HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:14:49 GMT

In article <liqafbINNctd@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>>>Mike Polen) writes:
    >>>>>The problem is that the health insurance companies make their
    >>>>>money on a percentage of the medical dollar spent. It is
    >>>>>against their best interest to hold down costs.
    >>>>>
    >>>Mr. Polen is utterly and absolutely DEAD wrong. Couldn't be
    >>>more wrong.
    >>>
    >>>Insurance companies, in America, since 1968, do NOT make
    >>>money on the policies they sell -- whether they be life,
    >>>medical, or other.
    >>>
    >>>They make money by investing in (primarily) real estate and
    >>>other long term investments.
    >>>
    >>>For example, CSAA (AAA of N. Ca) was one of the better ones
    >>>for 1990 I think. They actually made 1/10 of one penny per
    >>>dollar.
    >>>
    >Sorry. But you missed the point. The insurance companies
    >invest thier reserves, controlled by the amount of money they
    >collect and retain. This figure is a percentage of their
    >revenues. They have the luxury of changing prices to reflect
    >costs to keep their expenses below revenue. Their efforts to
    >crack down on fraud are laudatory, but when they do not
    >succeed, they raise rates.

Read. My. Lips. In many areas of insurance, there is NO money to
"retain" (retain? do you mean profit?). For every $ collected for
car insurance in California, between $.97 and $1.03 is paid out.

The reserves, which in insurance companies is typically invested
in real estate, appreciates. This appreciation is what keeps the
insuarnce companies from going broke.

Insurance companies DO NOT (indeed, absurd to think so) make "more money"
if the entities that they are paying charge more.

Your comment "The problem is that the health insurance companies make
their money on a percentage of the medical dollar spent. It is
against their best interest to hold down costs." beggars reality.

There are now over 17,000 "price codes" that insurance companies have
doctors charge under. Each price code has a ceiling for which the insurance
companies will NOT pay over. Hardly a case of encouraging doctors to
charge more.


    >... Show me an insurance companies whose
    >revenue per policy has gone down over the last 10 years. They
    >can not afford to let that happen.

What does that have to do with anything? It is the profit that we
are concerned with. The Post Office's revenue per letter has certainly
gone up a lot (factor of 7 in 20 years), yet it certainly isn't doing
"well".


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7818 talk.politics.misc:64880
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:39:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1gobqaINN4a7@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
> |> Hot Young Star writes:
# |# # Indeed. There were over a hundred reports of sexual misconduct during the
# |# # Gulf War. Only four were homosexual, and three of those were consensual
# |# # acts.
# |# 
# |# Clayton Cramer writes:
# |# # [predictable pseudo-math deleted]
# |# # In that case, 4 homosexual misconducts out of 100
# |# # total is nothing to brag about -- quite the opposite.
# |# 
# Of course in the military, all homosexual acts are misconducts, while
# heterosexual acts are not necessarily misconducts.  So there may have
# been thousands of heterosexual acts.  Clayton sees what he
# wants to see and ignores reality.

In fact, at least one of the consensual homosexual misconducts would 
probably be misconduct between straight soldiers, snce it took place
on duty.  My point was the bogosity of Mr. Kane's numbers.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ca
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:20:48 GMT

In article <1gvsreINNiv7@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
    >In article <1992Dec19.120605.3981@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>Thre or four "cases" in a week of car owners blowing away
    >>attempted car jackers would most likely make it not very
    >>common.
    >>
    >>
    >Yes materialism to the ultimate. Just blow em away jack, that
    >it make stop. Oh course, let's look at punishment by death,
    >that has sure cut down on murders, hasn't it?? :->

Eh? You so cute for a dumb boy, mahhnnn ... me and me friends,
we jez giggles and giggles ...

1. Per capita homicide has risen in good correlation with the decline
   of people excuted.

2. Florida, once knownn as the serial killer state, has had very little
   in the way of major cases since they fried Ted Bundy. Well, yeah,
   they do have Wormos, but  hey, she's just an "EEO-type" case.

They, I've paid attention to you. That'll make you feel better. Now, post
some more -- we like the entertainment value.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Check kiting in Congress
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:28:28 GMT

In article <Bz1Av0.9JH@queernet.org> rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
|In article <1992Dec10.053057.37@Cadence.COM>, phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
|writes:
||> At the very least, they disobeyed their own laws by not reporting interest
||> they didn't have to pay as income as you and I would have to do if we tried
||> the same thing.
|
|Huh?  What are you saying: the interest they didn't have to pay on an
|interest-free loan is income?!  Huh?

Yes.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Lie, n.:
	A very poor substitute for the truth, but the only one
discovered to date.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:17:00 GMT

In article <105324@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.123408.4529@netcom.com>
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>Just WHAT are you babbling about? I am an atheist, so it is
    >>no part of my world when two homosexual clergymen are caught.
    >>And I have said more than once that both homosexuality and
    >>celibacy (as in the Catholic church) are unnatural aspects of
    >>human behaviour -- and IMHO, rather sad and sick ones at
    >>that.
    >>
    >Your opinion isn't humble at all. And, given that you've said
    >homosexuality is completely moral (and you give me no reason
    >to think you'd believe otherwise about celibacy), calling
    >something moral "sad and sick" is none other than ill-thought
    >if not bizarre.

Brian -- I can only put this in a personal question: is your self esteem
so vulnerable (to wounding) that you can not understand that a lot of
people just don't like homosexuals.

And that's ALL it means?

In my book, prostitution, drug use, suicide, self destructive lifestyles
(self, not others) are ALL moral. And sad too.

I can not tolerate cigarette smoke. I think it is a disgusting, vile, nasty
obnoxious habit. Putrid and damaging to health. Sickening.

And my best friend smokes. And she understands that she smokes on the
balcony in my house.

My girlfriend does not smoke. I could not tolerate kissing a smoker.

Can you understand any of this?



You see, this is one of the things that VERY much disturbs me. It seems most
people have no ability to distinguish between something "they don't like"
and "something that should be banned/made illegal".



That's one of the eternal non-understanding going on on this net.

A WSJ editorial on post-poll interviews on Colorado voters (that passed
the law forbidding extra rights for homosexuals) stated that while some
people obviously voted because of dislike of homosexuals, for most people
it was a recation against yet ANOTHER special interest group lining up
at the trough.


You see Brian, the freedom to be what you want to be ultimately has a price.
Other people get to be what they want to be too.

If you want to shave your head, and wear pink see through tights and
prance down Main Street, then other people have the rightr to view it with
disgust, or pleasure, or whatever.



Being moral is not always positive. But so what? Don't YOU believe in the
freedom to ingest the drugs on one's choice? And don't you think that
drug use is stupid?




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7841 ca.politics:10460 talk.politics.misc:64984
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Recall California Governor Pete Wilson!
Date: 21 Dec 92 03:27:45 GMT
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Distribution: ca
Organization: N.I.C.E.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Rick Donnelly writes:
[Mike repackages part of the argument here ... sorry about the attribs]
a>Wrong.  It's easier to go after the governor.  To get the 'legislative
a>leaders' you've got to mount *several* recall efforts instead of a

b> You've got to mount 2-3 SMALL recall efforts.  Remember that money?

rd>practical reasons.  The legal reason is that they cannot be recalled within
rd>6 months before or after an election for their position; the practical

Doesn't this also have something to do with their districts being redrawn & all
that?  This year's election had this special qualification but it wouldn't
be typical then.

rd>reason is that they can be recalled ONLY by voters in their respective
rd>districts, which ain't gonna happen since both "bring home the bacon" to

Maybe the idea of recalling those 2 representatives from their offices
is the wrong one.  We really don't want to deprive the voters of their
districts of their representatives; presumably they do a good job for
them.  They just don't do a good job overall for all the rest of us,
& we didn't vote for them, either.

Maybe instead we should get some kind of veto over who runs the legislative
bodies.   That is, we could amend the recall section of the constitution
to permit a vote on the speaker & president of the state senate.  In order
to make the effort of doing this worthwhile, a successful recall would
have to prevent that person from holding the office of speaker or president
for the remainder of that person's life.  I'm not sure if that would be
legal, but I suppose if term limits are legal, this could make it, too.

Another possibility is setting a different kind of term limit for these
offices, limit it to one term & thenceforth ineligible.

==mwh
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Are they not men?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:23:36 GMT

This is a post describing the rationale for NOT having homosexuals
serve in parts of the armed forces.

I was waiting to upload a WSJ article describing severe homosexuals
harassment in the Navy, post WWII, but, not having gotten around to it,
I'll post this anyway. If someone REALLY wants the article posted, let
me know and I'll upload it (means lugging modems around, ugh).

If we consider an aircraft carrier, with 4,000+ plus men on it, it
would be folly to introduce women on the same exact basis as men.
That is, they sleep in the same bunks, they shower in the same shower
and the same time, and so on.

Sailors ARE a horny bunch. Being at sea for months at a time does nothing
for it -- witness the cluster of prostitution (and bars etc.) around
naval ports.

Introduction of women into parts of the military have had some distressing
problems. Even with seperate facilities (sleeping, bathrooms, etc.), the
petty-power mindset of many men in the military led to some rather
nasty incidents of sexual harassment. Draconian rules have eased the problem
somewhat.

However, the few women on naval ships have had the worst problems. Unlike
a land base, where a man can go offbase and get laid, or drunk, or gamble,
a ship is where you are stuck at. The few women on ships, generally
civilian contractors working on systems (a carrier typically has 400+
people onboard that are civilian contractors), have had such problems
on an ongoing basis. In some cases, marine guards have been assigned to
escort women on the ships to prevent harassment.


And are not homosexuals men? Do they not seek and desire sex with their
preferred type of partner just the same as hetereosexual men?

It obviously would be foolhardy in the extreme to have women sharing the
showers (at the same time etc.) on board a military ship, for example.

Unless of course, one wishes to impart near-saintly restraint and vastly
different behaviour to homosexuals. Which, is likely NOT the case at all.

A report on hetereosexual AIDS transmission in a part of Florida from
the Center for Disease Control noted the widespread (19%!!!!!!) incidence
of the disease, despite the fact that "over 47% of those infected have
similar numbers of lifetime sexual partners for their age group (under 30)
of 3-6 for women, and 4-9 for men". And I quoted that.

Contrast this to some comments on the "restraint" of some homosexuals,
that "only" have 20 different partners a YEAR!


In short, it would be stupid and very injurious to morale to place
homosexuals among the close quarters of a naval crew. They are no more likely,
indeed less so, to "restrain" themselves than say, a small number of
men placed among an almost all female crew, and shwoering and bunking
together.

The solution of having, say, male, female, homosexual, quarters, johns,
and showers is somehow rather unsavory, no?





-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: What really counts in a marriage
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:56:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.211335.6196@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
    >On one level - the 'Collected <insert Minority here> Jokes'
    >mindset - this may be very profitable, and it may make for
    >good formulaic comedy, but it evaluates to lifting everyone
    >else's spirits at the expense of the minority being depicted
    >for everyone's amusement.
    >
    >This leaves a residue behind, in the minds of the audience of
    >your joke(s) - a residue which might be called
    >'insensitivity'.

Oh lord how sensitive you are. Actually, this BS about "sensitivity"
that comes from someone who is this very post types "(Philip K. Ronzone
babbles) is quite hypocritical.

You must feel unequal to the task of discourse to be so childish. Adults
pay attention to what I say and stick to the merits.

Look, you're wrong. Humor is a broad spectrum, and some of the best
<XYZ> jokes come from <XYZ's>.

If you can't take a joke, go away and build up your self-esteem.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7751 ca.politics:10368
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: "homophobic suspects outrage net"
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:00:04 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec12.033943.14198@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Clarence Thomas is flambed for ONE woman's uncorroborated (and suspect)
>accusations.

Strange...so was Bill Clinton!

>Striking double standard here.
>-- 
>I believe Gennifer Flowers.

Obviously. 	Your politics are transparent.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7691 ca.politics:10304 talk.politics.misc:63942
From: Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com (Rick Donnelly)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Recall California Governor Pete Wilson!
Date: 12 Dec 92 04:43:07 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Taligent, Inc.

In article <1992Dec11.165622.29264@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
dcrocker@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Crocker) writes:

> Yes, the Legislature -- especially its "leadership" -- deserves to be held
> accountable also, but one thing at a time.  The Governor played the worst
> sort of cynical politics, at the expense of jobs and aid for the
> neediest folk, so he is the most appropriate _first_ target.

He's also the only one we can go after right now.  Brown and Roberti were
recently re-elected to their leadership positions in the Assembly and
Senate, and cannot be recalled at this time since they haven't been in
office for 6 months of their new terms yet.

Rick Donnelly                       My opinions, not Taligent's.
Rick_Donnelly@taligent.com
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7687 ca.politics:10296
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:44:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <92343.28384.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> In <13530@optilink.COM>, Clayton Cramer writes:
> >In article <92339.28809.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.L
# ## This seems like it's easily a manslaughter case.  Use of deadly force today i
# ## generally only allowed in self-defense.  Once the carjacker drives away, it
# ## seems to me that the physical threat to the victim has diminished considerabl
# #It depends on the state.  California's justifiable homicide statute
# #allows use of deadly force in suppressing riots, and preventing the
# #escape of a felon.  (The courts have narrowed the latter to felonies
# #that were felonies at common law).
# 
# Is that the language of the statue?  Do they use the term "preventing the

The language of the statute allows use of deadly force to stop a 
fleeing felon.  (You better have witnessed the felony, or have 
EXTREMELY good reason to believe that the person in question
committed the felony, and made an honest atempt at stopping their
escape by other means.)  The courts have considerably narrowed the
authority of the police to use deadly force other these circum-
stances, and simple prudence would suggest that a civilian avoid
unecessarily going to court on matters like this.

# escape of a felon?"  Suppose I decide to become a carjacker.  I have no
# previous criminal record.  I pull a gun on an unsuspecting motorist and get
# in their car.  As I drive away, he/she blows me away.  Personally, I'd think I
# deserve it, but to play devil's advocate, consider this:  If the statute says
# "felon," then the statute won't protect the motorist.  You can't be a "felon"
# unless you have been convicted of a felony.  If I have no priors, and if we are
# innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, can the motorist say that I was
# a felon??  Or is there something I'm missing here?
# 
# Tim Irvin

While the statute doesn't say it explicitly, the various court
rulings on this subject indicate that everyone understands this
to mean, "person who has committed a felony," even if they haven't
been convicted by a court of law.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 19 Dec 92 19:21:06 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec19.123408.4529@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <1992Dec19.003912.20787@netcom.com>
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:

>>TWO S.J. PASTORS CHARGED WITH MOLESTING BOYS
[...]
>>I also await Mr. Cramer's demand that all churches be closed
>>because so many child molestors are among the clergy. This is
>>real, Mr. Cramer. If you care about abused kids, then make a
>>fuss about the people *really* doing the abusing, not your
>>personal bogeymen.

>Just WHAT are you babbling about? I am an atheist, so it is no part of
>my world when two homosexual clergymen are caught. And I have said
>more than once that both homosexuality and celibacy (as in the Catholic
>church) are unnatural aspects of human behaviour -- and IMHO, rather
>sad and sick ones at that.

Your opinion isn't humble at all. And, given that you've said homosexuality
is completely moral (and you give me no reason to think you'd believe
otherwise about celibacy), calling something moral "sad and sick" is none
other than ill-thought if not bizarre.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Recall California Governor Pete Wilson!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:25:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.165622.29264@leland.Stanford.EDU> dcrocker@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Crocker) writes:
>Yes, the Legislature -- especially its "leadership" -- deserves to be held
>accountable also, but one thing at a time.  The Governor played the worst
>sort of cynical politics, at the expense of jobs and aid for the
>neediest folk, so he is the most appropriate _first_ target.

Yeah right.  You folks are going to go after the legislature next.
Right.

It's much easier/cheaper to force all of the legislative leadership
into a recall than it is to recall the governor.  Yet, we see NOTHING
along those lines.

The Democrats used to be somewhat more upfront than they are now.

-andy
--
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: "homophobic suspects outrage net"
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:52:16 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Dec15.052841.5025@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Now, if Anita Hill had a tape recording and witnesses to her allegations,
>then I'd probably believe her too.

She did apparently have witnesses, who themselves were to testify to being
harassed by Thomas, but were never called before the committee.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:22:18 GMT

In article <liqamtINNctd@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
    >The money they are investing is the excess money they have
    >collected from you and me. It is their reserves. They
    >collected it under one definition of benefits (deductibles,
    >coverages, limits, etc.) and when it is under attack, they
    >pretend it is their money and change the rules on how you and
    >I get our money back.

That is not how insurance works at all.

What is "excess money"? That's not an accounting term at all.

And it certainly isn't GAAP either.

For each $1.00 that  many insurance companies take in, they will pay out
perhaps $1.03. That's a negative excess. However, over a long term, of
many many years, it will be a fixed time before that $1.03 will be paid
out. In the float period, that money can be used to acquire real estate.

Your talk of "pretend it is their money" is not comprehensible.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)