HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:26:22 GMT
 <1992Sep8.195306.22724@eng.ufl.edu> <1992Sep9.040446.19849@news.columbia.edu>
 <1992Sep9.164233.12599@eng.ufl.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep9.164233.12599@eng.ufl.edu>, jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason
Nadrowski) says:
>
>>>I fail to see how the restructure of health care (12% of GNP) within 100
>>>days could be in any way helpful for the American economy.  If you can
>>>not see DEPRESSION labeled on his plan, you must be near sighted!
>
>>Please clarify.  It's not as if 12% of the GNP would suddenly vanish
>
>More or less.  Does he not want to do away with existing health insurance
>companies?  Inaddition he will totally reshape the existing health care

TOTAL spending on health insurance, exclusive of the medical care portion,
that is the part of the premium that eventually becomes a reimbursement to
the medical provider is only about 12% of national health expenditures
or roughly 90 billion dollars.  As for negative effects, check out Ken
Thorpe's critique of the Bush proposal.  He estimates that our higher level
of health care costs has already cost us millions of jobs, and that
Bush's proposal would continue this trend.  The critique is available
from UNC.

>system.  Do you not see how even a slight manipulation of something so
>huge can reprocussions throughout the world?  These reprocussions will
>not be positive!  It will have a negative effect!
>
>Further do you think it is fair to have 75% income taxes.  Do you think

Who has proposed 75% taxes?

>that will increase incentive for people to work?  Do you realize we have
>the most efficient health care system in the world.  If someone wants

By what standard do you consider our system the "most efficient"?  Access
to health insurance?  Health Outcomes?  Lower costs per service unit?
Greater match between population needs and services provided?

>to see a doctor -- they can.  People from Canada and Europe come over here
>for superior health care, not to mention availability.

Many Americans cross over to Canada to get pre-natal care.  Americans with
AIDS go to France for treatment.  Should I conclude that the Canadian and
French systems are better?

>Let me leave you with one last thought:
>  When has the government ever done something efficient?

Medicare is more efficient than private insurers, with administrative costs
equal to 3% of benefits paid out compared to 16%.  Even Medicaid had
administrative costs of only 5% of benefits paid.  The Canadian system has
an administrative costs to benefits ratio of 1%.

Take some time to learn more about the truth of the U.S. health care mess.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5599 talk.politics.misc:45666 alt.rush-limbaugh:4939 alt.politics.bush:5267
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC flamefest
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:19:34 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep15.143544.23650@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
->I find the Congressional Record to be useful since it is almost completely
             --------------------
->unbiased. It is very useful in getting a handle on some issues, voting
->records, floor speeches, etc.
->
->As for others, it depends on the issue. The almanac is good for getting some
                                              -------
->statistical data. The reports of the GAO should be taken with a grain of salt,
                        ------------------
->but can usually give you some statistics. Most committee reports and studies,
->both government and independent can be found in good libraries. Medical,
->scientific, economic, and technical journals and magazines can be very useful
->if you make
->sure you read both the articles and the rebuttals, and if you make sure that
->you read a variety of articles to cover the sides of a given issue.
->I have found calling my
->representative's office to be useful if you are requesting a particular
->number or statistic. I think CSPAN is excellent if you can bring yourself
->to sit through it.

  I was asking for your references. Thats all you can provide?
I have researched numerous journals dealing with the research topics I was
interested in. Please, I ask again ? Give me names of technical journals,
committee reports, committee studies, scientific journals, economic journals,
technical journals and technical magazines which you have researched recently
and think might be important in trying to understand todays political climate.
With so many journals and studies to research, some more specificity would be
most helpfull. 

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Content of Recycled Paper (Was Re: A Dearth of Jobs)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:01:16 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep11.145233.5732@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.162019.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.175943.4971@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>>> In article <1992Sep8.080701.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>> I would not recommend Gore's book to anyone with a weak stomach.... it's
>>>> printed on recycled paper, or in layperson's terms, it's printed on other
>>>> people's old garbage.  
>>>> ... it is quite possible that the pages in Gore's book are made from old
>>>> toilet paper.  
>>> 
>>> What kind of a person would say such a thing?
>>> 
>>Mr. Borden,
>>
>>     I think you have the makings of a *great* reporter for one
>>of the big three networks, oh yeah, and NBC also.  You are
>>unable to recognize a joke when you see it, and then you delete
>>out the contents that made it a joke.  (I guess the Yankee elite
>>have no sense of humor. :-)  Read my original followup -- you 
>>might learn something about the actual content of 'recycled' paper!  
>>
> Maybe your humor wasn't as evident as you thought - since I'm not the only
> person to have missed it at first.  It's a generally good rule of thumb that
> parody is harder to identify on the net, at least on this newsgroup (possibly
> because there are so many extreme viewpoints).
> 
> As for the actual content of recycled paper:  I know about factory scraps
> versus actual "post-consumer waste".  Both are commonly in use; real recycled
> paper, (the latter type, for those who aren't familiar) is often more
> expensive; paper made from factory scraps is nothing new and doesn't really
> qualify as recycled.  I don't know what type of paper Gore's book was printed
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> on.
> 
>  - Dave Borden

     I agree that pre-consumer waste should not be referred to as
'recycled,' but unfortunately it is.  (And they have been doing
this all along.)  All it does is deceives the public.

     Cary Perttunen

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: The same old unemployement lies
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:54:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.213527.13967@Princeton.EDU>
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
 
>>       While inflation was indeed bad in 1980, unemployment never went over
>>7% under carter. The current rate is 7.7%, and would be higher under the pre-
>>1984 accounting rules, which dropped the long term unemployed from the
>>calculation (The new numbers are more informative, and lower). In spite
>>of the runaway interest rates, there were more jobs created under Carter
>>then in either of Reagans terms, and the total number of jobs has *dropped*
>>since 1988, as has the median income (which dropped $1100 last year alone).
>
Disingenious, to say the least. Prior to the Carter regime the newspapers
wrote of the dreaded spectre of "double digit inflation" lurking just
around the corner, and that helped Carter. But under Carter we actually
saw peak rates during part of 1980 that topped 17%. Remember, Carter was
president from 1976 to 1980, but his policies had their effect from about
1977-78 through 1981-82. There is a lag.
 
>Also, 1980 was a recession, and thus artifically worse than the rest of
>Carter's term, just as 1982 was worse than the rest of Reagan's term,
>and 1991-2 was worse than the beginning of Bush's term.
 
What makes it "artificially worse"? The recession didn't just happen. It
was Carter's policies that brought it about. If you're willing to give
Bush responsibility for killing the Reagan boom, you ought to allow that
Carter was just as influential. It took Bush two years to kill the boom,
just as it took Carter two years to really start driving the economy into
the toilet, and Reagan two years to reverse that trend.
 
You can't improve employment figures overnight, and it takes a while for
capital markets to respond to money supply and fed policies.
>
>>       Just so you know.
>>--
Uh-huh.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 07:12:49 GMT

mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:

>These analogies to the holocaust are dangerous.  With respect to the
>"gay community" (and I use the term loosely) in this country, there are
>no concentration camps; there are no death camps; the leadership is
>*not* actively encouraging people to hunt down and abuse/kill
>homosexuals.
>
The leadership is encouraging people to hunt them down and deprive
them of their jobs.  The military for example in some cases asks for
a list of names of other homosexuals who are in service.  State and
local governments also deprive people of jobs based on sexuality if
they should happen to find out.  Why they're searching and find out
is questionable.

By allowing all the bad language strongly against any group within
your own organization and allowing unfounded discrimination against 
a group by your own agencies, a leader is in effect saying that it's 
OK for everyone he leads to act the same way.

>People have been killed in minor brawls and large wars over their
>beliefs for many thousands of years.  This is neither good nor unusual,
>and there is no reason to expect that it will stop, even (or perhaps
>especially) through legislation.
>
So do we not try to make it better? "Oh dear, someone just stabbed my
mother!  Oh well, shit happens."

>Statistically, I don't see "gay bashing" as being any more common than
>the "fat" boy or the "ugly" girl getting beat up on the playground, or
>the "straight" guy getting beat up because he made a pass at someone's
>girlfriend.  While none of these is truly acceptable, the source of the
>
You should open your eyes.  Perhaps not any more common, it tends to
be more severe.  I doubt there are many men that get killed just for
walking on the sidewalk and being suspected of being fat.  I'm sure
that it happens but I also think that better justice is served in
the case of the man suspected of being fat.  I doubt many women
suspected of being ugly are denied a position on a local police
force even though she completely qualifies and is the best person
for the job.  I doubt that there will be a mob of people (including
children not old enough to know what it means) outside the office
where she is applying with buttons and signs that say "No Ugly
Cops".

>it has do to with low
>tolerance for someone else's views or lifestyle, or in the latter case,
>selfishness and (usually) insecurity.
>
Agreed!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5316 talk.politics.misc:45338 alt.rush-limbaugh:4770 alt.politics.bush:5041 alt.politics.elections:13068
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:59:16 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <16862726D.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
[stuff deleted]
> 
>Continued nonsense. There was no "massive military buildup". Spending was
>only 0.6% more in the 80s than in the 70s, and it was 2.2% less than in
>the 60s. Insignificant. All the significant growth in spending was in
>social spending, government administration, entitlement payments and the
>like which certainly do *not* fuel growth.

What planet are you from? From the OMB, "Budget of the United States, Historical
Tables, FY 1988" comes these numbers:

Composition of Federal Expenditures

                      FY 1982          FY 1986
Defense                 23.2%            27.6%
Human Resources         27.0             21.5
SS & Medicare           26.4             27.2
Physical Resources      10.5             5.9
Interest                10.1             13.7
Other                   2.8              4.1

As for the Reagan landslide, no "fooling the people was required." How many of
you would be willing to bet that Reagan would have beat Carter if the
hostage rescue had worked....

Enough said....Bush is going down fast in Texas....if the GREED crowd isn't
happy, they can go somewhere where GREED is written into law.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:20:03 GMT

<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>of doctors from Canada to the U.S.  Most Canadian doctors know that while
>they could earn more money, they would also spend half their day hassling
>with insurance companies.

My sister and her husband are both Canadian doctors, and this was 
one of the main reasons they gave for preferring the Canadian system.
(They also felt that their colleagues were of similar opinion).
They went to medical school so they could
practice medicine, which they they enjoy. 
The Canadian system is very easy for
doctors to deal with, so they can spend their time practicing
medicine, not filling out forms.

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4819 tx.politics:5055
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 10 Sep 1992 23:28:47 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

>|> In article <1992Sep09.230151.21511@watson.ibm.com> john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>|> >Well....yeah.  When did medical care become an inalienable right?
 In other words, let the poor people die.

 You know, my firsteacton is that youare a Communist in disguise. After
 all, the feeling of hopelessness that you are touting here is a major
 recruiter for revolutions (French, Russian, Chinese, Peruvian), just to see the
 smirk wiped off your face.

andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4666 talk.politics.misc:44467 alt.rush-limbaugh:4478 alt.politics.bush:4562 alt.politics.elections:12729
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Opinion on CNN Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger..."
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:09:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Short letter about CNN. CNN is more objective than any of the other
major networks without a doubt, but it isn't the most objective
lens through which the news is delivered. I do enjoy Crossfire, which
I think is the best news commentary program ... when they had Braden
vs. Buchanan. The benefit of CNN is that when news happens, it is
reported practically instantaneously, raw, and without much handling.
(Granted most of the news comes from the AP wire, but when it's a
news FLASH/bulletin, the facts are usually reported straight-on.) The
editing of the stories is more comprehensive because of the all-news
format. There are more people in the CNN organization because of the
all-news format, so you get a reporter corps less slanted than the
other major networks.

I do have a few problems with CNN, but it usually is an issue of the
other miscellaneous stories they decide to disseminate and broadcast
and the slants these stories take. But the "Campaign '92" coverage
has been better than the other networks, but again it is by no means
as objective as C-SPAN.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5619 alt.politics.bush:5290 soc.rights.human:3500 alt.society.civil-liberties:693
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:03:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.231302.27732@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:

> Despite the hysteria which surrounded Prohibition, there's no doubt
> that alcohol consumption has become more widespread since its
> elimination (percentage, not gross). 

Before you cast your doubt to the wind, look up the actual numbers.

> The same would happen if we
> legalized drugs -- and the consequences would be equally, if not more
> unfortunate.

I agree to the "equally" part.  Now look up the numbers to understand 
what I'm agreeing to.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:57:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: gte

In article <92255.075403DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
[...] 
> (4) High costs in the U.S. system are due to a trust in the insurance industry
> and the AMA monopoly in physician care.
> 

The high costs of US healthcare is due to gov't sponsored health
insurance.  

Doctors were allowed for a long time to charge whatever they wanted
to charge to Blue Cross/Blue Shield.  There was no mechanism or
need in gov`t to prevent waste.  So the gov't kept paying and
the "reasonable and customary" charges went up.

Since private insurance pays "reasonable and customary," there
costs went up too.  

Had gov't stayed the hell out, healthcare costs would have risen
more slowly.

Anything the gov't does is inherently over-priced and low quality:
such is the nature of bureaucracy.  

Someone tell me again how we more inefficiency in the USA.
-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: The blame game
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:42:11 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
: >You must be kidding? The National debt has climbed 57% under Bush.
: >The budget deficit has climbed 157%. This is the man who is going to
: >balence the budget? BTW, if you start going on about Congress being
: >responsible for this, then I will expect you to explain how Congress
: >isn't responsible for any growth in the 80's.
: 
: Please read Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution.

It's really interesting.   That section talks about how revenue bills
are to begin in the House, and about the Presidential Veto.
--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"We thought it was a joke when
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 he asked Dan to run."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Marilyn Quayle
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	

Marrou/Lord in '92

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4580 alt.politics.homosexuality:5855
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:08:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Sep6.181209.12231@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>Statistically, I don't see "gay bashing" as being any more common than
>the "fat" boy or the "ugly" girl getting beat up on the playground, or
>the "straight" guy getting beat up because he made a pass at someone's
>girlfriend.  While none of these is truly acceptable, the source of the

So, let's pass a few laws that says being fat is "wrong", "morally corrupt", 
"oh, you're ugly, we can't give you a job here, and don't try to drink that
water, you might pass on some of your ugliness!"
"Oh, you're straight and you don't have a girlfriend?  You think that you're
gonna get away with making a pass at someone elses?  Officer, take this man
away, PRONTO!"

Get a life.

>problem has nothing to do with homosexuality; it has do to with low
>tolerance for someone else's views or lifestyle, or in the latter case,
>selfishness and (usually) insecurity.
>
Yes, the problem is partially tolerance, and also ignorance.  

>Any doctor can tell you that you cannot cure a disease by attacking the
>symptom(s); you must attack the disease itself.  In this case, morality
>itself is diseased.  How do you propose curing it?
>
Education, education, observation, and absolute justice for all people
_not_ based upon their lifestyles, but by their _humanity_.

How do you judge someone's humanity?  By their actions.  Actions that 
have an effect of other people.  Gays, lesbians, straights, and bisexuals
do not impose any sort of effect on someone unlesss their preaching.

>
>Anyway, I'm rambling.
>
Ramble on.
>-- 

> \   Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
> /\  White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!

later.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Reply-To: rcollins@1.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:44:14 GMT

lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
|> I grew up with these people Eric, did you? They are so blinded by their in-bred
|> biases and bigotry that they are blind to their own lot. I challenge you to go
|> to any small southern town and look at the conditions of their local economy,
|> or the conditions the people are living in. Afterwards, go and start a political
|> discussion with the locals and find out what they think the real issues in the
|> election are. I think you might find it surprising.
|> 
|> Norman (for you anti-intellectuals)
|> 
|> Dr. Norman J. LaFave

Sounds like some pent up rebellion there.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections