HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: A Coffee-House Conversation with an Imaginary Nadja
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:01:16 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1992Nov14.223446.1558@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:

>>	Guess again Stevie boy!  The City of Kinnesaw Georgia (that's
>>the USA southern state :-)  has a statue on the books that requires all
>>households in the corporate limits to own a weapon!  (There are some
>>exemptions for various reasons of conscience and such.)

>Guess again Wolfie.  That law is truely symbolic.  It exempts anyone
>who doesn't want to comply.

>It was a response to Morton Grove's gun ban.  Guess which "worked"
>better?

Andy, Let's see if Knucklehead can spell. Kennesaw is the city.  Even
though the law is symbolic, it served its purpose.  Burglarlies dropped
to zero the following year.  That's ZERO.  Nadda.  They have not stayed
at zero but considering that Kennesaw is part of Cherokee county,
the fastest growing county in the state, that it is part of metro
Atlanta, the crime capitol of the nation (well almost), and that
it is surrounded by counties where the crime rate has skyrocketed 
with the population boom, I'd have to say Kennesaw did right well by
itself.  My only regret is not having bought a house a couple of miles
to the north in Kennesaw.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:55:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.211213.1878@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
} In article <1992Nov13.183540.6980@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
} > |>    (JM writes)
} > |> 	All good organizations ... so why don't we hear from them ? 
} > |> 	I've never heard a TV spot I could attribute to them, never
} > |> 	a radio ad, never even a little square blurb in a large-
} > 
} > If the NRA with all it's clout finds it nearly impossible to get the
} > media barrons to run their adds I suspect that the smaller organizations
} > have found it completely impossible not to mention expensive.
} 
} 	As I said to someone else, if Op-Rescue can get their ads
} 	run on CNN/TBS - a network owned by the guy who squeezes
} 	Jane Fondas goodies every night - then the NRA could get
} 	some time as well. Someone isn't trying very hard.

But there have been NRA ads on network TV.  They've usually featured
Charleton Heston and a few other celebs.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:28:27 GMT

In article <1ecb0eINNsgf@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Tanks aren't useful to govts in a revolution because the revolutionaries
>>don't have fixed positions.  Since tanks are only useful for attacking
>>fixed positions or other tanks, tanks don't help the govt.
>
>And try telling the
>Marines who fought in the tunnels of Cu Chi -- such a vast network that it
>was never fully explored -- that guerrillas do not have fixed positions.

I never wrote that guerrillas don't have fixed positions.  However, I
do accept the correction showing that tanks are not useful for
attacking some fixed positions.  Since Yarvin was claiming that
tanks gave the govt an unassailable advantage ....

>We basically agree that the
>outcome of a guerrilla war does not hinge on who has the most tanks and
>airplanes.  It is only your exaggerations of this, like saying tanks are
>never useful, to which I am objecting.

At the beginning of this discussion, Yarvin disagreed with that.  He
claimed that the govt would win because it has the tanks and airpower.

>I can't.  How is killing garbagemen going to further the aims of the
>revolution?  Cutting electric power lines would be a bit more productive,
>but to produce a change in government, the revolution would have to do more
>than just terrorize people.

Why does Yarvin assume that guerrillas have to hit irrelevant targets?
Shooting low-level govt officials is very discouraging.

>And as to what happens when a military force decides running away
>is its only option, I refer you to several instances where approximately
>sixty Rhodesian SAS personnel completely destroyed guerrilla camps of over a
>thousand men, aided vastly by the fact that the idiot guerrillas did not
>stand and fight but instead ran out of the camp and into ambushes where they
>died like flies.  When the SAS ran into enemy forces who were present in much
>smaller numbers but who did fight, they had a considerably harder time.

The guerrillas provided a nice fixed target and you want me to defend
their strategy?  No thanks.  There are stupid ways to resist
violently, but that doesn't imply that all ways to resist violently
are stupid.  One can choose tactics that make the opponent's tanks
useful, but there are other tactics.

>In Vietnam we often found the enemy's base camps.

And what would base camps for the American revolution look like?
Would tanks necessarily be useful against them?  (Considering that
Yarvin provided an example of base camps that tanks couldn't
attack....)

Bases don't have to be in-country; inner cities are a great place to
hide.  An occupier can afford to destroy cities, but a govt that does
has lost the revolution and is now engaged in a war of conquest.  As
such, it has fewer resources to fight with.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rdh@sli.com (Robert D. Houk)
Subject: Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- U.S. Senate Report, Repost
Reply-To: rdh@sli.com (or uunet!sli!rdh)
Organization: Software Leverage, Inc. Arlington, Ma
Distribution: talk
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:19:21 GMT

By popular request, I'm reposting the main body of the U.S. Senate report
on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the meaning and intent of the Second
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  This is plain text, and about 160KB
in size, posted in three parts. [I'll post the second and third parts
in the next coupla days...]

Reprints of the entire U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee
on the Constitution report  "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms" are now avail-
able from:

    Ken Lomont
    4236 W 700 S.
    Poneto, IN  46781
    (219) 694-6792
          694-6797 (fax)

Cost is $6.00 (and they accept plastic).

It's a photocopy (not a new printing) on fairly sturdy white paper (better
than the original in this respect).

					-RDH

Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: health care industry woes
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:17:02 GMT

In article <jstewart.722185749@cunews> jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
}Governments in Canada are not immune from liability, they can be taken to
}court just like any other organization/individual.  In the case of medical
}malpractice, it would be the doctor and/or hospital that would be sued.
}In general, liability is much less of a problem in Canada than it is in the
}US.

Thanks for correcting me on this.

}>  Health
}>care in England and Canada, where they have national health insurance, is
}>rationed by line: people have to hurry up and wait in line to get any.
}
}>This is why there's an "underground railroad" for Canadians in need of
}>immediate treatment to get it in the States.
}
}I've seen no evidence that Canadians in need of immediate treatment were
}forced to wait in line.  There are waiting lists for some forms of elective
}surgery, for example heart bypass operations.

While I don't have any scientific evidence handy, I have plenty of anecdotal
from my Canadian friends.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Canadian Health Insurance (was: health care industry woes)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:37:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.165139.1869@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
}Canada has a public health insurance system ("PHI" in Americanese)
}funding private doctors, and public and private hospitals.

This "public" bit contradicts your claim that Canada has separation of
medical service delivery and State.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: An Approach to National Health Care
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:11:46 GMT

kbeal@amber (Ken Beal) writes:
>
>By giving everyone free health care, we are essential wasting away
>the gene pool.
>
>	And I've rambled enough.  What do *you* think?

On a purely financial basis, we have figured out in Canada (and France
and Germany) that giving our welfare bums health insurance to see the
doctor early prevents them from being hauled into the Emergency Ward
and ringing up a $1 Million tab to be paid for out of higher taxes
(not health premiums, tax taxes) on you and me.

Besides, if they're healthy enough to work we can cut them off and
force them to get a job. (-;

gld

Canadian Conservative/American Liberal
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Jesus Saves!
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Gretzky gets the rebound -
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			he shoots, he scores!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Repealing medical licensure laws
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:32:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.020336.4390@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
}I agree wholeheartedly that MAJOR reform in medical education
}and in policing quality of care by licensed physicians
}is sorely needed.  That said, however, repealing medical
}licensure laws (and reverting said authority to a free 
}market) would be a tragic disaster because:
}
}1.  For the overwhelming majority of citizens, the public 
}does not have sufficient understanding of physiology to make
}an informed decision regarding the quality of care of a 
}doctor.

This is also true for bonds.  Yet we have the private sector providing the
service of bond ratings through agencies which supply the demand for this
information.  This could also be done for rating doctors.

}You might say
}we should publish information on doctors' effectiveness
}in treating patients, but this data would be horribly
}distorted by confounding variables, such as discrepancies
}in the acuity of various doctors' practices.

I don't understand this.  Will you please elaborate?

}2.  Acutely ill patients may not be able to rationally
}make decisions, further exacerbating # 1 above.  If you
}drive into a tiny town in Idaho with an acute appendicitis,
}how will you know if your "surgeon" has appropriate training? 

How will knowing that he's state-sanctioned provide this knowledge any
better than a private rating agency?

}3.  If we repeal medical licensing laws, who will regulate
}narcotics and other controlled substances?  Or should
}all medications be legal for over the counter sale?

The latter.

}4.  The potential for pseudo "doctors" to take advantage
}of terminally ill patients with high-priced "cures"
}would be tremendous.  Such patients would be at a disadvantage
}due to # 2 above.

This goes on now, only on the black market.  Laetril ring a bell?  How does
relegating this to the black market improve things over having such phonies
operating where they'd be subject to fraud liability and the rating of
health services consumers' agencies?

}Again, there are serious problems currently regarding 
}the competency of some licensed physicians..... we should
}work on correcting this.   However, to open up the
}practice of medicine to the public at large would be 
}a grave mistake.

Competency isn't the issue I raised, competition is.  MDs are a legally
privileged labor cartel or oligopoly because of licensure.  This raises
prices, decreases quality, and stratifies practices against demand-driven
changes.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: Re: health care industry woes
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:11:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.235629.22435@newstand.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:


>service (like northern exposure) or as cash and interest.  The loses to of
>the educational program is staggering (a minority of med school promises are
>satisfied).

Although the default rate on student loans in general is
quite high, the default rate on MEDICAL student loans is 
very low -- definitely not a majority.  Unfortunately, this
feeds into our current shortage of primary care physicians
and into physician motivation to do high-paying procedures.
It is not at all unusual to graduate from medical school
with $100,000+ of debt.  If this were not so, many more 
physicians might be willing to go into lower-paying
but satisfying careers in primary care.


-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: roth@math.washington.edu (John Roth)
Subject: RE: health care industry woes
Organization: "University of Washington, Mathematics, Seattle"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:01:53 GMT

Gregory Sherwin (5) writes...
>... many doctors learned that you could process
>patients like an assembly line earning an amount of money for each as set
>and provided by the government (this does not speak for everyone - but a
>trend since Medicare and Medicaid)....
> Specializations
>with ridiculous incomes like radiology seem to be more out of self-
>fabrication than a true sense of economics, and hence general family
>physicaians - the REAL care providers - are economically weeded out.

The reason that medicine has gone in the specialized, assembly line direction
is because government insisted on paying on a fee-for-service basis.  A general
practitioner can not bill insurance (particulary government plans) for
the time it takes to discuss or reasearch a patients problem.  One can only
bill for performing a procedure.

Why did the government choose this policy?  To protect against fraud.  One
must ask if the savings was worth the cost.  I doubt it.

Those who say we need more GP's must put forward some acceptable alternative
to fee-for-service.  And sell this alternative to providers, payers and those 
who believe doctors are not to be trusted.  Anyone seen such a proposal?

John Roth
roth@math.washington.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: cmriggin@iastate.edu (Christin M Riggins)
Subject: Health Care Costs
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:56:16 GMT

   I am doing a research paper on health care costs in the United States and
ways to improve our current system.  I would REALLY be grateful and truely
appreciate any and all responses to my survey.  Please email responses to

cmriggin@iastate.edu
        or
TYAU7@isuvax.iastate.edu

Like I said, any and all responses would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

C. Marie Riggins
Iowa State University


1.  Do you feel that the current U.S. health care system is effective? (Y/N)

2.  Do you feel health care in the U.S. would be improved to switching to a
    universal health care system similar to Canadas? (Y/N)

3.  Do you think that Bill Clinton's proposed health care revisions will
    improve
      a) availability of health care? (Y/N)
      b) quality of health care? (Y/N)
      c) cost of health care? (Y/N)

4.  Would you be willing to pay higher taxes in order to improve the health
    care system? (Y/N)

5.  What do you think is the number one problem with health care in the U.S.
    today?

Thanks again for your help.  Results of the survey should be available around
the middle of December if anyone is interested.
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Repealing medical licensure laws
Date: 21 Nov 92 02:03:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov20.104503.636@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
 starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>I see no reason why the State should be any better at determining the
>quality of medical practitioners than the private sector, and plenty of
>reasons why it should be worse.  A medical license is no guarantee against
>pseudo-science.  Why shouldn't opening up the market for this form of
>highly skilled labor induce competition (assuming the absence of State
>financing) which would reduce prices and improve quality?

I agree wholeheartedly that MAJOR reform in medical education
and in policing quality of care by licensed physicians
is sorely needed.  That said, however, repealing medical
licensure laws (and reverting said authority to a free 
market) would be a tragic disaster because:

1.  For the overwhelming majority of citizens, the public 
does not have sufficient understanding of physiology to make
an informed decision regarding the quality of care of a 
doctor.  Yes, a patient can decide if he likes a given 
doctor's beside manner, availability, etc. but he cannot
reliably know how good the doctor is.  You might say
we should publish information on doctors' effectiveness
in treating patients, but this data would be horribly
distorted by confounding variables, such as discrepancies
in the acuity of various doctors' practices.

2.  Acutely ill patients may not be able to rationally
make decisions, further exacerbating # 1 above.  If you
drive into a tiny town in Idaho with an acute appendicitis,
how will you know if your "surgeon" has appropriate training? 

3.  If we repeal medical licensing laws, who will regulate
narcotics and other controlled substances?  Or should
all medications be legal for over the counter sale?

4.  The potential for pseudo "doctors" to take advantage
of terminally ill patients with high-priced "cures"
would be tremendous.  Such patients would be at a disadvantage
due to # 2 above.

Again, there are serious problems currently regarding 
the competency of some licensed physicians..... we should
work on correcting this.   However, to open up the
practice of medicine to the public at large would be 
a grave mistake.

-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:20:24 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: RE: health care industry woes

In article <1992Nov17.210153.27422@u.washington.edu>, roth@math.washington.edu
(John Roth) says:
>
>Gregory Sherwin (5) writes...
>>... many doctors learned that you could process
>>patients like an assembly line earning an amount of money for each as set
>>and provided by the government (this does not speak for everyone - but a
>>trend since Medicare and Medicaid)....
>> Specializations
>>with ridiculous incomes like radiology seem to be more out of self-
>>fabrication than a true sense of economics, and hence general family
>>physicaians - the REAL care providers - are economically weeded out.
>
>The reason that medicine has gone in the specialized, assembly line direction
>is because government insisted on paying on a fee-for-service basis.  A
>general
>practitioner can not bill insurance (particulary government plans) for
>the time it takes to discuss or reasearch a patients problem.  One can only
>bill for performing a procedure.
>
>Why did the government choose this policy?  To protect against fraud.  One
>must ask if the savings was worth the cost.  I doubt it.

The government adopted a UCR fee system after extensive consultation with
private insurers in the mid 1960s.  The private insurers informed them that
this was the best way to do things.



>Those who say we need more GP's must put forward some acceptable alternative
>to fee-for-service.  And sell this alternative to providers, payers and those
>who believe doctors are not to be trusted.  Anyone seen such a proposal?

The new RBRVS used by Medicare sets a fee based upon an estimate of the
time and skill necessary to deliver the service, as well as the malpractice
costs associated with the specialty and other practice costs.  Over the
next 5 years it will raise primary care fees by 10-15% and drop most
specialty fees by 10-15 percent.  Many private insurers are thinking about
adopting it as well.  Most other countries use other tachniques as well.
For example, most other countries heavily subsidize medical education.
That means doctors don't have to recoup their education costs by charging
high fees.  Most other countries exert more influence in specialty choices,
given that they are often paying for the educations.


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.
From: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Re: An Approach to National Health Care
Reply-To: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:20:22 GMT


I shall alert the Carter^H^H^H^H^H^HClinton transition team that there
is a Serious Policy Wonk down at Seismic for the Health & Human
Servicing people to recruit.

:-) -- cP

Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine