Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Orphan drug availability. In the EU, Finland,France, Germany and Sweden supply the most orphan drugs (20-21 out of 22) affordably. The UK supplies only 15 and makes patients pay for up to 94% per cent of the cost. --- Paul Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am sorry to hear about your health situation. I think you are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions about the conclusions for the health care system. First of all, I agree that the UK, Canada, Australia are all unnecessarily stingy health care system. The reason for that (as far as I can tell) is because their political system tend to unduly favor conservatives who in turn try to keep Health Service funds low (compared to the other health systems in the First World - all of them except the US, government run) Do you know how, for instance, what the situation in Germany is like for orphan drugs? (I don't, I should look it up). Anyway, orphan drugs is actually an example of market failure and a good case could be made that the government should have a nationalized pharmaceutical company to manufacturing them and the RD expense of developing should come out of the government RD budgets - which, IIRC, is where most of the expense of orphan drugs comes from. It also occurs to me, that jacking up the price on a drug for which there is no market allows the drug companies to get bigger tax breaks when they give it away. Even so, medical resources are expensive, involving both material and labor inputs that can be exceedingly scarce. If it were in principle possible to allocate all the money needed to avoid tough, who lives, who dies, rationing dilemmas, it would still takes year to put such a system into place (assuming it is possible). My brother-in-law died in his early 30's because he had decided to pay for a crappy insurance policy and it delayed him from getting to doctor in a timely way (it wasn't cancer but DVT, a doctor's visit days before his death literally might have saved his life). As many as 200,000 people in the US die from it each year. That's my health care story. --- Admiral Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like your in-depth analysis: The healthcare guys. Do they carry around a big bag of healthcare to dole out skimpily to the poor and needy? Lemme tell you a REAL healthcare story. I have whatcha call one of those orphan diseases. It's incurable, it's progressive, but it's treatable, to slow down my imminent demise. My pharmacy bill ran over $300k last year, because most of the drugs I take are only taken by the few of us who have this disease (you DO remember the economy of scale, don't you?). It will likely cost that much annually for the rest of my life. If I had no insurance, the companies would give it to me. If I had lousy insurance, there are foundations which will help with the costs. However, in the UK, that paragon of the National Health Service, they've just decided not to carry five of the six medications for my disease. If that one that's left doesn't treat you, then you're sunk. Canada? One of my pals died there last year because the health board fiddled around too long to get her proper treatment. Australia? One of my pals died there because not only would the government not buy the drug from overseas because of the cost, they wouldn't let him buy any with his own money and import it. Yeah, it's not great here, but like Churchill said, it's better than the alternatives. Ellen H. - Original Message - From: Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? The healthcare guys are doing it too. They make the cost so high that people will inevitably die. And they skim lots of money off the top to support their own lavish lifestyles. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Checkout One Laptop Per Child project laptop.org * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Checkout One Laptop Per Child project laptop.org * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
It is interesting that many of the drug companies we are most familiar with have European connections. (Bayer aspirin) Part of the availability is FDA refusal to OK these drugs. The EU equivalent allows drugs on the market quicker. There are many drugs on the market over there that have not and cannot be marketed here. Stewart At 07:15 AM 3/31/2008, you wrote: Orphan drug availability. In the EU, Finland,France, Germany and Sweden supply the most orphan drugs (20-21 out of 22) affordably. The UK supplies only 15 and makes patients pay for up to 94% per cent of the cost. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
If you don't think (fresh) water is a scarce resource I really don't know what to say. The US water table is steadily dropping due to over use from inefficient agriculture and domestic use made possible by governments not charging what the water is worth. You contradict yourself. You claim it is scarce and then describe how it is so cheap that it is wasted. Anything scarce is going to be expensive. The market is currently clearing at that price. That is the price. Not expensive. You then use that as a lead in to an assertion that water is being sold cheap. That is step one to a corportae-induced price run up. This is already happening in Brazil where water sources are being bought by large US corporations and then being shut down. My reply to your post is Q.E.D. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Talk to the states of Alabama, Georgia and Florida about this subject. it is not pretty. Pointing out a few, short-term exceptions does not disprove the general rule. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
The EU equivalent allows drugs on the market quicker. There are many drugs on the market over there that have not and cannot be marketed here. European doctors are also more conservative in treatment. Once while traveling in Holland one person in my party had a severe case of kidney stones. The Dutch doctor prescribed herbal tea. The American patient was outraged. He expected drugs. We were also amused at their profuse apologies about having to charge for service because he was a foreigner. The bill came to $2, I think the American patient was also unnerved by the low cost. Wasn't expensive so it could not be good. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Tom; Remember the old adage whiskey is for drinking, water for fighting about? Governments largely control access to water in the US. They charge some customers a service fee for delivering that water via municipal infrastructure, charge some others for general access. To my knowledge no government has ever restricted water draw to sustainable levels (defined as keeps the water table and / or river flow in balance) and then charged a market price to those who want the water. On Mar 31, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Tom Piwowar wrote: If you don't think (fresh) water is a scarce resource I really don't know what to say. The US water table is steadily dropping due to over use from inefficient agriculture and domestic use made possible by governments not charging what the water is worth. You contradict yourself. You claim it is scarce and then describe how it is so cheap that it is wasted. Anything scarce is going to be expensive. The market is currently clearing at that price. That is the price. Not expensive. You then use that as a lead in to an assertion that water is being sold cheap. That is step one to a corportae-induced price run up. This is already happening in Brazil where water sources are being bought by large US corporations and then being shut down. My reply to your post is Q.E.D. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Water [RE: [CGUYS] Why not the US?]
Many local governments run the water / waste water utilities, including mine. The utility is difficult for us (small size with high per-user costs) and I would agree that potable water is becoming threatened. State and federal requirements add to our costs, for example requiring us to treat well water to remove radio-nuclides, which most other countries ignore. Infrastructure needs (maintain, replace or increase throughput) went ignored for decades. I struggle with fellow members of my town council to address these needs. Our town has only about 650 residents and a couple hundred businesses. When it became obvious that we needed to start planning to replace our waste water treatment plant, we discovered a $5m cost. We allowed a business to build a large inn, annexing land into town, because they agreed to pay for it. Water is going to become an ever more pressing issue, not just out west where over-building is making it increasingly scarce, but any where local, state and federal governments don't take actions to protect potable sources of water. People already complain about costs and we are just charging our costs and trying to keep our small utility infrastructure viable. We are always looking for ways to control our costs, but our infrastructure needs are high. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- If you don't think (fresh) water is a scarce resource I really don't know what to say. The US water table is steadily dropping due to over use from inefficient agriculture and domestic use made possible by governments not charging what the water is worth. You contradict yourself. You claim it is scarce and then describe how it is so cheap that it is wasted. Anything scarce is going to be expensive. The market is currently clearing at that price. That is the price. Not expensive. You then use that as a lead in to an assertion that water is being sold cheap. That is step one to a corportae-induced price run up. This is already happening in Brazil where water sources are being bought by large US corporations and then being shut down. My reply to your post is Q.E.D. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
Mandated? No, no one in the guvmint told them to merge. XM and Sirius had to fight to get that. I suppose it would have been better that one or both of them went out of business instead, right? You have blinders on. Within the very same email you confirm what I wrote. You words are... Only 4 companies applied for the 2 measly licenses the FCC was doling out with their depression era thinking. Both XM and Sirius paid $80,000,000 each for that, and this is the thanks they get. To restate your words: The government decreed that there would be an oligopoly with only two players. They kept other players out. They created an $80,000,000 barrier to entry. This is the worse kind of economic policy. This is not government regulation. This is the government picking winners and losers and effectively selling a license to allow companies to prey on citizens. How many web sites would there be if the government charged each an $80,000, license fee? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
I'm not disagreeing with you on this but could you elaborate on the broadband trickery you refer to? We had this discussion recently. It is greedy corporations selling the false idea that bandwidth is a scarce resource so that they can bid up its price. This is what Enron did with electricity a few years ago in CA. Some speculate that the same thing is going to happen with water in a few years. You have more access to information on this subject than a lot of us. No I do not. I'm just paying attention. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
To restate your words: The government decreed that there would be an oligopoly with only two players. They kept other players out. They created an $80,000,000 barrier to entry. No kidding. I didn't disagree with you. Maybe the FCC shouldn't be trying to make money by shaking down media companies and making the radio spectrum a protection racket. This is the worse kind of economic policy. This is not government regulation. This is the government picking winners and losers and effectively selling a license to allow companies to prey on citizens. Preying? Making a ginormous private investment in a completely new market with only marketing surveys to guide you for a ROI, and offering a service for a fee to grownups is preying on people? It's not taking a gamble that may soak investors for billions of dollars in losses if it fails? That's some mighty fancy epistemological footwork you've got there. And yes, it is govt. regulation; regulation that picks winners and losers. It's the same thing. How many web sites would there be if the government charged each an $80,000, license fee? You almost get there, almost, but your political bigotry prevents you from seeing the truth. Keep trying. You may yet connect the dots. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Tom; If you don't think (fresh) water is a scarce resource I really don't know what to say. The US water table is steadily dropping due to over use from inefficient agriculture and domestic use made possible by governments not charging what the water is worth. Water is the classic commons. Libertarian leaner though I am, even I understand that flowing water can not really be owned as it never stays in one place. Water use ought to be auctioned off to the highest bidder for the common weal. If the consumer will not pay what desert irrigated agriculture would really cost in an open market, and it would not be cheap, then more efficient methods will be found. While water is essentially free or cheap there is no incentive. Water is not bandwidth - you can not just build more. A better analogy would be spectrum - with better tech we can use it more efficiently, but we can not make more of it at this time. In the future we can desalinate with massive power input, right now that power is prohibitive. Matthew On Mar 30, 2008, at 10:05 AM, Tom Piwowar wrote: We had this discussion recently. It is greedy corporations selling the false idea that bandwidth is a scarce resource so that they can bid up its price. This is what Enron did with electricity a few years ago in CA. Some speculate that the same thing is going to happen with water in a few years. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
I like your in-depth analysis: The healthcare guys. Do they carry around a big bag of healthcare to dole out skimpily to the poor and needy? Lemme tell you a REAL healthcare story. I have whatcha call one of those orphan diseases. It's incurable, it's progressive, but it's treatable, to slow down my imminent demise. My pharmacy bill ran over $300k last year, because most of the drugs I take are only taken by the few of us who have this disease (you DO remember the economy of scale, don't you?). It will likely cost that much annually for the rest of my life. If I had no insurance, the companies would give it to me. If I had lousy insurance, there are foundations which will help with the costs. However, in the UK, that paragon of the National Health Service, they've just decided not to carry five of the six medications for my disease. If that one that's left doesn't treat you, then you're sunk. Canada? One of my pals died there last year because the health board fiddled around too long to get her proper treatment. Australia? One of my pals died there because not only would the government not buy the drug from overseas because of the cost, they wouldn't let him buy any with his own money and import it. Yeah, it's not great here, but like Churchill said, it's better than the alternatives. Ellen H. - Original Message - From: Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? The healthcare guys are doing it too. They make the cost so high that people will inevitably die. And they skim lots of money off the top to support their own lavish lifestyles. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Not specifically about health care, but I heard something this morning that indicates to me the world is going to end soon. I was listening to Ben Stein, (An avowed capitalist with a capital C) and he called for the re regulation of the American Airline Industry. That along with the floods in Missouri, and Arkansas, the collapse of the ice field in the antartic and all the bad weather indicates to me that the world is ending. :-) Stewart At 08:24 AM 3/29/2008, you wrote: I like your in-depth analysis: The healthcare guys. Do they carry around a big bag of healthcare to dole out skimpily to the poor and needy? Lemme tell you a REAL healthcare story. I have whatcha call one of those orphan diseases. It's incurable, it's progressive, but it's treatable, to slow down my imminent demise. My pharmacy bill ran over $300k last year, because most of the drugs I take are only taken by the few of us who have this disease (you DO remember the economy of scale, don't you?). It will likely cost that much annually for the rest of my life. If I had no insurance, the companies would give it to me. If I had lousy insurance, there are foundations which will help with the costs. However, in the UK, that paragon of the National Health Service, they've just decided not to carry five of the six medications for my disease. If that one that's left doesn't treat you, then you're sunk. Canada? One of my pals died there last year because the health board fiddled around too long to get her proper treatment. Australia? One of my pals died there because not only would the government not buy the drug from overseas because of the cost, they wouldn't let him buy any with his own money and import it. Yeah, it's not great here, but like Churchill said, it's better than the alternatives. Ellen H. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Who does, or does not, get to keep bees (see the last item on the list) is beside the point. Organization is the main point. DRIVING was mentioned on this list. You wouldn't have interstate highways, for example, without a coast-to-coast government ORGANIZING the thing, to get it built in the first place. And, of course, making regulations about how to do it (e.g. standards for the concrete that goes into the road) and what to do with the project when it's finished (e.g. you can't get totally wasted on alcohol and drive on it, you can't drive at 100 mph, etc.). Get rid of government organization, oversight and regulation and just see how long the interstate highways last. I could cite more examples all day, but I've got other things that have to get done this weekend. Yes, sometimes government goes overboard with laws and regulations, but, hey, this isn't the Garden of Eden. And, ultimately, We the People can ultimately fire the politicians who have made the bad regulations and hire new ones who are more responsive. At least there's that possibility. (Just try making Verizon or Exxon change because you don't like what THEY'RE doing. People have tried, and it hasn't worked yet.) Oh, yes, and alcohol: you can thank government regulation that the next bottle of whatever you buy at the liquor store won't poison you with lead residue, blind you (because it's really methanol), or make you really sick (with some adulterant that nobody suspects could be in a drink)--not to mention that it actually contains alcohol, and in the concentration that's listed on the label. (All those things used to happen, and probably still do, in the underground market for potables.) And has anyone ever heard of somebody busted for keeping illegal bees? --Constance Warner On Mar 28, 2008, at 10:07 PM, John Mealey III wrote: What I don't want is the government making the choice about who gets what. Government in the United States does decide who gets what: Government decided when, what, where you buy, how much you pay, content of Alcohol. Government decides what you can and cannot smoke...legal tobacco, illegal, well, other stuff. Government decides if you where a motorcycle helmit or not. Government decides if you fly or not. Government decides if you drive or not (possibly the most begnin reasons here) Government decides what words you can hear or not hear on the TV and radio. In virginia, I am prohibited from receiving all of the electromagnetic spectrum (Radar detectors at the state level, and cell phone scanners at the federal level) At the State level, I do believe you need to either have a license or be registered to have bees. And god forbid you swap out an electrical breaker or add on a deck, the county will have your head. John Mealey ** *** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** ** *** * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Yeah, it's not great here, but like Churchill said, it's better than the alternatives. Your position defies logic. The ability to point out situations that are worse than ours does nothing to support any assertion that our situation is acceptable. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
It is also a fine balancing act. These other countries have tried to balance it all. Not perfect mind you but balance. My in-laws live in Canada. Not a lot of income mind you but they both worked very hard to be where they are today. They have free health care and free prescriptions. They can get in to see a doctor when they need too. If they were here in the states I would not want to see what kind of standard of living they would have. My f-i-l was a machinist, and my m-i-l worked in the city hall as a Admin person in [part of city gov. Not high paying jobs either one of them. Do they com[plain about their taxes? Oh yeah you ought to see what the sales taxes are like when you buy something. (Goods and services tax, plus Provincial sales tax ) but there are always balances that need to be made and compromises that have to be done. I recently went to get a prescription for a certain condition. My prescription plan does not cover it. $190 for 14 pills. I guess I will have to live with the condition. Stewart At 11:42 AM 3/29/2008, you wrote: Your position defies logic. The ability to point out situations that are worse than ours does nothing to support any assertion that our situation is acceptable. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Back to focusing on technology... I recommend to you: Motorola insider tells all about the fall of a technology icon www.engadget.com/2008/03/26/motorola-insider-tells-all-about-the-fall-of-a- technology-icon/ In researching the myriad claims raised in this letter -- which we believe to be true -- we also discovered a number of other unsettling things about Motorola's corporate past in the last five years, such as certain gross corporate excesses demanded by Zander and his inner circle (like a small fleet of extravagant private jets, where most companies that size might only have one, if any), or the fact that Motorola's current CEO, Greg Brown, is so technologically out of touch he refuses to use a computer for communications, and has all his email correspondences printed by his secretary and replied to by dictation. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
It's not a monopoly. It's one entertainment option among many. Saying that XM/Sirius is a monopoly is akin to arguing that WAMU is a monopoly because it's the only station that can broadcast at 88.5 MHz in the DC area. Calling their market segment entertainment option is disingenuous. You might as well call its market segment business entity. Sure we have plenty of those. The problem here is that we got a government mandated oligopoly. Both companies charge too much. They use incompatable systems that exclude all competition. Faced with a soft market they refuse to compete, instead preferring a government mandated monopoly. This is bad stuff. What we need is a standard transmission system that is open to all who want to participate. The same kind of standards that gave us AM, FM, NTSC, ATSC/HDTV, and HD Radio. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Tom, I'm not disagreeing with you on this but could you elaborate on the broadband trickery you refer to? You have more access to information on this subject than a lot of us. db Tom Piwowar wrote: ... Just like the broadband guys are trying to trick us into believing that there is not enough to go around. The healthcare guys are doing it too. They make the cost so high that people will inevitably die. And they skim lots of money off the top to support their own lavish lifestyles. I'm not willing to accept this machinery of death. I'm also not willing to accept crummy and expensive broadband. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
Calling their market segment entertainment option is disingenuous. You might as well call its market segment business entity. Sure we have plenty of those. Calling it a monopoly is even more disingenuous. See your list below to see their competition and tell me how a single satellite company monopolizes anything. I'll add the MP3 player market too. The problem here is that we got a government mandated oligopoly. And what is your complaint Kemosabe? I can't imagine you getting rid of the FCC, as I would. Your complaint is with them and their cronies at the NAB. They call the shots. Both companies charge too much. That's your opinion. About 14 million people disagree with you. I know who my money is on. Faced with a soft market they refuse to compete, instead preferring a government mandated monopoly. Mandated? No, no one in the guvmint told them to merge. XM and Sirius had to fight to get that. I suppose it would have been better that one or both of them went out of business instead, right? This is bad stuff. What we need is a standard transmission system that is open to all who want to participate. The same kind of standards that gave us AM, FM, NTSC, ATSC/HDTV, and HD Radio. Yes, because launching a satellite network is just like erecting a radio tower. It is a standard. It's the 'S band frequency, 2.3 GHz, for Digital Audio Radio Service. Only 4 companies applied for the 2 measly licenses the FCC was doling out with their depression era thinking. Both XM and Sirius paid $80,000,000 each for that, and this is the thanks they get. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Perhaps someone can confirm or deny...I had read that 65% or in that area of foreclosures were unoccupied...investments to turn that went bad. Not Joe Blow and 2.5 kids. Mike On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:24 PM, John DeCarlo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Jeff Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but the people losing their homes now had plenty of paycheck to cover their mortgage payment *at the time they got the mortgage*. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
John--I'm not giving the banks a pass on this, but I've grown weary of the violin strings played for adults who didn't even begin to have the resources or were in any sort of position to buy a house, but absolutely had to have a house, well, because everyone else was getting one. If you want to make excuses for people who got in over their heads with something they didn't understand or didn't try to understand, but did anyway, be my guest. The banks bear their own responsibility as well, of course. They don't deserve a bail-out either. If they truly defrauded borrowers, not just talk someone into a bad deal, they deserve jail. Otherwise, let them go out of business if they made too many high-risk loans that went sour on them. -Original Message- Yes, but the people losing their homes now had plenty of paycheck to cover their mortgage payment *at the time they got the mortgage*. What the banks and investment houses did that was fiscally irresponsible was to give out or invest in mortgages that would only work as long as rates stayed down and home prices continued to rise. The loans didn't make any sense when they were made. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Did I say that only money matters? What I don't want is the government making the choice about who gets what. On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote: I do not understand the idea that every improvement, no matter how expensive, must be affordable by all, and if not some injustice has occurred. I do not understand your belief that money is the criterion to use to determine who lives and who dies. Why not favor those with higher IQs? Why not favor those who lead saintly lives? Why not favor one race over another? Why not favor one sex over the other? Why is it only money that counts? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Yes, if you want to assume that there is no charity in the US. No religious hospitals that will care for the uninsured, no children's hospitals providing endowment / other sourced care. The issue is should the power of government compulsion be used to pay for care, which WILL result in government deciding what care is provided, or should the private sector, including private charity provide care based on what is wanted and needed. Matthew On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:04 PM, katan wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:28:14 -0400, Matthew Taylor wrote: To be rationed requires that there be a shortage of supply. There is no shortage of supply for those able to pay - if you can afford the procedure you will get the procedure in the US (organ donations being And those that can't afford it can just go away and die. Yes? -- R:\katan * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
In your scenario, people are either middle-class (high, medium, or low) or charity cases. The truth is a large portion of the U.S. is poor: due to age, education, unemployment, immigration status, whatever. Some of these people work, own cars, and some even own their own homes. Out of to pride, habit, or ignorance, they choose not to present themselves for charity - they skimp and do without, instead. Those with health problems, eventually become a statistic. On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Matthew Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, if you want to assume that there is no charity in the US. No religious hospitals that will care for the uninsured, no children's hospitals providing endowment / other sourced care. The issue is should the power of government compulsion be used to pay for care, which WILL result in government deciding what care is provided, or should the private sector, including private charity provide care based on what is wanted and needed. Matthew On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:04 PM, katan wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:28:14 -0400, Matthew Taylor wrote: To be rationed requires that there be a shortage of supply. There is no shortage of supply for those able to pay - if you can afford the procedure you will get the procedure in the US (organ donations being And those that can't afford it can just go away and die. Yes? -- R:\katan * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
So is it the governments job to save those in need of help the task of asking for help? Should the government make all our health choices for us? Many people with insurance choose to avoid presenting themselves for care for a variety of reasons and become a statistic. Is that a government problem beyond perhaps a public health education issue? On Mar 28, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Ralph wrote: In your scenario, people are either middle-class (high, medium, or low) or charity cases. The truth is a large portion of the U.S. is poor: due to age, education, unemployment, immigration status, whatever. Some of these people work, own cars, and some even own their own homes. Out of to pride, habit, or ignorance, they choose not to present themselves for charity - they skimp and do without, instead. Those with health problems, eventually become a statistic. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Every nation rations health care, by some criteria. In Canada everyone has the same health insurance. The rationing comes in with Hospital care/procedures. Their hospitals are flat funded. Which means if it is funded for 400 CT scans a year that is all it performs. The Doctors then have to figure out which of the 800 patients they want to have a CT scan will get it. The most critical, or the everyday? The elderly or the young et. etc.. Here in the states it comes down to $$ it is a proven statistic that the ones with the better health plans which usually involve more money have better health care. They can have more tests run etc. etc. Do not get sick in America without health insurance. The medical/health care industry is one (Not the only) of the leading reasons for Bankruptcies. (MSN had an interesting article that if you discounted or removed health care filings from peoples credit reports, they had much better scores) Many countries have chosen models similar to Canada (which is socialized health insurance, not medical care.) Stewart At 09:43 AM 3/28/2008, you wrote: In your scenario, people are either middle-class (high, medium, or low) or charity cases. The truth is a large portion of the U.S. is poor: due to age, education, unemployment, immigration status, whatever. Some of these people work, own cars, and some even own their own homes. Out of to pride, habit, or ignorance, they choose not to present themselves for charity - they skimp and do without, instead. Those with health problems, eventually become a statistic. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
The plain truth is that private charity and religious foundations can't possibly cope with the health care needs of people without insurance or who have inadequate health insurance. There are too many people needing too much care--even simple things like having a tooth pulled--let alone things like getting insulin, if they're diabetic. Or major surgery, such as an appendectomy or a lumpectomy. Cf: look at the difficulties that charities and religious organizations are having coping with widespread but much less expensive needs and projects--such as food pantries and soup kitchens. There are more and more people needing services, and the funding is either stable or diminishing. It's hard to see how the charities can afford to give out free or low-cost appendectomies to everyone who needs one, if they can no longer afford to give out as many free peanut-butter sandwiches as are needed. Providing all the care that is wanted and needed? Given current conditions, that's a fantasy. I don't know what criteria the charities will use to ration the care--to decide who gets the emergency care and who doesn't--but I don't envy them, with hard choices like that. How would YOU like to look a breast cancer patient in the face and tell them, I'm sorry, we didn't get enough donations this month; come back next month, when your cancer may be incurable, and maybe we can operate then? What makes it doubly sad is that most of the people who need care have held up THEIR end of the social contract: they work hard, pay taxes, and don't get into trouble. A large percentage of the people who need care are the working poor; an increasing number are solidly middle-class. Don't try to tell THEM that medical care isn't rationed. --Constance Warner On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Matthew Taylor wrote: Yes, if you want to assume that there is no charity in the US. No religious hospitals that will care for the uninsured, no children's hospitals providing endowment / other sourced care. The issue is should the power of government compulsion be used to pay for care, which WILL result in government deciding what care is provided, or should the private sector, including private charity provide care based on what is wanted and needed. Matthew On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:04 PM, katan wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:28:14 -0400, Matthew Taylor wrote: To be rationed requires that there be a shortage of supply. There is no shortage of supply for those able to pay - if you can afford the procedure you will get the procedure in the US (organ donations being And those that can't afford it can just go away and die. Yes? -- R:\katan ** *** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** ** *** * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
I think that for starters we have a different definition of rationed This is from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rationed Verb S: (v) ration (restrict the consumption of a relatively scarce commodity, as during war) Bread was rationed during the siege of the city S: (v) ration, ration out (distribute in rations, as in the army) Cigarettes are rationed Adjective S: (adj) rationed (distributed equitably in limited individual portions) got along as best we could on rationed meat and sugar No one is rationing health care, that is there is no one who is restricting the consumption of healthcare to those wanting to purchase it. What arguably is being rationed is free money from the government to pay for healthcare - the government sets limits on what they will pay for and who is eligible to get the free (to them) money. I think it is true, but am open to persuasion that this is not so, that the increase in the share of the economy controlled by the government since the new deal has decreased the total charitable giving in the country. Perhaps if the government left us more of our own resources we could and would give more to charity of our choice? Once the government starts performing a function many folks will think that the function is now paid for by their taxes and thus is no longer a concern of theirs, displacing the charitable impulse. Wo what is your solution? How large a share of the economy, of GDP say, do we grant the government to provide every need you think worthy? 25%? 30%? More? Is there any principle that would limit your willingness to surrender to the government for your or others own good? Alternatively how about we let the market work - and couple the consumption of health care to payment for healthcare. Then we will see a rationalized, but not rationed approach to healthcare. On Mar 28, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Constance Warner wrote: The plain truth is that private charity and religious foundations can't possibly cope with the health care needs of people without insurance or who have inadequate health insurance. There are too many people needing too much care--even simple things like having a tooth pulled--let alone things like getting insulin, if they're diabetic. Or major surgery, such as an appendectomy or a lumpectomy. Cf: look at the difficulties that charities and religious organizations are having coping with widespread but much less expensive needs and projects--such as food pantries and soup kitchens. There are more and more people needing services, and the funding is either stable or diminishing. It's hard to see how the charities can afford to give out free or low-cost appendectomies to everyone who needs one, if they can no longer afford to give out as many free peanut-butter sandwiches as are needed. Providing all the care that is wanted and needed? Given current conditions, that's a fantasy. I don't know what criteria the charities will use to ration the care--to decide who gets the emergency care and who doesn't--but I don't envy them, with hard choices like that. How would YOU like to look a breast cancer patient in the face and tell them, I'm sorry, we didn't get enough donations this month; come back next month, when your cancer may be incurable, and maybe we can operate then? What makes it doubly sad is that most of the people who need care have held up THEIR end of the social contract: they work hard, pay taxes, and don't get into trouble. A large percentage of the people who need care are the working poor; an increasing number are solidly middle-class. Don't try to tell THEM that medical care isn't rationed. --Constance Warner On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Matthew Taylor wrote: Yes, if you want to assume that there is no charity in the US. No religious hospitals that will care for the uninsured, no children's hospitals providing endowment / other sourced care. The issue is should the power of government compulsion be used to pay for care, which WILL result in government deciding what care is provided, or should the private sector, including private charity provide care based on what is wanted and needed. Matthew On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:04 PM, katan wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:28:14 -0400, Matthew Taylor wrote: To be rationed requires that there be a shortage of supply. There is no shortage of supply for those able to pay - if you can afford the procedure you will get the procedure in the US (organ donations being And those that can't afford it can just go away and die. Yes? -- R:\katan * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
What I don't want is the government making the choice about who gets what. Why do we need a government? Imagine what your school would be like if no one was in charge. Each class would make its own rules. Who gets to use the gym if two classes want to use it at the same time? Who would clean the classrooms? Who decides if you learn about Mars or play kickball? Sounds confusing, right? This is why schools have people who are in charge, such as the principal, administrators, teachers, and staff. Our nation has people who are in charge and they make up the government. http://bensguide.gpo.gov/k-2/government/index.html * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Alternatively how about we let the market work - and couple the consumption of health care to payment for healthcare. Then we will see a rationalized, but not rationed approach to healthcare. The NRA says Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So here you are setting up a process that is going to heartlessly kill people. Are you confortable with the killing, with being a murderer? Just like the broadband guys are trying to trick us into believing that there is not enough to go around. The healthcare guys are doing it too. They make the cost so high that people will inevitably die. And they skim lots of money off the top to support their own lavish lifestyles. I'm not willing to accept this machinery of death. I'm also not willing to accept crummy and expensive broadband. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
I'm not willing to accept this machinery of death. I'm also not willing to accept crummy and expensive broadband. I'm confused here. Who's killing whom? Is this when robots become sentient, enslave mankind and viciously take over the world? If it weren't for the cheap and ultra high speed Internet linking them all together Just the same, I, for one, welcome out new positronic overlords. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
What I don't want is the government making the choice about who gets what. Government in the United States does decide who gets what: Government decided when, what, where you buy, how much you pay, content of Alcohol. Government decides what you can and cannot smoke...legal tobacco, illegal, well, other stuff. Government decides if you where a motorcycle helmit or not. Government decides if you fly or not. Government decides if you drive or not (possibly the most begnin reasons here) Government decides what words you can hear or not hear on the TV and radio. In virginia, I am prohibited from receiving all of the electromagnetic spectrum (Radar detectors at the state level, and cell phone scanners at the federal level) At the State level, I do believe you need to either have a license or be registered to have bees. And god forbid you swap out an electrical breaker or add on a deck, the county will have your head. John Mealey * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
The next thing you'll want to do is nationalize the network. That ALWAYS works well. Who said anything about nationalization? How about a little Eurosocialist regulation? I'd be happy to have some of their broadband service, and their Eurosocialist prices. By the way, when the network was nationalized, everyone may have had the same black phone, but no one worried about being without phone service, or receiving phone bills, so high, they had to charge them to their credit cards (which, admittedly, didn't exist at the time.) By the way, deregulation of power companies is working well, too, right? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Yes, but Verizon (and others) needs to develop a way to power phones indefinitely when the electric grid goes down, i.e., with one big generator at the central office or something else that works as well. What's going to happen the first time there is a fire in a location where no phones are working because the electric grid has been down for 72 hours and all of the backup batteries died after four or so hours? Fred Holmes At 08:35 PM 3/26/2008, Eric S. Sande wrote: OK, I'll come clean. It absolutely sucks to maintain a twisted-pair (not even coax) copper network Some, maybe a lot of it, is at or near its end of service life. It makes absolutely no business sense to continue to throw money at it, when the alternative is more reliable, overcomes all of copper's distance and bandwidth limitations, and allows for crushing the competition. Yes it's a huge risk, and telcos aren't generally known for taking risks. But a fiber network just makes sense, long-term. It gives me relief in the three key areas that I mentioned in my previous post. My labor costs go down because my maintenance requirements go down. It's no fun to futz around with fifty year old copper either up a pole or in a flooded manhole. You've got to pay some pretty good people some pretty good money to be willing to do that. Fiber has issues too, principally guaranteeing power at the nodes. But that issue belongs to cable also. I've mentioned the bandwith gain. More importantly I get distance. Yes, DSL can go a lot faster than it does now, as you've mentioned. But it is hardly universal because it's physically impossible to deliver decent performance at great distance. Fiber, no problem. I could take the approach that another telco which I won't mention by name, which is to build a network that only goes as far as the local neighborhood POP and then transitions to copper. It's less of a risk but it's less of a payoff, because that pesky copper is still a network element. Did I mention the regulatory aspect? If I build it I own it, at this point in time I'm not legally required to give away access to my fiber like I am to the copper I installed and maintain at wholesale rates to other providers, as I have to do at present. As a businessman, I have a responsibility to my shareholders to turn a profit. I guarantee that I'm not twisting any arms here. If my price is too high, well, you have options. The product is good. Better than good. Better than the competition. Luckily the USA still rewards innovation and investment, although to hear you tell it, frankly, it sounds like you think you should get these neat toys for Eurosocialist prices. The next thing you'll want to do is nationalize the network. That ALWAYS works well. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Who said anything about nationalization? How about a little Eurosocialist regulation? I'd be happy to have some of their broadband service, and their Eurosocialist prices. When A technological business gets taken over by non-technologists out to make a quick buck this is what happens. Not content to merely do damage on Wall Street and banking these crooks branched out. So not only are large numbers of Americans being evicted from their homes, but we now have a broken health care system, high energy prices, contaminated food stuffs, and a second-rate telecomminications system. But you know, the money for those $100,000,000 salaries (plus bonuses) has to come from somewhere. And they figured they would have retired to the Cayman Islands before people figured out exactly how much damage they did. Eurosocialism says that no person is worth 1000 times more than any another person and such a disparity in paychecks is wrong. Letting things go so far wrong has ruined our economy. We don't need retroactive immunity as much as we need retroactive taxes. This needs to be put right. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Yes it's a huge risk, and telcos aren't generally known for taking risks. But a fiber network just makes sense, long-term. You should note that Verizon is an exception in the industry and Verizon's efforts to upgrade their network to fiber has been seen negatively by Wall Street. As technologists we see that upgrading to fiber makes very good long term sense. Wall Street would keep us on copper and cable forever. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
At 9:22 AM -0400 3/27/08, Tom Piwowar wrote: Yes it's a huge risk, and telcos aren't generally known for taking risks. But a fiber network just makes sense, long-term. You should note that Verizon is an exception in the industry and Verizon's efforts to upgrade their network to fiber has been seen negatively by Wall Street. As technologists we see that upgrading to fiber makes very good long term sense. Wall Street would keep us on copper and cable forever. Wall Street looks down on any reinvestment in a company; they want that money in their pockets, either in the form of dividends or, even better, higher stock prices, through stock repurchase. I think that is the reason private equity firms take troubled companies private, so they can be fixed without interference from the analysts and stockholders. Then, they take them public again, and cash out. -- Roger Lovettsville, VA * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Tom Piwowar wrote: So not only are large numbers of Americans being evicted from their homes, Mostly because they could not afford the home on the terms they agreed to and thus never should have purchased them. I can not afford a Rolls Royce, and no low teaser rate will get me to buy one on financing. but we now ave a broken health care system, That delivers care of sufficient quality (to those who can pay) that folks come here to get what they can not get from their national systems. Did you read the recent study about how many women in labor had to be turned away from British maternity wards for lack of beds? high energy prices, Largely because demand is way up and we have historically been wealthy enough to pay whatever it costs. Be nice if we did not subsidize oil importing through payroll and income tax though. contaminated food stuffs, Because those pesky consumers have largely valued low price above every other consideration. and a second-rate telecomminications system. Yawn. Yes, we could have a faster system. Good old fashioned corporate competition would help, but those pesky voters keep electing local governments that grant monopolies to cable companies, reducing competition, instead of reducing barriers to entry. But you know, the money for those $100,000,000 salaries (plus bonuses) has to come from somewhere. The laboror is worthy of their hire. That applies to ploughman and plutocrat both, or do you want a government office setting compensation rates? And they figured they would have retired to the Cayman Islands before people figured out exactly how much damage they did. You know this how? Eurosocialism says that no person is worth 1000 times more than any another person and such a disparity in paychecks is wrong. Liberty and Freedom say that the market gets to determine compensation, not the government. Letting things go so far wrong has ruined our economy. We don't need retroactive immunity as much as we need retroactive taxes. This needs to be put right. What is right about the majority voting to tax the minority for the benefit of that majority? That is the very antithisis of liberty. If Eurosocialism is so great, why have more open economies out performed them over the long term for so long? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
If Eurosocialism is so great, why have more open economies out performed them over the long term for so long? Neither Eurosocialism nor capitalism its without its shortcomings, but to argue that the American cultural, economic and social systems have out performed other western nations, over the past decade, is absurd. With the value of the dollar falling and our national debt tripling, it's fair to ask whether the 20th century will have been America's high-point. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Mostly because they could not afford the home on the terms they agreed to and thus never should have purchased them. Who is objectively supposed to assess which applicant's can and cannot afford a home? The banks always have before (is it a legal mandate or fiduciary responsibility, or both?) Seems a little simplistic to pin it on home buyers, especially since they have the least resources and no surfeit of objectivity. Of course, that's the problem with cheap money, it robs the financial industry of objectivity as well. Checkout One Laptop Per Child project laptop.org * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
That delivers care of sufficient quality (to those who can pay) that folks come here to get what they can not get from their national systems. Did you read the recent study about how many women in labor had to be turned away from British maternity wards for lack of beds? high energy prices, Funny thing is, all the other rich countries have national systems and it is hard to make an intellectually honest case that the US is unambiguously better. General health statistics and outcomes are not better in the US as a whole. The US doesn't even have more high-tech diagnostic equipment (Japan does). It is easy to pick on Britain for it long lines or other aspects of rationing, it is easy because it has always been one of the least under-funded national health systems (and that has been true under Labor let alone Thatcher). Brits also go to national healt services on the Continent when they can't get what they want in Britain (and it get paid for). Unfortunately, all health care systems ration, we do it by ability to pay. Checkout One Laptop Per Child project laptop.org * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
contaminated food stuffs, Because those pesky consumers have largely valued low price above every other consideration. Makes about as much sense as the idea that smokers freely express their preference when buying cigarettes. There is no free choice in the face of inadequate information and most economists will admit that mostly consumers don't have adequate information. Arguing that the economy and society is simply the sum total of a bunch of choices freely made by consumers is... well, I hope that notion at least helps you sleep at night. Checkout One Laptop Per Child project laptop.org * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
What is right about the majority voting to tax the minority for the enefit of that majority? That is the very antithisis of liberty. The very anti-thesis? I would say the anti-thesis is the minority voting to tax the majority for the benefit of the minority is even more anti-thetical (which sadly is a more accurate description of what happens in the US). The only alternative to majority rule is no one rules (wake me when that happens) or minority rule. Checkout One Laptop Per Child project laptop.org * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Both obviously. A mortgage contract has two parties. On Mar 27, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Paul Meyer wrote: Mostly because they could not afford the home on the terms they agreed to and thus never should have purchased them. Who is objectively supposed to assess which applicant's can and cannot afford a home? The banks always have before (is it a legal mandate or fiduciary responsibility, or both?) Seems a little simplistic to pin it on home buyers, especially since they have the least resources and no surfeit of objectivity. Of course, that's the problem with cheap money, it robs the financial industry of objectivity as well. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Both obviously. A mortgage contract has two parties. Maybe yes, but there's more. During the past several years, there have been three, not two, parties to the mortgage. Only two are present at closing, but that third is really calling the shots. In days of yore, banks (or other financial institutions) lent their own money to finance individuals' purchases of homes - hence the strict credit checks and down payment requirements. As the practice of shifting risk to mortgage bundlers and outside investors grew, the initial mortgage lending institution, the one requiring title search, down payment, etc., became more a mortgage salesman, looking no longer for the long-term cash stream of the mortgage itself, but rather for the commission that comes from selling the mortgage (and passing on the risk) to the third party. More sales, more commissions, more moving off the books to make mortgages someone else's problem. Very simply put, the breakdown came when those investors failed to require the same assurances of credit, down payment, and the like of the home buyer that the banks used to demand and a lot of people found the situation just too tempting. So, I would suggest that all 3 acted irresponsibly. Now, how can we link this thread to computers? Dan * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
To be rationed requires that there be a shortage of supply. There is no shortage of supply for those able to pay - if you can afford the procedure you will get the procedure in the US (organ donations being the exception where there is a shortage and the supply of which by law can not be increased by willingness to pay) - that is not rationing. We do have many who can not afford the current standard of care, 50 years ago we had massively more who could not afford todays standard of care, 100 years ago it was largely unimanaginable. I do not understand the idea that every improvement, no matter how expensive, must be affordable by all, and if not some injustice has occurred. On Mar 27, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Paul Meyer wrote: Unfortunately, all health care systems ration, we do it by ability to pay. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Sure. There are the folks that buy Windows, the folks that sell Windows, and Microsoft. That tracks with ignorance, greed, and corporate over reaching. On Mar 27, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Daniel Else wrote: So, I would suggest that all 3 acted irresponsibly. Now, how can we link this thread to computers? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:28:14 -0400, Matthew Taylor wrote: To be rationed requires that there be a shortage of supply. There is no shortage of supply for those able to pay - if you can afford the procedure you will get the procedure in the US (organ donations being And those that can't afford it can just go away and die. Yes? -- R:\katan LET'S GO METS!! LET'S GO METS!! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
I do not understand the idea that every improvement, no matter how expensive, must be affordable by all, and if not some injustice has occurred. I do not understand your belief that money is the criterion to use to determine who lives and who dies. Why not favor those with higher IQs? Why not favor those who lead saintly lives? Why not favor one race over another? Why not favor one sex over the other? Why is it only money that counts? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
Who is objectively supposed to assess which applicant's can and cannot afford a home? The banks always have before (is it a legal mandate or fiduciary responsibility, or both?) Seems a little simplistic to pin it on home buyers, especially since they have the least resources and no surfeit of objectivity. This is your paycheck. This is your paycheck minus your mortgage payment. Get the picture? Arguing that the economy and society is simply the sum total of a bunch of choices freely made by consumers is... I give up Paul. What is it then, if not this? Is the hive mind controlling your actions? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Jeff Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who is objectively supposed to assess which applicant's can and cannot afford a home? The banks always have before (is it a legal mandate or fiduciary responsibility, or both?) Seems a little simplistic to pin it on home buyers, especially since they have the least resources and no surfeit of objectivity. This is your paycheck. This is your paycheck minus your mortgage payment. Get the picture? Yes, but the people losing their homes now had plenty of paycheck to cover their mortgage payment *at the time they got the mortgage*. What the banks and investment houses did that was fiscally irresponsible was to give out or invest in mortgages that would only work as long as rates stayed down and home prices continued to rise. The loans didn't make any sense when they were made. I used to serve on the Board of Directors of a credit union and we took our fiduciary responsibility seriously. We had to run scenarios where rates went up or down 3 percentage points, where the value of the home went down instead of up, and determine if the risk to the institution was reasonable or not. Often we would direct the CEO to reduce the mortgage portfolio because of the too many eggs in one basket scenario. Even though mortgages were the big money makers. -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
In today's news we see the DOJ declaring that merging the only two satellite broadcasters into one would not be anticompetitive. I guess their logic is that a duopoly has been so anticompetitive that a monopoly could not be much worse? Yet one more example of why the USA is so far behind technologically. I see you're using National Association of Broadcasters logic: they don't compete against us, which is why we lobbied so viciously to prevent the merger. You must have forgotten why there were only 2 satellite providers to begin with: NAB lobbying to restrict the number of companies. Which, BTW, is the only way the NAB knows how to compete: have the state crush or hobble the competition. I'd say the boards and shareholders of XM and Sirius know a bit more about their business than you or the guvmint does. As someone who has both services, I can get behind this if it means that there will continue to be an alternative to the god-awful, bland drivel that Clear Channel, et al. pump out in near infinite volume. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
I agree with you. Where I live it is country or gospel all the time. Not what I want to listen too. Thank God for PBS, but even that gets old sometimes. Stewart At 06:53 AM 3/26/2008, you wrote: I see you're using National Association of Broadcasters logic: they don't compete against us, which is why we lobbied so viciously to prevent the merger. You must have forgotten why there were only 2 satellite providers to begin with: NAB lobbying to restrict the number of companies. Which, BTW, is the only way the NAB knows how to compete: have the state crush or hobble the competition. I'd say the boards and shareholders of XM and Sirius know a bit more about their business than you or the guvmint does. As someone who has both services, I can get behind this if it means that there will continue to be an alternative to the god-awful, bland drivel that Clear Channel, et al. pump out in near infinite volume. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
The biggest difference between France (Any European country) and the US in comparisons, is plums versus watermelons. The density of people in France is much higher than the density of our population. When you get away from the coasts, the density is much less. This handicaps any company wanting to roll out product. What I have offered to me is less than what is offered 30 miles down the road. But that is because of population density. Then, why was it so difficult for cities like Lafayette, Louisiana to get the broadband that they wanted? It's a city, i.e. has population density. It took several years of lawsuits for Lafayette to finally get the private broadband providers off their backs, even though the private companies they contacted to supply broadband initially didn't want to go into the area at all. Then the same private companies sued Lafayette for unfair competition when the city decided to develop a public broadband network. Lafayette won, so far. Distance and population density are lame excuses. Spain is densely populated along the coasts, with many miles of not much more than olive groves and dust in the rest of the country. Phone+ADSL=26 euros/mo -- only 3Mbps, but still cheaper than here. I live 1 mile from the closest switch but DSL tops of at 3Mbps for 1/3 more than Telefónica, not including phone. In a small town on an island in Greece [many towns, many islands], broadband speeds are higher than here--distance is not a factor, neither is the sea. Initiative is. The American people can get better service and better prices if they/we demand the RD and infrastructure incentives for the providers, just as it's being done elsewhere. We keep hearing about American technological superiority, yet current evidence doesn't show it. The gummint has been listening to the telcos cablecos instead of the people, at least up until the FISA vote on 3/14/08. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
I like your math Eric, it coincides with the math the others have been doing. Makes complete horse sense. :-) Lets just look at density per sq/mi. My state AL 84.83 Spain 231 France 295 La 102.59 Tx 79.6 The whole USA 80 (About 1/4 of Frances or Spains) Yup makes perfect sense to me! Stewart At 09:54 PM 3/26/2008, you wrote: Overall, yes. But let me throw out some numbers, I'm looking at, back of the envelope calculation, you understand, Verizon core territory (DC, MD, VA, WV, PA, DE, NJ, NY and MA). You understand we've sold off NH, VT and ME to Fairpoint Communications, recently. I'm not including our former GTE properties in NC, FL, OH, TX, etc., which are pretty substantial. ATT covers most of CT. So, Verizon core territories account for 63.2 million in population over 184 thousand square miles. France has 60.8 million in population over 213 thousand square miles. So Verizon (core) is denser than France, on average. This pretty much confirms Betty's theory. :-) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
Makes complete horse sense. :-) Except you have 10 more people per square mile in France than I do. Maybe they were on vacation when my numbers were collected. :-) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
I used Wikipedia, for quick dirty facts.. I rounded off. :-) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
The biggest difference between France (Any European country) and the US in comparisons, is plums versus watermelons. The density of people in France is much higher than the density of our population. When you get away from the coasts, the density is much less. This handicaps any company wanting to roll out product. What I have offered to me is less than what is offered 30 miles down the road. But that is because of population density. Go out west and it is even worse. Have you ever looked at a Cell Phone company and coverage in the west? Few and far between, as is their population. One of the old complaints was what we used to pay for telephone before the break up of Ma Bell. But what was not commented was that Joe Outlaw in Po Dunk Wyoming pretty much paid the same as Joe City in New York, New York, because the phone company had to even the cost out over all the customers. MCI/Sprint etc. started by cherry picking high density population centers to start their networks where they could guarantee high capacity and high usage. The other caveat is what the companies have to pay for right of ways. In Europe most of the backbone was built by the government and was taken by Eminent domain. Does not often happen here. A number of years ago, the power company came around and bought more right of way, to expand the power line. They paid us to string the line on an existing power pole. In Canada, they still have separate poles for electric and telephone in many neighborhoods. Stewart At 03:08 PM 3/25/2008, you wrote: There's plenty of pie to go around but the broadband Internet providers are greedy--and they're lying so they can gouge their customers. Mostly they're afraid of becoming irrelevant, or obsolete when a new upstart gives us better deals at half the price. In Europe and Asia the speeds keep getting faster as prices get lower. Neuf [in France] offers DSL + telephone + TV for 29.90 Euros per month. In our crashed dollars that's around $45, but where it's offered, it's equivalent to $30/mo here. At either price it's better than the pathetic triple-play deals for $100/mo here--overpriced by more than 50%! Offer from Neuf includes a free wireless modem, unlimited 20Mbps broadband, unlimited worldwide calling to EU, Canada, US, Australia, Japan, Korea, China, Chile, Argentina, http://offres.neuf.fr/adsl/adsl/adsl-telephone.html, and 75 HD plus 150 standard def TV channels. For the same 29.90/mo you could get fiber-optic broadband at 50Mbps along with phone and TV. Mobile phone service starts around 15/mo. Many also include inexpensive WiFi cell phones in their choices. More similar offers in other countries. 26Mbps broadband is 25.90 in Germany, or 30 including phone through KabelDeutschland, etc. Why is the United States _so_far_behind_ in speeds, choices, prices??? Time Warner is now regressing to metered service in Texas, just like the old-time metered dialup. American consumers don't know enough to demand better/more/cheaper service? Or there's just not enough competition, instead of anti-competition. Verizon service here is pretty good, but very expensive, except in comparison to local cable. Eric? Why so much for so little? Betty Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
Why is the United States _so_far_behind_ in speeds, choices, prices??? Time Warner is now regressing to metered service in Texas, just like the old-time metered dialup. American consumers don't know enough to demand better/more/cheaper service? Or there's just not enough competition, instead of anti-competition. In today's news we see the DOJ declaring that merging the only two satellite broadcasters into one would not be anticompetitive. I guess their logic is that a duopoly has been so anticompetitive that a monopoly could not be much worse? Yet one more example of why the USA is so far behind technologically. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
Neither one is making money as it is. Both of them had exclusive agreements with some content which made choosing impossible,. (I for one have held off until this time) Secondly they are competing against free radio as it is. Why pay for radio when you can get it for free. Plus with the advent of portable MP3 players in many newer cars means less over the air content being used. I personally use my MP3 player on long trips and do not need to pay for a radio service. Again Europe has a much higher population density than the US. Not fully comparable. (Plus their regulations and rules are different) Stewart At 03:48 PM 3/25/2008, you wrote: In today's news we see the DOJ declaring that merging the only two satellite broadcasters into one would not be anticompetitive. I guess their logic is that a duopoly has been so anticompetitive that a monopoly could not be much worse? Yet one more example of why the USA is so far behind technologically. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
Again Europe has a much higher population density than the US. Not fully comparable. (Plus their regulations and rules are different) That's the point: our regulations and rules should be more like the rest of the world's. I think it's that congress, the administration, and big business all work in tandem. The government is loath to enact regulations that would bring prices down because big business share their revenue with politicians. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
I agree. The same thing is going on with the US economy. It's been apparent to me for some time that what the US is doing isn't working for the country as a whole but government won't change direction because of the big business lobby and its focus on self interest/ short term corporate interests. What is good for big business in the short term isn't necessarily good for the country or even business in the long term. IMHO db Ralph wrote: Again Europe has a much higher population density than the US. Not fully comparable. (Plus their regulations and rules are different) That's the point: our regulations and rules should be more like the rest of the world's. I think it's that congress, the administration, and big business all work in tandem. The government is loath to enact regulations that would bring prices down because big business share their revenue with politicians. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
The density of people in France is much higher than the density of our population. Americans are denser. One would have to be pretty dense to keep voting for the same corrupt pols as they give away more and more of the country to the utlta-rich. The French did get it right fixing a similar problem a couple of centuries ago with the assistance of Dr. Guillotin. What I have offered to me is less than what is offered 30 miles down the road. But that is because of population density. If that were true, people living in the most populous parts of the country would be paying lower rates and getting better service. Obviously they are not. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
Eric? Why so much for so little? Any way I answer that is bound to reveal me for the greedy capitalist that I am. The short answer is labor costs, regulatory requirements, and network maintenance overhead. If I can drive down any or all of those costs I can increase profits and lower prices. Since I also want to increase bandwidth, I've got to go with the best technology available. Trouble is, on the scale involved, it's going to take years and $30 billion minimum. And I've got to negotiate separate agreements with every regulatory body I pass, Federal, State, and Local. FiOS, Fiber to the Premise, is nothing short of a ground-up network replacement project for about one-third of the USA, population wise. It's going to take a few minutes. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Why not the US? [was: classic movie downloads]
Tom if you are willing to live under their laws that is OK by me. By the way all the personal intrusion laws you rail against are very European in nature!!! Stewart At 05:31 PM 3/25/2008, you wrote: The density of people in France is much higher than the density of our population. Americans are denser. One would have to be pretty dense to keep voting for the same corrupt pols as they give away more and more of the country to the utlta-rich. The French did get it right fixing a similar problem a couple of centuries ago with the assistance of Dr. Guillotin. What I have offered to me is less than what is offered 30 miles down the road. But that is because of population density. If that were true, people living in the most populous parts of the country would be paying lower rates and getting better service. Obviously they are not. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
