It's either increase revenue by flushing out the tax cheats, or cheap fusion energy comes on line not too late. The consumer is a bit stretched to expect spending to solve the recession.
What about cutting spending?
I just saw Obama's speach, he say's his program will be financed by savings made in the existing plan. I gather the gentlemen sitting on their hands are the GOP.
There are no such savings. According to government reports 30% of Medicare spending is fraud: double billing, unnecessary tests (for profit), phantom "customers", etc. If they wanted to save and prove they could actually do it why not start with Medicare?
The GOP is not the impediment. Democrats control both houses and the Presidency. In the Senate all they need is all the sitting Democrats plus 1 Republican. Until Teddy Kennedy's seat is filled.
The impediment is the American people. Currently on the order of 53% are against the plan, something like 37% are for it and the rest are undecided. (those numbers may be off and may have changed since the speech - the trend before the speech was a 2% to 3% a week gain for the against side.)
And Obama is working against his reputation - he lies. Like a rug. He made a lot of centerist noises to get elected and has moved smartly to the left since getting elected. A lot of voters feel duped. The merchandise was not as advertised.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Don't see the connection, my parents were both card carrying Social Creditors, I probably would've become one if the movement didn't collapse. I moved from hard right to right of center about the time the cold war ended. A lot of innocent people got hurt both sides of the cold war, don't want another one.
Actually, the French president suggested going after the offshore banking industry. Wouldn't take any sort of world government, just a coalition of the willing, which would be all the big countries. The tax havens would be no match. Only problem, most politicians have offshore accounts to hide.
It's either increase revenue by flushing out the tax cheats, or cheap fusion energy comes on line not too late. The consumer is a bit stretched to expect spending to solve the recession.
I just saw Obama's speach, he say's his program will be financed by savings made in the existing plan. I gather the gentlemen sitting on their hands are the GOP.
Strong is a well connected guy who has been involved in a LOT of shady deals. Oil For Palaces is one.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I too watched Obamas speech. Only thing I do not agree with is the mandatory healthcare. If there is a promised option of affordable healthcare for everyone, then I would not see why it should be mandatory, because I would assume that everyone would want it anyway.
Just my thinking.
So yeah, that would probably be something where I agree with Msimon and TallDave...
The rest seemed quite reasonable though. It does leave private insurance companies enough room to move and it does keep a kind of status quo.
I also did some research on the prescription drug prices here. We actually had regulations that were very beneficial for the big drug companies here. E.g. we did not allow generics. All that brought prices up really high though and it got hard for our healthcare system to pay for the quality treatments that everyone here expects (rightfully expects). The last (conservative) government then changed this so that generics were also allowed, which somewhat brought the cost and prices down again. Doctors still prefer prescribing the originals though, but just the pure fact of the lawchange being there, helped reducing prices again.
So yeah we had rather high prescription drug prices as well. No free ride here.
Just to put that into perspective.
If I was Obama, I would have also added some exceptions, when insurance companies (government or private) would not pay for treatment. E.g. I would not pay for the treatments of abusers of illegal substances, such as herion. These people come about with all sorts of illnesses, that I dont feel compelled to pay for. Once this person has had a withdrawal and is clean, he can be put back into the system. Othwise, nope. No payments. I would even include nikotine abuse into that. Maybe even obesity. Note, that I am struggling with weight too due to the medication I take and the fact that exercise is much harder for me than a "normal person. But I do something about it and I work out almost every day and I am therefore far away from overweight (I have "normal" weight for my height). So I can feel with people that are struggling to loose weight, but I can also say that there are ways to keep it under control if you are just willing enough and that there is no excuse for not doing so. On the other hand I dont see why anyone would have to loose healthcare coverage because of an unreported case of akne! What the frack!?
All that brought prices up really high though and it got hard for our healthcare system to pay for the quality treatments that everyone here expects (rightfully expects).
Well of course. And in 20 years when those drugs are off patent and there are no new treatments for other problems....
You are giving up future rewards for a better today. Kind of brutal on the kids.
What Canadians have decided is that if Americans will not pay for a better future they are not interested in that better future. And of course all the while castigating Americans for their choices. It is nice to have such friends so close by.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I think that 20 years are enough for a company to make money of a product. If you have not made enough profit of it by then, you have other problems. If you are a public company, a product that does not make profit after a much, much shorter timeframe already is most likely cancelled. They also can always change something or make a small improvement on it and repatent the whole thing over again for another 20 years. That should give them at least some incentive to not rest on their laurels for more than 20 years.
Last edited by Skipjack on Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skipjack wrote:I think that 20 years are enough for a company to make money of a product. They also can always change something or make a small improvement on it and repatent the whole thing over again for another 20 years. That should give them at least some incentive to not rest on their laurels for more than 20 years.
Of course improvements are patentable. The old drug is now generic. Where is the problem? You would like drugs with more tolerable side effects wouldn't you?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
As I said, I dont see why I should pay for the illnesses they get from their drug abuses. I dont care what they take them for. I used to be a smoker for a few years and my entire family still smokes. I think it is stupid and unhealthy and it I dont see why anyone should pay for illnesses caused by the abuse of these substances.
Btw, there are people that claim the same for obese people (they eat to self medicate for some pain, since food and certain foods in particular also releases endorphins).
No, I did not say there was a problem. I was just saying that 20 years are enough to make profit and they have even more than 20 if they add an improvement and repatent it (which basically allows for a prolongation of the whole aparatus).
Ah. So now health care is going to depend on if you follow the government diktats. That should cut costs considerably if you pick the right targets. We will not be so clumsy as those fellers in Central Europe in the 30s and 40s. No need to kill "enemies of the treasury". Just let them die.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Skipjack wrote:No, I did not say there was a problem. I was just saying that 20 years are enough to make profit and they have even more than 20 if they add an improvement and repatent it (which basically allows for a prolongation of the whole aparatus).
That is the system now. Twenty to twenty-five years to generic production.
What is your beef? You are getting a free ride on the Americans and you don't like the system Americans operate under? How gracious.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Huch?
I said, I dont have a problem with the system. You were the one who said that generics were no good and reduced the profit that the pharmaceutical companies made. I said that generics only come to market after 20 years at earliest, which should be enough for them to make profit of them.
Now you are saying that I dont like that? I am confused, sorry.
So now health care is going to depend on if you follow the government diktats. That should cut costs considerably if you pick the right targets.
The private insurance companies are doing this already. Only that they are much tougher in their choices. They not only dont insure you, if you are abusing drugs. No, it can be a preexisting condition. Heck it could be akne! So I think, that I am a lot less discriminating than they are. But I dont see why people should get a free ride that willingly harm themselves.
If I decide to cut of my arm with a chainsaw, because I think it is cool, would you like to pay for a prostetic?
Skipjack wrote:Huch?
I said, I dont have a problem with the system. You were the one who said that generics were no good and reduced the profit that the pharmaceutical companies made. I said that generics only come to market after 20 years at earliest, which should be enough for them to make profit of them.
Now you are saying that I dont like that? I am confused, sorry.
Where did I say generics were no good? Or what did you misinterpret that gave you that impression.
Second I took your comment on patenting as a criticism of the system. Evidently I was mistaken.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
