HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Bill Garland)
Subject: Re: Palestinian collaborators
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:00:03 GMT

In article <1728700003@igc.apc.org>, Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org> writes:
> 
> Palestinian collaborators A Report by Jerusalem Post  of August
> 29, 1992 (excerpts)

Why is this here? If I want to read talk.jewish.politics , I can go find
a newsgroup. Stop wasting our time.

Same for next 3 postings. Who the hell is the Center for Policy Research
and how can we prevent these postings in the future?

|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| If we had an index file, we could   | In fact, except for protecting |
| look it up in the index file under  | individual rights, no valid    |
| "Index File".                       | reason for government exists." |
|           -- Tegan in "Castrovalva" |      ... Dr. Frank Wallace     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bill Garland = bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca |Commercial : Send me your money.|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:58:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.142736.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:
}   Face it. Many Americans are ashamed of the `dismal performance' of
}   the health care mess because that is what they have been lead to
}   believe. Are there any Americans out there who have had NHS
}   treatment? Where do the others get their information?

Yep.  And I hear it's SOP for these foreigners to be moved to the head of
the line to provide good word-of-mouth for statist medicine when they
return home.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:28:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.185954.19681@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>
}>Yep.  And I hear it's SOP for these foreigners to be moved to the head 
}>of the line to provide good word-of-mouth for statist medicine when they
}>return home.
}
}Most Canadians are glad that their insurance will cover them when they
}have to come to the more-populous United States for highly specialized
}treatment.

Am I the only one who can't figure out the relevance of this?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.medicine:405 sci.med:22860
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Prenatal AIDS vaccine trials
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 19 Dec 92 08:33:52 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20Lines: 42

This article appreard in the HARTFORD COURANT on Saturday, Dec19, with a byline
attributing it to Frank Spencer-Molloy, COURANT medical writer.  It is retyped
here (in part) w/out permission, because I am extremely interested in
net.readers's opinions of what seems (to me) to be fairly shoddy science &
fairly suspect ethical questions w.r.t. human research subjects, all rolled
into one:

==============================================================================
	PREGNANT WOMEN TO BE VACCINATED IN PEDIATRIC AIDS TRIAL IN STATE

	In what could be a first not only for AIDS research but for medical
research, scientists are about to begin trials of vaccines in pregnant women in
hopes of protecting their newborns.
	As early as next month, researchers at Yale and the University of
Connecticut medical schools will open the first of six federally sponsored
inquiries into whether three genetically engineered AIDS vaccines are safe. 
The other five trials, to take place nationwide, will test the safety of the
vaccines in newborns and other children.
	In Connecticut, 24 pregnant women who are HIV-infected will be enrolled
in a study of the gp160-class vaccine made by MicroGeneSys Inc. of Meridan. 
The tests will be done in the state because last year, the General Assembly
enacted a law protecting the company against lawsuits.
	Giving vaccines to pregnant women is virtually uncharted territory. 
Although scientists believe the risk is extremely small, women generally are
not vaccinated against any disease while pregnant for fear of causing disease
or birth defects in the fetus.
		<much omitted; it is a fairly long article>
=============================================================================

Now, as I recall, only something like 30% of babies born to HIV+ women are, in
fact, born with maternally transmitted HIV infection.  The other (roughly 2/3 -
3/4 over all) babies born to HIV+ mothers are not HIV-infected at birth.
Doesn't this little fact (i.e., that fewer than half of all infants born to
HIV+ mothers will be HIV-infected at birth) put both the science and the ethics
of this hasty little trial into serious question?  Curious about net.opinions
about this.



------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:59:54 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>Yep.  And I hear it's SOP for these foreigners to be moved to the head 
>of the line to provide good word-of-mouth for statist medicine when they
>return home.

Most Canadians are glad that their insurance will cover them when they
have to come to the more-populous United States for highly specialized
treatment.  Sometimes, the doctor is also a Canadian for whom the
small population base cannot sustain steady work (my MD friends tell
me that "experimental" procedures are a buzzword for operations that
specialists can't do often enough to have fully understood and become
just standard operating procedure).  This weekend, Mary-Jo Butafuocco,
the shooting victim of "Long Island Lolita" Amy Fischer, was jetted
out of our metro New York area of over 10 Million to Cedars-Sinai in
Southern California (15 Million).  Our densest area is Southern
Ontario, 6 Million (half in Toronto, the other half in "Northern
Exposure") in an area much bigger than Michigan.

The French and Germans, with the same insurance system as Canada,
don't have to travel 'cos they have huge populations packed into 
smaller areas.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:11:22 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

   In article <92351.101620DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> 
> The arguments of libertarians about the removal of legal restrictions
> IMHO fails to address either the underlying distortions or the
> possibility that the legal restrictions may, in fact, reflect consumer
> desires.  Tony asked a questions a while back on whether a fully informed
> consumer should be allowed to contract with any medical provider (I think
> I have that right).  Tony chided me for my answer, when, in fact, I think
> he misunderstood it.  How can a consumer be fully informed, when the actual
> transaction that takes place between the consumer and the provider is
> information (about the condition, about the productivity of various
> alternatives, etc.)?

   Dennis. You are off dancing with another straw man again.
   Actually, I said, "Assume that I, as an informed, rational
   being..." - nothing about being `fully informed'.

   As a physicist, I can tell you that `complete information' just
   cannot be obtained, so any pretense of being `fully informed' is a
   fiction.

   On a practical level, if `fully informed' is to be made a criteria
   for economic transaction, how can _anyone_ be allowed to buy
   _anything_ unguided? I certainly wouldn't claim to be `fully
   informed' when I bought my car - I'd have had to strip the damn thing
   down first!

   In the real world, people can and do make decisions based upon
   incomplete information. They have no choice in the matter.

   The key words in my question were "informed" (meaning that I at
   least have _something_ upon which to make a judgement) and
   "rational" (meaning that I am capable of using that information in
   a reasonable way).

   In any case, the information I need to make the decision on whom to
   select as my HC provider is _not_ the information that I hope to
   obtain - I think that perhaps you are trying to generate a logical
   paradox!

Tony Cox, Stanford, CA
From: Stefan.M.Gorsch@dartmouth.edu (Stefan M. Gorsch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Objections to National Health Plan (Was: HIAA and Reform)
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:34:37 GMT
 <50392@shamash.cdc.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <50392@shamash.cdc.com>
rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:

> The fact that it works rather well in Canada, in France, in Germany,
> in Great Britain, in Sweden, etc.  In fact, all industrialized countries
> except the USA and South Africa enjoy some form of national health
> care system.  All of them spend a lower percentage of GNP than the
> USA and have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality.  In
> all of these countries the population is much more satisfied and
> less concerned with their health care system than Americans are.

I know I'm entering this debate somewhat late but I cannot abide
another vacuous recitation of life expectancy/infant mortality rates as
evidence in support of the need for medical reform in this country. The
reasons that many Western nations have better infant mortality and life
expectancy stats are fundamentally social NOT medical. Death by violent
crime or automobile is far more common in this country than in Sweden
or even Canada for that matter. Similarly, infant mortaility is higher
than need be because of mothers who smoke, drink and/or use drugs while
pregnant; anyone who has worked an inner city Emergency Room or
Obstetrics Department knows this. These facts in conjunction with major
epidemiliogic differences account for our so-called poor showing in
international rankings. However, if you were to be shot,involved in an
automobile accident or to deliver a premature infant you would on
average receive medical care in the US that is far superior to that
which is generally made available to citizens of other western nations.
I don't believe that one can claim with validity that these represent
failings of the US MEDICAL system, rather they reflect inherently
social problems. If you adhere to a political philosophy which mantains
that these social ills are readily remediated with governmental
financial intervention (& I'm not), then you might be able to argue
that some of the money spent on US healthcare should be reallocated to
Social Welfare programs. This must be done, however, with an
acknowledgement that it will be accomplished only be LOWERING overall
healthcare benefits; in effect a quid pro quo exists in which putative
benefits obtained by cutting medical expenses to support social welfare
programs come at the cost of reducing the generally available level of
health care.


stefan.m.gorsch@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:03:48 GMT

In article <50389@shamash.cdc.com> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:

About Tony Cox:

}you obviously
}are only able to think about yourself and your narrowly defined self-
}interest, you can't understand that someone would care about the fate
}of the poor, the elderly, and the ill.

I've followed this debate.  Rene hasn't a shred of evidence upon which to
base this claim.  I think I know Tony better, and I don't know if he has
such vaunted compassion or not!

But I do know an insulting, pretentious, fallacious attack when I see one,
and this fits the bill.

Rene Valdes, Tony probably doesn't need me to fight his battles, so I'll
pick a bone with you of my own: you just dragged your own credibility into
the mud with this shit.  You're a moral imperialist, arrogant enough to
think that none can permissibly dissent from what you dictate to be the
politically correct expressions of compassion and support for the needy.
There may be good arguments to be made in opposition to libertarian
proposals for medical policy, but you don't seem to have a chance in hell of
every getting one into your thick skull.

}I know of poor people who did not have health insurance
}and were denied attention at various hospitals to be finally admitted
}at a public hospital when it was too late.  The treatment at this
}place was more expensive than it would have been if started earlier
}and did not succeed to save their lives.  And you know what?  You,
}Tony Cox, I, and our fellow taxpayers ended up paying MORE for this
}useless treatment when we could have save these people for less money
}if they only had had coverage to get medical attention as soon as 
}they really needed it.

Which is why we libertarians support private charity for the needy.

}Fortunately, the American people are sick and tired of the health care
}crisis and have elected a president who is committed to do his best to 
}take care of it.  Under the Clinton administration, a health care plan 
}that meets the needs of the American people will become a reality.  I 
}will continue to do my best for this to happen sooner rather than later.

Feh.  If this is what you honestly believe, you're not only incapable of
reasoning validly, but bloody naive as well.  I can't wait until Billary's
got either you socialists or the centrists who elected him (by a mere
plurality - so much for any "mandate"!) after his blood :-)!

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:48:45 GMT

In article <92349.194344DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

}I think part of the problem is that you and other libertarians believe
}that a free market, in the sense of no government involvement, could
}exist.

And you don't?  I've never heard that from an economist before.  Why not?

I look at the current system and see that many of the
}problems result from elements (asymmetry of information, adverse selection,
}decision-making under uncertainty) which would exist whether or not the
}government intervened or not, even if the latter were possible in practice.

None of which refutes the possibility of laissez-faire.  The libertarian
economic argument I'm aware of doesn't deny these possibilities, but merely
argues that the State only tends to make things worse.  Where have you
known any utopian claims that everything would be perfect if only we
smashed the State?

}You, on the other hand, compare the current state to some idealized,
}nonexistant free market can conclude that government is the problem.

I haven't done this, nor has Tony.  We've never claimed that a libertaria
would be a perfect utopia.  There's a good reason that "utopia is not an
option" is a classic libertarian slogan.  Actually, this is the classic
method of argument of socialists: compare "actually existing capitalism"
to allegedly possibly socialist utopias; never "actually existing socialism"
to "maximal capitalism."


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:40:35 GMT

In article <92349.073208DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
}>}>   o - Drug licensing, FDA, etc. etc.
}>}
}>}Less than 10 percent of national health expenditures
}>
}>Including opportunity costs?
}
}You have the complete data on all costs including opp. costs for all
}aspects of health care?  If not, then you are just playing games.

An honest request for information is now game-playing?  What have I done
to earn such disrespect from you?

}>}Tony, I know the history of American health insurance.  Go back before
}>}Medicare.  Go back before the IRS ruling on tax deduction.  When have
}>}private health insurers ever shown themselves able to provide a product
}>}which provides significant risk reduction to a large portion of
}>}the population at reasonable cost?
}>
}>Definitions of "significant," "large," and "reasonable," please?  Their
}>justifications?
}
}The thread is discussing whether or not private health insurance can
}and does work.

And if we leave "work" undefined, then opponents of private health insurance
can merely answer any claims with implicit redefinition of their terms, as
is done all too often on the net.  Establishing the criteria beforehand
would prevent this regression.

}>When in doubt for an example of laissez-faire, try Hong Kong: I don't even
}>know if Hong Kong has laissez-faire in health insurance, does anyone else?
}
}Hong Kong, I believe has an NHS type system, but I am not sure of that.

I'll try to find out.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Palestinian collaborators
Date: 12 Dec 92 13:28:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1728700003:cdp:1728700006:000:366
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cpr    Dec 12 05:28:00 1992


Here is center for Policy Research.
Due to an error in posting, some topics destinated for
talk.politics.mideast
were posted to:   talk.politics.midea
and the network posted them to the next conference: talk.politics.medicine
without informing me.
If someone would know how to delete the current topic, I would be happy.
Soory for the inconvenience.
Elias Davidsson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 12:54:54 GMT

In article <50388@shamash.cdc.com> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:
}|>    My advice is start saving now for those higher insurance
}|>    premiums which come with old age, and find a health plan which
}|>    wont deny you insurance when you become ill.
}
}This is a hopeless proposition.  Nobody (except for the very rich) can 
}save enough to guarantee that they can cover all the premiums and all
}the out of pocket expenses they might be stuck with if they become
}seriously ill.  
}
}Fortunately, our president-elect Clinton, the HIAA, and now the AMA all 
}disagree with you and have acknowledged that we must provide universal 
}coverage for all Americans in a way that each individual can rely on it 
}throughout their lives.

Here we have the great welfare-statist contradiction: no one can afford
the free market, so we must have statism.  How statism will make us able
to afford the same costs is left unexplainable.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:17:51 GMT

In article <92350.115323DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
}In article <1992Dec15.094035.28683@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) says:
}>
}>In article <92349.073208DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
}>}>}>   o - Drug licensing, FDA, etc. etc.
}>}>}
}>}>}Less than 10 percent of national health expenditures
}>}>
}>}>Including opportunity costs?
}>}
}>}You have the complete data on all costs including opp. costs for all
}>}aspects of health care?  If not, then you are just playing games.
}>
}>An honest request for information is now game-playing?  What have I done
}>to earn such disrespect from you?
}
}Sorry, Tim but no one, to my knowledge, has published a complete
}estimate of the opportunity
}costs of different health care systems.  When you asked if the figure I
}gave included opportunity costs, I assumed that either you had some knowledge
}of these data that has not been published or were yanking my chain.

My understanding is that most cost-benefit analyses omit opportunity and
compliance costs, leading to very skewed results.  I wanted to point out
the possibility that this may be the case here, and to see if anyone knew
of any work that had been done in this area, even partial.

}>And if we leave "work" undefined, then opponents of private health insurance
}>can merely answer any claims with implicit redefinition of their terms, as
}>is done all too often on the net.  Establishing the criteria beforehand
}>would prevent this regression.
}
}Tony wants me to define "private market" and you want me to define "work".
}Who am I, Mr. Webster? :)

If you'd seen the exchange I've had with a positivist who keeps the definitions
of his terms secret until you've claimed to have met them, then springs his
actual meaning upon you in refutation (on talk.politics.theory), you'd know
why I wanted to avoid this.

}Seriously, by "working", I would be happy to use a definition that relied
}on consumer satisfaction.  Most studies that ask consumers if they are happy
}with their health insurance coverage find widespread dissatisfaction.  That
}will be my first shot.  Go ahead and clarify it if you want.

How far back in history does customer satisfaction polling go?  Not very
much prior to WWII, I'd guess.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire