*sigh* it's all over-- HSA

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/22/02 2:27:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I'd like to believe that, but I don't, because every decrease in regulation

> has resulted in an increase in ill health. Look at the decrease in USDA

> inspections and slaughterhouse regulation: it just gave us lots more

> spoiled meat. And before the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, our air and

> water were much more polluted. And we're headed back that way, because

> Bush is gutting those regulations.

>

That's not moving towards laissez faire, it's moving towards

government-supported corporations with no gov't restrictions. Like I said, I

don't really push for a " free market " idea anyway, but the gov't has more

regulations, subsidies, etc, that are protecting and benefiting corporations

than the other way around, so obviously removing the few protections we have

is oging to make things worse.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/22/02 2:48:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Well, I know that in this last election, the Democrats were dramatically

> outspent by the Republicans. The GOP got far more in the way of corporate

> contributions. By way of an example, Pataki outspent McCall by something

> like 5:1.

What I say is probably more true for the Presidency than for smaller

elections-- and if I remember right, that's solely where I'm getting my

numbers from.

Chris

[Guest guest]

....at the risk of offending some here, I would like to suggest that

if you are troubled about the HSA, TIA and the other liberty-

threatening actions of our current government, that you consider

making a donation to the ACLU. I recognize that not everyone agrees

with everything they do. In this case, I think the ACLU is most

likely to be one of our best options for getting the message through

into Congress that We The People (at least, this subset...) are

displeased with the current HSA and its " side effects " .

http://www.aclu.org/

A contribution to the ACLU always makes me feel as if I've done

SOMETHING concrete and useful to try to counter all the power and

influence wielded by the big guys. I know that I'm in a tiny (but

well-informed!) minority on most issues, and my contrarian voice is

likely to go unheard. So I try to find the best " megaphone " I can to

amplify my message, and I think, for these issues, the ACLU is likely

to be the best choice I have.

I hope those of you who don't support the ACLU will forgive me this

pitch for them. Effective policy debate requires that contrasting

viewpoints get heard, and in our current system of government, that

means lobbyists, more so than individuals, are the voices that

Congress hears.

[Guest guest]

>I would like to suggest that

>if you are troubled about the HSA, TIA and the other liberty-

>threatening actions of our current government, that you consider

>making a donation to the ACLU.

Hear hear! I actually saw an ad on TV for the ACLU yesterday concerning

Ashcroft and his trampling of the Constitution.

-

[Guest guest]

Interesting, , that seems to support the theory that overall,

Republicans are the party of business, while democrats are the party of big

business. Republicans are more likely to promote the interest of the entire

business class at the expense of the working class, while democrats are more

likely to promote the interest of big business and big labor at the expense

of small business.

Chris

In a message dated 11/22/02 6:03:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> According to this, business contributions went about 4:3 in favor of

> Republicans. The difference was significant, but not overwhelming. I

> couldn't find a breakdown of spending by party, but I imagine that it

> corresponds roughly to donations.

>

> http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.asp?cycle=2002

>

> Interestingly, the top six donors were overwhelmingly Democratic. Global

> Crossing was leaning a bit leftward (65%), too. Eli Lilly was 78%

> Republican.

>

> http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.asp?cycle=2002

>

> Also, take a look at the top ten donors since 1989. All overwhelmingly

> Democratic, except for Philip , the National Association of

Realtors,

> and the AMA, and even those were fairly even except during the Clinton

> years.

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Despite the need for regulation for public

>health, I think the state of public health would be superior with 100%

>laissez faire to what it is now.

I'd like to believe that, but I don't, because every decrease in regulation

has resulted in an increase in ill health. Look at the decrease in USDA

inspections and slaughterhouse regulation: it just gave us lots more

spoiled meat. And before the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, our air and

water were much more polluted. And we're headed back that way, because

Bush is gutting those regulations.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>They just tend to give out more to the GOP b/c they know they'll get

>_more_ favors, but they certainly don't slight the Democrats at all.

Well, I know that in this last election, the Democrats were dramatically

outspent by the Republicans. The GOP got far more in the way of corporate

contributions. By way of an example, Pataki outspent McCall by something

like 5:1.

-

[Guest guest]

Irene-

>What we need is to take back our

>government in the form of election reform and not do away with it. We need

>government to be a steward of our resources and appropriately regulate

>industry or industry will run roughshod over us.

Amen brother! Err, sister! <g>

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Which product are we talking about? I know that there are pending lawsuits

>against Eli Lilly, but these have nothing to do with the smallpox

>vaccination, right?

My apologies for being a bit unclear. I was talking generally and then

used Eli Lilly as an example.

>Crony capitalism is a contradiction in terms-- " fascism " is a more accurate

>term-

So you'd call Bush a fascist?

>and I don't think that there should be a public health policy. The

>idea that there should be one is what got us into this mess in the first

>place.

Wow, I sure disagree there. Sanitation is a public health issue, for

example, and sanitation, BTW, was the real cause of the decline of

smallpox, not the vaccine.

-

[Guest guest]

Quoting Idol <Idol@...>:

> Well, I know that in this last election, the Democrats were dramatically

> outspent by the Republicans. The GOP got far more in the way of

> corporate contributions.

According to this, business contributions went about 4:3 in favor of

Republicans. The difference was significant, but not overwhelming. I

couldn't find a breakdown of spending by party, but I imagine that it

corresponds roughly to donations.

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.asp?cycle=2002

Interestingly, the top six donors were overwhelmingly Democratic. Global

Crossing was leaning a bit leftward (65%), too. Eli Lilly was 78%

Republican.

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.asp?cycle=2002

Also, take a look at the top ten donors since 1989. All overwhelmingly

Democratic, except for Philip , the National Association of Realtors,

and the AMA, and even those were fairly even except during the Clinton

years.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.asp

> By way of an example, Pataki outspent McCall by something

> like 5:1.

That's probably true, but not an accurate representation of the general

situation. As I heard it, the main reason for this is that the national

Democratic party gave up on McCall and refused to back his race.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Daphne,

Sorry, I was only agreeing with his statement about people should have the

choice as whether or not to have smallpox shots, not intentionally disagreeing

with any statement you made. I'm sorry if you felt doubly patronized by my cut

and paste. I didn't mean to do that, I'll try to be more careful next time.

Michele

----- Original Message -----

From: biophile410

Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:54 PM

Subject: Re: *sigh* it's all over-- HSA

Michele, sorry about your husband having to be vaccinated against his will. I

do wonder why you chose to reproduce *only* the only the part of someone

else's post where he addresses me in a patronizing manner and

misrepresents what I wrote? To be fair, if you disagree with my arguments

you should refute my arguments, rather than quoting someone else doing so.

No offense meant.

Daphne

> I totally agree with this. That said, my husband is a police officer and

would

probably be forced to have a smallpox vaccine, so I am wondering short of

quitting his job what could he do to minimize the effects of the vaccine if it

came to that?

>

> Michele

>

> ++++++++++++++The most important point here Daphne that I think you

> have overlooked is that this has NOTHING to do with vaccines and

> their value or effectiveness. This is about a government mandate

> that will irrefutably guarantee the death and injure of American

> citizens. I am simply suggesting that if one or two or 10,000 of

> those americans would prefer to take their chances on their own and

> not risk their lives by being vaccinated they must be given that

> choice it is their life to lose not yours or anyone elses.

> >

[Guest guest]

I didn't say government can't do anything right, or that government is bad, I

still don't think we need the goverenmnet's hand in another thing. Also, it

isn't unheard of for government to take over something and then do a worse job

then the private sector, and who is responible if they mess up? You can't sue

the goverenment. If government can do things cheaper then why does everything

they do cost so much? Military and roads are the job of the government in my

opinion, not making and mandanting vaccinations. I would prefer if governement

stayed out of health care. I would prefer if the government went after the true

threat of the smallpox issue, the Saddam Hussiens, instead of forcing a

vaccination on the American citizens.

I hope this doesn't come off sounding like I'm upset, it's been an interesting

exchange of ideas.

Michele

----- Original Message -----

From: Irene Musiol

Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:34 PM

Subject: Re: Re: *sigh* it's all over-- HSA

Actually I don't find having the government make the vaccines scarier than

private companies. Much of the really important research is done by the

government and then given to companies to market. Don't buy into the

government can't do anything right stuff. That is just propoganda. There

are lots of scientists and engineers working for the government, NIH, NASA,

and believe it or not DOD that are extremely talented. And they can do

their jobs without being encumbered by bottm line politics and having to

show quarterly profit margins. There is less pressure to take risky

shortcuts in order to increase profits although they are also subject to

budget pressures. Government at its best can do many things for a fraction

of the cost of corporations because there are no shareholders or CEO's to

pay. This is a huge threat to big business. It is even considered unfair

competition for a governemnt agency to bid against a contractor. Now of

course not everything is roses and there are many problems in government

but just don't get too carried away by the bleating of the " gov'mnt is bad "

mongers! The notion that people working for the governmnent are stupid

while people who work for corporations are smart is just silly. You There

is talent and dead weight and everything in between in both places. Also

the folks making policy decisions will be the same whether it is governemnt

or private companies making the product. And another huge difference in

government and private industry is that if it is not profitable than

private industry won't do it. They can't or they will go out of business.

However that is what government is for, to provide the necessary services

even if they are not profitable. I mean can you imagine if we had to take

up a collection to pay the military? How many bombers do you think they

could buy. Or how about a private fire department or police force. Or maybe

we can all chip in and build a freeway. What we need is to take back our

government in the form of election reform and not do away with it. We need

government to be a steward of our resources and appropriately regulate

industry or industry will run roughshod over us.

Sorry for being so long winded.

I now step off the soapbox.

Irene

[Guest guest]

Of course I agree the governement should go after the true threat rather

than forcing vaccines on everyone, but you had been making the argument

that we shouldn't hold Ely Lilly liable in part because if they go out of

business then who is left but the government to produce the product and I

think the words were " and we know how much the government cares about us "

or words to that effect. That is what I responded to.

Also I didn't say the governement does everything better but they are not

as bad as the propoganda would have you believe. I agree that the military

costs way too much but the production of all that military hardware is

contracted out to military contractors and is not produced within the

government. Another rerason that everything the governement does costs so

much is that if it was a profitable endeavor private companies would want

it. If it is expensive without a return on investment then it is left to

the taxpayer to foot the bill. It was the government incoalition with

universities that developed the internet. This took about 20 years. It was

only after the thing worked and the development costs were paid for by the

taxpayer did corporations want in.

At 03:41 PM 11/23/02, you wrote:

>I didn't say government can't do anything right, or that government is

>bad, I still don't think we need the goverenmnet's hand in another

>thing. Also, it isn't unheard of for government to take over something

>and then do a worse job then the private sector, and who is responible if

>they mess up? You can't sue the goverenment. If government can do

>things cheaper then why does everything they do cost so much? Military

>and roads are the job of the government in my opinion, not making and

>mandanting vaccinations. I would prefer if governement stayed out of

>health care. I would prefer if the government went after the true threat

>of the smallpox issue, the Saddam Hussiens, instead of forcing a

>vaccination on the American citizens.

>

>I hope this doesn't come off sounding like I'm upset, it's been an

>interesting exchange of ideas.

>

>Michele

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Irene Musiol

>

> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:34 PM

> Subject: Re: Re: *sigh* it's all over-- HSA

>

>

> Actually I don't find having the government make the vaccines scarier than

> private companies. Much of the really important research is done by the

> government and then given to companies to market. Don't buy into the

> government can't do anything right stuff. That is just propoganda. There

> are lots of scientists and engineers working for the government, NIH,

> NASA,

> and believe it or not DOD that are extremely talented. And they can do

> their jobs without being encumbered by bottm line politics and having to

> show quarterly profit margins. There is less pressure to take risky

> shortcuts in order to increase profits although they are also subject to

> budget pressures. Government at its best can do many things for a fraction

> of the cost of corporations because there are no shareholders or CEO's to

> pay. This is a huge threat to big business. It is even considered unfair

> competition for a governemnt agency to bid against a contractor. Now of

> course not everything is roses and there are many problems in government

> but just don't get too carried away by the bleating of the " gov'mnt is

> bad "

> mongers! The notion that people working for the governmnent are stupid

> while people who work for corporations are smart is just silly. You There

> is talent and dead weight and everything in between in both places. Also

> the folks making policy decisions will be the same whether it is

> governemnt

> or private companies making the product. And another huge difference in

> government and private industry is that if it is not profitable than

> private industry won't do it. They can't or they will go out of business.

> However that is what government is for, to provide the necessary services

> even if they are not profitable. I mean can you imagine if we had to take

> up a collection to pay the military? How many bombers do you think they

> could buy. Or how about a private fire department or police force. Or

> maybe

> we can all chip in and build a freeway. What we need is to take back our

> government in the form of election reform and not do away with it. We need

> government to be a steward of our resources and appropriately regulate

> industry or industry will run roughshod over us.

> Sorry for being so long winded.

> I now step off the soapbox.

> Irene

>

>

>

>

>