🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <RICKS.93Mar25170838@luke.luke.nrl.navy.mil> ricks@luke.nrl.navy.mil (Richard Schumeyer) writes:

[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
     wright@hicomb.hi.com  ::  These are my opinions, not necessarily 
     Hitachi's, though they are the opinions of all right-thinking people

	This is Change.  Change is good.  Your just pressing for the
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.

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_ . 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

>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_ . 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?

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     
ricks@luke.nrl.navy.mil 
------------------------
Opinions mine only.

In article <1ot5vgINN28i@gap.caltech.edu>, kloomis@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.

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@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)

In article <RICKS.93Mar25170838@luke.luke.nrl.navy.mil> ricks@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

In article <SMITH.93Mar24182949@minerva.harvard.edu>, smith@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.  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.segal@m.cc.utah.edu

In article <SMITH.93Mar24182949@minerva.harvard.edu> smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>
>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.
>find out.
>
>  [List follows in original post]
>

There's one glaring omission: Dr. Doogie Howser. How can anyone support
a health-care commission without him?

In article <1ot5vgINN28i@gap.caltech.edu> kloomis@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_ . 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?

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

In article <26MAR199313552586@cc.utah.edu> djs1539@cc.utah.edu (SEGAL, DAVID JAY) writes:
>In article <SMITH.93Mar24182949@minerva.harvard.edu>, smith@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.  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.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig

In article <C4LAow.7zw@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <26MAR199313552586@cc.utah.edu> djs1539@cc.utah.edu (SEGAL, DAVID JAY) writes:
>>In article <SMITH.93Mar24182949@minerva.harvard.edu>, smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes...
>>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.
>>
>
>  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
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed." - Lazarus Long

Jeff Sicherman blatantly lies in his post below...

In article <C4LAow.7zw@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <26MAR199313552586@cc.utah.edu> djs1539@cc.utah.edu (SEGAL, DAVID JAY) writes:
>>In article <SMITH.93Mar24182949@minerva.harvard.edu>, smith@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.

In article <26MAR199313552586@cc.utah.edu> djs1539@cc.utah.edu
 (SEGAL, DAVID JAY) 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

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          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  

In article <C4LAow.7zw@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <26MAR199313552586@cc.utah.edu> djs1539@cc.utah.edu (SEGAL, DAVID JAY) writes:
>>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