OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 23, 8:06*pm, wrote:

Tell you what - email Wayne Knight (unless he's lurking and pops up) and ask him
how many dead bodies, of those who died because they didn't have 16K upfront, he must step over each day.

I think I'm going to be sorry I lurked and popped up.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go repossess some pacemakers and
offer complementary shovels so those who won't pay me 16K upfront for
their potentially life saving treatment can start to help their family
save on their burial costs. The IRS allows me to include on my annual
990 filling as a community benefit further justifying my 501c3 status.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...
On Feb 23, 2:34 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

Did cost me $1200 a
month. Is that not reasonable?

I doubt seriously they could afford that.

As for blaming
... nothing, this last year could probably have changed my friends
situation, not enough time

.... but the ****ing Repugnants with their filibuster mania forced
what really could have been well discussed, compromised, health care
reform to fail ( admittedly, partly because a few imbecile Democrats
had to be "accommodated") because not even a few reasonable Repugs
were to be found in the hall )

... shouting "no" is NOT leading, it's lying about being a leader

There was very little in the "health care plan" to control costs. They
should have had insurance before the pre existing conditions. I think
insurance companies should have to accept pre existion conditions at no
extra charge if the person already was covered by insurance. Let the 2
insurance companies work out the extra costs. But if someone does not have
insurance and then gets sick and wants insurance, he should pay more. Maybe
a lot more. Covering all pre-existion conditions is sort of like being able
to have no fire insurance on your house, and it burns down. You think that
pre-existing condition should be covered by the new insurance company?
Insurance is spreading the risk over a large group. Sort of like gambling.
You gamble a small amount each month that you will not have to pay a huge
medical bill.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

"Larry L" wrote in message
...
On Feb 23, 4:09 pm, jh wrote:


I'm all for fixing health care - but lets fix costs. If the costs can
be contained - people will get coverage.



I think we'd agree on more than disagree.

But, protecting "profits" in the health biz is at odds with
protecting people in the country. Other countries have shown
( varying methods and success ) that "reasonable" profits AND
reasonable costs are both possible.

From my view, a major political problem here is that Republicans
( both sides but far more obvious over there on the right ) are owned
by and work for drug companies, insurance companies, and Wall St {less
clearly related})

My guess is that you vote R because you think they will "defend" your
right to make as much money as you can and stash it away .... good old
American Dream. ( not that I argue against it in most cases )

My question, do YOU think health care and iron work construction fall
into the same category, i.e. free enterprise with only profit as a
worthwhile goal? Do you even really believe that "profit" is the only
important ( even the most important) product of your own biz? if so,
sorry

The only couple ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors. Number 2 is get rid of a lot of the HMO mentality of a $10 copay
and everything is covered. Under that scenario, there is an immense
increase in hospital and doctor visits. Gets the sniffles. Old days, he
stayed home, got some rest, and maybe chicken soup, and was well in 3 days.
Now mom takes kid to hospital, they run a huge amount of costly tests to
cover their liability, and tell mom to take the kid home, give him some
Tylenol, maybe some chicken soup, and he will be ok in 3 days. Added couple
thousand to the health care costs. Europe has "Free" healthcare. But it is
not free, is is paid for with $3 a gallon gas tax, etc. They also do some
things correctly. Besides an emergency room, they have a doctors office
attached to the hospital with a nurse, aid, clerk and doctor. Takes care of
things like the kids cold without all the ER stuff. There is a lineup to
get attention, but wait is not too long. I had to avail myself of it in
Sorrento, Italy. Free for everybody, but if I had to go to the hospital
part, I would have had to pay. We could cut costs, but will the people
stand for the cut in services? Canada had a year or 3 wait for a knee
replacement. In the 1980's British Columbia had one MRI machine. There
were 7 in the San Francisco Bay area. 6-9 months wait for an MRI. You want
that rationing and cost reduction?

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 23, 5:28*pm, Larry L wrote:

He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health
care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions.

Sorry to hear about your friend Larry. As a democrat and social
liberal I understand your frustation with the Republican side of the
isle and their inflexible and childish governing style. Unfortunately
the Democrats in Congress are not being entirely truthful as some of
the back alley deals have to indicate. Furthermore this thing is not
so much a healthcare reform bill as some would have you believe though
it would, or more appropriately state "should" offer immediate
financial assistance to your friend's plight, but it does very little
to correct the real or precieved issues in our healthcare processes.

If you want to email me, I might be able to help your friends get
access to some assistance depending where in Idaho they reside and the
actual health issue.

But rather than responding to each specific posts that I think needs a
reponse, other than the three I've already responded to, I'm going to
try to lump a few comments to various posts in here. I apologize in
advance for the length.

For the conservative sounding types, let me point out that you already
subsidize the poor, under insured, and those on Medicare, Medicaid,
VA, and Tricare (Champus). You subsidize them through the costs you
pay now for private insurance or other healthcare services you
purchase out of pocket since the government programs have not
increased their payments in line with the costs of doing business. In
fact that we already have a universal health access program. It's
called the hospital emergency room and by law we have to treat and
stablize any patient regardless of their financial situation. The
issue that needs to be discussed is not what is going to come out of
our pockets in terms of taxes but how does the financial transfers to
the government actually lessen the burden carried by private industry
and individuals? We have already established a de facto right to
healthcare via the emergency process listed above, what we have not
established is who has to pay for it. Like it or not, it is the
privately insured and more specifically the employers who provide the
insurance that are paying subsidizing it. That means we are all paying
for it though various methods, either directly in higher premiums or
in higher prices for the goods and services we purchase.

For Oz and others, it is good that you were able to obtain private
coverage. I am working with a recently widowed friend of the family
here in Indiana who is what most people would consider middle class
but in that no-man's land between the end of her Cobra coverage and
the start of Medicare. We can get her insured, but at $6000 more per
year then her total income. Each state and situation is different and
not everyone can afford it, you were luckier than most. Even within
the same state there are actually two different classes of commercial
health insurance with differing rules. The state regulated plans and
the employer supplied, often self funded plans which are governed
under the Federal statues via the ERISA retirement act.

At the same time, Larry, there is a law which provides a mechanism for
someone who has lost their insurance or had Cobra run out to obtain
other insurance inspite of pre-existing conditions but there is no
provision to govern how much that coverage costs. Hence the issue with
the family friend here. Oz is right in that regard, most anyone can
obtain insurance. What he neglects and other point out is that often
that cost is significant and it forces people to choose between
housing, food, or insurance. And unfortunately are right too when they
bring up the choices people make via livestyle like cell phones, cable
TV, eating out etc instead of buying insurance but that IMO, is a big
social economic issue unrelated to the issue at hand.

For those who mentioned gold standard health care, you need to define
that and really think about what it is you're talking about. A
PetScanner used to detect minute cancers has a seven figure price tag
while the instruments used to provide radiation therapy costs a
multiple of that in many cases. But more specifically, the treatment
of heart attacks has been altered by very expenisive metal rods called
stents. Now many patients can go through a stenting procedure and get
immediate relief and return to a "normal productive" lifestyle in days
instead of months associate with the post op recovery open heart
surgery requires. Those stents are not cheap. Is that a gold standard?
Pin point radiation delivery without damaging as much surrounding
tissue, is that the gold standard? New expensive drugs which reduce or
eliminate certain viruses or tumors? It goes on and before someone
comes back and says they don't want extreme end of life measures, how
can you assume you won't feel that way should it happen to you
tomorrow instead of when you're "old and feeble"?

I could go on and on, there is significant mis information and
misconceptions on both sides out there. Bottom line is the USA has one
of the most expensive health and a significant portion of our
population does not have either ready access to care, the ability to
pay for that care, or both. Costs are high because too many people
can't or won't pay for their services now and that cost gets tacked on
to the already high costs of care for the technology. The present
reform bill does nothing serious to actually reform a payment system
that is weighted heavily towards doing a procedure vis a vis actually
treating the whole patient from a wellness standpoint nor does it do a
thing to address the myriad individual rules and regulations we have
to satisfy to get patients treated and claims adjudicated. I'm all for
reform even if it ends up being a single payor system and ends my
career, but this thing that is out there right now concerns me about
the potential for some very severe unintended consequences.

Enough ramblings, If people sincerly want to discuss this mess further
we can go to email.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

OT - when politics gets personal
 

wrote in message
...
What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs built
in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into various
insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price structures. And,
given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as a
societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a for-profit
business.

Tom

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:13:15 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs built
in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into various
insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price structures. And,
given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as a
societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a for-profit
business.

Ya know, I keep hearing about these friggin' "rights" and "societal benefit" and
what folks ought to get and all, but what about some of the responsibilities
that come with them...? As it currently stands, should what appears to be the
latest cluster**** of a scheme actually come to pass, those folks who will
benefit most from "universal" health care are the very ones who would contribute
literally _nothing_ to the cost of it all. And no, I don't mean the truly
destitute, as I doubt they'll see much, if any, change in their "real-world"
health care no matter which of the current set of usual suspects "reforms" it. I
refer to those with jobs, but not enough income, after all the exemptions,
credits, etc., to owe _any_ income tax. And before anyone says anything, the
wonderful, as I understand it, the perfect European and UK systems' _effective_
income tax bands start at _much_ lower incomes than the US and there are various
other taxes, such as VAT, etc., that US liberals scream to all holy hell about
being regressive, unkind and just downright mean.

And on top that, if this scheme has no profit, who is gonna work for it, how
are, ahem, medical labs gonna get paid, fancy new machines purchased, new drugs
developed, etc.?

TC,
R

Tom

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:51:19 -0800 (PST), Wayne Knight
wrote:

On Feb 23, 8:06*pm, wrote:

Tell you what - email Wayne Knight (unless he's lurking and pops up) and ask him
how many dead bodies, of those who died because they didn't have 16K upfront, he must step over each day.

I think I'm going to be sorry I lurked and popped up.

HOLY ****!! It's Beetlejuice the Accountant! Say "health care ripoff" three
times and WOOOSH!, you appear!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go repossess some pacemakers and
offer complementary shovels so those who won't pay me 16K upfront for
their potentially life saving treatment can start to help their family
save on their burial costs. The IRS allows me to include on my annual
990 filling as a community benefit further justifying my 501c3 status.

Burial costs...? I thought y'all just bulldozed 'em into pits or something...
HEY! I have an idea to save on fuel costs...it seems in about 2 years, we're
gonna be up to our short-hairs in shovel-ready ex-lawyers...we can just divert
some from the liquid precipitation removal system installation department and
send them over to your way...why, shoot, in no time at all, every exec at the
hospital ought to be able to buy that 5th Ferrari...yeah, yeah, yeah, I know,
who really NEEDS a 5th Ferrari? What can I tell you, give it to one of your
maids or something...maybe your gardener's assistant can use it to store
compost...

HTH,
R

OT - when politics gets personal
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs
built in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into
various insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price
structures. And, given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit
taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as
a societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a
for-profit business.

Tom

I think our state and federal governments should sell the nation’s highways,
roads, and streets to for-profit organizations. That way we all pay to
travel to and from work, the grocery store, day care, your favorite bar, the
dentist, anywhere and anytime you or I might drive. Just think of the profit
potential. I mean, why should we pay highway usage or fuel taxes for our
government to maintain our roadways, when private organizations could
obviously provide better maintenance, construction, and means of usage. I
mean it is not as if use of the nation’s roadways is a constitutionally
protected right, right? Kelo vs. New London (I believe this is the case
name) determined that the public transfer of one private entities property
to another private entity for the purpose of economic development trumps the
rights of the individual. Hell, I say the government should exercise its
right of eminent domain over all U.S. citizens and transfer all private
property from private individuals to other private individual, who can
*claim* that they will put the property to better economic purposes, which
thereby serves the public interest better. What makes travel to anywhere,
anymore important than one's health.

Hell, once we transer the nation's roadways to the for-profit companies and
make travel on the nation's roadways so expensive that we cannot affort to
drive to and from work, get our groceries, pick up little Cindy Lou Hoo
from daycare, travel to your doctor's office, or the hospital to have
another child delivered, healthcare reform will appear insignificant in
comparison.

Op

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 24, 6:02*pm, wrote:


Ya know, I keep hearing about these friggin' "rights" and "societal benefit" and
what folks ought to get and all,

Do you?

well

gosh

but what about some of the responsibilities
that come with them...?

And what responsibilities would those be?

As it currently stands, should what appears to be the
latest cluster**** of a scheme actually come to pass, those folks who will
benefit most from "universal" health care are the very ones who would contribute
literally _nothing_ to the cost of it all.

Just like fire and police protection, huh? The rich pay for
everything and the poor get all the benefits. Precisely why they
stay poor for generation after generation.....why get rich with all
the burdens this entails when a life of poverty keeps you on easy
street.

And no, I don't mean the truly
destitute,

Oh, you mean the not so truly destitute. The.....um.....uh......

as I doubt they'll see much, if any, change in their "real-world"
health care no matter which of the current set of usual suspects "reforms" it.

Well, you know how much weight your doubts and suspicions and guesses
and hints and suggestions and allusions and abstractions and
circumlocutions and perambulations and disseminations and distractions
and prevarications and ruminations and buffoonery carry around here.

I refer to those with jobs, but not enough income, after all the exemptions,
credits, etc., to owe _any_ income tax.

And you personally know......um.....exactly how many such people?

And before anyone says anything, the
wonderful, as I understand it, the perfect European and UK systems' _effective_
income tax bands start at _much_ lower incomes than the US and there are various
other taxes, such as VAT, etc., that US liberals scream to all holy hell about
being regressive, unkind and just downright mean.

All of which, assuming there's a shred of demonstrable truth to it
means.....what?

And on top that, if this scheme has no profit, who is gonna work for it, how
are, ahem, medical labs gonna get paid, fancy new machines purchased, new drugs
developed, etc.?

How do the folks who develop, manufacture and distribute bullet proof
vests, badges, guns, ammunition, automobiles, fire trucks, ladders,
handcuffs, tazers, uniforms, hoses, nightsticks, shiny sunglasses,
hats, jail cells, pumps, defibrulators, gurneys, sphygmomanometers,
flashlights, notepads, radar, sirens, leather belts and doughnuts get
paid?

Moron.

g.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 24, 10:29*pm, "Mark Bowen" wrote:
"Tom Littleton" wrote in message

...







wrote in message
.. .
What makes _you_ think that? *And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs
built in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into
various insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price
structures. And, given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit
taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as
a societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a
for-profit business.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

I think our state and federal governments should sell the nation’s highways,
roads, and streets to for-profit organizations. That way we all pay to
travel to and from work, the grocery store, day care, your favorite bar, the
dentist, anywhere and anytime you or I might drive. Just think of the profit
potential. I mean, why should we pay highway usage or fuel taxes for our
government to maintain our roadways, when private organizations could
obviously provide better maintenance, construction, and means of usage. I
mean it is not as if use of the nation’s roadways is a constitutionally
protected right, right? Kelo vs. New London (I believe this is the case
name) determined that the public transfer of one private entities property
to another private entity for the purpose of economic development trumps the
rights of the individual. Hell, I say the government should exercise its
right of eminent domain over all U.S. citizens and transfer all private
property from private individuals to other private individual, *who can
*claim* that they will put the property to better economic purposes, which
thereby serves the public interest better. What makes travel to anywhere,
anymore important than one's health.

Hell, once we transer the nation's roadways to the for-profit companies and
make travel on the nation's roadways so expensive that we cannot affort to
drive to *and from work, get our groceries, pick up little Cindy Lou Hoo
from daycare, travel to your doctor's office, or the hospital to have
another child delivered, healthcare reform will appear insignificant in
comparison.

Op

An even better plan than it appears at first glance. Not because it
makes the cost of health care reform appear insignificant by
comparison, but because it moots the issue. Who cares what health
care costs if no one can get to it? Which, if you think about it, is
pretty much the situation tens of millions of Americans are already
in. Spread the pain a bit and everybody's happy! :)

giles

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 23, 6:09*pm, jh wrote:

Knowing full well that this is pointless,

Amateur exercises in sophistry always are.

Nothing in the plan seems to actually address
cost of coverage - it does seem to play musical chairs with who is
going to actually pay for it.

Never mind the chairs. Look at the bottom line. It will be paid for
by the same people who pay for everything. The same people who have
always paid for everything and always will.......me.

g.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 24, 12:44*pm, Wayne Knight wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:19*pm, Giles wrote:

No, those are all "costs."

They are not all "costs", while they may be a use of cash which some
mistakenly consider "costs". Some of what he mentions are capital and
operating investments, as well as inventory which will be used to
support the business and maintain its capability. Capitals assets are
expensed over some time period which is supposed to approximate their
servicable life so their costs of use are some portion of the actual
cost of the equipment whereas the inventory investments are typically
expensed when the sale occurs.

Wayne
Accountants are us
.

Art is something for which I have always had a vastly greater
appreciation than my understanding of it could ever justify. Making
money spent appear to be something other than a cost rekindles my
delight in the true magic of art. :)

giles

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 24, 1:12*pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

...ways to lower costs. *Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....

Hm.....

So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? :(

g.
always the last to know.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 23, 7:50*pm, MajorOz wrote:
...and, if 60 senators can't pass something, why do folks blame the
other 40...?

cheers

oz

Experience suggests that you expect that question to be taken
seriously, and THAT, much more than content, is what makes if
funny. :)

g.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

Nice post Wayne. When I read of the healthcare "reform" that came out
of the Senate, my thought is usually "the Republicans couldn't have
written a worse bill if they tried!" Complete corporate giveaway with
no real reform. Unfortunately we DO need reform but I doubt the
current crop of politicians has ANY ability to even come close to real
reform. Now the SCOTUS has decided corporations are people with
inalienable rights, so we're in a death spiral right now. IMO a real
voter revolt against the two parties is the only thing that will solve
it. Are we capable of that? I don't know.

Jon.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 24, 6:22*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:51:19 -0800 (PST), Wayne Knight
wrote:

On Feb 23, 8:06*pm, wrote:

Tell you what - email Wayne Knight (unless he's lurking and pops up) and ask him
how many dead bodies, of those who died because they didn't have 16K upfront, he must step over each day.

I think I'm going to be sorry I lurked and popped up.

HOLY ****!! *It's Beetlejuice the Accountant! *Say "health care ripoff" three
times and WOOOSH!, you appear!



Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go repossess some pacemakers and
offer complementary shovels so those who won't pay me 16K upfront for
their potentially life saving treatment can start to help their family
save on their burial costs. The IRS allows me to include on my annual
990 filling as a community benefit further justifying my 501c3 status.

Burial costs...? *I thought y'all just bulldozed 'em into pits or something...
HEY! *I have an idea to save on fuel costs...it seems in about 2 years, we're
gonna be up to our short-hairs in shovel-ready ex-lawyers...we can just divert
some from the liquid precipitation removal system installation department and
send them over to your way...why, shoot, in no time at all, every exec at the
hospital ought to be able to buy that 5th Ferrari...yeah, yeah, yeah, I know,
who really NEEDS a 5th Ferrari? *What can I tell you, give it to one of your
maids or something...maybe your gardener's assistant can use it to store
compost...

HTH,
R

Idiot.

g.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 25, 7:26*pm, Jonathan Cook wrote:
Nice post Wayne. When I read of the healthcare "reform" that came out
of the Senate, my thought is usually "the Republicans couldn't have
written a worse bill if they tried!"

One is tempted to say "You've got to be joking!" One is not given to
caving easily to temptation.

Complete corporate giveaway with
no real reform.

Surprise!

Unfortunately we DO need reform

No. Reform might have been a good idea a century ago, but it's WAY
too late for that now.

but I doubt the
current crop of politicians has ANY ability to even come close to real
reform.

Well, that's pretty much a natural outcome of the current electorate's
lack of ability to recognize, let alone confront, reality, ainna?

Now the SCOTUS has decided corporations are people with
inalienable rights,

Now?! You think this is some sort of recent innovation? Have you
ever even SEEN the inside of an institution of learning.....at
whatever level?

so we're in a death spiral right now.

Nope. We reached the bottom of that before you were born. You've got
a lot of catching up to do.

IMO a real
voter revolt against the two parties is the only thing that will solve
it.

:)

Are we capable of that?

Well, with you leading the way.....

I don't know.

Ah! A grain of truth.

Jon.

Guessed that.

giles
go ahead.....reread what you wrote......tell us if you think you
actually said something or other.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 23, 10:36*pm, jh wrote:
well, at least he is dependable

I'd suggest that maybe you stick to trying to determine the std dev of
incompatable components and let it go at that.

jh

Sniff.....sniff.....hm.....

maybe.

g.
who sometimes suspects that he is being toyed with.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

"Giles" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 1:12 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

...ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....

Hm.....

So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? :(

g.
always the last to know.


Reply:
Population growth and very controlled numbers of prospective doctors
admitted to med school. And if you can not make enough money to justify the
$200k+ to get through doctor school, there will be even less doctors per
person in the country.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

wrote in message
...
And on top that, if this scheme has no profit, who is gonna work for it,
how
are, ahem, medical labs gonna get paid, fancy new machines purchased, new
drugs
developed, etc.?

you don't need to run a profit in order to acquire state of the art
instrumentation for a lab. It happens all over the world, in other systems
of public healthcare. As for the drug development, I don't read of anyone
suggesting that the pharma industry become non-profit. Yet.
Tom

OT - when politics gets personal
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
IMO a real
voter revolt against the two parties is the only thing that will solve
it. Are we capable of that? I don't know.

Jon.

I think such a process(No, I'm not talking about the Tea Party loons) is
being formulated by some VERY savvy players, at this very moment. One can
locate Lincoln Chafee's Op-Ed in the NY Times from last week and get a sense
for what might be going on. Remember, before the Obama campaign took off,
there was a movement called Unity08, involving Chuck Hagel, Evan Bayh and a
lot of other moderate, experienced pols, frustrated with the partisan BS. I
think you will see that effort return, with more cohesive aims and better
funding, before this year is out......
Tom

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:04:46 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
And on top that, if this scheme has no profit, who is gonna work for it,
how
are, ahem, medical labs gonna get paid, fancy new machines purchased, new
drugs
developed, etc.?

you don't need to run a profit in order to acquire state of the art
instrumentation for a lab.

Lab fairies? Oh, wait...do David Geffen and Elton John buy 'em and donate 'em?
If so, change that to "Provided by gracious donors"....

It happens all over the world, in other systems of public healthcare.

Ah - theft...

OTOH, I wish I could find it, but I saw a news story in the last coupla-three
months from, IIRC, a French news source that was about how taxation had become a
point of contention. Among those interviewed was a Parisian cab driver who made
what would be about 25K USD and who paid nearly 20% of that in taxes (and also
IIRC, about 10-15% was income-based taxes and 5-10% paid for health care). Now,
here's a "blue-collar" guy in one of the world's most expensive cities making
what some in the US would call very low wages, yet he still paid out about 20%
of his income in tax - would you think such would fly in the US? Can you think
of any pol of any party who would get up in public and say such needs to happen
here?

I decided to do a _quick_ search for it, and while I didn't find it, I did find
this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92419273

According to the above, the cabbie would have paid about 10% of the required 20
with the cab company picking up the other 10%.

As for the drug development, I don't read of anyone
suggesting that the pharma industry become non-profit. Yet.

Oh, yeah, now THERE'S a non-controversial subject...

TC,
R
Tom

OT - when politics gets personal
 

Bill McKee wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 1:12 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

...ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....

Hm.....

So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? :(

g.
always the last to know.


Reply:
Population growth and very controlled numbers of prospective doctors
admitted to med school. And if you can not make enough money to justify the
$200k+ to get through doctor school, there will be even less doctors per
person in the country.



there's an easy remedy on the cost of med school tuition...and i suspect
you can figure it out. look at what we do for (to) teachers...etc.
yours is a non-argument for continuing the insane profit driven health
care system we are condemned to have in this country for the middle and
lower socio-economic class (i.e., majority). there has to be a better
way. i'm all for a tax, a restructure, something that assures
reasonable, affordable health care for our citizens.

jeff

OT - when politics gets personal
 

"jeff" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 1:12 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

...ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....

Hm.....

So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? :(

g.
always the last to know.


Reply:
Population growth and very controlled numbers of prospective doctors
admitted to med school. And if you can not make enough money to justify
the $200k+ to get through doctor school, there will be even less doctors
per person in the country.

there's an easy remedy on the cost of med school tuition...and i suspect
you can figure it out. look at what we do for (to) teachers...etc. yours
is a non-argument for continuing the insane profit driven health care
system we are condemned to have in this country for the middle and lower
socio-economic class (i.e., majority). there has to be a better way. i'm
all for a tax, a restructure, something that assures reasonable,
affordable health care for our citizens.

jeff

But those nice life extending drugs, and devices are developed because of
the profit motive. Last job I had was part of a Bio-med company developing
a cure for stage 1 incontinence in women. Investors poured $45,000,000 in
to the company. Problem was bad management, and we failed in clinicals and
they may have recovered 3-4 million in the end. How many groups would bet
$45 million if not a prospect of gaining 4-5x that amount in the end?

OT - when politics gets personal
 

"jeff" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 1:12 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

...ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....

Hm.....

So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? :(

g.
always the last to know.


Reply:
Population growth and very controlled numbers of prospective doctors
admitted to med school. And if you can not make enough money to justify
the $200k+ to get through doctor school, there will be even less doctors
per person in the country.

there's an easy remedy on the cost of med school tuition...and i suspect
you can figure it out. look at what we do for (to) teachers...etc. yours
is a non-argument for continuing the insane profit driven health care
system we are condemned to have in this country for the middle and lower
socio-economic class (i.e., majority). there has to be a better way. i'm
all for a tax, a restructure, something that assures reasonable,
affordable health care for our citizens.

jeff

Yes, make doctor school a free school for qualified people that agree to
spend a few years taking care of people for a decent professional salary for
a few years, before setting up private shop and getting what the traffic
will bear.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 25, 9:44*pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message

...
On Feb 24, 1:12 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

...ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....

Hm.....

So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? * * * * :(

g.
always the last to know.

Reply:
Population growth and very controlled numbers of prospective doctors
admitted to med school.

Interesting reply. Bears a vague resemblance to sentence. Almost
looks like it might have something akin to meaning attached to it.

And if you can not make enough money to justify the
$200k+ to get through doctor school, there will be even less doctors per
person in the country.

This explains all the persons dressed in scrubs and surgical masks I
keep encountering in subways playing the banjo all over the woods up
here.

Idiot.

g.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 26, 10:57*pm, "CalifBill" wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message

...





Bill McKee wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message
....
On Feb 24, 1:12 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

...ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....

Hm.....

So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? * * * * :(

g.
always the last to know.

Reply:
Population growth and very controlled numbers of prospective doctors
admitted to med school. *And if you can not make enough money to justify
the $200k+ to get through doctor school, there will be even less doctors
per person in the country.

there's an easy remedy on the cost of med school tuition...and i suspect
you can figure it out. look at what we do for (to) teachers...etc. yours
is a non-argument for continuing the insane profit driven health care
system we are condemned to have in this country for the middle and lower
socio-economic class (i.e., majority). *there has to be a better way. i'm
all for a tax, a restructure, something that assures reasonable,
affordable health care for our citizens.

jeff

But those nice life extending drugs, and devices are developed because of
the profit motive. *Last job I had was part of a Bio-med company developing
a cure for stage 1 incontinence in women. *Investors poured $45,000,000 in
to the company. *Problem was bad management, and we failed in clinicals and
they may have recovered 3-4 million in the end. *How many groups would bet
$45 million if not a prospect of gaining 4-5x that amount in the end?

Hm.....

So, pharmaceutical companies do not exist in Brazil, Canada, Columbia,
Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and Tobago, Bhutan, The People's
Republic of China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Singapore, Taiwan,
Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and
a host of other nations?

Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to conduct research in
Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and
Tobago, Bhutan, The People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, India,
Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland,
Wales, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other nations?

Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to distribute their products
in Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and
Tobago, Bhutan, The People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, India,
Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland,
Wales, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other nations?

Citizens are not allowed to invest in pharmaceutical companies in
Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and
Tobago, Bhutan, The People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, India,
Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland,
Wales, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other nations?

Medical institutions are not allowed to conduct business with or stock
products from pharmaceutical companies in Brazil, Canada, Columbia,
Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and Tobago, Bhutan, The People's
Republic of China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Singapore, Taiwan,
Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and
a host of other nations?

Physicians are not allowed to prescribe medications developed, sold or
distributed by pharmaceutical companies in Brazil, Canada, Columbia,
Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and Tobago, Bhutan, The People's
Republic of China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Singapore, Taiwan,
Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and
a host of other nations?

Pharmacies are not allowed to purchase, stock, sell or otherwise
distribute materials developed, sold or otherwise distributed by
pharmaceutical companies in Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Greenland,
Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and Tobago, Bhutan, The People's Republic of
China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Denmark,
Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, England, Northern
Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other
nations?

And nobody told me? :(

Moron.

g.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

CalifBill wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 1:12 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

...ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....
Hm.....

So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? :(

g.
always the last to know.


Reply:
Population growth and very controlled numbers of prospective doctors
admitted to med school. And if you can not make enough money to justify
the $200k+ to get through doctor school, there will be even less doctors
per person in the country.
there's an easy remedy on the cost of med school tuition...and i suspect
you can figure it out. look at what we do for (to) teachers...etc. yours
is a non-argument for continuing the insane profit driven health care
system we are condemned to have in this country for the middle and lower
socio-economic class (i.e., majority). there has to be a better way. i'm
all for a tax, a restructure, something that assures reasonable,
affordable health care for our citizens.

jeff

But those nice life extending drugs, and devices are developed because of
the profit motive. Last job I had was part of a Bio-med company developing
a cure for stage 1 incontinence in women. Investors poured $45,000,000 in
to the company. Problem was bad management, and we failed in clinicals and
they may have recovered 3-4 million in the end. How many groups would bet
$45 million if not a prospect of gaining 4-5x that amount in the end?



so...i reckon they don't have that stuff in canada, uk, france?

OT - when politics gets personal
 

Giles wrote:
On Feb 26, 10:57 pm, "CalifBill" wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message

...





Bill McKee wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 1:12 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:
...ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....
Hm.....
So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? :(
g.
always the last to know.
Reply:
Population growth and very controlled numbers of prospective doctors
admitted to med school. And if you can not make enough money to justify
the $200k+ to get through doctor school, there will be even less doctors
per person in the country.
there's an easy remedy on the cost of med school tuition...and i suspect
you can figure it out. look at what we do for (to) teachers...etc. yours
is a non-argument for continuing the insane profit driven health care
system we are condemned to have in this country for the middle and lower
socio-economic class (i.e., majority). there has to be a better way. i'm
all for a tax, a restructure, something that assures reasonable,
affordable health care for our citizens.
jeff
But those nice life extending drugs, and devices are developed because of
the profit motive. Last job I had was part of a Bio-med company developing
a cure for stage 1 incontinence in women. Investors poured $45,000,000 in
to the company. Problem was bad management, and we failed in clinicals and
they may have recovered 3-4 million in the end. How many groups would bet
$45 million if not a prospect of gaining 4-5x that amount in the end?

Hm.....

So, pharmaceutical companies do not exist in Brazil, Canada, Columbia,
Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and Tobago, Bhutan, The People's
Republic of China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Singapore, Taiwan,
Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and
a host of other nations?

Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to conduct research in
Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and
Tobago, Bhutan, The People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, India,
Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland,
Wales, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other nations?

Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to distribute their products
in Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and
Tobago, Bhutan, The People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, India,
Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland,
Wales, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other nations?

Citizens are not allowed to invest in pharmaceutical companies in
Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and
Tobago, Bhutan, The People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, India,
Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland,
Wales, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other nations?

Medical institutions are not allowed to conduct business with or stock
products from pharmaceutical companies in Brazil, Canada, Columbia,
Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and Tobago, Bhutan, The People's
Republic of China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Singapore, Taiwan,
Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and
a host of other nations?

Physicians are not allowed to prescribe medications developed, sold or
distributed by pharmaceutical companies in Brazil, Canada, Columbia,
Greenland, Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and Tobago, Bhutan, The People's
Republic of China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Singapore, Taiwan,
Thailand, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and
a host of other nations?

Pharmacies are not allowed to purchase, stock, sell or otherwise
distribute materials developed, sold or otherwise distributed by
pharmaceutical companies in Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Greenland,
Mexico, Peru, Trinidand and Tobago, Bhutan, The People's Republic of
China, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Denmark,
Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, England, Northern
Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other
nations?


should have read the thread before responding to califbill... i don't
know the answers (hell, i don't know the questions), but
profit-incentive as driving reasonable healthcare isn't on my solution list.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 27, 7:49*am, jeff wrote:


should have read the thread before responding to califbill... i don't
know the answers (hell, i don't know the questions), but
profit-incentive as driving reasonable healthcare isn't on my solution list.

My questions were directed toward califbill.

I haven't found anything to disagree with in your contributions to
this thread.....or most others, for that matter.

Well, not yet, anyway. :)

giles

OT - when politics gets personal
 

jeff wrote:
CalifBill wrote:


But those nice life extending drugs, and devices are developed because
of the profit motive. Last job I had was part of a Bio-med company
developing a cure for stage 1 incontinence in women. Investors poured
$45,000,000 in to the company. Problem was bad management, and we
failed in clinicals and they may have recovered 3-4 million in the
end. How many groups would bet $45 million if not a prospect of
gaining 4-5x that amount in the end?


so...i reckon they don't have that stuff in canada, uk, france?

Potential side effects include heart attack, stroke, liver failure,
acne, erectile dysfunction, and anal leakage. If you experience any of
these symptoms consult your doctor.

I'm convinced that many, if not most, of these "life extending" drugs
are at best useless and at worst harmful -- especially the ones that are
touted in TV commercials.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 27, 5:30*am, jeff wrote:
CalifBill wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message
t...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message
....
On Feb 24, 1:12 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

...ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....
Hm.....

So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? * * * * :(

g.
always the last to know.

Reply:
Population growth and very controlled numbers of prospective doctors
admitted to med school. *And if you can not make enough money to justify
the $200k+ to get through doctor school, there will be even less doctors
per person in the country.
there's an easy remedy on the cost of med school tuition...and i suspect
you can figure it out. look at what we do for (to) teachers...etc. yours
is a non-argument for continuing the insane profit driven health care
system we are condemned to have in this country for the middle and lower
socio-economic class (i.e., majority). *there has to be a better way.. i'm
all for a tax, a restructure, something that assures reasonable,
affordable health care for our citizens.

jeff

But those nice life extending drugs, and devices are developed because of
the profit motive. *Last job I had was part of a Bio-med company developing
a cure for stage 1 incontinence in women. *Investors poured $45,000,000 in
to the company. *Problem was bad management, and we failed in clinicals and
they may have recovered 3-4 million in the end. *How many groups would bet
$45 million if not a prospect of gaining 4-5x that amount in the end?

so...i reckon they don't have that stuff in canada, uk, france?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah, but it is my understanding that most or ALL Lipitor, comes from
Ireland. A plant in Galway. I wonder if that is safe? ;+))
And who but thousands of capitalist stockholders and the finance
office of the Peoples Liberation Army, (newly empowered to make
campaign contributions by the US Supreme Court) would have come up
with the idea of raising leprecon clones to keep the labor costs down.
And if the odd clone doesn't work out? Tastes like chicken. Nuff said?

Dave
..

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 27, 8:49*am, rw wrote:
jeff wrote:
CalifBill wrote:

But those nice life extending drugs, and devices are developed because
of the profit motive. *Last job I had was part of a Bio-med company
developing a cure for stage 1 incontinence in women. *Investors poured
$45,000,000 in to the company. *Problem was bad management, and we
failed in clinicals and they may have recovered 3-4 million in the
end. *How many groups would bet $45 million if not a prospect of
gaining 4-5x that amount in the end?

so...i reckon they don't have that stuff in canada, uk, france?

Potential side effects include heart attack, stroke, liver failure,
acne, erectile dysfunction, and anal leakage. If you experience any of
these symptoms consult your doctor.

I'm convinced that many, if not most, of these "life extending" drugs
are at best useless and at worst harmful -- especially the ones that are
touted in TV commercials.


Correlation (let alone causation) might be difficult to prove......but
it would be fun research. The trouble is coming up with funding; it
ain't likely the networks or the pharmaceutical company are gonna pony
up a few billion dollars for this one.

Meanwhile, I suspect there's a great deal more merit to the
proposition than anyone involved is likely to admit to. Without going
into a great deal of detail (which would take months to do justice to
and bore everyone to death) suffice it to say that public confidence
in the efficacy and safety of most modern drugs is more a matter of
faith, based on indoctrination, than of anything else.

giles

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Feb 26, 11:01*pm, "CalifBill" wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message

...



Bill McKee wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message
....
On Feb 24, 1:12 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

...ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....

Hm.....

So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? * * * * :(

g.
always the last to know.

Reply:
Population growth and very controlled numbers of prospective doctors
admitted to med school. *And if you can not make enough money to justify
the $200k+ to get through doctor school, there will be even less doctors
per person in the country.

there's an easy remedy on the cost of med school tuition...and i suspect
you can figure it out. look at what we do for (to) teachers...etc. yours
is a non-argument for continuing the insane profit driven health care
system we are condemned to have in this country for the middle and lower
socio-economic class (i.e., majority). *there has to be a better way. i'm
all for a tax, a restructure, something that assures reasonable,
affordable health care for our citizens.

jeff

Yes, make doctor school a free school for qualified people that agree to
spend a few years taking care of people for a decent professional salary for
a few years, before setting up private shop and getting what the traffic
will bear.

That's the way it works if you want to spend 4 yrs. as a military doc.

cheers

oz

OT - when politics gets personal
 

In article ,
"CalifBill" writes:

"jeff" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 1:12 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

...ways to lower costs. Number one is increase the supply of
doctors....

Hm.....

So, the number of doctors in America has been falling precipitously in
recent decades.....and nobody told me? :(

g.
always the last to know.


Reply:
Population growth and very controlled numbers of prospective doctors
admitted to med school. And if you can not make enough money to justify
the $200k+ to get through doctor school, there will be even less doctors
per person in the country.

there's an easy remedy on the cost of med school tuition...and i suspect
you can figure it out. look at what we do for (to) teachers...etc. yours
is a non-argument for continuing the insane profit driven health care
system we are condemned to have in this country for the middle and lower
socio-economic class (i.e., majority). there has to be a better way. i'm
all for a tax, a restructure, something that assures reasonable,
affordable health care for our citizens.

jeff

But those nice life extending drugs, and devices are developed because of
the profit motive. Last job I had was part of a Bio-med company developing
a cure for stage 1 incontinence in women. Investors poured $45,000,000 in
to the company. Problem was bad management, and we failed in clinicals and
they may have recovered 3-4 million in the end. How many groups would bet
$45 million if not a prospect of gaining 4-5x that amount in the end?




Yes, developing drugs is expensive (although much of the R&D is done
at universities using NIH funding). However, the amount pharma spends
on advertizing greatly dwarfs that actually spent on drug development.
The financial risks is start-ups, as appears to be this case, is almost
certainly no worse than that of hi-tech companies. So cry me no
crocodile tears on how cutting pharma profits will hurt drug development.


__________________________________________________ ______________________
Craig A. Gullixson
Technical Support Manager INTERNET:
National Solar Observatory/Sac. Peak PHONE: (575) 434-7065
Sunspot, NM 88349 USA FAX: (575) 434-7029

OT - when politics gets personal
 

On Mar 1, 10:38*am, (Craig Gullixson) wrote:


Yes, developing drugs is expensive

For a multitude of reasons, not least of which (by any means) is that
big pharma has, for the past century or so, deliberately made it
so.....but that's a discussion for another time and audience.

(although much of the R&D is done
at universities using NIH funding).

True, bearing in mind that in this context, "universities" should be
understood to include medical schools, teaching hospitals, and a host
of other public and private educational institutions, as well as
public and private NON-educational institutions, corporations, etc.
all of which spend and/or receive the bulk of their costs/revenues/
expenditures/donations/outflow/inflow or what have you, on or from one
or another thing or entity with an uncomfortably incestuous
relationship with......wait for it!......NIH......and/or big
pharma.....same thing, actually.

Fisher? VWR? Labconco? Bio-Rad? Kimex? Coors? Santa Cruz?
Millipore? (a few thousand others?) All the same thing. Where does
the money come from and where does it go?

However, the amount pharma spends
on advertizing greatly dwarfs that actually spent on drug development.

True. Without qualification.

The financial risks is start-ups, as appears to be this case, is almost
certainly no worse than that of hi-tech companies. *So cry me no
crocodile tears on how cutting pharma profits will hurt drug development.

You will never make the self-described erstwhile capitalists believe
it, but the first best thing to do in promoting drug development is
gutting big pharma profits.

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Craig A. Gullixson
Technical Support Manager * * * * * * * INTERNET:
National Solar Observatory/Sac. Peak * *PHONE: (575) 434-7065
Sunspot, NM 88349 USA * * * * * * * * * FAX: (575) 434-7029- Hide quoted text -

Um......hm.....
__________________________________________________ _______________________
giles
Astrolabialist (fourth degree).
Wetspot, Curdistan, I****younot.