HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:46:30 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
 <1992Aug10.153043.29526@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
 <1992Aug14.213401.27774@berlioz.nsc.com>
 <1992Aug15.223532.19090@oakhill.sps.mot.com> <92234.071414DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>

Here are the facts about the insured in the US.  First, there are three
main surveys which provide information on health insurance coverage.  The
SIPP is a panel survey which follows people for more than 2 years.  The CPS
is a corss-section survey.  The NMES is primarily cross-section, but does
follow people for the full year.  NMES is the best information on health
insurance beacuse it asks far more detailed questions and gets data from
multiple sources.  For example, while SIPP and the CPS rely on the survey
respondent to describe health insurance benefits, NMES gets a copy of the
actual insurance policy and codes it on their own.

Anyway, in any one month, estimates of the number of uninsured in the US
are:
SIPP: 31.5 million (1988)
CPS:  31.3 million (1989)
NMES: 36.3 million (1987)

From the NMES:
The number of people who were without insurance for all 12 months of
1987 is 24.5 million people.

The number of people who were without insurance for any length of time
in 1987 is 47.8 million people

From the SIPP:
The number of people who were without insurance continuously from
Feb. 1985 to Aug. 1987 was 10 million people.

The number of people who were without insurance for at least one month
during this period from Feb. 1985 to Aug. 1987 is 68.1 million people

FACTS

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,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:23:00 GMT

In <ATAYLOR.92Aug5145418@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><In article <1992Aug5.155201.7938@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
><   >>be a cost-effective and humane way of doing this.
><   >
><   >No, you're missing the point:  who's going to pay for it?
><   >-=-=-
><   >T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
><   >University of Tennessee
><   >"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown


><A government managed health care system would save a lot more money than it 
><costs. 

>	A doubtful proposition.

><I discuss this in more depth in an article which I submitted to this
><group (article 1303).  You may like to comment on some of the points which I
><make.  Did you realize that Canada spends 8% of its GNP on health care while
><the US spends 13%?  

>	The U.S. isn't Canada. The US population is over
>	250,000,000 while Canada is around 30,000. The
					^^^^^^^^^^
What? Try 26,000,000. Sheesh, you get more than 30,000 out for a
Blue Jays game in Toronto.

>	US population is, on average, older than the
>	Canadian population; some portion of the difference

Source for this claim please.

>	in GNP spent on health care is accounted for by
>	that fact alone. As the median age in Canada increases,
>	it's percentage of GNP spent on health care will
>	likewise increase.

><It has been estimated that the US could have saved up to
><82 billion dollars in 1987 if the administrative efficiency of the US system
><had been equal to that of Canada's (see article).

>	Given the track record of Medicare, Medicaid, the VA
>	hospital system I find this assertion astonishing.

That's because they are being ripped - off by "entrepreneurs" :-)

>	People who expect a government run health care system
>	in the U.S. to be workable and economical will be
>	sorely disappointed when and if one is established.

>	A few years later, we will hear once again the
>	same refrain heard after the failures of the
>	"War on Poverty", "This wasn't what we INTENDED!".
>	
Dont you just love these knee-jerk conservatives? :-/

REB

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:21:38 GMT

csi056@cch.coventry.ac.uk (WEG) writes:
>But if there were less guns in circulation then wouldn't there be less risk
>of "deadly danger"?
>Mark

	Nope, guns are easy to produce. Therefore criminals can
always get them.

James
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2280 talk.politics.guns:19639
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:49:58 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <1992Aug18.001220.4381@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>[...] What we [liberals] don't support, is the attitude that guns are the
>>"ultimate recall power."
>
>Ah, then what is the "ultimate recall power" that "liberals" find
>appropriate?  Surely they don't believe that "lie back and enjoy it"
>is the appropriate response to a tyrant?  (That is be the "liberal"
>response to rape, but that's another argument.)  Are they instead

Andy...that's a really stupid line.  Take a Valium and calm down.  By 
engaging in the use of the Republican 'l-word' jingo style, you do nothing to
further your argument.

>going to argue that tyranny is impossible for any govt that starts out
>having elections?
>
>Suppose that Bush decides to keep the job after Clinton won.  What
>then "liberals"?  (We've already established that you won't disagree
>with the assertion that Bush is the anti-Christ, so you don't get to

So you agree that Bush is the anti-Christ.  Well, I thought Buchanan was, but
maybe I see your point.

>argue for his essential goodness now.)  The ballot box failed and Bush
>has the Army.  Are you going to hold a rally?  Are you going to build
>a paper mache Statue of Liberty?  Are you going to set up a burial
>squad and lie in neat rows so that the tanks can roll over you without
>wasting gas?
>
I would suggest you're terribly paranoid, as most purveyors of this argument
seem to be.  Now, ponder what caused the breakup of the Soviet Union.  
Rhapsodize on why the British left India.  Guns aren't the only way, so your
argument suffers from tunnel vision in the pursuit of protecting your toys.

Tsk, Tsk.

George Lambert
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2279 talk.politics.guns:19638
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:17:39 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <1992Aug17.211933.27226@gozer.mv.com> klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride) writes:
>crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>
>> I personally believe that if we disarm America, some day a few generations
>> down the road (or sooner if Socialists like Feinstein get elected Senator from
>> Califruitty) someone will declare themselves "President For Life". If we 
>> ever find ourselves in that situation and are unarmed, we are in deep trouble.
>> That is the long and short of it.
>
>People who don't believe that this could happen have obviously not
>been paying attention to the world around them.  Many countries around
>the world have fallen prey to self appointed dictators after giving up
>the means to defend themselves.  It hasn't happened in the U.S.
>because no would-be fascist in his right mind would attempt to take
>over a country that has 70 million law-abiding gunowners.
>
>I am not saying if you remove the means for the people to defend
>themselves from internal fascism that it WILL happen, only that it
>COULD happen.  Why take chances?
>
So how was the military coup of Gorbachev overthrown by an unarmed population.
How did the British get booted out of India?

Guns aren't the only means to overthrow dictators...you need a better 
argument.

George Lambert
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 05:12:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc. 

In article <1992Aug17.211933.27226@gozer.mv.com> klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride) writes:
>crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>
>> I personally believe that if we disarm America, some day a few generations
>> down the road (or sooner if Socialists like Feinstein get elected Senator from
>> Califruitty) someone will declare themselves "President For Life". If we 
>> ever find ourselves in that situation and are unarmed, we are in deep trouble.
>> That is the long and short of it.
>
>People who don't believe that this could happen have obviously not
>been paying attention to the world around them.  Many countries around
>the world have fallen prey to self appointed dictators after giving up
>the means to defend themselves.  It hasn't happened in the U.S.
>because no would-be fascist in his right mind would attempt to take
>over a country that has 70 million law-abiding gunowners.
>
>I am not saying if you remove the means for the people to defend
>themselves from internal fascism that it WILL happen, only that it
>COULD happen.  Why take chances?


Precisely the point......


-- 
Richard Crisp            Cupertino, Ca.             crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk   "I don't brake for liberals"   (408) 253 4541 fax

To say that Bill Clinton's alleged successes as Governor of Arkansas
qualify him to be President of the US is like saying the shoeshine
stand operator in the airport is qualified to be CEO of IBM.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2182 alt.politics.bush:2020 talk.politics.misc:40449
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:50:46 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)

walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh) writes:
>anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>
>>Personally, I think that we should be a moral enough, amd compassionate
>>enough country to make sure that 100% of our population can recieve
>>basic health care. 30% without is astoundingly sad.
>
>I'm sure a lot of people share your sentiment, however in this age of 
>$400 billion deficits can you realistically come up with a way to pay for 
>this?  Do you have a plan for implementing this without creating another
>sweeping bureacracy?  

Canada, France and Germany have not built health bureaucracies over
our public health insurance systems paying private doctors, and public
and private hospitals.  These programmes run on autopilot, it seems,
just from a user's point of view.  Howevever, the United State's sad
public enterprise history gives me hesitation on such implementation
down here (note that I only defend that it works in Canada, France and
Germany -- I am a Canadian).  Maybe it's a certain naivety in our
Canadian character that has prevented the Medicare syphon-jobs that
we hear about all the time in the United States ...

My own prediction is that the U.S. will go to a system where basic
coverage is covered by a public pool, but brokered by private firms
who will offer what we call "private supplementary" up north on top of
it all (basically, filling out what their current policies are).  The
same class differentiations in the U.S. and Canada will remain due to
the presence of "private supplementary" and those who can pay for it
or can get it from work.

Oh yeah, there is also private insurance in Canada for stuff that is
not basic medical (bandages to brain surgery).  This gives you perks
like one would get in a premium U.S. hospital like private room, a
cellular telephone, etc.  Private insurers are happy that it's all
they have to sell to individuals and for corporate benefits.  France
magazine (available from most college French departments and Alliance
Francaise outlets) detailed a similiar public/private hybrid system in
their Summer 1992 issue, with 75% of French paying for or receiving
private supplementary coverage.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Elections 1992-93:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		* Jean Chretien (Canada)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			* Perot^H^H^H^H^H Elvis! (USA)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2426 talk.bizarre:26909 alt.politics.kibo:55
From: csquared@coos.dartmouth.edu (C Squared)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.kibo
Subject: Re: Is it me...
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:30:15 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Originator: csquared@coos.dartmouth.edu


Yeah, it's you

In article <cgw.714363203@sol.acs.unt.edu> cgw@sol.acs.unt.edu (christopher williams) writes:
>...or does Herr Clinton look more than a little bit like Herr Professor 
>from Gilligan's Island?
>
I thought clinton was a himm, not a herr

>Quick, someone call SPY and suggest a Separated at Birth.
>
SPYYYYYYY, OH SPYYYYYYYY, OH SPYYYYYYY
Sorry, not answering.  Try again later.  Oh, I'll leave a message.
I suggest Separated at Birth.
No, I have NO idea what I'm talking about.  It was JUST a suggestion.

>-cgw
>
>--
>christopher williams   cgw@unt.edu  +1 817 565 4161   VOTE REPUBLICAN
>lead programmer/operator, university of north texas   it's easier than thinking

                                                       VOTE KIBO
                                                       its easier than
                                                       not thinking

C Squared
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2253 alt.politics.bush:2154 talk.politics.misc:40646
From: jsl+@pitt.edu (John S Lundberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:36:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <+4!n8mg.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>...
>It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
>seem to espouse the same tactics of Hitler: 

I was actually reading your articles up until I encountered this
evidence that, like most Americans, you are totally ignorant of 
history.  I'd suggest some remedial reading.  Try turning off the
TV and visiting your local library.

Before you dismiss me as a typical leftist, you might be interested
to know that I may very well vote for Bush.  But I have nothing but
contempt for this kind of trashy rhetoric or the people who spew it.
-- 
John Lundberg  
jsl@unix.cis.pitt.edu 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2137 alt.politics.bush:1939 talk.politics.misc:40344 soc.culture.usa:6632
From: csi056@cch.coventry.ac.uk (WEG)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:11:21 GMT
Organization: abUSENET, Coventry University, Coventry, UK

In article <1992Aug17.225312.4046@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>Guns have several purposes:  they enable you to protect yourself from
>deadly danger
>....
>Surely, life is not now so safe and secure that we don't need to defend
>ourselves!  
>
But if there were less guns in circulation then wouldn't there be less risk
of "deadly danger"?

Mark
-- 

"Lads, the floor through here is wet, and there are some soggy peas around."
							S. Norris 7/6/92
WEG: csi056@uk.ac.cov.cch  or  csi056%cch.cov.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2079 alt.politics.bush:1858 talk.abortion:32075
From: peerson@neyman.ucdavis.edu (Jan Peerson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.abortion
Subject: Does Bush oppose contraception?
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:41:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa

[My apologies if this turns up twice.]

The following is excerpted from the Garry Wills column which
appeared on page B7 of the August 15, 1992 Sacramento Bee.  It is
reproduced here (without permission) for your reading pleasure.

     We all know how Bush suddenly reversed himself on
     abortion when he wanted to run with Ronald Reagan in
     1980.  But his reversal on contraception and family
     planning is less known.  Bush has surrendered even more
     abjectly to the right wing on these issues.  The proof
     of that is his appointment to the family planning post
     in his administration of William R. Archer III, who
     thinks the Griswold decision was wrong -- that is, that
     the states should still have the power to ban the sale
     of contraceptives.

     To put such a man in such a post is like making a
     pacifist the secretary of defense.  How do you promote
     family planning while opposing the government's
     permission to sell contraceptives?  Archer's preferred
     solution to the family planning problem -- as well as
     to AIDS and abortion and teenage promiscuity -- is
     abstinence.

     Unlike most right-wing moralists who rely on
     abstinence, he practices what he preaches.  As a 37-
     year-old bachelor who tells others to refrain from sex,
     he was challenged at a family planning clinic in
     Denver, asked if he abstains from sex himself.  He
     answered yes, though he admitted to having tried sex
     six years earlier and regretting it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.censorship
From: barnhart@netcom.com (Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: CLINTON STATEMENT: RELIGION
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 00:22:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Reply-To: barnhart@netcom.com

dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish) writes:

>In article <ax_n07m.barnhart@netcom.com> barnhart@netcom.com writes:
>>mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
>>
>>>What does Clinton think about voluntary prayer in schools?  Did
>>>Clinton support the Supreme Court decision which banned ceremonial
>>>prayers at graduation?  
>>
>>Is *this* old issue still wheezing out life?
>>
>>I think U.S. Senate Chaplain Richard Halverson said it best:  We'll\
>>have a prayer at a graduate ceremony ... but we'll have it spoken by
>>a rabbi.  How's that?
>>

>NO! This is NOT acceptable.  

>The report I heard on NPR said that this was the school district in question's
>answer, but that the supreme court explicitly said that this was not acceptable.
>There are many people of other religions besides Jewish Christian etc.  There
>are even atheists who have a right to participate in graduation without a prayer.

Thank you F. Lee Bailey.

I didn't *say* it would hold water with the USSC -- I just said it was
the best perspective on the issue I'd heard.

And frankly, if some evangelicals and conservative mainliners would *get*
some perspective, these issues would not still be getting sent up to the
courts.

-- 
Aaron (Barnhart@netcom.com) -- posting from Evanston, Illinois
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:46:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.221434.15779@news.Hawaii.Edu>
lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:

>
>In article <DLB.92Aug19102759@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (Dvid Barton) writes:
>}In article <1992Aug7.214140.29061@news.Hawaii.Edu>
>}lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>}...
>}   If guns were made illegal, that would increase their price, so
>}...
>}By all means, support this assertion too.
>
>You want proof that restricting supply doesn't increase prices?
>

     In the absence of other factors, restricting supply will increase
the price.  This is basic economics.  We are not, however, talking
perfect-world basic economics.  Guns bought at gun shops have a great
many price boosts which are artificial, and would not affect illegal guns
on the street.  Also, there is some question as to whether it is *possible*
to restrict guns sold on the street.

>} Guns are NOT more expensive
>}on the street in areas of strict gun control in the US (the only area
>}in which I am aware of studies being made). ...
>
>There isn't any place in the US where guns are illegal, that I know
>of.  Anyhow, we have free commerce among our states and cities, so
>this sort of comparison can't prove anything.

     There are a few places where guns are *effectively* illegal, such
as Washington D.C.

>You pro-gun people are something else.  You'd argue that down was
>up ...

     It always gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to get on an have somebody
apply a big, generalized insult in my direction.

     Nice to meet you, too.

>Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: NPC (was Re: National Health Care)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:53:12 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug18.160213.27954@interlan.Interlan.COM> urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin) writes:
...
>  I sent him the quote from PPF were Gov Clinton calls for the 100,000 officer
>National Police Force and repeated my orginal question.  Silence for over
>week (compared to the 12 hour turn around for previous messages).  I resent
>the message.  The reply I got back was the NPC was to be a training cadre.
...

    Job training is the key to enhancing the US competitiveness, and the NPC 
    will play an important role in making us more competitive with police 
    states around the world.  All these for a mere 10bil a year.
    What a bargain!


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2449 alt.politics.bush:2365 talk.politics.misc:41032
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Secretary of state Baker
Keywords: partisanship unemployment
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:07:29 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

fabian@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (anjanette louise fabian) writes:

>       I think if Clinton makes the white house that he should keep James
> Baker on as secretary of state.  It would probably be a first - putting
> competency ahead of politics!  It would also be interesting if Clinton
> announced his intention to keep Baker if elected.  How would affect Baker's
> handling of the Bush campaign knowing that his job was not at stake?
> Would Baker accept? I dunno, but it would be extremely flattering.

You know, it would be an interesting concept.  If Baker is truly serious about
running for Prez in '96, then most likely he'd not accept.  He'd have to resign
from the job in '95 or so to start the campaign...



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc