HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:20:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug26.033838.5246@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>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,

  This is not what's commonly meant by health insurance.  See below.

> and I prudently budget for routine care out of my pocket. If I had
> gone under my employer's group plan, I would have had a $250 deductable,
> a 50% copayment up to $2000, and a 20% copayment for everything beyond that up to 
>$250,000.                                                

  Your employer is providing a VERY weak plan.   A typical employer 
  provided plan is a couple hundred dollar deductible and 20% copayment
  up to a maximum out-of-pocket of 1 or 2 thousand dollrs.  I've worked
  at 5 companies full time and this is how they ALL worked. 

  In this state individual health insurance costs between $300 and
  $650 a month depending on your age.   The fact that Mr. Coffman 
  has a $2500 deductible suggests that what he bought is not "health
  insurance" but "catastrophic health coverage".    I would also 
  ask if this covers his spouse or children.

  Clearly Mr. Coffman has never been poor.  Poor people don't have 
  $2500 dollars to pay out-of-pocket.  Nor do they have the money
  I mentioned above for more conventional insurance.

  And the other flaw in his concept is related to insurability:  Mil-
  lions of Americans are uninsurable due to prior medical conditions.
  And despite what Coffman may think, as many people have discovererd
  in recent years, insurance can be cancelled by any number of legal
  maneuvers by the insurance companies.   
  
  It's this "let them eat cake" attitude by people like Coffman which
  hands the health-care issue to the liberals on a platter.  When the
  liberals finally push through some bureaucratic monster of a govern-
  ment solution it's the Coffman's of the world, who don't have aclue
  what life is like for millions of people living in the real world
  who will be to blame.

  

>case. Plus I get to write 50% of that $330 off against my taxes each
>year and I save $17 a month of after tax money. You can't insure a
>Camaro for that. Surely my health is worth more than a car.

  With a $2500 deductible?    Don't be so sure.   But again this just
  shows how out-of-touch Coffman really is: most poor and working poor
  can't afford Camaros either.


---peter



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Originator: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
	<183141@pyramid.pyramid.com>
	<1992Aug21.193837.22744@ncmicro.lonestar.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:57:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.193837.22744@ncmicro.lonestar.org>
 ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:
>In fact, I beleive the OSS dropped a shitload of singleshot pistols into
>the occupied countryside during WWII, with the above procedure in mind.
>Even had a little comic book that showed how to do it.

Correct.  The OSS "Liberator" pistol, also referred to as the "flare
pistol".  About a million were made at a cost of around $2 apiece
(including ammo, case, and instructions).  Dean Grennell has a nice
piece on them in _The Gun Digest Book of the Forty-Five_ (free plug
for Grennell's entertaining and informative writing).  Somewhere out
on the net there's even a color GIF of it.


			"Musicians?  Pool players?"

				"Shooters, ma'am.
				 Nice try, though."
-- 
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: Re: Entitlements and the deficit? (Was: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...)
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:13:14 GMT

sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:

>  My main point is that Entitlements are the problem with the budget
>and the sorry fact is that any politician that tries to address this
>issue gets clobbered at election time.  Until the American public
>becomes aware that the budget will never be balanced until we get
>this under control and realizes the long-term harm we are doing to our economy
>by maintaining programs with incredible growth that tax those who are 
>(on average) less wealthy to give to those who are (on average) more wealthy,
>we are doomed to run large deficits.  Currently, less than 30%
>of our budget is "discretionary".

Treating more of social security benefits as regular income, or at least as
pension income, for tax purposes probably makes sense.  However, it is
estimated by yesterday's New York Times that doing so would raise about
$24 billion in 1992; not small change, but hardly the cure for the budget
deficit.  Depending on how you define wealthy, about 63% of social security
recipients have household incomes of under $30,000.  About 85% have incomes
under $50,000.  And until social security and medicare/medicaid, the elderly
were disproportionately poor.  It is odd that some seem to want to return to
those days.

Interestingly, the federal government has the same problem that most 
Americans face: medical costs are rising too fast.  While social security
increases at a steady rate, medicare and medicaid is soaring.  That will not
only help the budget deficit, but also help economic growth, since high
medical costs are also hurting the job engines of our econony, small
businesses.  No other industrialized nation has managed to control medical
costs without federal government intervention.  Clinton is for that, Bush
is against.

-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: FEMA's Republican controlled?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:48:06 GMT

In article <Btpqtv.KzE@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>
>Dear Republican administration, if you aren't going to listen to Bob Sheets,
>why are you paying his salary? 
>
>Too bad the Republican convention wasn't in Miami a few days ago, fewer people
>might be suffering now.
>

The Republican convention or the Emir of Kuwait...the army would have
been down real quickly to replace the gold faucets! -).

Gerald

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cmhaar@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Chris Haar)
Subject: Consistent Pro-life( wasRe: Joke, j-o-k-e:  more!)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Northwestern University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:00:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.055102.15659@wri.com>, walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry
Walsh) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Aug29.150552.7200@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> >In article <17munbINNeei@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> >>In article <1992Aug28.190750.18703@news.columbia.edu> js13@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Andrew Smith) writes:
> >>>
> >>>4. Show me a pro-lifer, I'll show you someone who supports the death penalty!
> >>
> >>Not true.  I am sure there are lots of people out there who are pro-life
> >>when it comes to the unborn, the criminal, the elderly and the sick.
> >
> >But certainly not any with real influence.
> >
> 
> Archbishop John Bernardin of the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago has
> been an outspoken advocate of what he calls "a consistent ethic of
> life," which encompasses opposition to the death penalty along with
> elective abortion and other things.  He may not be a media hotdog
> like Randall Terry, but I would say he does have considerable
> influence.  And he is not the only Catholic leader to espouse this
> broader pro-life view.
> 
> Jer.

I never knew that about Bernardin.  Finally a pro-life advocate I can
respect.  
Incedentally, the other side of the quip that started this thread is
(clumsily put):
   Show me a pro-choicer and I'll show you someone who opposes the death
penalty!

Sign Me, 
Guilty as Charged
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:22:21 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Distribution: usa
 <bVcBr*rV0@caleb.UUCP> <17tv1dINN9pm@agate.berkeley.edu>
 <P7RBr*3W0@caleb.UUCP>

>> In article <bVcBr*rV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>>
>> >I'm telling you again.  The deficit is MUCH LOWER than it would have been
>> >if a Democrat had been President!
>>
>                                                Jim Pritchett

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

While it's impossible to know, it's hard to imagine that a Democratic
President could have made things any worse.

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University           "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                     -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:21:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.181640.2485@dbsun.uucp> 
hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

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

>> The Bush administration fully supports fetal tissue research.

> I don't think this is a real person.  I think it's a program that takes
> people's replies and randomly puts in the statement "The Bush administration
> fully supports fetal tissue research," and reposts it.

I don't think this is a real person.  I think it's a program that
takes people's replies and randomly posts "Would somebody PLEEEEZZE 
tell me how to put this guy in my kill file with rn." 

> Would somebody PLEEEEZZE tell me how to put this guy in my kill file
> with rn.  

Yep, I was right.


>hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)


Doug Holtsinger
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:29:47 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Sep2.84216.13733@ms.uky.edu>
fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>Elayne Boosler was on Crossfire last night and was great. (The subject:
>The Emmy's and Hollywood's "unfair" attacks on Dan Quayle over the
>Murphy Brown issue. Also on was the California Republican candidate
>for the Senate who was not so good: some people just don't come off
>well in that format or else he's just a noodge.) Often John Sunnunu's
>bluster and bullying flusters the Liberal guest or moves them into
>a similar style. Boosler held her ground with humour and literally
>left Sunnunu either speechless or laughing himself. Memo to the Clinton/
>Gore team: get off your arses and tap into Boosler. She's unabashedly
>liberal, smart, funny, coherent, and absolutely unflappable. Sunnunu
>came off as just another heckler at a comedy club.

Well, I hope others see the irony in having a comedian represent the
liberal viewpoint.  I saw this show too, and came away with the opposite
impression.  I note that you left out the other person being interviewed
(I think he was a Republican from California).
Whereas Bossler was smug and self righteous, especially about how
dire etc. Quayle's comments were, the other guest was well spoken
and presented facts.  I guess what Quayle said doesn't matter to the
likes of Boosler, but the other guest knew what Quayle had said and
it was hard to disagree with him.  He also had to chastise Michael
Kinsley for overtalking his replies to Kinsley's sophomoric pandering to
Hollywood.  Boosler was most certainly rattled when Sununu said
conservatives are blackballed in the entertainment industry now and
asked "Name one persn in your field who is conservative."  She looked
clearly befuddled and after 2 false starts finally said "Well my
field is not very conducive to conservatives."  She also added alot
to the debate by saying "Comedy takes intelligence and that's why
conservatives can't do it."  More smug and vacuous comments from
one of our leading liberal thinkers, Elaine Boosler.  The other guest
pointed out that in the past, people like Bob Hope have been accepted
by the entertainment industry although they were conservative.
It is only recently that blackballing of conservatives, which is
well accepted in Hollywood (ask Charlton Heston), has crested.
Kinsley tried to claim that the networks are all owned by conservatives
and thus the networks are conservative.  Is this man even alive?
He cited the FOX network.  Nobody bothered to ask if Married With
Children represents conservative or liberal "family values".

So, Mr. Davis, I disagree with your assessment but I agree with your
recommendation.  I hope the left puts Boosler out on the trail with
Hil, Tip, and their running mates.  The Republicans would win in a
landslide.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:07:56 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>
>The existence of fetal tissue research which uses the remains from 
>elective abortions may help to alleviate a pregnant woman's possible 
>misgivings about obtaining an abortion, thus encouraging abortions.  
>It may also help to legitimize abortion. 
>
>> One of the TV news programs did a segment on the need for fetal tissue
>> research.  A preacher in Florida, who is anti-abortion, had a child die
>> of a genetics disease.  Their 2nd pregnancy was determined to carry the
>> same genetic flaw and the preacher spent his resources to get fetal tissue
>> to correct the flaw in utero.  
>
>This is complete nonsense.  Fetal tissue research is still in the 
>experimental stage.   

What!  WHAT!!!  "Complete nonsense!!!"  [sputter... sputter]

I am going to try to keep this civil.

"60 Minutes" repeated the story about the preacher who is completely
anti-abortion in all cases becoming a proponent of fetal-tissue research
last Sunday.

His first child died at age 6 (I think) from a genetic disease called
Hurler's Syndrome, where the body does not produce a necessary enzyme.
There is no cure.  His second child was diagnosed in utero with the same 
problem.  Abortion was out of the question.  So they would be forced
to watch another child die.  However they were told that there was some
experimental research being done using fetal tissue that might prevent
the problem.  This research was being done completely without federal
funding.  An operation was performed transplating tissue from a dead
fetus to the one his wife was carrying.  The baby was born without many
of the symptoms of Hurler's and seems to be doing OK.

This preacher has since left his church to work full-time as a proponent
for fetal-tissue research.  He says, paraphrased, "I consider abortion
to be murder.  But we don't just throw the murdered remains away.  We use
them for organ donations, medical research and such.  We should consider
aborted fetuses similarly."

So yes, fetal tissue research is still in the experimental stage, but
the experiments have had wonderful successes and it is most certainly
*not* nonsense.  This research should be supported fully by the
government, and will be, once Bill Clinton gets elected.

Doug, why don't you go read the Rush Limbaugh groups.  You'll find
lots of your kind there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush's Vanishing Bounce
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 10:48:27 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

> In article <lkpykga@rpi.edu> jacksonk@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) write
> >In article <16375@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Dars
> >
> >>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.
>
> 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.  If you want to
> label the left as McGovernites, then Newsweek does NOT fit the bill.
>
>
> --
> 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"

Not to mention that Newsweek has George Will as a regular columnist.  While he
admittedly can't stand Rubbers Bush, Will can hardly be described as having
anything to do with the left.



|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|
From: walsh@dragonfly.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Entitlements and the deficit? (Was: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...)
Summary: Are entitlements to blame for deficit?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 03:15:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.113748.14316@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>
>Since 
>entitlements were 313b/year when Reagan took office and are 728b/year now,  
>they are the real reason the budget deficit is so huge.  Both _Time_
>and _The Economist_ have done very good stories on this.  Entitlements
>continue to grow well beyond the growth rate of the economy while
>the "discretionary" part of the budget (defense and domestic spending)
>grows at a rate below that of the growth of the economy (in real terms
>over the past 20 years.)  This is even more true now as defense continues
>on its decline since 1985 and entitlements continue their incredible
>growth.
>Pat

Help me understand, please, what entitlements are.

If they are social security and medicare, I believe that they are not
to blame for the deficit, since these programs are completely financed
by those infamous FICA payroll taxes.  Am I wrong?  Or are there other
entitlements that we should blame the deficit on?

If the budget gets balanced by social security or medicare cutbacks,
I am going to demand a decrease in FICA tax and a rebate of past
overpayments.

Jer.

--------------------------------
Jerome Walsh      walsh@wri.com
Publications
Wolfram Research
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
Subject: Clinton blunder
Reply-To: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:23:01 GMT

~

Remember how the media made a minor fuss about Reagan's mis-quote
of Lincoln.  Well, consider the following:


According to the USA Today (8-26-92)           
                                                               
"The American Legionnaires barely applauded as Clinton listed other
presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, who never served in the military
but still led the nation to war".                                 
                                    
                                           
It looks like Bill needs to go back to school.  Collier's Encyclopedia
reads:                                                                 
                                                  
"In 1832 the Indian chief Black Hawk brought his tribe from Iowa in an
effort to reclaim their Illinois lands.  The militia was called out,
Lincoln volunteered, and was immediately elected captain of a local
company."                                                          
  ~


Hmmm.  If Quayl had made such a mistake, don't you think the media
would have been parading it?  But since the media is at work trying
to get Clinton elected, they passed over this faux pas!  

Then again, given the typical liberal revisionism that predominates
today, why not rewrite the history of a great president to help
Clinton's personal political cause, right?  

Send Bill back to school!  
   
-- 
Michael        
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jollie@zambini.cs.uiowa.edu (Jeffrey C. Ollie)
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:14:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <1992Aug31.013633.6926@midway.uchicago.edu>, sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
> >1. His call for caps on mandatory spending was delivered without
> >mentioning once *which* entitlements he would freeze, reduce, or whatever.
> >2. It was couched in language which insured most listeners didn't know
> >what he was talking about.
> 
>   If he did, he would ensure his election loss.  As I said, Clinton
> is already attacking him on this.  If Bush got into specifics, it
> would allow Clinton to do the same to Bush as he did to Tsongas.

So we're supposed to sign a blank check? Dumb idea no matter who you talk to.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton