1000 Reasons not to vote for GW

[GGKoul]

Go 'Canes!  Leafs suck!  

Something we can agree on.. The Leafs do suck.

[allroy1975]

I'll vote for whoever makes sure there's hockey this season.  As to hulker's earlier posts, I'm also very much in favor of boobs.  and the guy who jumped his ass.....don't you like boobs?   it made me chuckle in between all the anger in the posts, and reminded me that boobs are really more important than politics.  

There was a post from HC in this thread that I even thought was okay.  The wold all seems good when you can agree with HC.  

I'm embarassed to root for my hockey team, but as they are my team, I'll just say go Blues!   now...be nice to me, or I'll cry!

Allroy

[DrewKaree]

St Lous' one good contribution to this world is Budweiser.  Even though I live in Miller Land, ANY flavor is a good contribution.  Oh, and they have the bowling hall of fame....and the arch...but other than that, nothing...so the Blues suck.  Go Red Wings.  Or Blackhawks.


Oh, and click here for the ONLY reason you need TO vote for GW.    And the monkey in my pocket is printing bananas.

[Yander]

Go Wings and if they suck my second favorite is the leaves

Good old Hockey Town even though I live in a suburb and we currently have a better basketball team and we kind of gave ourselves that title.

(Does anyone else occasionally laugh at what Don Cherry wears?)

[DrewKaree]

on topic    :

"Bush is struggling to escape the distinction of being the first president since the Depression-era Herbert Hoover to finish a term with job losses. With 1.7 million jobs created over the last year, the economy is still down 913,000 jobs overall since he took office"

I have no such belief that he is struggling with this distinction.  I believe he is quite fine if that happens, and life will not end for him...the "water off a duck's back", as it were.  "I will let time tell whether or not I was a good president" is his attitude, the blips and bumps aren't something he gets into a tizzy over.  It's the "larger picture" syndrome.  

Still, wars aren't something the whole country pitches in to fight, yet they do affect jobs.  He's down 913,000?  That'll change before the end of his term.  Judge him then.  I'll still be fine with how many jobs he's down from beginning to end.

Why would I be fine with that?  The employment statistics we've used to judge our presidents mysteriously changed between Clinton and Bush.  When it was Clinton in office, the unemployment rate was touted as the big thing.  Now it's the number of jobs.  

I'll be happy either way, as I'm not unemployed, my company has increased jobs, and I'm getting paid more.  Selfish?  You betcha.  That's why I look at Bush as the guy for me.  Same reason as others look at Bush as this terrible president.  The difference?  I'm not so addle-brained as to think Bush is responsible for me having or not having a job.  

I believe his job is to make sure I get to keep more of the money I work so hard for.  I don't care if it's (as Dems were so fond of pointing out) "not even enough to buy a new muffler for your car".  I worked for it, so gimme my friggen muffler.  I'LL be the one to decide where my "extra"   money goes, either in charitable giving, spending to increase my standard of living - thereby boosting our economy, or giving a street beggar a fin or two.  

I also don't need him to increase our "minimum wage".  That's a fallacy used strictly for political purposes.  It's lunacy to think increasing a business' cost WON'T be passed on to the customer, thereby making the cost of goods and services higher, negating the "increase" in minimum wage.  

I don't agree with a bunch of Bush's policies regarding the programs he wishes to implement.  No politician in the world will meet all of your needs, otherwise they wouldn't be called politicians.  

I'm voting for Bush because it's a wasted vote throwing it at Nader, Kerry isn't even an option no matter how many times he agrees with my position before he disagrees with it, and until they revamp our  system for other parties besides the two main ones, any other vote is a fringe vote best used only in an election you feel won't be closely contested or where you feel your vote is useless anyway (see shmokes' Utah example for what I mean) so you might as well throw it out.  

I agree with Bush on several points, the most important being the way he views this "war on terror".  To change the direction our country has taken and to subvert our nation's interests in order to curry favor with the rest of the world and win the approval of supposed allies in France, Russia, and Germany is, in my opinion, the worst thing we could do.

I would normally vote Libertarian, did so in the last two elections.   Will I make concessions and compromises voting for Bush?  Certainly.  But I won't be selling my soul by votig for Bush.  Even though some can think of 1000 reasons to vote against Bush, I have just a few vital ones (to me) to vote FOR him, and not a single one of them are "He's not Kerry".  

[GGKoul]

wow.. I thought this thread was dead.

[DrewKaree]

wow.. I thought this thread was dead.

threads only die when questions posed in them are answered, or if people are tired of posting to them.  

I just KNEW you weren't tired of this one!

[Mameotron]

Why would I be fine with that?  The employment statistics we've used to judge our presidents mysteriously changed between Clinton and Bush.  When it was Clinton in office, the unemployment rate was touted as the big thing.  Now it's the number of jobs.  

I thought I was the only one who saw it that way.  People today sure don't want to hear about the unemployment rate.

Hmm, let me think, now what president was responsible for passing NAFTA, which allows companies today to move so many jobs overseas and contribute to this "staggering job loss rate" under Bush?

I'm a firm believer in the trickle-down theory, and bad things also trickle down.

Don't even get me started on the unions.  They demand so much in pay and benefits and wonder why companies are relocating somewhere cheaper.  Yes, you can do a handy search and see that I posted in another thread that I was a union Ironworker for seven years.  I am not anymore.  Too much greed & politics, not enough genuine concern over the views of the members.

Did I mention that I was once pulled off a job because I refused to sign the "voluntary" contribution papers to give part of what I earned to whatever political candidate my union wanted to back?

[GGKoul]

My 2 cents:

Unions were good in the early 1900's when people & children worked like dogs under dangerous conditions and got little pay.  As they needed to group together too make changes.  But today, Unions protect the high salary "lazy" worker way too much.  And it's this High Salary, that forces a company's hand to move to find cheaper labour.  Sure this isn't right, but as a shareholder of a company.  The company should to everything in it's power too reduce it's expenses.

Hate to say this, but Wal-mart is the retail giant that it is because it doesn't allow unions in any of its locations.  On the other hand, Costco, I used to work for them while University.  Costco offers a high hourly wage for it's employees.  And whenever a union trys to come into Costco, it usually fails.  As Costco takes care of there employee's from the beginning.  Heck, I know people with University & College Degrees that have been working at Costco over 10 years now.  And they work as F/T Cashiers or Fork Lift drivers and they make close to $50,000/year Cdn @ $43,000/year US.  

I work in the IT field.  And I now have to talk to a programmer in India for enhancements.  As the company can hire 3 programmers in India for the price of 1 programmer in Canada.  With the ever increasing pressure for companies to shave expenses, this is going to happen a lot more in the future.

[danny_galaga]

 And they work as F/T Cashiers or Fork Lift drivers and they make close to $50,000/year Cdn @ $43,000/year US.  

i've got a forklift licence. hang on!! i'm coming over  

[Mameotron]

OOh, I'm not letting this thread die until after the election!!

Today John Kerry unveiled his master plan to combat the cost of prescription drugs.  He plans to import them from Canada.

Wow, I guess the American drug companies will just play along with that and continue to sell drugs to other countries at a much lower price.  Certainly the price of drugs won't suddenly increase in Canada.

[fredster]

I think I have answer to this low cost drug thing.

Drugs made in the US should be sold to other countries at a higher cost than we buy them for.  That will stop all this importation nonsense.

[fredster]

I think I like my idea better.  After all, it doesn't matter to the socialized medicine people.  It would level the playing field out wouldn't it?

I wonder why we spend so much.  Maybe because everybody else isn't getting charged enough.

[GGKoul]

I think I have answer to this low cost drug thing.

Drugs made in the US should be sold to other countries at a higher cost than we buy them for.  That will stop all this importation nonsense.

You think this would be fact...

[fredster]

Well, I don't understand how we let our companies like Eli Lilly send these drugs abroad and then turn around and send them back cheaper than they can sell it at the local pharmacy.

To me it's lunacy.  If it costs $100 in the US and $75 in Canada, why? Because we are the target market? Why should the US foot the bill for all the research in the world? If there is a new drug, then why doesn't everybody pay $100?

It makes no sense to me why we let this happen in the first place.  If we charged EVERYBODY the same for a while then we reduce price to the same level, then we all pay the same all the time and the field is level.

There must be some logical marketing reason for this, but I haven't been able to find it in my research. It makes no sense to me at all why Canada would be charged less than the US.  (not picking on Canada, it could be any country including Mexico).

If we are such a world community then we should all chip in equally in this right?

What is the reason the US price is higher when we developed the drugs?  

[DrewKaree]

hey, or you could just trade it for all the drugs you IMPORT- coke, ecstasy, heroin, marijuana....

 

yeah, we could, but then the debate would be about providing heroin, hash, coke, etc for all the seniors and adding it into our prescription drug "solution".  

I'd say legalize those things, and then start taxing the import of them, but then I'd have to sit through INSANE debate about how those drugs aren't the main contributor in the increase in gun deaths - we just need more gun controls/bans because there'd be no correlating link between those drugs and violent crime...well, other than facts  

But I'm down with your idea danny....how much should we start charging Canada for heroin and coke after we make the trade?

[GGKoul]

Here's an article about

http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/94/102666.htm?GT1=5100

[fredster]

GGKoul,

I see that article, but it doesn't explain one thing - why does the US pay more for drugs than Canada in the first place?  Is it volume pricing?

Is the distribution network the cause?  Why is that these drugs can be cheaper to the Canadians than us?  

If it's volume and distribution, I don't see how we can't correct that error here by making the necessary changes to the distribution system and either decrease our consumer prices by increasing the volume price overseas or flat out fix the price to everybody.

That way anybody who uses these products worldwide pay the same rate.  If all the countries paid the price for the research then after a short time the price could be reduced to everyone.

I think there is some special interest groups in the US that are manipulating the US market.  

But I am looking for the explaination of why it's higher here.  I couldn't find that in my research.

[GGKoul]

Here's the reason...

Canada Caps Drug Costs

Canadians are spared higher drug prices, in large part because of price controls. The Canadian government has established a "Patented Medicine Prices Review Board" to ensure drug prices are not excessive.

"They look at the price of the drug," said Dr. Allan Detsky, a pharmacoeconomist at the University of Toronto, "and they say, 'You know what, we have no idea what the long-run costs of development are, but they can't possibly be that high. Forget it.' "

The review board has established a very specific formula for drug companies wishing to sell in Canada:

   Existing drugs cannot increase in price by more than the rate of inflation.

   New drugs cannot cost more than similar drugs for the same illness.

   And a breakthrough drug, the first of a new class of drugs, cannot cost more than the median price for the drug in other countries.

For example, the new cancer drug Campath is priced as follows:

   United States: $2,400

   France: $760

   Sweden $660

   Britain $570

   Italy $500

The median, or "midprice," is $660, so Canadian regulations say that's the most the drug can sell for in Canada.

"It tells you that the true long-run cost of production must be way lower than the American price," said Detsky.


U.S. Alone in No Price Controls

Every industrialized country has some form of price controls on patented medications, except the United States. American drug companies say price controls stifle innovation and discourage them from selling certain drugs in foreign markets.

"The principal problem with price controls is you have limitations on access to medicines, and you don't have the newest most innovative treatments," said Alan Holmer, president and CEO of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

But when pressed, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry could only identify eight drugs not available on Canadian shelves, and three of those are contraceptives. That's not enough to bother many Canadians.

"I don't mind," said Ireland. "I think we have a pretty good selection."

And much of that selection consists of American-made drugs, at well below American prices.


Examples:

   Mirapex, for Parkinson's disease: $157 in Canada vs. $263 in the United States.

   Celexa, for depression: $149 in Canada vs. $253 in the United States.

   Diovan, for high blood pressure: $149 in Canada vs. $253 in the United States.

   Oxazepam, for insomnia: $13 in Canada vs. $70 in the United States.

   Seroquel, for insomnia: $33 in Canada vs. $124 in the United States

[shmokes]

Yeah but you're Canada, and they're Ireland and France and Italy.  And we're America.  So whatever way we are doing it must be best because look how much better we are then everyone else.

[GGKoul]

Yeah but you're Canada, and they're Ireland and France and Italy.  And we're America.  So whatever way we are doing it must be best because look how much better we are then everyone else.

OK... I wasn't aware that the US way of doing things is the best way to do things...  

[fredster]

You are right. IF the other countries won't pay, I guess we don't sell.

Artificial price caps seemed to work real great in California with energy.  It collapsed the entire power grid.

If we cap the price of meds then I guess they don't develop new ones.

So, we sell it for a fixed price that includes development.  If the governments don't buy it I guess we pay more?  Or do the goverments pay the same price as us?

I think we need to look at this and see if there is a good way to balance the playerfield.  This is absolutely wrong that the drug companies can do this to Americans.  Wrong.  

If it's made in the US, it should be the cheapest here and all the other countries pay the same or more.  Not the other way around.

[GGKoul]

If it's made in the US, it should be the cheapest here and all the other countries pay the same or more.  Not the other way around.

It's cheaper to by alot of things in Canada then in the US.  IE:  If you goto the GAP or Old Navy, the price you pay in US$ for Knaki <sp> pants, is EXACTLY the same I pay in CDN$.   So I pay $40 CDN = @ $32 US and you pay $40 US, which is @ $52 CDN.

[DrewKaree]

fredster, the insane tax burden they pay probably pays for a large portion of the difference between what the drugs cost and what they sell them for up nort der hey, because obviously, the price controls don't apply to purchasing them from us, just what they resell them for.  

Think about it....if you paid less, why would you want to investigate why is costs you less?  And you're also asking them to put 2 & 2 together...higher taxes...more "free" stuff.

Go Leaves, Branches, Stems, Roots....ah screw it, Go 'Canes!

[fredster]

Good Point Drew.

They have no idea what it really costs them.

I only pay $20 for a pair of pants at Old navy.  That's where we are getting them.

[Mameotron]

GGKoul,


I think there is some special interest groups in the US that are manipulating the US market.  

I think you're exactly right.  It's easy to look back and see how they have done so in the past.  A good example is the "railroad barons" earlier.

Senator Henry G. Davis (W. Virginia, circa 1870) actually got a law passed in congress that allowed him the right to build his railroad anywhere he saw fit to do so.  If he wanted to build right through your property, the only legal recourse you had was to take him to court to see that you were paid a fair market value for the property he siezed.  It was also specifically noted that while the case was tied up in litigation Mr. Davis had the right to continue building.

I'm not suggesting that anything so extreme would be tolerated today, but we have a long history of leveraging the government to help our business.

[GGKoul]

The lobbiers strike again!

[fredster]

I have softened on the national healtcare issue.  I have seen a lot of people stay working way past when they wanted to because of healthcare.

I don't think the canadian model is what we want.  I see a lot of debate on how we can get there, but it will be a huge battle. I can see the points on both sides.

I have heath insurance, and have always had health insurance because I always looked for it as a benefit.  Some people don't seem to look for that in a prospective employer.  But it does cost me to have it more and more every year. That coupled with Medicare charges, FICA taxes, etc is building up a lot of funds out of my pocket.

I understand the UK model is a good one.  There's more of a choice than the Canadian one.  You can pay and have extra insurance to have more of a choice in timing and doctors that way.

I just don't trust the government to manage things that large.  If any of you have ever worked for a big organization you can see it gets out of control fast when it's big. The bigger it is the more wasteful it becomes simply because it takes so much effort to keep it lean and effiecient.

If we were assured that we could have a decent choice at the same or lower price without the governmental red tape, I'd sign on.  But I believe in Smaller government, not bigger, and it would have to be something that would work out without adding an entire cabinet level department.

This is getting pretty bad now. Lawsuits to doctors costing money to everybody, medicines costing a small fortune, people unable to pay hospital bills, illegal aliens costing us a fortune in expenses, and all the rest.

I want to be able to retire as early as possible, but I won't be able to for the simple reason I won't be covered on any healthcare plan.  I'll have to pay a good portion of my income to insurance.  If I don't I risk one trip to the hospital costing me my entire "estate".  My brother had a tripple bypass surgery when he "retired" at 57 that at 63 drove him to loose just about everything he had.  

So like I said before, if say you want a revolution, hey, we'd all love to see the plan.  

[shmokes]

You really like that Beatles line, don't you Fred?

[fredster]

Yeah, Yeah I do.

[fredster]

GGKoul,

What do you think of this article, is it fact or fiction?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132785,00.html

[shmokes]

Judging by the source, I have my suspicions...

[fredster]

No, Shmokes, Dan Rather works for CBS, not Fox.

Did you read it?  I was wondering.  I talk to people from Canada, most that I talk to have some problems with the system, but not to the level detailed in this editorial.

[GGKoul]

GGKoul,

What do you think of this article, is it fact or fiction?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132785,00.html

Ok.  Here are my thoughts about the article:

[fredster]

Those are good responses.  Thanks.

[GGKoul]

Those are good responses.  Thanks.

Thanks

[shmokes]

I don't know what hospital you people are going to, but I commonly wait for hours before being seen when I go to the hospital (not that I go to the hopital that often).  During cold season I sit in the lobby of my doctor's office anywhere between half an hour to 2 hours and commonly wait another 15 minutes to 45 minutes after I'm taken back into a clinic room.

My dermitologist ALWAYS schedules 1 to 2 months in advance.  I can't see a speciallist, such as an ear, nose and throat doctor without first going to a general practitioner and getting a doctor's order.  The same goes for having radiology or other lab work done.  A woman who finds a lump in her breasts can generally not go in for a mamogram or biopsy until an initial breast exam has been done by a general practitioner or ob/gyn.  After obtaining a doctor's order, getting in to have specialty work done usually takes a while.  My wife had her tonsils removed.  It took three weeks just to get her in to see the ear/nose/throat guy and then nearly three months before the surgery actually took place.

Our system is not without waiting periods, people.

[fredster]

I agree.  I had to wait a few times too.  But I had cancer and had to have surgery, I had a blown appendix.

My wife has a very devastating disease.  

The difference in Canada, and I guess it's the only one, is that you don't have any private doctors.  You have to go to the State.  So you don't have a choice other than to go there.

If you don't want to wait in the US, you find another doctor.  I did a couple of times.  I scheduled my surgery in a week.  I didn't wait for one doctor, I went to another one.  That's the difference.  Choice.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK you do have a choice and can go to private pay doctors.  Austrailia also, just not in Canada.

They do that to reduce costs and keep the system equal there.  It reduces competition also.  The trouble I heard about it was that there is a shortage of English speaking doctors since they are comming to the US to make some money.

[GGKoul]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK you do have a choice and can go to private pay doctors.  Austrailia also, just not in Canada.

Uk only.  But they pay a very high premium to go to a private doctor.  Also, there is free basic dental care in the UK .... but very few use it.

They do that to reduce costs and keep the system equal there.  It reduces competition also.  The trouble I heard about it was that there is a shortage of English speaking doctors since they are comming to the US to make some money.

Hmm... a shortage of English speaking doctors in England??  Not sure about that...   Also, there is a large group of doctor's that DO NOT go to the States to work.  As Money isn't everything... Quality of Life, both personal & business means alot...

[DrewKaree]

Also, there is free basic dental care in the UK .... but very few use it.

you didn't have to tell us that...we've all seen pictures of you guys