HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley)
Subject: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 12:42:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug9.062917.24910@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>However, the major factor in health care costs remains *fear* of
>malpractice suits. Unnecessary tests, second opinions, malpractice
>insurance, etc are major factors in driving up US health care costs.
>When a hospital charges you $8 for a Tylenol capsule that it got as
>a free sample, and won't let you bring your own, that charge is to
>cover their ass in case they get sued. We need to reform the legal
>system much more than we need to reform the medical system. General
>aviation saw the average price of it's aircraft rise from under $20,000 
>to over $100,000 over the last 20 years due to product liability 
>insurance costs brought on by sue happy "public interest" lawyers,
>many working under government grants. This in an industry with an
>enviable safety record. Other sectors of our economy are similarly
>distorted.
>
  Has anyone else noticed that Bill "let's reform health care" Clinton
  never mentions the overhead of tort mentioned above?  That's because
  he's the American Association of Trial Lawyers  and the American 
  Bar Association's buddy.  Bill (and Hillary) are against tort-reform
  of any kind and as a result have been given very strong endorsements 
  by both organizations.  How's that for "wanting to reform the system?" 


-- 
        --Ernie.Corley@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM
From: timlee@public.btr.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Medical Insurance in Hawaii
Date: 16 Aug 92 07:04:47 GMT
Distribution: usa

On a recent campaign stop in California, Bill Clinton said that
in Hawaii, health care costs about 50% of the average in the
rest of the country, and 98% of the people there are covered.

So what's it like in Hawaii?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee                 timlee@btr.com  ...!decwrl!btr!timlee
This message comes with no warranty, not even an implied warranty of
fitness for any particular purpose.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39766 talk.abortion:31754 alt.politics.bush:1614
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:11:57 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <11723@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
> In article <11713@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <11710@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
> >> In article <11683@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >> >In article <11682@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
# ## But let's back up to your previous phrase: "typical homosexual lying fashion". 
# 
# [...examples of racism deleted...]
# 
# ## Isn't "typical homosexual lying fashion" a generalization, a slur,  
# ## just as bad, just as ugly, and just as stupid, as the ones I have given?
# ## 
# ## --
# ## dave
# ## manley@optilink.com
# #
# #One difference: I have found "homosexual = liar" to be true far more 
# #often than not.  I have repeatedly made it clear that not all 
# #homosexuals are child molesters, and some are quite hostile to 
# #child molestation, and yet many of the homosexuals on the net keep
#                             ^^^^        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# #claiming that I said that all homosexuals are child molesters.  I
# #keep correcting them, and they keep saying it.  
# 
# What you have found is that those 'homosexuals on the net' WHO CARE
# ABOUT WHAT YOU SAY AND HAVE BEEN ENOUGH BOTHERED TO RESPOND TO YOU
# are (in your (humble) opinion) liars. 
# 
# I greped/seded/sorted the From: lines in soc.motss.  I found 143 different
# posters to that group.  The number of people that I know by their own
# admission to be homosexuals who have repeatedly responded to your
# postings number at most a dozen or two.  The most prominent being
# Brian Kane, Jeff Dauber, Roger B.A. Klorese, and Tim Pierce.
# 
# 143 vs. ~12-24 vs. 4.
# 
# You must admit this is probably a smaller number than would be
# indicated by either your 'typical homosexual' or 'homosexuals on the net'
# phrasing.
# 
# Your "typical homosexual lying fashion" phrase is obviously an
# ugly slur.  You have no means of supporting the generality it
# implies.  
# 
# If you made a similiar statement about blacks based on the same
# evidence I would say you are a racist.  Since you instead
# made the statement about homosexuals what should I deduce
# about your thought processes?
# 
# dave
# manley@optilink.com

That I am tired of homosexuals telling lies, repeatedly.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sbonds@jarthur.claremont.edu (007)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 03:35:05 GMT

liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:

>In article <1992Aug14.212745.16974@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:

>>|>I'm sure glad I don't live in Canada.
>>|I am sure.  You will miss home dearly for the lack of automatic gunfire  
>>|and police sirens at night.  Moving to Bosnia/Somaila is recommended.   
>>
>>I don't hear the sound of automatic gunfire at night; I do hear pistol
>>shots frequently, which is the sound of people defending themselves

>And why there is no automatic gunfire?  Does this has anything to
>do with the ban on assault weapons?  

It probably has more to do with how fewer people carry semi-automatic rifles
around with them.  And those that do, will rarely need to use them.  (Would
YOU threaten someone carrying an M-16 over his shoulder?  I sure wouldn't!
"Hey man!  Gimee yer wallet!"  <Bang> )

For a group who espouse personal liberties so much of the time, the democratic
party never has seen fit to extend this to gun ownership.  Americans love to
hunt.  Americans love to target shoot.  We invented sharpshooting, and we're
never going to give it up.

  -- 007
(a democrat with a gun)
-- 
 000   000  7777 | sbonds@jarthur.claremont.edu
0   0 0   0   7  |----------------------------------------------------------- 
0   0 0   0  7   |        Childhood is short...
 000   000   7   |                    ...but immaturity is forever.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:27:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.144139.10259@cs.cornell.edu> allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
>ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug9.062917.24910@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>
>>>However, the major factor in health care costs remains *fear* of
>>>malpractice suits. Unnecessary tests, second opinions, malpractice
>>>insurance, etc are major factors in driving up US health care costs.
>>>When a hospital charges you $8 for a Tylenol capsule that it got as
>>>a free sample, and won't let you bring your own, that charge is to
>>>cover their ass in case they get sued. We need to reform the legal
>>>system much more than we need to reform the medical system. General
>>>aviation saw the average price of it's aircraft rise from under $20,000 
>>>to over $100,000 over the last 20 years due to product liability 
>>>insurance costs brought on by sue happy "public interest" lawyers,
>>>many working under government grants. This in an industry with an
>>>enviable safety record. Other sectors of our economy are similarly
>>>distorted.
>>>
>>  Has anyone else noticed that Bill "let's reform health care" Clinton
>>  never mentions the overhead of tort mentioned above?  That's because
>>  he's the American Association of Trial Lawyers  and the American 
>>  Bar Association's buddy.  Bill (and Hillary) are against tort-reform
>>  of any kind and as a result have been given very strong endorsements 
>>  by both organizations.  How's that for "wanting to reform the system?" 
>
>A recent issue of Consumer Reports debunked the myth that malpractice
>costs are driving up health care costs.

A recent issue of Forbes described the true cost of of tort and
liability system. A study came out that showed direct costs of over
$100 billion, and, when indirect costs are added in, it became
close to $300 billion.  There are even further costs to innovation
of new products, etc., that are not even tried because of liability
concerns. For example, there has been little progress in contraceptives,
in small aircraft, etc., in the last decade or so. The system needs reform.

Bill Clinton, as a member of the Trial Lawyer Association, will make this
bad situation only worse. Bush/Quayle at least have tort reform
proposals on the table.

>Sure, there are malpractice
>cases that go way beyond what is reasonable (or what seems reasonable,
>at least).  But they're a rather minor portion of total costs.

Do they consider the cost of defensive medicine?
...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40427 talk.abortion:32312 alt.politics.bush:2004
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:04:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <azdy5xj@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>>In article <n1cypnr@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>
>>>I think a friend of mine put it best when she noted that people
>>>who oppose abortion are generally those who are unlikely ever to
>>>need one.
>>>
>
>>But doesn't this just say that those who are pro-life are smart enough,
>>have learned enough, and are responsible enough to put themselves in
>>positions where abortion does not become an alternative?
>
>Like being a man or a post-menopausal woman?

It takes two to tango.  You need men for a pregnancy to take place.  If men
don't participate, then women can't have abortions because they are
not pregnant, right?

Also, you neglect the fact that there are very active 18, 19, 21, 23 year
old pro-life women who share the same view as the other pro-lifers.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39571 alt.politics.clinton:1895 alt.politics.bush:1501
From: blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:53:25 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii

In article <1992Aug12.170300.28190@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>If we want a health care system like Canada's, we would need to:
>
>	Install a national 10% health care sales tax
>
>	Cut doctor's salaries in half.
>
>	Reform tort laws to protect doctors from malpractice.
>
>	Establish a rationing system to limit costs.
>
>The last violates the new disabilities laws, the third would never get past
>Congress, the second would require the AMA's cooperation (ie, let more doctors
>graduate from med schools, etc ), the first would be political suicide.
>
>Therefore, a Canadian health care system is impossible to implement in this     country.

Your argument is valid- but not sound. On what basis do you say 
that  you must establish a rationing system etc. A law simply 
preventing pharmecutical profit from being usurious is in order.
A case in point: My local paper the Honolulu Star Bulletin
( not known as a great paper)  ran a story today from the 
A.P. about a man who has colon cancer who needs to take 
a certain drug. It is the only drug know to keep the cancer
in remission after treatment. The drug is also commonly
given to sheep for worms or some such thing. For a given
time period they charge the man $3000 and the sheep rancher 
on the order of $12.00. What the article didn't specify
is the relative dosage of the man and the sheep. But note
that the man's dosage would have to be 250x stronger than
the sheep's. I would believe 10x possibly but 250x?
NOT. I don't believe that this type of abuse is that 
widespread, but pharmecutical companies *do* typically
make profits above 50% (after R&D costs) on certain
drugs. The odd thing is that the drugs on which 
they make large profits generally are the ones that 
are lifesaving. Sounds pretty usurious to me. By the way
this story was printed because the man is suing the company,
so all charges at this point are alleged ones.
:-)
Kristin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:17:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.221458.7673@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.205057.16540@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>
>>  Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
>>  spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.
>
>You meean , No I am rolling on the floor now you take the PHTTT! chortle
>chuckle LAFFER CURVE SERIOUSLY!!!!  
>Supply side economics?
>Oh dear guess you do
>sweet dreams in your trickle down fantasy world!

Actually, Laffer curve is does work.  It is common sense, in the same
way that Rolle's theorem in calculus is (for a curve above the x-axis
that touches the x-axis at two different points, then there is a max
between these points).  The supply-siders seem to have a deluded
notion of where the max point is, and perhaps how high it is.


--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: allender@ils.nwu.edu (Laura Allender)
Subject: Clinton re: Student Service / Illinois 
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:16:43 GMT

The Illinois Youth Service Task Force for Bill Clinton

Purpose/Goals

We are a collection of young people in Illinois who support
Bill Clinton's National Service Plan to provide people the opportunity
to receive a college education or vocational training in exchange for
serving our national community before or after graduation.

Our goals are to:

* To elevate the public's awareness of national service 
(in particular, to inform young people about NS)
* To empower our peers to get involved in the campaign
* To make a valuable contribution to Bill Clinton's campaign

----------

If you are interested in more information about this organization
or one in your state please call Laura Retzler at 1-312-541-2348



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39243 ca.politics:6699 ba.politics:4442
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Holocaust II in Serbia: Why Isn't Anyone Doing Anything?
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:13:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <168ihoINNim9@hal.com>, howard@hasse.hal.com (Howard Gayle) writes:
> In article <11586@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #  Is the liberal enthusiasm for avoiding war so strong that
# #Holocaust II will happen, when we could have stopped it?
# 
# I hear a lot of talk about how "we" should take some kind of
# military action in Serbia.  However, I've never heard anyone
# say "I volunteer to go fight in Serbia."  I suspect that "we"
# in this context actually means "some other people, not
# including me."
# --
# Howard Gayle

I'm too old for the military, surprise, surprise.  I would be in
complete agreement with your argument if we had a draft, and the
people in the military were there against their will.  We don't.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: LINE ITEM VETO (was Reducing Spending)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:41:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.223402.27801@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.182454.20908@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
>>
>>Is there a single country that provides the president/head-of-state
>>with a line item veto? Does it have a presidential or parliamentary
>>government? Hopefully a political science expert will answer the
>>questions for us.
>
>Doesn't questions of veto arise only with separation of powers?

You have a point there. In a parliamentary system the parliament
decides almost everything. However, the head of state may have a
symbolic veto power. But since the head of state is either a
symbolic mornarch or a president elected by the parliament the
veto power is rendered meaningless. Sometimes the word used is
not `veto' but `returned to parliament for further debate and
consideration.'

>Parliamentary governments shouldn't need to give the PM a veto
>because the PM's party controls the legislature, and so will
>get whatever bill the PM wants passed.

No. By head of state I was refering to a President or King/Queen.
In a parliamentary government PM is the head of government.
Unlike the presidential government where the president is both.

>How many gov'ts are designed along the lines of the US?

My guess is Philipines is probably the closest. However, a lot
of countries incorporate some of its features (example, the veto
power of the president). Since no one has yet answer the questions
I will venture to guess that there is probably no country in the
world that gives the president/head-of-state line item veto.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:34:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.155801.7917@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> johnnyp@HALDI.LCS.MIT.EDU (Johnny Piscitello) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug12.144139.10259@cs.cornell.edu>, allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
>|> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Aug9.062917.24910@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>|> A recent issue of Consumer Reports debunked the myth that malpractice
>|> costs are driving up health care costs.  Sure, there are malpractice
>|> cases that go way beyond what is reasonable (or what seems reasonable,
>|> at least).  But they're a rather minor portion of total costs.
>|> 
>|> I'm willing to look up the article if anyone's interested.  It's at
>|> home, else I would do it right now....  :-)
>
>
>	I don't know, man. My roomate's Dad is a doctor in a private practice,
>and his malpractice insurance runs over $100,000 a year! You can bet that that
>cost is getting passed on to the patients, or there would be no other way
>to stay in business.

Also the costs of all those extra (generally unnecessary) tests that
are done because if the doctor doesn't do them and gets sued he/she is
more likely to lose.

Neither of those things is typically included when people come up with
figures about how 'malractice suits don't add that much to the cost of
medical care'.  Avoiding them and being covered when they happen is
costing a hell of a lot.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: The buck stops where?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:59:47 GMT

enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:

>Thus far in the campaign, George Bush has blamed Congress,
>the press, and now his cabinet for his problems.  I find
>it rather strange that someone who touts his ability to
>deal with Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Kohl etc., can't handle
>Tom Foley, Nicholas Brady and Richard Darman.  What a
>weenie.

he wanted to say that his tax increase was a mistake 
during the convention, but his handlers wouldn't let him.
that was verging on responsibility.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:14:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.170312.9396@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick writes...
>In article <Bt4r48.12C@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>  This was also an exceptionally booming persiod in the US economy and
>>  that boom was fueled by massive private and corporate debt buildup
>>  combined with a bizzare Republican form of Keynesianism: a huge defense
>>  industry buildup.   These conditions were unsustainable.   
> 
>This claim about an increase in debt during the 80's is common,
>but it is not valid. Private and corporate debt was, in proportion to
>the economy, no larger in 1988 than in 1981. 

I would like to see your sources for this (really). Because I saw an
article from May that said Private and Corporate Debt from 81' to 91'
increased by 71%.(I'll give you the source if you want it)


>Nader's Public Citizen.  However, you will find that, if you ask,
>you can get more than your fill of conservative (and classical liberal)
>ideas and solutions to our economic and social problems, from folks
>at the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, etc.
>Conservatives suffer not from a lack of ideas, but a lack of advertising.
> 
>Pat

I have disagree with you on this. When the Soviet Union was collapsing
there was plenty of interviews with people from the Hoover Institute.
I've also NEVER seen a discussion on the economy on a network that 
didn't have a conservative representative. If you have any statistical
backing for your statement I'll be glad to hear it.

-Garrett 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Do I believe this?
Keywords: GOP Convention
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 18:02:01 GMT

This morning on the way to work, I heard a 15 second sound bite from the
GOP convention last night.  It struck me as very difficult to swallow.
I didn't watch ANY of the convention, so please pardon the mis-quotes
and please correct them.

The speaker said that Bill Clinton is proposing a $100 [bm]illion
increase in federal (domestic?) spending.  This is the largest
spending increase ever.  Do we want that?  And the crowd chanted
"NO".

It seems unlikely (at best) to me that $100 [mb]illion is the
largest spending increase ever.  Or was this another example of
one of the biggest types of lies - statistics?

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful
to ensure that the calculated objective of the communication does not become
ensconsed in obscurity.  Stated simply, it is invariably preferable to 
eschew obfuscation.                                           - Unknown

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate, ... things.         - VP Dan Quayle

If God had meant for us to vote, He would have given us candidates.  - Anon