HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Medical costs for various groups (was 'tolerance')
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:57:59 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1a8258INN6lk@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
    >>>Actually, homosexuals have statistically lower medical costs,
    >>>because in general, we do not have children. Children are the
    >>>most expensive being to get health insurance for.
    >>>
    >>Incorrect. And I should know. I have my own medical insurance
    >>for my daughter, age 3.5, and it is very cheap. $31 a month.
    >>I have the complete Blue Cross charts and it gets more
    >>expensive as one gets older.
    >>
    >>
    >Incorrect- Jeff statement is that homosexuals are cheaper
    >because they do not childern, it is not a statement about
    >heteros having childern. If you took only stats for
    >homosexuals you might find that they are in general a lower
    >cost risk group- this is not necessarily so, but from my own
    >experience and the knowledge of others this seems true. One
    >of the largest health risk are probably middle aged and up
    >men who smoke and eat poorly.

You seem very confused.

1. Children are the cheapest to insure.
2. The older you get, the more insurance costs.
3. If insurance companies could, they would not insure homosexuals. Even
   before AIDS they were "discriminating" as hepatitus and STDs were
   higher per capita / per age group for homosexuals (male).

    >Anyway with the shape that Blue Cross is in as an insurance
    >company I would not bet much on their charts and stats. I
    >would have a little more confidence in a group that does
    >independent analysis of the state of medical cost. Keep in
    >mind that any insurance company will skew the results to
    >their benefit and the methods of data collection are not the
    >most reliable in the world.

Again you VERY ignorant. You should not get your "facts" from newspaper
headlines.

Blue Shield and Blue Cross are state organizations, not a nationwide
company. California Blue Cross is doing very well. And the problems
some medical; insurance companies have result more from coercive laws
rather than any other single clause.

For example, California Blue Cross, if it could, would NOT pay $77 for
5 grains of morphine to a hospital, as its cost to the hospital is about
$0.75. The $76.25 is the "overhead" from the hospital for all the uninsured
that the hospital is required to treat -- and on which they rarely get
payment.

And the statistical data is shared with several national groups and is
considered quite accurate. And why would a company screw its own internal
cost data?

You really are winging it here ... try some research next time before
opening keyboard.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: <None>
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:02:30 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

Sorry folks, gotta do it again.  I made it past his introduction, but didn't
make it past his "ground rules".  Still haven't hit the information yet.

In article <12604@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> I will not respond to any followup that contains ad hominem attacks,
> even if there are substantive criticisms contained therein, simply
> because it's too draining, and because someone who lacks the self-
> control to respond to facts without engaging in character assassination
> isn't worth my time; it's a sign that someone is so irrational as 
> to be a waste of time to argue with.  

Thank you so much for describing yourself, Clayton.  Should we follow
your advice and refuse to follow up these postings because you so often
indulge in attacks?  And what about your lack of self-control when you
engage in character assassination (examples furnished upon request)?
I am so glad you finally acknowledge your irrationality.

> As you read the material in this posting, I think it will become 
> increasingly obvious while homosexuals become so livid at my postings:

And what about us heterosexuals?  Why should we get livid at your postings?
Could it be perhaps that you have been posting unsubstantiated accusations?
Could it be that you've been wasting our time for more than a year?  Could
it have anything to do with the fact that the political newsgroups are no
longer talking politics, largely as a result of your crusade?

Clayton, hasn't it yet occurred to you that you're alone on this one?  If
your evidence has been so compelling, why has nobody joined you?  I've been
asking for a month now for people to tell me how they feel about you.  Do
you know that my e-mail is still running 100% against you?  Not one person
has come forward to say they agree with you.

'Nuff said.  Now we'll see if Clayton finally has some information worth
paying attention to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Still Waiting, Clayton
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:57:30 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: kane@buast7.bu.edu

I'm still waiting for an explanation or apology as to why you called
me depraved. If your memory needs jogging, see my .sig.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8330 ba.politics:5764
From: mhi@wet.UUCP (Philip E. Murphy)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Recruiting Devices? (was Mr. Cramer's strange views)
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:23:36 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco

Lets make a rule - if you are going to cite "literary works" or "scholarly"
works - give us the author and title.  Otherwise its bull...  I was born and
raised in San Francisco.  I myself am not gay, but I have known gays and 
lesbians for years.  I have discussed at length with some of them concerning
their "origins".  Cramer and other "assumptionists" have not done their 
homework.

I guess though if you go to the right bookstore, all the literature may be
tainted.  I would expect books there to have titles like 

"The Holocaust Myth" or "The Re-Integration of the Races" 

Pedophilists (from what I read in the paper and from what I learned in College),
maybe around 10-20% Homosexual.  With statistics that I cannot quote that may
have the U.S. population of 10% homosexual, the rates in their population are
similarly about 10-20%.  Again with all statistics - if you are going to cite
statistics that have negative impact like labeling homosexuals as deviants and
child molestors, give your sources.  Cite the survey, the question asked, the
number of respondents and the percentage error.  Otherwise these "scholarly"
works that are quoted will be assumed non-existent, incredible and ridiculous.

I read Ca.politics and Ba.politics because I expect to see talk about politics.
Instead I have seen the same drivel for the past two years made up of posts from
the same people about the same subjects (ad nauseam).  If the topics are going
to be discussed let us all talk about issues where we have some knowledge either
tthrough life experienll or actual research.  Otherwise lets move all the repeat
talk to another newsgroup.

Phil Murphy

(I apologize for any meanness or lack of clarity,  I've only had 1 cup of coffee
and I God knows I need more)                                   


-- 

Phil Murphy                                          (415) 285-2595 voice 
P.O. Box 460084 San Francisco,CA 94146-0084          (415) 285-8213 fax 
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Recruiting Devices? (was Mr. Cramer's strange views)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:15:08 GMT

  Gawd, is it just me or does it seem these conspiracy folks need
help for their paranoid delusions?

In article <12528@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> There are several problems with your assumptions, including the
> fact that the damage done by homosexual child molesters appears to
> be more serious.  At least one of the scholarly works I've found
> indicates that homosexual child molestation appears to be a
> recruiting device into adult homosexuality.  (That doesn't mean
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that every homosexual so recruited beomes a child molester --
> the conditions that create pedophiles appear to be molestation
> by a slightly older child.)

  Are you seriously trying to say that there is some organized effort
to recruit homosexuals into some queer-corps? Where are the leaders of
this massive conspiracy? And molestors are the front line shock-troops
to get "normal" folks into the corps? And if only we could get rid
of the front line troops and maybe break the ringleaders, homosexuality
would go away?
  HAHAHAHAHAHA.
  Every gay person that I have ever met *actively* looked for the
"gay community" (which to a stupid teenager/adult who is told that fags
are disgusting and deviant is no small feat), and were damned happy when
they found it. They weren't "recruited" they "joined" with open arms.
  If there is any "recruiting" into homosexuality the percentage is
vanishingly small, and probably 1/1000000th that of the massive "recruiting"
effort done by HETEROSEXUALS! (gad, as if there weren't enough of them)
  What utter lunacy. Get help.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Saturday Night Live && Shinehead
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:13:34 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics,ba.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

Hi There,

I am wondering if anyone would fill me in on exactly why Shinehead found it
necessary to insult every Catholic on Earth last night on SLV?  What's her
beef?

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dchapman@well.sf.ca.us (Dave Chapman)
Subject: Re: Ban Birth Control Pills
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:11:59 GMT

In article <malcolm.717204000@grenada> malcolm@grenada.ign.island.COM (Malcolm Blanchard) writes:

>dchapman@well.sf.ca.us (Dave Chapman) writes:
>
>
>>   Many of Bruce Herschensohn's supporters on the
>>far right regard banning abortion as the first step.
>>Once that has been accomplished, they would next make
>>birth control pills illegal.

>P.S. My post is a joke, I hope Mr. Chapman's was also.

Sorry, this is serious.  As a matter of fact, I think that
Mr. Herschensohn would ban oral steroid contraceptives,
given a more right-thinking electorate.

The logic is compelling, if you are right-to-life:
Birth control pills prevent a fertilized egg from implanting
on the uterine wall.  A woman using the pill therefore
has a "mini-abortion" every month.  The real hard-core
anti-abortion people want to ban the pill, and I think
that Bruce agrees.

>    Many of Barbara Boxer's supporters on the
>far left regard banning school prayer as the first step.
>Once that has been accomplished, they would next make
>religion illegal.

Nah, Barb wouldn't ban school prayer.  She'd just require
equal time for the Goddess.  :-)

-dave

Xref: sparky ca.politics:8243 talk.politics.misc:48248 ba.politics:5683
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: "encouraging tolerance" is a bad goal
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:59:32 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> Melinda Shore) writes:
|> 
|>     >So, since it's been shown that heterosexuals as a group have
|>     >higher medical costs and incidences of medical sick days then
|>     >it is O.K. in your book not to hire you?
|> 
|> Congratulations -- give Ms. Shore the grand prize. YES MELINDA, unlike
|> you I believe in living by my morals. Yes, it would be O.K. Stupid,
|> but perfectly acceptable via FOA.
|> 
Actually, the proper question, given this situation, is it all right
for you to be unable to higher heterosexuals because the medical 
insurance company won't allow them onto your group policy?

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8224 ba.politics:5667
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's strange views
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:09:38 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <12511@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
[deleted things ;-0]
>
>I don't hold #4.  I suspect that I didn't write what I wrote quite
>as clearly as I should have.  The psychiatric community USED to
>believe that homosexuality was a form of neurosis; they abandoned
>that position, by majority vote, and without any significant scientific
>analysis, in the 1970s.

Probably correct- they realized that within the parameters of defining
normalcy, gays really didn't appear any different than heterosexuals.

>
># 5. May gays and lesbians conform to the stereotypes that are associated with
>#    being gay or lesbian.

How would you know?- if you cannot identify a gay/lesbian person except by what
you have been programmed to used as the parameters to identify them by, then
you miss the majority of gay/lesbian people. Unfortunate that you yourself have
fallen to using the preprogrammed stereotypes as your basis of identification.


># 6. Many people have lost loved ones due to the direct or indirect effects of
>#    someone else's being gay or lesbian.
>
>Ask the people who have lost loved ones because of AIDS contracted
>through blood transfusions or dental work.

You should Mr. Cramer- like Ryan White's mother who has thank the gay community
for their incredible support- unlike the 'loving, caring' people who ran him
and his family out of town.. and how about the caring concerned people who
have to date, vandalized Ryan White's grave 3 times.

The number of cases of blood transfusions and dental work are very low in terms
of transmission.
 
This type of statement 'ask people who have lost loved ones..." is one that
could be ported to many situations- how about the Vietnam War, ask some of
the people who lost their loved ones do to stupid government policies. 
>
>
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Pragmatic reason #1 to veto the cable re-regulation bill: At $100/month for
>cable TV service, the American people will start to read books again.
>
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8266 alt.politics.clinton:7704
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Northern Exposure
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:15:09 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <66762@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>What did you folks think of the Northern Exposure featuring the pair of
>evidently (but not in so many words) lesbian women who transformed their
>sleepy town of savages into the vibrant community it is today? I thought
>it was a touching and moving story, but with all the brouhaha that the
>appearance of gays of prime-time usually gets on the press, what happened
>to all the controversy here?

Maybe Dan Quayle missed it.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "The Americans call me by value, and the Europeans call me by name."	    |
|							 - Niklaus Wirth    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8263 talk.politics.misc:48492 ba.politics:5705
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Medical costs for various groups (was 'tolerance')
Date: 29 Sep 1992 19:32:13 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <q6_pj9l.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1a8258INN6lk@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
>    >>>  [deleted stuff]
>
>    >>Incorrect. And I should know. I have my own medical insurance
>    >>for my daughter, age 3.5, and it is very cheap. $31 a month.
>    >>I have the complete Blue Cross charts and it gets more
                           ^^^^^^^^^^
>Again you VERY ignorant. You should not get your "facts" from newspaper
>headlines.
>
>Blue Shield and Blue Cross are state organizations, not a nationwide
>company. California Blue Cross is doing very well. And the problems
>

I think you need to state more clearly what you are talking about, 
NOTE ABOVE the '^^^^^^^" you made this statement... it is somewhat
difficult to tell what you are taking about if you are not clear.
And another point- I DO NOT know of a company called  California Blue Cross,
But I DO know of a company called Blue Cross of California, so you shoould
try and get your facts from the company that insures, at least figure
out what it is called.


But I'll be nice and not call you a name just because of this.

>You really are winging it here ... try some research next time before
>opening keyboard.
>

You should also try to write in a more accurate manner, therefore people
will be able to extract correct information for your little stories.


>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>

Xref: sparky ca.politics:8275 talk.politics.misc:48545 ba.politics:5715
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Medical costs for various groups (was 'tolerance')
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:53:34 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <lch872INNn8q@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
    >So there are very few uninsured (see recent posts correcting
    >me) but these people are responsible for 99.02% of the cost
    >of medicine in hospitals.
    >
    >It would seem apparent from this information that if we all
    >chipped in and paid the health insurance for the 10 million
    >uninsured, we could cut hospital bills by 99%. Somehow I
    >think Phil's post demonstrates that having facts may protect
    >one from ignorance but don't guarantee the ability to process
    >the data usefully. -- These opinions are usually my own,
    >sometimes my dog's, occasionaly my (grown) children's, never
    >my employer's.

Where do you get this bizarre data?

First, insurance is normally on a per family basis, in which case,
if we use your figures of 10,000,000 uninsured we have more like
12% uninsured.

Secondly, uninsured people are more likely to be poor, and the poor
have a much larger use (in $$$ terms) of health resources. For example,
don't get that minor toothache fixed? Three years later, a $125
filling becomes a $3,500 root canal.

Or the article I read today about some nurse who went out on the
streets as a "patrol" to get the homeless medical care.

He picked up some wino and managed to coax him to go to the hospital.

This guy proudly mentioned how it was the 6th time in 4 weeks he
got this guy to go to the hospital.

However, I do not know how many people are uninsured. I do know
that the people trying to control hospital costs blame the
various Federal, State, and local laws that require them to
provide treatment to the uninsured as the biggest growth multiplier
in hospital increasing costs.

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: <None>
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:53:15 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

Sorry, people, but I have to respond to just a couple of things.  I haven't
even read his information yet--I didn't even make it out of the introduction.
But I promise to keep it brief.

In article <12604@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> The homosexual community has engaged in the most virulent
> ad hominem attacks that I have ever seen.  

Only in response to your even more virulent attacks, directed at them per-
sonally and at them as a group.

And what about those of us in the heterosexual community, Clayton?  We don't
like you either.

> There has been repeated 
> claims made by the homosexual community about the nature of child 
> molestation and child molesters.  

No, there have been responses to *your* repeated claims about the nature
of child molestation and child molesters.  Up to now, *all* of your claims
have been unsubstantiated by any evidence.  I look forward to reading the
rest of this posting to find out if you really do have a case.  Incidentally,
why did it take you a year and a half to go to the library?

Incidentally, I'm glad you used the phrase "battle about homosexuality".
It reveals that you are at war with the gay community--a war which you began.

That's all, folks.  Now I'm going to read his little magnum opus and find out
if it contains any real information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debbie.rhodes@f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org (Debbie rhodes)
Sender: NewsMeisterII@mcws.fidonet.org