HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:12:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: democratic platform

> >According to Consumer Reports, by reducing administrative overhead in using
> >a single payer system, reducing the number of unneeded procedures, and
> >eliminating fraud, enough money would be saved to give everybody health care.
> >The short answer is it won't cost any more than it does now.
>
> The short answer assumes too much; it assumes that a single payer
> system will do what it "can" do, and ignores a significant diseconomy
> of scale.
>
> A single payer system need not reduce adminstrative overhead at all
> and can easily increase it because it must do everything that a set of
> smaller payers with the same policy must do, plus it has to manage a
> larger organization.  It ends up with more levels of managers
> mananging managers.

A single payer system reduces the administrative load of health care
providers.  It's much simpler to get all of your payments from one
source than it is to juggle a multitude of insurance companies,
government programs and individual payments, not to mention the work
of deciding who gets to be a charity case.  That's why it costs less
to administer a hospital in Canada than in the US.

> There's nothing stopping someone from setting up a low-overhead system
> and seeing how things work.  In fact, I'd argue that there's a moral
> obligation to do so for those people who believe it is possible.

No, you've got it backward.  We want fewer payers, not more.  The
miniature experiments we have made so far with simplified systems
(HMO's) have proved popular with many doctors and patients, and have
kept costs down as well.

Best,
Peter

> -andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:38:57 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      '96 ?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:26:00 EDT <CMORRISO@SNYESCVA> said:
>PS  I wonder if Clinton loses, will there be a draft Clinton movement in '96?
>How about Quayle if Bush loses?  How do you think they will react?

I think the economy could play an even bigger role in '96.  If Clinton
wins '92 and the economy doesn't jumpstart itself, he cannot win.  The
economy may very well improve under him, but that may be true regardless
of who is @ the helm.

As it is, times are tough for many people, but many of the numbers indicate
a sluggish/slow economy rather than a bad economy.  Businesses are
downsizing in preparation for the worst-case scenario rather than because
of the status quo.  It's incredible all of these jobs are suddenly seen
as padding...

Quayle always has the family business (stockwise) to rely upon and
will probably stick in DC as Huntington isn't all that large.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:05:26 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

>           ..................  Does Jerry Falwell represent the majority?

No, quite the contrary.  He represents the "moral majority."

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 09:04:37 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      read my lips: I have family values

Congress is sending the president a family leave bill that would require
companies with more than 50 employees to allow up to 12 weeks of unpaid
leave for people with sick family members. The family values president
is expected to veto the bill because he says it will eliminate jobs.
I have trouble following that line of reasoning. Can someone enlighten
me?

Also, george is yelling at congress about how he will veto all pork
barrel legislation. Does that include his own pork barrel projects of
last week aimed at the farm vote, texas vote and florida vote? We are
already way too far in the hole and the president is calling for more
spending on areas of questionable return as he points the finger at
congress for the budget mess. Has he stated where the money for these
programs will come from?

I still don't understand how the education voucher will upgrade our
ability to compete on a global scale. Can someone enlighten me?

Side note to linda: I had a wonderful time this weekend and she still
loves me. (Gosh, wonder what he meant by that!)

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:59:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

Here is my general, hopefully objective and containing-little-if-any-of-
my-personal-opinion idea on what rights are...

We are all born into a society.  As much as we would like to say that
the Creator endows us with rights or that we have rights that are ours
simply by being human, we have NO rights.  Our (USA's) form of govern-
ment is a constitutional federal republic, not because the people willed
it, although some obviously did, but because those who willed it were
able to defend their form of government by guns and cannon, or they were
lucky enough not to have it attacked.  Our constitution is here, there-
fore, only because WE as a society want it to be, and because we are
able to sustain it.  Therefore, the rights contained in the Constitution
are not our birthrights--we are lucky enough to have them, or are not
unlucky enough to have them taken away.  And they are in the constitu-
tion because WE as a whole want them to be there, not because they
SHOULD be there, not because abortion is a right, not because homosex-
uality is wrong.  Therefore, we as a whole, or, in our federal system
and under the tenth amendment, we as wholes of states, depending on the
issue and according to the Constitution, determine what rights we all
(except maybe felons) have and what privileges certain of us will have.

(Now for personal opinion)
Since in those places that are lucky enough to be democratic, society
determines what rights we have, and since society has an interest in
preserving itself, I conclude that we acting as members of society
have a "right", if you will, to determine what our rights are.
Val, you are not the Constitution.  I am not the constitution.  We
both have the power only to cast our vote as to what rights we should
have.  You are not necessarily right, and neither am I.  And really,
debate is generally fruitless unless it leads to a changing of the mind.

(At this point I have just gone to French class and come back)

And one more tidbit: the Constitution does not recognize a right as
something that cannot be taken away because all humans deserve it.
For example, take the 15th amendment--this lists the conditions under
which the right to vote shall not be abridged...if it were a "right",
it could not be abridged at all.  The Constitution thinks of rights as
privileges, not as inalienable rights.  Also, the words "civil rights"
do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
No man is an island.  (Or woman, to be PC)
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:09:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: What to do in a world that trivializes intelligence

Missy:

Good post!

>Teachers are trying to compete with MTV, and they shouldn't.  What they
>should do is TEACH--whether they are in a private, public, or religious
>school.  THAT's why I have no problem with school choice.  If you can
>find a great public school, go there.  If you can find a great private
>school, go there.  If you can find a great religious school, go there.

I can't see why anyone would object to allowing parents to send their children
to religious schools without paying twice for it.  Actually, I understand the
claim that the state ought not to provide funds for religious education, but it
doesn't seem to make much sense because the state is merely returning your tax
dollars to you so you can buy an education.  The fact that the state takes your
money from you and then gives it back for you to spend as you wish in no way
violates the first amendment establishment clause, which is an argument I've
often heard.

Anyway, in this age of riots and looting (including white collar crime), it
seems to me that moral education might not be too bad.

>But don't try to tell me that the problem is that we don't have enough
>money.  My friend taught in a one-room Mennonite schoolhouse, K-12.
>Very little funding, no frills.  And near 100% graduation rates.
>The problem isn't money.  The problem is that we come to education with
>the assumption that we should try to be just like tv.  And we end up with
>adults that read no newspapers and watch 50 hours of tv a week.  Surprise.

The U.S. spend more per pupil than any other industrialized country.  As Kerry
(I think) noted, the problem is in distribution.  You're absolutely right in
noting that it doesn't take much $ to provide the basics.  The real problem in
getting the basics is providing an environment condusive to learning, which
no ammount of money can buy without parental/community dedication.

>--Missy P 2 B

Jason
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:55:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

There's a good chance that most of them will go back sooner or later anyway.
To school, that is.  Adfter they get more articulate, duhh.
Chris Morrison
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: Clinton Mailing List
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:03:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Thanks for the info, Missy, and thanks especially for the descriptions of
the two lists.  I have been getting a good deal of stuff from the campaigns
in the mail, half of it says that I have been recommended from a list of
people known for their support of conservative values and loyalty to Bush,
the other half says that I have been selected from a list of those known for
their support of liberal values and loyal to Clinton.  I have received more
membership cards for the Republican Central Committee than for the Democratic
one, and the Republican Party will let me have lunch with George Bush for
only $5,000 or so.  They have both sent me some opinion surveys, which I have
generally not bothered to send back since they only seem interested in what
my position is rather than why.

Funny, I have sent messages to the Marist listserv several times and got no
answer.  Usually I get either a message saying I have been added to the list,
a message saying it is not for automatic subscription, or a message saying
that the list is not known to the listserv.  Marist is right accross the
Hudson River from me, and I usually get quick replies from them (less than
two minutes).

By the way, I have printed out several messages from you that I want to address
in detail.  Your messages are very good.

Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:17:12 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>>The water wars in CA will come down to cities vs agriculture.  If the
>>cities win, CA has water for at least 100 million people, but it won't
>>be pretty.
>
>Where does wildlife -- the kind that don't necessarily like rice farms --
>fit in?

Wildlife will go away with increasing population; farming isn't going
to increase it's effect on wildlife if it keeps the water.

Maybe wildlife/farming will move into where the people are coming
from.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:58:51 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      clinton and college

Hi all:

I was just listening to Bill Clinton on CSPAN.  He suggests that *everybody*
should be sent to 2-year college or trade school so they can get
"good jobs, not dead end jobs."

That sure sounds great.  Then something occurred to me.  If *everybody*
gets a good job, who's going to do all the crummy jobs?  What happens
when everybody is a manager and nobody is a service worker?

Or does Bill think that *every* job is a good job?  (Clearly not, or
the dichotomy makes no sense.)  So, what *is* a good job, what *is*
a dead-end job, and why shouldn't both be done by *somebody*?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:19:35 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

>>Wouldn't it be a better solution to change the voting process so
>>that people would actually WANT to vote?  So that people would
>>actually WANT to get involved?


>     Yes, you're right (I was being a bit flippant in that post).
>  So, how do we get people to want to vote?  Better candidates, of
>  course!  Ah, that makes the question, How do we get better candidates?
>  So that leads to the question, Why are the candidates so bad now?
>  Or are they really?  Were they bad before and people just didn't realize
>  it?  Or did they just recently become bad?  If so, why?  Eagerly awaiting
>  some responses....

Well, I know that as for "mudslinging," Val can probably remember
campaigns with more mud slung than even the 1988 campaign which
was supposed to be so dirty. I sort of think that there used to
be a convention against humungous debts that, for all the pork-
barrel/constituent service of the old days, they never really
crossed. I guess I don't see that we've gotten any worse, not
counting the fact that my children (assuming I have any) will be
paying for the 1980s and 90s.

That, of course, is a major issue in and of itself.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
We have to do more than just elect a new president if we truly want to
change this country.
              --Vice President Dan Quayle

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:05:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: New York Senate Race

I mean, most people I know who work for a living spend most of the day
fighting over who should clean out the coffee pot and whether to open the
windows.
Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:12:11 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: the zionist mouthpiece clinton coming after your kids with an
              axe
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

'liese:
>until some semblance of order is restored, count me out.  much to
>your relief, i refuse to be a party to this kind of hatemongering and
>subversion of intelligent discourse.
>thus remaining,
>                                 --anneliese lorson

Yeah, well said 'liese. To be honest, I just find it all pretty
boring. About 90% of last week's posts I threw away without reading
more than the first couple of lines. It's like trying to identify junk
mail without opening the envelope ...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 12:39:27 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality

 >   saving your life.  The reason the homosexual population was so hard-hit
 >   in the beginning of the epidemic is due to promiscuity, not the kind of
 >   sex they were having, but how much.  Part of the reason that homosexual

>> This is more nonsense.  Homosexuals are so promiscuous because they refuse to
>> accept the existence of sexual morality.

This may be the case, but here at Rhodes, I think that any homosexual
person has infinitely greater sexual morality than the average
heterosexual, who f*cks anyone at every opportunity s/he can get.
This is only a slight exaggeration.  Every Greek Swap or Date Party,
every Social Commission party/function, there are many, many people
screwing other people that they don't even know.

This type of mentality(sex at every possible opportunity whatever
the cost) has left many cases of std's here at Rhodes.  I know
of break-outs of clamidia(sp?) and syphillis.  This is all within
the heterosexual community.

For some reason in this country (at least the parts I know),
sexual morality is going out the window.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 10:38:00 +0200
From:         HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS.BITNET
Subject:      Bosnia conflict

I got a message from Postmaster that I have misaddressed the mail or whatever
so I am resending. If you already got it, please ignore the repetition.


>>Because it is the fall out from a single state disintegrating, whereas
>>Iraq/Kuwait was a simple case of invasion.

>>Dunstan.

>dunstan, do you really believe we went into irag JUST because of the invasion?
>do you think that if oil were not a factor we would have responding as we did
>or at all?

>-linda

It's a big relief that somebody in this list is being objective and honest.
When the economic factor was involved, the response was swift, quick, hard...
Bush sent his troops to the Gulf immediately to stop whatever could have
happened there. This was operation desert shield. AFTER this first step,
and I stress on the AFTER, he THEN started his calculations on how to
liberate Kuwait with minimal casualties, he had to go through some
very harsh times in the congress until he eventually reached the well
known desert storm.
But when Moral or Human factors were involved, things did not go that way.
At first, people had no reaction. Then we started saying that we are
angry, and that what the Serbs are doing is not the right thing to do. And
that these Serbs have to stop being naughty etc.. We also said that if they
persist on being naughty, the international community might well consider
doing something. Then we said that if the required troops and equipment
required were not so large, we would have certainly done something!!
The NATO estimated that a MILLION troops are required. Imagine that!!!!!!
I am not underestimating the importance of the economic factor. I know it
and am aware of it. I am only saying that in order to be honest with
ourselves, in order to clear our conscience (if any of it remains), we have to
give more consideration and importance to the moral values.
Let us face it. If we cannot do something in the Bosnian massacres (and others)
the least we can do is to admit that we should do something. Producing all
kinds of arguments and justifications will lead us no where. For the sake of
self respect, let us admit that we are mistaken.

Gilbert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:01:35 EDT
From:         CHISMST@GE1VM.SCHDY.GE.COM
Subject:      Just my .02 worth
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

FROM:   MIKE SEGURA
Subject: Just my .02 worth
Hi, I really want to stay on this list but I have to read this via mail
and it's KILLING ME.  There has been some GREAT stuff on this list but
look at some of the recent discussions,
 ex . Bad vs Harmful
      Is Homosexuality Immoral.
      Does god have a penis?
      What periodicals and papers you read.
      Trips to malls.
      Use of deadly force.
      and many more I forgot to note over the last 2 months.

It seems like this list has become the DEBATE-L or the philisophy list.
Please, stop the madness !
I wish some of you would take NON-POLITICAL discussions of your personal
crusades offline.

Don't get me wrong, there have been some real great postings

Regards,
MIKE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 11:37:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: who do you trust

>>
>
>>Why is our government providing price supports for tobacco which is
>>recognized by the medical establishment as one of the most potent and
>>addictive drugs available? For those of you predisposed to the word of
>>god approach, isn't there something about all the herbs being created
>>for the use of man? For those of you worried about your children, they
>>are statistically far more likely to die from alcohol related accidents
>>than from aids or using any illegal drugs. Same goes for tobacco.
>
>Right now, Tobacco is the only COMMERCIALLY VIABLE (or LEGAL AND
>COMMERCIALLY VIABLE - Marijuana will grow anywhere) crop that can
>be grown in the area in question. I've seen corn grown there, and
>if I was the farmer, I'd be ashamed to feed it to my pigs. A large
>amount of the land there was taken off cotton production before the
>war because cotton would't grow there, either. At least after two or
>three years of planting.  Wendell Berry has a good article about that
>in the most recent Utne.


      Which kinda makes me wonder -- why tobacco and not marijuana?
   I've heard interesting theories on the history of the laws against
    marijuana, one of which involved lobbying by DuPont because they
   wanted to sell their wood-pulp paper process, which was in competition
   with a hemp process.  So, they just decided to push to make the
   competition iillegal.


         --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:21:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Little answer

>so suppose that your employers notice that you have a big zit
>on your nose, and they don't like zits, so they fire you.
>
>this is ok?
>
>sounds like bullshit to me.
>sounds like something that one could sue for.

Of course its okay.  Employers can hire or fire for whatever reasons they
please, given the terms of the initial contract.  I imagine that Cindy Crawford
would find her employment opportunities limited if she developed such a zit, as
would any salesman.  In any case, if an employer is stupid enough to fire a
productive employee because of something like that, he probably won't be in
business too long.

On what grounds would you sue to get your job back?  What right do you have to
force a business-owner to enter into a contract with you if he chooses not to
do so?  Can I force you to pay me to paint your house, even if you were going
to let a relative do it?  I doubt it.

>brni

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU