HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:36:41 GMT

In article <5140@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.120451.7063@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>In Canada, I can go to any doctor I choose, and they give me great
>>attentive service, since they want me to come back, and since they
>>don't have to worry about whether I can pay or not.  Since they
>>don't have to worry about my ability to pay, all they have to worry
>>about is my health.   They don't have millions of forms from thousands
>>of different insurers to worry about, but one set of forms from a
>>single insurance payer, where fees are negotiated collectively by
>>the doctors with the insurer, who happens to be the government.
>>
>
>You know it's funny Gerald but I just finished reading an article in 
>September's Reader's Digest about the Canadian system and not everyone 
>they quote is as thrilled as you are with the system.  Not the families
>that have seen people die because urgent care was unavailable when needed,
>not the 8300+ doctors that have left Canada to practice in the U.S. and
>certainly not the people waiting in line for a service only to be bumped
>back when some politician jumped line.
>

There are articles and studies in much more reputable health journals
like JAMA and by the conservative Canadian think tank, the Fraser
Institute, which debunk the anecdotal tales and fraudulent numbers
put out by US health care industry proprogandists.  Reputable studies
continue to show Canadians have the highest level of satisfaction 
with health care of any country in the world.  

Doctors also return...something which the Readers Digest seemed to
forget to mention.

The Canadian system does have problems as does every other system
in the world.  Skyrocketing costs are a problem, but they are a
problem everywhere...the difference is that we have the management
infrastructure to deal with this problem better than the American
system.  Our administrative costs are already well below the 
administrative costs of the American system.  We do have some
difficulty keeping some of our best surgeons and physicians in
Canada because of the private system next door, but any universal
system will have trouble competing for the best talent with
the subsidized private US system which caters to only the rich
and upper middle class...but that is in part, because we have
not made the policy changes to compete. 

>
>So just out of curiosity Gerald what serious medical condition did the
>capable and "free" Canadian system resolve for you?  Or are you just one
>of those people repeating government quotes because you assumed the system
>would work as they claimed, should you ever need it?
>

My brother and both of my parents all have had non-trivial operations
performed over the years...my parents both came from large ethnic
Canadian families...I could recite a pretty long list if you want
to start talking about my grandparents and aunts and uncles.

Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:34:59 GMT

In article <5144@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.160219.6206@rock.concert.net> black@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:
>>
>>Bush said: "Gov. Clinton's plan would raise taxes on anybody who has
>>a job."
>>
>>The Truth: Clinton's plan would raise taxes ONLY on people making more than
>>$200,000 per year. Apparently President Bush doesn't know anyone who has a
>>job that pays less than $200,000.
>>
>
>The Real Truth: And one that little liberal tax and spend brains can't 
>seem to figure out is that this proposed tax like every other tax will 
>eventually be paid for by consumers who generally are people with jobs.
>Just exactly what do you think those people making over $200,000 will do
>when they get their tax bill?  I can tell you what they won't do, they
>won't simply eat it.  They will raise the fees for the services they provide
>raise the prices for the products they produce and ultimately the tax
>will trickle down and the people least able to afford it will pay them 
>by way of higher prices - welcome home inflation we missed you!
>
The truth is, PAY IT NOW or PAY IT LATER, there ain't no free lunch.
If the democrats are TAX & SPEND people, than the republicans fits
the BORROW & SPEND description, which is the lesser of the two evils?


[......] 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush's Vanishing Bounce
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:33:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.190641.16222@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>
>>Er, well, Newsweek has the reputation of being to the left of, say,
>>Time, but do you remember their Gulf War coverage?  Lots of soldiers
>>holding their thumbs up, lots of hawkish sentiment.  
>
>I'm sure they did. They have to stay in business you know, so I'm sure
>they thought it wise to set aside their partisanship ( and maybe even
>go the other way) in order to sell more subscriptions.
>

If their base were so large (as large as Time & US News), they cannot
target readers with left-leaning views.  Consider Harpers and the
Nation, not to mention Z and numerous other magazines, who were
quite against the war.  Anti-war views did exist, you know.  Also,
they have George Will as a regular columnist.  I'd argue that the
major newsweeklies are quite centrist, perhaps leaning one way
or another, but still firmly in the middle.


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Subject: Health Care Plans
Reply-To: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Organization: BNR
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 18:10:38 GMT

There has been much debate on this group about Clinton wanting
to pass a health care plan, and everyone keeps talking about
Canada's system. Bill Clinton has said several times that he 
does not favor the Canadian plan. He prefers a plan closer to
Hawaii's system. Can anyone post a description of that plan or
a recent news article detailing what Hawaii does. Thanks.
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Crisp's Gestapo/Plan (Was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:06:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug30.211456.4895@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <82gnrnp.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>In article <7x3eln4@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>>
>>>	Clinton has *not* proposed a "National Police Force".
>>>
>>
>>Begging to differ, my dear:
>>If you check Clinton's Economic Plan speech and the Democratic Platform
>>you will find the proposal clear as a bell.
>
>To clarify matters, here's what I found in the copy I have:
>
>	% Fight crime by putting 100,000 new police officers on
>the streets. We will create a National Police Corps and offer
>unemployed veterans and active military personnel a chance to
>become law enforcement officers here at home. We will also expand
>community policing, fund more drug treatment, and establish
>community boot camps to discipline first-time non-violent
>offenders.
>

I can't recall if this came from the Economic Speech or if it came from the
platform. Whichever one it didn't come from should also be posted in the
interest of completeness.

Thanks, Elizabeth.

-- 
Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "Time for a clean sweep of Congress"   (408) 253 4541 fax

A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
the populace should be afraid of.
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Connections
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:54:37 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Sep02.203359.2348@bnr.ca> yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount) writes:
>
> ... Clinton has many very
>good ideas. People that stick to the issues instead of going off on crap
>that happened 20 years ago will agree that we have to give Bill Clinton's
>plan a chance. Bush obviously has nothing to offer.

That's what I like about this campaign:  both Republicans and Democrats agree
that nothing is better than Clinton's plan.  The only way they disagree is
in what their reaction will be:  Democrats will vote for Clinton, and Repub-
licans will vote for 4 more years of nothing.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ferengi: any senate subcommittee - Susan Atwater (Star Trek crew from Hell) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2649 alt.politics.bush:2566 talk.politics.misc:41402
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:23:25 GMT

Rene J. Valdes writes:


>I believe the people involved in journalism are more aware of history and
>current social and political events than your average Joe, and have dedicated
>more time and effort to study and understand the issues facing this country
>and the world today.  

Rene first mistake.  Trust the average Joe.  This is the guy pumping gas, hammering
nails, working on your car.  This average Joe or Joette knows what he or she needs
to make it.  

>Thus, it follows that they will be more inclined to favor
>candidates that have a better understanding of what this country needs and
>present a workable serious program of government rather than a "blame-
>everybody-for-not-having-family-values" and "take-credit-for-whatever-
>went-well-and-blame-congress-for-whatever-went-wrong" approach.


The media (unless it is comentary) should just report what is.  It would be nice
to hear that "Employment was at 93% today", or "Inflation remained in check again", or
"Government stole less money for the workers this month."


##############################################################################


The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they are not shared by my 
employer or my friends. However, they should be.

If you receive more than one copy of this notice please pass it on to a 
friend.

Fred Seals
409-845-2298

##############################################################################
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Schedule for 9/1-3
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:10:44 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <2SEP199214523150@gergo.tamu.edu> dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin) writes:
>peoples have towards this nation. The West (mainly Britain and the US) have
>interfered with the Middle East for most of the century and it did not help
>at all when the West gave Israel to the Jewish refugees after WWII. The Arab
>people see the double standard -- we tromp on Iraq for taking Kuwait but do
>nothing to Israel for their acquisition of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and
>the Sinai (though admittedly, Isreal has returned that one).

Well, I hesitate to say this here, because it's not really appropriate to
the newsgroup, but I think a reply is called for.  Israel took those areas
as defense against invading armies, and has kept them for the same reason.
The aggressors lost land as a result of their aggression; they have no one
to blame but themselves.  Israel returned the Sinai because Sadat sincerely
offered peace.  They returned it because Egypt's actions convinced them
that they no longer needed it for self-preservation.  I hope that they will
return the other pieces of land when they no longer need them for
self-preservation, and I hope they don't return it before that day.  Recent
events suggest that that day may not be so far off.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:56:56 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Andrew Fusco writes:
>fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>
>
>>Personally, I'm voting for Clinton not so much for Clinton (who is at
>>least as pro-business as Bush) but for Al Gore's environmental proposals.
>
>Hmmm. I'm not so sure you're going to get what you want. 
>
>The choice of Al Gore as Clinton's running mate was a rather deceptive move
>to create the illusion that Clinton would be as strong on foreign policy, the
>military and the environment as Gore is, claiming that he admires Gore's
>agenda. If you think Gore will have much of an effect on Slick Willie's
>presidency, then you may be in for a shock. 
>
I have no illusions about the extent of Clinton's probable agenda,
but I don't think it will be as bad as Bush's gutting of the Clean Air
Act. I hope not anyway: I have relatives in the Los Angeles area.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance.
From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: John SUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUN is a twit
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:37:15 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA

In article <1992Sep4.000620.28844@ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>
>
>
>
>He should take a flight into a black hole...maybe he should try the one
>between his ears.
>
>

Yes, folks.  The fall semester has started and the undergraduates are getting
on the net and feel the need to let us have a blast of their awesome intellect.

The net was relatively peaceful the last few months with people actually
trying to engage in some worthy debate and discussion.  Now we have the above.

In this instance, the sender was too ashamed to back up opinion with identity.

Let's try to keep the net from sinking to new lows.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Priorities
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:54:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.203133.4727@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.043816.11478@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>The complaint may stem from the fact that once we chose war, we did
>>not end it properly.  If we're going to discard sanctions, shouldn't
>>war be prosecuted effectively, instead of restraining Schwarzkopf
>>with the artificial 100 hour ground campaign?  Why didn't we rely
>>on the field commanders judgement?
>>
>
>But was our goal in getting Saddam in the first place?  I don't think that
>it is mentioned in any U.N. Resolution to get Saddam as the key component
>in the War.  The U.S. and all its allies, in carrying out the war, respectfully
>observed the U.N. resolutions.  What some people suggest is to go beyond
>the U.N. Resolutions and be the world's vigilante, one thing the Democrats
>accuse the Republicans of being.
>

Not quite what I meant.  What I was talking about was to stop
Schwarzkopf from doing the militarily sensible thing and cutting off
the retreat of the Iraqi army.  This would not have forced Hussein out
of power directly.  I also believe that the Iraqis violated the initial
cease-fire conditions by flying rotary-wing aircraft (their choppers)
against the Kurds and Shites.  We did not enforce our own ceasefire
conditions.


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush and Baker
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:34:45 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Aug29.183657.20774@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Aug29.121753.6330@iscsvax.uni.edu> fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>Once again, I raise the spectre of "trust".
> 
> And I'll raise the spectre of "Clinton folks are babbling again".
> 
>>It's a dangerous world out there, Bush tells us, no time for people w/o
>>experience.  This is one of those times I might agree w/him.
> 
> Hold that thought.
> 
>>Why then, is is at all prudent to withdraw our Secretary of State from his job
>>and turn it over to someone who says that he will not serve after January,
>>regardless of the election outcome?  
> 
> Why then, it is at all prudent to support any candidate who advocates
> changing the secretary of state?
> 
> Clinton supporters can't have it both ways.  If it is unreasonable for
> Bush to remove Baker from state, it is unreasonable for Clinton to do
> so.  Was Clinton going to keep Baker on?  No?  They were going to
> remove Baker for THEIR political reasons?  Then they don't get to
> complain when Bush removes Baker for his political reasons.
> 
> -andy

Andy,
1) Actually, in this country, we are allowed to complain.  It's a little
something called the 1st Ammendment.

2) The issue is WHY Baker isn't at State.  He didn't leave the job for his
health, or because someone else is BETTER QUALIFIED (which may be part of
Clinton's motivation).  He left State, with Bush's approval, for purely
political reasons--these are political in the sense of winning elections, not
in the sense of governance.

3)  By your line of "thinking", the only reason we should ever change anyone in
politics is if they die or (perhaps) end up in prison.

4) I don't know if Clinton would keep Baker on, but he could do a lot worse
than keeping Kemp in HUD.  

Bucky Fay
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3971 tx.politics:4776
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:34:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas


	Jim, I don't know how Bush is supposed to lead; but I did not
	run around the country telling everybody to vote for me because
	I could do what, apparently, couldn't be done!

	Now, for the present campaign ala Bush:  I think I'll start
	calling him Santa Bush.  I'd like to start a list of Xmas  
	presents he's been handing out lately.  Please, anybody,
	add on for the fun (a little black humor) of it!

	1) 9/2/92, told the farmers he'll relax grain export regs
	to help them sell wheat; a farmer interviewed on the news
	said "that`ll help the grain warehousers but not the farmers.

	2) Told the airplane factory workers in Dallas he'd approve
	the selling of a bunch of planes to Taiwan, in direct opposition
	of agreement with China.

		Judy

 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbtaves@icaen.uiowa.edu (Steven Bradley Taves)
Subject: TESTING .sig file
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:38:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Iowa Computer Aided Engineering Network, University of Iowa

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:57:00 GMT

In article <5144@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes...
}In article <1992Aug25.160219.6206@rock.concert.net> black@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:
}>Bush said: "Under Clinton's health plan, you won't be able to choose your
}>own doctor."
}>
}>The Truth: This is simply a lie. Clinton's plan offers all citizens the
}>normal choice of doctors. It will also cut down on health care costs by
}>taking on the insurance and drug industry giants.
} 
}Reality:  What happens when, as is the case with Pennsylvania's medicare
} program, doctors refuse to accept the limited fees the government program
} will pay and simply refuse to see patients that are covered by government
} plan?

Revoke their licenses. Any doctor who is in the field just for the money
should not be allowed to practice medicine, and refusing to see a patient
because of their coverage defies the oath. Now, this assumes that the fees
suggested by the program are at least somewhat reasonable from both sides.
I would also hope that any such plan (from either party) would ensure that
the doctors would not be able to recover lost high-margin profit by increasing
their fees to other patients.

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Schedule for 9/1-3
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:41:25 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

>SCHEDULE FOR GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON
>Macon, Georgia
 Corporal Clinton tries to explain how he got out of the draft

>Greensboro, North Carolina
 Corporal Clinton tries to ignore the draft dodging his relatives
 orchestrated "to maintain my political viability within the system"

>BALTIMORE, MD
 An increasingly hostile Private Clinton attempts to portray the facts
 about his draft dodging as Bush lies to no avail

>Washington, D.C.
 Hillary steps in and saves a quivering, weeping, Citizen Clinton

Whose son or husband or brother died while Slick Willie was laughing
at the system?  Do you want this coward and liar to protect you?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3187 alt.politics.bush:3126
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:43:53 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
 <1992Aug26.163849.7186@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>

In article <1992Aug26.163849.7186@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov
(Mark Taylor Evert) says:

>> Bush said: "Under Clinton's health plan, you won't be able to choose your
>> own doctor."
>>
>> The Truth: This is simply a lie. Clinton's plan offers all citizens the
>> normal choice of doctors. It will also cut down on health care costs by
>> taking on the insurance and drug industry giants.
>
>Reality:  To be sure, socialized medicine will reduce the quality of
>health care as we now know it.  To show I am not completely biased, I do
>have a nit with the Bush platform because it does not effectively address
>the problem of rising medical costs.  The medical industry needs more
>incentive to compete on the basis of price.  Insurance masks much of the
>real cost to the consumer.  How many ads for hospitals, etc advertise low
>prices???

Prove to me that "socialized medicine" will reduce the quality of medical
care.  First, define the term "socialized medicine" for me.  The prove that
Clinton's plan is to create "socialized medicine".

Several studies in health economics over the last decade clearly show that
increased competition in health care markets can and has led to higher not
lower prices.  The simple rules you learn in ECON 101 don't always apply
when the operation of a free market is impeded by uncertainty, asymmetric
information, moral hazard, externalities and other facotrs.


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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton