HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elwin@femur.ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:07:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

In article <1992Aug12.144139.10259@cs.cornell.edu>, allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
|> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
|> >In article <1992Aug9.062917.24910@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> >>
|> >>However, the major factor in health care costs remains *fear* of
|> >>malpractice suits. Unnecessary tests, second opinions, malpractice

[stuff deleted for brevity]

|> >  Has anyone else noticed that Bill "let's reform health care" Clinton
|> >  never mentions the overhead of tort mentioned above?  That's because
|> >  he's the American Association of Trial Lawyers  and the American 
|> >  Bar Association's buddy.  Bill (and Hillary) are against tort-reform
|> >  of any kind and as a result have been given very strong endorsements 
|> >  by both organizations.  How's that for "wanting to reform the system?" 
|> 
|> A recent issue of Consumer Reports debunked the myth that malpractice
|> costs are driving up health care costs.  Sure, there are malpractice
|> cases that go way beyond what is reasonable (or what seems reasonable,
|> at least).  But they're a rather minor portion of total costs.
|> 
|> I'm willing to look up the article if anyone's interested.  It's at
|> home, else I would do it right now....  :-)

I asked these questions of a guy I work with who is both a practicing
doctor, and a research professor. He said that yes, malpractice costs
are huge, but they pretty much stopped growing by the early eighties.
Meanwhile healthcare costs have continued to rise. He said some of the
cost growth is in fancy new procedures (e.g. CAT scans, MRI scans) and
a significant part is in insurance *overhead*. He said that *over 30%*
of your insurance payments go to administrative costs. I assume that
includes the cost of the MD's office filling out the reporting forms.

So any attempt to control healthcare costs is going to have to work on
both malpractice costs and administrative costs. That is why both Bush
and Clinton have proposals in both these areas.
							- Lee Campbell
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40925 talk.abortion:32732 alt.rush-limbaugh:3793 alt.politics.bush:2319 alt.politics.clinton:2395 alt.politics.elections:11112
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: There's every reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:16:59 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)

>>> What happens to the woman's rights if we decide to award rights to a fetus?

>> All human females would have the right to life.

> This does not answer the question asked.

It does answer the question if one believes that all human females
should possess the right to life.

>Larry Margolis


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: johnl@n3dmc.svr.md.us (John Limpert)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE: Aug. '91: Congress to Investigate...
Organization: N3DMC, Silver Spring, Maryland
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 23:05:59 GMT

Why are all of these articles from misc.activism.progressive being 
re-posted to talk.politics.misc?  Anyone who wants to keep up to date
on the socialist party line can subscribe to misc.activism.progressive.


-- 
John A. Limpert
johnl@n3dmc.svr.md.us
uunet!n3dmc!johnl
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: michel@netcom.com (Steve Michel)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 01:01:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Good post.

Reminds me of what a friend said the other day: "George Bush said in 1988 
that if I voted for Dukakis, the economy would go to hell, crime would go up,
and the deficit would grow. Bush was right -- I voted for Dukakis and look what
happened."
From: enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman)
Subject: The buck stops where?
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:25:42 GMT

Thus far in the campaign, George Bush has blamed Congress,
the press, and now his cabinet for his problems.  I find
it rather strange that someone who touts his ability to
deal with Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Kohl etc., can't handle
Tom Foley, Nicholas Brady and Richard Darman.  What a
weenie.

James L. Heilman
_________________
enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41204 alt.politics.bush:2465
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:22:07 GMT
	<Bt5zrG.HC6@chinet.chi.il.us> <1992Aug21.223140.14374@nwnexus.WA.COM>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jbrindle@halcyon.com's message of 21 Aug 92 22:31:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.223140.14374@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

> What I particularly love is Georgie Porgie blamine everything on
> everyone else!  Can't he take a little responsibility for things
> being what they are?  And if he thinks for one minute that we're
> going to turn the third branch of govern- ment over to him (he's
> taken over the SC), he's crazy, so, if he wants to be re-elected,
> he'd better be talking about working with a democratic congress,
> instead of blaming them.  He doesn't work and play well with others!

Actually, it is clear to me that Bush really doesn't have anything
much against Congress.  Note, after all, that all of this
anti-Congress stuff is quite recent; if Congress had been
systematically thwarting his alleged domestic agenda for years, then
why did he suddenly start blaming them now?

It is clear to me that Bush thinks that elections and governing are
unrelated activities, that every four years it is necessary to go
through a debasing ritual and then one can get back to normal
political life.  Furthermore, I think that Bush actually expects
everyone else to behave this way.  After the vicious 1988 election, he
seemed honestly surprised that other politicians didn't just
immediatly forget his behavior and work with him.  And if, by some
miracle, Bush actually does win in 1992, he will probably expect
Congress to forget everything that he's been saying about him in the
campaign, understand that it was just campaigning, as opposed to
anything anything he really belived, and immediately cooperate with
him.

Finally, it is reasonably clear to me why Bush suddenly started the
anti-Congress rhetoric: finally, in 1992, he has an opponent who can't
easily be smeared, so he looked around for someone other than Clinton
to run against.  Bush can read polls as well as anyone else, and he
saw that Congress was unpopular.  Viola!  An easy target.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41016 alt.politics.clinton:2442 alt.politics.bush:2361 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4719
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: faxes and other terror tactics
Date: 21 Aug 92 07:42:28 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Aug16.143053.27893@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

[lots of stuff deleted]

>Sure, and I have been called a Nazi... in fact, it is quite common for
>the Nazi allusion be used about conservatives. Look at the campaign
>to associate republicans with Nazi'ism through David Duke (who is, in fact,
>a NAZI, not a conservative).
>
>Come on... a few examples are not sufficient to characterize an entire
>group. Of course, there are a few right wingers who might call you
>a communist (although card carrying is sort of silly unless you show
>a card). There are left wingers who call me a Nazi.

How many netters out there realize that the term "Nazi" is short
for "National Socialist"? Just a tidbit.


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Another fantastic reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Clark University
Date: 21 AUG 92 15:39:54 GMT

In a previous article, dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
>In article <19AUG92.21584972@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
> 
>> So can we charge George Bush with neglect?  He is willfully withholding 
>> medical treatment from human beings with Parkinson's disease, diabetes and 
>> other painful and deadly conditions.  
> 
>That is a lie, President Bush supports fetal tissue research, but he 
>opposes using fetal remains from elective abortions.  

Tissue from elective abortions is much more useful.  Miscarried fetuses often 
have genetic or other defects that make their tissue unusable.

>> He knows that fetal tissue transplants can help these human beings, but 
>> appartently he hates human life so much that he'd rather throw away this 
>> material than use it to save lives.
> 
>The people who hate human life are those who are unwilling to  
>protect it in the first place. 
> 

I agree.  George Bush's unwillingness to help protect my father's life, and 
the lives of others like him, is disgusting. 

Even if you believe abortion is murder, hospitals often take tissues and 
organs from murder victims and use it to save or improve other's lives.  So 
why should this be any different?  The fetus doesn't need the tissue any more. 
Parkinson's and diabetes patients do.


                                .... Heather.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:11:34 GMT

ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>  Has anyone else noticed that Bill "let's reform health care" Clinton
>  never mentions the overhead of tort mentioned above?  That's because
>  he's the American Association of Trial Lawyers  and the American 
>  Bar Association's buddy.  Bill (and Hillary) are against tort-reform
>  of any kind and as a result have been given very strong endorsements 
>  by both organizations.  How's that for "wanting to reform the system?" 

Both Clinton AND Bush have that as part of their health care reforms.
They BOTH want Congress to pass laws limiting liability for
malpractice.  See today's (12 August) New York Times, front page
article.  It's actually a nice and concise summary of where the two
differ (and where they don't).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 19:38:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.150529.28323@cos.com> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1992Aug6.143005.13922@anasaz> scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug4.212007.634@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>>>What you call "the Occupied Territories" happens to be 
>>>smack dab in the center of Israel.  Most of Jerusalem is 
>>>in "the Occupied Territories".  Suburbs a short drive 
>>>outside of Tel-Aviv are in the "Occupied Territories".
>>>Where should Israel build new houses - on the Lebanese border?

>>Oh, I see.  I've been wondering where to put in those extra trees,
>>and how I could squeeze in a pool and guest house.  I should have
>>realized: In my _neighbor's yard, silly!

>Well, didn't we do this once ourselves - I believe it's called
>Texas and California now. :-)

There are some big differences.  While the American settlers used the
Might is Right method of claiming ownership, the Israeli settlers are
merely relying on common fairness.  

The original land of Palestine was the home for a very long time for
both Arabs and Jews.  The majority of this land became a state called
Jordan.  The great majority of Jordanians call themselves Palestineans
and many or most Palestineans are Jordanian.  Jordan now forbids Jews
from entering, not to mention residing, inside it.   

The much smaller portion is now called Israel and allows both Jews and
Arabs in it, and most everyone else, as well.  

The call to create a "Palestinean State" inside Israel is about as
reasonable and fair as the call to create a "White American
English-Speaking State" in most of Mexico adjacent to the current
border.  Israel isn't the "expansionist Imperialistic" state that Arab
propaganda portrays it as but is actually surrounded by Arab states
that deny that it has any right to exist and have battled to dismantle
it.  What they have thus far failed to do militarily they are now
trying to do politically, and the "oil weapon" (wasn't this Sheik
Yamani's term?) is a primary tool in this effort.

That James Baker and the White House don't get this doesn't surprise 
the oil-poor Israelis any more than their lack of concern surprises
oil-poor Yugoslavs or Somalis.  Shocking and painful truth, but still
truth. 

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com               Pat Paulsen for President
American-Occupied New York                    This year he has a real chance!
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:42:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.174255.16003@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Aug13.023553.20420@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>>>How come the only solution the Dems can come up with is blame
>>>Reagan/Bush and raise taxes yet again?
>>
>>Well, unfortunately, Kemp is not running for president (not yet,
>>anyway). So how does _Bush_ propose to alleviate the tax burden on
>>the poor? Does he think they'll benefit from a capital gains tax cut?
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Actually, the poor would benefit quite a bit from a capital gains tax
>cut.....  much more so than the rich.  Investment fuels the
>economic engine that creates jobs, creates prosperity, and creates
>opportunity for ALL to advance!
>
>
Indeed. The reason capital is fleeing overseas is not the spectre of
"cheap labor", as some like to think, but the desire to shelter capital
from historically stratospheric tax rates. Cheap labor alone is not the
answer, as Volkswagon found out in Brazil. And certain smaller industries
with low capital investments or with very short-lived capital are prospering,
even with high labor costs. Steel mills and similar industries are dying.
 
Note that Clinton wants to increase the tax on capital to further subsidize
what he thinks is the problem, insufficently developed human capital.
>--
>        --Ernie.Corley@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41206 alt.politics.elections:11236 alt.politics.clinton:2553 alt.politics.bush:2466
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: What kind of change do we want? (was Re: Bett
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:12:44 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Aug21.165953.26334@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.222440.27721@pony.Ingres.COM> reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:
>>If Bush thinks it's  time for a   change  then WHY  should  we reelect
>>*him*? Let's vote for a *real* change and throw the fucker out!
>
>But what kind of change do we want?
>Is Clinton's plans for yet another tax increase real change?
>His plans to increase spending are just more of the same.
>Clinton opposes the school-choice proposals supported by Bush.
>If you want greater change and reform in schools, Bush is your man.
>While Bush proposes a bold change to create a North American Free trade
>zone, Clinton waffles.  Now Bush, realizing the error of the 1990
>tax hike (note that Congressional Democrats are unrepentant there),
>is proposing new tax cuts along with spending caps.
>
>In other words:
>If you want the right kind of change, vote for Bush.
>If you want to lose your change ( :-) ), vote for Clinton.
>
>And while we are making changes, why don't we change the Democratic Congress?
>They have engaged in blatant partisan bickering, and have misruled for years.
>---
>Pat

Pat, Unfortunately everything you say applies to Bush, too.
I barely remember Kennedy, but I remember all since him quite
well. No matter what the candidates of either party say, nothing
REALLY changes very much when administrations change. What is
changing is the slow slide into a bottomless hole caused by the
deficit....

If Clinton is slick, then Bush is sneaky. Nobody is getting fooled
this time around, so don't act like the republicans are saints...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:10:03 GMT

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>In article <adams.713718210@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>>>>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>>>>ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>>>>tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>>>>dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>>>>plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>>>>platforms.
>>The same George Herbert Hoover Bush who renegged on his "Read My Lips"
>>pledge?  The same one who was Pro-Choice until he suffered a convention
>>conversion to be RR's running mate?  The same one who denied that we were
>>in a recession?  The same one who wants to outlaw abortion (except of
>>course for his own family)?
>Check out Al Gore's voting record. Up until a few years ago, he voted
>pro-life over 80% of the time. 

If you're voting based on the VP only, then fine.  Gore's still miles 
above Q (as in the *stupid* B/Q 92 signs at the convention, which I've
only watched on Leno).


------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- Why settle for anything less?--------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)| "If your so damned smart, why are
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |   you doing what your doing, and I'm
                                        |   president of the U.S.?" - G.Bush
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 07:09:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.040109.38620@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>> Here you have a problem.  The argument being considered is predicated on
>> the assumption that the fetus is a human being.
>
>The Model Penal Code, upon which many states base their criminal codes,
>defines "human being" as "a person who has been born and is alive."
>(Section 210.0(1))
>
>Does the argument now fall apart?  Or are you discussing moral rather
>than legal issues?

Larry, you are one of the more erudite members of this group so I will
simply answer without going into the history of this thread.  I'm sure
you will quickly get the drift.  We were not discussing any current
legal considerations.  This discussion dealt with the consistency of
arguments given certain assumptions.  Some have come into this in
midstream but this is not now and has not been a pro/con abortion
discussion.

Sincerely, (I mean it)

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 22:45:01 GMT

In article <4501@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>	God didn't destroy Adam and Eve after they ate of the forbidden
>fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

No, but He did kick them out of the "house"... :-)

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful
to ensure that the calculated objective of the communication does not become
ensconsed in obscurity.  Stated simply, it is invariably preferable to 
eschew obfuscation.                                           - Unknown

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate, ... things.         - VP Dan Quayle

If God had meant for us to vote, He would have given us candidates.  - Anon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:02:22 GMT

In article <16n43bINNh9h@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
>
>I think Mark Russell put it best when he noted that people who
>are pro-abortion are generally those who have already been
>born.
	And you know what's *really* amazing, William?  There are absolutely
no unborn people who are pro-choice!
	Also none  who are pro-life, unfortunately.  Null sets are like that.
>
>William F. Tell
>UC Berkeley
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: CLINTON BIRTHDAY GREETINGS!
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:52:38 GMT

In <92232.141002U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> Mary Jacobs <U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>(This information is posted for public education/information purposes.
>It does not necessarily represent the views of The University.)
>========================================================================

>IT'S BILL CLINTON'S BIRTHDAY TODAY!

>If you want to send him a personal greeting, send it to clinton@ai.mit.edu

>Could it be your post that makes his day and shows Bill how many Internet
>folks are out here?

>The Clinton/Gore Volunteer Internet Team

What on EARTH is he doing with an account at MIT's AI laboratory? Does
Marvin Minsky know about this???

-- 
Matt Marx       mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
"Too many hands on my time..." -- Peart


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41272 alt.activism:15279 misc.headlines:5853 sci.econ:7051