HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Health Insurance (was: difference between Democrats and GOP)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:44:36 GMT

jwh@citi.umich.edu (James W. Howe) writes:

>I don't believe that single payer NHI or pay or play are the way to
>go for a variety of reasons.  The biggest reason, IMHO, is that I
>don't want government to have any more control over my health care
>options than they already do.  If single payer is such a good thing,
>why aren't Federal employees covered under a single payer system?

Hey good question for discussion ... I guess I have some thoughts
on qualifying your question or any answers that may arise ... I'm
really curious about answers to these following questions as well:

1. Barring the fact that you're talking about the U.S. federal
government for a moment, wouldn't this be in effect a form of
self-insurance by the employer?

2. Does anyone know if any form of self-insurance by the U.S. federal
government would be technically illegal?

3. Are there any prohibitions against the U.S. federal government
competing against private enterprise in the market, which includes
health insurance?  If so, that would have been the case against the
U.S. federal government doing self-insurance, right?

4. Isn't single payer public health insurance a new concept compared
to private health insurance versus British-style socialized medicine?
It seems that we ruled both those options out before we went to our
public health insurance system in Canada ... and we even saw the U.S.
do pseudo-socialized medicine through the V.A., etc. (-;

Once again, Jim, good question ...

gld

PS: From one perspective, NHI could be seen as self-insurance by
Canada, Inc., France Ltee., and Deutschland Gmbh. (-;

Disclaimer: Am I responsible for increased viewership of "The Heights"
(FOX) and "Forever Knight" (CBS)??? (-;
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,sci.econ
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Tort reform (was: Trial Lawyers and Clintons...)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:44:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.173612.16280@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Note that Ruger faced strict liability.  Ruger could have chosen
>(1) to leave the guns as they were and compensate the victims, or
>(2) pay the costs of fixing the guns so that the defect was removed
>
>Obviously, Ruger chose (2) as a cheaper option than (1).  Which would
>imply that society is better off because there was legal liability --
>without that liability, Ruger would not have fixed the guns, and society
>would have faced the costs of (1), rather than the costs of (2).

No, without that liability, the owners of the guns would have had them
fixed, and society would have faced the costs of (2).  Either that, or
the owners would have decided that (1) is cheaper than (2), and they
wouldn't have had the guns fixed.  In either case, society would bear
the lower cost.  (In fact, if for some people (1) is cheaper and for
others (2) is cheaper, this is the only solution that gets the lowest
cost, by fixing some of the guns).

>If you have a better solution

See above.

> to compel Ruger to do this,

Why should Ruger do this, rather than the owners?

> other than 
>legal liability for the injuries a manufactuer inflicts upon its customers,
>please let us know.  (Keep in mind that tort liability lets the manufacturer,
>rather than the government, decide which result would be cheaper.)

And no liability lets the customers decide which result is cheaper.
(I mean no liability if the technology used is the best known _at the
time of manufacture_.)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:24:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.044530.26944@midway.uchicago.edu>
     wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>In article <1992Sep28.024902.23519@midway.uchicago.edu>
>     mec6@midway.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

>>I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
>>on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
>>the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
>>an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.

>	Stupid lady.

	And _who_, sir, are you to make that decision?  How dare you, a
man, who will never have to worry about the future of a child, or even
of yourself over an issue, pass that kind of judgement?

	Tom...

	Hey, Tom!

	Are all your debators this stupid?

			Elf !!!


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:31:50 GMT

In article <12588@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I wouldn't march with a drug addict, or a Nazi, or any of a number
>of other characters whose rights I support.

I don't march with NAMBLA any more than I march with the Log Cabin
Club.

I march in gay pride parades.  That these groups march in those
parades as well is unfortunate.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 06:45:48 GMT


Ok folks, read this carefully: I am not promoting some sort of Orwellian
"sex police", I am merely asking what's wrong with a little responsibility??

I never knew responsibility was so bad.

Simon
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Campaign Info of D/R Party in Library...  (was Publicity)
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:47:00 GMT

{ ref: talk.politics.misc, Re: Perot's publicity, 1 Oct }

visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)...
|
 
|	Most thinking people might just try to contact the political
|party or the campaign in search of such materials.  

No Lance. "Thinking people" will examine the record before the promises.
 
And the Democrat/Republican record is clear: $4 trillion dollars of
debt, and a $1.5 trillion dollar budget being enacted now. (SuperCollider
funding passed into law today at $1/2 billion for this fiscal year -- 
more new spending heaped on top of debt.)

The common political stance of the gop & dems is how to squeeze money 
out of the rest of US, our kids, their kids, and the rest of the 
world. The record is clear -- greed and oppression -- and easily found
in any library. 

-- Stephen
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Rush Quote? (was Re: Bush's China policy--what the hell is going on?)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:21:27 GMT


In a previous article, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell "Droopy")) says:
writes in his sig:

>============================================================================
>BRI FARENELL				"Violence is the last refuge of the
>FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU     	 incompetent."  --Salvor Hardin	
>CLARKSON '95
>A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
>===========================================================================
>"If you choose not to decide, you have still made a choice."   --Rush Limbaugh
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>	(I know it's HIM, but it's still a great quote)		
>

I don't doubt for a second that he said this (the man has taken credit for
other's ideas before), but the quote is from the RUSH (not Limbaugh) song
"Free Will"

>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Sep23.134946.12508@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Sep24.154408.19251@anasazi.com>
	<1992Sep25.142736.16345@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:28:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.142736.16345@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

[...]
   > 
   > Hmm, you say that their ridiculous military build-up was the cause of their
   > collapse. I agree, but they had to do it to compete with ours. Thanks
   > for making my point.
   > -- 
   > John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
   > john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
   >  - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -
   > 
   > 

   Sorry, but you are putting the chicken before the egg. I remember the
   arguements used by Republican conservatives about how far ahead the Soviets
   were in number of missles, subs, ..... . It was those scare tactics that
   drove the Reagan era build-up.

You are forgetting that in 1960 it was none other than JFK who campaigned
on the issue of a "missile gap".  He was called into a briefing at the
DoD and shown that such a gap did not exist.  Even after that he
persisted in maintaining the same stance.

You are also forgetting that the Reagan build up was begun under Jimmy
Carter.  Liberals are quick to point this out when conservatives attempt
to give Reagan credit for the end of the cold war.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:06:14 GMT

In article <adams.717778944@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In <mlbruce.717738296@husc8> mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:

>>>	Do you truly see no difference between joining a National Guard unit
>>>in which positions were open (contrary to dominant-media-culture
>>>misinformation,the Indiana Guard was not at 100% capacity when Quayle joined)
>>>, & using obsequious letters, relatives' clout and illegal activity to avoid
>>>military service entirely, EVEN THOUGH ONE ALREADY WAS TO BE SERVED A DRAFT
>>>NOTICE? What Quayle did may not have been Patriotic enough for you, but what
>>>Bill Clinton did was illegal and flat out WRONG.There is but one Draft Dodger
>>>in this Presidential race, and who it is should be manifestly clear.

>>It may have been "wrong" to avoid getting drafted, but it wasn't
>>illegal.  The draft is unconstitutional, and thus it cannot be illegal
>>to avoid it.

>Case citations, please?

Amendment 13, U.S. Constitution:
Neither slavery NOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, except as punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

(Emphasis mine.)

I realize that expecting the government to obey the Constitution is
naive, but there it is...

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!	  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: kgivon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (karen lee givon)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:57:53 GMT

In article <BvI9wn.2z3@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.232325.22775@panther.mot.com> ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen) writes:
>>In article <BvGDJr.6xn@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct1.023319.2619@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>>>>Arfie lead a crusade for David Duke, who did far worse things than
>>>>"sleep around". Kindof makes you wonder why Arfie is willing to
>>>
>>>Perhaps you would like to point out the "far worse things" Duke has 
>>>done.
>>
>>We know you think the KKK,White Aryans,White Supremists and Neo-nazis are really
>>an enlighten bunch of guys, who are way ahead of their time.  But most of us
>>find them revolting.  The activities and beliefs that they promote are 
>
>I think you will have to dig a little to find some quote of mine that would
>lead one the that conclusion.  I never said or implied any such thing.
>
>Furthermore, you conveniently forgot to tell us what evil things David
>Duke has done.    


He was a leader of the KKK. That's evil enough for me, thank you.

B

Karen Givon

C

i

>
>js


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48911 alt.sex:31529
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex ed in schools?
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu,  1 Oct 1992 10:29:06 -0400 
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Thanks for your response. Instead of actually responding to
specific points, I'd like to share with the net and Mr. Shubs
what I heard on the news this morning.

Let me give a little background to this news. 

A number of months ago, there was a big battle going on in NJ
concerning the presentation of a certain bill that would be
reforming welfare laws in such a way as to try to help people
get off of welfare. (IMO) At least one woman's group, (I forget
the name) thought that the bill would hurt women rather than
help them.

This morning, I heard that the bill had passed. One of the 
provisions of the bill was that any child born after 10 months
of the original application (or maybe the first check) to welfare,
would not give the mother extra money. The amount of money that
the check gives for extra children now is $64/month.

Proponents still say they will fight this law in court.

The news mentioned that this was in conjunction with other provisions,
but didn't state what they were. If my faulty memory is in gear, I
think that one of the other provisions dealt with job retraining 
programs and child care for those retraining.

I don't know if sex education was part of the bill, but I doubt it.

Someone else mentioned that it was media and popular opinion that
says people are siphoning of the government. I certainly didn't
want to imply that people are well off by being on welfare. (Although
I've seen more than one case of abuse were that indeed was the 
situation.) What I am saying is that many people on welfare are 
capable of working and do not. And there's lots of problems with
the system that keep things going in this direction. A lot of it
has to deal with the lack of a sense of self worth in some of the
lower class neighborhoods in my old city home. I don't see it as
much here in Pittsburgh. I do see more homeless on the street in
Pittsburgh.

I've seen abuse of the welfare system, and I've seen people who
really need it. No reform will get rid of all abusers. That doesn't
mean reforms shouldn't happen.

ag


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48931 can.politics:7745 sci.econ:7902
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,can.politics,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:41:38 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon) writes:

>	The bankers love Mulroney today.  He just made them oodles of money.
>	Those bankers who did not make money in this are terminally
>	stupid.
>
>	The script was played out to perfection.

The new organized criminals are financiers, and they prey on
governments.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:13:56 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) whines:

: This is also a lie.

Perhaps you should consider providing figures (with references) of your
own, rather than brushing someone else's (albeit undocumented) claims
of with a simple "This is also a lie."

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49225 ca.politics:8385 ba.politics:5814
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (BIFF!!!!1)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:05:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products
Followups-To: rchilder@us.oracle.com

In article <1992Oct1.195932.6777@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:

>You make me ashamed to be straight.

#HEYYYY!!!1 RIGTHEOUS DUUUUUDE DICCCCCKY:

IF YOUR ASSHAMED 2 B STRAIT WHY NOT BECOMED A H0M0SECTU"ALL?!!!>?

IT"S YOU"RE CHOICE--SEE DANO FER MORE INFOOOOOO!!

I HERE THERE RECUTEING TOOO!!!!

THANKS FOR INCLEUDING YER NAME & TWO >SIGS!! WE WERN~T SHURE OWH U WHER

>
>-- richard
>
>=====
>-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
>         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
>                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
>-- 
>=====
>-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
>         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
>                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.

R THESE KLIEN FLASKS SUM SORT OF JEWISH RICHUALL THING??!  WHER CAN I BY ONE???
I"VE NEVER SEEN ONE> IS THIS PART OF SOME TRILATERAL COMMISSISPIRACY THING?!??!
MAYBE I SHOULD EMAIL BOO"COO"VLAAS ABOUT THIS!  NAW> WHAT AM I THINKING??!
HE SHURLY ALREADY KNOWS!!!!!!1p

**88*************************8888888
**I"M NOT BIFF AND BIIIFS NOT ME!!!*
**********************88888888888888

225z224zBIFF DOES"NT HAVE TAPE ON HIS GLASS"S CAUSE HE DONT" WEER GLASES!!11


---
I"MNOTBIIIFFFFF@WHY>B>STRAIT.GOV
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:41:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct2.235319.4749@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes...
>In article <1992Oct2.165944.10756@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.202926.21348@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>|> In article <1992Sep30.094011.1440@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>
>>    To me, the deficit is just not that much of a problem.
>>

>There is nothing inherently wrong with a deficit; it
>depends upon how the deficit is funded and what the
>money is spent on.

Just a reminder. Every dollar paid in taxes (such as to service the
debt) is a dollar which is not in the bank (or some other investment)
making more income for the worker.

This notion that someone else should be trusted to spend (up to half)
of our money (and more because of debt) -- is simply a con job.

>| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |

   |
-- J --
   |     Stephen D. Tice
   |     Arlingotn Texas
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: taxes. (Was: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment)
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:19:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.225210.17060@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <Bv0327.GIM@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep20.194943.19577@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>>>>>Subtotal percentage taxes	52.5%

>>>More like 36% for most middle-class people.  Move to Texas and get it
>>>knocked down even further.
 
>>True enough, but whether it's 52% or 36%, don't you think it's FAR too much?
>>Do you really get 1/2 or 1/3 of your desires from the government?  

>I've probably gotten more.  Government paid for the first twelve years of
>my education, greatly subsidized the two universities I've went to since,

It certainly spent a lot of money, but what you got for that money was
probably a thoroughly aweful education, one much worse than you would
have had in a private education system.  Is ruining your chances for a good
education really a "benefit"?

>increased the social welfare of the society I live in by providing protection
>for private property, encouraged invention that increased social welfare by
>providing protection for intellectual property, 

This is the kind of thing that I consider to be valuable and legitimate.
I should point out though, that this could probably be funded by a 1% tax.

>built and maintained the 
>roads and public transportation that I needed to access the majority of 
>my jobs, 

Again, if they had not provided this, it would still have been available,
and probably at a much lower cost.  I suppose the quality of the roads is
pretty good on the whole, but having the government steal from me in order
to give me something I could have provided for myself is not what I would
call a "benefit".

>and provided a safe haven from religious persecution for my 
>ancestors.  

This is another case of what I consider legitimate, but it is also a very
cheap thing to do.

>And that's before the subjective utility I receive from 
>knowing that I live in a society which doesn't have the poverty of a 
>New Delhi because of the safety net provided by the welfare system, 
>as much as I'd like to see that welfare system made more efficient.

>They're also footing much of the bill for this wonderful medium of
>communication that you and I are debating on.

Sure, they provided it, but such provisions also open the way for government
control of the communication down the road too.  I would rather pay for it
myself and not submit to the whims of bureaucrats who "own" the net.

--Brian
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc