HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smcguire@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott McGuire)
Subject: Re: Deficit - can it be corrected?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 21:49:59 GMT

markr@mot.com (Mark) writes:

>>cap.  The typical American worker with a family paid $720 towards his/her
>>health insurance premiums in 1988.  Twenty-three percent had a deductible
>>of $200 or more; 76% had a deductible of $100 or more.  Only 5% had no
>>deductible.  86% had coinsurance of 20%, 5% had 15 percent, 6% had
>>coinsurance of 10%.  The only difference is that out-of-pcoket limits were
>>not adjusted for income.  49% had a maximum OOP expenses of $4,000 ore more;
>>81% had a maximum OOP expenses of 2,000 ore more.

>I would eliminate deductibles completely.  Deductibles create a situation
>where the patient pays a smaller percentage of costs as the patients costs
>go up.  I would prefer that the patient's percentage of costs remain the
>same until a very high limit. (i.e. 20% of the patients income)

>This would also be somewhat fairer.

>>The system of cost-sharing you describe has already been set up.  As
>>several economic studies show, most notably the Rand HIE, further cost
>>sharing beyond this level will have minimal impact of health expenditures.

>The current system of cost-sharing is NOT a complete system of cost sharing, there
>are all sorts of exceptions.  Examples include, people who have seperate 
>hospital and seperate medical plans (where the hospital plan may pay 95% with
>the other 5% covered under OCC - other covered charges of the medical plan),
>people with seperate drug plans, HMO membership where the patient pays only
>$2 - $5 per visit and $2 - $5 per prescription, etc...

>There are also people who are covered under more than one plan and can
>split the expenses between plans.

>Mark

I would suggest that people look at health insurance more like other kinds
of insurance.  Other kinds of insurance only kick in when something occurs
that you can't pay for.  For example, disaster insurance pays when a tornado
hits your house.  Disaster insurance does not pay 20% whenever you buy a new
house.  Most medical costs are like this, they are not disasters.  Remember
that insurance companies are profit seeking: they intend for you to pay them
more than they spend on you.  That means that most people would save money
most years without insurance.  Since this would be too risky (the year you
go without could turn out to be a bad one) people should get insurance 
that kicks in at a level just below the most that they can afford in a year.
A dollar more in deductibles usually results in more than a dollar decrease in
premiums.  People already pay for routine medical care (check ups, etc.) by
paying insurance premiums.  They would save money if they paid directly.

Scott McGuire
From: ywang1@husc8.harvard.edu (Yongkang Wang)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Infor Wanted!
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:53:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct16.125319.16446
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Hi,

I would like to contact a number of economists at the following institution for
academic reason. Does anyone know the domain name of the insTitutions:
 
   the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC
   the Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota,   
 
If you do, please email me. Thanks.

ywang1@husc8.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,alt.activism
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: (Re: Becker won the Nobel Prize?)
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:35:32 GMT

ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:

>>> Becker won the Nobel Prize.

>Isn't Becker the proponent of so called "Human Capital" theory? 

>I thought I read where that theory was admitted to be nonsense at
>the turn of the century by the people who put it forward then.

>I thought it is basically anti automation and pro having 
>fewer workers work harder,

>Rather than workers being able to produce more because they are 
>working with the most advanced machinery.

Where do you come up with this stuff?  It doesn't sound anything like
Becker's work at all.  If anything, Becker's work on human capital has
made economists more aware about the importance of training and
education for factory workers, and in the importance of matching
advanced technology with advanced skills for workers.

>P.S. Maybe there is a need for a People's Noble Prize for Economics
                                           ^^^^^
                                 Is the spelling change intentional?

Hmm.  I'm all for more ways for economists to get rewards.  What would
the criteria be for winning this prize?

--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Becker & Drugs (Re: Becker won)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:39:57 CDT


In article <Bw2C4C.DuE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
> Becker won the Nobel Prize.
> 
> Comments?

Does anyone know Becker's position on (illegal) drug legalization?

All I know about Becker is that he won the award for his research 
on market forces and its effect on individual decision making (which
I may have worded poorly) and he's from the U of Chicago so I suspect
that he recognizes the inherent failure of drug prohibition.

Side note:  It was sad to see the 3 candidates in the debate fall all
over themselves to proclaim their alegence to the War on Drugs.  It 
would have been interesting to have (Libertarian candidate) Marrou there 
to provide an alternative view...


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8018 talk.politics.theory:4471
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: 9 Oct 1992 03:02:39 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Sep27.051145.1277@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>Vote for Ross Perot at least as a protest

In article <BvB78F.Lo0@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>   Ross wants to raise my taxes.  So I'm not voting for him.

It's either Austerity, or Bankruptcy.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:36:57 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Deficit - can it be corrected?
 <1992Oct5.085151.11751@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <92279.092606DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Oct8.102219.1855@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>

In article <1992Oct8.102219.1855@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, markr@mot.com (Mark)
says:
>
>In article <92279.092606DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
More material deleted to save room>>>>Dennis
>>
>>This describes quite well the system we already have, except for the income
>>cap.  The typical American worker with a family paid $720 towards his/her
>>health insurance premiums in 1988.  Twenty-three percent had a deductible
>>of $200 or more; 76% had a deductible of $100 or more.  Only 5% had no
>>deductible.  86% had coinsurance of 20%, 5% had 15 percent, 6% had
>>coinsurance of 10%.  The only difference is that out-of-pcoket limits were
>>not adjusted for income.  49% had a maximum OOP expenses of $4,000 ore more;
>>81% had a maximum OOP expenses of 2,000 ore more.
>
>I would eliminate deductibles completely.  Deductibles create a situation
>where the patient pays a smaller percentage of costs as the patients costs
>go up.  I would prefer that the patient's percentage of costs remain the
>same until a very high limit. (i.e. 20% of the patients income)

Well, deductibles also restrain costs in the sense that they represent
0% coinsurance up until a dollar maximum.  The fact that most private
insurance contracts contain them testifies to the fact that they do
impact expenditures.  The Rand experiment found that a $150 deductible
reduced expenditures by 16%

>>The system of cost-sharing you describe has already been set up.  As
>>several economic studies show, most notably the Rand HIE, further cost
>>sharing beyond this level will have minimal impact of health expenditures.
>
>The current system of cost-sharing is NOT a complete system of cost sharing,
>there
>are all sorts of exceptions.  Examples include, people who have seperate
>hospital and seperate medical plans (where the hospital plan may pay 95% with
>the other 5% covered under OCC - other covered charges of the medical plan),
>people with seperate drug plans, HMO membership where the patient pays only
>$2 - $5 per visit and $2 - $5 per prescription, etc...

Despite exceptions, the truth of the matter is that Americans pay 20-25%
of their health care out-of-pocket.  What the economic data clearly show is
that you do not need a COMPLETE system of cost-sharing to reduce spending.
Most of the cost savings come as you increase the portion of the bill paid
from 0 to 25%.

>There are also people who are covered under more than one plan and can
>split the expenses between plans.

With coordination of benefits these days, insurance companies have practically
eliminated the possiblity of this happening very much.



Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: kansal@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Vinay K. Kansal)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Looking for GNP / GDP data at current and constant prices
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:04:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.Bvu37K.HJ4
Organization: Indiana University


I am looking for GNP / GDP data at current and constant prices for the USA
for the period 1929 to 1990. Any help in this will be highly appreciated.

please send your replies to :

Kansal@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:26:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1b2n4vINN5ue@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>In article <9298@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>>to inflate away the deficit.  Leading quite possibly to the collapse of
>>the current constitution.  Result would be similar to Germany, circa
>>1930's.
>
>I don't agree.  The result would be similar to the US in 1787 with the collapse
>of the Confederacy.  Namely, we will, in a bottom up process, by our own
>ingenuity, compromising spirit, come up with something even better, under the
>pretense of calling a convention to "fix" the current system.

  This sounds hopelessly naive and optimistic.  I mean, sure it *might*
  happen that way, but consider:

  1.  The US was certainly blessed by having an *extraordinary* set of
      political leaders, thinkers, and statesmen when it came time to 
      draw up a new constitution to replace the failed Articles of Con-
      federation and Perpetual Union.   Who do we have of that calibre
      today?

      1.b.  As evidence consider that similar events (i.e., collapse of 
            confidence in a government or currency) have occured hundreds, 
            maybe thousands, of times, in the two centuries since 1787
            around the world, and most of the time the result was civil
            war or dictatorship.  We were damn lucky in 1787.

  2.  The entire structure of the society, culture, and economy was
      different in preindustrial America than today.   Primarily there
      were functioning communities and social institutions that don't
      exist today.  In modern societies government fills these roles,
      whether we like it or not, and it would take years for alternatives
      to evolve, just as it took generations to reach the current state.
      So with government suddenly out of the picture the result would
      be chaos and massive human suffering.

  3.  There are 50 states today rather than the tiny number who had to
      agree together in 1787.  The process of forging a working consensus
      would take far longer.

                                

---peter


Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Perot's Economic Figures - TV
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:34:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.114158.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> trevizo@fnalf.fnal.gov writes:
>Hi,
>
>Did anyone watch Perot on TV last night (Tuesday)?
>
>Perot made the last 12 years (Reagan and Bush) look like the downfall of 
>America.
>
>He showed employment figures, deficit figures, growth figures, you name it.
>The figures sure didn't make us look good.  Is he right?
>
>I guess many will disagree with his figures.  Many more will disagree with 
>the causes Perot implied.
>
>My opinion is that at the end, Perot's arguments will only help Clinton.

A lot of us are making the mistake that Perot is running to hurt or help
one of the other candidates.  What we must realize is that he is in the
race to win it, and in order to win it, he must take votes away from both
Bush and Clinton.

Mark
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Nobel Prize for what?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:06:29 GMT

My newspaper said that the Nobel Prize was awarded for proving that
economic considerations are important for "everyday decisions like
marriage."  Not only is this a silly description (is marriage an
everyday decision?), but it isn't close to the human capital issues
that were discussed here.

Can someone provide a reasonably intelligent laymans description of 
the work that led to the prize?
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8062 comp.ai.neural-nets:3866
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Re: Papers using Neural Nets in Economics?
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 11:44:35 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <3mNFsB3w165w@netlink.cts.com>

jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
: Try Halbert White at UCSD.
: 
: He is one of the leaders in the NN field and he is an economist.

So is he very rich, or not? :-)
andrew palfreyman
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8069 alt.amateur-comp:94 alt.activism:17365 comp.misc:3950
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,alt.activism,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:50:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T

>>> >Any suggestions who will or should win the Nobel prize for economics
>>> this time?  
>
>
>And I am proposing that because people wanted to participate in Usenet
>there was an incentive to develop nets like the internet.
>
>I am proposing that the prize belongs to the pioneers of Usenet.
>
>             
>(And it's interesting that though the grassroots movement of the 
>Homebrew Club in Silicon Valley developed the personal computer,
>IBM is most often given the credit by the mass media - similarly
>it seems that there is now an effort to distort the achievement
>of the grassroots movement who created usenet and give the credit
>to the U.S. military. This is how the historical record is distorted
>so that the role of the unsung pioneers is never acknowledged.)
>  

Hmmm, so the Nobel Prize for Economics should be awarded for
the development of Usenet.  Interesting, it has nothing to do
with economics, but then again it is in keeping with the
general ability of the net to maintain it focus on a subject.

Have fun,
Rich Soyack
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,alt.activism
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "Bozo" Horne")
Subject:      RE:  THE ONLY WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT!
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 20:59:07 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA22160; Wed, 7 Oct 92 20:05:02 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA22178; Wed, 7 Oct 92 20:02:07 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 0071; Wed, 07 Oct 92 21:00:48 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 7421; Wed, 07 Oct 92 21:00:48 MST
X-To: sci.econ.usenet

From: s462075d@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: THE ONLY WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT!
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:36:04 GMT
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

>All this talk on inflating the debt is just showing what the world seems
>to think of us here in America, that we're lazy and irresponsible!

    yep

>We made the debt, and want it to vanish overnight. Not gonna happen.

    yep

>There will be no quick soloution, but with determination, the debt could
>be paid off by 2010-2020.


      ahhh....  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      Most Excellent Joke, chum!
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Economic Democracy
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 10:10:52 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

dcaulkins@igc.apc.org (Dave Caulkins) writes::
>Economic Democracy *
>
>"He who pays the piper calls the tune." - proverb
>
>  D. Caulkins                                       10/7/92
>
>The concept is simple and compelling - US taxpayers should be
>given the right to 'vote' on how their tax dollars are spent.
>
>Economic democracy might work like this.  With the forms mailed
>to each tax payer would be included a list of major US Government
>budget line items and the amounts spent on them in the previous
>year.  The tax payer would indicate on his or her yearly tax
>return the percentage of tax dollars to be spent on each budget
>line item.  The IRS computers would calculate cumulative
>percentages across all tax returns to produce percentages of
>total tax revenues that could be spent on each budget item. 
>Congress and the President would be required to follow these
>tax-payer-selected spending percentages. 
 
2 enhancements and 1 pragma:
 
Enhancement 1:
 
Allow proxy voting -- in other words, you can turn some percentage(s)
of your vote over to some person(s) or group(s) which you trust to
make decisions on your behalf.  This should be recursive.
 
Enhancement 2:
 
Allow the "line items" to include essentially ALL public-benefit
nonprofit corporations.  The IRS (under the executive branch) and the 
courts would be the point of detailed arbitration, as they are at
present, over who qualifies as public benefit.
 
A pragmatic suggestion:
 
Focus any national energies in this direction to an experiment at a
state or local level first.  Alaskans is pretty individualistic and
might provide the political support needed for that state.
 

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Perot's Economic Figures - TV
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:43:05 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada

In article <92283.083434DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.132759.9489@bnr.ca>, bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) says:
>
>>Yes, it was definitely a political speech.  For example, he discussed
>>infant mortality, something that is beyond the focus of
>>mainstream economics.  Further, as you rightly point out, there was no
>>attempt to present a balanced case.  Finally, it was part of a political
>>campaign.
>
>While I agree that it was a political speech (hey, it's a political job,
>not an economic job), I'll take issue with your statement that infant
>mortality is "beyond the focus of mainstream economics".  Health economics
>is one of the fastest growing fields in economics.  If you consider applied
>micro as "mainstream" and infant mortality as one of the key dep. var.
>in health economics, one of the fastest growing applied micro fields,
>then I think you're incorrect in making infant mortality "beyond the focus."
>

Point well taken.

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.
From: jke2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Joselito K. Estrada)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:02:12 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

wattsj@mace.cc.purdue.edu (John Watts) writes:

>In article <PUP7ABT@mailgzrz.tu-berlin.de> wich1820@ww.tu-berlin.de
>(Thorsten Wichmann) writes:
>>Any suggestions who will or should win the Nobel prize for economics this 
>time?  

>having been associated with the university of chicago for 5 of the last 6 
>years, i guess i should have this burned into my brain already, but i 
>don't ...

>would someone list the past winners ?  a week ago, i made a prediction, 
>which was a bit embarrassing in that my "candidate" had already won :-)

>john watts
>krannert school of management, purdue university

>p.s. of course i know the past chicago-associated winners ... they're written
>on the floor of ida's cafe ...

Nobel Prize Winners in Economics

1969  Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen
1970  Paul Samuelson
1971  Simon Kuznets
1972  Kenneth J. Arrow and John R. R. Hicks
1973  Wassily Leontief
1974  Gunnar Myrdal and Friedrich A. von Hayek
1975  Leonid Kantorovich and Tjalling C. Koopmans
1976  Milton Friedman
1977  Bertil Ohlin and James Meade
1978  Herbert Simon
1979  Sir Arthur Lewis and Theodore W. Schultz
1980  Lawrence R. Klein
1981  James Tobin
1982  George J. Stigler
1983  Gerard Debreu
1984  Richard Stone
1985  Franco Modigliani
1986  James Buchanan
1987  Robert Solow
1988  Maurice Allais
1989  Trygve Haavelmo
1990  Merton Miller, William Sharpe, and Harry Markowitz
1991  Ronald Coase 

As to the winner for 1992, according to a New York Times article back in Oct.'87 it is anyone's guess...they do hold Mancur Olson in high regard and have said
that Coase had a good chance of winning (due to his advanced age...I guess).


--
Jojo Estrada
Department of Agricultural Economics
Mississippi State University
jke2@Ra.MsState.edu