Hello all,
I though I'd vent some frustration over the huge price difference
between the US tool prices and those in the UK.
A couple of years ago I bought a Jet 10" contractors saw from the
states and had it shipped over. The shipping cost was almost the same
as the saw cost and I had to pay a futher £200 to clear customs and
delivery. Still I was pleased as I had a cast iron saw for much less
than could be obtained here in the UK at the time.
I see now that JET is being sold in the UK but the price for the
SuperSaw with sliding table and 30" fence is £1300 + delivery ( thats
more than $2400 ) whilst you guys in the states can buy the same saw
for around $1000 (£515).
No doubt the UK version has been nobbled so you can't even use a
stacked dado blade as well.
Ah well, moan over
happy woodworking.
Andy
George wrote:
> You want Socialism, you pay for it. Not even Kerry can get money out of a
> turnip, though he thinks he can.
>
> "Andrew Griffin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I though I'd vent some frustration over the huge price difference
>>between the US tool prices and those in the UK.
>>A couple of years ago I bought a Jet 10" contractors saw from the
>>states and had it shipped over. The shipping cost was almost the same
>>as the saw cost and I had to pay a futher £200 to clear customs and
>>delivery. Still I was pleased as I had a cast iron saw for much less
>>than could be obtained here in the UK at the time.
>>
>>I see now that JET is being sold in the UK but the price for the
>>SuperSaw with sliding table and 30" fence is £1300 + delivery ( thats
>>more than $2400 ) whilst you guys in the states can buy the same saw
>>for around $1000 (£515).
>>
>>No doubt the UK version has been nobbled so you can't even use a
>>stacked dado blade as well.
>>
>>Ah well, moan over
>>
>>happy woodworking.
>>
>>Andy
>
>
>
And Bush is getting money out of turnips yet-to-be-grown....
Philski
"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:25:02 GMT, igor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >So, to the extent that socialism=the state knowing better than the markets
> >and acting to impede the markets, that would be socialism being responsible
> >for the disparity. -- Igor
>
> Nice description of the administration refusing to let Americans
> buy drugs in Canada.
>
Canadian officials have come out against the exporting of drugs to the US since it is believed that it will lead to higher prices
and shortages for the Canadians. So even if the administration decides to allow it, it still won't happen. It would also increase
the chances of harmful drugs making their way across the border and doing more harm than good. Although I believe that drug prices
are too high and that far too much money is spent by the drug companies on advertising, I don't think that reimportation from Canada
will be beneficial in the long term.
--
Al Reid
A government big enough to give you everything you want...
is big enough to take away everything you have."
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <on importing legal drugs from canada, cause y'all already import a
> whole lot of other drugs from up here....>
Nice that you snipped the part about the reasons that Canada is against supplying low cost drugs to the US
>
> > It would also increase
> > the chances of harmful drugs making their way across the border and doing
> > more harm than good.
>
> It is true you know, we have not regulations on drugs; they routinely
> toss toxic waste into them as filler. Taking an asprin here is like
> playing russian roulette. Why, last year along, 40,000 canucks died due
> to bad drugs. All our politicians are corrupt and refuse to do anything
> about it.
>
There is not an unlimited supply of drugs in Canada. Supply and demand will effect both price and supply. Once there is a shortage
of legitimate drugs, there will be opportunities for a trade in black or gray market products or potentially unknown origin. That
is where the harm may arrise.
>
> > Although I believe that drug prices
> > are too high and that far too much money is spent by the drug companies on
> > advertising, I don't think that reimportation from Canada
> > will be beneficial in the long term.
>
> Whoa, wait a moment there; "reimportation"??? You mean we got those
> fucking bum drugs from you fuckers in the first place??? That is it, I
> am calling for an invasion.
>
> PK
Lets be sure not to solve the problem, but to shift it for the short term. BTW, this problem did not just arise in the last 4
years. It existed under both democratic and republican administrations. What exactly did the previous administration do to solve
the problem during their 8 year tenure?
"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Al Reid wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lets be sure not to solve the problem, but to shift it for the short term. BTW, this problem did not just arise in the last 4
> > years. It existed under both democratic and republican administrations. What exactly did the previous administration do to
solve
> > the problem during their 8 year tenure?
> >
> >
> Are we arguing the merits of the previous administration or the present one?
If a problem has existed over several administrations, it is disingenuous to lay the balme solely on the current administration.
There are either problems and logistics beyond our knowledge or there is corruption on both sides. Has Kerry, in his role as
senator, ever drafted legislation to solve this problem? How is he going to fix it?
There have been proposals to shorten the time before generics come to market. For some reason it has historically take about 20
months for a generic equivalent of an already approved drug to make it's way through the FDA approvals process. The current
administration has been working to speed that process (see the FDA web site).
> If a problem is long standing and needs to be fixed,
> then there it is. Bush is not going to fix this one - he's fallen head over
> heals in with the people who would concentrate all the money
> in the top 100 or so people if they could. Would Kerry fix it? Probably not -
> too much resistance from the opposition and there are going to be
> much bigger problems to face. (Social Security, worldwide perception that we
> are the problem rather than the solution, etc.)
>
> JK
>
Al Reid notes:
>If a problem has existed over several administrations, it is disingenuous to
>lay the balme solely on the current administration.
It is disingenuous to state that the blame is being placed solely on this
adminstration when what is being placed is the blame for not taking any action
whatsoever for a problem that is increasing in intensity almost weekly.
>There have been proposals to shorten the time before generics come to market.
>For some reason it has historically take about 20
>months for a generic equivalent of an already approved drug to make it's way
>through the FDA approvals process. The current
>administration has been working to speed that process (see the FDA web site).
At about the speed the FDA works. Three years and zilch.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:17:37 +0100, Andy Dingley <[email protected]>
wrote:
>PS - I fail to see how socialism is reponsible for UK/US price
>differences ?
Well, maybe not socialism. But, just emerging from policies that the US
had until the late 60s and into the early 70s that "discouraged" price
competition at retail. The UK is rather open to such things but most of
the rest of the EU is not -- and the UK market alone does not have enough
size to support US-style retail price competition. The EC (Commission of
the EU) is slowly, but Shirley (it seems), moving the laggards to allow
retail price competition. There is a news clip today about how France is
dragging its heels [Insert joke/comment here] and a giant retailer there is
trying to make it a political issue.
So, to the extent that socialism=the state knowing better than the markets
and acting to impede the markets, that would be socialism being responsible
for the disparity. -- Igor
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:36:02 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:25:02 GMT, igor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>So, to the extent that socialism=the state knowing better than the markets
>>and acting to impede the markets, that would be socialism being responsible
>>for the disparity. -- Igor
>
> Nice description of the administration refusing to let Americans
> buy drugs in Canada.
Another lie, Greg, and you should know it. You can go to Canada and buy
whatever the hell you want; tour busses full of people go there regularly.
The question you're neglecting to think about, is _why are they cheaper there_?
I'll save you some time - because the Canadian Government refuses to pay
more, so the USA'n consumer gets to finance their cheap drugs.
Rather than figuring out how to ship this stuff around the globe, why
not look at what your boy Kerry has done about it? (hint: not a damn thing).
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:19:38 -0400, James T. Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but the feds are not trying to stop individuals from buying drugs
>> in Canada. They're not now and have not allowed commercial importation of
>> Canadian drugs. They may allow importation in the future on a case by
>> case basis as approved by the FDA.
>
> As approved by the FDA? These are mostly American made drugs, already approved
> by the FDA.
The concerns are real. Is that real (drug), or a fake copy of (drug)? What
is the chain of control of the drugs? Have they been stored and transported
properly? Drugs can be temperature sensitive, light sensitive, degrade over
relatively short time periods, and so on. It should go without saying, but
some of the spammers who claim to be selling "cheap Canadian drugs" aren't
really in Canada, aren't selling legitimate drugs, and aren't going to
send you what you pay for if you get anything at all.
If it's the right drug, _and_ it's safe, _and_ the Canadian government
is happy to let their socialized medicine continue to pay for discounts
for USA'n consumers, _then_ this would work. There are a couple problems
with that, not the least of which is Canada not being eager to do so.
The real problem continues to be that someone needs to pay for this drug
research. These things cost money, sometimes an obscene amount of money,
to develop. That cost has to be met somehow, and if Canada is refusing to
pay their part, then it has to come from, for instance, us. Maybe the
question shouldn't be "how can we import cheaper drugs from Canada"<
but it should be "How can we get Canada to start paying their fair share
of the costs?"
Dave Hinz
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:22:38 -0400, Paul Kierstead <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The question you're neglecting to think about, is _why are they cheaper
>> there_?
>> I'll save you some time - because the Canadian Government refuses to pay
>> more, so the USA'n consumer gets to finance their cheap drugs.
>
> I'd just like to clarify what you are saying here: The drug companies
> sell into canada at a lower price
This, I think we cannot be in disagreement about, right?
> and actually *lose* money,
I'm not sure they're losing, but if we're paying more than a Canadian for
the same thing, one of us is financing the other.
> which they
> make up from profits off the backs of hard-working Americans.
Since the Canadians aren't paying their share, yes, we're paying it for
them. How else would you explain the different pricing?
> So they
> sell to Canada just out of the goodness of their hearts?
They're probably making a profit on the per-unit costs (incremental),
but we get to pay for the startup costs (the research). Been a long time
since economics class so I probably fluffed the terminology, but it's the
same reason that American TV can sell you a Sony for less than the
wholesale cost paid by a smaller vendor.
Dave Hinz
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:39:05 -0400, James T. Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> The concerns are real.
> Millions of dead Canadians provide the case in point.
I notice you snipped where I listed those concerns, including safe
transport and storage, and verification that the source really _is_ a
Canadian pharmacy. Wonder why that is...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:45:07 -0400, James T. Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> I notice you snipped where I listed those concerns, including safe
>> transport and storage, and verification that the source really _is_ a
>> Canadian pharmacy. Wonder why that is...
>
> Probably because a lot of those concerns are the obvious road blocks that would
> be suggested by
> an industry trying to maintain its government-blessed monopoly, avoiding the
> problem of having to
> deal with a true free market for as long as possible.
So tell me, James. Do you feel that drugs are _not_ sensitive to
proper handling? Do you feel that temperature, time, and mechanical
damage are not concerns? Do you feel that every entity claiming to
be a Canadian Online Pharmacy is legitimate, selling legitimate drugs?
Are you aware of the existance of counterfeit drugs, James?
You want Socialism, you pay for it. Not even Kerry can get money out of a
turnip, though he thinks he can.
"Andrew Griffin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello all,
>
> I though I'd vent some frustration over the huge price difference
> between the US tool prices and those in the UK.
> A couple of years ago I bought a Jet 10" contractors saw from the
> states and had it shipped over. The shipping cost was almost the same
> as the saw cost and I had to pay a futher £200 to clear customs and
> delivery. Still I was pleased as I had a cast iron saw for much less
> than could be obtained here in the UK at the time.
>
> I see now that JET is being sold in the UK but the price for the
> SuperSaw with sliding table and 30" fence is £1300 + delivery ( thats
> more than $2400 ) whilst you guys in the states can buy the same saw
> for around $1000 (£515).
>
> No doubt the UK version has been nobbled so you can't even use a
> stacked dado blade as well.
>
> Ah well, moan over
>
> happy woodworking.
>
> Andy
Since the market there calls for a different configuration, doubtful. Don't
know precisely, but think 16% is VAT on top of what duty and shipping cost.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:A%[email protected]...
>
> You think maybe if the demand in the UK was as large as it is in the US,
> your suppliers could get a bigger price break?
>
>
Maybe the drug scientist should do like the performers and declare drugs as
intellectual property, so they can collect royalties for life plus rather
than surrender them to the public domain?
"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There have been proposals to shorten the time before generics come to
market. For some reason it has historically take about 20
> months for a generic equivalent of an already approved drug to make it's
way through the FDA approvals process. The current
> administration has been working to speed that process (see the FDA web
site).
>
Get your facts straight:
The drugs are the same ones sold in the USA, some are made in Canada, some
in USA, some in France and some in Germany. There are only a few major drug
manufacturers that produce the branded drugs in the world. Not all are
American. Generic drugs are another story, but are usually produced after
the patents run out.
A lot of development is done in other countries than the US.
Canada, and other countries have agreements on how much the drug companies
can charge consumers for drugs. In the US the government has refused to help
their consumers. The drug companies have a lot of lobbyists in Washington to
keep it that way.
There is a growing groundswell developing against selling to Americans
because 30 million Canadians cannot continue to supply over 300 million
Americans with drugs. Already there are reports of supplies running low, and
the drug companies are not happy with supplying Americans through Canada.
Don't believe the story that Americans must pay development costs through
high drug prices. Drugs are developed in all major countries in the world.
The biggest cost the drug manufacturer incur is advertising which adds
greatly to the price along with above average profits. US style advertising
is prohibited in Canada which also works to keep Canadian drugs cheaper.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:19:38 -0400, James T. Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Doug Winterburn wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, but the feds are not trying to stop individuals from buying
drugs
> >> in Canada. They're not now and have not allowed commercial importation
of
> >> Canadian drugs. They may allow importation in the future on a case by
> >> case basis as approved by the FDA.
> >
> > As approved by the FDA? These are mostly American made drugs, already
approved
> > by the FDA.
>
> The concerns are real. Is that real (drug), or a fake copy of (drug)?
What
> is the chain of control of the drugs? Have they been stored and
transported
> properly? Drugs can be temperature sensitive, light sensitive, degrade
over
> relatively short time periods, and so on. It should go without saying,
but
> some of the spammers who claim to be selling "cheap Canadian drugs" aren't
> really in Canada, aren't selling legitimate drugs, and aren't going to
> send you what you pay for if you get anything at all.
>
> If it's the right drug, _and_ it's safe, _and_ the Canadian government
> is happy to let their socialized medicine continue to pay for discounts
> for USA'n consumers, _then_ this would work. There are a couple problems
> with that, not the least of which is Canada not being eager to do so.
>
> The real problem continues to be that someone needs to pay for this drug
> research. These things cost money, sometimes an obscene amount of money,
> to develop. That cost has to be met somehow, and if Canada is refusing to
> pay their part, then it has to come from, for instance, us. Maybe the
> question shouldn't be "how can we import cheaper drugs from Canada"<
> but it should be "How can we get Canada to start paying their fair share
> of the costs?"
>
> Dave Hinz
>
I keep seeing references to the "Canadian Socialist System", implying that
the government buys drugs for its citizens. While Canada is partly socialist
in its medical services, the government does NOT pay for my drugs. My
employer reimburses me 90% and I pay the balance. Basic medical and hospital
(and hospital administered drugs) services are covered by government medical
services, anything over and above must be paid by me or my medical plan
through my employer.
The street prices of drugs are covered by an agreement between the drug
companies and the government, and the fact that they don't waste tons of
money with advertising in Canada (illegal).
"igor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:36:02 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:25:02 GMT, igor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>So, to the extent that socialism=the state knowing better than the
markets
> >>and acting to impede the markets, that would be socialism being
responsible
> >>for the disparity. -- Igor
> >
> > Nice description of the administration refusing to let Americans
> > buy drugs in Canada.
>
> While I grant you credit for the pithy comment, the rub is that Canada is
a
> socialist system is this regard. What I find amusing is that so-called
> free-market Republicans who support US citizens buying drugs from Canada
> have not come out and called for price controls within the US of the drug
> industry -- which would bring here Canada's wonderful system that yields
> such low prices. (Yes, the politics of this is sooo overwhelming that it
> overcomes logic, as politics often does -- just here, IMO, the
> inconsistency goes to the core of capitalism.) No, they simply want to
> game the existing system. It's like voting to criminalize prostitution
and
> then urging horny guys to take sex tours to Costa Rica.
>
> I simply don't know that allowing unrestricted access to a "socialist
> (controlled) marketplace" constitutes capitalism. -- Igor
Y'know, I've never known a company that survived by "wasting" money.
That's government's task.
Advertising must do something for them.
"Eric Tonks" <etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The street prices of drugs are covered by an agreement between the drug
> companies and the government, and the fact that they don't waste tons of
> money with advertising in Canada (illegal).
>
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Y'know, I've never known a company that survived by "wasting" money.
> That's government's task.
>
<snip>
You claim to have Never Known HALIBURTIN ?
Good Grief!
--
www.ApacheTrail.com/ww/
Wrong begins with Dubya ~!~
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
" No, they simply want to game the existing system. It's like voting to
criminalize prostitution and
>then urging horny guys to take sex tours to Costa Rica."
Well phrased, Igor!
It does indeed cover the hypocricy of the Religious Right that hates
government until it can use government to force its own will upon the
Nation. The Ill-Fated lessons of the 1920s experiment with Prohibition
that led to rampant organized crime and a general scorn of all things
legally banned just don't register with those Dolts of the religious right.
( Hell, that's why there's a Convicted Drunk Driver sitting in the WHite
House today.)
Steve
--
WRONG Begins with Dubya
Bush + Cheney = Two Convicted Drunk Drivers behind the wheel of the Ship of
State
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
THEY delivered fuel and food to my kid, and will be audited to death (and
regret for accepting) on their cost plus contract. Waste is giving food
stamps so people can afford to buy beer and cigarettes.
You, sir have allowed others opinions to cloud reality. I'm sure you
personally have never had an original thought, nor have you learned to spell
Halliburton.
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Y'know, I've never known a company that survived by "wasting" money.
> > That's government's task.
> >
> <snip>
>
> You claim to have Never Known HALIBURTIN ?
>
George responds:
>THEY delivered fuel and food to my kid, and will be audited to death (and
>regret for accepting) on their cost plus contract. Waste is giving food
>stamps so people can afford to buy beer and cigarettes.
>
>You, sir have allowed others opinions to cloud reality. I'm sure you
>personally have never had an original thought, nor have you learned to spell
>Halliburton
Now, I just got snarled at t'other day for mentioning spelling, so what the
hell.
Food stamps are not a waste when used properly, but they are also not an
example of business, which is what I think the OP was trying to provide.
I don't think they can legally be used to buy beer and cigarettes, either, but
I've been wrong before, at least once. The biggest knock I can give them is
that they come without instructions for a proper diet: I see far too many chips
and cookies in the baskets that are paid for with food stamps and far too
little fresh fruit and vegetables.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
Learn to think. The use of the food stamps for food allows them to afford
the other stuff. One of the traditional scams is selling them at discount
for cash (to buy other chemicals), something they're trying to cure by
issuing debit cards.
Is there no end to your presumption? Twenty plus years in EMS and you
lecture me on medications, and now on what food stamps can buy on the legal
market, something I had to enforce? You know, you're seated in front of a
reference library. If you know one tenth of what you presume you know,
you'd look things up.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George responds:
>
> >THEY delivered fuel and food to my kid, and will be audited to death (and
> >regret for accepting) on their cost plus contract. Waste is giving food
> >stamps so people can afford to buy beer and cigarettes.
> >
> >You, sir have allowed others opinions to cloud reality. I'm sure you
> >personally have never had an original thought, nor have you learned to
spell
> >Halliburton
>
> Now, I just got snarled at t'other day for mentioning spelling, so what
the
> hell.
>
> Food stamps are not a waste when used properly, but they are also not an
> example of business, which is what I think the OP was trying to provide.
>
> I don't think they can legally be used to buy beer and cigarettes, either,
but
> I've been wrong before, at least once. The biggest knock I can give them
is
> that they come without instructions for a proper diet: I see far too many
chips
> and cookies in the baskets that are paid for with food stamps and far too
> little fresh fruit and vegetables.
>
> Charlie Self
> "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is
not
> hereditary." Thomas Paine
George snarls:
>Learn to think. The use of the food stamps for food allows them to afford
>the other stuff. One of the traditional scams is selling them at discount
>for cash (to buy other chemicals), something they're trying to cure by
>issuing debit cards.
Ah. Sorry. I don't automatically impute stupidity and cupidity and drunkenness
to those who may not be as well off financially as others. I know what the
scams are. I probably know some even you, in your marvelous depth of knowledge
don't know. My first wife was a social worker dealing with various problems for
a diverse population for years, and there were many inventive types.
Debit cards, though, are an excellent idea.
>Is there no end to your presumption? Twenty plus years in EMS and you
>lecture me on medications, and now on what food stamps can buy on the legal
>market, something I had to enforce? You know, you're seated in front of a
>reference library. If you know one tenth of what you presume you know,
>you'd look things up.
You know, something is really biting your nuts today. I hope you get rid of it.
How am I supposed to know you were/are a 20 year EMS? Why should I give a shit
when I was still correct.
Sorry guy, but dealing with assholes is something I only do for pay.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
It's moving out of the urban areas, though I heard some rumors that there
were some challenges to the process. Something about the information on the
magnetic strip constituting a privacy issue.
We've got here in the boondocks.
"David Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > George responds:
Waste is giving food
> > >stamps so people can afford to buy beer and cigarettes.
> They may not "legally" be usable for cigs & beer, but in any area with
> a reasonably large population of Food Stamp recipients they are used
> like cash for any purchase such as drugs, sex, cab fare, etc. They
> quickly become (il)legal tender, freely transferred and freely
> accepted. That is why the feds have tried moving to debit card
> technology for food stamps and welfare payments. I don't know how well
> that is progressing at this point.
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> George responds:
>
> >THEY delivered fuel and food to my kid, and will be audited to death (and
> >regret for accepting) on their cost plus contract. Waste is giving food
> >stamps so people can afford to buy beer and cigarettes.
> >
> >You, sir have allowed others opinions to cloud reality. I'm sure you
> >personally have never had an original thought, nor have you learned to spell
> >Halliburton
>
> Now, I just got snarled at t'other day for mentioning spelling, so what the
> hell.
>
> Food stamps are not a waste when used properly, but they are also not an
> example of business, which is what I think the OP was trying to provide.
>
> I don't think they can legally be used to buy beer and cigarettes, either, but
> I've been wrong before, at least once. The biggest knock I can give them is
> that they come without instructions for a proper diet: I see far too many chips
> and cookies in the baskets that are paid for with food stamps and far too
> little fresh fruit and vegetables.
>
> Charlie Self
> "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
> hereditary." Thomas Paine
They may not "legally" be usable for cigs & beer, but in any area with
a reasonably large population of Food Stamp recipients they are used
like cash for any purchase such as drugs, sex, cab fare, etc. They
quickly become (il)legal tender, freely transferred and freely
accepted. That is why the feds have tried moving to debit card
technology for food stamps and welfare payments. I don't know how well
that is progressing at this point.
Dave Hall
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:34:00 -0700, David Hall wrote:
> That is why the feds have tried moving to debit card
> technology for food stamps and welfare payments. I don't know how well
> that is progressing at this point.
I worked for a company that did EBT processing (electronic benefits
transfer). The tech is cool; it does solve a lot of problems. One guy
called the help line: "Hey, I just scored this card and it won't work!" So
helldesk tells him, "just stay right there while we work on it." He was
still standing there when the squad car pulled up and took him away.
The POS terminal can talk to the scanner, and allow only healthy stuff to
be charged to the card.
People are clever, though, so there's still somebody, somewhere, gaming
the system with EBT cards.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule_trim.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: George wrote:
: > You want Socialism, you pay for it.
:
: You get cheap tools, we get cheap medical attention.
:
: BugBear
Move to Canada, we get both!
Anybody want my free flu shot?
-Brian
"Andrew Griffin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip
>
> I see now that JET is being sold in the UK but the price for the
> SuperSaw with sliding table and 30" fence is £1300 + delivery ( thats
> more than $2400 ) whilst you guys in the states can buy the same saw
> for around $1000 (£515).
>
> No doubt the UK version has been nobbled so you can't even use a
> stacked dado blade as well.
You think maybe if the demand in the UK was as large as it is in the US,
your suppliers could get a bigger price break?
Cherokee-LTD wrote:
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule_trim.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : George wrote:
> : > You want Socialism, you pay for it.
> :
> : You get cheap tools, we get cheap medical attention.
> :
> : BugBear
>
> Move to Canada, we get both!
> Anybody want my free flu shot?
Um, cheap tools? Not here! (Well, at least the Ridgid JP0610 is tons
cheaper in the USA than in Canada.)
"philski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: >
: And Bush is getting money out of turnips yet-to-be-grown....
:
: Philski
"I own a turnip company? yuk yuk, that's news to me..... wanna buy some
turnips?"
-GW
It's even better to be old and retired in. I have no plans of
emigrating soon (or ever).
bob g.
bugbear wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>> You want Socialism, you pay for it.
>
>
> You get cheap tools, we get cheap medical attention.
>
> America is a truly fine country to be young, healthy
> and employed in.
>
> BugBear
I got my FREE flu shot at the local mall yesterday in Atlanta Ga .....mjh
"Daniel H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Cherokee-LTD wrote:
>> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule_trim.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> : George wrote:
>> : > You want Socialism, you pay for it.
>> :
>> : You get cheap tools, we get cheap medical attention.
>> :
>> : BugBear
>>
>> Move to Canada, we get both!
>> Anybody want my free flu shot?
>
> Um, cheap tools? Not here! (Well, at least the Ridgid JP0610 is tons
> cheaper in the USA than in Canada.)
>
> Hello all,
> I though I'd vent some frustration over the huge price difference
> between the US tool prices and those in the UK.
> A couple of years ago I bought a Jet 10" contractors saw from the
> states and had it shipped over. The shipping cost was almost the same
> as the saw cost and I had to pay a futher £200 to clear customs and
> delivery. Still I was pleased as I had a cast iron saw for much less
> than could be obtained here in the UK at the time.
> I see now that JET is being sold in the UK but the price for the
> SuperSaw with sliding table and 30" fence is £1300 + delivery ( thats
> more than $2400 ) whilst you guys in the states can buy the same saw
> for around $1000 (£515).
> No doubt the UK version has been nobbled so you can't even use a
> stacked dado blade as well.
> Ah well, moan over
> happy woodworking.
> Andy
Don't you think it would have been better if She had allowed for the euro
instead of keeping the pound? Isn't it a lot cheaper to vacation in Italy
nowadays?
Alex
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:58:39 -0400, "Eric Tonks"
<etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM> wrote:
>I keep seeing references to the "Canadian Socialist System", implying that
>the government buys drugs for its citizens. While Canada is partly socialist
>in its medical services, the government does NOT pay for my drugs. My
>employer reimburses me 90% and I pay the balance. Basic medical and hospital
>(and hospital administered drugs) services are covered by government medical
>services, anything over and above must be paid by me or my medical plan
>through my employer.
>
>The street prices of drugs are covered by an agreement between the drug
>companies and the government, and the fact that they don't waste tons of
>money with advertising in Canada (illegal).
>
>
If you check my earlier comments, I had defined my use of "socialism" here:
"So, to the extent that socialism=the state knowing better than the markets
and acting to impede the markets, that would be socialism being responsible
for the disparity."
GregP wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:25:02 GMT, igor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>So, to the extent that socialism=the state knowing better than the markets
>>and acting to impede the markets, that would be socialism being responsible
>>for the disparity. -- Igor
>
>
> Nice description of the administration refusing to let Americans
> buy drugs in Canada.
>
Greg - you just need to remember who's markets a free market system is supposed
to be good for :^)
JK
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:58:10 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>
>>> Nice description of the administration refusing to let Americans buy
>>> drugs in Canada.
>>
>>
>>Another lie, Greg, and you should know it. You can go to Canada and buy
>>whatever the hell you want; tour busses full of people go there regularly.
>>The question you're neglecting to think about, is _why are they cheaper
>>there_? I'll save you some time - because the Canadian Government refuses
>>to pay more, so the USA'n consumer gets to finance their cheap drugs.
>
>
> You don't even need to go to Canada to purchase Canadian drugs. My sister
> gets my mothers prescriptions filled via mail order from Canada. Greg
> (even though I don't see his posts) appears to continue to be clueless.
>
> -Doug
>
Well, yeah, except that is what the feds are trying to cut off. Hopefully this
little piece of free market economy will survive.
JK
James Kirby notes:
>> You don't even need to go to Canada to purchase Canadian drugs. My sister
>> gets my mothers prescriptions filled via mail order from Canada. Greg
>> (even though I don't see his posts) appears to continue to be clueless.
>>
>> -Doug
>>
>
>Well, yeah, except that is what the feds are trying to cut off. Hopefully
>this
>little piece of free market economy will survive.
Ah, hell, man. A drug company's gotta live, and they prefer chewing rather well
up on the hog.
For a time, I was ordering a prescription out of NZ. It was about half the
price of the Canadian drug. VA wouldn't supply it, possibly because of the
cost, so I went the cheapest possible route.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
VA only supplies drugs fifteen/twenty years out of fashion. Not that they
don't have therapeutic value, I suppose, but it's a different world looking
at VA meds versus civilian for the same condition. Most of our younger ER
docs don't even recognize 'em when you bring them to the hospital.
Long past time to trash that bureaucracy in favor of Medicare "V."
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message > For a time, I
was ordering a prescription out of NZ. It was about half the
> price of the Canadian drug. VA wouldn't supply it, possibly because of the
> cost, so I went the cheapest possible route.
>
George states:
>VA only supplies drugs fifteen/twenty years out of fashion. Not that they
>don't have therapeutic value, I suppose, but it's a different world looking
>at VA meds versus civilian for the same condition. Most of our younger ER
>docs don't even recognize 'em when you bring them to the hospital.
>
>Long past time to trash that bureaucracy in favor of Medicare "V."
Actually, it turned out VA was right--they were nervous about Vioxx and
Celebrex and took them out of their pharmacy before the general withdrawal of
Vioxx.
As far as out-of-date medications go, one of mine was so far behind the times
that it had just reached the reference books, and hadn't reached local doctors.
I think you're making some general statements from information laid on for
specific cases: it is accurate at times, but it strikes me like the big
complaint that VA has a much higher death rate than the general run of
hospitals; it also has a majority of patients much older than those in general
hospitals.
And however you name the bureaucracy, it is going to be reasonably large,
especially with two new combat arenas feeding it patients.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
Nope, what I say is what I say. It is my experience, and presented as such.
I see lots of VA pill bottles, even though the nearest facility is over 100
miles away from the area I serve.
Death rates is your straw man, as is your political insinuation.
The purpose of the VA was to provide a benefit to those who had served in a
day when such benefits were not routinely extended to those who had reached
a certain age or infirmity. Those days are past. Extending Medicare or
Medicaid level benefits to veterans would certainly result in a saving to
the vast majority of vets, who would not have to travel, though it would
cost more, I'm sure. When medical attention is inexpensive and available
nearby, it will be used. As with the other mentioned programs, however,
hidden costs in the form of write-offs by participating providers will never
be mentioned. Private insurances will simply have to pay higher prices to
subsidize the system.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George states:
>
> >VA only supplies drugs fifteen/twenty years out of fashion. Not that
they
> >don't have therapeutic value, I suppose, but it's a different world
looking
> >at VA meds versus civilian for the same condition. Most of our younger
ER
> >docs don't even recognize 'em when you bring them to the hospital.
> >
> >Long past time to trash that bureaucracy in favor of Medicare "V."
SNIP
>
> I think you're making some general statements from information laid on for
> specific cases: it is accurate at times, but it strikes me like the big
> complaint that VA has a much higher death rate than the general run of
> hospitals; it also has a majority of patients much older than those in
general
> hospitals.
>
> And however you name the bureaucracy, it is going to be reasonably large,
> especially with two new combat arenas feeding it patients.
George responds:
>Nope, what I say is what I say. It is my experience, and presented as such.
>I see lots of VA pill bottles, even though the nearest facility is over 100
>miles away from the area I serve.
Well, the nearest VA to me is 50 miles away and right now I'm going there
weekly. I saee lots of pill bottles from VA, too, and my experience is the
opposite, for the most part, of yours.
>Death rates is your straw man, as is your political insinuation
Straw man? Oh horseshit. What political insinuation? If I have anything
political to say, I say it. Beauracracies are unfortunate necessities, and
regardless of political party, empire building soon turns them into unwieldy
messes. If that's a political statement, so be it.
>Extending Medicare or
>Medicaid level benefits to veterans would certainly result in a saving to
>the vast majority of vets, who would not have to travel, though it would
>cost more, I'm sure.
Cost more? Do you mean extending the benefits to those under 65 as well? If so,
it would certainly cost more, but might be offset by reductions in Veteran's
Affairs medical centers, hospitals and clinics.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
"George" wrote in message
> The purpose of the VA was to provide a benefit to those who had served in
a
> day when such benefits were not routinely extended to those who had
reached
> a certain age or infirmity. Those days are past.
The sad thing is that we were _specifically_ told/promised, and on more
than one occasion during orientation as draftees in the 60's, that we, as
draftees, would be able to take advantage of VA medical care facilities for
the rest of our lives, no qualifications.
I had some 30 something VA administrative clerk tell me a year or so ago, as
if she was there at the time, that that was never "policy" and we were never
told that ... my reaction was that it is an ungrateful nation who will lie
to you, then make you fight again for what you were promised
How soon 'they' conveniently forget ... BOHICA
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
Swingman writes:
>
>I had some 30 something VA administrative clerk tell me a year or so ago, as
>if she was there at the time, that that was never "policy" and we were never
>told that ... my reaction was that it is an ungrateful nation who will lie
>to you, then make you fight again for what you were promised
>
>How soon 'they' conveniently forget ... BOHICA
Reminds me of my first trip into the Parkersburg, WV VA Clinic. I was so sick I
took a cab there, either flu or intestional disorder. The receptionist refused
to pass me through for treatment, though I had my Salem VA card. Her comment,
"You're not in OUR system." I was too sick to argue, but I really had a fit
when the same bitch later told my wife that they "Would never do that."
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> Swingman writes:
>
> >
> >I had some 30 something VA administrative clerk tell me a year or so ago,
as
> >if she was there at the time, that that was never "policy" and we were
never
> >told that ... my reaction was that it is an ungrateful nation who will
lie
> >to you, then make you fight again for what you were promised
> >
> >How soon 'they' conveniently forget ... BOHICA
>
> Reminds me of my first trip into the Parkersburg, WV VA Clinic. I was so
sick I
> took a cab there, either flu or intestional disorder. The receptionist
refused
> to pass me through for treatment, though I had my Salem VA card. Her
comment,
> "You're not in OUR system." I was too sick to argue, but I really had a
fit
> when the same bitch later told my wife that they "Would never do that."
I hesitate to even mention it in that it may be jinxed for all times, but
for the first time ever I am actually in _e-mail contact_ with my VA PCP!!
... can you imagine that?
Too damn convenient/good to last.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
Swingman notes:
>I hesitate to even mention it in that it may be jinxed for all times, but
>for the first time ever I am actually in _e-mail contact_ with my VA PCP!!
>... can you imagine that?
>
>Too damn convenient/good to last.
I'm jealous. I got a phone call from my PCP about 10 days ago. Someone had left
a message on her phone that she thought was from me. It wasn't. I lost her
blinking extension number and working one's way through the automated horseshit
session called a phone system is so maddening I'd rather make the 100 mile
round trip and take my chances.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
Please, it's another case of "soak the rich."
You, as an American, are rich, and must be prepared to do your fair share.
Actually, your insurance must do its fair share, and that's paid by your
employer.
"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
The fact
> that the price
> back to us after a turnaround still beats the pants off what we can get at
home
> is just appalling.
> This corporate welfare stuff just really, really ticks me off. Why does
an
> average person on the
> street support it? Have they really fallen that far into the con?
>
Lot of folks never even look at the withholding on their checks, much less
the cost of things not reported. Quick to complain they're underpaid,
though.
Now explain to me why the regional hospital buys its employees BCBS?
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
> >You, as an American, are rich, and must be prepared to do your fair
share.
> >
> >Actually, your insurance must do its fair share, and that's paid by your
> >employer.
>
> Turns out that's becoming a *major* problem. The economic realities
> of healthcare are such that the end-user is being exposed to the true
> cost of healthcare, and the end-user is very unhappy about that,
> because the end-user has been sold a bill of goods by the government
> and the insurance industry.
>
> I happen to be in that business, BTW, and you are welcome to read some
> of my opinion pieces on that subject on my website. Even if you
> aren't in Texas.
>
> ---
> Howard Lee Harkness
> General insurance information: http://www.HLHins.com
> Insurance for H1-Bs: http://H1B.HLHins.com
> Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://AFFHC.HLHins.com
> Best Dental plan on the market: http://Dental.HLHins.com
George responds:
>Now explain to me why the regional hospital buys its employees BCBS?
Outside of area coverage while traveling? There doesn't seem to be much else in
the way of a rationale. My mother was an RN, and she got courtesy treatment
from doctors and hospitals for her entire career, as did us kids until we left
home. I guess she paid for pills.
Things have changed.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
"George" <george@least> wrote:
>VA only supplies drugs fifteen/twenty years out of fashion. Not that they
>don't have therapeutic value, I suppose, but it's a different world looking
>at VA meds versus civilian for the same condition. Most of our younger ER
>docs don't even recognize 'em when you bring them to the hospital.
If you want a good preview of what Kerry's healthcare would be like,
go spend a day at a VA medical center.
I don't really have a quarrel with the out-of-fashion drugs; many of
them still work just fine for a fraction of the cost of the fancy new
stuff. I have a problem with rationing of healthcare, though.
--
My opinionated book reviews on sales topics
http://book-reviews.hostpci.com
Howard states:
>
>If you want a good preview of what Kerry's healthcare would be like,
>go spend a day at a VA medical center.
>
>I don't really have a quarrel with the out-of-fashion drugs; many of
>them still work just fine for a fraction of the cost of the fancy new
>stuff. I have a problem with rationing of healthcare, though.
>
Rationing of healthcare goes on every day. Those with insurance get it. Those
with a modest amount of money either do without or pay through the nose. Those
too poor to pay, get some slap dash care that may or may not be good.
I spent part of the morning at my 'local' VA facility getting a Hyagel (sp?)
injection for my knee. I was in and out in 20 minutes. Last week, it took about
25.
But they can't get flu vaccine. Makes one wonder what sources the Chicago Bears
have, as well as Congress. And if you believe that the Bears are the only
sports team to be "special" I've got a real deal for you on a bridge.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>I spent part of the morning at my 'local' VA facility getting a Hyagel (sp?)
>injection for my knee. I was in and out in 20 minutes. Last week, it took about
>25.
I have *never* had a visit at the Dallas VA facility take less than 4
hours. The one time that took only 4 hours was just to schedule the
*real* appointment for 6 weeks later. And they assigned the time &
date without any consulation with me. I could either be there on that
day, or resched for another 6 weeks out.
---
Howard Lee Harkness
General insurance information: http://www.HLHins.com
Insurance for H1-Bs: http://H1B.HLHins.com
Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://AFFHC.HLHins.com
Best Dental plan on the market: http://Dental.HLHins.com
Charlie Self wrote:
> James Kirby notes:
>
>
>
>
>>>You don't even need to go to Canada to purchase Canadian drugs. My sister
>>>gets my mothers prescriptions filled via mail order from Canada. Greg
>>>(even though I don't see his posts) appears to continue to be clueless.
>>>
>>>-Doug
>>>
>>
>>Well, yeah, except that is what the feds are trying to cut off. Hopefully
>>this
>>little piece of free market economy will survive.
>
>
> Ah, hell, man. A drug company's gotta live, and they prefer chewing rather well
> up on the hog.
>
> For a time, I was ordering a prescription out of NZ. It was about half the
> price of the Canadian drug. VA wouldn't supply it, possibly because of the
> cost, so I went the cheapest possible route.
>
> Charlie Self
> "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
> hereditary." Thomas Paine
It's frightening to think how far biased the corporate/neocon government
combination
is towards concentration of wealth. Obviously, drug companies are not selling
to Canada
at a loss. They would just stop selling if that were the situation. The fact
that the price
back to us after a turnaround still beats the pants off what we can get at home
is just appalling.
This corporate welfare stuff just really, really ticks me off. Why does an
average person on the
street support it? Have they really fallen that far into the con?
Jim Kirby
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
"George" <george@least> wrote:
>You, as an American, are rich, and must be prepared to do your fair share.
>
>Actually, your insurance must do its fair share, and that's paid by your
>employer.
Turns out that's becoming a *major* problem. The economic realities
of healthcare are such that the end-user is being exposed to the true
cost of healthcare, and the end-user is very unhappy about that,
because the end-user has been sold a bill of goods by the government
and the insurance industry.
I happen to be in that business, BTW, and you are welcome to read some
of my opinion pieces on that subject on my website. Even if you
aren't in Texas.
---
Howard Lee Harkness
General insurance information: http://www.HLHins.com
Insurance for H1-Bs: http://H1B.HLHins.com
Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://AFFHC.HLHins.com
Best Dental plan on the market: http://Dental.HLHins.com
"George" <george@least> wrote:
>Now explain to me why the regional hospital buys its employees BCBS?
BCBS was started by doctors, for doctors. They have some of the
highest rates charged for health insurance.
On the upside, they have very good customer service. And they pay the
doctors more quickly (and more generously) than most other insurance
companies.
---
Howard Lee Harkness
General insurance information: http://www.HLHins.com
Insurance for H1-Bs: http://H1B.HLHins.com
Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://AFFHC.HLHins.com
Best Dental plan on the market: http://Dental.HLHins.com
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:10:52 -0400, James T. Kirby wrote:
>
>
>
>>>You don't even need to go to Canada to purchase Canadian drugs. My
>>>sister gets my mothers prescriptions filled via mail order from Canada.
>>>Greg (even though I don't see his posts) appears to continue to be
>>>clueless.
>>>
>>>-Doug
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, yeah, except that is what the feds are trying to cut off. Hopefully
>>this little piece of free market economy will survive.
>
>
> Sorry, but the feds are not trying to stop individuals from buying drugs
> in Canada. They're not now and have not allowed commercial importation of
> Canadian drugs. They may allow importation in the future on a case by
> case basis as approved by the FDA.
>
> -Doug
>
As approved by the FDA? These are mostly American made drugs, already approved
by the FDA.
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:19:38 -0400, James T. Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry, but the feds are not trying to stop individuals from buying drugs
>>>in Canada. They're not now and have not allowed commercial importation of
>>>Canadian drugs. They may allow importation in the future on a case by
>>>case basis as approved by the FDA.
>>
>>As approved by the FDA? These are mostly American made drugs, already approved
>>by the FDA.
>
>
> The concerns are real.
Millions of dead Canadians provide the case in point.
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:39:05 -0400, James T. Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>
>
>>>The concerns are real.
>
>
>
>>Millions of dead Canadians provide the case in point.
>
>
> I notice you snipped where I listed those concerns, including safe
> transport and storage, and verification that the source really _is_ a
> Canadian pharmacy. Wonder why that is...
Probably because a lot of those concerns are the obvious road blocks that would
be suggested by
an industry trying to maintain its government-blessed monopoly, avoiding the
problem of having to
deal with a true free market for as long as possible.
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
Al Reid wrote:
>
>
> Lets be sure not to solve the problem, but to shift it for the short term. BTW, this problem did not just arise in the last 4
> years. It existed under both democratic and republican administrations. What exactly did the previous administration do to solve
> the problem during their 8 year tenure?
>
>
Are we arguing the merits of the previous administration or the present one?
If a problem is long standing and needs to be fixed,
then there it is. Bush is not going to fix this one - he's fallen head over
heals in with the people who would concentrate all the money
in the top 100 or so people if they could. Would Kerry fix it? Probably not -
too much resistance from the opposition and there are going to be
much bigger problems to face. (Social Security, worldwide perception that we
are the problem rather than the solution, etc.)
JK
On 26 Oct 2004 07:28:31 -0700, [email protected] (Andrew
Griffin) wrote:
>No doubt the UK version has been nobbled so you can't even use a
>stacked dado blade as well.
How different is it ? Does the UK version have usable guards, a 240V
motor, a no-volt release switch and spins down in a reasonable time ?
There's no reason why it has to be dado-incapable, it's just difficult
to build a euro-legal saw that can also use a dado blade and few
bother.
PS - I fail to see how socialism is reponsible for UK/US price
differences ?
--
Smert' spamionam
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:25:02 GMT, igor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>So, to the extent that socialism=the state knowing better than the markets
>and acting to impede the markets, that would be socialism being responsible
>for the disparity. -- Igor
Nice description of the administration refusing to let Americans
buy drugs in Canada.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:36:02 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:25:02 GMT, igor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>So, to the extent that socialism=the state knowing better than the markets
>>and acting to impede the markets, that would be socialism being responsible
>>for the disparity. -- Igor
>
> Nice description of the administration refusing to let Americans
> buy drugs in Canada.
While I grant you credit for the pithy comment, the rub is that Canada is a
socialist system is this regard. What I find amusing is that so-called
free-market Republicans who support US citizens buying drugs from Canada
have not come out and called for price controls within the US of the drug
industry -- which would bring here Canada's wonderful system that yields
such low prices. (Yes, the politics of this is sooo overwhelming that it
overcomes logic, as politics often does -- just here, IMO, the
inconsistency goes to the core of capitalism.) No, they simply want to
game the existing system. It's like voting to criminalize prostitution and
then urging horny guys to take sex tours to Costa Rica.
I simply don't know that allowing unrestricted access to a "socialist
(controlled) marketplace" constitutes capitalism. -- Igor
On 27 Oct 2004 16:58:10 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:36:02 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:25:02 GMT, igor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>So, to the extent that socialism=the state knowing better than the markets
>>>and acting to impede the markets, that would be socialism being responsible
>>>for the disparity. -- Igor
>>
>> Nice description of the administration refusing to let Americans
>> buy drugs in Canada.
>
>Another lie, Greg, and you should know it. You can go to Canada and buy
>whatever the hell you want; tour busses full of people go there regularly.
>The question you're neglecting to think about, is _why are they cheaper there_?
>I'll save you some time - because the Canadian Government refuses to pay
>more, so the USA'n consumer gets to finance their cheap drugs.
um... the US pharm companies who supply the canadian market aren't
forced to do so. they negotioate with the canadian single payer system
to supply drugs there. I can only assume that they make a profit doing
so. the fact that the prices for the same drugs are so much higher
here has more to do with cronyism and a totally fragmented market than
with the research and development costs they keep whining about.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:31:25 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>You want Socialism, you pay for it. Not even Kerry can get money out of a
>turnip, though he thinks he can.
Bush doesn't get money out of a turnip: he wouldn't
dare try because the turnip might complain, not give
him a campaign "contribution," or not vote for him.
Instead, he's taking the easy way out: take money
from people who haven't even been born yet.
"Daniel H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Cherokee-LTD wrote:
: > "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule_trim.co.uk> wrote in message
: > news:[email protected]...
: > : George wrote:
: > : > You want Socialism, you pay for it.
: > :
: > : You get cheap tools, we get cheap medical attention.
: > :
: > : BugBear
: >
: > Move to Canada, we get both!
: > Anybody want my free flu shot?
:
: Um, cheap tools? Not here! (Well, at least the Ridgid JP0610 is tons
: cheaper in the USA than in Canada.)
:
Cheap, relative to prices abroad.
Shopping wisely can also provide deals comparable to the US. Example; I just
bought a Lincoln Mig welder locally that was cheaper than Amazon after
exchange rate and I didn't have to ship it.
Do you have your heart set on Ridgid? I don't see the value in that
Jointer - not that it's a bad machine, just overpriced.
-Brian
igor wrote:
n
The EC (Commission of
> the EU) is slowly, but Shirley (it seems), moving the laggards to allow
> retail price competition. There is a news clip today about how France is
> dragging its heels [Insert joke/comment here] and a giant retailer there is
> trying to make it a political issue.
France, hummm, as one of my T shirts "remember agincourt!", be honset
the French still want to live in the past and the see the EU as an
extension of the French republik!
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:58:10 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
>> Nice description of the administration refusing to let Americans buy
>> drugs in Canada.
>
> Another lie, Greg, and you should know it. You can go to Canada and buy
> whatever the hell you want; tour busses full of people go there regularly.
> The question you're neglecting to think about, is _why are they cheaper
> there_? I'll save you some time - because the Canadian Government refuses
> to pay more, so the USA'n consumer gets to finance their cheap drugs.
You don't even need to go to Canada to purchase Canadian drugs. My sister
gets my mothers prescriptions filled via mail order from Canada. Greg
(even though I don't see his posts) appears to continue to be clueless.
-Doug
--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:10:52 -0400, James T. Kirby wrote:
>> You don't even need to go to Canada to purchase Canadian drugs. My
>> sister gets my mothers prescriptions filled via mail order from Canada.
>> Greg (even though I don't see his posts) appears to continue to be
>> clueless.
>>
>> -Doug
>>
>>
> Well, yeah, except that is what the feds are trying to cut off. Hopefully
> this little piece of free market economy will survive.
Sorry, but the feds are not trying to stop individuals from buying drugs
in Canada. They're not now and have not allowed commercial importation of
Canadian drugs. They may allow importation in the future on a case by
case basis as approved by the FDA.
-Doug
--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:19:38 -0400, James T. Kirby wrote:
>>>Well, yeah, except that is what the feds are trying to cut off.
>>>Hopefully this little piece of free market economy will survive.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but the feds are not trying to stop individuals from buying drugs
>> in Canada. They're not now and have not allowed commercial importation
>> of Canadian drugs. They may allow importation in the future on a case
>> by case basis as approved by the FDA.
> As approved by the FDA? These are mostly American made drugs, already
> approved by the FDA.
Some are, but *most* are not. None of my mothers are US manufactured.
Mostly French.
-Doug
--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:27:36 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
> The real problem continues to be that someone needs to pay for this drug
> research. These things cost money, sometimes an obscene amount of money,
> to develop. That cost has to be met somehow, and if Canada is refusing to
True, drug research is expensive. However--the pharmaceutical companies
spend more money on marketing than they do on research. There's plenty of
money in the pot for research. The pharmies just have a captive market,
and are charging what the market will bear. The fairly recent trend of US
consumers seeking Canuckistani drugs just indicates that the pharmies have
come near the maximum they can charge. Bringing prices down is easy: just
stop buying medicine. Right, like that'll happen. So, it takes regulatory
action to cap prices. That way, consumers can keep buying meds, get their
will expressed via their elected representatives, and the pharmies can
still make money hand over fist. Note that the recent legislation
(Medicare drug benefits, IIRC) prohibits the US government from
negotiating lower prices with the pharmies. So, no regulatory action yet
because the representatives are representing their constituents, not their
citizens. </rant>
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:33:37 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
>> I'd just like to clarify what you are saying here: The drug companies
>> sell into canada at a lower price
>
> This, I think we cannot be in disagreement about, right?
>
>> and actually *lose* money,
>
> I'm not sure they're losing, but if we're paying more than a Canadian for
> the same thing, one of us is financing the other.
>
>> which they
>> make up from profits off the backs of hard-working Americans.
>
> Since the Canadians aren't paying their share, yes, we're paying it for
> them. How else would you explain the different pricing?
>
>> So they
>> sell to Canada just out of the goodness of their hearts?
>
> They're probably making a profit on the per-unit costs (incremental),
> but we get to pay for the startup costs (the research). Been a long time
> since economics class so I probably fluffed the terminology, but it's the
> same reason that American TV can sell you a Sony for less than the
> wholesale cost paid by a smaller vendor.
No, as long as the pharmies cover their costs, there is no "financing"
involved. The extra cost to consumers, over the costs of production and
proper distribution, is called "profit." The question is how much profit
can the pharmies make before the pig squeals.
There is no "share" that Canadians aren't paying. They're just not
getting bled as white.
Again, there is no shortage of funds for research. The cost of
research, as astonishingly high as it is, is amortized across a huge
market. This is why "orphan diseases" are around: there isn't a big enough
market to amortize the R&D. For the mass-market meds we're talking about
here, the pharmies do not lose one cent by selling at a lower cost to
anybody; they only make less profit on the top.
To recap: Pharmies make a profit selling meds in Canada. Pharmies make a
humongous profit selling meds in the US. Cads even sleazier than the med
lords can and do bilk unwary consumers. Reputable pharmacies in Canada can
and do safely ship meds to smart shoppers.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
In article <[email protected]>,
"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
<on importing legal drugs from canada, cause y'all already import a
whole lot of other drugs from up here....>
> It would also increase
> the chances of harmful drugs making their way across the border and doing
> more harm than good.
It is true you know, we have not regulations on drugs; they routinely
toss toxic waste into them as filler. Taking an asprin here is like
playing russian roulette. Why, last year along, 40,000 canucks died due
to bad drugs. All our politicians are corrupt and refuse to do anything
about it.
> Although I believe that drug prices
> are too high and that far too much money is spent by the drug companies on
> advertising, I don't think that reimportation from Canada
> will be beneficial in the long term.
Whoa, wait a moment there; "reimportation"??? You mean we got those
fucking bum drugs from you fuckers in the first place??? That is it, I
am calling for an invasion.
PK
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> The question you're neglecting to think about, is _why are they cheaper
> there_?
> I'll save you some time - because the Canadian Government refuses to pay
> more, so the USA'n consumer gets to finance their cheap drugs.
I'd just like to clarify what you are saying here: The drug companies
sell into canada at a lower price and actually *lose* money, which they
make up from profits off the backs of hard-working Americans. So they
sell to Canada just out of the goodness of their hearts?
PK
Paul Kierstead asks, tongue firmly implanted:
>
>> The question you're neglecting to think about, is _why are they cheaper
>> there_?
>> I'll save you some time - because the Canadian Government refuses to pay
>> more, so the USA'n consumer gets to finance their cheap drugs.
>
>I'd just like to clarify what you are saying here: The drug companies
>sell into canada at a lower price and actually *lose* money, which they
>make up from profits off the backs of hard-working Americans. So they
>sell to Canada just out of the goodness of their hearts?
Sure they do. Of course, the fact that if they charged U.S. prices, that
particular drug would not sell at all in that area of N. America has nothing to
do with it.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:06:18 GMT, igor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>While I grant you credit for the pithy comment, the rub is that Canada is a
>socialist system is this regard. What I find amusing is that so-called
>free-market Republicans who support US citizens buying drugs from Canada
>have not come out and called for price controls within the US of the drug
>industry -- which would bring here Canada's wonderful system that yields
>such low prices. (Yes, the politics of this is sooo overwhelming that it
>overcomes logic, as politics often does -- just here, IMO, the
>inconsistency goes to the core of capitalism.) No, they simply want to
>game the existing system. It's like voting to criminalize prostitution and
>then urging horny guys to take sex tours to Costa Rica.
>
>I simply don't know that allowing unrestricted access to a "socialist
>(controlled) marketplace" constitutes capitalism. -- Igor
I don't believe that there is quite as much of a difference between
the Canadian systems and ours. In both of our countries, some
people pay for some percentage of their drugs, depending on their
personal policies while some receive drugs for free. And in both
countries one or more gov't or gov't-related agencies negotiate bulk
prices. The one truly significant difference between the two is that
our current gov't believes in propping up corporations, never mind
where they're based (and increasingly they are based outside of
the US), threatening US citizens with a ban on purchases in Canada
because it isn't "safe" for them, while encouraging US corporations
to set up overseas operations which have access to our personal id
information, bank statements, social security numbers, and credit
account numbers, who can then pass them on to G*d knows who.
On 26 Oct 2004 07:28:31 -0700, [email protected] (Andrew
Griffin) wrote:
>
>
>Ah well, moan over
Yeahbut - you got good beer and you all talk real fancy like! That's
gotta make up for sumthin'!
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule_trim.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George wrote:
> > You want Socialism, you pay for it.
>
> You get cheap tools, we get cheap medical attention.
>
But if you have no money, even if you are an illegal alien, you get free
medical attention.
dwhite
Cherokee-LTD wrote:
> "Daniel H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : Um, cheap tools? Not here! (Well, at least the Ridgid JP0610 is tons
> : cheaper in the USA than in Canada.)
>
> Cheap, relative to prices abroad.
[snip]
> Do you have your heart set on Ridgid? I don't see the value in that
> Jointer - not that it's a bad machine, just overpriced.
Overpriced in Canada, or overpriced in general? My local Home Depot
sells for $570 CAD, the US price is likely close to $350 USD.
I don't have my heart set on it, it's just that I think it will end up
being a nice jointer at the USD price. Do you have an alternative I
should be looking at?
- Daniel