Secret Squirrel wrote in message .97.131...
(Ray Kinzler) wrote in
om:

Secret Squirrel wrote in message
.97.131...
Once again they evolve. You can offshore the repetitive tasks of
programming. This is a good thing. Let me say it again in case you
weren't listening. This IS A GOOD THING. Just as we learned to use
machines to automate repetitive tasks during the industrial
revolution, this frees creative programmers to CREATE, not simply to
do drone work. You can not outsource creativity. You can not
outsource innovation and you cannot outsource innovative thought.


I disagree. Programming is NOT a cookie-cutter job like putting a nut
on a bolt. It is all about creativity and innovation and thought.

Which is exactly what I said. There are thousands of repetitive tasks
that dont especially need to be done people with a ton of training. They
can be assigned to others so others can create and innovate

What the heck are you talking about? There are not as many of those
repetitive tasks as you think there are. And even with those that do
"seem" to be, there are oodles of problems that come out of it from
off-shore. Trust me. I live it.

I think we are saying totally different things!




It sounds to me like these things you said can't be outwourced are
being outsourced. I see it in my own company. An entire ERP system
is being designed and implemented by Tata. Nary an American in the
new ERP system mix. All off-shore, in fact. And they will be piling
a bunch of prgrammers on the project who have all had two weeks of
mainframe programming training provided to them--all the while we laid
off a score of competent programmers, each having literally years of
experience.

What's wrong with this picture??

Well other than the fact that the project will likely fail? There have
been lots of articles recently regarding off shoring development
projects, many of them regrading jobs that were brought back onshore.
They all share the same basic theme. If you have a project that is
defined in every possible regard, the Indian prgrammers can write the
code. However, if the project requires any innovation, creativity of
devaition from the printed specs, they cannot. Writing the oriiginal
project specifications to this degree is just as time consuming in many
cases as writing the actual program in the first place.


Finally, something I agree with!

Problem is that way more money is wasted in this effort and the
beancounters who make these sorts of decisions and all they care about
is what it will cost to write the code and do not think the whole
thing thru.

Doug Winterburn without knowing what he was
saying wrote
One thing he's going to do is import those cheap foreign drugs and save us
a ton of money - whoops, there went *those* high paying US jobs to foreign
countries! I wonder what's so different in this scenario than folks
saying "buy from your local woodworking tool guy even if it costs more
than those cheap imports"?

-Doug

"...Those cheap foreign drugs" are actually manufactured by U.S.
companies (often IN the U.S.), then sold to Canadian firms at far less
than the artificially high U.S. market price. They could therefore be
"imported" without taking jobs from U.S. workers. Granted, the drug
companies would realize less than the profit "to which they've become
accustomed", but then I don't know many businesses that get the kinds
of margins they realize on U.S. sales (I've seen figures upwards of
200%). That is why they fought so hard to keep "foreign" drugs out of
the U.S. market.

These companies constitute an oligopoly, and with this
administration's help, they continue to have very fat wallets, of
which very little trickles to the workers (although I do know that
drug company sales reps in this country have INCREDIBLE expense
accounts--they routinely [almost weekly] buy very good catered lunches
for my GP's whole group--about 7 Docs, as many nurses, plus the
secretaries. And that's just his office; the building houses nearly
50 other practices and a pharmacy, and they all get visits from drug
reps.) U.S. drug company CEOs remain among the highest compensated in
the world. Now, tell me again why your parents' blood preasure meds
cost so much every month. . .

Dan

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:29:23 -0700, Dan Cullimore wrote:

Now, tell me again why your parents'
blood preasure meds cost so much every month. . .

Actually, the parents blood pressure medicine is costing less than it did
- in fact is now costing nothing. Seems the MIL's BP was low, so first
went the water pills. After that, no improvement, so out went the BP
meds. Now her BP has settled in at right around normal. I suspect many
folks spending huge amounts on a slew of meds are over-medicated. In
fact, more folks die every year (estimated in the 100,000 range) than die
in auto accidents.

http://americanchiropractic.net/medical_statistics/medical_statistics.htm

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

"Erma1ina" wrote with some hope of continuing an intelligent conversation


Intelligent people incorporate new information. . . .

To which "Todd Fatheree" composed this most
obliging rejoinder

Go **** yourself. LOL

todd

thereby generously submitting himself as an example of Ermalina's hope
unrealized.

Grow up, Todd. Better yet, just don't vote--you're obviously not up
to the responsibility.

Dan

"Dan Cullimore" wrote
These companies constitute an oligopoly, and with this
administration's help, they continue to have very fat wallets, of
which very little trickles to the workers (although I do know that
drug company sales reps in this country have INCREDIBLE expense
accounts--they routinely [almost weekly] buy very good catered lunches
for my GP's whole group--about 7 Docs, as many nurses, plus the
secretaries. And that's just his office; the building houses nearly
50 other practices and a pharmacy, and they all get visits from drug
reps.) U.S. drug company CEOs remain among the highest compensated in
the world. Now, tell me again why your parents' blood preasure meds
cost so much every month. . .

Drugs are so high becuz we have to keep giving them to knee grows and his
panicks for free through well fair.....

On 13 Oct 2004 21:29:23 -0700, Dan Cullimore wrote:

"...Those cheap foreign drugs" are actually manufactured by U.S.
companies (often IN the U.S.), then sold to Canadian firms at far less
than the artificially high U.S. market price.

Why are they selling to Canadian firms for less money? That's the
real thing to fix, not how to re-import it.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:59:56 -0700, wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 15:01:08 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Why are they selling to Canadian firms for less money? That's the
real thing to fix, not how to re-import it.

canada has better monopoly laws.

Well, maybe. But then again, the money we're paying for drugs makes
more life-saving research into _new_ drugs possible. Is Canada just
freeloading off the US consumers, getting the benefit of the research
that we're footing the bill for? Maybe we should impose a tariff on
Canada.

On 14 Oct 2004 15:01:08 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On 13 Oct 2004 21:29:23 -0700, Dan Cullimore wrote:

"...Those cheap foreign drugs" are actually manufactured by U.S.
companies (often IN the U.S.), then sold to Canadian firms at far less
than the artificially high U.S. market price.

Why are they selling to Canadian firms for less money? That's the
real thing to fix, not how to re-import it.


canada has better monopoly laws.

J Bridger wrote:
canada has better monopoly laws.


Canada has Monopoly money.

UA100

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 13 Oct 2004 21:29:23 -0700, Dan Cullimore wrote:


"...Those cheap foreign drugs" are actually manufactured by U.S.
companies (often IN the U.S.), then sold to Canadian firms at far less
than the artificially high U.S. market price.


Why are they selling to Canadian firms for less money? That's the
real thing to fix, not how to re-import it.


The research involved in discovering new drugs and getting them
improved, and in setting up the production facilities, is very
expensive; actual production costs are relatively low. The drug
companies set their prices here high enough to recover all their costs
within the relatively short peroid of time that the drug is protected
against generics.

Canada simply said to our drug companies that they won't buy the drugs
unless they get a much lower price; as long as the drug company can
recover their relatively low production costs and a profit from these
additional sales, it makes perfect sense for them to sell for less to
the Canadian government.

The result is that we consumers are covering the research and
development costs, while Canada is getting a free ride.

It seems to me the best solution would be to tax drug exports so the
Canadians, and other countries who play the same game, would end up
paying the same prices we are paying; the US government could use the
tax money to help cover some of the medical research it already is
supporting.

I think a lot of the people whining about the costs of drugs and medical
care would not even be alive without the great advances in drugs and
treatment that these high costs have allowed. Diseases that once killed
us are now successfully managed; surgeons now repair joints that would
have just been left to atrophy a few years ago. We are living longer
and better because we have been willing to pay the costs of this
development.

Incidentally, I have read that Canada's health care system that the
Democrats want to copy routinely runs out of money and denies people
treatment (they cross the border for treatment here, just as some of us
cross the border for drugs there), and that it is currently being
reevaluated as they cannot afford to continue it.

No, I'm not involved in the health care system, other than as a
consumer, but I have lived to be older than my father when he died, as
he lived to be older than his father when he died.
--
SPAMBLOCK NOTICE! To reply to me, delete the h from apkh.net, if it is
there.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:57:37 -0400, William Brown
wrote:

|
|
| Dave Hinz wrote:
| On 13 Oct 2004 21:29:23 -0700, Dan Cullimore wrote:
|
|
| "...Those cheap foreign drugs" are actually manufactured by U.S.
| companies (often IN the U.S.), then sold to Canadian firms at far less
| than the artificially high U.S. market price.
|
|
| Why are they selling to Canadian firms for less money? That's the
| real thing to fix, not how to re-import it.
|
|
| The research involved in discovering new drugs and getting them
| improved, and in setting up the production facilities, is very
| expensive; actual production costs are relatively low. The drug
| companies set their prices here high enough to recover all their costs
| within the relatively short peroid of time that the drug is protected
| against generics.

I can see why one might think this, as the pharmaceutical giants have
been pushing this story down our throats for over a half century, but
it is not really the whole story. Much more money (2.5 times in fact)
goes for marketing the drugs than for "research." And a large
percentage of the drugs are just clones of drugs that have already
been discovered, developed, and marketed. In addition, many of the
drugs were developed not in the labs of the drug companies but in
universities funded by the government. These drugs are then marketed
and sold at a huge profit by drug companies, in a patent environment
that assures them of a monopoly marketplace. The universities get a
tiny portion of the profits for their trouble.

See this article, for example:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_401.html

PS: having worked for six years in a business whose clients came from
the pharmaceutical industry, I can attest that this industry willingly
accepts the highest prices available for all goods and services that
they require, including their marketing. Guess who pays for this?

|
| Canada simply said to our drug companies that they won't buy the drugs
| unless they get a much lower price; as long as the drug company can
| recover their relatively low production costs and a profit from these
| additional sales, it makes perfect sense for them to sell for less to
| the Canadian government.
|
| The result is that we consumers are covering the research and
| development costs, while Canada is getting a free ride.

This is more or less correct, although the "free ride" part is
argueable. Foreign sales are like icing on the cake to American
pharmaceutical companies (and in other industries as well). Keep in
mind that the major market for almost all these drugs is in in the
USA.


|
| It seems to me the best solution would be to tax drug exports so the
| Canadians, and other countries who play the same game, would end up
| paying the same prices we are paying; the US government could use the
| tax money to help cover some of the medical research it already is
| supporting.
|
| I think a lot of the people whining about the costs of drugs and medical
| care would not even be alive without the great advances in drugs and
| treatment that these high costs have allowed. Diseases that once killed
| us are now successfully managed; surgeons now repair joints that would
| have just been left to atrophy a few years ago. We are living longer
| and better because we have been willing to pay the costs of this
| development.
|
| Incidentally, I have read that Canada's health care system that the
| Democrats want to copy routinely runs out of money and denies people
| treatment (they cross the border for treatment here, just as some of us
| cross the border for drugs there), and that it is currently being
| reevaluated as they cannot afford to continue it.

I doubt that any US national health care system would be much like the
one in Canada. Why should it? For one thing, the US would have to pay
doctors a good deal more than in Canada. The biggest problem I have
heard from my two Canadian buddies is that they have to wait,
sometimes for months, for certain elective or non-emergency surgeries.
It seems to depend a lot on where you live.

If that's their biggest issue, it sounds pretty attractive to me. I
pay for ALL my own health insurance. It costs well over $12,000 a year
for my wife and me. Next year, the cost will increase 18%. It's my
single biggest expense, even more than taxes, even more than my house,
even more than my two cars.

And I still can't get a flu shot despite qualifying because of three
chronic illnesses.


|
| No, I'm not involved in the health care system, other than as a
| consumer, but I have lived to be older than my father when he died, as
| he lived to be older than his father when he died.
| --
| SPAMBLOCK NOTICE! To reply to me, delete the h from apkh.net, if it is
| there.

Interestingly,I've read that a lot of "US drugs" are actually made outside
the US;in Ireland,IIRC,and shipped into the US.(just the research is done
here)
The exact same drugs from the same companies go to other countries but are
priced lower in those countries.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

William Brown wrote in news:10mttilhto7jt88
@corp.supernews.com:



Dave Hinz wrote:
On 13 Oct 2004 21:29:23 -0700, Dan Cullimore
wrote:


"...Those cheap foreign drugs" are actually manufactured by U.S.
companies (often IN the U.S.), then sold to Canadian firms at far
less
than the artificially high U.S. market price.


Why are they selling to Canadian firms for less money? That's the
real thing to fix, not how to re-import it.


The research involved in discovering new drugs and getting them
improved, and in setting up the production facilities, is very
expensive; actual production costs are relatively low. The drug
companies set their prices here high enough to recover all their costs
within the relatively short peroid of time that the drug is protected
against generics.

Canada simply said to our drug companies that they won't buy the drugs
unless they get a much lower price; as long as the drug company can
recover their relatively low production costs and a profit from these
additional sales, it makes perfect sense for them to sell for less to
the Canadian government.

The result is that we consumers are covering the research and
development costs, while Canada is getting a free ride.

It seems to me the best solution would be to tax drug exports so the
Canadians,

This might work if all drug manufacturers were American companies. A
significant number of them are European companies who following that
logic should pass R/D costs on to the citizens of their own countries
and sell them here for production + profit. They dont do that because
they are able to sell them here for more. It's really just a case of
sell for what the market will bear.



Incidentally, I have read that Canada's health care system that the
Democrats want to copy routinely runs out of money and denies people
treatment (they cross the border for treatment here, just as some of
us

You probably should have read the entire article. The canadian system
and the system being proposed here are not at all similar. The Canadian
system is government sponsored and is essentially Socialized healthcare.
The system being proposed here is simply a means to allow people who are
currently unable to, to purchase PRIVATE commercial healthcare insurance
that is the same as or similar to that offered by most employers. The
costs of that coverage may or may not be subsidized by the govenrment,
but the responsibilty for funding payments to healtcare providers would
fall squarely on private insurers.

Who in their right mind could back bush nowadays?

oh never mind some people worship the$ more than they do humanity truth
and justice

"rnr_construction" wrote in message
...
Who in their right mind could back bush nowadays?

oh never mind some people worship the$ more than they do humanity truth
and justice

Oh yeah, and Kerry married for humanity and not that hermaphrodite's
money......

"rnr_construction" wrote in message
...
Who in their right mind could back bush nowadays?

oh never mind some people worship the$ more than they do humanity truth
and justice

Everyone in their right mind backs Bush.

(Ray Kinzler) wrote in message . com...
Erma1ina wrote in message ...
willshak wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:

[...]

"He closed some plants, and negotiated
with the labor unions to trim back wages and employment"

Is this the Democrat platform? Close plants, lay off workers, reduce wages?

Hmmm. ANOTHER "Dumbya-deep-thinker." LOL.

http://www.netstate.com/states/peop/people/pa_lai.htm

Another Excerpt [The point: Lee Iacocca knows how to lead and knows a
leader when he sees one. He sees one in John Kerry, not in George
"Dumbya".]:

I don't know WHY I got myself drug into this sorry debate but if you
think Kerry is some sort of Knight in Shining Armor, you are wrong.
If you think big business is in bed only with W., you're wrong. If
you think the outsourcing debacle will end with Kerry, you are wrong.

I apologize in advance to the groupi because I answered these silly
twits and, worse, because I attached the following as back up for what
I wrote: SNIP

No apology needed. Simple partisan minds can only assume if you
attack Kerry than you must be pro Bush. Outsourcing has devistated
the lives of many of my friends in the software field, but we've come
to realize that Kerry has no credibility on this issue. He claims
that outsourcers are "Benedict Arnolds", but what he said in the third
debate was just pathetic.

Thanks for the documentaion you provided about Kerry's history. It's
very telling.