to upward mobility, but somehow ypu've convinced yourself that the focus of your criticism is best directed at the least of us!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#External_links

The New York Times offers a graphic about social mobility, overall trends, income elasticity and country by country. European nations such as Denmark and France, are ahead of the US.

This, included in my last post, describes your way of thinking, uncannily accurately, and your words above, confirm it:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...eria/index.html

Earlier this week, I wrote about how the Fox-News/Glenn-Beck/Rush-Limbaugh leadership trains its protesting followers to focus the vast bulk of their resentment and anxieties on largely powerless and downtrodden factions, while ignoring, and even revering, the outright pillaging by virtually omnipotent corporate interests that own and control their Government (and, not coincidentally, Fox News). It's hard to imagine a more perfectly illustrative example of all of that than the hysterical furor over ACORN.

Ah yes, yet another rant from the foaming at the mouth left DEMANDING to take the fruits from the labor of others as their own....Please read the last line of my last post to you Tom.

[Craig Lamson]

Ah yes, yet another rant from the foaming at the mouth left DEMANDING to take the fruits from the labor of others as their own....Please read the last line of my last post to you Tom.

"to take the fruits from the labor of others as their own"??? Craig's become very socialistic with this, a summation of the criticism of capitalism. Or at least become a critic of slavery, echoing Lincoln. Will wonders never cease???

Oh Daniel, how low must you stoop to try and salvage your position? Quite low it seems. I guess the WILLING exchange of labor for compensation escapes you...

[Craig Lamson]

Ah yes, yet another rant from the foaming at the mouth left DEMANDING to take the fruits from the labor of others as their own....Please read the last line of my last post to you Tom.

"to take the fruits from the labor of others as their own"??? Craig's become very socialistic with this, a summation of the criticism of capitalism. Or at least become a critic of slavery, echoing Lincoln. Will wonders never cease???

Oh Daniel, how low must you stoop to try and salvage your position? Quite low it seems. I guess the WILLING exchange of labor for compensation escapes you...

You don't scare me, Craig; I've seen your tough guy act for years now. (This is why you and Healy are such a thrill to watch, since you're twins in that respect.) It's not my fault that conservatives fall into contradictions as they continue to try to salvage their position. One of Lincoln's main critiques of slavery was that slave-masters "take the fruits from the labor of others"; this is also one of the earliest and simplest critiques of industrial capitalism, in that the "WILLING" aspect is imaginary (a fact that obviously escapes you). So you're having to side not only with Lincoln but with socialists in your arguments; this is really excellent, since it could mean you're making some progress ........

I don't "scare" you? You are a piece of work...

Willing is imaginary? Amazing!

I guess those folks who spend their lives living on welfare, sucking deeply from the governmetal teat are exempt? Sheesh.

I don't see anyone forcing people to exchange their labor for compensation at the point of a gun, howver I DO see people being forced to give the fruits of their labor to the government at the point of a gun. It appears that slavery IS alive and well in the US and YOU support it in a whole hearted manner... imagine that.

I think that the poor soul falling into contradiction is you Daniel. Be afraid...very afraid...LOL!

BTW, IF you ever find a 'real publisher" for your book, will the the WILLING exchange of your book for compensation ( how did you put it..."some kind of money") be imaginary? At the point of a gun? Good god, evil capitalism!

My,my, the contradictions continue to mount...roflmao!

Edited September 19, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Guest Tom Scully]

Craig,

Labor is never on an equal, bargaining footing, versus capital, because labor is almost always in surplus....capital intentionally effects that imbalance, and temporarily, as in....for as long as it takes, capital can delay hiring if until it can bring the price of labor down to a level it will tolerate....because, labor has to eat. This is basic, Craig, yet you posture as if you are not aware of it.

You are scapegoating, and history shows that doing it pays off in big ways....at least for a few. Demonizing the powerless got Reagan elected, twice, and who did that hurt the most? The elite? Hardly.....

Here is how scapegoating worked out in the first half or the 20th century. The message is still ingrained in Europe today, but who suffered most as a result of it, and who benefitted. Look behind the curtain, Craig. Your focus is unproductive and you only facilitate what you claim to condemn....parasitism:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/ro...ts-1511734.html

Romanians vent old hatreds against Gypsies: The villagers of Hadareni are defiant about their murder of 'vermin'. Adrian Bridge reports

ADRIAN BRIDGE

Tuesday, 19 October 1993

....It is impossible not to double- take on hearing such remarks. Maria and Ion are hardly neo-Nazi extremists or members of some organised terrorist group. They have three daughters, and six grandchildren. Like most of the villagers of Hadareni, they are the salt of the earth. When it comes to Gypsies, however, there is a vast blind spot in their moral universe.

'We did not commit murder - how could you call killing Gypsies murder?' protested Maria. 'Gypsies are not really people, you see. They are always killing each other. They are criminals, sub-human, vermin. And they are certainly not wanted here.'

Such views, which could have been lifted straight out of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, are all too common in Romania today. In part they stem from a deep-rooted antipathy towards Gypsies which, although suppressed during the Communist era, never disappeared altogether. In part they stem from straightforward fear.....

Just a dozen years after WWII, who were the big winners in a country shattered because it was whipped into a militarized, aggressive partiotic fervor as it went about eradication of the scapegoats defined by it's maniacal leader, financed and fully supported by the likes of Krupp and Quandt. Do you think it is any different in the US, or anywhere else?

If people were to unite politically by the common interests of class, the bottom 80 percent of the wealthiest Americans, for example, vs. the top fifth, do you think the wealthiest 10 percent in the US would still own 70 percent of total assets? Consider the outcome of your political views, Craig. Divide and conquer, rendering the least powerful divided and chasing scapegoats, while the elite consolidate their control and pursue acquisition of the 30 percent of total US wealth they do not yet possess.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,809772,00.html

BUSINESS ABROAD: The House That Krupp Rebuilt

Monday, Aug. 19, 1957

The wealthiest man in Europe—and perhaps in the world—rose shortly before 8 one morning this week in a modest ranch-style house overlooking the city of Essen on West Germany's Ruhr River. ....the day was an important one in the life of Alfried Felix Alwyn Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, ruler and sole owner of Germany's $1 billion Krupp industrial empire.....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,869012,00.html

Business: Krupp on the March

Monday, Jan. 19, 1959

We have a moral obligation, and I will not look for escapes." Thus spoke West Germany's Alfried Krupp (TIME Cover, Aug. 19, 1957) of his pledge to the Allies to sell the coal and steel companies in his industrial empire. Last week, instead of selling, Alfried Krupp got permission from the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community to buy another steelmaker.....

....Only the British have insisted on holding Krupp to his promise. Since there is little they can—or want to —do about it, the Allies may now decide to release Krupp formally from his pledge. Krupp is already believed to own 75% of Bochumer Verein's stock, obtained through the good offices of his friend, Swedish Industrialist Axel Wenner-Gren.

The Big Eight. The trend toward reconcentration of West German industry affects more than Krupp. Eight big firms—Krupp (with Bochumer Verein), Dortmund-Horder Hlittenunion, Phoenix-Rheinrohr, Mannesmann, Hoesch Werke, Klockner-Werke, August Thyssen-Hütte, Hüttenwerk Oberhausen—control 75% of West Germany's steel production, almost 40% of German coal.

To make the ring even tighter, August Thyssen-Hütte, one of the keystones of a huge Third Reich steel combine of 177 companies, has applied to the High Authority to merge with Phoenix-Rheinrohr, West Germany's third biggest steel producer. The move would create a giant even bigger than Krupp-Bochumer Verein, with a 6,000,000-ton capacity and nearly $1 billion in sales. Mannesmann, the No. 4 steel producer, recently eliminated several of its subsidiaries, absorbed them into the main firm. The trend to growth extends beyond iron and coal. Friedrich Flick, a prewar steel baron who was forced to sell off many of his holdings after he was sent to prison as a war criminal, has built a new empire in autos. He got control of Daimler-Benz, joined it with the big Auto Union manufacturer to form Germany's biggest auto moneymaker.

The Big Three. To finance industrial reconcentration, many West German banks have gone down the reconcentration path themselves. Last September the last of the Big Three commercial banks, the Commerzbank, linked its semi-independent units into one big house; Deutsche and Dresdner banks, the other members of the Big Three, did the same two years ago. ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Quandt

Günther Quandt (28 July 1881 – 30 December 1954) was a German industrialist who founded an industrial empire that today includes BMW and Altana (chemicals). Eight of the hundred currently richest Germans are among his descendants.

...After Hitler's election in 1933 Quandt joined the Nazi Party. In 1937 Hitler gave him the title of a Wehrwirtschaftsführer, (Leader of the Armament Economy), like other industrialists who played a leading role in the war economy. Quandt's businesses supplied ammunition, rifles, artillery and batteries, using slave labourers from concentration camps in at least three factories. Hundreds of these labourers died. An execution area was set up in the grounds of AFA's Hanover factory[1]. Quandt also appropriated factories throughout Europe after German invasions.

After the war

In 1946 Günther Quandt was arrested because of the Goebbels connection, and was interned. To the surprise of many, he was judged to be a Mitlaufer, namely someone who accepted the Nazi ideology but did not take an active part in crimes. He was released in January 1948. One of the prosecutors in the Nuremberg trials, Benjamin Ferencz, now says that if today's evidence against Günther Quandt had been presented to the court at the time, "Quandt would have been charged with the same offences as the directors of IG Farben." They served up to eight years in jail. Instead Quandt was able to re-install himself in the supervisory boards of various German firms, e.g. Deutsche Bank. He also became honorary citizen of the University in Frankfurt in 1951. He died on vacation in Cairo on 30 December 1954.

His two surviving sons, Herbert and Harald, administered their inheritance together, though Harald Quandt concentrated on the industrial plants Karlsruhe Augsburg AG (IWKA) which were involved in mechanical engineering and arms manufacture, while Herbert Quandt managed the investments in AFA/VARTA, Daimler-Benz and BMW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magda_Goebbels

....She and Günther Quandt then went on a six-month automobile tour of America, where she captured the attention of a nephew of the U.S. President Herbert Hoover.[9] Later, after her divorce from Quandt, he travelled back from America to visit her and ask her to marry him, an episode that ended in a car crash in which Magda was seriously injured.[10]

Quandt hired detectives and divorced Magda in 1929, but was ultimately generous with the divorce settlement...

....Magda married Goebbels on 19 December 1931, at Günther Quandt's farm in Mecklenburg, with Hitler as a witness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Quandt

Harald Quandt (1 November 1921, Charlottenburg – 22 September 1967, Cuneo, Italy) was a wealthy German industrialist, who was the stepson of Joseph Goebbels. After the Second World War Harald and his half-brother Herbert Quandt ran the industrial empire that was left to them by their father.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=6194632

Germany: Klatten to Acquire Altana Chemical Co. - ABC NewsNov 6, 2008 ... Klatten is the daughter of BMW magnate Herbert Quandt. Forbes magazine listed her as the 68th richest person in the world in 2007, ...

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/10/billio...uandt_SWC0.html

The World's Billionaires

#137 Stefan Quandt

03.05.08,

Fortune: inherited

Source: BMW

Net Worth: $6.8 bil

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/10/billio...uandt_324H.html.

The World's Billionaires

#164 Johanna Quandt

03.05.08,

Fortune: inherited

Source: BMW

Net Worth: $6.0 bil

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...en%26safe%3Doff

Gabriele Quandt-Langenscheidt

Gabriele Quandt-Langenscheidt (1952 as Gabriele Quandt) from the Quandt family, the daughter of the German industrialist Harald Quandt (1921-1967), in 1967, died in a plane crash.

Her mother was Bandekow Inge (1928-1978) and her grandmother Magda Quandt, the later Magda Goebbels. . She has four sisters: Katarina Geller (born 1951), Anette May-Thies (b. 1954), Colleen-Bettina Rosenblat-Mo (born 1962) and Patricia Halterman (* 1967, † 2005).

...Through several industrial holdings it is one of the richest women in Germany. She is the president of the Harald Quandt Holding, which manages about 1.2 billion euros great fortunes (as of 2006) of the heirs of Harald Quandt.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Tom Scully