100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

October 30, 1973 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1973-10-30

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

.wY rr ppr/I Y p Wr l r r YrN

ae £frMid0n Tiat
Eighty-three years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mi. 48104

News Phone: 764-0552

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1973

SGC:
By STEPHEN SELBST
ANYONE WHO HAS any doul
the foolishness of the new SG
Constitution should be chained t
and forced to sit through one ent
ing. In the past SGC has never
garded as the place to receive an
lesson. But the new council thr
make the previous administrations
models of restraint.
Some things change, 'some stay t
Gone are the outrageous bursts e
ity that characterized the Jacobs
But the foolish and frivolous r
that waste time and sap council
needed dignity remain. David St
mains, why?
Intended to be embarrassing or
members or people in attendance1
using these resolutions to attack o
bers or people well known to the
Gone too, are the attempts to
ple in and prevent them from leavi
such efforts might seem welcome
The continual clamor of people v
in and out with no apparent co
the proceedings is not only rude,
quently disruptive.
AS USUAL, the members of th
were among the worst offenders

Suggestions
discourtesy is concerned. The babble from
bts about auxillary conversations can drown out the
C 10-10-10 proceedings, much to the annoyance of
to a seat those with an interest in what's being said.
tire meet- Not all are discourteous but, a few deter-
been re- mined rowdies can disrupt the whole works.
i etiguette David Faye and some members of the
eatens to Campus Coalition party were continually in-
look like sensitive to the rights of those around
them. Time after time Lee Gill had to call
the same. for order, looking angrier and wearier on
f profan- each occasion. \
s regime. The, physical set-up of the room added in
esolutions large measure to the confusion. Members
of sorely of the council sat at benches around the
haper re- perimeter of the room, with guests and stu-
dents in the middle. One observer called
vitriolic, the arrangement, "an oasis of students
delight in in a sea of insanity."
her mem- Dave Hornstein, former Emperor of the
council. Bullshit Party, and former member of
lock peo- council, suggested, "get a calliope and
ing. Now, have a peanut vendor in the aisles."
at times.
wandering AT BEST the room seems to have been
ncern for poorly aranged with little thought given to
but fre- who would sit where. At worst it con-
tributes to the chaos by tacitly encouraging
members to be rude. If you sit in the back
e council of the room, you might as well be in ano-
as far as ther time zone. The best advice is to try

from the war zone

No cease fire for Nixon

to reconstruct what you think is happen-
ing.
It would be better to have rows of bench-
es, all facing the front, with the student
and guest seats in the rear. Entries and
exits would be quieter, and a semblance
of decorum might be preserved. in addi-
tion, as the members got closer to the
speakers they might be intimidated into be-
ing courteous.
There ought to be some kind of me-
chanism for streamlining the business of
council as well. Last week's agenda had
an inordinate number of proposals on it,
some of them hardly serious. When the in-
tent is frivolous, there is no need to waste
the time of the council. Perhaps something
could be set up to screen useless items from
clogging the agenda. This could s a v e
much tihe because unfortunately frivolous
motions usually end up taking as much
time as serious ones, after the rumpus dies
down.
PERHAPS TOO, debate could be limited
when all established positions are known
and further comments serve only to in-
flame passions. This is not to suggest that
fair comment be eliminated, but only that
an attempt be made to observe time limits
listed on the agenda.

An old complaint of persons involved
with SGC is that the meetings never, start
on time. The complaint is valid. On one
occasion, by the time the council g o t
around to the second item on the agenda,
they were an hour behind schedule. The
meeting would have been over around 11:45
with each item heard if the meeting had be-
gun on time and all time constraints were
followed. As it was nearly all the agenda
had to be discarded for lack of time and
the meeting wasn't over until midnight.
Presumably some reasonable level of in-
telligence is a prerequisite to entering the
University. And presumably members of
council represent the leadership culled from
the student body. But one would ;ever know
that to watch SGC in action.
AS USUAL it only takes a few determin-
ed "provocateurs" to create and maintain
a perpetual disturbance. It seems absurd
however, that adults can't get together and
sit still for a few hours. Mutual respect
and common courtesy should be the rule.
Anything less simply undermines the al-
ready questionable authority of council.
Stephen Selbst is a staff writer for The
Dai y.

4J

FOLLOWING A DRAMATIC two-day
postponement, President Nixon fin-
ally went before the 'nation Friday night
to state his case on the most recent wave
of scandals to hit his battered adminis-
tration. Rather than refute the serious
charges lodged against his Presidency,
Mr. Nixon's public performance only dis-
played the arrogance that has made him
the target of impeachment efforts.
The press conference fell far short of
achieving the "ceasefire on the home
front" Nixon so desperately desires. On
the contrary, Nixon's defense of his re-
cent actions is more likely to open old
wounds than heal the new.
As usual, the President sought to ob-
scure his blatant misuse of power at home
by glorifying his misuse of power abroad.
He once again brought out his old stand-
by - "peace with honor" in Vietnam. He
reiterated his "most difficult" decision to
bomb North Vietnam last Christmas, not-
ing that he "stuck it out" under great
criticism then, and "got our prisoners of
war home . . . on their feet rather than
on their knees."
HE PRESIDENT ALSO relied on an-
other familiar smoke screen, a de-
nunciation of the news media, in an ef-
fort to deflate the criticism of his con-
duct. Apparently Nixon would have us
believe that the media is responsible for
the lack of public confidence in the gov-
ernment. However, if the administration's
criticism, of the media ever had any cre-
dibility, it has surely, not retained it
through these months of official lies, "in-
operative" statements and planned news
leaks.
While the continued use of the "old
tricks" mentioned above may indicate the'
President's lack of imagination, his pro-
posal regarding a new special prosecutor
demonstrates his callous indifference to
the need for an independent investigation
of the administration.
The mere idea that either the Congress
or the American people would accept an-

other special prosecutor responsible to
Nixon is patently absurd. The firing of
Archibald Cox makes it clear that any
special prosecutor chosen by the execu-
tive will have the scope of the investiga-
tion curtailed by Presidential perogative.
The fact that the new special prosecutor
would be picked by Acting Attorney Gen-
eral Bork, who describes himself as the
Administration's "hired gun," also fails
to reassure.
THE LIMITS ANY such investigation
would face were made clear by Nix-
on's response to a question regarding the
right of a new special prosecutor to ob-
tain Presidential papers through court
action. The President stated that such
court action would not be necessary and
that events surrounding the firing of Cox
showed that "these are matters that can
be worked out in... cooperation, and not
by having a suit filed." It is doubtful
many outside the White House have
drawn the same optimistic conclusion
from Cox' firing.
The President's response to a question
regarding Nixon intimate Bebe Rebozo's
handling of a $100,000 contribution from
Howard Hughes bordered on the conic.
Nixon agreed that his professed innocence
in this matter might be hard to believe,
but only to "people who do not know how
I operate." Recent events have made it
all too clear how Richard Nixon operates,
in a manner that is inconsistent with,
justice and democratic government in
this country.
Despite his desire for a domestic cease-
fire, Nixon's press conference failed to
defuse any of the substantive issues that
make his impeachment imperative. Un-
doubtedly, the President feels, he can
withstand the pressure. "The tougher it
gets, the cooler I get," he told reporters.
If Nixon has not better answers to the
serious questions raised over his conduct
in office, the White House may indeed be-
come a political deep freeze.

A

I
I
U

I

I

Letters to

labeling
To The Daily:l
THE FOLLOWING is an open
letter to Sen. Gilbert Bursley:
This is to encourage you to vote
for House Bill 4974, the Comminut-
ed Meat Labeling Act. This act
would require retailers to identify
which brands of ground meats and
sausages meet the lax federal pur-
ity and quality standards but not
Michigan's stricter standards.
Michigan's consumers deserve
the kind of protection their super-
ior standards provide. Recent rul-
ings have allowed the sale of meat
which does not meet those stand-
ards. The least that you, as a state
senator, can do is to vote to insure
that consumers can know which
meat is inferior.
I speak . for an organization
which, after a year's operation, col-
lected $1.SO voluntary member-
ship fees from 12,500 University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor students.
Michael Peisner
PIRGIM-UM
Board of Directors
Oct. 29
lock-out
To The Daily:
I HAVE SEVERAL questions con-
cerning the "lock-out" at the So-
viet concert Sunday afternoon at
Rackham. Why was it necessary
to lock all but one outer door and
funnel concert-goers through a
crowded maze of tables set up at
the entrance? This arrangement
did nothing for the enjoyment of
the concert; people had to stand in
the rain while waiting to give their
tickets, and I saw several elderly
women who had to stand and wait

The Daily
while their ticket-holding husbands
parked.
The people demonstrating out-
side, in the rain, with leaflets and
"Free the Jews" signs were or-
derly and polite; they were asking
only that people be aware of the
serious issue and were not urging
non-attendance. I have seen this.
group peacefully picketing at oth-
er Sovietaconcerts; they didanoth-
ing more "bothersome" than offer
a leaflet and hold up a sign. If such
practices are an annoyance to
some, surely that is a small price
to pay for free concert-goers in a
country proud of its freedom of
expression.
I also wonder if fire regulations
were properly observed. At least
duringthe first number of the con-
cert, all lobby doors but one were
locked, and a rope was across the
entrances inside the concert room.
And finally, I wonder if the peo-
ple responsible for this petty, mean
arrangement realize what an un-
pleasant, inhumane atmosphere
was created. There were students,
faculty, and towns-people demon-
strating. I am sure they would not
have expected inside accommoda-
tion for all of their considerable
number. They deserve greater re-
spect and consideration in the fu-
ture.
Rebecca Super
Oct. 29
The Editorial Page of The
Michigan Daily is open to any-
one who w1ishe s to submit
articles. Generally speaking, all
articles should be less than 1,000
words.

"SURE S UIP IT! 1WHAT AREYOU IGOIN TOPDO

) AB OLT JT 3
h care.
would be financed, as it is now, by
federal taxes. Most experts agree
that the current tax system places
the largest burden on middle-in-
come salaried persons and wage
earners.

Settling the Gill case

THIS WEEK THE report of the special
Student Government Council com-
mittee investigating charges of corrup-
tion leveled against Council President
Lee Gill will probably be released. Hope-
fully the report will finally settle this
troublesome issue.
The charges against. Gill, alleging that
he stole property from SGC and attempt-
ed to embezzle Council funds are indeed
serious, and, the past two meetings of
Council have demonstrated that the con-
troversy must be cleared up before SGC
will be capable of dealing with any other
issues.
Hopefully the report will be so well
documented and complete that no
charges' of "whitewash" or "cover-up"
can discredit it. And if the report sug-
gests that there has been some wrong-
doing on the part of Gill, there should be
TODAY'S STAFF:
News: Deborah Mutnick, Cheryl Pilate,
Charles Stein, Sue Stephenson, Rolfe
Tessem
Editorial Page: Eric Schoch; Chuck Wilbur
Arts Page: Diane Levick,
Photo Technician: David Margolick

conclusive and concrete evidence to that
effect.
THE ATTEMPTS by various Council fac-
tions, notably Campus Coalition, to
shove through, a recall resolution against
Gill have been long on rhetoric and ac-
cusations but totally devoid of any sub-
stantive evidence. Gill's enemies have
only been able to bring in hearsay evi-
dence that was then denied by those
quoted.
The whole affair has also had an un-
fortunate undertone of racism which be-
gan during last spring's ill-fated all-cam-
pus election, at which time Gill as well as
other minority candidates were subjected
to slander and racial epithets.
Since this fall's election, Council has
been paralyzed by these unsubstantiated
charges and resolutions against Gill, as
well as the other formal and informal at-
tacks that generally characterize its
meetings.
It is therefore imperative that the in-
vestigative committee report clear up
this matter once and for all. SGC con-
trols a -considerable amount of money,
and could be dealing with many import-
ant issues. It is time that it began doing
so.

Buyer's guide to national healt

_ a F

By THOMAS BODENHEIMER,
M.D., and RUTH TEBBETS
NATIONAL HEALTH insurance
has been talked about for so
long it has begun to seem like an
idea whose time would never come.
But several health proposals are
now before Congress,rand many
experts are saying they would not
be surprised to see some form of
legislation emerge within the next
year. It is time for citizens to start
asking what "national health in-
surance" really means.
One thing it doesn't mean, in the
United States, is free "socialized"
medicine, as provided in England
or Canada. There are as many
health insurance plans as there are
interests involved, but they are
alike in requiring all but the poor-
est beneficiaries to pay at least
part of the cost.
The plans differ greatly, how-
ever, as to price, method of pay-
ment, and - most crucial - as to
what benefits are offered, and to
whom. The front-runners among
health insurance proposals are the
Kennedy-Griffiths Health Security

Bill, a Nixon Administratibn bill,
and the Long-Ribicoff Catastrophic
Health Insurance and Medical As-
sistance Reform Act. The Ken-
nedy-Griffiths bill is presently be-
fore the Senate Ways and Means
Committee, the Administration bill
is being rewritten, and the Long-
Ribicoff bill is on the Senate floor.
The major differences may be un-
derstood by asking a few simple
questions.
WILL I BE COVERED?
Everyone is eligible under all
three plans. However, under the
Catastrophic Health Insurance
Plan (CHIP) authorized by Sena-
tors Long and Ribicoff, you would
have to be very unlucky to actually
receive benefits. CHIP w o u I d
start picking up the tab only, after
you'd been in the hospital 60 days,
or after you had spent $2000 on
doctors' bills. Senator Long cites
as one advantage of his bill that
only 2 per cent of Americans would
draw benefits in any one year.
The Nixon and Kennedy-Grif-
fiths plans would cover the average
patient, not just the victim of

catastrophe. But the President's
measure would cover employed
persons (with their dependents),
low-income people, and the elder' y
under three separate systems. You
might go through a lot of red tape
to get coverage, should you happen
to fall sick when you had just lost
a job, or just turned 65.
The Long-Ribicoff plan likewise
covers the poor under a separate
system. The measure's "Medical
Assistance Plan" wo'id replace
Medicaid (current federaiy tinanc-
ed health care program for welfare
recipients and other low-income
persons). The new program prom-
ises a nationwide system of- medi-
cal benefits for persons with in-
comes below $2400 for an individ-
ual, $4800 for a family of four.
WHICH MEDICAL BILLS WILL
IT PAY FOR?
All of the plans leave somethivn
out. The broadest measure, the
Kennedy-Griffiths Health Security
plan would pay all doctor and hos-
pital bills as well as laboratory
and X-ray charges, but would pay
dentist bills only for children un-
der 15. Drugs would be paid for
only when you are in the hospital.
The Administration plan wpuld
not pay anything for dentists, or
drugs. It would cover laboratory
and X-ray bills only when these
amounted to over $100 (which
means the individual would pay
most such bills). Neither plan pays
for psychiatric or nursing h o m e
care.
As currently written, the Nixon
plan for low-income (aon-paying)
persons covers only 8 visits to a
doctor per year, and limits t h e
number of days in the hospital.
These limitations are mo-e string-
ent than current limitations on
Medicaid.
The Long-Ribicoff plan, paying
nothing toward most people's med-
ical costs, promises .i fairly com-
prehensive system of benefits for
low-income persons. included would
be: hospitalization, doctor bihs,
laboratory and x-ray services fam-
ily planing, nursing home care,
and amensvhiar.;ser.,,ie

You would still be liable for 515
per day in the hospital, and 20
per cent of other costs.
The Nixon Administration p 1 a n
starts coverage this side of bank-
ruptcy, and is a better bet in case
of medium-to-grave illness or ac-
cident. But for the flu, tonsillitis,
a broken arm, stitches -- the minl
or ailments and injuries that ac-
count for most visits to the doctor
- it is no help at all. Under the
Nixon plan's system of "deduct-
ibles", an employed perso'n world
pay thefirst $100 of doo r bills.
You would also pay for the t:rst
two days you spend in the hoipi:ax.
As with CHIP, you would end up
paying at least ,part of each bill.
Long-Ribicoff has a similar "co-
payment" provision for its low-in-
come beneficiaries. Patients would
pay $3 toward each medical ap-
pointment from their own pockets.
Of the three plans, the Kennedy-
Griffiths proposal is the only one
that would pay the whole bill.
WHO REALLY PAYS?
All three proposals would write
into law what has long been a
standard provision' of union con-
tracts: partial contribution by em-
ployers to employees' health in-
-surance.
The minimal Long-Ribicoff plan
would be financed by a payroll tax
of .3 per cent each for empbyees
and employers, on earnings up to
$10,800 (the amount taxed f o r
social security). The more com-
prehensive Kennedy-Griffiths plan
calls for a tax on earnings up to
$15,000, plus a matching amount
from federal tax funds.
To the extent that it is support-
ed by federal taxes, the Kennedy-
Griffiths plan is partly "progres-
sive" - persons with higher earn-
ings pay a larger share. But the
payroll tax provision of both bills.
is "regressive" - by taxing only
earnings below a certain amount,
both plans make low-income per-
sons contribute a greater percent-
age of their income than thosa bet-
ter off. For example, under the
Kennedy-Griffiths plan, a person
;aningr ,70lf u old nai , n1 n-

E

WHQ PROFITS?
A quick way to answer .his
question is to see where each bill
draws its support. '
Long and Ribicoff's CHIP has
the strong support of the American
Medical Association, and is also
backed by the niajor insu,'ance
companies. The measure would not
affect the way :doctors collect most
of their bills, and it would pay
bills (those of poor patients4, and
those over $2000) they mightnot
be able to collect. It would relieve
the insurance cmpanies f the
burden of "catastrophic" costs
without taking away any of. their
business, since people would still
need private insurance to cover
lesser expenses.
The insurance industry has also
supported the Administration s bill.
In providing for all employed per-
sons to be insured by private com-
panies, the plan promises the in-
dustry billions of dJllars worth of
new policies.
The Kennedy-Griffiths bill, which
provides the most care for most
people, has the support of organ-
ized labor. The original version
of the measure calls for direct
payment by the government to doc-
tors and hospitals, ,eliminating the
intermediary role of private insur-
ance companies. But mass'e op-
position from the insurance indus-
try, it appears, will force Kennedy
to amend the measure. The new
version, reportedly, will allow at
least a partial role to the insurance
companies.
Clearly, even the most limited
national health insurance p 1 a it
would help some of the pe lple
some of the time. But cr c; point
out that in failing to control costs
or limit profit-taking, the meas-
ures do nothing about the soaring
price of health care. Recalling
that Medicareand Medicaid bene-
fits have been trimmed to c i r b

rI

MA~V LAS
t t f 'r"i '

50
i a

lA1T)Y.

N
4

qLr MlLuI'

MICK~EY LA5 6'CRATCH
MY CHLUQDHOOP M Kiev
FRf~JP 1$V'
MIL.L-1e S.
H65' eVOUS.

WTV GL* A 5CRATCH
C T66 FRCMP
5U MUIF, '
V5 K5
WUAK.

M09 FAY WAS
AK) O1AP
FQLEMP 601
MW1~65A4 a
Prt P4A,

MURRkAYC

HAVE A
L.6FT

HJ4 l l AYS1f
WTY TO

SHY

.".

WO R

c° j I) f AUM .
ti'r Il

-A

I

I

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan