HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: The debates about health care
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:49:47 GMT

In article <92256.090741DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.014253.17144@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) says:
>>
>>In article <CHRISF.92Sep11211202@thor.albany.edu> chrisf@csc.albany.edu
>>(Slasher) writes:
>>>       2) Wouldn't we STILL have the same argument from the Republicans
>>>          that we're forcing this plan on businesses and are going to really
>>>          hurt them?
>>
>>  Actually, I have a few problems with forcing health care costs on
>>Businesses.  I'll briefly outline them and maybe spark some debate:
>
>I agree that forcing health care costs onto business may be especially
>difficult for small businesses.  For those who want a cogent analysis of how
>health care costs have affected U.S. jobs in the 1980s, you might want
>to call University of North Carolina's News Services, and get a copy of
>a recent paper released by Ken Thorpe, a noted health policy expert.  You
>can get it by calling (919) 962-2091.  It makes very interesting reading.

  Thanks.  I'll get this.
 
>I agree, but what's important is to compare how many jobs are lost
>under alternative plans.  I think Thorpe estimates that several
>million were lost in the 1980s because of our current system.

  Well, I loftily ignored providing a solution.  To be honest,
I don't have one.  I'm all ears for anyone that does.  I was
merely citing some of my concerns. 

  I do not doubt at all that our current system costs a lot of
jobs.  In fact, I dislike the extent to which business is currently
relied upon to provide health care (although I do appreciate
your citing some of the advantages of such).


>>  In fact, an economist I read has speculated that the slow growth
>>of hiring is in part related to the fear that Clinton might win
>>and force higher health care costs.  (He surveyed some small
>>businesses to draw this conclusion.)  In truth, Clinton hasn't specified
>
>I think the estimate was 700,000 jobs.  The Thorpe paper estimates job
>loss from Bush's plan at 2.2 million.

  Hmm.  Is your 700,000 jobs comment a reference to my reading
or the Thorpe paper estimates if Clinton's plan was implemented?
I honestly don't recall the numbers from my reading.

  Anyway, I'll get the Thorpe paper, but to be honest I'm not sure how
he could have estimated job loss under either program.  To the best
of my knowledge, Clinton hasn't provided enough specifics to make any
such estimations and Bush has changed what there was of his plan
quite recently.  

  Perhaps I don't quite understand your reference.  Are those numbers
over 4 years given certain assumptions about both plans?  Is it Bush's 
"old" plan, his past 4 years "plan", or his "new" plan?  Are both
of these numbers from the Thorpe paper?


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: keithd@versyss.com (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Reply-To: keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Organization: VERSYSS Incorporated, Torrance, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:35:36 GMT

In article <5059@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Supposedly, the US is not in the business of assassinating world leaders.
>(Whether you believe that or not is up to you.) On the other hand, murder
>is not "okay" if it is done by a member of the Armed Forces, just as a
>woman who has a gun commits "murder" if she shoots and kills an assailant.

Crap.  If we're in a war, and killing a particular individual would
save significant lives, ESPECIALLY a non-civilian commander of some kind,
the only reason not to do it is political, but has nothing to do with
any scruples about targeting world leaders.  I'm sure we learned
a lesson from Castro that when you target someone and fail to deliver,
you look bad, so you can't tell the public that is what you are doing,
even when it is.

All this "not in the business" stuff sure went out the window with
Noriega, didn't it?  We passed a law specifically so that we had the
legal standing to invade another country and capture a world leader
as a drug criminal.  We could have done the same sort of thing with 
Hussein quite easily.

The real reason we didn't stomp Hussein right away is because it
would have caused a bigger problem, in particular an economic one
if the people don't take care of him themselves.  We don't have any
problem blasting a foreign government into the stone age, but we're 
not interested in having to clean up the mess afterwards.

Keith
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:25:08 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Distribution: usa
 <92255.073034DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Sep14.205221.12119@gtephx.UUCP>

In article <1992Sep14.205221.12119@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford
@ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) says:
>
>In article <92255.073034DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>
>> In fact, economic studies show that the demand for medical care is very
>> insensitive to price.
>>
>
>Either you're quoting out of context, or the studies are seriously
>flawed.

Neither, actually.  The Rand Health Insurance Experiment is the source of
the numbers.  People were randomly assigned in the experiment to an
insurance plan, removing selectivity bias.  Insurance plans differed in
the level of coinsurance, ranging from completely free care to 95%
coinsurance.  Even for well-care the price elasticity was found to be
-.4, (10% increase in price reduces use by only 4%).  The overall impact
of price, considering all types of care, fell in the range of -.1 to -.2.
This does not imply that free health care won't be used more than health
care you pay for out of pocket.  It does imply that the effect is very
small, and your statement that it will be used "far more frequently"
is not correct.  In fact, the Rand HIE found that about 2/3rds of the
reduction in use occurs when the coinsurance is raised for 0 to 25%.

Since the typical American pays approximately 20% of his/her health care
costs out-of-pocket, IMO, there would be little reduction in use caused
by further pushing the costs into out-of-pocket costs of the consumer,
based on the Rand HIE results.

>The cost of medical care will have very little impact on necessary
>medical care.  However, free healthcare will be needlessly used
>far more frequently than healthcare which you pay for.





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: alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Budget Plan (was Re: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:53:46 GMT

In article <5713@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.175201.19107@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <17rm25INNcbe@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
>>>Clinton proposes to
>>>rearrange spending on Human and phyisical capital, instead of defense,
>>>entitlements, and other government waste. Investments in health, education and
>>>research and development, on par with other developed nations, will hopefully
>>>bring back productivity growth on par with those other nations.
>>
>>That's PRECISELY what we've been doing since 1990, only more so.  If
>>"more" is such a great idea, then why has the mild version of that
>>policy such a disaster?
>
>A few points Andy,
>First, government waste is up (regardless of what you think Clinton would do
>you're implied assertion that government waste is down is wrong). 

I didn't imply that govt waste went down, I said that the 1990 plan
was supposed to reduce waste.  Clinton's plan is more of the same,
so I expect the effect to be more of the same.  In this case, more
waste.

>And don't blame it all on Congress--if you do then you're admitting
>that Bush is a weak leader.

Catch a clue.  I've never claimed that Bush is competent.  I'm
pointing out that Clinton's plan is a WILD version of Bush's biggest
mistake.  Hint: if the car is heading off the cliff, putting sand in
the gears is a GOOD thing.  Clinton's plan is Congress' plan since
1990.  Bush has slightly slowed it down, through no particular fault
of his own, but with a cheerleader like Clinton, we'll will go down
that wrong road even faster.

>Second, our investment in vital infrastrucure lags that of our
>competitors.  I assume you understand the implications of that.

However, we don't get infrastructure, we get pork.  We get
the Art Linkletter museum.

>Investment in education may be high, but it is not effective, and I
>don't think that tax credits are the answer-- especially for the poor.

Until we make the education spending effective, more is just wasted.
Clinton insists that we throw more money down the worst of the
ratholes, because he's a creature of the NEA.

We laugh at GM when it asks for protection from Ford, but insist that
private schools get nothing even though they're contributing to the
public good by educating kids.  (Remember why we're using tax money
for education?  That purpose is satisfied no matter where the money is
spent as long as the kids get educated.)

Do we need a repeat of the discussion of why the poor prefer tax
credits over tax deductions, while the rich prefer deductions over
credits?  BTW - How much do the poor have to invest anyway?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5372 alt.news-media:1310 alt.rush-limbaugh:4803
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:42:57 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
: In article <1992Sep13.164548.29818@cs.cornell.edu>
: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:

: >As has been posted before, unemployment peaked in 1987 under Reagan.

: The figures peaked  when we were still operating under the effects of the
: Carter policy. It takes a year or more for the effects of a new administration
: to take effect. Of course, once it did we had ten good years, until the
: next administration decided to adopt the Democratic party's platform.

Well if that year given above were correct, I'd say you need to check
your math.  1987 was the sixth year of the Ronnie Ray-Gun dynasty.  :)

What you are saying is true, of course.  _Part_ of the poor economy
in the early eighties was the result of Carter's policies.  _Part_
of the problem was due to the influences of the international markets.
To just blame the President(s) solely for economic problems (or to
give them total credit for economic successes) would be wrong.

At least Reagan tried to do something about the economy, though....
I would vote for Reagan, if he were able to run again, provided
some guarantee could be made about his health, he didn't choose 
a boob for a running mate, and if he didn't pander to the ultra-
conservatives too much.  I cannot in good faith vote for
GHWB (or for Clinton, for that matter).


--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"It was a great time.  Dan
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 drank booze and chased broads
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 like his old man."
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		--Dan Quayle's father
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     			

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:58:29 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.005247.8080@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>> 
>> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>> 
>> >I am sick to death of the Republicans using the non-issue of "family values"
>> >to distract the voters from the real issues.
>> 
>> >I am sick to death of the lies distortions and half-truths being spewed from
>> >Bush and his lap-dogs. Even when they are caught red-handed, they continue
>> tuning all else out.  I can agree with you that campaign rhetoric is 
>> exagerated, libelous, and unfair.  I wouldn't even attempt to defend
>> some of the statements coming from the Republican campaign.  What really
>> galls me, though, is the "selective indignation" (just learned that...)
>> from the Democrats.  They complain about lies from the Republicans and 
>> go on lying themselves.  

>The difference is that while Clinton has spelled out his programs, all we
>get from Bush is rhetoric. period. His rhetoric would be alot easier to take
>if there was ANY substance given along with it.

Well, you had me going.  You sounded reasonable, asking people to just
look at the records and eschew campaign rhetoric.  But you turned out to
be just another screamer.  You can plainly see the lies on your
opponents part, but refuse to see your own side's. Anybody who can stand
up and say, "All the rhetoric is coming from the other side!" is either
blind or worse.  If you cannot honestly see the exagerations and lies
coming from the Democrats as well, I have vastly less respect for you.

>>    And you forgot one:  The Democrats don't believe in "family values".

>According to several of the Republican speakers, they don't. So what is
>your point?

This is one of the lies and exagerations the Republicans are dishing
out.  I thought I'd point it out to you since you didn't include it as
one of your examples.   
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:10:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <LNg5qB1w165w@cnbisis.lerctr.org> cnb@cnbisis.lerctr.org (Nelson Baird) writes:
>
>The problem is we have created a system where there is an increasing 
>dis-incentive to producing more or better.  The more productive I am, 
>the greater the fraction of MY reward I am required to hand to a system
>that clearly fails to do it's job. 
>

This is true and false(huh?) It's true that the more you make the higher
the % you are required to pay, but at the same time your take home pay is
MORE then it would have been. So if you choose you can make less, pay a smaller
% but have less to spend each month. I'll go with the higher % personally.
I keep flashing back to an interview I saw some time back with a Texas
multi-millionare. He said something like:Hell a few years ago we were being
taxed at almost 50% we didn't go broke then we sure as hell ain't going to
go to broke now if they increase it all the way up to 33%.(or whatever the # 
was at the time) This guy had no problem at all paying what we consider to be 
his "fair share." It's too bad that more rich folk don't have that type of
attitude instead of "Try to tax me some more and I'll put all my money in
every loophole I can find."(There was a poster that said EXACTLY that)
Now if you are calling for a "flat tax rate" that would affect everyone
equally and cut out *ALL* tax loopholes I'll be all for it. And YES there
are a few loopholes I take advantage of myself. 
As far as the system not doing its job very well, I couldn't agree with you
more. This is something that should be addressed yesterday. I beleive that
Perot would have done more good in this particular area then either Bill or
George but we'll never know now!

Stan Knight
|Oxymorons:Military intelligence, Jumbo shrimp, Fair taxation|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Hiding? Who's hiding? was CRISP: WHY ARE YOU HIDING?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:36:25 GMT

>In article <#ymnhcd.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
> 
> 
> Contrary to rumors, I am not hiding. I just have very little to add to
> this inane "newsgroup". I have said what I have to say, have heard the


	Of course, of course, we all know that you really have nothing
substaintial to say.  Most of those who have had the chance to read your
rhetorical garbages know you are nothing but an empty and close minded
"republican".  


> Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                crisp@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 03:01:02 GMT

jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
...
>As for the preachers, let me clear up one thing.  No Biblical Christian 
>who has a firm conviction that the Bible is the word of God can ignore what 
>it says:

>"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done
>what is detestable"
>	--Leviticus 18:22
...
>This doesn't mean I'm telling anybody 
>to hate [or fear] homosexuals, so don't bash me for homophobia or hate 
>tactics or something equally silly.

But you ignoring part of what Leviticus says; Leviticus prescibes the
death penalty for homosexual acts.

So, do you ignore word of your god, or do you advocate death for gays?

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Just the facts, please
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:42:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Sep11.152200.11549@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com sez:
>
>It is _not_ obvious at all.  If there was anything obvious about this 
>case then we would have had many convictions (which hasn't happened)
>for the tens of millions that have been spent.  Prosecution of North
>for a 13K security fence in response to Abu Nidal putting a contract 
>out on him boarders on persecution. (see Insight of Aug 23).

While I haven't bothered to read the latest issue of Moonie-controlled
_Insight_, it must be pretty dynamite stuff if it proves that North
had no choice but to accept Secord's cash (and, in case you've
forgotten, write falsely dated letters to Robinette).  After all,
North never asked Navy or the Corps for the protection that would have
been his for the asking.


>  Take the
>Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas debate.  Both people had radically different
>stories and no evidence to back them up.  So the only thing we can do is
>to examine how they behaved in the past and the fact that Anita behaved
>in an incongruous manner to which a sexually harrassed person would toward
>the harrasser leads us to conclude that she is a liar.

This litany of whining points (North, Hill -- you left out poor Bob
Bork) is entertaining enough, if more than a little bereft of actual
facts.  Note that Mike trots out the tired line about Hill acting "in
an incongruous manner to which a sexually harrassed person would
toward the harrasser", without even the vaguest indication of what
qualifies him to pronounce on the typical conduct of the sexually
harassed.  No studies, no anecdotes or case histories -- in short, no
support whatsoever for the disputable assumption implicit in Mike's
remarks, just Proof by Blatant Assertion(sm).

If you guys insist on dragging out your conservative bedtime stories
in this fashion, I suggest that you settle on versions that the
factually scrupulous won't choke on.



-- 
	     Every time you think, you weaken the nation.
				- attributed to Moe Howard

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:50:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <BuLsvL.n57@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
>
>: >In fact, they have sold the American
>: >People off to the mercy of foreign businesses and invited such interests
>: >in with open arms under the guize of "Free Trade".
>: 
>: 	This country was founded on the idea of free trade. 
>
>No problems here, except I dislike the idea that we are doing so much
>trade with countries that are all but closed to U.S. investment.

Was it really?  This country was _very_ protectionist during the late
1800's when our industry was devloping.  I'm not sure about the first
80 years, but the free trade dogma is mostly a post-WWII phenomena,
so I would be surprised to discover that the US was founded on the idea
of free trade.  Any historians know?
>
>--
>Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		(Homosexuality is) "more of
>Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			a choice than a biological
>Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			situation.  I think it
>Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		is the wrong choice."
>UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle          
>
>Marrou/Lord in '92


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 23:43:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <-wiDr*vX0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
 
|> If Slick Willie can't keep the single most important promise that most people make
|> (i.e. marriage vows), how in the world do you expect me to trust him?  Are we to
|> believe that he only lies about the "big" stuff?

How do you know what promises he made?  Did you attend his wedding? 
Do you have a transcript of his wedding vows?  Or are you just
imposing YOUR marital expectations on him?  If his alleged
extramarital affair doesn't bother Hillary, what business is it of
Jim Pritchett's?

|> I don't consider that ridiculous rumor reported indirectly from a dead man (so it
|> can't be verified) sufficient evidence to accuse President Bush of adultery.  I
|> don't know about the others (except Kennedy.)

But you're more than willing to believe a supermarket tabloid that
paid Gennifer Flowers a six-figure sum to "tell all".  I suppose you
believe that Elvis is still alive too.

|> I don't do drugs.  I have never even considered doing drugs.  It is a sign of the
|> lack of intellectual basis for your statements that you would accuse me of such a
|> thing.

Interesting.  You've never had a cigarette, or a cup of coffee, or a
glass of beer, or a chocolate bar? 

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh