HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:54:03 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Distribution: usa
 <1992Sep2.161707.28933@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
 <1992Sep2.210243.3999@pony.Ingres.COM>
 <1992Sep3.235448.24889@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> <rqiDr*uX0@caleb.UUCP>
 <1992Sep9.191704.18166@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
 <1992Sep09.230926.25617@watson.ibm.com>
 <1992Sep10.153655.13716@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
 <1992Sep10.223727.44082@watson.ibm.com>

In article <1992Sep10.223727.44082@watson.ibm.com>, john@johniac.austin.ibm.com
(John Iacoletti) says:

>Gee, I don't know Fred.  I think I saw it on TV the other night when I
>was flipping through the channels.  Oh wait....I think my medical
>expert friend said "hogwash" when I asked him if things are better in
>Canada.  Then again, it should be obvious to anyone, and I'm not going
>to try to teach you a 4 month medical course here on Usenet :-)

There are a few of us who wish you'd at least get your facts correct before
you start teaching anyone.  By your reference to flipping channels I assume
you are referring to the re-run of "Borderline Medicine" that was run on many
PBS stations recently?  You might like to know what really happened to poor
Mr. Mueller who needed heart surgery.  The show made it seem like Mr. Mueller
was still waiting for surgery 5 months after the diagnosis.  In fact, one week
after diagnosis, Mr. Mueller was offered a chance to have surgery bumping
into the line because it was deemed to be more urgent.  However, Mr. Mueller
and his doctor chose not to do the surgery, because a drug therapy was already
showing signs of improvement.  As of earlier this year, Mr. Mueller was alive
and well.  His chest had still not been cut open.

The details can be found in an article in the Wall Street Journal earlier this
year.  I'll try and get the reference, if you'd like.

Now, I am trying to decide whether or not to take a course you'd teach on
USENET.  Please give me a reading list containing the sources for the
following pieces of information:

(1) U.S. doctors are the best in the world. (I'm curious how you measured this)

(2) Canadian doctors would prefer to cross over to the U.S. system.

(3) Good doctors have little to do with infant mortality rates.

(4) High costs in the U.S. system are due to a trust in the insurance industry
and the AMA monopoly in physician care.

(5) Canadians wait 6 months for treatment.

(6) Canadians come over the border in droves for treatment.

I am really very curious because none of the journals or books in my
library or my department library provide any support for the above.


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: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Originator: cs911461@a03.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:48:19 GMT


In article <1992Sep15.230527.29528@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep15.182544.10583@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>> >Legalizing drugs is not a question of personal freedom.  It costs
>> >society too much in terms of lost production.  Therefore, this cost
>> >far outweighs the importance of the individual's so-called "right"
>> >to destroy his mind and body.
>> 
>> Even if we buy this argument, the war on drugs is justified only
>> if its benefits exceed its costs.  It isn't enough to "fight drugs"
>> you have to actually win.  If you don't, the war is a waste, no
>> matter how much drugs "cost".

Of course, I'm not speaking of a war on drugs.  A previous post 
outlined my position, which I think is the only one that could 
work.

>> We need not buy the argument either.  Individuals don't owe society
>> their full production.  They "owe" only what they're willing to do in
>> order to get what they want.  If society doesn't have anything to
>> offer that people value more than zombiehood, society will have
>> to do without their "production".

If society provides for people then, logically, people should be
willing to provide for society.  Do people who buy Mr. Freeman's
arguments also engage in Japan-bashing?  

As a metaphore, consider the person who drives wrecklessly or while
intoxicated.  If he crashes and kills himself (or someone else), 
society has to pay for his behavior.  Public employees have to scrape
his dead corpse off the road.  Our personal actions do cost society 
and it is the governments duty to enact policy which either makes
the individual accountable for his actions (criminal law) or prevents
him from doing it.  I prefer the latter approach for its greater
degree of humanity.  A kinder, gentler America is not impossible
but hard choices have to be made.  Vote for the politician who
espouses new ideas and hard work, not old traditions or magical 
solutions.

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4650 alt.politics.bush:4554 alt.politics.elections:12719
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: The same old unemployement lies
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:44:38 GMT

In article <BuHBtM.C1q@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:

>In the U.S., we started 1980 with 12% inflation, 20+% interest rates,
>unemployment nearly double what it is now, and a resurgent, aggressive
>USSR. 

	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).

	Just so you know.
-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
 nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God"
                                     - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:00:04 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>As with all "hollywood elite" concerns, media bias is a non issue.  If people
>didn't agree with the bent of newscasters, they would watch something else.
>Buchannan has kept a job because there are a few people that like his bias.
>He just can't find enough listeners to get as broad a forum as others.
>--

Buchanan was a comentator--not a reporter or an editor.  Comentators and
editorialists usually state their bias up-front and operate from it
consistently.  News is another matter altogether.  People expect to
get facts from their news, not opinions.

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: Helping business
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:37:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.163056.1@vxdesy.desy.de> forbush@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>>>>
>>>> I don't want to get too sidetracked, but who here really thinks that the
>>>> cost of health care for all Americans is what the Republicans say?  I mean
>>>> if we spend the money on health care, these people will be able to take
>>>> the money they once paid on medical costs and use it elsewhere.  Something
>>>> else will have to benefit.

The money they used to pay on health care(plus more) will be paid in taxes.
The government has a way of charging _more_ when they get their hands on 
things. The only advantage is that the cost will be spread over all taxpayers,
not just the sick ones.

>> The cost 'could ' be very high if the government does
>> impose ceilings for the cost of procedures.
>>
>Before I get flamed... I ment to say
> The cost 'could ' be very high if the government does NOT
> impose ceilings for the cost of procedures.

The problem with the health care system in the US is greed. Greedy-doctors,
greedy-patients(who sue for any reason) greedy-insurance companies who cover
the greedy-doctors against lawsuits from the greedy-pateints, greeedy-insurance
companies covering the patients payments to the greedy-doctors, greedy-drug
companies selling drug to the greedy-doctors which will be paid by the greedy-
insurance companies.

Do we realy need to add greedy-government to this?

First we need to decide if we _realy_ want socialized medicine.
If we do, then we need to do it correcty. Make doctors civil servents, & give 
them protection against lawsuits, but provide their service _free_ to the 
public. We also need to quit giving drug companies exclusive rights to the 
drugs.

If you feel that there should still be competition for service, the government
could start "free clinics" using government doctors. The government could start
paying for the education of doctors in return for 4-8 years of service(like
what they do for military doctors.) After their 4-8 years of service, they can
then start their own private businesses.

just a thought.
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Originator: cs911461@a03.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:15:59 GMT


In article <BuMy5q.746@acsu.buffalo.edu>, pck@acsu.buffalo.edu (Philip C. Kilinskas) writes:
>> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> >I'm not a cocaine addict because:
>> >	d) it's something the lower-classes do
>> 
>> Hmmm... the "lower-classes" have sex, also.  May I assume you're a virgin,
>> and planning to stay that way?

Maybe I am.  I'm not telling.  Drug abuse is most common in the lower
classes.  I do not wish to associate myself with them nor behave like 
them and I think that any true American would do the same.  A lower-
class life is no life at all.

May I assume you're some sort of communist?

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5554 alt.politics.bush:5223 alt.politics.marrou:1172
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner)
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:03:05 EST
Distribution: usa

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
> >Aids?  How about the value of accepting personal responsibility 
> >for one's actions.  If Magic Johnson hadn't been acting like a 
> >mink, he wouldn't have AIDS.
> 
> THIS is absurd.  Do you tell the people in an emphesima ward that
> they should have quit smoking?  Or that someone who suffered a 
> heart attack should eat better and exercise more?  Or that a
> person with cancer should have eating more broccoli? :-).  

it's a little late at that point to tell them what they should or
shouldn't have done. you can be sure i'll try to get the warning
out before the fact. and if they still insist on saying "Fuck it,
I wanna have my fun." then it's their own problem & i won't be
offering much sympathy when they show up with emphesima or AIDS
or whatever. "You play, you pay" still applies.

> AIDS is not a question of "personal responsibility" - it is a deadly
> virus.  People with HIV need or sympathy, _not_ our petty moralizing.

AIDS is a deadly virus. it's a deadly virus that one can almost certainly
avoid if we exercise "personal responsibility". and one that you're very
likely to get if you don't. the fact is that unlike cancer AIDS is a
disease that could be entirely controlled by a few -simple- decisions
about behavior. it's your right to do whatever you please, but don't
expect the consequences to take the day off on your account.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`, "I'm the keeper of the cheese, and you're the lemon merchant!" - Ren Hoek ,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:50:01 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Distribution: usa
 <21498@rpp386.lonestar.org> <1992Sep15.013618.14163@pony.Ingres.COM>
 <21536@rpp386.lonestar.org>

In article <21536@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh
II) says:
>
>In article <1992Sep15.013618.14163@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE F
>O
>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.
>--
>John F. Haugh II

This response doesn't answer the question.  However, a comment:

Bush learned well while he was Vice President.

"...in eight years by direction of the most conservative administration
in modern times, the federal government's spending will have exceeded
its income by the staggering sum of $1.5 trillion.  The next President
will inherit a publicly held federal debt nearly triple that accumulated
by all of Ronald Reagan's thirty-nine predecessors.
   "Historians will undoubtedly find these elephantine figures baffling.
By then, the secret of the Reagan era's fabulous free lunch will be beyond
dispute.  The records will show that within the span of a few short years
the United States flung itself into massive hock with the rest of the
world."  [Note:  the US debt is now a beyond staggering - incomprehensible -
$4 trillion]
   "In the final analysis, only one conclusion is possible.  The American
economy and government have literally been taken hostage by the awesome
stubbornness of the nation's fortieth President."
                        David Stockman, 1st Budget Director under Reagan,
                        who (with Jack Kemp) developed the administration
                        budget direction (quote from 1987).

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University           "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                     -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4668 alt.news-media:1198 talk.politics.misc:44474
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Helping business
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:14:07 GMT
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <18ube9INNhbd@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com> sperry@sdd.hp.com (Rob Sperry (Temp)) writes:
>In article <CHRISF.92Sep12103252@thor.albany.edu>, chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher) writes:
>|> Ok, another question to be directed towards the Republicans:
>|> 
>|> Bush keeps telling us what's going to be good for business.  The Family Leave
>|> Bill would be bad because it would cost business money.  Health Care for all
>|> employees would cost too much - it's bad for business.  Raising the minimum
>|> wage to keep up with inflation is no good - it's bad for business.
>|> 
>|> When exactly do we get down to the fact that most industrial countries treat
>|> their employees much better than we treat ours?  Gemany, France, Japan, 
>|> Sweden... the list goes on.  All we seem to do is consider the short term
>|> costs, and as a result, have workers whose standard of living is declining.
>
>
>   Hum and exactly how are all those contries doing?  Sweden 75% intrest rates
>  Germany and Japan are both in economic retractions.  I havn't heard anything

WRONG WRONG WRONG!  Acording to Germany and Japan, they are in economic
retractions.  Compaired to us, their situation is much better.  It has been
proposed time and time again, if it were not for the problems of re-unification,
and imagration, Germany would be sitting pretty (even in it's own mind).  The
public in Germany and Japan are complaining so much because they are used to
sustained growth not a flat economy (or just growing).  Now while on the 
subject, if you consider education to be one of the key to being able to compete
in the future, then you should really worry about our country.

>  about France latly.  But I get the impression things are worse in Europe

Less children go without food and health care in Europe (excluding the parts
of the now dead Soviet Union) then in the U.S. 

>  than they are here in the US.  So which on of those foriegn economys would
>  you like to trade for ours?

A smart answer would be to reply I would like to take parts (or views) from
various different economys.  No one proposes to totally change our economy or
views, only that we learn from others when fixing our country.  Or, are not
wise enough to realize that one can learn from others.

>
>Rob Sperry
>-/\-
>-\/-
>


--
There are no absolutes, and even that's a maybe.
tag@ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: jason@beta.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: EE Dept at UF
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 20:51:05 GMT

>By the way, most American business men are paid on salary.

Yes, but they have the option to switch employers; and consequently
salaries.  They will naturally gravitate towards the higher pay
job (sure there are other things to consider such as job security, but
those are negligent). They will work hard to keep their good paying
job by the threat of being fired. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4841 alt.news-media:1236 alt.politics.elections:12805 alt.politics.bush:4662
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:36:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington

steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:

>AIDS is a deadly virus. it's a deadly virus that one can almost certainly
>avoid if we exercise "personal responsibility". and one that you're very
>likely to get if you don't. the fact is that unlike cancer AIDS is a
>disease that could be entirely controlled by a few -simple- decisions
>about behavior. it's your right to do whatever you please, but don't
>expect the consequences to take the day off on your account.

tell that to the significant amount of people who have gotten the virus 
through blood transfusions.  twit.



-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5643 alt.politics.bush:5311 alt.politics.marrou:1185
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner)
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:46:44 EST
Distribution: usa

machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman) writes:
> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
> 
> >AIDS is a deadly virus. it's a deadly virus that one can almost 
> >certainly avoid if we exercise "personal responsibility". and one 
> >that you're very likely to get if you don't. the fact is that 
> >unlike cancer AIDS is a disease that could be entirely controlled 
> >by a few -simple- decisions about behavior. it's your right to do 
> >whatever you please, but don't expect the consequences to take the 
> >day off on your account.
> 
> tell that to the significant amount of people who have gotten the 
> virus  through blood transfusions.  twit.

ok. if anyone out there has gotten AIDS through blood transfusions, 
you can read the above. the fact remains that if the people had 
donated the blood in the first place had been a little more 
responsible we wouldn't have people getting infected by tainted 
blood. my original point still stands. 

twit.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` "I'd explain it to you, but your head would blow up." - S. Wright `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections