Terms and Conditions of a democracy
 

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 13:03:38 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the
public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over
loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

Good quote, Jon. But pretty funny coming from the guy backing a candidate
whose promise to every interest group is "I gonna give you [fill in the
blank--free health care, good schools, higher wages, etc. etc.] and that
fella over there is gonna pay for it."

Well, in Bush's case, he's already done that. Actually, not every
interest group... mostly just the energy ones, the ones who's execs
don't give a crap about anyone except themselves. Bummer about
teachers and healthcare workers wanting a voice... a real bummer isn't
it?

I may have pointed out before that we're getting very near the tipping point
where the majority of Americans pay no federal income tax. When that 50%
threshold is crossed, look for all hell to break loose as the non-taxpayers
vote to extract more and more for themselves from fewer and fewer.

This is exactly what BushCo is doing now. Why wait.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

We live in a Republic. A Democracy is mob rule, where 51% rule the other
49%.

Gilligan

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 13:03:38 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the
public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over
loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

Good quote, Jon. But pretty funny coming from the guy backing a candidate
whose promise to every interest group is "I gonna give you [fill in the
blank--free health care, good schools, higher wages, etc. etc.] and that
fella over there is gonna pay for it."

Well, in Bush's case, he's already done that. Actually, not every
interest group... mostly just the energy ones, the ones who's execs
don't give a crap about anyone except themselves. Bummer about
teachers and healthcare workers wanting a voice... a real bummer isn't
it?

I may have pointed out before that we're getting very near the tipping
point
where the majority of Americans pay no federal income tax. When that 50%
threshold is crossed, look for all hell to break loose as the
non-taxpayers
vote to extract more and more for themselves from fewer and fewer.

This is exactly what BushCo is doing now. Why wait.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article . net,
Gilligan wrote:
We live in a Republic. A Democracy is mob rule, where 51% rule the other
49%.

Gilligan

And, it's the obligation, the moral duty of the majority to protect
the rights of the minority.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 16:42:25 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Bummer about
teachers and healthcare workers wanting a voice.

Voice isn't the issue. Its putting a hand in my pocket. Along with the
government employees' union, every other union, the trial lawyers, etc. etc.
etc. Something for each of them, and the other fella is gonna pay for it.

Voice is exactly the issue. The voices that BushCo listens to (no, not
the ones prevented by haldol) are from the extreme right wing,
Christain fundamentalists, and big energy companies. I would prefer to
err on the side of unions and teachers.

Special Edition, Autumn, 2004
IanSights
Issue: Whether or Not to Change Leaders


You are a shareholder in a major global enterprise. In early November
you
will be voting on various issues, including whether to renew the CEO's
contract. The CEO is controversial. Some shareholders are calling for
his
ouster while others are loyal to him. Though the shareholders' vote is
advisory to the board, they generally follow the shareholders'
directions.


Your challenge As a shareholder, you want to do what's right for the
future
of the enterprise and for your investment. Here are some issues about
the
CEO's performance:


a.. He undertook a hostile takeover based on faulty information
and
assumptions, and with no realistic plan for dealing with the conflict
after
the takeover. There is no end in sight to the hostilities. They will
likely
continue for years and are taking a high toll on both enterprises.
b.. Brand image has gone from being the highly respected three
years ago
to being mistrusted and despised by many now.
c.. The enterprise has gone from a record surplus to a record
deficit in
three years with no end in sight.
d.. He reduced prices for the richest customers, adding to the
deficit.
e.. He polarized shareholders instead of uniting them as promised.
f.. He curtailed R&D in a new technology for which your enterprise
could
have become a world leader.
g.. He awarded major contracts to cronies without competitive
bidding.
The CEO is proud of his performance and promises more of the same.
There is not a client I have had over the past 21 years that would
have kept
their CEO under such circumstances. They all have held their CEO to
higher
standards.


While it may be tempting to say, "You got us into this mess, so you
get us
out," most CEOs who have incurred major problems are replaced. They
are seen
as part of the problem. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, the significant
problems we face cannot be solved using the thinking that created
them.


You have probably surmised by now that I am writing about George
W. Bush.
You are a shareholder in the USA. The board is the Electoral
College. On
November 2, you will have the opportunity to vote on whether to renew
his
contract or replace him.


Your option Though there are other alternatives, John Kerry is the
only
candidate with a chance of unseating Bush. Kerry is not perfect (we
have
never had a perfect president and probably never will), but he offers
hope
for:


a.. Strong moral values
b.. Standing up for what he believes in
c.. Changing his mind as circumstances change
d.. A different view of terrorism and the war
e.. More global collaboration
f.. Re-establishing respect for and trust in the USA
g.. A more robust middle class
h.. A more balanced budget
I believe that Kerry is the better alternative.
Sincerely,


Ian


Ian Jacobsen
Certified Management Consultant


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 14 Oct 2004 21:56:30 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Special Edition, Autumn, 2004
IanSights

Dunno what "IanSights" is, but for an interesting view from a respected
publication, take a look at the first editorial in today's Journal.

Yes. We know you don't.

It points out that this is one of those rare elections when the incumbent
is
running on a platform of reform, while the challenger is running on a
platform of more of the failed policies of the past.

Bush is running on a platform of fear. His challenger is running on a
platform
that respects women, minorities, and has in mind building the economy,
becoming
less dependent on foreign oil, and honest national security.

Bush recognizes that social security is the kind of Ponzi scheme that
would
land its architects in jail if they were private citizens, and he wants to
reform it to replace it with a sustainable system. Kerry simply wants to
keep throwing more money at it.

Bush wants to destroy Social Security because it's a federally run program.
Good by seniors and others who rely on it.

Kerry wants to actually fix it instead of destroy it by using the money that
was
intended for s.s. instead of giving to the ultra-rich..

On the subject of medical costs, Bush recognizes that so long as everyone
thinks the other guy is paying his doctor bill he's gonna overuse the
health
care system and push costs of care up. He wants to reform the system to
reduce health care cost inflation by bringing market forces to bear.
Kerry,
on the other hand, wants to simply add more people to a failed Medicare
program, adding to the number who think somebody else is paying the bills
(and of course channeling more money to his unionized constituents) and
maybe considering fixing the system at some far off time in the future.

Bush claimed he would allow Canadian meds to be imported. Then he
reversed himself. He presided over the outlawing of medicare from pooling
benefit resources, something the VA does. He's cut funding for veterans.
What a great guy. He's allowed vets to be harassed by the pentagon until
they've gone broke after they've returned wounded.

Kerry wants to tax those who can afford to be taxed. People like me for
example, and give the rest tax breaks. The exact opposite of BushCo.

Similarly, on taxes Kerry wants to keep them high in order to throw more
money to his constituents in the government employees' unions, increasing
their ranks. Bush wants people to keep more of what they earn rather than
handing it over to the bureaucrats.

Interesting contrast.

Very interesting contract, and very interesting that you're an idiot Mr.
Poodle...
yap, yap!

"Dave" wrote

Bush recognizes that social security is the kind of Ponzi scheme .....

True - question is how to get out of it. Remember, it's not just
retirement. It was intended to open jobs for younger workers by encouraging
us geezers to quit.

On the subject of medical costs, Bush recognizes that so long as everyone
thinks the other guy is paying his doctor bill he's gonna overuse the
health
care system and push costs of care up. He wants to reform the system to
reduce health care cost inflation by bringing market forces to bear.

Wrong. Neither one wants to bring market forces to bear, altho that is what
we need. On the medical side, the AMA makes the Teamsters look like punks
when it comes to limiting the number of MDs and thus driving up saleries and
costs. A PhD Biologist, et cetera, might make $125K/yr but an MD thinks
he's killed if he makes 10X that. Moreover, one could argue that we'd have
fewer MDs getting thru med school and internship, where they work 16 hour
days, were it not for that income. Trouble is working somebody half to death
doesn't make better MDs it simply reduces the number of grad's. Solution?
Prosecute AMA under the RICO laws.

On the drug side, we need to first allow reimportation of US drugs - Kerry
will, Bush Won't. Next, we need to get all the non-narcotic drugs like
antibiotics off the prescription drug list and make them available over the
counter. That alone would save each/every diabetic 3 or 4 $hundred/year -
what are we going to do, abuse our Amaryl?

Kerry, on the other hand, wants to simply add more people to a failed
Medicare
program, adding to the number who think somebody else is paying the bills
......

Medicares PRIMARY beneficiaries are the MDs and drug companies who get to
overcharge patients who'd otherwise do without care and possibly die.
Breaking the back of AMA will do more for everybody than Medicare. Last
time I went for an uninsured MD visit I paid $100 for maybe 15 minutes of
his time. I think $25 would be fair but his union (AMA) disagrees.


Similarly, on taxes Kerry wants to keep them high in order to throw more
money to his constituents in the government employees' unions, increasing
their ranks. Bush wants people to keep more of what they earn rather than
handing it over to the bureaucrats.

Gee, my bride and I make just under $200K/yr. We didn't even notice Bush's
tax cut and folks making less noticed even less. AFAIK the only
beneficiaries were the idle rich and MDs making 1-10+ million/year.

I might agree had Bush cut spending - but no, like Reagan he borrowed
trillions on our kids credit and threw a party for his buddies.

I fail to see where this rather simple statement mentions welfare or
schools. Can you explain further?


Vito wrote:
Sure. They are not mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution either. Therefor
10 reserves them to the states or people making it unconstitutional for
fedgov to take part in or control our schools or welfare systems or police
or .... etc. That's the states' job.

Yes, and the states are the ones who are primarily responsible for
keeping the ball rolling. Personally, I'd agree that the Feds have no
business saying anything at all about schools but the big issues that
comes up is one of interstate accountability... and that *is*
constitutionally the Fed's job.

The income tax is also unconstitutional... the Supreme Court knocked
down a Federal income tax two or three times (maybe more) before they
finally let it stick... the reason? World War 1.

Frankly, the most important democracy in the world is our corporations.
The problem is that most shares are held by mutual funds or retirement
funds who just hand over a proxy. Would you do that with your vote for
President... or for county commissioner?

Regards
Doug King

"Dave" wrote ...
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:28:11 -0400, DSK said:

The income tax is also unconstitutional... the Supreme Court knocked
down a Federal income tax two or three times (maybe more) before they
finally let it stick... the reason? World War 1.

Nope. The Sixteenth Amendment. Just as today, the court got out of line,
and
the people gave them a slap the old fashioned way--by amending the
Constitution when the judges got it wrong.


That's not entirely true. The constitution spells out how it must be amended
and in offering the amendment congress stipulated a time limit for
ratification. That didn't happen. So congress extended the time for states
to consider it. During that extension enough states ratified it BUT at the
same time others withdrew their ratification.

"Dave" wrote
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:03:18 -0400, "Vito" said:


Wrong. Neither one wants to bring market forces to bear, altho that is
what
we need.

Gotta disagree there. Combine medical savings accounts with true insurance
(the kind with a high enough deductible so that it covers risks instead of
being a system of pre-payment) and you inject a healthy market input. Why?
Because you get to keep whatever you don't pay the Dr. or hospital from
the
MSA. That means you're not gonna run to the doctor every time you sprain
an
ankle, because you know what to do for a sprained ankle, and would just as
soon keep the money. On the other hand with the present system of
prepayment
there's essentially no cost for the Dr. visit, so why not go. Reduce the
demand for medical services, and you reduce the cost.

This approach offers only two alternatives for a sprained ankle - pay the MD
or hurt; or in the case of diabetes or cancer pay the MDs and drug dealers
whatever they want to charge or die. That's hardly "free market". In a free
market, I'd be able to buy my medicines over the counter at *competative*
prices and bargain with MDs for rates but US law forbids the former and AMA
the latter. So, whether I have a HMO or pay myself, I really have no
choices. Under either Bush's or Kerry's plan I (or my HMO) still have to pay
an MD $400 or more a year for permission to buy medicines I already know I
need. Then I have to pay 2 - 10 time more for them than in Canada and
Mexico. Kerry says he'd at least let us shop Canada ..... (c:

Dave still hasn't explained how he's been able to read "1000s" of Supreme
Court decsisions. We're still waiting Dave.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:11:45 -0400, "Vito" said:

This approach offers only two alternatives for a sprained ankle - pay the
MD
or hurt; or in the case of diabetes or cancer pay the MDs and drug dealers
whatever they want to charge or die.

You're missing something here. As to amounts below the level where the
deductible is exceeded and true insurance kicks in, yes, it's like any
other
service. You can buy the service or you can decide not to buy it and keep
the money, though you'd be paying in after-tax dollars from the first
dollar, unlike the present system where you pay in pre-tax dollars until
you
exceed a percentage of adjusted gross. In the case of serious illness the
true insurance kicks in to cover higher costs.

That's hardly "free market". In a free
market, I'd be able to buy my medicines over the counter at *competative*
prices and bargain with MDs for rates but US law forbids the former and
AMA
the latter.

Please explain the second part. How does the AMA prevent you from
selecting
someone with lower fees, or a reduction by the doc?

So, whether I have a HMO or pay myself, I really have no
choices. Under either Bush's or Kerry's plan I (or my HMO) still have to
pay
an MD $400 or more a year for permission to buy medicines I already know I
need.

Good point. There's really no reason to have an annual toll to buy
medicines
you know you need.

Then I have to pay 2 - 10 time more for them than in Canada and
Mexico. Kerry says he'd at least let us shop Canada ..... (c:

That's simply snake oil. One of two things happen. Either you create a
shortage in Canada, or the Canadians prohibit export. (Probably both. Or,
if
they are sensible about it, they allow the price to rise to a point where
it
won't make any difference.) Personally, I think it would be a good idea to
allow importation, since it would ultimately force the Canadians to pick
up
part of the development costs that are now being born entirely by
Americans.
But as a long-range solution, it doesn't work. The sizes of the markets
are
just too disparate.

Dave

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:11:45 -0400, "Vito" said:

This approach offers only two alternatives for a sprained ankle - pay the MD
or hurt; or in the case of diabetes or cancer pay the MDs and drug dealers
whatever they want to charge or die.

You're missing something here. As to amounts below the level where the
deductible is exceeded and true insurance kicks in, yes, it's like any other
service. You can buy the service or you can decide not to buy it and keep
the money, though you'd be paying in after-tax dollars from the first
dollar, unlike the present system where you pay in pre-tax dollars until you
exceed a percentage of adjusted gross. In the case of serious illness the
true insurance kicks in to cover higher costs.

That's hardly "free market". In a free
market, I'd be able to buy my medicines over the counter at *competative*
prices and bargain with MDs for rates but US law forbids the former and AMA
the latter.

Please explain the second part. How does the AMA prevent you from selecting
someone with lower fees, or a reduction by the doc?

So, whether I have a HMO or pay myself, I really have no
choices. Under either Bush's or Kerry's plan I (or my HMO) still have to pay
an MD $400 or more a year for permission to buy medicines I already know I
need.

Good point. There's really no reason to have an annual toll to buy medicines
you know you need.

Then I have to pay 2 - 10 time more for them than in Canada and
Mexico. Kerry says he'd at least let us shop Canada ..... (c:

That's simply snake oil. One of two things happen. Either you create a
shortage in Canada, or the Canadians prohibit export. (Probably both. Or, if
they are sensible about it, they allow the price to rise to a point where it
won't make any difference.)

Completely simplistic. Explain why Canadian (or Aussie or anyone else
with proper manuf. stds) manufacturers simply wouldn't ramp up
production. We have a similar scheme to the Canucks and the US drug
companies hate it. Tough.

Personally, I think it would be a good idea to
allow importation, since it would ultimately force the Canadians to pick up
part of the development costs that are now being born entirely by Americans.

Bwahahahahahahahaha. You get paid off by drug companies?

PDW

And you would be lying since there have not been "low thousands" to read.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:11:49 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Dave still hasn't explained how he's been able to read "1000s" of Supreme
Court decsisions. We're still waiting Dave.

Actually, what I said was certainly high hundreds and probably low
thousands. The answer is, of course, is that reading decisions in cases is
something lawyers do a lot of. In 35 years of lawyering, I've read a lot
of
decisions.

Not tell me again about that one case you read that makes you an expert on
legal opinions.

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:03:32 +1100, Peter Wiley
said:

Completely simplistic. Explain why Canadian (or Aussie or anyone else
with proper manuf. stds) manufacturers simply wouldn't ramp up
production. We have a similar scheme to the Canucks and the US drug
companies hate it. Tough.

There's this thing called a patent covering the most recently developed
drugs. If a Canadian manufacturer isn't licensed, he can't produce the drug.

Well, duh! And there are a huge number of drugs out of patent which are
produced in places other than the USA. Are these affected too? Not to
mention trivial patents on delivery mechanism etc to extend the life of
the basic patent and exclude competition - 'evergreening' I think the
term is.


Personally, I think it would be a good idea to
allow importation, since it would ultimately force the Canadians to pick up
part of the development costs that are now being born entirely by
Americans.

Bwahahahahahahahaha. You get paid off by drug companies?

Nope. My only connection to the industry is that years ago I represented an
Australian company in licensing its enteric coated antibiotic in the U.S.
(that's the technology that is now applied to the low-dosage aspirin you see
on the shelves). But I do have an interest in seeing additional development
of new drugs. That's not going to happen if the rewards for the successful
developments are absent. At the present time, Americans bear nearly all of
the development costs. The Canadians get a free ride because once the cost
of development has been covered, the cost of producing each additional dose
is relatively low. So the pharma company can sell the additional production
in Canada at the regulated price and still make a profit. It's the old
marginal revenue vs. marginal cost thing from basic economics. Allow
importation and one of the results I outlined previously will follow.

Hmmm. Didn't basic economics have something to say about monopolies and
monopoly profits? The foreign govts in the case of Australia and Canada
bargain with the drug companies directly. They have sufficient economic
clout to do so on a more level playing field. Funnily enough prices for
drugs are somewhat cheaper.

I have some sympathy with the arguments about cost of development since
the number of successes is so low. However the drug companies
collectively are very unethical organisations who don't publish the
results of failed trials and cherry-pick results wherever they can to
get their 'success' rate up. Therefore my sympathy is pretty limited.

Perhaps there needs to be a different method for companies to recover
R&D costs. Meanwhile I'm a lot bette off living where I do right now
than you people are.

PDW

"Dave" wrote
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:11:45 -0400, "Vito" said:

This approach offers only two alternatives for a sprained ankle - pay the
MD
or hurt; or in the case of diabetes or cancer pay the MDs and drug
dealers
whatever they want to charge or die.

You're missing something here. .....

I understand that - it just doesn't go far enough to be called a competative
free market. Which brings up a point about insurance. MDs historically
charge "all the market will bear" meaning wealthier patients pay more than
poor ones. After sizing me up my MD decides I'm good for say $100/visit.
Then I mention that $100 is exactly what my insurance will pay. Guess what?
I just became a $200/visit patient. That's one reason MDs never advertise
prices. It follows that any/all insurance plans raise medical costs so long
as MDs charge every penny the patient can afford.

That's hardly "free market". In a free
market, I'd be able to buy my medicines over the counter at *competative*
prices and bargain with MDs for rates but US law forbids the former and
AMA
the latter.

Please explain the second part. How does the AMA prevent you from
selecting
someone with lower fees, or a reduction by the doc?

By "recommending" fees and "sanctioning" MDs who bargain or advertise their
prices. An MD who refuses to obey could well loose his license. The proof?
When is the last time you saw an MD advertise his fees?


So, whether I have a HMO or pay myself, I really have no
choices. Under either Bush's or Kerry's plan I (or my HMO) still have to
pay
an MD $400 or more a year for permission to buy medicines I already know
I
need.

Good point. There's really no reason to have an annual toll to buy
medicines
you know you need.

But that's the law!

Then I have to pay 2 - 10 time more for them than in Canada and
Mexico. Kerry says he'd at least let us shop Canada ..... (c:

That's simply snake oil. One of two things happen. Either you create a
shortage in Canada, or the Canadians prohibit export. .....

You'd be right if I enjoyed a free, supply & demand driven drug market in
the USA but we do not. Thanks to laws against reimportation US drug
companies charge US druggists 2-10X more than they do foreign druggists. US
druggists could buy medicines at retail from Canada at a fraction of the
wholesale price they pay in the USA if our law allowed reimportation but it
does not. Often part of this 'gouge' funds the kickbacks drug companies pay
the MDs for prescribing their brand vs another. Hey - its enough to make
the mob jealous!

"Peter Wiley" wrote
I have some sympathy with the arguments about cost of development since
the number of successes is so low. However the drug companies
collectively are very unethical organisations ..... Therefore my sympathy
is pretty limited.

"Unethical" is an undertatement. There currently is no "approved" cure for
diabetes so millions of people throughout the world each spend $100s per
month to stay alive. OTOH scientists can take a few of your cells, strip
out your DNA and inject it into, say, a frog egg stripped of its frog DNA,
and that cloned egg will divide into YOUR stem cells. That's a fact
(Remember Dolly the sheep?). Now if my stem cells were injected into my
pancreas they would say "Gee, we must be Vito's pancreas cells!" and begin
making insulin - and my diabetes would be cured. So why isn't that
happening? Because additional research is needed to get the proceedure
approved and who is going to pay for that? Not the drug companies! It'd cost
them $billions!! Maybe that's why Bush won't allow federal funding. Y'see
it takes PATIENT DNA to do the research and Bush only allows a dozen or so
"established strains" to be used. Or maybe it's because the good folks who
eat their god every sunday also think that every lump of stem cells is a
baby.

Vito wrote:
... There currently is no "approved" cure for
diabetes so millions of people throughout the world each spend $100s per
month to stay alive.

There is no cure for diabetes, period. It isn't a matter of "approval."

... OTOH scientists can take a few of your cells, strip
out your DNA and inject it into, say, a frog egg stripped of its frog DNA,
and that cloned egg will divide into YOUR stem cells. That's a fact
(Remember Dolly the sheep?). Now if my stem cells were injected into my
pancreas they would say "Gee, we must be Vito's pancreas cells!" and begin
making insulin - and my diabetes would be cured.

Well, if it's that simple, why don't you do it yourself?

... So why isn't that
happening? Because additional research is needed to get the proceedure
approved and who is going to pay for that?

Actually, it is happening. But very little of it is happening in the
U.S. The type of "cure" you envision may be possible in ten years, or it
may never be possible... the research may lead to something else.

Meanwhile, approval of implantable blood metering devices and
micro-controlled insulin metering devices is proceding, too.


... Not the drug companies! It'd cost
them $billions!! Maybe that's why Bush won't allow federal funding. Y'see
it takes PATIENT DNA to do the research and Bush only allows a dozen or so
"established strains" to be used. Or maybe it's because the good folks who
eat their god every sunday also think that every lump of stem cells is a
baby.

You may be blaming the wrong folks. It turns out that George Bush Jr.
ain't "church people" after all.

In any event, you're crying for the moon and getting mad at Daddy for
not fetching it for you. How much have you donated to the American
Diabetes Society this year? Last year? How much translational research
have you funded?

You're angry at the docs & drug companies for making a profit, and
insisting that they cure you for free. That doesn't make much sense.

DSK

"Dave" wrote
Ah, the latest variation on the urban legend about the oil companies
buying
up and killing that invention that would allow cars to get 200 miles to
the
gallon. Some things never change.

If so it is being promulgated by no less than Ronald Reagan Jr.

"Dave" wrote
Nice populist rhetoric, but there's no such thing as a "drug company"
aside
from its people, .....

It's not so much a question of ethical vs unethical, it is what one's ethics
are. Las Vegas was a nice place to visit when "The Mob" ran the casinos. I
could stay in a nice hotel, enjoy a couple top entertainers' shows, and eat
like a king for peanuts so long as a budgeted my gambling. But then we
replaced the mobsters with honest businessmen - beancounters devoted to
squeeing every cent of profit out of every visitor. Used to be you could
play 5 nickles and get 3 back, sometimes winning a jackpot. Oh yes, the
house would get all you were willing to play, but they were patient and let
you have fun giving it to them. Not so the beancounters.

Sadly, the same is true of most US companies. If you own a company you run
it according to your own ethics. If you run a company for somebody else
then you maximize his profits even if that means some people must go without
the medicines they need. That's why "companies" often lack any sense of
ethics.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:16:20 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

And you would be lying since there have not been "low thousands" to read.

Jon, you're continuing to demonstrate your own ignorance of the field.
Currently, plenary review with oral argument is granted for approximately
100 cases per term. The Court hands down formal written opinions in
approximately 80-90 cases per term. The difference between the two figures
is because sometimes after oral argument the Court decides that it shouldn't
have granted cert.

And, you continue to try and weasel out of the fact that you claim
you've read "thousands" of decision; whereas, the Supremes haven't had
thousands. You're a liar.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Dave" wrote
You're proving my point.......

Yes, a point on which we have no disagreement - I just think that the rest
of the system needs fixing too.

By "recommending" fees and "sanctioning" MDs who bargain or advertise
their
prices. An MD who refuses to obey could well loose his license. The
proof?
When is the last time you saw an MD advertise his fees?

If that's indeed the case, somebody ought to go after them for price
fixing.
Such activities violate the Sherman Act, as a cases against the ABA in the
60s established.

That's exactly what needs to be done but I see neither candidate proposing
it.


One reason MDs don't advertise their fees is that it makes no economic
sense to do so. ...

But it would under your (Bush's?) plan which BTW is exactly what we all had
before HMOs. I'd price shop if I was paying the first $xxxx. I tried to
back then but MDs wouldn't (couldn't?) disclose their rates over the phone
let alone advertise them.

Often part of this 'gouge' funds the kickbacks drug companies pay
the MDs for prescribing their brand vs another. Hey - its enough to make
the mob jealous!

If anyone has proof of that he ought to get in touch with Eliot Spitzer,
since commercial bribery is a crime in his state, and he has great
political
ambitions.

Who's Eliot Spitzer? I think they call it "commisions" instead of
commercial bribery. Isn't it legal?

In article ,
wrote:
Supreme Court? Is that like a regular Court, but with tomatoes and
sour cream?

Don't forget the guacamole.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Dave wrote:
That's the standard Dem message, Doug--"I'm gonna give you something and the
other fella is gonna pay for it."

As opposed to the standard Republican message: "Screw the environment,
screw the French and all those other foreign sissies, and as long as
you're not a multimillionaire, screw you."

DSk

In article ,
Dave wrote:
Now, what was that one case you read that makes you an expert?

Well, duh, I already answered that.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 19 Oct 2004 10:21:51 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

He's the DA in NY.

Close, but no cigar. He's the State Attorney General with ambitions for
higher office.

Yup... I was thinking NYC for some reason.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 19 Oct 2004 12:24:58 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Now, what was that one case you read that makes you an expert?

Well, duh, I already answered that.

Ah. It wasn't clear to me that you had unequivocally admitted that Marbury
v. Madison is the only case you read to become an expert.


Ah, I know it wasn't clear to you. Who said I was an expert? You??


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"DSK" wrote
Vito wrote:
... There currently is no "approved" cure for
diabetes so millions of people throughout the world each spend $100s per
month to stay alive.

There is no cure for diabetes, period. It isn't a matter of "approval."

Are you sure? Ron Reagan Jr said stem cells had been used experimentally to
cure rats.

... OTOH scientists can take a few of your cells, strip
out your DNA and inject it into, say, a frog egg stripped of its frog
DNA,
and that cloned egg will divide into YOUR stem cells. That's a fact
(Remember Dolly the sheep?). Now if my stem cells were injected into my
pancreas they would say "Gee, we must be Vito's pancreas cells!" and
begin
making insulin - and my diabetes would be cured.

Well, if it's that simple, why don't you do it yourself?

Same reason I can't duplicate my VHF rig on a work bench - lack of equipment
and skill. But that doesn't mean the equipment and skill doesn't exist, as
witness Dolly.

... So why isn't that
happening? Because additional research is needed to get the proceedure
approved and who is going to pay for that?

Actually, it is happening. But very little of it is happening in the U.S.

I guess that's good news.

... Not the drug companies! It'd cost
them $billions!! Maybe that's why Bush won't allow federal funding.
Y'see
it takes PATIENT DNA to do the research and Bush only allows a dozen or
so
"established strains" to be used. Or maybe it's because the good folks
who
eat their god every sunday also think that every lump of stem cells is a
baby.

You may be blaming the wrong folks. It turns out that George Bush Jr.
ain't "church people" after all.

Where'd you hear that? He says he is - altho some here say he lies (c: And
then there's the anti-gay marriage amendment and his promise to appoint
anti-abortion judges and ...., and .....

In any event, you're crying for the moon and getting mad at Daddy for
not fetching it for you.

No, I am angry at GW Bush for preventing science from fetching it for me and
1000s of others.


How much have you donated to the American Diabetes Society this year? Last
year? How much translational research
have you funded?

About $1000/year. You?

You're angry at the docs & drug companies for making a profit, and
insisting that they cure you for free. That doesn't make much sense.

No, I am angry at the AMA and drug companies for creating a monopoly that
forces Americans to pay more than we should for treatment. A PhD Chemist or
Microbiologist is lucky to earn $125K/yr but MDs think themselves killed if
they don't make a $mil/yr. The difference? Chemists, et al, don't have a
powerful union like AMA. Drug companies charge Americans 2 - 10X what
Canadians pay. Why? Because we have the finest politicians money can buy,
and they own plenty. I used to buy some of my medicines overseas but Bush
put a stop to that. Jeeze, if the Teamsters were as bad as AMA we'd have to
get prescriptions from truckers to buy a new car.

Well, if it's that simple, why don't you do it yourself?


Vito wrote:
Same reason I can't duplicate my VHF rig on a work bench - lack of equipment
and skill. But that doesn't mean the equipment and skill doesn't exist, as
witness Dolly.

In case you hadn't noticed, rats & sheep are different from people.

But go ahead, if you succeed I guarantee you'll be one of the world's
richest men.


You may be blaming the wrong folks. It turns out that George Bush Jr.
ain't "church people" after all.


Where'd you hear that? He says he is - altho some here say he lies (c: And
then there's the anti-gay marriage amendment and his promise to appoint
anti-abortion judges and ...., and .....

Well, I guess if talking about it is what defines one's religious
beliefs, then sure. But it's easily documented fact that George W. is a
very infrequent church goer.


In any event, you're crying for the moon and getting mad at Daddy for
not fetching it for you.


No, I am angry at GW Bush for preventing science from fetching it for me and
1000s of others.

It's not entirely his fault because 1- he is a puppet and 2- it is still
years away from even experimental protocols on human patients. Of course
it is still a free country... wait a minute, it's not really, but you do
still have the freedom to experiment on yourself.




How much have you donated to the American Diabetes Society this year? Last

year? How much translational research

have you funded?


About $1000/year. You?

None to diabetes. Quite a bit more than that to the Leukemia/Lymphoma
Society, which is a matter close to our family. We also donate a lot of
money to various medical foundations & two universities. Not that I'm
bragging or anything ;)



You're angry at the docs & drug companies for making a profit, and
insisting that they cure you for free. That doesn't make much sense.


No, I am angry at the AMA and drug companies for creating a monopoly that
forces Americans to pay more than we should for treatment. A PhD Chemist or
Microbiologist is lucky to earn $125K/yr but MDs think themselves killed if
they don't make a $mil/yr.

That's a laugh. I know a lot of MDs who make less than your 125K$/yr.
And I know a lot that are not accepting new patients.

In any event, if there is no profit then there is no incentive to
provide goods or services. If the pharmaceutical companies are making
obscene profits in your humble opinion, then the answer is to 1- not buy
drugs and/or 2- buy stock in those pharm companies.

.... Drug companies charge Americans 2 - 10X what
Canadians pay.

I think that is somewhat of an exaggeration. But the higher prices in
the US is a problem.

Meanwhile, you are making a number of unwise assumptions. Why should
drugs be cheap, other than that you want it that way? Some even demand
free drugs and health care... why should it be free any more than
gasoline or electricity or video games should be free?

... Why? Because we have the finest politicians money can buy

No argument from me there.

But politics is not the answer to everything.

DSK

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 19 Oct 2004 13:59:54 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Who said I was an expert? You??

So as I suspected, you had no qualifications whatever for evaluating the
quality of Justice Thomas's opinions. Thanks for finally acknowledging that
you were again simply blowing smoke.

The only cases Thomas seems to have written majority opinions for are
gun related. Do you think he's paranoid since he lynching?



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 20 Oct 2004 10:27:30 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

The only cases Thomas seems to have written majority opinions for are
gun related.

Totally wrong again, Jon. Thomas has authored just over 100 majority
opinions of the Court. Very few have anything to do with guns. I can furnish
you the complete list if you'd like to confirm that you're blowing smoke
again.

And you would expect me to actually read it???



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 20 Oct 2004 13:38:15 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

I would expect that if you had any reasonable basis for your silly claims
you would have read enough of the opinions so you wouldn't need to even look
through the list. But then we already know you were blowing smoke as usual.

What happened? Did you see some such thing in one of your usual flaky
sources and simply swallow it whole?

Bzzzzz... the answer is a higher authority told me.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

DSK wrote:

Well, if it's that simple, why don't you do it yourself?



Vito wrote:

Same reason I can't duplicate my VHF rig on a work bench - lack of
equipment
and skill. But that doesn't mean the equipment and skill doesn't
exist, as
witness Dolly.


In case you hadn't noticed, rats & sheep are different from people.


While rats and sheep are not human, some humans are rats and sheep.

Cheers

"DSK" wrote

In case you hadn't noticed, rats & sheep are different from people.

Not much at that level, but we're not proposing cloning just taking the
first few steps thereof, which have been done before as witness Dolly. The
same equipment and skills are applicable.

In any event, you're crying for the moon and getting mad at Daddy for
not fetching it for you.

No, I am angry at GW Bush for preventing science from fetching it ....

It's not entirely his fault because 1- he is a puppet and 2- it is still
years away from even experimental protocols on human patients.

1. Agreed. 2. years away beats hell out of 'never' and that's what the
fundementalists who pull his strings demand.

None to diabetes. Quite a bit more than that to ....

Good on you, blighter!


That's a laugh. I know a lot of MDs who make less than your 125K$/yr.

That' odd. My brother, a mere Chiropractor, nets over $500,000/yr working a
40 hour week. Do these MDs practise in the USA or ?

In any event, if there is no profit .......

I never even suggested NO profit, but when companies offer South Africa AIDS
medicines for $6/day and make a profit (else as you point out they wouldn't
do it) then it is obscene to charge US patients $100s/day to stay alive.

Nor do I suggest government controls. Just the opposite! I want the
existing controls that facilitate this kind of thing abolished. Then let a
truly free market establish price and profit. Y'know, the American way (c:


Meanwhile, you are making a number of unwise assumptions. Why should
drugs be cheap, other than that you want it that way? Some even demand
free drugs and health care... why should it be free any more than
gasoline or electricity or video games should be free?

Nor did I say drugs should be free or even cheap. I said that prices should
be set by the FREE MARKET unencumbered by government sponsored monopoly.
Drug companies are already competing over the efficacy of Vaigra vs its
clones. If they'd also compete on price AND if one didn't have to pay an MD
for permision to buy it I'd be satisfied - in that case. Apply that across
the board and I'd be happy.

Back to the subject - is Bush implementing this? NO! He's fighting it tooth
and nail! Kerry? Just a tad.

But politics is not the answer to everything.

No, not the answer it is the problem - when politics is interfering with
free markets, as it is in the US medical system, then politicians are the
problem.

That's a laugh. I know a lot of MDs who make less than your 125K$/yr.


Vito wrote:
That' odd. My brother, a mere Chiropractor, nets over $500,000/yr working a
40 hour week. Do these MDs practise in the USA or ?

Yes. They work at state university medical centers or in rural counties.

BTW I don't know of a single MD who works 40 hour weeks. Most work 60+
hours a week, many work 90 hour weeks. Since the requirements for
resident work hours was chopped, somebody has to take up the slack. And
if one has research projects on the bench, then usually they work about
twice as many hours per week as their own residents.

Then there's the situation with nurses....

Medical care in this country is headed for a train wreck, and it's being
speeded up by people who insist it's the fault of those damn rich
doctors. If you think doctors are the problem, next time you're sick
just cut out the middleman... go straight to a lawyer.



In any event, if there is no profit .......


I never even suggested NO profit, but when companies offer South Africa AIDS
medicines for $6/day and make a profit (else as you point out they wouldn't
do it) then it is obscene to charge US patients $100s/day to stay alive.

Not really. If you need cheap AIDS medication then I guess the answer is
to move to Africa.

Basically, this is a market system. They sell at a price people will buy
at. Price goes up, numbers of people who buy goes down... and vice
versa. The problem here is that people continue to buy drugs they "can't
afford" and then complain. If you don't put your money where your mouth
is, the market system will whipsaw you 8 days a week.


Nor do I suggest government controls. Just the opposite! I want the
existing controls that facilitate this kind of thing abolished. Then let a
truly free market establish price and profit. Y'know, the American way (c:

I suspect you wouldn't like the result at all.

Look back in history and see if you can find a time period when medical
care and drugs were cheap.


Nor did I say drugs should be free or even cheap. I said that prices should
be set by the FREE MARKET unencumbered by government sponsored monopoly.
Drug companies are already competing over the efficacy of Vaigra vs its
clones. If they'd also compete on price AND if one didn't have to pay an MD
for permision to buy it I'd be satisfied - in that case. Apply that across
the board and I'd be happy.

No you wouldn't. You'd (and 99% of everybody else) would do to the drug
companies the same thing that everybody has done to the airlines...
demand the cheapest & shoddiest possible service at the lowest possible
price, with the result that half the drugs on the market would be
placebos. The pharmaceutical industry would be Wal-Mart-ized... do you
think that's a *good* idea??!?

Next subject... bank deregulation... let's get the dadgum gov't
busybodies out of the way so that WE THE PEOPLE can enjoy the best
possible security & financial service from our banks!

Regards
Doug King

Dave wrote:

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:16:29 -0400, "Vito" said:


Nor did I say drugs should be free or even cheap. I said that prices should
be set by the FREE MARKET unencumbered by government sponsored monopoly.


So patents should be abolished?


Should patents remain in effect in perpetuity?

Cheers
Marty

Dave wrote:
.... I probably come down
on the side of regulation on this one. I don't see Granny being able to
resist those high rates an uninsured institution would offer, and I'm not
sure I want Granny left destitute when one of them fails.

That's Granny's problem, isn't it? The big problem with you Bush-Cheney
cheerleaders... you think you're conservative but you don't have any
courage in your convictions.

Frankly I'm not enthusiastic about bank deregulation either, with the
exception of a few provisions I'd like to see dropped. I like the Fed,
too. We pay the price for stability & safety by having steady background
inflation, but that's preferable IMHO to the cyclic booms & busts of
earlier times... and the possibility of your money evaporating suddenly...

Regards
Doug "Shinplasters? No Thanks" King

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:16:29 -0400, "Vito" said:

Nor did I say drugs should be free or even cheap. I said that prices
should
be set by the FREE MARKET unencumbered by government sponsored monopoly.

So patents should be abolished?

(patiently) No David. Patents are guaranteed in the Constitution. Currently,
the term of a patent is IIRC 20 years from application, 17 from patent
grant, or in case of medicines, at least 14 years after FDA approval. That's
fine. The problem comes from laws that require consumers to buy from only
one of many suppliers licensed by the patent holder and from laws requiring
one to obtain an MDs approval to buy a given drug. This creates a situation
in which we are not allowed to choose which of several similar medicines to
buy to treat a given illness - our MD makes that choice based on
advertisements in his trade journals AND commissions paid him for
prescribing certain brands. Thus, where you and I might price shop, the MD
is likely to prescribe the brand that pays the greater commission.
Compounding this are laws preventing us from buying even these prescribed
medicines overseas.

I've been taking x grams of Amaryl/day for years, monitoring my blood sugar
to assure the efficacy of that dose. I do the same with Glucophage, but use
a generic. Quarterly, I miss an afternoon of work to spend an hour in an
MDs office of which I see the MD for less than 5 minutes while he does a
cursory exam, all to get a prescription for two drug nobody abuses. Then I
carry the prescriptions to a pharmacy where I pay more "copay" than I could
buy the same drugs for in Canada or Mexico and my HMO pays even more. It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I could save myself and
my HMO mucho money by simply looking at the spam I get every day, picking
the cheapest prices, and buying these drugs myself. But No! The law prevents
that.

"DSK" wrote
Vito wrote:
That' odd. My brother, a mere Chiropractor, nets over $500,000/yr
working a
40 hour week. Do these MDs practise in the USA or ?

Yes. They work at state university medical centers or in rural counties.

That's comparing apples and oranges - top paid PhDs with bottom paid MDs. An
assistant prof in a rural college makes alot less than $125K/year too.

But even then the numbers don't compute. You correctly note that few MDs
work 40 hour weeks. The local *rural* MD charges $100 for a routine visit
lasting *maybe* 5 minutes. At twice that (10 min) per patient that's
$1,248,000/yr gross. Out of that he pays a nurse and a receptionist perhaps
the $48K and another $25K rent so even if he pays $150,000 for his
malpractiing peers misadventures he still nets $million/yr *IF* he actually
works just 40 hours a week.


BTW I don't know of a single MD who works 40 hour weeks. Most work 60+
hours a week, many work 90 hour weeks. Since the requirements for
resident work hours was chopped, somebody has to take up the slack. And
if one has research projects on the bench, then usually they work about
twice as many hours per week as their own residents.

That's a whole different problem demonstrating another flaw in a union
controlled system. We've all heard of unions that bankrupt employers or
drove them overseas with impossible demands. Well that is exactly what the
MDs' union (AMA) is doing to MDs - killing the golden goose by artificially
limiting the number of MDs.

BTW, would anybody here choose to see an MD who gets only 4-5 hours sleep a
night? Maybe that's why malpractice rates are high.

Medical care in this country is headed for a train wreck, and it's being
speeded up by people who insist it's the fault of those damn rich
doctors. If you think doctors are the problem, next time you're sick
just cut out the middleman... go straight to a lawyer.

You're right! It isn't the MDs per se. It is their union - the AMA - and
prescription drug laws. Get rid of them and the problem largely goes away.
All it takes is 3 calls from the Oval Office. 1. Hello AG? I want the AMA
investigated and prosecuted with the same vigor as Martha Stewart. 2. Hello
Mr Speaker, let get rid of those laws prohibiting Americans from buying
medicines overseas. 3. Hi Mr Secretary - I want you to have FDA remove all
*Non-narcotic* drugs from the prescription drug list. No, regulate them for
purity and all just let them be sold without prescription. Thanks. And
BINGO.

Not really. If you need cheap AIDS medication then I guess the answer is
to move to Africa.

No (Duh-uh) the answer is to buy your drugs from Africa without moving there
(You have heard of mail haven't you?) but GWB won't allow that so only very
rich US victims get to survive.

..... Price goes up, numbers of people who buy goes down...

YES! Because people who can't afford the higher price DIE. We're not
talking about frozen pork bellies, remember.

..... The problem here is that people continue to buy drugs they "can't
afford" and then complain. If you don't put your money where your mouth
is, the market system will whipsaw you 8 days a week.

Time for your medicine again old boy, you've beome incoherent.

Look back in history and see if you can find a time period when medical
care and drugs were cheap.

Easily - before there was an AMA.

....... You'd (and 99% of everybody else) would do to the drug
companies the same thing that everybody has done to the airlines...
demand the cheapest & shoddiest possible service at the lowest possible
price, with the result that half the drugs on the market would be
placebos. The pharmaceutical industry would be Wal-Mart-ized... do you
think that's a *good* idea??!?

Has anybody even vaguely mentioned disestablishing FDA? No! Then whatever
are you having this hissy fit about? Quick! Your Ritilan! (Gawd, I'd heard
about the bad LSD floating around 'nam but never thot it's still be causing
dilusions).

Next subject... bank deregulation...

Naw, Republicans deregulated the S&Ls back when Reagan was in remember,
allowing the anti-smut darlings or the religious right to steal peoples'
retirement savings. Even Hillary got in on it! Cost every man woman and
child in the USA over $5000 apiece. Not even Bush is that stupid .... err
.... is he?????

Vito wrote:
But even then the numbers don't compute. You correctly note that few MDs
work 40 hour weeks. The local *rural* MD charges $100 for a routine visit
lasting *maybe* 5 minutes.

Baloney. If you go to a doctor who sees you for "only five minutes" then
you need to go to another doctor. Most capitation rates are in the 10 ~
15 minute range and that's for those docs under the corporate thumb
demanding high turnover.




... At twice that (10 min) per patient that's
$1,248,000/yr gross. Out of that he pays a nurse and a receptionist perhaps
the $48K and another $25K rent so even if he pays $150,000 for his
malpractiing peers misadventures he still nets $million/yr *IF* he actually
works just 40 hours a week.

Meanwhile, he is also paying an accountant and a lawyer and a collection
agency because the HMOs and insurance companies have written in their
business plan to avoid paying, or delay... add the time & effort spent
on Medicare and Medicaid collections, which is an obnoxious PITA and the
payment rate is so low that it doesn't even cover overhead... Let's not
forget that cool 1/4 mill in medical school debt he's trying to pay
off... and the price of an office full of fancy equipment.. then factor
in the number of people who can't pay and don't have insurance and get
free treatment...

Vito, you seem convinced that doctors have such a cushy life... why
don't you go to med school and try it for yourself?



.... And
if one has research projects on the bench, then usually they work about
twice as many hours per week as their own residents.


That's a whole different problem demonstrating another flaw in a union
controlled system. We've all heard of unions that bankrupt employers or
drove them overseas with impossible demands. Well that is exactly what the
MDs' union (AMA) is doing to MDs - killing the golden goose by artificially
limiting the number of MDs.

???

Where do you get this malarkey? The number of MDs per capita has been
going up for the last two decades...


BTW, would anybody here choose to see an MD who gets only 4-5 hours sleep a
night? Maybe that's why malpractice rates are high.

Maybe you get crappy service from you doctor(s) because you've got a
crappy attitude. Have you threatened to sue your doctor to his face?


(repeat) If you think doctors are the problem, next time you're sick
just cut out the middleman... go straight to a lawyer.


Not really. If you need cheap AIDS medication then I guess the answer is
to move to Africa.


No (Duh-uh) the answer is to buy your drugs from Africa without moving there
(You have heard of mail haven't you?) but GWB won't allow that so only very
rich US victims get to survive.

So let's assume that this law is removed... poof, buy your AIDs drugs
(or any other drugs) from Africa... now you've got some real drugs, some
faked drugs, and some African vendors who simply take your money and
laugh... result... average cost per actual dose goes *up* and
effectiveness goes down.

Next idea, Mr Doctor-Hating Genius?

DSK

I wouldn't mind if the doctor only saw me for 5 minutes. It's the hour wait
after my appointment time that gets to me.
By the way I get sick of doctors bitching about malpractice insurance. I
haven't noticed any of them having to give up their Mercedes or 10,000 sq. ft.
house or 45' boat kept in Annapolis where slip fees are 5 times normal.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

SAIL LOCO wrote:
I wouldn't mind if the doctor only saw me for 5 minutes. It's the hour wait
after my appointment time that gets to me.
By the way I get sick of doctors bitching about malpractice insurance. I
haven't noticed any of them having to give up their Mercedes or 10,000 sq. ft.
house or 45' boat kept in Annapolis where slip fees are 5 times normal.

Hey Loco... next time you're in that neighborhood, count the lawyer's
boats & Mercedes.

DSK