HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re:
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:53:31 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>,]
 
>>You've got that backwards.  They want to provide the best care for the
>>least money.  The HMO competes from other HMOs and fee-for-service
 
>In theory, that's true.  In practice, you would be hard-pressed to
>find any evidence at all that HMOs slow the rate of growth of health
>care costs.  HMO costs increased 16.5% in 1988, 15.7% in 1989, and
 
That may be true for now, but at least around here the HMOs provide good
care with complete coverage and out of plan referrals when medically
indicated, while the deductibles and other limitations on fee-for-
service health insurance plans climb.  The two types remain in the same
price range.  I also think HMOs will be better able to deal with the
expected further drops in reimbursement than fee-for-service plans.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Ah, if only it were that simple!
Date: 23 Jan 93 10:45:53 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>,]
 
>If quality is...difficult to measure from the consumers perspective,
>then prepaid systems provide incentives to systematically undertreat
>patients.  In addition, the incentive payment systems to physicians and
>the organization of the prepayment scheme (IPA, Group/staff, for-profit,
>nonprofit) have all been shown to impact cost-effectiveness.  Unless the
>market mechanism provides a means for information about cost-effective-
>ness to be transmitted to the consumer, then the tendency towards
>providing more cost-effective care is blunted.  That can be an important
>problem when it is difficult to measure "effectiveness", as it is in
>health care.
 
This is indeed a problem for consumers choosing a health plan or
provider.  It is much harder to judge price vs. quality than if one is
buying a car.  Usually other physicians will know if one physician or
plan is a good value or not, but they rarely can be induced to provide a
straight answer because of referral pattern considerations.  It is very
difficult if not impossible to gather good statistics on quality of
care.  The government's effort to do this has been largely a failure.
If operative statistics are publicized, surgeons will start to decline
the difficult cases.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 09:08:38 GMT

In <C1A0Hr.9Gz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Which one of these "single use categories" [your terminology] is
>indispensable?    "livestock agriculture" or "non-livestock 
>agriculture" ?

	Why does either "need" to be dispensed with, given that we're
already feeding everybody and their pet cow already?

	There has not been a single reason posted, save the emotional
qualms about slaughter, that cites any need at present.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: dmunroe@vcd.hp.com (Dave Munroe)
Subject: Re: "... man tends to be lazy"
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:26:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:

>Now this could be interesting. I had a girlfriend once who claimed too much 
>coffee caused a bitter taste in certain bodily fluids which I am far too 
>refined to mention.

Uh-huh.  You certainly wouldn't want to give the whole net the impression
she tasted cum.

Good thing you didn't mention it.

-Dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:31:19 GMT

From article <C1Ep5H.vw@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ():
> In <C18554.JnI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>The arguments against animal agriculture involve three separate 
>>concerns:
> 
>>1) ethical arguments regarding the rights and/or suffering of 
>>   animals;
>>2) public health issues stemming from the role of animal fats and
>>   proteins in fostering disease; and
>>3) environmental arguments.
> 
> 1)
> The only believable reason for dogmatic rejection of all animal
> agriculture is (1). The other two are rationalizations.

Not really.   I could point to quite a few individuals who're
opposed to animal agriculture because of their concerns about
the environment and human health problems.   In truth, their
concerns are based on facts... whereas your argument is based
on a rationalization.

> I doubt that any vegans would change their view if it were shown
> than a diet including animal products were as healthy and as 
> environmentally benign as a vegan diet.

If it could be demonstrated that:

1) animals are mindless automata, as Descartes claimed, and hence,
   devoid of thoughts and feelings; and
2) animal fats promote health, rather than disease; and
3) animal agriculture helps the environment;

then, I'd be happy to eat steaks and hamburgers and chickens all
day long.   However, there's a substantial body of evidence to 
demonstrate that:

1) animals are both sentient and sapient;
2) animal foods are generally unhealthy;
3) animal agriculture harms the environment.

> ...
> 3) The environment issue (re animals) strikes me as strictly bogus.
> Could anyone seriously worry about cow farts if they were not already
> philosophically opposed to eating cows? 

Yes.  Quite a few environmentalists fall into this category.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: I was born to eat meat.
Date: 28 Jan 1993 07:12:51 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu

In article <C1H7uH.Mtw@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> freeman@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Kevin Freeman) writes:
>
>  Bullshit... look at how long your intestine is. Besides that is second.

Look at my one stomach, look at a cow's four stomachs.
I didnt say I was born to ONLY eat meat, just that we were designed to be
able to eat it.

>We have the ability now to eat healthy now by killing less (ie lowest

We have the ability to eat babies, should we?

>  I'm happy because I know when I'm 40 I won't have a rubber glove up my
>butt looking for colon cancer because I ate meat all my life.

I wont have colon cancer when I'm 40 if I continue to eat meat in the
manner in which I do...I trim the fat and am especialy aware of saturated
fat.  I'm also very lean with a very small bodyfat ratio, even though I eat
meat.  Finally, my family history tells me that colon cancer isnt something
that I should be overly concerned with, even though my father and
grandfather surely ate much more fat than I do...

>  lotsa love
>    Kev

alex the omnivore

BTW Does that fact that some people take in fat all of their lives and
never experience such problems lead you to believe there are other, yet
unknown, factors coming into play?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Scabies experiments at Wright State University
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:42:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.222555.18438@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.162618.18227@pixel.kodak.com> young@clpd.kodak.com writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.031214.3370@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>
>>>From a new PETA pamphlet, entitled "Where, Oh Where Did This Little Dog Come
>>>From?"
>>>
>>>"Fourteen states prohibit seizing animals from pounds for experiments.  Ohio
>>>still permits 'pound seizue,' although public opinion is against it.
>>
>>	How many would have been euthanized at the pounds due to overcrowding
>>	had they not been used for lab experiments?
>>
>
>Maybe all of them. At least they wouldn't have been subject to the
>considerable distress that Rosemary describes.

	Have you ever watched a "batch" of abandoned pets suffocate en
	masse?

>>	A scabies
>>	infestation, on the other hand, requires application of 5% permethrin
>>	TO THE ENTIRE BODY to kill the mites, which is not a particularly
>>	simple or pleasant process.  How would you like to be immersed in
>>	pesticide?  A vaccine might be useful and Dr. George's remarks would 
>>	seem to be misleading, if not hasty.
>
>You apply a lotion to the entire body (although usually only from the
>neck down), leave it overnight, shower it off in the morning. Not
>particularly difficult or unpleasant. I suggest that your phrase
>"immersed in pesticide" is misleading, if not hasty.

	A bit of hyperbole, perhaps, but not incorrect.  One spends a
	significant period of time completely, or nearly completely,
	covered in pesticide.

	If all I get is quibbles like this, I must have been fairly
	accurate.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
From: dmunroe@vcd.hp.com (Dave Munroe)
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:59:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>obrien@netcom.com (No parking EXCEPT FOR BOB) writes:

>`I'm peeved that none of you know that there ARE proven examples of
>`toolmaking in the wild.  I think it's chimps, but some kind of monkey
>`for sure.

>I would hardly consider this toolmaking.  Tool use perhaps.  Not making.

Indeed.  Only after a group of chimps have formed Simian Tools Inc. and
provide a complete set of SAE and Metric twigs, complete with U-joint
branches, a lifetime warranty, and are capable of swearing like a sailor
when the twig-extender falls down the header pipe, will I consider them
toolmakers.  In the meantime, they are butt-scratching charlatans.

-Dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.activism,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Books review- "Free the Animals" By Ingrid Newkirk
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:51:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland

howard@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.151140.26696@cs.mun.ca>, ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>>In fact, Nobel laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, himself
>> a survivor of a Polish concentration camp, 

>Isaac Bashevis Singer was not ever in a Polish concentration camp. He
>emmigrated from Poland to America in 1935, when he was 32. I posted
>an excerpt from his autobiography about his journy to the United 
>States last week. For more information, read "Love and Exile", his
>autobiography. Don't make up things that aren't true to try to prove
>your point. 

>-Mary Howard

Sorry Mary - I didn't realize that he wasn't actually in a concentration 
camp.  I had been told that the description of the protagonist's plight (hiding
in a haystack) in "Enemies,
A Love Story" was largely auto-
biographical.  Clearly, that was incorrect.  Incidentally, I did read your
post, and rather enjoyed the excerpt (albeit in a melancholic sort of way).
Thanks for the clarification.

alka
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:04:55 GMT

From article <1993Jan23.183459.2406@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> [handwaving deleted]
> It is absolutely correct that "accepted" does not mean "true,"
> but this begs the question, which is, "Does truth or falsity
> determine ethical acceptability?"  And the answer, of course, 
> is, "No."
> [more handwaving deleted]

Let's not confuse truths and opinions.  It's perfectly reasonable
to determine opinions by conducting opinion polls.  To determine
whether the opinions are truthful, however, we'd have to examine
the underlying facts and reasons.

The difference between you and I, Rich, is that you accept ethical
ideas at face-value whereas I insist on probing them and testing
them to determine their degree of soundness.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: WFPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Deer Population Control Mechanisms
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 23:29:53 EST

OK, folks, time to go to the library and get some facts and concepts.  Plug int
o the card catalog and run a few searches.  Look for the following authors:
Begon et al., Krebs, Ricklefs are all good texts that discuss the concepts.  Fo
r those who want to know something detailed about deer population dynamics, the
classic is still a book written by McCullough - George Reserve Deer Herd.  Then
, if you're really interested in the concept of equilibrium, check out a book b
y Stuart Pimm - Balance of Nature?
 
W Porter  SUNY-Syracuse
From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: CBS's "60 Minutes" damns PeTA
Date: 25 Jan 1993 09:00:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu


Tonight's edition of 60 Minutes offered a particularly grim view of the
PeTA zealots.  It seems that a doctor that has made great strides in
treating brain injuries, by way of experimentation on cats, has had his
funding stopped because this wacky special intrest group incessantly
pestered their congressman.  The doctor is a reserve in the Army and was
actually able to use some of the techniques he learned from cats to save
soldiers in the Gulf War.  One soldier even went on film saying that he
would not be alive today if it wasnt for the good doctor.  In my opinion,
we could kill all of the domestic cats in the country if that research
leads to the saving of just one young man who is injured in service to the
rest of us.  

60 minutes really pegged these PeTA freaks for what they are and exposed
their technique of trying to use imagery of household pets to stir the
public into thinking that the doctor is somehow hurting poor little fluffy.
The fact is that these animals are usually raised in the lab with the sole
purpose of being experimented on.  PeTA used a letter written by someone
claiming to be a co-worker of the doctor, to scare the congressman, public,
and anyone else that would listen into believing that the doctor's
experiments were brutally conducted.  More specifically she claimed that
nobody in the office was able to work over the cries of the cats being
executed without painkillers.  60 Minutes interviewed the writer of the
letter, who turned out to be a secretary in an unrelated office in the
building.  She admitted that she had NEVER heard any cries and had NEVER
even been in the office.  She also admitted that she got all of her
information out of a publication put out by these goons and wrote it just
to scare people with callous disregard of the truth.  To top it all off, an
all-star team of research doctors was commissioned to look into the good
doctor's work and they found it excellent and, in a report to congress,
recommened that the work continue. PeTA continued to pester the congressman
that represented the good doctor's district and released the lying letter
to the public, soon the funding was cut off.

The question that comes to my mind is: Isnt it worth it even if the animals
went through excruciating pain if a man is saved?  Of course the ARFs see
no difference in a man, cow, cat, or rat.

I'm not a doctor but I....
  hehehehhe
I'm not a christian but if I were I would point out that the bible says
that man is the master of all the animals, I believe in genisis..in that
case it would also apply to those of the jewish persuasion.  God [sic]
would be proud to see people using these animals in such a productive way.

alex the omnivore
	
PS	I really dont know why I threw that last bit in, I tend to despise
	religious arguments but I suppose if any of you are Xians then
	you'll see it "god's way".  *cackle*

 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Retraction Honesty?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:52:40 GMT

In article <C1G8n8.Hqw@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Several points:
>
>-- Are you certain that the allegation re: cat screaming was based solely
>   on a single letter?  If it is, then I would agree that apologies are
>   in order, but I suspect that the Times-Picayune newspaper will play
>   one or two more cards before the game is officially closed.  They, too,
>   made these same claims.

Based on the laetter from an AR advocate that got her information from a
magazine.  Spare me Russ.
 >
>-- Are you certain that PETA members were responsible for the alleged
>   threats and phone calls?

Yea!  The said my name is Joe Smith, PETA member, your husbands a dead
man.  
I'm tired of this arguement Russell!  No you can't prove that the people
were PETA members.  But, the are definately AR advocates and probably
support the views of PETA.  Regardless they are of the AR sect.
 >
>-- Criticism of the doctor's work went far beyond the issue of cat 
>   screams.  Congressman Livingston, for instance, was concerned that
>   the project was a waste of government resources. 

Sen. Livingston was concerned about votes.  If he thought the project was
a waste of funds why the did he fund it in the first place?

>   Such criticism
>   still stands, regardless of the self-serving flak cooked up by the
>   AMA and served by Sixty Minutes.

Or the five neurologist, huh?

>-- A local attorney, Jeff Sevy, filed an FOIA request for a copy of
>   Carey's proposal when details of the project first leaked out of LSU.  
>   Unfortunately, Carey had deleted large sections of the document 
>   because they were alledgedly "proprietary".  Why would a "good 
>   doctor" hide his work from public view, given the fact that he's 
>   received two million bucks from the taxpayers to support his
>   research?

It is common practice to block out certain information.  Research is a
highly competitive buisness (one of may quality control measures).   Would
you expect Nexus to disclose their shampoo formula or Boeing to to
disclose their new plane designs?

Greg Popken

-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: You just dont get it...
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:43:42 GMT

From article <1k871fINN3u6@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> In article <C1H6LM.27E@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>doing just fine now.  Would we truly continue to do "just fine" 
>>if the global temperature increased by ten degrees?  
> 
> Well we are still alive today and the world has been warmer previously.
> Man is more adaptive today than ever.
> We can refrigerate spoilables.
> Many areas, just on the edge, would be able to have a second growing
>   season, it ust so happens that this edge runs through the US and Europe
>   where growing techniques are most productive.
> Worst case scenerios only call for a 5-7 degree increase anyway.
> There would be more fresh water available due to a slight melt in the polar
>   ice caps.
> Shorelines change because of plate movement and erosion anyway.  We are
>   quite adebt at building seawalls.  We prolly wouldnt need it because
>   ocean levels wouldnt even go up an inch but just in case you were about to
>   say something about flooding...
> People are already crazy enough to live where its really really hot,
>   Pheonix had phenominal growth in the last decade.

Can you point to some data that supports your claims?

>>Again, anaerobic decay produces methane... not aerobic decay.  There's
>>quite a difference between 10,000 cow patties that are distributed
>>over ten acres and 10,000 cow patties in a sewage pond.  Uh, I'm
>>sure you realize that oxygen can be readily depleted in such an
>>environment.
> 
> How many times do I have to remind you that microbes that break down the
> cowshit dont have oxygen in their bellies.  

Since microbes don't have "bellies", this observation doesn't make
much sense.  Do you think the biologists who read and post here would 
agree with your position?

> Your ascertation that the
> cowpatties end up in a sewage pond is ludicrous, its your shit that ends up
> in a sewage pond.

What happens to the manure from feedlots?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: loca@netcom.com (John Hoag)
Subject: Re: Retraction Honesty?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:16:02 GMT

alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace) writes:

>Although some of you AR people 

Gosh, some of you AT (Animal Torture) people are so good at laying
labels on people. 

	- John Hoag (loca@netcom.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:21:19 GMT

In article <C16qxt.AxB@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:


>From article <1993Jan20.231214.16234@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@m
agnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
>> 1)  Your last sentence above is significant to me.  Both you and Russell
>> have repeatedly used the argument "if the research was so valuable then
>> why wasn't funding reinstituted..." to cast doubt on the initial value
>> of what Taub was doing.  Don't misread me; I don't have enough info yet
[...]

>It's a question, not an argument, and it remains unanswered.

But Russell, you answered this particular question two weeks
ago: you said "Perhaps" when asked whether you would have permitted
Taub's research given ideal housing and provisions for the monkeys.

>Your notion that NIH is a political organ that's influenced by
>arguments that aren't strictly scientific is a sword with two
>edges.  If it's true that NIH is responsive to folks who are
>sympathetic to PETA, think how much more responsive NIH would be
>to the men and women who belong to the AMA or the NABR.

Most arguments do have two edges.  Why do you cut with only one
edge of the blade?

>BTW, thanks for pointing out that the final verdict was ambiguous.

You're welcome.  I still need to read the Regan & Singer chapter
in "In Defense of Animals."  The conversation between Hulsey and
Black is quite interesting, but as yet inconclusive.

 >--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Here's one from last week, if your schedule permits:


In article <C14Dvv.K5w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
[...]

>
>How do you define "necessary" and "justifiable".  As an example, would
>you say that sport hunting or the production of fur coats is "necessary"
>or "justifiable"?
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Given your non-absolutist position with regard to biomedical
research, how do you personally determine which research
you will consider and judge to be "necessary and justifiable?"




:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals