HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The debates about health care
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:48:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.195123.2239@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>
>	I've seen lots and lots of discussion about all kinds of health
>	care -- everything from socialized to nothing!  Comparisons of
>	what is available in other countries with all kinds of questionable 
>	statistical evidence.
>
>	For some time, I've been  mulling over JUDY's MIRACLE HEALTH PLAN
>	FOR AMERICA and I'd like to toss it out for discussion.  It goes
>	something like this.  
>
>		1) Companies are required to provide major medical for
>		employees; this means about $500 deductible per year.
>		In other words, employees pay most of the bill themselves
>		and insurance would pick up on the "major expenses."
>		This would cut premiums dramatically (anyone know any
>		statistics on this one?), thereby cutting labor costsd
>		to businesses drastically, yet providing a safety net
>		for employees protecting them against major expenses.
>

This is essentially the "play" part of "pay-or-play" which is the type
of system Clinton favors.   This is "socialized" medicine to the
Republicans and it is the embodiement of total "evil" to put such
a mandate on business...

This does not solve the problem of labor mobility and the inability
to get insurance if one has a pre-existing condition.

Such a business mandate, to be effective has to include the acceptance
of all comers by insurers, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

It also leaves veterans and the poor in a second-class system.  

Being a Canadian, I view the single-payer model as superior to
pay-or-play, but pay-or-play may be the more natural evolution of
the existing US system to NHI.

Your system also does not address the elimination of the huge
administrative waste in the American system with multiple insurers
using millions of different forms.

Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher)
Subject: Re: Just to keep things straight . . .
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
	<1992Sep11.195641.17918@iti.org>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:55:23 GMT
X-Posted-From: thor.albany.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

>In article <1992Sep11.195641.17918@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:


>   In article <1992Sep9.204037.4477@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pws2n@vision1.ee.Virginia.EDU (Philip Weaver Smith) writes:

>   >Clinton plans to raise taxes on those making over $200K to $250K ( top 2-3% ),
>   >keep them the same for those making between $80K and $200K ( top 20-25% ),
>   >and lower them for those that make less than that.

>   Clinton's plan will raise maybe $15 to $20 billion (the top 3% earns about
>   $300B and Clinton will take an additional 5%). In fact, it will be less
>   than this since the added taxes will discourage the creation of wealth.

Your statement that Clinton will raise "maybe $15 to $20 billion" takes a lot
of force out of your arguement.  Got a source?

>   Clinton's plan promises a quarter trillion $$ is deficit reduction and
>   new spending.

>   $250 billion - $20 billion = $230 billion.

>   Question: where does the other $230 billion come from?

Wow!  You go further than Bush.  He said $230 billion - $150 billion.  Ever
thought of giving some real numbers?

>   >So as you can see, most peoples "mother and fathers" will benefit or at least
>   >will not lose from Clinton's tax proposals.

>   As you can see, Clinton's plan won't generate the money he needs. He must
>   therefore raise the taxes on the other 98% of us to get the vast majority
>   of the money.

So you make up some false numbers, then tell us that Clinton must raise our
taxes because of it.

>   No, Clinton doesn't admit to this but it follows given a cursory examination
>   of his proposals. The question remains: is Clinton stupid or does he think
>   we are stupid?

When the best you can do is make up numbers, you are stupid.

>   >Please check your facts more carefully before dealing misleading information.

>   Please analyze your facts more carefully before delaing misleading
>   information.

Heh.  This comes from a Bush supporter... :^)

>     Allen

Chrisf

   -- 
>   +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>   | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>   |  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>   +----------------------225 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

"Bush won't raise taxes again because he won't be president again"
				 - A. Hall


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:34:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.113614.29185@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
> 
> Why was Quayle's service in the National Gaurd such an issue in 1988?
> No body seems to say much about his age anymore either.  Hmmmmmm?
> I don't think most people care that Clinton didn't want to go to Vietnam.  I
> think people care about the way he has handled it since then.  At first it was
> total denial that he did anything wrong.  As one fact after another came
> out he still didn't come clean.  When the news broke that his Uncle tried to
> help him he denied knowing anything about it, and was quit  adamant.  As it
> turns out, he heard about that in March of this year.  I still think he is more
> concerned about his political "viability" then he is about the country.>
> 
> >>
> >> >Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
> >> >irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
> >> >some of the people most of the time.
> >>
> >> Selective reporting is irrelevant? Only to those whose decisions are not
> >> affected by factual reporting, I suppose. I'll bet this is one of the
> >> same posters who denied there was any tilt in the convention reporting,
> >> too ;-)
> >
> >This was not a comment on the relevancy of biased reporting, it was a comment
> >on the irrelevancy of the draft dodging non-issue.
> Why is it an irrelevant issue?  Because Clinton supporters say it is?  If 
> voters are concerned about Clinton's integrity than it should be an issue to 
> Clinton.

It is irrelevant because a.) Clinton was an 18 year old kid; b.) it has
nothing to do with the important issues facing this nation; c.) until Bush
can explain that new arms-for-hostages memo he shouldn't throw stones since
this constitutes a clear act of criminality; d.)
Clinton's letter eloquently (especially for a kid) expresses his moral
objections to the vietnam war.
Let's face facts. Vietnam was not World War II. Our sovereign lands were not
attacked and North Vietnam was not rolling through Asia like a juggernaut.
Our reasons for being there were not good enough to have sacrificed that many
young lives. Clinton was one of many young people who rightly questioned our
involvement. Furthermore, he had knowledge about this war that most young
people did not have. For you conservative bible thumpers, think on this:
How Christian would it have been to go and kill an "enemy" without any clear
reason to do so?

> >
> >> >
> >> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
> Commoner Jeff.
> 
>
From: friedenb@sapphire.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton a Fraternity Man??
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:52:20 GMT
Reply-To: friedenb@sapphire.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg)
Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University


It is common knowledge that all but two of the United States' Presidents
have been fraternity men.  Bush (sputter, sputter, puke, puke) is in 
Skull and Crossbones (or something like that) and Delta Kappa Epsilon.

During the Democratic primaries it was publicised that Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
is in Delta Sigma Phi.  


What about Clinton? 


Please email only.  I don't read this group often.


Gedaliah Friedenberg
-=-Department of Mechanical Engineering
-=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science
-=-Michigan State University

                   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:22:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.183928.10922@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.160329.21856@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> We now have near-universal availablility of many recreational drugs,
>> so it is absurd to say that the WoD keeps people from getting drugs.
>> Therefore, its only possible benefit is in discouraging use by people
>> who would otherwise become addicts, and then only if they don't become
>> addicted to something else.
>> 
>> Does it actually do that?  In particular, do the CRIMINAL sanctions
>> do that?  Where's the evidence that there are lots of people who
>> would become cocaine addicts, but don't because they're worried
>> about being punished, and aren't addicted to anything else either.
>
>I'm not a cocaine addict because:
>	a) it costs too much
>	b) it destroys the brain
>	c) it counter-productive
>	d) it's something the lower-classes do
>	e) it could land me in jail
>	f) it could get me fired
>
>Granted, the threat of criminal prosecution is a lesser concern, but
>it is still a concern.  If one person feels this way, then (I guess by
>some form of mathematical induction), there are others who would too.

Try again; it isn't enough that you consider it enough to list it.  It
has to make a difference.  If we removed e, or if e wasn't a factor,
would you be an addict?  Are you addicted to anything else?  (Why
aren't you addicted to alcohol?)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: matrix@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 06:00:05 GMT

I'm curious, and want to find out how patriotic people are.  Bill Clinton
dodge the draft.  I consider him a coward.  I just got out of the Marines and
spent my time fighting for this country.  Why would I want to vote for a man
that dodged the draft?

This is my question, are you really going to vote for this man?  A man that 
runs from a fight.  What's going to happen if we end up in a war. (Which could
very well happen with the state the world is in right now.)

LIBERAL == An in-secure person, who is a scared hypocrit, believes in the rich
	   paying for everything, but for them not to have to do anything, 
	   and believes homosexuality is normal.

If you have any comments direct them to matrix@unt.edu.

  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: SPS
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:46:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.183734.6657@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

|> We have had 12 disasterous years due to these sheep. Ronald Reagan presented
|> them with flags, bombs bursting in air, mom, apple pie, and baseball and they
|> bought it hook, line, and sinker. The sad thing is that they have been the
|> ones to suffer the worst due to his policies and they are still falling for
|> these substance-less smokescreens. And now, here they are falling for
|> a brand new set of smokescreens.... (family-values, draft records,....).

I see.  These rednecks are so dumb they don't even know they're suffering.
Thank you Dr.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:14:11 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City


In article <1992Sep09.230926.25617@watson.ibm.com> john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>Canadians are crossing the US border in droves so that they can get
>medical treatment without waiting in line for 6 months.  Socialism
>doesn't work.  That has been proven time and time again.
>
Why is it the same bullshit that has been disputed over and over keeps coming
back? Where the hell do you get this crap about Canadians crossing the border
in droves to get medical treatment? Maybe a pro-Rep TV commerical? Nobody 
who isn't rich or already has US health insurance would even consider coming to
the US for medical treatment because they just can't afford it. The only 
exception would be to get a procedure done that isn't done anywhere else. Of
course you'd have to show proof of how to pay for it before a doctor will do
it for you. Many Americans travel to other countries to get procedures done
they can't get here. And nobody waits in lines for medical treatment in Canada.
You might have to wait in Canada if you want a tummy-tuck or a nose job but not
for any needed medical treatment. Seeing as how Canada's infant mortality rate
is half of our own, and the poor, eldery and unemployed don't have to worry
about getting medical treatment it seems to me that their system is working
a lot better then our own. If this is socialism then maybe we should try it,
if only to save some babies lives.

Stan Knight
|"The universe is finite but I'm not so sure about human ignorance."|
|                         ---Albert Einstein---                     | 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:46:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division (LAFS)

In article <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>
> [ some deleted ]
>
>Clinton this weekend (sept 5-6) went to a rally in South Carolina.
>He was booed so hard and loud by a majority of the huge crowd that 
>he couldn't be heard at all.  The best part was the plane:  Overhead
>flew an airplane towing this banner:  "We don't want a draft dodger
>for president!".
>
>The plane was lovely.  I wish she had recorded it on the vcr.  As
>I said, I am suprised that the tv news station here chose to cover it.
>
>I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
>paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons).   I plan to
>go to the library and see which papers do cover the event, but I 
>imagine there are not many.  If the same thing had happened to Bush,
>you can bet it would be in every paper and tv news show.
>
>How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
>know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
>this knowledge?
>
>Jim Del Vecchio


Yes, I saw this.  What do I think?

Well, so far, as far as I know, Clinton has gone to a couple of places where
he could expect a hostile reception - the American Legion and the Darlington
racetrack that you mentioned - and there might be more.  I like the fact that
he is not afraid to show himself in these places.  It shows he has confidence
in himself and his message.  It also shows me he has respect for people with
opinions different than his own.  BTW, I was equally impressed with Quayle last
year for stepping up at the American Bar Association and telling them there
were too many lawyers in America.  I never expected that from the VP.

And one other thing about the SC trip that some political analyst types might 
want to take a little bit deeper.  It seems to also show me that Clinton is 
indeed in the driver's seat in this election.  He is able to spend time in 
what would normally be a hands-down Republican state ( even here in Idaho where
the GOP has racked up mid-60 type percentiles in the past several elections its
a dead heat so far ) while GHWB is having to spend time in places like Texas 
which should be no contests if everything else were equal.  All in all it 
doesn't seem to bode well for the GOP...

my .02

Dick Detweiler : rdetweil@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: tmark@cognet.ucla.edu (Terence Mark)
Subject: Re: Clinton a Fraternity Man??
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:20:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.230626.3781@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.215220.9139@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@sapphire.egr.msu
>.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
>>
>>It is common knowledge that all but two of the United States' Presidents
>>have been fraternity men.<
>
>     Common knowledge among whom? Do you have a list? I've read widely about
>John Adams, and I have never seen any fraternities mentioned. In fact,
>fraternities weren't common until the mid-1800's.
>

I don't think that's right either. There was an article during the last
election year in USA Today on presidents and their fraternities. While
the upshot was that the odds were with Bush/Quayle, since both belonged
to Delta Kappa Epsilon, the fraternity that has produced twice as
many presidents (4) as any other frat, I don't think that an
overwhelming majority of presidents were frat members. I think they gave
the numbers, though. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:15:54 GMT

In article <20334@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>Well, since the Democrats keep telling us people are broke, how can they
>AFFORD to take off 12 weeks with no pay?

Too silly.

>And what about the people they
>have to hire to replace the person on leave?  What happens to them after
>12 weeks?  What if the person involved is someone that is vital to the
>company or has some technical skill?  

Well, presumably, these "vital" people already take paid vacation
time, with no ill effects on the employer.  For unpaid maternity
(paternity) leave, the time off can be planned in advance, since
the arrival of the kid is known with some degree of certainty.
Most workers would likely go their entire careers and only use
a few weeks of emergency unpaid leave for family illnesses
and other crises (based on the experience of other countries).
And, the bill only covers firms > 60 employees; it would be
hoped that competent management would already have redundancy
for essential tasks.

>What it all boils down to is another
>attempt by the liberals to force something down the throats of business.

Do you like it better when conservatives use state power
to force something down the throats of workers and consumers?

>They want to tell you who you can hire and fire, who you can promote,
>what kind of health care benifits you have to offer, in California they
>want to tell you how much vacation time you have to give, and to top
>it all off, they want to tax the hell out of you.  Is it any wonder the
>companies want to move off shore?

So, in order to keep US businesses from going to Mexico, we should
adpot the labor practices of Mexico?

We've already discussed the leave bill ad nauseum.  Please
keep this sort of drivel out of a.f.d-q, unless you wish
to further the scholarly compilation of Our Boy's 
collected wisdom.


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5300 alt.politics.homosexuality:5976
From: edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:35:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In <1992Sep14.111205.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>In article <edjans01.716480793@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>, edjans01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing) writes:
>> In <1992Sep13.171912.18924@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
>> 
>> [Stuff deleted]

>Dave,

>     I neither have a Greek New Testament nor do I read Greek, but
>the English translations I have for Jude 7 seem to be inconsistent
>with your interpretation.  Can you help resolve this inconsistency?

>     Cary

Jude 7?  Can you be more specific?  I was speaking about Genesis and the story
of Sodom & Gomorrah.

Dave

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Jansing                     | "What we call the beginning is often the end
Electrical Engineering Department|  And to make an end is to make a beginning.
University of Louisville         |  The end is where we start from . . ."
                                 |  -- T.S. Eliot, "Four Quartets"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:	The opinions expressed here are strictly my own and do not
		necessarily reflect those of the Department of Electrical
		Engineering or any other department within the University
		of Louisville.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:10:19 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
: 
: Liberal bias, as observed by us conservatives, is annoying.
: What is most annoying, both to coservatives and I suspect to
: leftists, libertarians, and other "fringe" types, is that
: our opinions and ideas are even recognized.

Shouldn't that be "Liberal bias, as observed by us conservatives
is annoying to us conservatives?"

Of course, conservative bias in the media (there isn't much, but
there are a few conservative newspapers out there) is annoying
to liberals.  And ANY bias is annoying to those of us who are
in our right minds (i.e. are moderates/centrists).

: The only impartial coverage of the conventions to be found
: was on C-Span.  Kudos to them for allowing Americans direct access.

Hear, hear!  If only those of us without cable or sattelite dishes
could get C-Span and C-Span2....

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		(The Persian Gulf War was)
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			"a stirring victory for the 
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			forces of aggression against
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		lawlessness."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle

Marrou/Lord in '92


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@acm.rpi.edu>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:20:24 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes to danger:
-> Your second sentence contradicts your first. 

well you just tell danger to stop that immediately.
after all, you invented it and i think you have a right
to protect your creations.

-- 
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton