California's Fires

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:55:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 5:31 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 8:42:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

I find your comments to be a major reason that this country has had so many problems. I bet you made these sorts of comments in front of the children you were teaching because the leftist mutter these same sort of ignorances.

I taught things like statics, dynamics, strength of materials, robotics,
etc. For example, things like stress = M*c/I or like the following*:
D = (64*N*Pa*(K*L)^2/pi^3/E)^.25

But you're right that what I taught was sort of leftist. That's because,
as we've seen, reality has a bias against the right wing. ;-)

(*I admit, I had to look that one up. I no longer have things like that
memorized.)

--
- Frank Krygowski


The current Fed tilts into a very tenuous bridge between A and B often non existent. For example, throwing chicken guts,coal debris and proven toxics into clean backwater increases national production ? It does satisfy the local yokel vote of 5.

DemoProp writes this is basic mental deficiency that their smarts are all in industry as per throwing toxics into clean DemO water.

since 1 April, 1971

not true, we sometimes buy what we need.

Wal isnot beating Amazon. I Prime. On the road I get for $10 at common UPS eg Priming one leatherman, 2 Bosch long distance oil filters, 6 pairs AAA boot socks, AND a 6 pack of ALPEN sugarless cereal. At Yuma.

Same deal at Wal...one stop low prices and you get to wander for stuff.

Corningware microwave cooker, PCBlaster, gourmet lemonade n tea an acorn squash, raspberry HagenDaz

with Amazon I am chipped. Tied symbiotically to my S5 n Dell laptop via Verizon.

like the man said. " without it I'd be chopped liver"

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 6:01:16 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
snip

And as with any other human interaction, you're free to buy
or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking.

For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about
WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been inside
one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?" I just
get a blank stare.


Yes and no. With many medications, purchase is required -- and you're at the mercy of the seller. If you need an orphan drug, it can be a huge expense because a lot are not included in insurer or Coverage D formularies. My wife is taking a medication that costs nearly four thousand dollars a month if purchased in the US. It's a tenth of the price if purchased in Canada -- which she does.

At first, the drug was not approved for use in the US, but now it is. Oddly, Medicare will not cover purchases made from Canada, but Medicare will pay for the purchase of the American drug subject to the out-of-pocket and co-pay and the so-called doughnut hole. Then it will pay at a 90% reimbursement rate -- so after my wife blows through about $6K (I don't know the exact amount any more), the US government would reimburse her 90% of a $4K monthly dose -- $3,600 -- for a medicine that can be purchased in Canada for $400, the amount of her co-pay under Coverage D. Your tax dollars at work. We skip the program, buy direct and pay less per year than the out-of-pocket and co-pay under Coverage D, which is really a program to enrich American drug makers at the expense of tax payers. At least historically, CMS was expressly prohibited from negotiating price reductions from manufacturers, unlike private insurers and every other government sponsored health plan in the world. By law, the US was required to pay full price. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/0...e-negotiation/

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's
billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what
is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a
near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to
affect the election process in ways that no individuals can
hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will
involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly
written in some ways, but the essence is that no state
agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices
negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is
allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems
in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's
amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the
pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated.
Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending
fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money
to do so, and they want to keep getting that money.

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat
it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because
it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their
medications that way.

Other examples abound.Â* But when an industry like this has
unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they
want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed
nations where drug companies can, and do, market
prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell
your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result,
TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.


And as with any other human interaction, you're free to buy or not buy
whatever the hell they're hawking.

In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one family
member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time release version that was
exorbitantly expensive, in part because there is no generic for that
version. But there is a generic for the alternative that you must
remember to take twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change
to that generic, and there have been no problems.

Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the medication in
question is literally necessary for life. One recent example is the
Epi-pen. See
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/

"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer, Mylan,
asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for EpiPen, an epinephine
auto-injector used to treat allergy reactions that has seen its price
rise from $57 in 2007 to about $500 today." As I recall, the ultimate
answer was "We raised the price because we could."

Or more generally, there's this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html

There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle and is not
available in generic form. Turns out that in other countries it is a
generic. Here, they've managed to control the patents not because of the
medication, but because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that
med is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is pretty
offensive.

Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent preventing other
companies from using a slant parallelogram derailleur. But I would have
been pretty offended if the law said "Bicyclists must use only one rear
cog," or "bicyclists can change from one gear to another only using
their bare hands."

For example, I notice a constant series of complaints about WalMart,
product and policy, but I have never been inside one myself. When I ask,
"So why do you shop there?" I just get a blank stare.

I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:55:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 5:31 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 8:42:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

I find your comments to be a major reason that this country has had so many problems. I bet you made these sorts of comments in front of the children you were teaching because the leftist mutter these same sort of ignorances.

I taught things like statics, dynamics, strength of materials, robotics,
etc. For example, things like stress = M*c/I or like the following*:
D = (64*N*Pa*(K*L)^2/pi^3/E)^.25

But you're right that what I taught was sort of leftist. That's because,
as we've seen, reality has a bias against the right wing. ;-)

(*I admit, I had to look that one up. I no longer have things like that
memorized.)

You mean that reality that made the USA the most advanced country in the world that supplied the world with most of it's present science and technology?

That certainly seems to me to be not nearly as good as your communism with Joseph Stalin murdering 56 million people because they didn't follow orders.

ALL socialisms degrade eventually into dictatorships. Your supreme stupidity in telling us cases that haven't when they haven't had sufficient time to do so doesn't prove a thing.

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 6:18:21 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:23:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 5:00:26 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

I read you posting that you were making a salary in the top 5%. I also
read that you claim to make more money then a bloke who seems to be a
rather up market Lawyer, at least I see his name on some pleadings
that seem to be rather up market.

I was making that and it is likely I'll be returning to that level pretty soon. But it's been a decade and three years of that I was unconscious to all purposes and I had my bank account go from $88,000 to $10,000. I was a complete sucker for every charity or political group to come down the pike..

Luckily my 401's were in long term investments that Morgan Stanley wouldn't let me get at.

So I do have an income separate from SS but not much.

Then you tell me that me that you have paltry $500 a month 402K
account. And then you tell us that you pay $55 for beef stake....

Your stories just don't seem to match.

Well I believe that I said that I paid that for meat at a meat market. That was two weeks of meat including $28 for skirt steaks if memory serves. Which obviously isn't great.


I'm working from memory as I see you have trimmed your own original
statement but I don't remember you stating it was two weeks of meat.
In fact I seem to remember something like "a couple of steaks". But
alas, that data is long gone.

Excuse me John - was it your understanding that I was going to eat that meat all by myself or at one sitting?

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The
fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in
ways that no individuals can hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve
prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways,
but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for
pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's
Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the
medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand
comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals
is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very
near by.

I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a
doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in
Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't
need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to
Malaysia".

In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or
Mexico to buy medicine.

Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but
still.

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch
the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding
to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are
spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to
do so, and they want to keep getting that money.


Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows
that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T.V.
:-)

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because
it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to
state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited
money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where
drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to
consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As
a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.

The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs.

Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here.

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The
fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in
ways that no individuals can hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve
prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways,
but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for
pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's
Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the
medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand
comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals
is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very
near by.

I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a
doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in
Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't
need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to
Malaysia".

In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or
Mexico to buy medicine.

Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but
still.

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch
the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding
to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are
spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to
do so, and they want to keep getting that money.


Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows
that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T.V.
:-)

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because
it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to
state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited
money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where
drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to
consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As
a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.

The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs.

Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here.

Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet.

There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/25/2017 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/24/2017 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's
billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what
is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a
near-term one. The fact is, large corporations have money to
affect the election process in ways that no individuals can
hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will
involve prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly
written in some ways, but the essence is that no state
agency should pay more for pharmaceuticals than the prices
negotiated by the Veteran's Administration. (The VA is
allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the medical sytems
in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's
amazing to watch the tidal waves of advertising the
pharmaceutical companies are funding to have it defeated.
Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are spending
fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money
to do so, and they want to keep getting that money.

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat
it because it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because
it applies only to state agencies, and most don't get their
medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has
unlimited money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they
want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed
nations where drug companies can, and do, market
prescription medications directly to consumers; as in "Tell
your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As a result,
TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.


And as with any other human interaction, you're free to
buy or not buy whatever the hell they're hawking.

In some cases, yes. We recently made that decision on one
family member's medicine. The doctor prescribed a time
release version that was exorbitantly expensive, in part
because there is no generic for that version. But there is a
generic for the alternative that you must remember to take
twice per day. I phoned the doctor and had him change to
that generic, and there have been no problems.

Trouble is, "free to not buy" has little meaning when the
medication in question is literally necessary for life. One
recent example is the Epi-pen. See
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...oost/89129620/


"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has written the manufacturer,
Mylan, asking for the reasons behind the price boosts for
EpiPen, an epinephine auto-injector used to treat allergy
reactions that has seen its price rise from $57 in 2007 to
about $500 today." As I recall, the ultimate answer was "We
raised the price because we could."

Or more generally, there's this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...-protests.html


There's another medication in the house that costs a bundle
and is not available in generic form. Turns out that in
other countries it is a generic. Here, they've managed to
control the patents not because of the medication, but
because of the cute little dispenser. Fortunately, that med
is needed only rarely - but the legal/marketing ploy is
pretty offensive.

Bike analogy: I didn't mind SunTour having a patent
preventing other companies from using a slant parallelogram
derailleur. But I would have been pretty offended if the law
said "Bicyclists must use only one rear cog," or "bicyclists
can change from one gear to another only using their bare
hands."

For example, I notice a constant series of complaints
about WalMart, product and policy, but I have never been
inside one myself. When I ask, "So why do you shop there?"
I just get a blank stare.

I hear you. I don't shop there, deliberately.


Epinephrine is generic and old; predates FDA regulation.
The branded pen device is patented and they keep making
minor changes to extend the device patent.
Possession of a syringe was, in recent memory, a crime.
That's no longer true.
But hey if you find the pen device handy, it costs more.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:06:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 9:24 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:42:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:


an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

I'd say that under modern American capitalism, it's billion dollar
corporation against man.

Probably true. But what is the alternate? Or perhaps, what is a
politically viable alternate?

It is tough to envision an alternative, especially a near-term one. The
fact is, large corporations have money to affect the election process in
ways that no individuals can hope counter.

Current Ohio example: Issue Two in this next election will involve
prices for pharmaceuticals. The measure is badly written in some ways,
but the essence is that no state agency should pay more for
pharmaceuticals than the prices negotiated by the Veteran's
Administration. (The VA is allowed to negotiate and does, just as do the
medical sytems in Canada, Britain, France, etc. and as a result they pay
FAR less.)

What I find interesting that in some countries.... (strangely Thailand
comes to mind :-) the price of certain, perhaps most, pharmaceuticals
is lower, sometimes much lower then in other countries. Sometimes very
near by.

I remember, after I retired and living in Thailand, I visited a
doctor in Singapore and mentioned that I could buy medicines in
Thailand cheaper then in Singapore. The doctor replied that I didn't
need to go all the way to Thailand, "just cross the causeway to
Malaysia".

In the U.S. I read about people crossing the border to Canada or
Mexico to buy medicine.

Granted that the cost of doing business is higher in the U.S., but
still.

As I said, there are problems with this issue. But it's amazing to watch
the tidal waves of advertising the pharmaceutical companies are funding
to have it defeated. Ads on TV are at least 10 to 1 against it. They are
spending fortunes in their efforts. Why? Because they have the money to
do so, and they want to keep getting that money.


Of course, but no different then any other company. Everybody knows
that Chevrolet is better then a Ford. Says so, right there on the T.V..
:-)

And of course, the ads are very misleading - such as "defeat it because
it doesn't cover 3/4 of Ohioans!" Right, because it applies only to
state agencies, and most don't get their medications that way.

Other examples abound. But when an industry like this has unlimited
money to spend, they can pretty much buy what they want.

Note to non-USians: The USA is one of only two developed nations where
drug companies can, and do, market prescription medications directly to
consumers; as in "Tell your doctor you want THIS prescription drug!" As
a result, TV ads are almost totally dominated by prescription medicine
ads and, of course, motor vehicle ads.

The cost of medicine outside of the US isn't any sort of comparison to those sold in the USA where most of the funding for medicine development occurs.

Not to mention that many medications are counterfeited outside of the USA and a great many of them are ineffective. I can tell the difference between my anti-convulsive mediation made by different manufacturers here.

Much of the research is done by foreign drug makers. My wife's drug was developed by Hoffman-LaRoche in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is typically prescribed to patients with Huntington's disease but is also used for other chorea disorders. Drugs purchased from legitimate Canadian pharmacies are typically the same brands available in the US or safe and effective generics from foreign manufacturers. This is not like buying fake Viagra from China via the internet.

There is no reason CMS should pay extortive prices for orphan or branded drugs available in Canada or Europe for a small fraction of the price -- except to pad the pockets of domestic sellers. The tax code already rewards manufacturers and others with depreciating intellectual property. No need to pay twice.

The USA does 43.7% of pharmaceutical research and development. ONE country does this out of 195 countries. And MANY of the drugs that are sold by competing foreign firms were developed in the US and were immediately copied the second that the patents ran out.