From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 21:02
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Boeing competes for its military contract sales.
> > > >
> > > > Airbus describes them as 'pork barrel contracts'.
> > >
> > > Boeing has congressmembers on payroll, so they'll get contracts.
> > > It took a huge dust-up in 2002 (?) to keep the gov't from leasing
> > > tanker planes from Boeing when it was *much* cheaper to buy them.
> > Exactly the kind of thing that Airbus means. There's a closer watch on that form
> > of intrinsic corruption in Europe.
> 1) The lease didn't happen.
> 2) It's the military division, although it was military version of their
> commercial aircraft.
The 'division' is irrelevant. They're part of the same company FFS !
> 3) Boeing's commercial division has to make a profit or why have it?
Because it'll make a profit next year or the year after. If we get to the stage of
dropping a division for brief periods of sales drought or whatever, we'll soon be
buying our aircraft from China as well as everything else.
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 21:04
"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > You can pay more for 'private' care in the UK too if you want to. Either by >electing to
> have an additional insurance policy or by paying on an ad-hoc basis. >It's simply not
> compulsory and most ppl go with the normal provision most of the >time.
> But the ones who can afford it, do get private insurance.
Not universally by any means.
> That's telling, isn't it?
Not really. Your assumption is wrong.
From: John Mara on 20 May 2007 21:14
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
> But the ones who can afford it, do get private insurance. That's
> telling, isn't it?
Those who can afford BMWs get them instead of Toyotas. If someone wants
luxury health care let them pay for it.
From: Eeyore on 20 May 2007 21:12
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >>In short, the US health care market is
> >>being manipulated against the comsumers' interest.
> > Is limiting the amount of money companies can make with new drugs, and
> > therefore can invest in research for even more new drugs, really in the
> > consumers' interest? I think that all first world countries should
> > equally share this burden. So I do think that Americans are being
> > treated unfairly.
> Because who knows where we'd be without another new drug for "erectile
LOL ! There's enough of those already !
> Of course, the drug companies spend a lot of their income
> on advertising, not to mention executive salaries and profits. So the
> idea that without being able to charge what the traffic will bear they'd
> never have enough money to develop another new drug is just silly.
Many 'new' drugs are simply invented to replace those whose patents have expired
and which can no longer sell at a premium.
Here's a classic example. It's all but the same chemical but the new version
gets a new period of patent protection which inflates profits for the drug
company and costs for the patient.
Escitalopram was developed in a close cooperation between Lundbeck and Forest
Laboratories. Its development was initiated in the summer of 1997, and the
resulting new drug application was submitted to the FDA in March 2001. The short
time (3.5 years) it took to develop escitalopram can be attributed to the
previous extensive experience of Lundbeck and Forest with citalopram, which has
Now here are the molecules !
Can you tell the difference ?
From: Jeffrey Turner on 20 May 2007 21:12
* US * wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:41:55 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Ho high' )"
> <tributyltinpaint(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>*, US, * wrote:
>>>On Sun, 20 May 2007 05:10:00 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza(a)excite.com> wrote:
>>>>in the U.S...
>>>People have to pay more for inferior healthcare.
>>... look at the level of health care people
>>in America have who have decent insurance.
> They pay more for inferior healthcare.
But they get the best insurance adjusters in the world.
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt