HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Efficiency of Medicare
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:33:02 GMT

In article <93025.201523DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <93023.181826DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>
>Found it.  According to an article by Ken Thorpe, the HCFA budget
>associated with Medicare is approx. 250 million, making Medicare's
>total admin costs far below the United Way.  For those of you interested
>in some facts, you might also want to check out a recent article in
>the Health Care Financing Review discussing admin, costs in various
>countries.

       What I guess I was asking and failed to explain it very well
(and if this article goes into it I'll take a look at it) but basically
when it was said that 95% of medicare taxes went to recipients, I
wondered A) does Medicare draw it's operating fund from medicare taxes
(as a private charity would draw its operating funds from money collected)
or from another Federal government money pool, and B) if so, what is
the ratio between those costs and that 95% which apparently reaches
who it is supposed to.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (Mail to VEAL@utkmv1 will bounce)
University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Division of Constinuing Education
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite government program."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Libertarian freedom quiz Was: Re: Libertarians
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:06:44 GMT

In article <C17vyu.B9n@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

OK, I'm Libertarian, I'll take the quiz.

|> O.K. then since the "Libertarians" have asked for a quiz perhaps they could
|> defend US involvement in third world regimes which oppress human rights. What is
|> the "Libertarian" position on the air strikes in Iraq?

They are wrong.

|> Specificaly is the UN
|> entitled to determine the borders of countries and is the movement of the
|> Kewaiti border 1/2 Km into former Iraqui territory valid in terms of property
|> rights? 

No.

|> If the answer is yes is it nevertheless a good idea to do something
|> which may be used as casum belli in the future?

Its an insane idea.

|> Easier topics, is the US govt entitled to tap the phones of its citizens within
|> its borders? 

Absolutely not.

|> Is it entitled to tap the phones of it's citizens in other
|> countries? 

No again.  Non-U.S. citizens have a right to privacy too.  Even you Phill.

|>If not is there any circumstance in which it is permissible for the
|> government to tap a phone?

Nope.  You don't have to testify against yourself.


Did I pass?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69707 alt.pagan:15833 talk.religion.misc:27525 talk.abortion:57866
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:34:56 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>Speaking as one who has been baptized, had comunion, and been confirmed
>(gak), 
Ditto...but that was a lifetime ago...

>I can say plainly that I don't know any catholics and never have
>that actually think too long on that old line about transubstantiation.
In fact, in a recent study, more Lutherans believe in transubstantiation
than do Roman Catholics in America...and Lutherans are supposed to believe
in consubstantiation (ie Christ is *with* the bread & wine).

>I mean, it TASTES like a cracker, for God(tm)'s sake!  How the HELL is
>this going to be someone's flesh?  
How?  Remember that the host retains the 'accident' of bread and the blood
retains the 'accident' of wine.  Not that I beleive it.

>Again, most catholics don't taste the wine more than about three or four
>times; I add to my two only because I've seen married couples who get
>hitched in a mass drink the wine.  Generally, the priest drains the
>whole chalice. 
One of Luther's list of complaints about the Roman Church...and something he
changed...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: A Republican's thoughts on Baird
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:44:17 GMT


I guess you have to watch what you wish for.  In the past month, I've been
hoping for some revenge for past unfair treatment of Republican cabinet
members and nominees.  Unfortunately, it looks like the one that didn't make
it is the one I would have wanted to be confirmed.  Once you accept the fact
that Clinton will nominate Democrats, Baird doesn't look like a bad choice.

So she's a criminal.  She didn't break any laws I respect.  Clinton may be a
hypocrite for nominating her, but I disliked and distrusted him before the
Baird hearings.

I feel like I did when Ginsberg withdrew his nomination because the media
revealed that he had smoked marijuana (another law I don't respect).  It's
been amusing watching the role reversal, but I must wonder if this is
really the best way to run our government?

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Congratulatoin, Bill-Bots!
X-Xxdate: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:49:53 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d15
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:53:49 GMT

In article <1k7b3nINNipd@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Broward Horne,
an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>        Congress has NO choice.  They HAVE to raise taxes.
>        NONE.  It was inevitable, no matter WHAT Clinton said.
>        We;h'll see spending cuts too, but only nominal ones, and
>        only on those constituencies who can't defend themselves.
> 
>        I'm a-hoping and a-praying they DO pass the "Pay or Play"
>        health care plan.   It will rapidly evolve into the 
>        " Pay or Play or Don't Stay " health care bill. 
> 
>        The Family Leave Bill will trash THOUSANDS of jobs.
> 
>        here, some free info:
> 
>            There's probably still time to sell your house,
>       and get your assets out of the country.  Congress is 
>       pretty out-to-lunch now, and won't notice the capital
>       fleeing until a year or two after it starts.
> 
>            Uruguay - Nice climate, culture which stresses
>       education, pretty non-violent, they've already gone
>       through their "freebie and subsequent junta" phase.  
> 
>           Their baby-boom won't bust until around 2030 or so,
>       so their current SS system should be okay.  

I give up. I will no longer respond. You guys are getting too
wierd, too bitter, too vacuous,
and too paranoid to debate with. What happened to all you conservatives
who could actually debate without drooling?

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69188 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13469 alt.rush-limbaugh:14806 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:190 talk.religion.misc:27241
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Interesting Point
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:20:20 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

>        Too late, Attended a required meeting for all "candidates" to the
>        school of education, to hear a new-age psychologists talk to us
>        about education being a spiritual experiance.  Sounds like some
>        type of religion to me.

If I were a teacher in a school, and I was telling my students about
a trip I had taken to the Grand Canyon, and how I had sat on the rim
and watched the sun go down, and that I had found it to be a 
very spiritual experience, would I be teaching religion?   Which religion?

I could have seen God in the fine tuned mechanism of the world.
I could have been communing with the Anasazi.
I could have achieved satori.
I could have been thinking about the nuclear fusion of the sun.
    (scientists can get very spiritually and physically moved by such things)
I might have been drinking a fifth of spirits (smile).

I think that merely identifying something as a spiritual experience
is not the same as teaching a religion, unless you are talking about
an experience with a setting, place, or icon which is exclusive to one
religion.  The grand canyon isn't.  The Vatican is unique to Roman
Catholicism.   Many Catholics have derived spiritual inspiration
from natural settings,  but darned few Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and
Secular Humanists have had inspiration (except, mayhaps to anger)
from the Vatican.

I feel that education is pan religious, and so describing education as
spiritual in and of itself is not promoting any religion.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:50:35 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Media Coverage (Re: CNN bias
 <randall.727493157@seashore> <C18Mpx.Gzr@ns1.nodak.edu>
 <1993Jan22.053408.16056@pony.Ingres.COM>
 <ATAYLOR.93Jan24150646@gauss.nmsu.edu>

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan24150646@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) says:

  [when asked for examples of the evil liberal media coverups]

>        Zoe Baird is guilty of a Federal FELONY; she and her husband
>        properly should be indicted and tried on Federal Tax Fraud
>        charges; if she was a Bush appointee-to-be, the "unbiased"
>        media would have been demanding same (remember John Tower?).
>        Instead, every news story I've seen or read has been
>        utterly sympathetic.

Uh, and what parallel universe is YOUR news broadcast from?

I read the New York Times (and often other papers) and generally catch a lot
of CNN, as well as random network news, and their attitude towards Zoe Baird,
once the "scandal" had come out fully, was almost universally hostile. There
were columns and columns of stories in the NYT attacking Baird, for example.

Quite frankly, I think you're talking through your hat. Your assertions
look quite baseless from here.

     "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
   DISCLAIMER: Penn State University cares about my money, not my opinions.
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Shocked Beyond ALL BELIEF!!!!!
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:37:27 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <2519@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, Michael Stroucken writes:
>So what do the prostitutes in Britain do if they do not want to
>get caught? Put a "For Hire" sign around their necks?

Yes, but not around their necks. 

J(itwassoobvious)Z
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Family leave (wasL Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:39:49 GMT

If the family leave bill is so good and so compasionate, why are business
with fewer then 50 employees exempted?  Could this be and "equal protection
under the law issue?"

>>secondly, it is -not- the government's responsibility to take care of
>>families. i don't like that Bush said anything to that effect either,
>>but i'm glad he didn't carry through on it. i don't want the government
>>to be my mommy & give me an allowance every week. 'cause when it takes
>>that kind of parental role it becomes impossible to get the car keys
>>& you have to be in by 12.
>
>Certainly a lot of people agree with you on this.  However, the
>government takes care of families all the time.  We can go down
>a lengthy list: pure food and drug laws, child labor laws, Social
>Security, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, Medicare,
>Medicaid, laws to promote safe working conditions, environmental
>regulations for clean air and water, child support laws,
>and I could go on.   Certainly each of these things leads to
>more regulatory bureaucracy.  It's worth it.   If the government
>won't protect families, then no one else will.

In most of these cases the government has not stepped into a private contract
between two responsible parties and dictated how that contract will be 
implemented.  The Family Leave Act is an intrusion by government into the
affairs individuals where it does not belong.
>
>The problem is that many companies are run by people that cannot
>or will not understand that our society has changed dramatically
>over the past 25 years.  The working mother is a fact - a reality.
>Wishing for a return to the "good ol days" won't change anything.
>When your child gets sick, child care organizations and babysitters
>won't take him/her.   A parent must take care of the child in these
>cases.  To do so, you risk losing your job in many companies.  One
>can say, "just go to another company with a more progressive
>policy", but in this recession, that's difficult if not impossible
>to do.

Baloney.  If that employee has made themselves worth keeping, the company
will keep them and their (sometimes substanial) investment in that employee.

>
>>now, i agree with you on a lot of your points, in fact, i didn't even
>>vote for Bush. but i don't see how someone who's even more of a liar
>>& master distortionist will make things better.
>
>I don't think that Clinton is worse than Bush on this matter.  Clinton
>promised more - that's the difference.

Don't forget that one of the Clinton campaign's strongest message was,
"no more 'READ MY LIPS' ".
>
>
>--
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Randall Rhea                                        Informix Software, Inc.
>Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems    uunet!pyramid!infmx!randall

JSL.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69832 alt.sex:43191 talk.religion.misc:27582 soc.college:6059 alt.peeves:19600
From: mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael Stroucken)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc,soc.college,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Shocked Beyond ALL BELIEF!!!!!
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:27:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

So what do the prostitutes in Britain do if they do not want to
get caught? Put a "For Hire" sign around their necks?
MS
-- 
I heard that some of the women in Arkansas are so fast, they have to
put a Govenor on them!
Internet: mxsst1@pitt.edu,       Anonymously: wi.6194@n7kbt.rain.com        :)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70070 alt.politics.clinton:21353
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Congratulatoin, Bill-Bots!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 00:43:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) says:

>pathetic.........
>
        Doc.  Hadn't you noticed how we're not BITCHING about Clinton?
        Didn't you noticed  it's died down?

        ( there, that should send a chill up his spine, eh? )


 >Norman
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
>
>
>
>
>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
>                               Hunter Thompson
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70057 alt.pagan:15922 talk.religion.misc:27684 talk.abortion:58190
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:43:16 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>In article <adams.728062684@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>[deleted]
>
>>Not so...Luther's priests were permitted to marry...and Lutherans continue
>>to do so today.  Luther himself married...
>
>Gosh, I wonder who the lucky little woman was.

A 26 year old nun...her name escapes me at the moment...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: A 4th branch of government?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:44:32 GMT

In article <26jP02Ps33LY01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>> Which everyone (to the best of my knowledge) agrees is _not_ a blank check
>> to violate other constitutional provisions. The accepted interpertation
>> is that "necessary and proper" means within the limits established be
>> the rest of the constitution.

>No, but it supports the establishment of agencies necessary and proper to 
>administer the laws.

Providing that no provisions of the Constitution are violated. The
Tenth Amendment specifically states that the federal government has
no powers except those granted by the Constitution. Article One
Section One states that all legislative power granted by the 
Constitution is vested in Congress. Therefore, whatever agencies
Congress establishes may not have any "legislative power." The 
executive and judicial power is a little easier to give away: Executive
departments, agencies, officials, etc... may be delegated executive
power by the President (since Article Two, mentions
them) and Article Three vests judicial power in whatever other courts
Congress establishes as well as the Supreme Court. However, as far
as the Constitution is concerned, Congress is the sole body to 
posess "legislative power." 

>...But apparently Congress 
>has the power to supplement the constitutional provisions, e.g., succession 
>beyond Vice-President.  See 3 USC 19, which specifies the president pro 
>tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, followed by the cabinet, 
>as successors in the event of the death or incapacity of both the President 
>and Vice-President.

Actually, that's still part of a constitutional provision: The 
Twenty-Fifth (I thinK) Amendment empowering Congress to determin
who comes after the Vice-President.

                                                            Frank Crary
                                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Taxing & Spending
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 16:25:13 GMT

In article <2065@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In <1993Jan18.132056.10625@osf.org> buchman@osf.org (Terri Buchman) writes:

>>So can we find any kind of common ground?  Can we listen to
>>each other without blaming each other?  Sometimes it appears

>Sorry Terri, but despite the best symbolism of Clinton's team the chance
>for finding common ground passed forever with the election of Bill Clinton.

>I too, used to believe there was a chance for compromise on a whole range 
>of issues but as so many of the Clinton supporters here have stated; this
>is now a winner takes all government, of the majority by the minority.
>People like Bill Clinton are always happy to find compromise on issues when
>it suits them but when they know they can't form a consensus of public 
>opinion they simply use the legislature to force their views on us.  When
>they can't get the consensus in the legislature or the public, they use the
>courts.   

>On a whole range of issues, from abortion, gays in the military to the 
>type of education a parent can expect for his/her child, the Clinton 
>administration is about to embark on an unprecedented course of social
>legislation that essentially tells the 57 million people that voted against
>him and the tens of millions of people with views different than his, to 
>piss off because we no longer have a say in our government.

What's the compromise about gays in the military?  Only kick out half as
many people as normal?  What's the abortion compromise?  Only on odd-numbered 
days?  

He's telling the people that voted *for* him that you voted *for*
something, and that he's certainly not going to ignore you to do what
the people that didn't vote for you want.

I don't understand your point.  What is the winning candidate supposed
to do?  Go, "Oops, a lot of people didn't vote for me.  Forget the fact
that I won, I think I'll do what the losing side wants."?  Now, I'm not
a proponent of tyranny of the majority, but ordinarily, when the majority 
picks one side, you don't ignore them for the wishes of the minority.

>And you want those people to work for common ground on taxes and
>spending?  In light of the - it's our government now - attitude that
>permeates the new administration, as well as the recent revelations as
>to degree to which Clinton lied about who and how he'd tax, I would
>not hold my breath if I were you.

This is called "cutting off your nose..."  If you don't try to work with
him on taxes/spending, you'll just have *more* things to complain about.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wlee@alfred.carleton.ca (Wilson Lee)
Subject: Asian-American/Canadian Political Agenda
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:59:46 GMT

Politics of the Asian identity seem to have been coopted, for better
or for worse, by other political groups and movements.  I am seeking
information which would help me develop a political agenda which would
address specifically the Asian identity in America/Canada.  Please
E-Mail responses.  Thank You.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69875 soc.motss:58476