Hillary Rodham Clinton's Sovietology Exercise
Steven Smith
thought to be working on the Clinton administration's secret
health-care reform package.
The WSJ requested help identifying these individuals, so I scanned the
list and present it here along with the accompanying article with the
hope that it will help to illuminate these proceedings whose outcome
could affect all Americans and their progeny, but are nevertheless
insulated from public inspection and debate.
Steven Smith
[Taken without permission from the Wall Street Journal, March 24, 1993.
The text was scanned with an OCR machine; there are undoubtedly typos,
but if you think like an OCR reader, you should be able to unscramble them.]
Remember Kremlinology? And Sinology? Back in the days of the Soviet
Union and Mao's China, to find out who was running things in those
countries, Western experts would pore over photographs of government
functions, checking out which officials were present. Elaborate
theories about political power in Moscow or Beijing were built on the
basis of which official was standing next to Brezhnev at the May Day
parade or which general was now being airbrushed out of earlier photos
of Mao on the Great March.
In Washington in 1993, things aren't that easy. At least not so far
as Hillary Rodham Clinton's task force on health care reform is
concerned. The White House hasn't released any photographs of the
500-plus people who are now drafting a plan to redo the nation's
health care system. In fact, it won't even release their names.
These anonymous men and women toil in secret, devising a reform plan
that will affect every single American and is likely to be the largest
and most expensive domestic program since the New Deal.
Who are they? The Wall Street Journal has obtained a list of 528 men
and women on the taskforce. Although some spellings differ and the
names are sometimes repeated, it appears to be the same list that was
obtained by Rep. Gerald Solomon (R., N.Y.), who entered it into the
Congressional Record Thursday. Bob Boorstin, a task force spokesman
(and whose name is on the list), told us yesterday that ``It's an
incorrect list,'' although he conceded that ``It's not all false.''
There are more than 500 people on more than 30 working groups, he
said, which ``change and grow every day.''
We recognize some of the names of the list---Tipper Gore, Princeton
health-care experts Paul Starr and Uwe Reinhardt, some government
staffers. But we ask your help, Dear Reader, in identifying the rest.
If you think you know who someone is, please fax us at (212) 416-2658.
Address it: Kremlinologists. We'll let you know next week what we
find out.
*ADDISON-BURTON, L. GOLUB, Larry NORQUIST, Grayson
ADLER, Michele GOODMAN, Nancy *O'BRIEN, Mary Jo
AIKEN, Linda GOODWIN, Marsha OFFNER, Paul
ALBERGHINI, Theresa GOODY, Brigit OGDEN, John
ALLEN, Lucy GOPLERUD, Eric OMEARA, Janis
ALPERT, Cynthia GORDON, Nancy O'NEIL, Patricia
ALTMAN, David GORE, Tipper O'NEILL, Kim
ALTMIRE, Jason GRAMS, Todd OSHER, Fred
ANDERSON, Robert GREENBERG, George OTRIN, Susdn
ANTOS, Joe GREENWALD, Leslie *PAHWA, Raj
ARNETT, Ross GROSS, Marcy PANG, Frederick
ARONS, Bernie GRUNDMAN, Martha PARADISE, Julia
ASH, Sherry GUST, Sleve PATEL, Pardshar
ATKINSON, Leslie *HADLEY, Elizabeth PAYNE, Mary
AUKERMAN, Glen HADLEY, James PAYTON, Sally Anne
AUSTEIN, Cheryl HAMERSCHLAG, Art PICILLO, Theresa
*BAKER, Lawrence HANDY, Carolvn PIGEON, Steve
BALL, Judy HARAHAN, Mary PIRES, Sheila
BANDEIAN, Stephen HARDOCK, Randy PLAUT, Tom
BANTHIN, Jessica HARPER, Mary POLLITZ, Karen
BAQUET, Claudia HARRIS, Skila PORTMAN, Robert
BARBOUR, Galen HARVELL, Jennie POSEY, Krndall
BARSTOW, Scott HARVEY, Molly POTETZ, Lisa
BAUM, Nancy HASH, Mike PRATT, Donald
BEASON, Charlotte HASTINGS, Kathleen PRICE, Andrea
BEAUREGARD, Karen HAVERKOS, Harry PURKISS, Cynthia
BERENSON, Robert HAYES, Charlotte PUSKIN, Dena
BERGTHOLD, Linda HEADLEY, Edward PYLE, Thomas
BERNER, Kevin HEATH, Karen *QUAM, Lois
BERRY, Roger HEENAN, Tricia *RADER, Ann
BESTEMAN, Jacqueline HELLINGER, Fred RAFUSE, Bob
BEVERLY, John HENSLEY, Scoff RAYMOND, Victor
BIELECKI, Colleen HERTZ, Tom REEVES, Linda
BIEWIRTH, Maggie HICKMAN, Pefer REGIER, Darrel
BILLY, Carrie HIGHT, Joe REINECKE, Peter
BISCHOFF, Victoria HILL, Tim REINHARDT, Uwe
BLACKBURN, Kate HINZ, Richard REYES, Louane
BLAUWET, Roger HIX, Mike RICE, Cheri
BLOCH, Robert HOAGWOOD, Kimberly RICHARDSON, Sally
BLOCK, Abby HOGUE, Bonnie RICKETSON, Denlse
BLOSS, Greg HOLTZBLATT, Jane RIVO, Marc
BLUMENTHAL, Susan HORVATH, Jdne ROBINSON, Sandra
BODE, Molly HORVATH, Thomas RODRIGUEZ, Louise
BOEHM, Jennifer HOSEK, Susan ROGERS, David
BOERUM, Denise HUCKABY, Michelle ROSLN, Bob
BOORSTIN, Bob HUMAN, Jeffrey ROSENBAUM, Sarah
BORZI, Phyllis HUNTER, Gillian ROSENMAN, P.
BRAND, Marcia *IBSON, Ralph ROSS, Marjorie
BREW, Bill IRWIN, Jean ROSWELL, Bob
BRIGGS, Bette ISKOWRITZ, Michael ROUSE, Beatrice
BROCK, C. IVORY, J. ROVIN, Lisa
BRODBECK, Laura IWRY, Mark ROWLAND, D.
BROSTROM, Molly *JACKSON, Paul ROZEN, Robert
BROWN, Richard JACOBS, Terry RUESCHEMEYER, S.
BRUNS, Kevin JARBOE, Kenan RUYLE, Kenneth
BUCK, Jeff JENCKS, Steve RYAN, Patrick
BUCKINGHAM, Warren JENNINGS, Christopher *SAGE, William
BUDETTI, Peter JENSEN, Peter SALMON, Marla
BUENO, Irene JODREY, Darre SAMPSON, Neil
BUFFINGTON, Max JOHNSON, Don SAMUELSDN, Elin
BUONORA, David JOICE, Sylvia SATCHER, David
BURNER, Sally JONES, Marcia SCHECKEL, Lisa
BURNETT, Laird JONES, Sandra SCHEPPACH, Raymond
BURNEY, Ira JORLING, Tim SCHIEBER, George
BUTO, Kathleen JOSEPHFOX, Yvette SCHMID, Stuart
*CALLAHAN, Cathi JUSTIN, Murray SCHNEIDER, Andy
CAMERON, Alice *KASS, David SCHULKE, David
CAMPBELL, Lawrence KATTEN, Aar SCHULTZ, B. I.
CARLSON, Ron KATZ, Ruth SCHUNEMAN, Mary
CAVANAUGH, Sean KATZLEAVY, Judith SCHUSTER, Jim
CHALLINOR, Joan KAZDIN, Robert SCOTT, Sharon
CHAMBERS, Caroline KEENE, Brad SEAGRAVE, Chuck
CHANG, Debbie KEITH, Sam SHAFFER, Ellen
CHARLES, Gerald KELLEY, Lauren SHEINER, Louise
CHAVEZ, Melba KELLEY, Samuel SHEINGOLD, Steven
CLARK, Robert KEMPER, Peter SHELDON, George
CLARK, William KENDALL, David SHINN, Ruth
CLAUSER, Steven KENNEDY, Fortunata SHIRLEY, Aaron
CLAXTON, Gary KENYON, Kathleen SHORT, Elizabeth
CLAY, Jimmy KEPNER, Colleen SHORT, Pamela
CLAYPOOL, Robert KERY, Pat SHRIBER, Donald
CLEMENTE, Frank KICHAK, Nancy SILVA, John
COHEN, Allan KING, Andrea SILVER, Jonathon
COHEN, Joel KING, Gary SIMON, Marsha
COHEN, Rima KING, Kathy SIMPSON, Bobby
COOPER, Barbara KING, Roland SISKIND, Fred
COOPER, Davld KLEIN, Jennifer SLACKMAN, Joel
COOPER, Phillip KOLODNER, Robert SMITH, Barbara
COPELAND, Robert KOSS, Shannah SMITH, Curt
COSTER, John KRAKAUER, Henry SMITH, Elmer
COX, Ken KRONICK, Rick SMITH, Mark
CREENFELD, Helaine KRUEGER, Alan SMITH, Mary
CROW, Shelly KURSH, Gail SOBEL, Larry
CRUMP, Janice KUTZERA, Michael SOCHALSKI, Julie
CURTIS, Richard KUZMACK, Rich SOFAER, Shoshana
CURTIS, Rick *LANGENBRUNNER, J. SOLOMON, Dan
CUTLER, David LASKER, Roz SOLOMON, Loel
*DANIELS, Susan LAVIZZOMOUREY, R. SOLOMON, Maria
DAVIES, Monica LAWLER, Greqory SPAULDING, Vernon
DAVIS, Karen LAWSON, Eric SPRINGER, Michael
DAVIS, Rosemary LAWSON, Karl STARR, Paul
DELEW, Nancy LEATHERS, Howard STEELE, Pamela
DEMLO, Linda LEE, Phil STEINAUER, Dennis
DENHAM, Lori LEFKOWITZ, Bonnie STEINBROOK, Erna
DENTON, Denise LEHMANN, Lauren STEPHENS, Sharman
DERGNAN, Kathy LESHNER, Alan STOLINE, Anne
DEWANE, Mary LEVINE, Debby STONE, Robyn
DIEGMAN, Kathy LEVINE, Greg STROUL, Beth
DINKELACKER, Bill LEVITT, Larry SUCHINSKY, Richard
DONAHUE, Agnes LEVY, Helen SUMAYA, Ciro
DONESKI, Ellen LEWISIDEMA, Deborah SVENONIUS, Diane
DOTY, Pam LILLIE, Steve SWIRE, Andy
DOYLE, Pat LINCOLN, Michael SYKES, Kathy
DREW, Nancy LINDREW, Jerry *TAEUBER, Cynthia
DRUMMAND, Faye LINK, Ken TAPLIN, Caroline
DUGGAN, Jim LIPNER, Robyn TARMEY, Marjorie
DUNN, Van LOHR, Kathy TAYLOR, Amy
DUZOR, Deirdre LONG, Steve TAYLOR, Lois
*EARLEY, Susen LOPATIN, Alan TERRY, Donald
ECKERT, Kevin LOTFI, Sharif TESTONI, Maureen
EDDY, David LUBITZ, James THORPE, Ken
EDDY, Judy LUCAS, Debbie THURM, Kevin
EDGELL, John LUTTER, Randy TIBAET, Geoff
EINHORN, Ted LYON, Andrew TIEBITS, Pdul
ELATTAR, Suzanne *MAGRUDER, Kathryn TIMS, Frank
ELDERS, Jocelyn MAGUIRE, Daniel TORRESGIL, Fernando
EMMER, Sue MALONEY, Daniel TRACHTENBERG, Alan
ENGLISH, Mike MANDERSCHEID, Ron TRAPNELL, Gordon
EPSTEIN, Arnold MANOWITZ, Michelle *UKOCKIS, James
ERMANN, Dan MANTEL, Lewis *VALDEZ, Bob
ERRERA, Paul MARCoNi, Katherine VANDERWATER, Paul
ETHEREDGE, Lynn MARTINEZ, Felix VARMA, Vivek
EVANS, David MATHER, Susan VARNHAGEN, Michele
EVISTNESS, Jessica MATTON, Gleg VEAZEY, Brenda
*FALETTI, Tom MAYS, Jim VELOZ, Richard
FARLEY, Dean MCCLENNEY-ELLIOTT, L. VISTNES, Jessica
FEDER, Judith MCCONNELL, Bruce VOLPE, Lane
FINAN, Steve MCCONNELL, Steve *WALDO, Dan
FINIGAN, Thomas MCCUSICK, Dave WALKER, Edwin
FISCHER, Celia MCKEE, Timothy WALTERS, Karen
FISH, Jim MCKENNEY, Nampeo WASSERMAN, Mark
FISHBEIN, Louise MCKER, Tim WEICH, Ronald
FISKE, Mary MCNAMEE, Nikki WEIL, Alan
FITZMAURICE, J. MEADOWS, Cynthia WEISS, Gail
FLEMING, Mack MEANS, Kathy WEISS, Marind
FLETCHER, Bennett MELMAN, Lori WELCH, Peter
FORBES, Rip MELNICK, Dan WELCH, William
FORTIER, Julie MIKA, Harriet WELLFORD, Suzanne
FRANCE, Molly MILLER, Bernard WERNER, Michael
FRANCK, Becky MILLER, Edward WESTON, Jrnnder
FRANK, Becky MILLER, Melanie WHANG, Judy
FRANK, Richard MILLER, Mike WIENER, Josh
FRANTZ, Molly MILLER, Nancy WIGGINS, Cliff
FRASCHE, Marv MILLMAN, Michael WILLIAMS, Christine
FREELAND, Mark MINK, Doug WILLIAMSON, JOhn
FRIEDHOLM, Deann MOELLER, John WILLS, Darrvl
FRIEDMAN, Bernard MOELLER, Jonathan WILSON, Frank
FUY, Geore MOLLOY, Jane WILSON, Mark
*GAGEL, Barbara MONHEIT, Alan WINSLOW, Walter
GALE, Joe MORGAN, Jacqueline WITTER, Jonathan
GATZ, Carolvn MULLAN, Fitzhugh WOO, Michael
GAUDETTE, Sylvia MUNNELL, Alicia WOODWARD, Al
GAWANDE, Atol MURGUIA, Jane WOOLLEY, Barbara
GEHAN, Margery MURRAY, John WREN, Robert
GILLINGHAM, Robert MURTHA, Donald WYLER, Bob
GLAZE, Steve *NARROW, David *YAMAMOTO, Alan
GLIED, Sherry NELSON, Chuck YOSHIKWA, Thomas
GLIEMAN, Ed NELSON, Karen *ZARABOZO, Carlos
GOLD, Martha NEUMAN, Tricia ZAWISTOWICH, L.
GOLDMAN, Howard NEXON, David ZELMAN, Walter
GOLDMAN, Sybil NICHOLS, Len ZETTIER, Susan
GOLDSTONE, Donald NICHOLS, Marjorie ZUVEKAS, Ann
GOLDWATER, David NORMAN, Alline
Red Herring
>
>[Taken without permission from the Wall Street Journal, March 24, 1993.
>The text was scanned with an OCR machine; there are undoubtedly typos,
>but if you think like an OCR reader, you should be able to unscramble them.]
>
>Remember Kremlinology? And Sinology? Back in the days of the Soviet
>Union and Mao's China, to find out who was running things in those
>countries, Western experts would pore over photographs of government
>functions, checking out which officials were present. Elaborate
>theories about political power in Moscow or Beijing were built on the
>basis of which official was standing next to Brezhnev at the May Day
>parade or which general was now being airbrushed out of earlier photos
>of Mao on the Great March.
>
>In Washington in 1993, things aren't that easy. At least not so far
>as Hillary Rodham Clinton's task force on health care reform is
>concerned. The White House hasn't released any photographs of the
>500-plus people who are now drafting a plan to redo the nation's
>health care system. In fact, it won't even release their names.
Plotting a Soviet-style health care system requires likewise secrecy.
>These anonymous men and women toil in secret, devising a reform plan
>that will affect every single American and is likely to be the largest
>and most expensive domestic program since the New Deal.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wright
[bitching and moaning about the health task force not publishing all
their discussions in the NY Times every day]
>Ok, I may be exaggerating to make a point, but I don't think it is a good
>idea to hide what is going on. The health care reform proposals will
>obviously be important to everyone. People are interested, they want to
>know what will be proposed because it will affect them. Does the fact
>that I question the need for this covert activity make me a conservative
>whiner? Are you suggesting that it is ok for the President/CoPresident
>to make a habit of secrecy because we don't need to know? (Note that we
>are talking about domestic policy, not military strategy.)
So what? The key point here is that we're not talking about a secret
plan that is intended to remain a secret. We're talking about a plan
that's going to be published. Do you think that every single
conversation held by anyone in government should be published?
Frankly, HRC is doing what I would do, namely rounding up a lot of
people (maybe too many -- 500 is a lot just to try to agree when to
have lunch, never mind what to do about health care), and trying to
come up with a plan. Given the vast amount of criticizing, lobbying,
etc etc etc that's certain to arise no matter what plan is released, I
can certainly understand not coming out with all the preliminary
debates. It's not as though the thing is going to be put in place
instantly by royal order once it's published. Frankly, I think
cutting the total debate time is a merciful act.
-- David Wright, Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Waltham, MA
wri...@hicomb.hi.com :: These are my opinions, not necessarily
Hitachi's, though they are the opinions of all right-thinking people
Lance Visser
discredited and "evil" status quo. Its because Hillary is a woman
isn't it. If it were a "man" you would not be doing this.
If you dont accept what the clinton's propose, your just encoraging
Gridlock. We dont need gridlock, people voted against Gridlock and
for change. If you have ideas, you are more than welcome to submit
them and participate in the process which is one of the most
open in history. Hillary, Bill or even Tipper may come to your
community in the near future. Address your questions to them in a
dignified and respectful manner, and if they are so inclined, they
may grant your wish.
Hillery and Bill have many difficult problems to deal with and
they do not need the likes of ordinary people who can't possibly
understand the problems getting in the way.
You little people just don't get it. You NEED them to take
care of you, to spare you burdens that you should not have to cope
with. Many people, unknowningly are full of greed and hate impressed
into their souls by the last twelve years of "evil". You need guidance
to recover and the Clinton's can provide you that guidance.
Just do what your told and you will be given a fully and happy
life. DO NOT MESS WITH ISSUES SUCH AS HEALTH CARE WHICH ARE NONE
OF YOUR BUSINESS ANYWAY.
Dave Kristofferson
I'd like to politely suggest that discussions on topics not directly
related to biology research be held on other, more appropriate USENET
forums. The bionet domain is for research in the biological sciences.
Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Dave Kristofferson
BIOSCI/bionet Manager
Kate E. Loomis
health reform task force" : there is no analogy here. These people are
not creating policy, they are _drafting a plan_ . Did you get that? A
PLAN. One that will be submitted to Congress and debated ad nauseum for
the rest of the year, and may or may not be passed in any or all of
it's original state. There is a big difference. All the conservatives
and special interests will get to bitch and whine their hearts out when
the plan is actually presented (and don't believe they won't). They
don't NEED to be able to do it ahead of time. Any aspect of any health
care reform will piss off some people. The Clinton Administration is
just attempting to present it all at once so that most people will see
(they hope) that they agree with MOST of the plan, and that they can
accept the parts they don't like on that basis. Now, the bulk of the plan
_doesn't_ appeal to MOST of the people, then the plan won't get passed.
So what is the problem?
kate
Richard Schumeyer
Why is it ok for Hillary & co. to draft a plan in secret, but if the military
bombs a target without notifying the press first, then the press whines
about censorship? (This is meant to be a rhetorical question.)
Since this PLAN is probably going to affect me, I would
like to know who is on the panel, what their backgounds are, what their
beliefs about health care are, etc. I guess I don't NEED to know this,
at least not until our leader says its ok for me to know. And then
I must not disagree (bitch and whine my heart out) or else people may begin
to suspect me of non-patriotic thoughts.
Ok, I may be exaggerating to make a point, but I don't think it is a good
idea to hide what is going on. The health care reform proposals will
obviously be important to everyone. People are interested, they want to
know what will be proposed because it will affect them. Does the fact
that I question the need for this covert activity make me a conservative
whiner? Are you suggesting that it is ok for the President/CoPresident
to make a habit of secrecy because we don't need to know? (Note that we
are talking about domestic policy, not military strategy.)
--
------------------------
Rick Schumeyer
Software Technology
ri...@luke.nrl.navy.mil
------------------------
Opinions mine only.
C.J. Silverio
Hillary Clinton is a woman.
Dollars to donuts that the problem is just that.
Modulo the normal whining we're hearing from
out-of-power Republicans, that is.
---
C J Silverio c...@sgi.com ce...@well.sf.ca.us
"In Melbourne, Fla., meanwhile, anti-abortion marchers rallied to
celebrate the death of Dr. David Gunn. "Praise God!" they shouted."
(NY Daily News, Fri. March 12, p. 20)
Daniel Zabetakis
>
>I'd like to politely suggest that discussions on topics not directly
>related to biology research be held on other, more appropriate USENET
>forums. The bionet domain is for research in the biological sciences.
>
A nice letter, but I would suggest a change in tactic. Post the article
to every group in the Newsgroups: line _except_ bionet.* . Instead of
editing out the other groups, edit out the bionet groups.
I doubt that many bionet readers would follow up to the article. Most of
the people who are writing don't bother to read the Newsgroups: line, and
wouldn't know to take bionet out even if they did. We want to get the
'outsiders' to stop crossposting to bionet, rather than get bionet users not
to post.
DanZ
--
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
Freeland Abbott
In article <RICKS.93M...@luke.luke.nrl.navy.mil> ri...@luke.nrl.navy.mil (Richard Schumeyer) writes:
> Why is it ok for Hillary & co. to draft a plan in secret, but if the military
> bombs a target without notifying the press first, then the press whines
> about censorship? (This is meant to be a rhetorical question.)
(No such luck, sorry). Do you have any idea how many _plans_ to bomb
targets the military has? As close to "all of them" as possible, I'm sure,
and I expect the press would whine if they *didn't* have them. You know,
lack of preparedness and all that. Now, if they start secretly executing
those plans, that's another matter....
Second point is that it's a lot easier to _draft_ a plan if you can do it
in private (note, not especially in secret---if it were secret, we wouldn't
know it was happening). They're thinking of ideas, "maybes": they don't
want to have to defend themselves from claims that "XXX plans to..." or
even "XXX is in favor of..." and all that drivel. I know that in a
brainstorming session I personally mention ideas that I wouldn't want, to
see whether anyone else can twist them into something better, or just to
make what we're ruling out explicit. And I wouldn't want that to be on the
record. Now, I don't think it would matter if we at least knew who was
being consulted, but they may be trying to keep people from being pestered
with questions, since they don't want to answer them now.
When the plan comes out, as has been observed, *then* it will be debated,
reviewed, and modified... maybe it'll even survive to be partially
implemented.
> Since this PLAN is probably going to affect me, I would
> like to know who is on the panel, what their backgounds are, what their
> beliefs about health care are, etc.
Why? Probably all you care about is what the plan is, and how it will
affect you. At that point, again, we go through the usually lobbying and
such to get input supposedly from the masses. However, first we want a
plan---unless what you're arguing is the plan to make a plan to solve the
problem, in which case maybe we should argue the (plan ^ n) to plan a
solution, limit as n->infinity. ;-)
> Are you suggesting that it is ok for the President/CoPresident
> to make a habit of secrecy because we don't need to know? (Note that we
> are talking about domestic policy, not military strategy.)
Phrased that way, of course not. However, we aren't talking about hiding
policies, we're talking about finding a quite place to think for a bit,
then coming back and making a well-considered suggestion, getting that
reviewed and probably changed, and *then* doing it. It's the same as a
House Committee, or any other kind of committee or task-delegation: take a
public question, have a small (read "manageable") group work in relative
privacy to think about it, and then publicly review the recommendation
before committing to it. I do it all the time in work; I have no problem
with the government's using the same technique.
--
-fka3
Stephen Grossman
>c...@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
>
>> klo...@cco.caltech.edu writes:
>> | So what is the problem?
>>
>> Hillary Clinton is a woman.
>>
>> Dollars to donuts that the problem is just that. Modulo the normal
>> whining we're hearing from out-of-power Republicans, that is.
>
>ruled against Hillary Rodham Clinton's entirely secret meetings.
>Thankfully more people ``get it'' now.
>
>Steven Smith
>
>
>P.S. By the way, isn't ``getting it'' the phrase used in the movie
>_Semi-Tough_ to describe the internalization of new age guru Werner
>Erhardt's I-am-a-good-person philosphy?
SG Maybe the meetings are secret so she can donate more money to the
National Lawyers Guild, a Marxist front on the Atty Gen's list of subversive
orgs...and so Slickwillie can again protest Am foreign policy in the enemy's
capital...
Ahoy, you liberals (not that i like conservatism)!!
The secrecy of the meetings eases the increase in our Welfare State.
THAT'S why they're bad. Besides, if you like OUR
GIGANTIC/FASCIST/SOCIALIST/WELFARE STATE, why, you regard yourself as a serf to
his lord (and lady). In that context, the govt knows best. SHUT UP! And stay in
your place and pay more taxes. The joke's on you. Roman bread and circuses.
================================================================================
I want a culture which morally respects Henry Ford | Stephen Grossman
and morally despises Mother Theresa. | PMSC...@UMASSD.EDU
================================================================================
Bismarck, the militarist dictator, invented the modern welfare state.
================================================================================
"The existential atmosphere of [the pre-WW1 West] (which was then being
destroyed by Europe's philosophical trends and political systems) still held a
benevolence that would be incredible to the men of today, i.e., a smiling
confident good will of man to man, and of man to life." Ayn Rand
________________________________________________________________________________
STEPHEN GROSSMAN PMSC...@UMASSD.EDU
SEGAL, DAVID JAY
{
{The WSJ requested help identifying these individuals, so I scanned the
{list and present it here along with the accompanying article with the
{hope that it will help to illuminate these proceedings whose outcome
{could affect all Americans and their progeny, but are nevertheless
{insulated from public inspection and debate.
What's the big deal? There are hundreds of committees in Washington. Most
people don't know who's on them; most people don't care. Why don't you
wait to see what they come up with and spend your energy evaluating that?
Isn't the message more important than the messenger?
Besides,
I don't understand why people are so focused on the publicity of this
particular committee's meetings. I think the only ones who really have
a problem with it are the MD types, who stand the most to lose from
health care reform. For guys like me, who have the most to gain from
reform, I say get off their backs. Finally somebody's actually doing
something. Almost anything is better than the system we've got now.
Besides, the committee can't pass any legislation by itself anyway.
So just chill out.
- Dave Segal
- dave....@m.cc.utah.edu
David Spanagel
>health-care experts Paul Starr and Uwe Reinhardt, some government
>staffers. But we ask your help, Dear Reader, in identifying the rest.
>
> [List follows in original post]
>
There's one glaring omission: Dr. Doogie Howser. How can anyone support
a health-care commission without him?
Frederick Garbrecht
> Date: 26 Mar 93 20:55:00 GMT
> From:djs...@cc.utah.edu
> To: biof...@net.bio.net
> Subject: Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton's Sovietology Exercise
I hate to add to this discussion, but I really must object to your
generalization about "MD types". As an MD type myself, I can assure you
that there are plenty of us out here who are concerned about the current
health care system and its obvious failure to deliver care equitably and
fairly. Even alot of "MD types" would agree that it is in everyone's best
interest to reform the system.
F Garbrecht, M.D. type
Medical College of Wisconsin
fgar...@post.its.mcw.edu
Freeland Abbott, by way of jonesbb@beloit.edu (Ben Jones)
> Why is it ok for Hillary & co. to draft a plan in secret, but if the military
> bombs a target without notifying the press first, then the press whines
> about censorship? (This is meant to be a rhetorical question.)
Stephen Grossman writes:
>SG Maybe the meetings are secret so she can donate more money to the
>National Lawyers Guild, a Marxist front on the Atty Gen's list of subversive
>orgs...and so Slickwillie can again protest Am foreign policy in the enemy's
>capital...
After reading an article in this week's New Yorker magazine, I have a hard
time getting excited about not knowing the names of people talking about
health care.
According to this article the Reagan and Bush administrations looked the
other way while Pakistan developed nuclear weapons, and gave them far more
aid than they gave even Iraq. They certified Pakistan as nuclear free to
prevent the Solarz Amendment from cutting off military foreign aid to
Pakistan, because Pakistan was fighting our fight against the Soviets in
Afghanistan. Then in 1990 they had to send Robert Gates to both countries
to prevent a nuclear war between Pakistan and India.
Pakistan now has at least six atomic bombs which can be delivered by their
F16 fighters.
Now, whose secrecy were you whining about again?
agoo...@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu
djs...@cc.utah.edu (SEGAL, DAVID JAY) writes:
>In article <SMITH.93M...@minerva.harvard.edu>
>sm...@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes...
{The WSJ requested help identifying these individuals, so I scanned the
{list and present it here along with the accompanying article with the
{hope that it will help to illuminate these proceedings whose outcome
{could affect all Americans and their progeny, but are nevertheless
{insulated from public inspection and debate.
>What's the big deal? There are hundreds of committees in Washington.
>Most people don't know who's on them; most people don't care. Why don't
>you wait to see what they come up with and spend your energy evaluating
>that? Isn't the message more important than the messenger?
>Besides, I don't understand why people are so focused on the publicity
>of this particular committee's meetings.
The president acknowledged that there will be no long-term improvement
in the country's economic competitiveness unless the increases in
healthcare costs can be contained. This committee endeavors to present
a comprehensive plan to address that problem. Does this sound like a
small deal to you?
I think the only ones who really have a problem with it are the MD types,
who stand the most to lose from health care reform.
What about the lawyer and insurance types? Doesn't it sound a little
strange that healthcare reform does not include significant input from
physicians groups? Would you exclude engineers from a discussion on
reform of the way engineering is practiced?
I voted for Clinton and am moderately pleased by his performance but
the secrecy around the healthcare meetings is one thing I do not like.
It is a bad way to serve the people. We have no idea whether there are
any significant conflicts of interest amongst the committee members or
not. Still, its better than the Bush approach: do nothing and babble.
>Almost anything is better than the system we've got now.
We'll see. I sincerely hope what they come up with is workable.
>Besides, the committee can't pass any legislation by itself anyway.
Yes, but they play a major role in setting the president's agenda.
Steve AGOO...@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
SKLA...@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
Please note the change in followups this discussion does not belong in
bionet.general.
Ben Jones
I don't know how it happened, but a message I posted about Pakistan's
nuclear capacity somehow went up on the net with Freeland Abbott's name on
it. Perhaps I created a reply or redirected a copy of his previous
message, but I didn't realize that whatever I did would make it appear on
the net under his name as FROM me VIA him.
However, Freeland Abbott had absolutely nothing to do with my message, and
I am very concerned that anyone might think he did. The thoughts in it
were my own.
My deepest apologies to him and to anyone inconvenienced by this.
Ben Jones
Ben Jones BioQUEST / Department of Biology
jon...@beloit.edu Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin
Michael Friedman
The problem is that we are supposed to have an open government. Plans
that do not require security are not supposed to be drafted in secret
by people whose names are not even released.
If nothing else, people who object to the makeup of the task force
have the right to know who is on it and to present their objections to
the people of the United States.
In fact, with the release of the WSJ's list it has become apparent
that Slick Willy lied again. He claimed that the task force would be
bi-partisan and made up of people from all parts of the health care
system. In actual fact, most of them appear to be government
employees with the largest contingent coming from Democratic
Jeff Sicherman
Also note that these whiners were nowhere to be found when Danny's
Cabal on Competitiveness held its secret meetings to overturn
regulations which had been arrived at through the open proposal
and comment process.
--
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
David Veal
>In article <26MAR199...@cc.utah.edu> djs...@cc.utah.edu (SEGAL, DAVID JAY) writes:
>>In article <SMITH.93M...@minerva.harvard.edu>, sm...@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes...
>>particular committee's meetings. I think the only ones who really have
>>a problem with it are the MD types, who stand the most to lose from
>>health care reform. For guys like me, who have the most to gain from
>>reform, I say get off their backs. Finally somebody's actually doing
>>something. Almost anything is better than the system we've got now.
>>Besides, the committee can't pass any legislation by itself anyway.
>>
>
> Also note that these whiners were nowhere to be found when Danny's
>Cabal on Competitiveness held its secret meetings to overturn
>regulations which had been arrived at through the open proposal
>and comment process.
Point #1: They, or others like them, were around and did make noise.
Those that were are likely the same people defending this.
Point #2: I again fail to see how, "They did it first," makes the
slightest bit of difference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu (Mail to VE...@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed." - Lazarus Long
Bernie Cosell
} In article <1ot5vg...@gap.caltech.edu> klo...@cco.caltech.edu (Kate E. Loomis) writes:
} >Regarding the extensive list of names on the "top secret, Soviet-Style
} >health reform task force" : there is no analogy here. These people are
} >So what is the problem?
} The problem is that we are supposed to have an open government. Plans
} that do not require security are not supposed to be drafted in secret
} by people whose names are not even released.
} If nothing else, people who object to the makeup of the task force
} have the right to know who is on it and to present their objections to
} the people of the United States.
I don't understand this. By and large, NONE of the government
'plan making' machinery is particularly open. The gov't *IS* open:
by and large they are bound to public disclosure before enacting
almost anything. But before that public disclosure, the zillions
of agencies, committees, boards, administrations, etc, mostly
follow their own courses to decide *what* to propose. In fact,
usually you don't even *know* that a particular gov't group is
_going_ to propose something until the public notice appears, and
the question of *how* they decided to propose what they did is
irrelevant and moot.
And in any event, why should the makeup of the committee be of any
real concern? Either you like the plan or you don't, what
difference does it make whether it was drafted by Rush Limbaugh or
Lawrence Tribe? Make *SURE* your opinion is heard by your
representatives, *LOUD*AND*CLEAR*, but make sure that your focus is
on the *plan*, and not on the planners. [what would you do, write
to your Congressman to say "This is a _great_ plan, but I don't want
it supported because not enough Republicans helped think it up"?]
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell cos...@world.std.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358
Daniel W Beshear
Daniel W Beshear
In no way, shape, or form do you represent "right-thinking" people, Mr.
Wright. What makes you think that you have all the knowledge to determine
what is right for me? You sound like a Rush Limbaugh in reverse.
The government will not do the wishes of the people in this case. They will
only let enough of the plan out, and that would be just for the purposes of the
perpetual campaign that Clinton has been on for the past two years. This is
the pinnacle of the Socialistic takeover of America that started with FDR.
With this, all Americans are guaranteed equally bad health-care, while the rich
will get premium "black-market" health-care from the doctors who refuse to go
along "with the System."
My apologies to those of you not David Wright for the blank article that is
before this one. The computer net here has a nasty habit of cutting the bodies
off of articles and letters and just sending the heads. Thankfully, snailMail
doesn't do the same.
Daniel W. Beshear
It's better to be tight than loose, except when you're in the hangman's noose.
-John Wesley Hardin (killed 47)
d...@ducvax.auburn.edu
sci.bio, sci.med, sci.engr.biomed,
talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.medicine, talk.politics.misc,
bionet.general, bionet.sci-resources,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
alt.politics.clinton, alt.politics.economics
Unfortunately, the *followup* _also_ included bionet.general, as well as
bionet.sci-resources. These are not high traffic groups; the thread now
dominates those groups, arguably more destructively than the massively
crossposted "DidYouKnow" thread.
In general I am on the lenient side of the cross-post issue, but here
it is my understanding that this discussion is inappropriate for the
bionet domain; violating both the explicit and implicit charter for
BIOSCI/bionet. As it apparently did not make it outside the bionet
domain, I repost:
In article <CMM.0.90.2.733...@net.bio.net>
kris...@NET.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson) writes:
>
>I'd like to politely suggest that discussions on topics not directly
>related to biology research be held on other, more appropriate USENET
>forums. The bionet domain is for research in the biological sciences.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dave Kristofferson
> BIOSCI/bionet Manager
>
> kris...@net.bio.net
Several *other* subscribers echoed the inappropriateness of the bionet
domain for pursuit of this thread; excerpting from some:
In article <24MAR93.25...@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU>
HI2...@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU writes:
>I believe that there are more appropriate newsgroups than this to
>post issues such has "Hillary Clinton's Kremlinology" or whatever.
> [...minor commentary deleted...]
In article <1993Mar26.0...@news.columbia.edu>
(name withheld; an internal discussion -- D.R.)
> [...some deletions...]
> I doubt that many bionet readers would follow up to the article. Most
>of the people who are writing don't bother to read the Newsgroups: line,
>and wouldn't know to take bionet out even if they did. We want to get the
>'outsiders' to stop crossposting to bionet, [...minor deletions...]
And, from a bionet correspondent's post which *did* make it out:
In article: <1993Mar26....@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>
agoo...@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu writes:
> [...commentary deleted...]
>
>Steve AGOO...@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
> SKLA...@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
>
>Please note the change in followups this discussion does not belong in
>bionet.general.
(It also does not belong in bionet.sci-resources - D.R.)
Understand, my opinions are as strong as the next person's regarding
issues surrounding: the Wall Street Journal; the Supreme Court; the
First Lady; health care policies (both public and private); the reactions
and (a)symmetries of discourse between those in and out of various types
of social power; how far the "Open Door" ideal should be taken; (some of)
the opinions expressed by respondents to the thread; etc.; BUT:
********************************************************
** None of this belongs in _any_ of the bionet groups **
********************************************************
I mean to express no opinion other than the appropriateness of the followup
settings; I think I am on safe ground in stating that I am expressing the
consensus opinion of the researches and correspondents of bionet.
I note with gratitude that at least one of the participants of this
debate has taken the initiative to remove the bionet domain (ie. both
bionet.general *and* bionet.sci-resources) from the distribution before
posting, and ask only that future participants take a moment to do likewise.
Thank you.
D.R.
ps. I have removed bionet from the followups of *this* thread; any
followups will (hopefully) *not* appear in bionet, but will appear
in the other crossposted newsgroups. I've also sent email to current
particapants of this thread.
pps. Finally, my apologies (especially to the other bionet subscribers)
for the long-windedness of this post, but this has *really* gotten out
of hand. I hope I have not overstepped the bounds of courtesy, and trust
future participants of the "Hillary..." debate will take an extra moment to
check/edit the followup groups before posting. Thanks again for your time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Roller | Bitnet = dr@auducvax | "Sometimes it is hard
Parker Hall | Internet = d...@ducvax.auburn.edu | to form an opinion..."
Auburn Univ. | Voicenet = (205) 844-4512 | -- Charles Darwin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Hollenbeck
: I don't understand why people are so focused on the publicity of this
: particular committee's meetings. I think the only ones who really have
: a problem with it are the MD types, who stand the most to lose from
: health care reform. For guys like me, who have the most to gain from
: reform, I say get off their backs. Finally somebody's actually doing
: something. Almost anything is better than the system we've got now.
Why is it that a better situation, or "good reform", always seems to
be equated with "I stand to gain" (while the terrible "other guy"
loses)?
: So just chill out.
I'll happily chill out when the government, in all its forms, stops
taking my money in the mistaken notion that they can spend it more
wisely or effectively than me.
People also seem to continue to ignore the fact that government
regulatory intervention is at least partly responsible for "the
system" we have now. And now you want more?
Dave
Steve Lamont
>People also seem to continue to ignore the fact that government
>regulatory intervention is at least partly responsible for "the
>system" we have now. And now you want more?
Hell, yes. Or at least enough so that we can get a Federally funded
program on remedial Newsgroups: line editing. Sheesh!
Followups to alt.flame.
spl
--
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- s...@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"They are not Bolsheviks,
just bullshitviks." - Yevgeny Yevtechenko, "Again a meeting..."
Michael Friedman
In article <C4LAo...@csulb.edu> sich...@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <26MAR199...@cc.utah.edu> djs...@cc.utah.edu (SEGAL, DAVID JAY) writes:
>>In article <SMITH.93M...@minerva.harvard.edu>, sm...@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes...
>>{The WSJ requested help identifying these individuals, so I scanned the
>>{list and present it here along with the accompanying article with the
>>{hope that it will help to illuminate these proceedings whose outcome
>>{could affect all Americans and their progeny, but are nevertheless
>>{insulated from public inspection and debate.
>>What's the big deal? There are hundreds of committees in Washington. Most
>>people don't know who's on them; most people don't care. Why don't you
>>wait to see what they come up with and spend your energy evaluating that?
>>Isn't the message more important than the messenger?
> Also note that these whiners were nowhere to be found when Danny's
>Cabal on Competitiveness held its secret meetings to overturn
>regulations which had been arrived at through the open proposal
>and comment process.
The Bush administration didn't try to keep the names of the members of
the Council on Competitiveness secret. Jeff, you are a liar.
Michael Friedman
them - they just detract from your arguments.
In article <C4MF3...@world.std.com> cos...@world.std.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:
>In article <1993Mar27....@oracle.us.oracle.com>, Michael Friedman (mfri...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
>} In article <1ot5vg...@gap.caltech.edu> klo...@cco.caltech.edu (Kate E. Loomis) writes:
>} >Regarding the extensive list of names on the "top secret, Soviet-Style
>} >health reform task force" : there is no analogy here. These people are
>} >not creating policy, they are _drafting a plan_ . ...
>} >So what is the problem?
>} The problem is that we are supposed to have an open government. Plans
>} that do not require security are not supposed to be drafted in secret
>} by people whose names are not even released.
>} If nothing else, people who object to the makeup of the task force
>} have the right to know who is on it and to present their objections to
>} the people of the United States.
>I don't understand this.
I can tell.
>By and large, NONE of the government
>'plan making' machinery is particularly open.
Phrases like "particularly open" or so vague that they are
meaningless. However, can you name another government committee whose
members are secret and which is not related to national defense or
sensitive foreign policy issues?
>The gov't *IS* open:
>by and large they are bound to public disclosure before enacting
>almost anything. But before that public disclosure, the zillions
>of agencies, committees, boards, administrations, etc, mostly
>follow their own courses to decide *what* to propose. In fact,
>usually you don't even *know* that a particular gov't group is
>_going_ to propose something until the public notice appears, and
>the question of *how* they decided to propose what they did is
>irrelevant and moot.
This is known as a straw man. No one is objecting to Hillary's
taskforce keeping its internal deliberations private. People are
objecting to keeping the names of the individual on it secret. That
is not standard policy.
>And in any event, why should the makeup of the committee be of any
>real concern? Either you like the plan or you don't, what
>difference does it make whether it was drafted by Rush Limbaugh or
>Lawrence Tribe?
Because by examining the makeup of the committee one can often predict
its recommendations. By influencing its makeup one can often effect
them.
For example, Clinton promised that his task force would include people
from all over the health industry. In fact, the vast majority of them
are government employees and most of them are Democratic congressional
staff. Right off the bat that tells us a lot about what the final
result will be.
Mike Polen
|> Bernie Cosell) writes:
|> >Michael Friedman (mfri...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
|> >} Kate E. Loomis) writes:
|> >} >Regarding the extensive list of names on the "top secret, Soviet-Style
|> >} >health reform task force" : there is no analogy here. These people are
|> >} >not creating policy, they are _drafting a plan_ . ...
|> >} >So what is the problem?
|>
|> >} The problem is that we are supposed to have an open government. Plans
|> >} that do not require security are not supposed to be drafted in secret
|> >} by people whose names are not even released.
|>
|> >} If nothing else, people who object to the makeup of the task force
|> >} have the right to know who is on it and to present their objections to
|> >} the people of the United States.
|>
|> >'plan making' machinery is particularly open.
|>
|> Phrases like "particularly open" or so vague that they are
|> meaningless. However, can you name another government committee whose
|> members are secret and which is not related to national defense or
|> sensitive foreign policy issues?
|>
was a key member of the White House Committee for Planning and Decision
Making. Are you suggesting that she only advised on national defense
and sensitive foreign policy issues?
--
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
David Kristofferson
The bionet newsgroups are for biological research.
THEY ARE NOT FOR POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS.
This indiscriminate broadcasting of political chit chat is annoying
the many scientists on our network who read the bionet newsgroups and
is especially annoying to those who receive the messages by e-mail.
There have now been TWO requests to stop cross-posting to bionet and I
am now issuing a much more strongly worded *third* request.
Richard Kaplan
>particular committee's meetings. I think the only ones who really have
>a problem with it are the MD types, who stand the most to lose from
>health care reform. For guys like me, who have the most to gain from
>reform, I say get off their backs. Finally somebody's actually doing
Actually, it is quite arguable that you "non MD types" have the
most to lose from health care reform and that we "MD types"
have the least to lose. Read today's USA Today. If the proposed
changes go through, *EVERY* U.S. citizen will see a *DRAMATIC*
*DECREASE* in access to care, via limitation of M.D. visits and
limitation of specialty consultations. If I am a patient, I
will have enough knowledge of medicine to know when to speak
up because I am being inappropriately brushed off; you
"non MD types" may not have such knowledge.
Now I know what Clinton meant during his campaign when
he said we should all expect "self-sacrifice."
--
Richard Kaplan M.D. Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104 (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN 55902 (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA N4VRB rka...@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com
Michael Friedman
Blatant lie.
No such Committee exists.
Michael Friedman
>>Jeff Sicherman blatantly lies in his post below...
>But only if you're stupid enough, like Michael Friedman, to be unable to
>understand the English language...
No, I understand it, but you can't have it both ways.
Either Bush just kept the meetings secret - which was totally legal,
ask the courts - or Bush kept the members secret, which he didn't, but
which would have been illegal and equivalent to Clinton's actions.
Either way, Jeff Sicherman attempts to mislead us. We can argue over
whether or not it is a blatant lie, but it's clearly not the truth.
>>In article <C4LAo...@csulb.edu> sich...@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>>In <26MAR199...@cc.utah.edu> djs...@cc.utah.edu(SEGAL, DAVID JAY) says:
>>>>In article <SMITH.93M...@minerva.harvard.edu>, sm...@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes...
>>>>{The WSJ requested help identifying these individuals, so I scanned the
>>>>{list and present it here along with the accompanying article with the
>>>>{hope that it will help to illuminate these proceedings whose outcome
>>>>{could affect all Americans and their progeny, but are nevertheless
>>>>{insulated from public inspection and debate.
>>>>What's the big deal? There are hundreds of committees in Washington. Most
>>>>people don't know who's on them; most people don't care. Why don't you
>>>>wait to see what they come up with and spend your energy evaluating that?
>>>>Isn't the message more important than the messenger?
>>> Also note that these whiners were nowhere to be found when Danny's
>>>Cabal on Competitiveness held its secret meetings to overturn
>>>regulations which had been arrived at through the open proposal
>>>and comment process.
>>The Bush administration didn't try to keep the names of the members of
>>the Council on Competitiveness secret. Jeff, you are a liar.
>And, of course, Jeff never said that the Bush administration did do
>this. What Jeff said, and what the Bush admin. did do, was keep the
>actual *meetings* secret.
>Meetings at which policies/regulations were enacted, not just discussed.
Wrongo.
Legally, there is no such thing as a policy.
I challenge you to find a regulation enacted by the Council on
Competitiveness.
Alan Bleasby
dissemination of biology-related information. I would sincerely appreciate
it if postings on this topic ceased.
Alan Bleasby
BIOSCI Europe/Asia/Africa
SERC Daresbury Laboratory
Warrington WA4 4AD
UK
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
>>What's the big deal? There are hundreds of committees in Washington. Most
>>people don't know who's on them; most people don't care. Why don't you
>>wait to see what they come up with and spend your energy evaluating that?
>>Isn't the message more important than the messenger?
>>Besides,
>>I don't understand why people are so focused on the publicity of this
>>particular committee's meetings. I think the only ones who really have
>>a problem with it are the MD types, who stand the most to lose from
>>health care reform. For guys like me, who have the most to gain from
>>reform, I say get off their backs.
Why in the world do you think that having a bunch of socialists destroy the
health care system will benefit you? If you want that kind of economy,
go live in the USSR...oops, they can't stand socialism and are changing.
Well, go live in CHina then...ummm, well, I guess they are busting their
butts to abandon socialism too. Well, Cuba, yeah, Cuba. You'll be able to
have socialism there for at least a few more years.
>>Finally somebody's actually doing
>>something. Almost anything is better than the system we've got now.
>>Besides, the committee can't pass any legislation by itself anyway.
> Also note that these whiners were nowhere to be found when Danny's
>Cabal on Competitiveness held its secret meetings to overturn
>regulations which had been arrived at through the open proposal
>and comment process.
Perhaps it is that Quayle's cabal was trying (for the most part) to protect
people's rights, while Hillary's Cabal is fundamentally dedicated to violating
them.
--Brian
