Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Hillary on Healthcare

  1. Oct 31, 2005 #1

    ( AAPS WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 1998 /PRNewswire/)
    -- A Notice of Appeal was filed today by the government in the case of AAPS v. Hillary Clinton. Last December, Judge Royce Lamberth issued a Memorandum and Order finding the White House and Department of Justice guilty of misconduct in the case, and imposed sanctions of almost $285,000 for what the judge called a "cover up."

    Kathryn Serkes, spokesperson for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons issued the following statement:

    "The Administration has already wasted more than $14 million on the illegal task force (GAO report, 11/95), and more than a million in litigation defending an indefensible cover up. Apparently, they have no problem throwing away more of the taxpayers money in a feeble attempt to save face.

    Excerpts of the Memorandum of Judge Royce Lamberth 12/18/97:

    " ... This whole dishonest explanation was provided to this court in the Magaziner declaration on March 3, 1993, and this court holds that such dishonesty is sanctionable and was not good faith dealing with the court or plaintiff's counsel ... this type of conduct is reprehensible, and the government must be held accountable for it."

    "It is clear that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of government, and the government itself -- and should be --accountable when its officials run amok. There were no rogue lawyers here misleading the court. The court agrees with plaintiffs that these were not reckless and inept errors taken by bewildered counsel. The Executive Branch of the government, working in tandem,was dishonest with this court, and the government must now face the consequences of its misconduct."

    "It seems that some government officials never learn that the cover-up can be worse than the underlying conduct. Most shocking to this court, and deeply disappointing, is that the Department of Justice would participate in such conduct."

    http://pages.prodigy.com/DOCTORINFORM/appeal.htm [Broken]

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 31, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Let's try again - this time stay on the topic of the thread. For those who missed it, Hillary Clinton is still a sitting Senator, thus her actions and positions and the history thereof are more than fair-game for questioning in this forum.
  4. Oct 31, 2005 #3
    Don't we need some kind of explanation as to why a seven and a half year old article is being linked to and quoted from in a Politics and World Affairs forum? Or is it intended that PF will ultimately become an almanac of every political news story ever written?
  5. Oct 31, 2005 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'll take a stab at it: with Hillary possibly looking at a run for President, people will want to know her opinion on national issues. Since most of her work on the national stage came when her husband was President, most information available will be 5-12 years old.
  6. Oct 31, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'll add to Russ' stab: Hillary Clinton is a sitting Senator, and digging into the past misconduct (alleged or actual) of folks in Congress is a hot topic right now. She's fair game in a forum on politics. There's also no reason to avoid historical context in politics, it's actually pretty important in understanding the motivations of politicians to know what they did before they realized a spotlight would be turned on them. Besides, this forum isn't titled "Current Events."
  7. Oct 31, 2005 #6
    As if it weren't clear, I was inviting GENIERE to state some kind of point as a springboard to discussion.

    The thread is entitled "Hilary on Healthcare" and yet the content seems to be about the conduct of Ira Magaziner and the White House, the lawyers of, and Justice Department in general. I thought some explanation as to why such an old story was subject of a thread had perhaps been forgotten.

    Also this, so far as I can tell, is all "historical context" and nothing to be put in that context. I had presumed, from your first post on this thread, Moonbear, that this thread was a continuation of another that went off-topic. If so, maybe the rest of us can be brought up to speed?
  8. Oct 31, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I dont think anybody will be voting for female President in 2008, irregardless of race or party denomination. No offense (of course it will be taken by some), but that is just a common sense issue that stems from the reasons that may not be transparent to you at the time, but best believe - they are there and they are good ones.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  9. Oct 31, 2005 #8
    :uhh: Maybe I've been thrown off kilter by the introduction of made-up words such as "irregardless" but are you being sexist?
  10. Oct 31, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What I am is of no issue here, as in the end the people will decide who will win, and the people are sexist.

    And as "made up" a word is, I'd rather use it irregardless of what you may use instead
  11. Oct 31, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Nope, this one was started as-is, and a series of clearly off-topic bickering has been deleted. Sorry if my remarks led to confusion. You can wait for Geniere to clarify his argument or rationale before proceeding if you'd like; it might be the prudent choice even.
  12. Oct 31, 2005 #11
    What is a good reason why a woman shouldn't be President? I agree with you that America is sexist, and I don't foresee a female President for quite some time; however, I see no legitimate reason why a woman shouldn't become President.
  13. Oct 31, 2005 #12
    It is called spin. The Bushies are getting worried and have started bringing up the Clinton's past in a desperate attempt to distract from Bush's present.:wink:

    Ignore it and it will go away.

    BTW AAPS is:

    Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.,
    an Indiana not-for-profit corporation;
    American Council for Health Care Reform,
    a Virginia not-for-profit corporation;
    National Legal & Policy Center,
    a District of Columbia not-for-profit corporation.

    AAPS was opposed to the Clinton's attempt to reform the American health care system. Reform failed and our health care system is really great now. NOT
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2005
  14. Nov 1, 2005 #13
    Actually my OP achieved the intended result. You might call it silage for future use.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook