HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Health Insurance (was: difference between Democrats and GOP)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 11:06:00 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Sep26.194436.1146@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
|> jwh@citi.umich.edu (James W. Howe) writes:
|> 
|> >I don't believe that single payer NHI or pay or play are the way to
|> >go for a variety of reasons.  The biggest reason, IMHO, is that I
|> >don't want government to have any more control over my health care
|> >options than they already do.  If single payer is such a good thing,
|> >why aren't Federal employees covered under a single payer system?
|> 
|> Hey good question for discussion ... I guess I have some thoughts
|> on qualifying your question or any answers that may arise ... I'm
|> really curious about answers to these following questions as well:
|> 
|> 1. Barring the fact that you're talking about the U.S. federal
|> government for a moment, wouldn't this be in effect a form of
|> self-insurance by the employer?
|> 

I don't think so.  From my limited understanding of the program,
Federal employees have a fairly wide selection of private plans
from which they can choose.  There is no central government agency
to handle the paperwork, its done by the individual insurance
companies.

|> 2. Does anyone know if any form of self-insurance by the U.S. federal
|> government would be technically illegal?
|> 

I can't answer that.

|> 3. Are there any prohibitions against the U.S. federal government
|> competing against private enterprise in the market, which includes
|> health insurance?  If so, that would have been the case against the
|> U.S. federal government doing self-insurance, right?

This would only be the case if there were prohibitions agains the
federal government self-insuring.  However, the government could
still have opted to go with a single health insurance plan from a
single company.  It chose not to, for whatever reason.  As a person
who currently has several plans from which to choose, I can say
that I would prefer to have the ability to choose a plan that meets
my families requirements than to simply have some government agency
(or company policy) limit me to what they think is best for all.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48619 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6076 alt.politics.bush:7183 alt.politics.elections:14654 talk.abortion:39432 alt.politics.clinton:7800
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot treating us like idiots
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:27:52 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <Sep.29.09.22.14.1992.16320@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <lc3pcoINN66a@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>Nonsense.  On Larry King Live he gave out an 800 number to call if you
>want him to get back in the race.  When I called to express my opinion
>that he should _NOT_, instead of a live operator (or even a mechanized
>choice), all I got was a taped message saying my call had been
>recorded.  It looks to me like we're dealing with a stacked deck here.
>(And the scary part is that, presumably, this is how he had intended
>to run his computerized "National Town Hall".)
>-- 

Of course, Ted, the fact that the stated purpose of the line was to
"call if you want him back in the race" might have had something to
do with it.

I suggest that you call your local/state UWSA number and register 
your opinion with them.  It is my understanding that you will be 
received by a "live operator".

Dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: An informed voter picks Bush
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:40:42 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Brad Green) writes:

|> Did you catch CNN today?  Seems Wall Street is finally looking at the
|> possibility of Clinton winning, and stocks are dropping?  How can that
|> be, if all these CEO's and Wall Street folks support him?

Does this mean that for the last 4 months Wall Street didn't notice
that Clinton was in the lead?  As usual CNN was looking for something
to assign the big drop to, and this is what they came up with.  Pathetic
reporting.  Wall street is following this election a lot closer than
we are, just so they will know which candidate to put their money
behind.

Other possible reasons for the drop are Perot, the EC monetary
problems, the emerging awareness of how big a part of the EC
economy is controlled by Germany, the recession in Japan, the
announcement of the first-ever, white-collar layoffs in Japan,
etc.  Sure makes you wonder about the "liberal bias" of the
cultural elite that controls the media.?

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: An informed voter picks Bush
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:26:36 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:
: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
: >fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

	[Jeff Davis?  Wasn't he _THE_ number one President of all time? ;) ]

: >>Stocks are dropping for technical reasons: can you say "poor P/E ratios"?
: >>can you say overvalued stock price to asset ratios? can you say "low 
: >>dividends"?
: >>I knew that you could.
: >In that case why is it dropping now instead of six months ago?  Maybe
: >because the market is lowering the expected future value of those
: >stocks becasue they anticipate Clinton screwing up the economy?
: Actually, I thought stocks started dropping and the deutsch-mark started
: falling the day after George Bush's acceptance speech.  Although not
: the only reason, it seems that market analysists looked at Bush's call
: for an across-the-board tax cut as exactly the wrong fix for the
: economy.

There are a number of things affecting the stock markets.  Prices of
stocks are based upon a number of factors, and change due to news 
(economic, political, weather, you name it), rumors, superstitions, etc.  
Only very rarely can you attribute a stock price change to any one outside
factor.

In general, big name stocks on the NYSE are currently greatly overpriced,
either because of some analysts' rosy economic forecasts, or because
the "excitement" of the 80's still lives on to a certain degree, and
is keeping stock prices at unrealistic levels.

Yes, you can place some of the blame for the recent stock price drops
on what's been going on in the political arena, for reasons "outsiders"
can only begin to imagine.  However, major NYSE stocks are priced anywhere 
from 150-400% of what they are really worth.  No matter who's elected,
*something* will eventually happen to correct these prices (extended
bear market and/or a better domestic economy and/or ...).

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48826 soc.motss:41278 ca.politics:8318 ba.politics:5755
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: The Extent of Antigay Discrimination in CA Was (Re: UPI: Wilson signs gay employment rights bill)
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:15:54 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <9209282239.AA21552@client.its.rpi.edu>, buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
> "Copyright 1992 by UPI.
> Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup
> clari.news.group.gays.  For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or
> phone 1-800-USE-NETS."
> 
> 	When Wilson vetoed AB101 last year, he argued that homosexuals were
> already protected from job discrimination under a broad interpretation
> of the state's labor code. Wilson ordered his labor commissioner,
> Victoria Bradshaw, to accept discrimination complaints against
> homosexuals several weeks later after a state appeal court upheld that
> interpretation of the law.
> 	Since then, 87 gays and lesbians have filed discrimination complaints
> with Bradshaw's office. The parties have settled in 10 of the cases, and
> 38 are under investigation, spokesman John Duncan said.
> 	Four complaints by homosexuals were found valid, and 17 were
> adjudicated in favor of the employer, Duncan said.

> vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet

This certainly gives us an idea how many homophobic employers there
are in California.

In one year, in a state with 30 million people, a total of 87 complaints
have been filed -- based on the 4:17 win/loss ratio, we can assume
that of the 56 complaints outstanding, there will be a total of 17
cases of antigay discrimination in one whole year.

This tells me that the homosexual fascist lobby's delusions of how
homophobes run all the companies, all the apartment buildings, etc.,
is just delusion.

This is really about suppressing free speech.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: gte
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:34:07 GMT

> In article <9288@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>  
> >
> >In <1686BBE11.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org> M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
> >
> >mwvm:Now---I *DAMN* sure am *NOT* better off than I was four years ago. And I *DAMN*
> >mwvm:sure was not better off then than I was 8 years before that. To hell with the
> >mwvm:Republicans. It's as simple as that. *ANYBODY BUT BUSH*!!!! *LICK BUSH IN '92*
> >mwvm:Things can't get much worse IMHO.
> >
> >That's what you think.  Things can and will get much worse.  I personally
> >believe that Clinton will win.  Because of this I have stopped all of my
> >discretionary spending and am working a second job so that I can pay off
> >all of my bills.  When the collapse comes, I don't want to be loaded
> >down with any unneccessary debt.
> >

IMHO, wrong approach.  Concentrate on getting the really important stuff:
survival skills.  If everything goes to hell in a handbasket, there ain't
gonna be anyone to come and repossess what you've got: and even if there 
are a few of 'em they'll take those items with the most equity first
(ie: you're better off to be in debt for more than the security is
worth -- they leave you 'til last and by then they'll probably be 
out of business.)  The most important items are the ability to
defend, feed, clothe and shelter yourself and loved ones.  

Worry about owning things free and clear after that.



-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48518 talk.abortion:39301 alt.sex:31279
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:34:30 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In <ca_pchb.boserj@netcom.com> boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:

>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>>	To some women, pregnancy is a wonderful thing - the creation of
>>life - something sacred. To others it is an inconvenience. 
>And to others, it is life-threatening, and can destroy their financial,
>social, and planned futures.  The freedom of women to grow in this
>society is tied directly to their freedom to choose where their lives
>will go, on an individual basis.


	So if a woman runs into a firm where the person in charge of
hiring is a sexist, she has the right to kill him?
	Of course not. I am not looking to restrict anyone's freedom by
saying that abortion should be illegal any more than I am trying to
restrict someone's freedom by saying murder should be illegal. Why do you
INSIST on turning this into a woman's rights issue?? It simply is not.
Unborn children are being killed. They have done nothing wrong. They
have no way of defending themselves. I want this to stop. How on
earth can you call that a woman's rights issue? It is an unborn
children's rights issue.

			Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:06:25 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

In article <1992Oct2.030642.1735@netnews.alf.dec.com> harry@netnews.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.023319.2619@cs.brown.edu>,
>dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>
>	Even if MLK *did* "sleep around", that doesn't make him a
>	"bigot" and a "dirty old man" as Jack Schmidling (ARF)
>	called him. 
>
>
>
>In article <BvGDJr.6xn@ddsw1.mcs.com>,
>(arf@ddsw1.mcs.com) Jack Schmidling responds:
>
>	I am not sure why you keep avoinding the point that he
>	[Dr. Martin Luther King] is supposed to be a "man of god".
>	Most of the street signs with his name on it use the title
>	"rev".  What do you need to see the hypocracy of saying
>	the "rev"
>	d
>	Dr King slept around?
>
>Nor is anyone sure why Mr. Schmidling is avoiding the point that he has
>no evidence linking Dr. King to adultery and neither does the FBI.

I have read enough of the leaked material to firmly believe that the
American public should be able to read it all and draw their own
conclusions.  If he did nothing, I would be the first to apologize.

Witholding information serves no one except those with something to
hide.

>What does Mr. Schmidling need to see that what he wrote is totally the
>opposite of what he meant to say?  Let's take a second look:
>
>	What do you need to see the hypocracy of saying the "rev"
>	d
>	Dr King slept around?
>
>
aj
It seems that I am accuused of using the worng word here also.  The
mindless demanding that I change bigot to hypocites seems a bit of a
red herring.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: "...And You Can't Pretend to Have a Choice, Shake Your Head..."
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:17:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.054344.22103@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>
>
>A liar, a dodger, and a quiter.
>
>What kind of choice is that?
>
	I would vote for the third; I respect those who try to quite others.




-- 

 ***** * ****  ***** ****  *  ***    * *   *    ***   ***   Make the Choice!
   *   * *   * *     *   * * *   *   * **  *   *   *     *    Don't Vote!
   *   * ****  ****  ****  * *   *   * * * *    ****    * 
   *   * *   * *     *  *  * *   *   * *  **       *   *      NO NEW SIGS!
   *   * ****  ***** *   * *  ***    * *   *   ****   ****
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Summary: Atta Boy!  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:38:17 GMT

In article <5OCT199219033406@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)               writes...
>I really had no reason to be against Clinton before this.
>I did have real concerns about anyone who's a war protester
>being able to lead the country in the event of war, since 
>you have to have people go and fight.
> 
To protest a moraless war is a duty of patriotism, not a weakness.
To send young men to die for no clear cause IS a weakness. 

>alone, and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,

To avoid dying in a war that was without cause, I support him
even more.

>Clinton better tell the whole story now. And he better go
>beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
That is true. I believe he should tell the whole story, right along
with Bush telling the whole story behind his involvement in the 
Iran-Contra scandel (isn't this sad, when we must choose between 
someone who tells half-truths, and someone who tell lies).
> 
>-- Stephen D. Tice,  Veteran    

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS)
Subject: Love or Sex
Originator: bkdavis@c00058-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:16:00 GMT


Which would you rather have ? Would you rather be in love with a person and 
spend time together, or would you rather have sex with people (safe people ie
no diease)? Are there any lovers out there ? I mean people who take their time
plot and plan a seduction, not a get drunk wham bam. 


Brian
Tetsu Yama
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:11:33 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep30.011551.18978@meaddata.com>  johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>
> It most certainly is.  You can't possibly think that if George Bush is
> reelected abortion will be made illegal.

Why not?  Certainly the Republican Party platform is anti-abortion - it
doesn't allow any exceptions for rape or incest.

> the Reagan/Bush "packed" Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld
> Roe v. Wade.

Barely.  And Blackmun has stated that he's not going to hang on another
4 years.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Bush's China policy--what the hell is going on?
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:29:36 GMT



Bush's China policy is not only one of his few correct policies, but it is
actually working.

No one, not even George Bush, defends the practicies of the Chinese Communists
particularly with respect to the Tien an Men massacre. But reality is always
more complicated than just demonstrating for world peace.

To understand George Bush's policy you should look not at Beijing but at
Guangdong, or southern China, where capitalism has taken root with a vengence
and is becoming a force on par with Communism itself. To a large extent,
the butchers of Beijing are no longer in control of the reforms they created
and their control can only diminish as the ties between southern China and
Hong Kong become stronger.

China is in the process of creating a middle class with all the middle class
values and attitudes that go along with it. Indeed, it can be argued that
the student uprising against the communists was a symptom of that 
transformation.

On the other hand, Bush's sale of arms to Taiwan would have been a stroke
of genius were it not for the fact that it was politically motivated. Now
if there were just some way tha the US could supply arms to Hong Kong...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:38:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <farenebt.718340867@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>>George Will's new book _Restoration_ discusses the Constitutionality
>>>issue in some detail, including some references to the fact that the
>>>original Articles of Confederation had a term-limits provision. Will
>>>uses this fact to help support the idea that the framers were, at the
>>>very least, not *opposed* to term limits.
>
>First off, were the framers of the Articles the same as the framers
>of the Constitution? Secondly, if they weren't opposed to term limits,
>why did they vote unanimously not to include them in the Constit.?
>Finally, I'd like to remind you about how stable and long-lived
>the nation was under the Articles.

Perhaps I missed a fundamental question in this argument but if the
Founders were against term limits then why do we consider the XXII
amendment to be a good idea?  If term limits are good enough for the
presidency then why not the legislature?

Mike Best   "Never let your sense of morals 
	     prevent you from doing what's right"  -Salvor Hardin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:32:42 GMT

>In article <1992Sep25.232935.745@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu) writes:

>>	Oh give me a break.  A large percentage of anti-abortionists are 
>>	women too.  Give it up.

>This is not so.  In fact, the majority of people working against
>abortion are male.  Publicly they make sure that all quotes come from
>women, but this is just to make them look like anti-choice is the voice
>of women.

	Oh PLEASE!!!! Such blatently false statements are absolutely
inexcusable.

>The real "issue behind the issue" of abortion is the woman's access to
>employment(*).  

	OH PLEASE!!!! You are ridiculous. The real issue is that human
beings are being killed. They cannot defend themselves, but someone 
must. Don't give us this bullshit about this being a women's rights
issue - it is an unborn children's rights issue.


			Bruce
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:05:49 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1992Sep26.040023.24862@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> MyPrediction: Most of Ross's credibility is gone.  He'll get 10% of the
> vote, much of it concentrated in the south, Texas and California.  He'll 
> pull more votes from Bush than Clinton, and will only help Clinton take
> the south.

  That may or may not matter.  If you take a look at some of the polls...

  In a Louis Harris poll last Thurs. -- 20 % Perot, without even much of the
publicity that he's receiving now...

  I think he may win enough states to hang the election, if he's smart.

						Mike Falkner

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex