HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:05:40 GMT
 <1992Sep2.161707.28933@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
 <1992Sep2.210243.3999@pony.Ingres.COM>
 <1992Sep2.215605.8713@news.eng.convex.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep2.215605.8713@news.eng.convex.com>, Patrick F. McGehearty
<patrick@convex.COM> says:
>
>In article <1992Sep2.210243.3999@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF
>THE YEAR) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.161707.28933@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>,
>curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Cu writes...
>...
>>
>>>The solution is deregulation.  Less interference.  And the breaking up of
>>>the AMA monopoly labor union.
>>>
>>Pray tell, how has the labor union done this? Every study I've seen,
>>even the ones who don't want government interference, haven't mentioned
>>the EVIL LABOR UNIONS. And please be specific. Thanks you.
>>
>The basic argument is that the American Medical Association (AMA) functions
>as a labor union by making it more difficult for those not part of their
>organization to compete with them for work.  Specifically, the AMA has a lot
>to say about what it takes to get a license to practice medicine and what is
>considered practicing medicine.  Just for comparison, in Mexico, a
>pharmacist can prescribe a wide variety of lesser drugs for common
>illnesses, whereas a pharmacist in the US would be in big trouble if he
>provided these same drugs without a doctor's prescription.  The position of
>the AMA is that we need to be protected from frauds and incompetents.

This argument, however, doesn't hold water.  The US has had a rapid increase
in the number of physicians over the last 30 years and in many specialties
and many areas of the country we are estimated to have a surplus of
physicians.  The standard monopoly argument would have prices dropping
as a result.  Economists have largely abandoned this theory as an
explanation of the physician market.  For example, in Charles Phelps
recent textbook on Health Economics he wqrites "Licensure cannot, however,
create the opportunity for such firms [physician firms] to price
monopolistically, because (1) physicians can and do migrate and (2)
physician-firms can (and do) substitute other inputs for those of
physician-labor. Other economic phenomena, primarily including the
extent of search by patients, will determine whether physician-firms
act as monolpolists or competitors."

The pricing behavior of physicians occurs not because of an AMA monopoly
but because of patients' interests in finding quality medical care, the
cost of searching for that care, and their willingness to become
insensitive to price once they find medical care that they consider to
be of high quality.  Some studies indicate that if you try and force
price competition in such a market, prices rise and quality declines.


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.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:05:38 EDT
From: <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: re: consistant prolife

Just another plug for archbishop Bernardin of Chicago.  Not only is he
prolife, but he is actually trying to do something constructive to help
protect children in life.  He is one of the first Catholic leaders to
publically admit that the Church has covered up child molesting priests,
and is recommending that the church take a proactive stance to work
toward prevention of this problem.  Unfortunately, I am not clear on his
specific recommendations.  But he seems to be a step in the right direction.
   A prochoice protestant fan of Bernardin,   Melissa Brown
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Marriages that stay together Re: Responsibility: The Dirty Word (was Re: Insulted by...
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:04:51 GMT

I believe one of the keys in a marriage that will stay together
"till death do us part" are partners who come from strong, stable
families.  

Yes, we as children, look up to our parents.  They become our role model.

When married couples have a fight and disagreements then call it quits via
divorce, the child looks at this and says:
   "So this is how it works.  When you have fights and disagreements, you
    don't try to work it out.  Eventually, you may have to give up, call
    it quits, get angry at one another, etc. etc. etc."

  And when that child grows up and marries, how do you think he/she will
behave in her/his marriage?

  We must recognize that in a marriage, not everything will be smooth 
sailing.  Perhaps husband and wife may hate each other for some time.

   But in the end, it is the example of how these two work their problems
out that is very influential on their children.  Children with a strong
and stable family often end up having strong and stable families of their 
own.
From: skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: George on rebuilding FL
Date: 2 Sep 1992 14:13:58 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Ol George just locked up southern Calif. for Bill Clinton. I would
think the people of south central LA might be just a little ticked off
that GHWB goes on national TV to call fo supplies and cash to rebuild
Homested FL, not that I complain about that but the majority of people
in SC LA that lost their neighborhoods to fire we inocent victims also.
So where was the President ? He did a sound bite or two and let the community
clean up the mess. A storm is nature and the LA problem was caused by people
but don't the people of SC LA need help to rebuild also. I guess George 
needs FL more than Calif. Don't waist our tax dollars on fuel for air-force
one to fly to Calif. on campaign trips George, you probabaly just lost 
what little support you had in Southern Calif.

Tim
CLINTON/GORE
Campaign 92'
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Who's worse on deficit (was Re: The blame game)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 07:43:09 GMT

In article <cornell.715404468@vivaldi> nobody writes:
>karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna) writes:
>
>>I vaguely recall reading something (this was back in '88) that the rate
>>of deficit increase during the last several democrat pres's was much less
>>than the rate of increase during the Reagan/Bush era.
>
>Not sure of the article you speak of.  However, "Monetary Trends"
>(put out by The Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis), June 1992 issue
>shows an interesting chart on the first page which graphs the
>federal debt as a percent of GDP from 1961-1993.  It starts in 1961
>at around 57% and drops steadily (with a slight rise around 1967-68
>[Vietnam spending?] down to around 35% in 1974.  In '76, it's up to
>around 39-40% and then drops steadily down to around 34% in 1981.
>THEN, it takes a sharp turn upward after 1981 and is around 70% in
>1992.  During the 60s and 70s it is explained that the govt. was
>not adding to the debt as fast as the US economy was growing and
>this was no longer true beginning in 1981.

Oh, come on, you know the Federal Reserve Banks are liberal-biased!

:-)

----------
Jer.
walsh@wri.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: THIS GOVERNMENT IS BEING RUN BY A BUNCH OF NAZIS!!!
Keywords: aliens, clones, stollman, reagan, bush, clinton, invasion
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:49:07 GMT

In article <jcmnm!+.garys@netcom.com> garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman) writes:
>rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
>
>>In article <n1ln#0c.garys@netcom.com> garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman) writes:
>>>
>>>I am Gary Stollman, the person who pulled the toy gun on Tv Consumer
>>>Advocate David Horowitz on live television at the set of KNBC in 1987,
>>>forcing him to read a statement on the air about how the CIA and aliens
>>...
>>[major weirdness about aliens, clones, Reagan deleted]
>>>-- 
>>>Gary Stollman    Internet: garys@netcom.com     GEnie: G.STOLLMAN
>
>>	Please let this be a VERY bad joke!  If not, this fellow
>>REALLY needs help.  Anybody who's read the postings on sci.research
>>by V.I. Fabrikant just before he started shooting people knows what I
>>mean.
>
>>Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
>>rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
>*****
>It is a known fact about what I did, and I have told the truth.  Who are
>YOU to tell me I need help??  Are you a trained clinical psychologist?? 
>Do YOU know the difference between Pyschotic and Psychosis??  I don't
>either, but I DID take a psychology class at TCC in 1981 in which I got a
>"B"...And I ain't gonna run out and shoot people cause I know damn well
>better!!  I am going to SUE THE PANTS OFF EM'!!!
>
	Hmmm, guess it ISN'T a very bad joke!  Oh, well...

>Gary Stollman    Internet: garys@netcom.com     GEnie: G.STOLLMAN



-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3101 alt.politics.bush:3031 talk.politics.misc:42106
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:13:49 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Aug26.033838.5246@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <92234.071414DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>
>>Thus, I view this quite differently.  I see that at any one point in time
>>37 million Americans are without health insurance and about another 25 to
>>30 million are at-risk because they will lose their insurance for at least
>>one month during the next 24 months.

			.....................

>I fail to understand why anyone would allow something as important
>as medical insurance to be subject to the whims of others. I take
>care of my own auto insurance and homeowner's insurance as I suspect
>you do. I also take care of my own medical insurance. Thus I am not
>subject to whims of employers changing coverage or "employee contribution"
>or losing coverage completely for a time if I choose to work elsewhere.
>Nor am I subject to the whims of some government agency changing elegibility
>requirements and payment schedules. It only seems common sense.

>My current employer "allows" me to waive coverage under his group
>plan, big whoop. For that favor I get a lump sum of $330 each year.
>With a $2500 deductable, that buys me a million dollars worth of
>major medical coverage, no copayments required. Thus I'm insured
>for any *unexpected* medical emergency, and I prudently budget
>for routine care out of my pocket.

		[Details of coverages omitted.]

This is the type of coverage I would like, but with the $1,000,000 replaced
by a much larger amount.  Purdue University largely self-insures, and has
had single cases coming to much over that.  It does cover everything over
(I believe) $6000.

But employees are not allowed to opt out unless they are covered by a 
similar program elsewhere.  This usually requires being covered by a
spouse's policy.  Now I am considerably older than you, and with some
long-term medical conditions, for which I am certainly capable of paying
out of my pocket.  But would I accomplish anything by not using the
medical plan?  

With a national scheme, one would not be allowed to opt out.  And government
bureaucrats, most of whom would have difficulty getting employment otherwise,
will decide which expenses will and will not be covered, and how much doctors
will get paid.  So the best doctors will still practice outside the government
plan, and those in it will be at least strongly pressured by the bureaucracy
to use unimaginative mechanical procedures.  They want to make both the doctors
and the patients into mass-produced robots.

-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday Mr. Clinton
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:04:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.044155.17621@sdf.lonestar.org> thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.004311.14883@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>The battle may _already_ be lost. Crisp and I actually *agreed* on a political
>viewpoint (!)   This is turning out to be a very weird week.
>

Gasp!  Maybe it's some sort of EVIL DECOY PLOY by Crispier-than-thou,
to lull you into thinking he's sane.
--
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"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4033 alt.politics.bush:4075
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Entitlements and the deficit? (Was: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:44:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.004308.19812@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>
>  If you are so convinced that every cent of the money we are spending
>on social security is reducing poverty, why are you against means-testing
>so that we can give to others that need it more?  Means-tested programs
>are far more effective at alleviating poverty than those that are not
>as more of the money can be focussed _at the poor_.  
>

The way to means test social security is treat it as income and tax it,
but if one does this, then the other huge tax giveaway to the well off
should also be considered as income, health insurance and medical benifits
provided by employers, which should also then be taxed.

>  Actually, I know you are going to make some remark about other
>countries not collapsing under their pay-as-you-go programs, you will
>then recommend I read Munnell's book.  I then make a remark that you
>need to look to the future and recommend that you read articles on
>the future of pension funds in various nations (especially concerning the 
>boomers etc.)  I will also point out the black hole these programs create in
>other countries, etc.  
>   

Because pay-as-you-go systems are basically frauds, it does not justify a larger
fraud such as FICA or overpay-as-you-go.

>   You see, I already have the argument down pat.  I'm not interested
>in having it with you again.   Besides, it all detracts from my main
>point that entitlements are the problem running away with the deficit.
>I think I have established this rather clearly.  I have made several
>suggestions for fixing it as well, but most importantly I have tried
>to note the size and scope of the problem for netters who may be interested.
>

The biggest entitlement if tax-free health insurance for the welloff...
and it is this entitlement that is blocking comprehensive health care
reform of one form or another which is one of the essentials to 
bringing government budgets under control.

>  As a previous poster noted, 15% of all those receiving social security 
>make over $50k/year.  I do not at all understand the morality of
>taxing a family of four making $38k a year to give
>to those people making over $50k a year who are not (in general) trying 
>to raise a family.  This 15% would save about $45billion/year in 
>social security alone.
>
>  In reality, I think such means-testing isn't politically feasible.
>We will probably have to start taxing the benefits, exclude a COLA
>here and there, etc.  My confidence that the problem will be resolved
>is low, but with entitlements expected to reach 900 billion by 1996,
>the next president may start feeling a lot of pressure to address this
>issue.
>

And health benefits for the welloff are one of the "hidden" entitlements
that have to start being taxed...

Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jacksonk@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Re: Bush's Vanishing Bounce
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:44:41 GMT

In article <16375@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes:
>Today's NY Times has a first-page article stating that Bush's
>"bounce" in the polls from the Republican Convention has already
>vanished.

>Also, this week's Newsweek, which I consider overall to be a
>politically moderate publication (certainly not Liberal), just
             ^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA
 HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA
 HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA
 HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA

Yeah, and Pat Buchannan is a transvestite feminist baby-killing witch.

>excoriates the Republican Convention as a display of hatemongering,
>fearmongering, and out and out mendacity virtually unequalled in
>the history of our republic.

In other words, not politically correct.
-- 
            ^  >
            O o                                                 \_O
           >=-=<        Keith Jackson == jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu      |O
             U                                                  _/ \_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:11:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.030031.14399@adobe.com> 
kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> Fetal tissue research is still in the experimental stage.  Yes, there
>> have been some successes, but there is NO widespread program of fetal
>> tissue transplants.  It is complete nonsense to believe otherwise. 
>>
>> AIDs patients are taking experimental drugs, and the government funds
>> the RESEARCH needed to develop those drugs.  Likewise, the Bush
>> administration supports funding of fetal tissue RESEARCH.

>   WRONG!

Wrong about what?  I said that there was no widespread program
of fetal tissue transplants.  Below, you agreed with me.  I also
said that the Bush administration supports funding of fetal 
tissue RESEARCH, and that it's still in the experimental stage.

> I never claimed there was a widespread program.

We agree. 

> In fact, the whole issue was how difficult it was for the preacher to
> get the procedure and that only very few are benefitting from fetal
> tissue research because our government DOES NOT support it.

Did it occur to you that few people are benefiting now because
the research is still in the experimental stage? 

> There is NO government funding of fetal tissue research.  

That is not correct.  The article below represents the Bush 
administration's policy on fetal tissue research, and it was 
posted to Alt.politics.bush on August 19.  It may still be
on your newsserver. 

--------
From: tmg@nptn.org (Tom Grundner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: BUSH FACTSHEET: Abortion
Date: 19 Aug 1992 21:37:31 GMT
Organization: National Public Telecommunication Network

[...]

Research Using Fetal Tissue

The National Institutes of Health properly funds research involving
transplantation into humans of fetal tissue derived from
spontaneous abortions, ectopic (tubal) pregnancies, and cell
cultures.  The President supports that research, which may
contribute to medical breakthroughs against various diseases.

But the price for medical progress cannot be moral regress.  That's
why the President opposes federal funding of transplantation
research involving fetal tissue from deliberately-induced
abortions.  Such research could, either now or in the future,
encourage abortions, and it raises serious moral questions.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3984 alt.politics.bush:4018
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Liberals exchange barbs!!
Date: 3 Sep 1992 22:11:30 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <1992Sep3.195900.3971@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 
lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> First of all, I hate this labelling crap. My name is Norman, I have 
views on
> issues which you would consider "liberal" and views on other issues you 
would
> consider extremely "conservative". Labels are a cheap way for people 
with weak
> arguements to dismiss their detractors.

You're correct and I apologize for the labels.  I was dipping into a 
sleezy area.  I guess the situation was so unusual that I was shocked to 
find that someone who was bashing the present administration  on AIDS 
would turn around and bash gays as well.   BTW, I agree with Ray Hill on 
this.

> Secondly, are you trying to suggest that "conservatives" never disagree?

No,  I disagree on the abortion issue for instance.


> For the most part I enjoy your posts, even though I disagree with you on
> several issues. However, some of your recent posts have been well below
> your usual standards.

I do occasionally get carried away.  BTW, where are you at JSC?  Perhaps 
we can get together in person sometimes for a friendly chat... I'm at 
282-5525.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: WSJ: On the hustings, Clinton proves slicker than ever
Date: 1 Sep 1992 14:33:30 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <y6gn5xc.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
> 
> Thanks to Paul for posting this! I was goint to do it, but Paul has
> saved me a bunch of work! OK DumbOcrats, let's hear the response!
> 
> -- 
> 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.
> 
> 

Why does his Crispiness continue to substitute name-calling for thoughtful
debate? Could it be that he has no real arguements?

Let's see some good debate and free exchange. It's good that people's opinions
differ. However, let's ignore this guy until he learns some manners. I am
sick to death of people who think the anonymity of net-land gives them the
right to be obnoxious.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Intelligence issue
Keywords: brain power
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:09:22 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug27.210707.8522@udel.edu> jones@fred.cis.udel.edu (Mark Jones) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.123348.6260@iscsvax.uni.edu> fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>We seem to hear a lot about "character issues" in elections.  Why is it that
>>so few people seem to talk about intelligence issues?  
>>
>
>It is my understanding that Andre Marrou has challenged the other presidential
>candidates to an intelligence test.  No takers to my knowledge.
>
>-Mark

Is this the SAME Andre Marrou who didn't even care enough to serve his full
term when elected to office in Alaska?  

tag@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.thlingon