He went back to the sea.

Whatever happened to Dave Ficken?

http://www.mermac.com/new.html

In short- he went bust trying to sell used equipment.

Whatever happened to Dave Ficken?

http://www.mermac.com/new.html

"Ahernwill" wrote in
nk.net:

In short- he went bust trying to sell used equipment.

Whatever happened to Dave Ficken?

http://www.mermac.com/new.html

One could infer that, or maybe look at it like he says:
He doesn't trust the future in an uncertain market and
is switching to a sure thing. One doesn't necessarily
have to go bust to see trends and act accordingly.
I respect him enough not to jump too far beyond what he
says.

--Glenn Lyford

One could infer that, or maybe look at it like he says:
He doesn't trust the future in an uncertain market and
is switching to a sure thing. One doesn't necessarily
have to go bust to see trends and act accordingly.
I respect him enough not to jump too far beyond what he
says.

How did people survive before health care, retirement and other
benefits, like back in the 1900's?

Bernd

Bernd wrote:
One could infer that, or maybe look at it like he says:
He doesn't trust the future in an uncertain market and
is switching to a sure thing. One doesn't necessarily
have to go bust to see trends and act accordingly.
I respect him enough not to jump too far beyond what he
says.

How did people survive before health care, retirement and other
benefits, like back in the 1900's?

Bernd

Short answer - lots didn't.
--
http://www.rupert.net/~solar
Return address supplied by 'spammotel'
http://www.spammotel.com

How did people survive before health care, retirement and other
benefits, like back in the 1900's?

People were made different back then. They did not expect the government to pay
their way through life or feed their children. They believed that they should
be self suffucient instead on depending on the government handouts or for
their next meal

On 04 Dec 2004 23:02:03 GMT, (GMasterman) wrote:

How did people survive before health care, retirement and other
benefits, like back in the 1900's?

People were made different back then. They did not expect the government to pay
their way through life or feed their children. They believed that they should
be self suffucient instead on depending on the government handouts or for
their next meal

They worked
They got ill
They died


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 20:56:49 GMT, "Bernd" wrote:

One could infer that, or maybe look at it like he says:
He doesn't trust the future in an uncertain market and
is switching to a sure thing. One doesn't necessarily
have to go bust to see trends and act accordingly.
I respect him enough not to jump too far beyond what he
says.

How did people survive before health care, retirement and other
benefits, like back in the 1900's?

Bernd

They died young, and if they lived long enough, either one of the
youngsters stayed home with the folks, or, in the event that they did
marry and set up their own home, the old folks lived with them. Since
birth control was unreliable, families were large enough that seniors,
hopefully, had family to care for them; if not, there was usually a
county poor house.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

How did people survive before health care, retirement and other
benefits, like back in the 1900's?
Bernd

To give you some reference point, I was born in 1955. The appendectomy that
I had in 1963 cost $150. That included 3 days in the hospital. My parents
were self employed and had no access to gold plate health insurance, but
health care was affordable then. The huge medical subsidies of the Johnson
administration, i.e. Medicare/Medicaid, and their ensuing regulation, set
off a spiral of inflation in healthcare costs that has not stopped till this
day. I remember in 1983, I worked for a construction firm building a
$12million wing onto a hospital. One day, one of the directors there made
the offhand comment, "If we had known 3 years ago about the changes coming
in Medicare, we would'nt have built this new wing."

Heathcare was once affordable to the average person.
--
Gary Brady
Austin, TX
www.powdercoatoven.4t.com

Gary Brady wrote:
The huge medical subsidies of the Johnson
administration, i.e. Medicare/Medicaid, and their ensuing regulation, set
off a spiral of inflation in healthcare costs that has not stopped till this
day.

An alternative view is that medical advances mean that our quality of
life can be so much better. Of course everyone (most) want to live as
long and as well as possible, so all these "medical advances" are
utilised.

In article t, Gary Brady
says...

To give you some reference point, I was born in 1955. The appendectomy that
I had in 1963 cost $150. That included 3 days in the hospital. My parents
were self employed and had no access to gold plate health insurance, but
health care was affordable then. The huge medical subsidies of the Johnson
administration, i.e. Medicare/Medicaid, and their ensuing regulation, set
off a spiral of inflation in healthcare costs that has not stopped till this
day.

I take it then, that you are in complete favor of my plan to lower
heathcare costs, by simply enacting a federal law that outlaws all
private medical insurance, and also eliminates medicare?

You will hear *howls* of anguish from all the insurance companies,
but I assure you, all the money that is being paid to doctors and
hospitals, through the insurance companies, will still be present
after the upheaval has happened. The money will still be there, the
doctors will still have folks to pay them.

Nobody has yet mentioned the *real* reason why healthcare is getting
more and more expensive - that reason is quite simple. The demographics
in the US are such that more and more of our population is above
age 70 or 80. Elderly folks use more healthcare, and the younger
folks are subsidising their costs.

Along with eliminating all kinds of medical insurance, the 'rozen
plan' includes barring folks above age 75 from seeing doctors.
Then we could see a return to the *real* good old days of _15_ dollar
appendectomies.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:21:25 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 20:56:49 GMT, "Bernd" wrote:

One could infer that, or maybe look at it like he says:
He doesn't trust the future in an uncertain market and
is switching to a sure thing. One doesn't necessarily
have to go bust to see trends and act accordingly.
I respect him enough not to jump too far beyond what he
says.

How did people survive before health care, retirement and other
benefits, like back in the 1900's?

Bernd


Simple answer.... many didn't. It was not an uncommon practice for
children not to be named before they were 3-4 years old... Many
deceased siblings found their names given to a surviving child. For
example, John Smith IV died and his unnamed younger brother was given
his name...

Very true. Often the parents would give them a nickname..but not
offically name them until they were a number of years old. Infant
mortality was very high as was death by birthing complications. The
picture of the stalwart yoemans wife squatting in the hay, dropping
the kid and then going back to work in the field was somewhat true,
but often enough she and the infant were buried 3 days later and he
was looking for a new wife to take care of the rest of the children.

When a bad tooth would and could kill you, life tended to be brutal,
miserable and short.

Gunner
"I mean, when's the last time you heard of a college where the Young
Republicans staged a "Sit In" to close down the Humanities building?
On the flip side, how many sit in's were staged to close the ROTC building back in the '60's?
Liberals stage protests, do civil disobedience, etc.
Conservatives talk politely and try to work out a solution to problems
through discourse until they believe that talking won't work... they they go home and open the gun cabinets.
Pray things never get to the point where the conservatives decide that
"civil disobedience" is the next step, because that's a very short route to "voting from the rooftops"
Jeffrey Swartz, Misc.Survivalism

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 03:47:36 GMT, "Gary Brady"
wrote:

How did people survive before health care, retirement and other
benefits, like back in the 1900's?
Bernd

To give you some reference point, I was born in 1955. The appendectomy that
I had in 1963 cost $150.

How much did the average automobile cost in '63?

Gunner

"I mean, when's the last time you heard of a college where the Young
Republicans staged a "Sit In" to close down the Humanities building?
On the flip side, how many sit in's were staged to close the ROTC building back in the '60's?
Liberals stage protests, do civil disobedience, etc.
Conservatives talk politely and try to work out a solution to problems
through discourse until they believe that talking won't work... they they go home and open the gun cabinets.
Pray things never get to the point where the conservatives decide that
"civil disobedience" is the next step, because that's a very short route to "voting from the rooftops"
Jeffrey Swartz, Misc.Survivalism

jim rozen wrote:

In article t, Gary Brady
says...

To give you some reference point, I was born in 1955. The appendectomy that
I had in 1963 cost $150. That included 3 days in the hospital. My parents
were self employed and had no access to gold plate health insurance, but
health care was affordable then. The huge medical subsidies of the Johnson
administration, i.e. Medicare/Medicaid, and their ensuing regulation, set
off a spiral of inflation in healthcare costs that has not stopped till this
day.

I take it then, that you are in complete favor of my plan to lower
heathcare costs, by simply enacting a federal law that outlaws all
private medical insurance, and also eliminates medicare?

You will hear *howls* of anguish from all the insurance companies,
but I assure you, all the money that is being paid to doctors and
hospitals, through the insurance companies, will still be present
after the upheaval has happened. The money will still be there, the
doctors will still have folks to pay them.

Nobody has yet mentioned the *real* reason why healthcare is getting
more and more expensive - that reason is quite simple. The demographics
in the US are such that more and more of our population is above
age 70 or 80. Elderly folks use more healthcare, and the younger
folks are subsidising their costs.

Along with eliminating all kinds of medical insurance, the 'rozen
plan' includes barring folks above age 75 from seeing doctors.
Then we could see a return to the *real* good old days of _15_ dollar
appendectomies.

Jim

Perhaps you should address the price of drugs first?

Recently proscribed Mobic 7.5 mg, cost in here, US$27.20 per 100.
Checkout some prices in the US:
http://www.pricescan.com/health/items/item900129.asp
Then tell me why.

Tom
http://www.pricescan.com/health/items/item900129.asp

jim rozen wrote:
In article t, Gary
Brady says...

To give you some reference point, I was born in 1955. The
appendectomy that I had in 1963 cost $150. That included 3 days in
the hospital. My parents were self employed and had no access to
gold plate health insurance, but health care was affordable then.
The huge medical subsidies of the Johnson administration, i.e.
Medicare/Medicaid, and their ensuing regulation, set off a spiral
of inflation in healthcare costs that has not stopped till this day.

I take it then, that you are in complete favor of my plan to lower
heathcare costs, by simply enacting a federal law that outlaws all
private medical insurance, and also eliminates medicare?

You will hear *howls* of anguish from all the insurance companies,
but I assure you, all the money that is being paid to doctors and
hospitals, through the insurance companies, will still be present
after the upheaval has happened. The money will still be there, the
doctors will still have folks to pay them.

Nobody has yet mentioned the *real* reason why healthcare is getting
more and more expensive - that reason is quite simple. The
demographics in the US are such that more and more of our population
is above age 70 or 80. Elderly folks use more healthcare, and the
younger folks are subsidising their costs.

Along with eliminating all kinds of medical insurance, the 'rozen
plan' includes barring folks above age 75 from seeing doctors.
Then we could see a return to the *real* good old days of _15_ dollar
appendectomies.

Jim

Yup - just set them out in the snow.
--
http://www.rupert.net/~solar
Return address supplied by 'spammotel'
http://www.spammotel.com

How much did the average automobile cost in '63?

Gunner

I dunno. I remember a '69 Datsun pickup costing $1,815 new. Pretty plain
truck, though.

--
Gary Brady
Austin, TX
www.powdercoatoven.4t.com

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:55:05 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 03:47:36 GMT, "Gary Brady" wrote:

How did people survive before health care, retirement and other
benefits, like back in the 1900's?
Bernd

To give you some reference point, I was born in 1955. The appendectomy that
I had in 1963 cost $150.

How much did the average automobile cost in '63?

And how long did you have to work to get that 63 Ford, and how long was
it expected to last? What kind of milage and what kind of options?

That's the "fun" of trying to compare prices over the decades. What
was the price of a mega-byte of memory in 1963?
How long after the appendectomy were you laid up in 1963, as compared
to 2003? Compare Gall bladder surgery. After a friend had her's out with
an overnight stay, and two 1" incisions, I heard all sorts of Gall
bladder surgery stories, going back to my Mom's in 1959, with a six inch
scar and a two week hospital sojourn. Anybody want to go back to that
level of medicine? Less "costly", but also "less effective".

And we expect more today as well. 72 is rather "young" to be dieing.
--
pyotr filipivich
We didn't have these sorts of problems when I was a boy,
back when snakes wore shoes and dirt was $2 a pound,
if you could find it. We had to make our own from rocks!

Tom wrote in message ...
Perhaps you should address the price of drugs first?

Recently proscribed Mobic 7.5 mg, cost in here, US$27.20 per 100.
Checkout some prices in the US:
http://www.pricescan.com/health/items/item900129.asp
Then tell me why.

Tom

Sure, they are in Canada.

There are a few things about the pharmaceutical business you must
understand.

#1
It costs a boatload of wampum to come up with a new drug. According to the
PhRMA, $800,000,000 and 15 years on average. Sure the feds give them a lot
of scratch, but it still ain't cheap. They are actively engaged in pure
research. They still send out guys to collect soil and plant samples in the
hope of finding new molds and chemical compounds that, someday, might be
good for something.

#2
Most of the developed world has some form of socialized medicine. This
means you have one customer in each country. That gives them a lot of
bargaining power.

#3
The WTO in TRIPS said that, lifesaving drugs have no international patent
rights.


So the way it works is this:

You have a new drug , that you want to sell in Canada.
You submit the stuff that got you FDA approval, including the manufacturing
processes, and Canada reviews it.
They get back to you and say, "This is a lifesaving drug. We can produce it
ourselves for 30 cents a tab. We'll let you make a profit. We'll pay you 60
cents a tab."
You say, "No way, It cost me $800,000,000 to come up with this. Even if I
sell a billion, I have to get 80 cents over cost just to break even."
They say, "No skin off our noses. We'll make our own. Then we'll sell our
excess production off to the rest of the world as cheap generics."

Now, the drug companies could have played some hardball at this point, but
they opted for some slow pitch.
"Well you're only so much of the word market." you say, "I'll raise
everyone else's price a nickel, and I'll still come out."

That worked OK for a while, until the rest of the world got wind of this
bargaining strategy.
Eventually, the market share paying for R&D dwindled down to us.
Cures for foreign problems, like schistosomiasis , malaria, and dengue
fever, got put on the back burner in favor of cures they can sell in America
and non lifesaving drugs for things like erectile dysfunction and acid
reflux disease.

Paul K. Dickman

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:54:05 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

BIG SNIP

When a bad tooth would and could kill you, life tended to be brutal,
miserable and short.



There is a wonderful line from "Lion in Winter", when King Henry
says, if I recall correctly:

"To be King, alive, and fifty, is no small miracle in this day!"

In 1963 I bought a new Chevy Biscane for $2,200 and was making $74.50
a week as a beginning apprentice. That was exactly half of a tool
and die journeyman's wages.

John Normile

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:55:05 GMT, Gunner
wrote:
How much did the average automobile cost in '63?

Gunner

jim rozen wrote in message ...

Nobody has yet mentioned the *real* reason why healthcare is getting
more and more expensive -

Simple, its because 20 years ago when you went to the doctor with knee
pain they gave you $10 worth of pain pills, now they replace your knee
for $45,000.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:55:05 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 03:47:36 GMT, "Gary Brady"
wrote:

How did people survive before health care, retirement and other
benefits, like back in the 1900's?
Bernd

To give you some reference point, I was born in 1955. The appendectomy that
I had in 1963 cost $150.

How much did the average automobile cost in '63?

The same per pound as hamburger. Historically, auto prices per pound tracked
the price of hamburger per pound from the beginning of the 1920s to the end
of the 1960s.

Did you know that $2,000 of the price of every new car sold by GM today goes
to cover legacy union pension costs? In 1963, $2,000 would buy a nice Chevrolet
sedan. Did you know that NHTSA and EPA regulations add over $5,000 to the
cost of every new car? Did you know that today GM has more non-production
employees doing paperwork to satisfy government requirements than production
line employees?

Then we could talk about the direct burden of government. In 1960 the federal
budget reached $100 billion dollars for the first time. Today it exceeds $3 trillion
dollars, a 30x increase. Not all of that money comes from running the printing
presses at the Mint 24x7. A lot of it gets built into the cost of products via taxes
on business and business employees, their suppliers and their employees, etc.

Gary

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:

Tom wrote in message ...
Perhaps you should address the price of drugs first?

Recently proscribed Mobic 7.5 mg, cost in here, US$27.20 per 100.
Checkout some prices in the US:
http://www.pricescan.com/health/items/item900129.asp
Then tell me why.

Tom

Sure, they are in Canada.

There are a few things about the pharmaceutical business you must
understand.

#1
It costs a boatload of wampum to come up with a new drug. According to the
PhRMA, $800,000,000 and 15 years on average. Sure the feds give them a lot
of scratch, but it still ain't cheap. They are actively engaged in pure
research. They still send out guys to collect soil and plant samples in the
hope of finding new molds and chemical compounds that, someday, might be
good for something.

#2
Most of the developed world has some form of socialized medicine. This
means you have one customer in each country. That gives them a lot of
bargaining power.

#3
The WTO in TRIPS said that, lifesaving drugs have no international patent
rights.

So the way it works is this:

You have a new drug , that you want to sell in Canada.
You submit the stuff that got you FDA approval, including the manufacturing
processes, and Canada reviews it.
They get back to you and say, "This is a lifesaving drug. We can produce it
ourselves for 30 cents a tab. We'll let you make a profit. We'll pay you 60
cents a tab."
You say, "No way, It cost me $800,000,000 to come up with this. Even if I
sell a billion, I have to get 80 cents over cost just to break even."
They say, "No skin off our noses. We'll make our own. Then we'll sell our
excess production off to the rest of the world as cheap generics."

Now, the drug companies could have played some hardball at this point, but
they opted for some slow pitch.
"Well you're only so much of the word market." you say, "I'll raise
everyone else's price a nickel, and I'll still come out."

That worked OK for a while, until the rest of the world got wind of this
bargaining strategy.
Eventually, the market share paying for R&D dwindled down to us.
Cures for foreign problems, like schistosomiasis , malaria, and dengue
fever, got put on the back burner in favor of cures they can sell in America
and non lifesaving drugs for things like erectile dysfunction and acid
reflux disease.

Paul K. Dickman

Canada? I'm in New Zealand and Mobic is a Boehringer Ingelheim (German)
product.
Have another go..

Tom

"Bernd" wrote in message ...
One could infer that, or maybe look at it like he says:
He doesn't trust the future in an uncertain market and
is switching to a sure thing. One doesn't necessarily
have to go bust to see trends and act accordingly.
I respect him enough not to jump too far beyond what he
says.

How did people survive before health care, retirement and other
benefits, like back in the 1900's?

Bernd

They saved their money. The majority of people think benefits are
funded by money that drops off some magical tree somewhere, or are
"gifts" from a corporation, when, in fact, they are simply deducted
from your paycheck, either directly or indirectly. In other words,
benefits are just forced savings (not that there is anything wrong
with that!).

Tom wrote in message ...
Canada? I'm in New Zealand and Mobic is a Boehringer Ingelheim (German)
product.
Have another go..

Tom

When I referred to Canada, it was concerning the website you had in the
original message. The Canadian pharmacy listed them for .89 each, while the
American wanted 2.60.

Frankly, I had mentally shuffled the decimal point in your message, and had
assumed (wrongly) that you were just another yank, whining about how they're
getting ripped off.

My apologies for lumping you in with us poor slobs north of the equator.

In America, we cannot take advantage of the same sort of government
sanctioned collective bargaining, and let market forces on imported drugs
control the price. Once OKed for importation, all the government can do is
impose tariffs. Then it is up to competing importers to set the cost.
Usually, as high as the market will bear. None of these actions lower the
price.

While it is reassuring that the rest of the worlds drug manufacturers are in
the same boat as we are, it does not bode well for the pharmaceutical
industry world wide.

I am curious as to how much they cost in Germany, and whether their
intellectual property rights are specifically addresses in the EU treaties.

Paul K. Dickman

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:55:05 GMT, Gunner
wrote:



How much did the average automobile cost in '63?

The 1967 base price for a Valiant 180 ci std trany 2dr was Cdn$2150.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:06:48 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


How long after the appendectomy were you laid up in 1963, as compared
to 2003? Compare Gall bladder surgery. After a friend had her's out with
an overnight stay, and two 1" incisions, I heard all sorts of Gall
bladder surgery stories, going back to my Mom's in 1959, with a six inch
scar and a two week hospital sojourn. Anybody want to go back to that
level of medicine? Less "costly", but also "less effective".

And we expect more today as well. 72 is rather "young" to be dieing.
One factor in quick release from hospital is the danger of infection
by "super bugs." Sending the patient home ASAP may expose them to
micro-organisms present in the home but the patient has been exposed
to these in the past and should enjoy a certain degree of immunity
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Good ole Dave- failed in the machinery business but managed to start a
discussion that may save the health care system!

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gerald Miller
wrote back on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:13:11 -0500 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:06:48 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


How long after the appendectomy were you laid up in 1963, as compared
to 2003? Compare Gall bladder surgery. After a friend had her's out with
an overnight stay, and two 1" incisions, I heard all sorts of Gall
bladder surgery stories, going back to my Mom's in 1959, with a six inch
scar and a two week hospital sojourn. Anybody want to go back to that
level of medicine? Less "costly", but also "less effective".

And we expect more today as well. 72 is rather "young" to be dieing.
One factor in quick release from hospital is the danger of infection
by "super bugs." Sending the patient home ASAP may expose them to
micro-organisms present in the home but the patient has been exposed
to these in the past and should enjoy a certain degree of immunity

Well, there you have it. "Better living through Chemistry" means that
we now have bio-organisms which can survive in environments formerly too
toxic for life.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."