Filed under: Shocked? (Only if you are liberal!)

Headline: Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model

By Claire Sibonney – Analysis Claire Sibonney – Analysis Mon May 31, 2:38 pm ET

TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate “incentive fees” to generic drug manufacturers.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit — an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3

Advertisements

Part Four: It Pays To Remember

 

While cherry-picking the cases because there are simply too many to enumerate, Laurence Duggan needs to be mentioned because he was one of those who famous people defended as innocent.

Laurence (graduate of Phillips Academy and Harvard) was the head of the State Department Office of the American Republics (South America) from 1935 to 1944, and then a representative to the United Nations, and subsequently headed the Institute for International Education. He was a close advisor to presidential candidate Henry Wallace.

Laurence was driven to commit suicide from a high building, the theory went, because he was being hounded as a Communist when in fact he was not one.

Eleanor Roosevelt defended him. Sumner Wells, Under Secretary of State defended him. Archibald Macleish, the Librarian of Congress defended him. The Attorney General (Tom Clark) defended him,. Famous radio newsmen of the day Drew Pearson and Edward R. Murrow defended him

Duggan was a firm member of the Washington establishment, much admired in the inner circle.

There was much concern when Duggan committed suicide, and the press blamed the anti-Communist crusaders for his death.

Just one problem. Duggan WAS a KGB agent!

The Venona decryptions of nine messages, and the files of the KGB made available in  Moscow in the late 1990’s confirmed the Duggan conspiratorial actions.

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

Other Communist spies simply left the United States when they were exposed.

Margaret Dodd Stern, daughter of an FDR Ambassador to Germany in the 30’s and who was a famous novelist, fled when she was exposed. In her youth she had numerous public affairs with such luminaries aw Carl Sandburg, and Thomas Wolfe, and had also bedded the head of the Nazi Gestapo in Berlin in her pro-Nazi days, and the First Secretary of the Russian Embassy (a KGB agent) in her subsequent pro-Communist days.

This from the NY Times:

“In the early 1950’s she and Mr. Stern became persistent targets of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in his anti-Communist investigations. The couple moved to Mexico City in 1953, and four years later Boris Morros, an American counterspy, testified to the House Committee on Un-American Activities that the Sternses were part of a Soviet spy network.

When they were indicted on espionage charges in 1957, the couple fled to Prague, where they settled. They later traveled to the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries and to Cuba but never returned to the United States. Mrs. Stern did translations of books and articles. Mr. Stern died four years ago at the age of 88. “

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/29/obituaries/martha-dodd-stern-is-dead-at-82-author-and-an-accused-soviet-spy.html

The cast of characters in the era of Communist infiltration of the US government is astonishing to consider.

Governing Against The People

LOS ANGELES TIMES/USC POLL

Californians split on Arizona’s illegal immigration crackdown

Of the voters surveyed, 50% support Arizona’s law and 43% oppose it; there were sharp divides along lines of ethnicity and age. And since the BP spill, support for new oil drilling has diminished.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/immigration/la-me-0531-poll-20100531,0,2177522.story

The ACLU — Again

In defending the right of Jessica Coloti to continue to attend college in Georgia, after she has been arrested for being an illegal alien, The ACLU posted on HuffPo a misleading and fully cherry-picked post.

While that might be permissible for an activist analyst, it is certainly less so for an attorney who is commenting on the LAW!

“In the 1982 landmark case of Plyler v. Doe, the Court held that undocumented students have a fundamental right to basic public education as a matter of due process and equal protection.

The court observed that denying undocumented children access to k-12 primary education “raises the specter of a permanent caste of undocumented resident aliens, encouraged by some to remain here as a source of cheap labor, but nevertheless denied the benefits that our society makes available to citizens and lawful residents.”

http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Politics/20100527/11416242/Azadeh-Shahshahani-College-Educator-or-Immigration-Police-Why.htm

You know what is wrong with this analysis?

Well, Mr. Azadeh N. Shahshahani  (national security/immigrants’ rights project director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia) then expands the Court says to include college 

“Denying higher education access to Georgia’s undocumented students would mean failing to capitalize on the state’s investment in their k-12 education. 

The court didn’t say that, and you know what is worse?

Well, it is what the Court said that Mr.  Shahshahani  left out of the Plyler v. Doe decision.

“To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation.” (Plyler v. Doe)

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/UK/Plyler.doc

Backing Off the Rhetoric

The president, in his press conference yesterday, said of the Arizona law: ““I think it’s the wrong approach,”

Not that it was illegal.

Not that it was racist.

Not that it approached Nazism.

Not that it permitted or promoted racial profiling.

But, that, in his OPINION, it is the wrong approach.

It would not have been necessary if the federal government over many decades – including his own administration – had simply done the job they had sworn to do.

They are still not doing their job, and tonight in Arizona several thousand more illegal aliens will cross.

Put ‘Em Under Oath!

Excuse me if I do not believe that Joe Sestak was offered a non-paying advisory position at the White House to drop his Senatorial bid.

I am crazy, but I am not stupid.

Sestak was already a sitting Congressman, and his aspiration to be Senator was palpable.

I do believe that Bill Clinton conveyed the message as a “cutout” for Emanuel, but I want Sestak placed under oath. Sestak and Clinton are personal friends, so I am willing to accept that Clinton made the call.

If he testifies that a non-paid advisory position was the offer made, I’ll believe it, but Clinton is already an admitted and convicted perjurer — so let’s put some people under oath and get the straight information.

If the White House is telling the truth, what is the harm of having everyone say what they said – under oath?

Part 3: It Pays To Remember

I have noted that when Elizabeth Bentley defected to the West (1945), her sources and agents working for her in the Perlo and the Silverman groups both dried up and she was not able to be “turned.’

How did the Communists discover her defection to the FBI so quickly?

That is interesting, and the short answer is Judith Coplon, an 1943 graduate of Barnard, who had belonged to communist groups in college.

She first was employed by the government in a low position, and her background check noted her communist sympathies – but in 1943 the FBI was only concerned with Nazi sympathizers. Communist sympathy was not disqualifying, and in fact her record was not even flagged.

Judith then acquired a job in the Justice Department — and proceeded to make contact with a Communist spy ring by being recruited through a close friend and fellow Barnard graduate Flora Wovschi.

(Flora is worth note all by herself – she is known to have recruited three good spies. When Elizabeth Bentley defected, and the Verona decryptions were being done in 1948, the FBI went to look for Flora. She had left for Moscow, renounced her American citizenship, married a Russian, and later died as a nurse in North Korea.)

But back to Judith. She worked her way into the Foreign Agents Registration division of the Justice Department, studied Russian language at night, and had access to many FBI counterintelligence files. It is believed that it was she who alerted the KGB that Bentley had defected.

But Venona decryptions had alerted the FBI to Judith, and the FBI caught Judith actually passing classified documents to a known Soviet Agent working for the United Nations. (Valentin Gubitchev)

Now the problem was convicting Judith. The defense demanded that the files she was reputed to have tried to hand over be produced in open court!

Those documents included the information that the FBI was on to still another Soviet agent, Philip Levy, — but in order to get a conviction it was necessary to reveal the documents. They did and a conviction of Judith Coplon was achieved.

It was overturned! No probable cause shown.

Why? Because the genesis of the search for Judith was the super-secret and still on-going Venona decryptions! The FBI and NSA were not willing to reveal that.

A second trial ensued, and a second conviction – and a second conviction overturned! No probable cause shown.

To protect the Venona project, which would have revealed the US had broken the KGB code which the KGB though unbreakable, a highly successful Soviet spy walked free.

Well, not exactly. She lost her government job.

The only witness against Coplon was Elizabeth Bentley, but she was an admitted spy. Two other spies left the country before they could be called before the committee, and four more denied being spies – but left the country before they could be tried for perjury.

Apparently the much maligned question: “Are you now or have you ever been a Communist,” was having a salutary effect.