HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jason@beta.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: EE Dept at UF
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 20:41:57 GMT

>Wrong on both points.  First, the effects of the legal system in health care
>are estimated to be relatively small, especially compared to the
>administrative waste.  Malpractice insurance and related defensive medicine
>costs might account for about $20 billion of the U.S. health care costs.

Does your malpractice figure include the amount of extra procedures that
doctors perform to buffer themselves against possible lawsuits?  If not
how much more do you think it would be?

Does your figure acount for doctors switching specializations from risky
(and thus lawsuit prone) to a general doctor?

>Administrative waste is estimated to be 100 billion or more.

Do you honestly think government intervention will streamline this?
Surely you don't?!

>Second, Clinton's health care plan does include a call for malpractice
>reform, similar to the one proposed by Bush.  Clinton just doesn't regard
>it as being important as Bush does.  Most health policy experts agree that
>reform of malpractice is necessary, but is not the highest priority.

I did not know this!  However when I first read over Clinton's plan I saw
no mention of this, either he had just put it in there or I missed it.  I
would like to see Clinton's updated plan (with that section highlighted).
Please post or mail to me (thanks).
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4565 alt.politics.bush:4498
From: heidi@wolf.net.com (Heidi Wolf)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Summary: Family Leave Act
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:16:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: N.E.T., Redwood City, CA

jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
>
>For example, a bill in the works now will force business to
>provide long term maturnity leave; this is an expansion of government
>to take more control of private business.  Bush has vetoed this bill
>in the past and will probably veto it again.  


The bill mentioned above is the Family Leave Act, which would
affect businesses with 50 or more employees.  The "long term
maturnity [sic] leave" being considered is in fact 12 weeks.  
That's 3 months.  About a month after your child smiles at you
for the first time, and while you're probably still getting up
at least once in the middle of every night for feedings, you'd
be heading back to work.  Probably doesn't feel too "long term" 
to most parents in that situation....

The Family Leave Act would also allow people to take off some
time (I don't know how much) to care for ailing family members.
I believe this provision of the bill is a response to the fact
that many people of working age have aging parents, who may
need help from their grown children if they fall ill.  (It may
also be applicable to parents who have children in day care;
can anyone provide further details of the bill?)


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: help needed regarding termination of Bush
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 19:42:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa

Thus spake lputnam@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee P Putnam): 

>
>
>I need three short (one sentence) reasons why Bush should be terminated.
>
	1. He has violated his oath of office to protect the Constitution by
stating that atheists should not be treated as citizens, a violation of the
First Amendment.

	2. He has violated his oath of office to protect the Constitution by
supporting seizure laws which attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendment.

	3. He has violated his oath of office to uphold the laws of the
United States of America by actively soliciting the political support of
Federal employees in violation of Federal statues.

>I also need a list of three things that Clinton/Gore will do once elected. 
>
	1. Submit a balanced budget to congress.

	2. Repeal discriminatory laws which prohibit homosexuals from
military service.

	3. Negotiate international treaties designed to protect the
environment.

	Please notice that I provided specific reasons that Bush should be
terminated, not merely reasons to vote against him - a MUCH longer list.



-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to 
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the 
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Sep8.141847.24052@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:49:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.141847.24052@ultb.isc.rit.edu> cdl0915@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Christian Dylan Losinger) writes:
-> >I think that I am perfectly able, as most adults should be, to determine
-> >on my own what is Right and what is Wrong.  I can make that kind of
-> >decision perfectly well on my own (thankyouverymuch) for myself and for
-> >my kids, should I ever become a parent.  However, since I am not [insert
-> >the name of your favorite deity here], my opinions of "morality" should
-> >not be forced down the throats of other folks.  Isn't this exactly what
-> >one of our Presidential candidates is suggesting doing with the Family
-> >Rights (*gagg!*) plank in his party's platform?
-> >
-> 
-> 	It amazes me that George Bush isn't laughed off stage when he brings up
-> Family Values. I have yet to hear him or any of his party define in any way
-> what they mean by Family Values. I know what they Want to push onto us :
-> traditional, male-Christian straight and narrow-minded values, but I've yet to
-> hear them come out and say that.
-> 
-> 	What ever happened to tolerance and separation of church and state and
-> all that other stuff?
->         --------------------------------------------------------------
->         	c  h  r  i  s   l  o  s  i  n  g  e  r   r  i  t 

	You're mixing up religion with morality.  A religion generally
contains a system of morals, but the two are distinct. 

	The Family Values plank is not a base for legislation but is
an attempt to sway the mood of the country with promotion and
leadership.  Family values is the ethical responsibility toward
caring, raising, and supporting children that you were involved in
creating.  What can possible be wrong with that?

	One reason I think people have such a hard time with this is
because the news tends to throw the term around and leave the
definition to the individual.  A good imagination can come up with all
kinds of bad things it could mean.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Poverty
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:17:57 GMT


Following up my own post again:
>  The article to which you refer is by Mr. Rector of the Heritage
>Foundation (for those who missed my other post.)  I have since
>taken a closer look. :-)
>
>  You are correct in your assertion that Mr. Rector does ignore the
>other census bureau report.  However, to be somewhat fair to Mr. Rector, 
>he was taking issue with the specific report that claims that more
>than 30 million Americans live in poverty.  He (correctly from
>what I can tell) assumed that it is the 30+ million figure that
>the media would pick up on and took steps to counter it as the
>initial paragraph of his article indicates.  I have since heard enough 
>pundits conclude that 1 in 7 Americans are in poverty to decide that 
>Mr. Rector was not entirely out of line with his assumption.
>
>  While the second report (which you note) may get attention in
>such publications as the WSJ, it seems not to have made it to the
>national TV media from which many get their information (for better
>or worse.)
>

   I just picked up _The Chicago Tribune_.  Right on the front page
is a nice big graph telling me that 35.7 million Americans are in
poverty.  I think Mr. Rector's assumption that this report would
get more wide-spread media attention than the other Census reports
was justified.


Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5171 alt.news-media:1285 talk.politics.misc:45148
From: sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Budget Plan (was Re: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:39:54 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public and

In article <1992Aug31.175201.19107@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <17rm25INNcbe@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:

>
>>Clinton proposes to
>>rearrange spending on Human and phyisical capital, instead of defense,
>>entitlements, and other government waste. Investments in health, education and
>>research and development, on par with other developed nations, will hopefully
>>bring back productivity growth on par with those other nations.
>
>That's PRECISELY what we've been doing since 1990, only more so.  If
>"more" is such a great idea, then why has the mild version of that
>policy such a disaster?

A few points Andy,
First, government waste is up (regardless of what you think Clinton would do
you're implied assertion that government waste is down is wrong).  And don't 
blame it all on Congress--if you do then you're admitting that Bush is a
weak leader.  Second,
our investment in vital infrastrucure lags that of our competitors.  I assume
you understand the implications of that.  Investment in education may be high,
but it is not effective, and I don't think that tax credits are the answer--
especially for the poor.  Non-military R&D on a per capita basis does not match
that of either Germany or Japan.  And, even while you claim that what Clinton
proposes is already being done (which it isn't in any meaningful way), it
would still be too soon to see positive results.  Actually, it would probably 
get worse before it gets better as real restructuring would be painful.

I believe that there is now a cyclical component
and a structural component to our economic woes.  The cyclical will most 
likely improve as it is, well, cyclical.  However, I don't think that Bush's
plan addresses the structural elements in any viable way.  I expect that
we, under Bush's such policies, will over the long term be forced to work 
harder and get less for it as our economy adjusts too slowly to structural
changes in the world economy.


Steve Brener
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 04:03:42 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:

: Maybe I am.  I'm not telling.  Drug abuse is most common in the lower
: classes.  I do not wish to associate myself with them nor behave like 
: them and I think that any true American would do the same.  A lower-
: class life is no life at all.
: 
: May I assume you're some sort of communist?

May I assume you are some sort of elitist?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"We thought it was a joke when
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 he asked Dan to run."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Marilyn Quayle
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	

Marrou/Lord in '92

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4832 alt.rush-limbaugh:4545
From: jason@beta.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:09:49 GMT
Organization: EE Dept at UF

>|> More or less.  Does he not want to do away with existing health insurance |> companies?  Inaddition he will totally reshape the existing health care
>|> system.  Do you not see how even a slight manipulation of something so
>|> huge can reprocussions throughout the world?  These reprocussions will
>|> not be positive!  It will have a negative effect!

>	This is a totally inane argument. Clintons health care proposal
>	does not propose eliminating health car companies, if anything it would
>	create more of them through competition. Clintons health care plan is
>	spelled out in high detail, and you seem to have little knowelege of
>	any of it.

>		If you want to critisize Clinton, why don't you just post: 
>
>			"Clinton is a jerk! don't vote for him"
>
>			It conveys your attitude without exposing you in your ignorance.


I first am a little offended that anyone could derive "Clinton is a jerk! don't
vote for him" from my post.

Is greedy self-intersted parties that only benefit a select few.  Sure,
insurance companies are greedy, it is their nature to be in our economy.
But to think that only a few benefit is laughable.

It is my understanding that Clinton proposes a socialized medical plan.
That implies the government pays for it; rather income is redistributed
from those who pay taxes to those who go to the hospital/clinic.

If my above assumtions are incorrect please post or e-mail me a copy
of Clinton's health care proposal.  Where it explains in detail how
he is going to do this in his first humdred days!

...I still can't believe you got that impression from my post?!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman)
Subject: Re: THIS GOVERNMENT IS BEING RUN BY A BUNCH
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 06:03:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

bjcg2405@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (gn0tt) writes:

>garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman) writes:

>[stuff deleted]
>>I
>>took a course in high school in speed reading and read (not kidding!) at
>>over 10,000 words per minute with something like 75% comprehension.  
>[more stuff deleted]

>>	Gary

>Gary, if you are not schizophrenic, then you still have a serious problem.
>You are completely full of shit.  No crime here, though.

I am NOT lying, but the testing was screwed up, so that is what it said I
read at!  So I told the truth even though it was a sort of a fib.  I do
absorb stuff almost instantly though, and the part about my schooling is
correct.  I even went to the trouble of gettign it documented in case IL
would need it at a time like this!  

	Gary

-- 
Gary Stollman    Internet: garys@netcom.com     GEnie: G.STOLLMAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
          The world is your playground.  Keep it clean! 
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5591 alt.politics.bush:5258
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:07:21 GMT

In article <lasdquINNt4i@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>|> John David Altman) writes:
>|> > One of the original sources of the recent spate of "media bias" was Brit
>|> > Hume of ABC news, a regular tennis partner (or is it jogging partner) of
>|> > the president.  Then there is Thomas Friedman of the NYT, a good buddy
>|> > of James Baker.  And the MacNeil-Lehrer Administration Forum News Hour.
>|> >
>|> > In this era when the media think that the major requirement for carrying out
>|> > their job is to cultivate sources (cocktail party journalism), the
>|> > accusation of media bias is ridiculous.
>|> 
>
>As with all "hollywood elite" concerns, media bias is a non issue.  If people
>didn't agree with the bent of newscasters, they would watch something else.
>Buchannan has kept a job because there are a few people that like his bias.
>He just can't find enough listeners to get as broad a forum as others.
>-- 

Polls consistently show that, on most issues, the American public is pretty much
middle of the road, with a slight leftward tilt, when questioned ON SPECIFIC
ISSUES. For example, support for the continuation of Social Security is massive.
Also, support for some sort of National Health Insurance is also a sizable
majority. Ditto for abortion and other issues that tend to split along left/right
lines. Of course, if people are asked directly, 'Are you a liberal?', or
'Are you a socialist?', huge majorities answer 'no', having just professed their
support for these various liberal positions. The current phrase that describes
this is 'ideologically conservative, operationally liberal'.

The principal mass media consistently reflect this same 'bias', if the long-held
beliefs of the vast majority can be called a 'bias'. The problem that some
Usenetters have is that they are truly conservative - clearly to the right of
the majority - and to them, the media looks 'liberal'. As Peter Nelson and
others have pointed out at length, the mass media wouldn't be 'mass' if it
didn't have the approval of the majority. Other viewpoints are available
roughly in proportion to their occurrence in the population (e.g., National
Review).

Note, BTW, that this supposed 'liberal' media 'bias' hasn't prevented the
election of conservative Republican Presidents for the past 25 years or so...


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep6.181209.12231@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep6.214508.6895@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Sep7.154642.12539@athena.mit.edu>
	<AWERLING.92Sep7182057@dante.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Sep8.165805.833@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:11:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.165805.833@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:

   >- "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is 
   >- the most applicable thing I can think of at the moment.

   >That statement is a form of bashing.  Bible or no Bible, you cannot
   >separate homosexuality from the homosexual.  Hating the "sin" is
   >definitely the same thing as hating the "sinner."

   If that's true, then how can it be that the New York Catholic Archdiocese 
   was running hospices for AIDS patients and admitting AIDS patients to its
   hospitals at a time when other major New York hospitals were turning them
   away?

Because AIDS is a _DISEASE_. It effects people regardless of sexual
orientation.  

________  __
\      / /  \
 \pink/  \__          -+--+-               Scott Safier    (corwin+@cmu.edu)
  \  /      \  _  __   |  |                Center for Integrated Manufacturing
   \/    \__/ (__/\_)_/|_/|_/                                 Decision Systems
        B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++             Carnegie Mellon
member, T.S.A.K.C.

"I see a divine hand in this AIDS thing." Dr. John Wilke, President
                                          National Right to Life Committee
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4397 alt.politics.homosexuality:5789
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 13:38:45 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


|> On the other hand, his running mate Al Gore was a hero in Vietnam. 
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wasn't he just a military journalist?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:09:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <BuDA33.Hqw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>:   Hold it, hold it . . . *I'm* the one around here who usually cites
>:   Singapore, et al, as examples of successful Big Government economic
>:   policy that most free-market fanatics on the net are blissfully ignorant
>:   of.    Just for that, I'm going to mention a strong counterexample:
>
>But do you really _want_ to use Singapore as an example?

  Oh, yes, absolutely . . . 

>You know, that little country where there is a $500 penalty for not
>flushing a public toilet, and where they (are reported to) have installed
>cameras in, um, strategic locations to catch offenders.  :)

  . . . not to mention strict penalties for leaving chewing gum on
  subway seats.   Singapore is one of the most paternalistic nations
  on earth.   It's really soft-core fascism.

  The Economist ran a very interesting article on them and the other
  "Pacific Tigers" earlier this year.  They represent a phenomenon
  which is being *dangerously* ignored by conservatives, libertarians
  and other free-market advocates and I'd like to prompt more dis-
  cussion on it.

  The official free-market line on the collapse of communism was 
  that central planning doesn't work; people need/want individual
  liberty; eventually they'll rise up and demand it.  

  But what really killed communism was *poverty*.  The people could
  see how materially well-off the west was and that they weren't.
  What if you had a *prosperous* centrally-planned paternalistic
  society?   This is what Singapore is.  Singapore has a high, and
  rapidly growing standard of living.  They are currently installing
  the most modern telecommunications infrastructure in the world.
  They have a achieved remarkable peace between their formerly 
  fractious ethnic groups.  And according to the Economist, they,
  like other Asian Pacific rim nations consider the western pre-
  occupation with individualism and liberty to be a kind of peculiar
  affectation.  Even Japan is like this, just not quite as bad as
  Singapore.

  Free market advocates have been saying for years that this was not 
  possible; innovation and progress can only happen with the kind
  of individual freedom the west offers.  Now that is IS happening,
  free-market enthusiasts tell us that it's doomed to collapse; it's
  just a temporary aberration.  *Maybe* it is.  But if this bit of
  faith is misplaced then liberty-loving people are in trouble, be-
  cause nothing succeeds like success.  As the rest of the world
  sees the growing poverty, strife, and unemployment in US and EC
  and compares this with the growing prosperity of the Pacific
  Tigers, it becomes a cultural as well as an economic choice.
  

---peter



  
 
   
  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc