Salud, Obama y PhRMA

En su campaña de 2008 Obama atacaba el pharmalobby y especialmente a Tauzin de Louisiana, ex-deputado republicano y ahora presidente de PhRMA representante de la industria farmaceutica.
como deputado ha hecho leyes especiales para ayudar la Farma !
3 meses despues su instalación Obama ha invitado al diablo en persona para reunirse en secreto con representantes de Healthy economy now y Americans for stable quality care ( ambos financiados por PhRMA ! )
Juntos esas organizaciones han gastado 24 miljones de dolares en la campaña para ayudar a Obama con su Reforma Sanitaria
El acuerdo dice que la industria pondra 90 biliones de $ en el FondoSalud ( vale, sabiendo que cada año venden por 750 biliones de $ con benificio de 30 %)
En cambio la industria esta protigida por derechos de sus productos durante 12 años
Y no se puede discutir del precio , no rebajas para el estado, y importación de productos baratos queda prohibido !
El plan y los nuevos seguros garantizan un mercado creciendo,
Analistas de Wallstreet anunciaron ya este lunes buenos resultados para las participaciones de la farma-industria !
( p.E. )

Dissidents or traitors?
24 March 2010
By Atilio Borón
Published in Página 12 (Argentina)
The “free press” of Europe and the Americas – the one that lied shamelessly when it said that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq or when it described the putschist regime of Micheletti in Honduras as “an interim government” – has redoubled its ferocious campaign against Cuba.
The pretext for this relaunching was the final outcome of Orlando Zapata Tamayo's hunger strike, now replicated by an identical action taken by Guillermo Fariñas Hernández. As is well known, Zapata was (and continues to be) presented by those “media of mass disinformation” as a “political dissident,” whereas in reality he was a common inmate recruited by the enemies of the revolution for their subversive projects.
The case of Fariñas Hernández is not exactly the same, but shares some similarities and deepens a discussion that must be entered into with absolute seriousness.
First, we must remember that these attacks have a long history that began March 17, 1960, when the U.S. National Security Council approved the “Program of Covert Action” against Cuba proposed by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Allen Dulles.
Partially declassified in 1991, that program identified four main courses of action, the first two being “the creation of the opposition” and the launching of a “powerful propaganda offensive” to strengthen the opposition and make it credible. No way could this be clearer.
After the thundering failure of that initiative, George W. Bush created a special commission in the State Department to promote “regime change” in Cuba, a euphemism used to keep from saying “to promote the counter-revolution.” The first report from that commission, published in 2004, was 458 pages long and explained in great detail everything that needed to be done to introduce a liberal democracy, respect human rights, and establish a market economy in Cuba.
To put that plan into action, $59 million per annum were budgeted (beyond the sums to be sent by covert means), from which $36 million were intended to foment and fund the activities of the “dissidents.”
In sum, what the press presents as a noble and patriotic domestic dissidence seems to be, instead, the methodical application of the imperial project designed to accomplish the old dream of the American right wing to seize Cuba once and for all.
Second, what is meant by “political dissidents”? The Dictionary of Politics, by Norberto Bobbio, defines dissent as “any form of disagreement without a stable and therefore not institutionalized organization that does not attempt to replace the existing government with another, much less overthrow the existing political system” (pp. 567-568). Further on, it states that there is a threshold that, once crossed, converts dissent and dissenters into something else.
In the extinct Soviet Union, two of the most notable political dissidents, whose actions adhered to the definition given above, were the physicist Andrei Sakharov and the writer Alexander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn. Rudolf Bahro was a dissident in the German Democratic Republic, and Karel Kosik was another in the former Czechoslovakia.
In the 1950s and ’60s, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a noted dissenter in the United States and, in today's Israel, nuclear scientist Mordekai Wanunu has dissented by revealing the existence of a nuclear arsenal in that country. For that, he was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment. The “free press” took no note of the situation.
Cuban dissidents, unlike the people named above, fit another legal profile because their purpose is to subvert the constitutional order and topple the system. In addition, and this is an essential fact, they want to accomplish this by putting themselves at the service of an enemy power, the United States, that for the past half century has been attacking Cuba by every imaginable means.
Can those who receive money, advice, counsel, directives from a country that's objectively an enemy of their homeland, and who act in unison with the imperial intentions of precipitating a “regime change” be considered “political dissidents”?
To answer this, let us forget for a moment the Cuban laws and see what comparable legislation establishes. The Constitution of the United States, in Article III, Section 3, says that “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
The punishment deserved by this crime can extend to the death penalty, as happened in 1953 to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were sent to the electric chair, accused of treason to the United States for allegedly having “adhered to their enemies” by disclosing to the Soviet Union the secrets of the manufacture of the atomic bomb.
In Mexico, Article 123 of the Penal Code defines as treason to the homeland a broad gamut of situations, such as committing “acts against the independence, sovereignty or integrity of the Mexican nation for the purpose of subjecting it to a foreign person, group or government; taking part in acts of hostility against the nation [...] at the behest of a foreign state, or cooperating with said state in any form that may harm Mexico; receiving any benefit, or accepting a promise to receive it, for the purpose of carrying out some of the acts described in this Article; accepting from the invader a job, post or commission and dictating, agreeing to, or voting for decisions intended to consolidate the intruding government and debilitating the national government.” The penalty applied to those who commit these crimes is, according to circumstances, from five to 40 years' imprisonment.
Argentine legislation establishes in Article 214 of its Penal Code that “Reclusion or imprisonment of 10 to 25 years, or reclusion or life imprisonment and, in either case, absolute and perpetual disenfranchisement, so long as the deed is not included in another disposition in this Code, will be imposed upon any Argentine or any person who owes allegiance to the nation by reason of his employment or public function who takes arms against the nation, joins its enemies, or lends them any aid or succor.”
It is not necessary to go on with this superficial review to understand that what the American and European press calls “dissidence” is what any country in the world (beginning with the United States) would define plain and simply as betrayal of the homeland – and none of the accused would ever be considered to be a “political dissident.”
In the case of the Cubans, most if not all incur in that crime when they unite with a foreign power that displays open hostility toward the Cuban nation and when they receive from that power's representatives – diplomats and others – money and all kinds of logistical support to destroy the order created by the Revolution.
Washington would adopt no other attitude if a group of its citizens were to receive resources from a foreign power that, for half a century, had besieged the United States with a mandate to subvert the constitutional order.
None of the genuine dissidents named above committed such infamy in their homelands. They were implacable critics of their governments but never placed themselves at the service of a foreign state that craved to oppress their homelands. They were dissidents, not traitors.
-Atilio Borón is a renowned Argentine economist.