"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:20:03 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jun 16, 10:28 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:46:44 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
On Jun 16, 5:53 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Please note that its very few conservatives that give a **** about
how
you live your life..your sexuality etc. They are known as the
Religious
Right. A rather small percentange of the total.
Im Buddhist.

No you're not.

Cites?


You can call yourself whatever you want. It doesn't make it true, Your
behavior in this newsgroup is so diametrically opposed to Buddhist
teachings as to be laughable, And no, I won't continue this
conversation.

So you have no idea who or what Renzi Buddhists are. Fascinating.

I thought you were a Dumpster-Diving Buddhist of the Terminal Ballistics
sect. Did you change to Renzi, or Ch'an Men?

--
Ed Huntress

On Jun 17, 11:42*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:20:03 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck



wrote:
On Jun 16, 10:28*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:46:44 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
On Jun 16, 5:53*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Please note that its very few conservatives that give a **** about how
you live your life..your sexuality etc. *They are known as the Religious
Right. *A rather small percentange of the total.
Im Buddhist.

No you're not.

Cites?

You can call yourself whatever you want. It doesn't make it true, Your
behavior in this newsgroup is so diametrically opposed to Buddhist
teachings as to be laughable, And no, I won't continue this
conversation.

So you have no idea who or what Renzi Buddhists are. *Fascinating.

Yet you spew your 5c opinion like its gospel written from on high.

Perhaps you should read, travel and learn before you shoot off your
mouth and show yourself to be an ignorant and utter buffoon to all?

One also assumes you are familiar with this quote?

"Sinhalese Buddhist majority in Sri Lanka as among the list of unholy
religious killers elsewhere"

Get back to me when you actually know something about the religion and
its variants.

Hint...when looking up Renzi Buddism...google *Yoshida Clan

Get back to me when you become FAR less ignorant than you are now.


OK. You win. You can call yourself whatever you want. But, just for
the record, I googled Renzi Buddhism and, in the first five pages of
results, the only mentions of those two words near each other were
your posts, and a rather incomprehensible site about the history of
kempo martial artists.

I doubt you'll find many other Buddhists to agree with you, but hey,
whatever floats your boat.

On Jun 16, 10:18*pm, "Hawke" wrote:



You don't get to do everything you want when you live in a place with
thousands of others in a square mile, which is how most Americans live.

Can't say I blame you for
that but this is the time and place you exist in so I'd say learn to like
it. You'll be a lot happier.

Hawke

Part of the reason I live in a place where there are not thousands of
others in a square mile. I decided not to learn to like living with
thousands of people in a square mile. So I took advantage of the
right to pursue happiness, and I am a lot happier for it.

Dan

"Upscale" wrote:

That's something I'd look for all conditions being correct. Live
where
there's very little traffic, lots of trees and nature in abundance.

Of course, I'd also want some services within 20 minutes travel to
be close
at hand. Supermarket, hospital, 5 star restaurant, beer store,
liquor store,
bar ~ You know, the necessities in life.

Does 50 miles due north of Toronto qualify?G

Lew

Upscale wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
bar ~ You know, the necessities in life.
Does 50 miles due north of Toronto qualify?G

Apologies, I should have qualified that a little further. My ideal location
would preclude snow of any type, in any season unless it's the local hockey
rink. Something temperate, you know, not too hot, not too cold...

Money being in relatively unlimited supply after winning a 50 million dollar
lottery, I've considered where I'd move to, probably somewhere in the US,
but that's also problematic. I've considered Kansas since it really is
supposed to be flatter than a pancake (since I hate hills so much), but
they've got tornados. Then there's Florida, but they get hurricanes and
flooding. It might be California, but they've got big earthquake potential
and the inevitable, several time a year brush fires, so that's out.

If it's not tornados, it's floods and if it's not floods, it's brush fires.
So, maybe 50 miles north of Toronto does qualify.


The flattest place I have ever seen is southern Saskatchewan. Kansas is
more rolling hills. I live 60 miles east of Los Angeles and 1+ miles
up. Except for the hills, fires, and snow, it would be the perfect
place for you.
mahalo,
jo4hn

wrote in message news:44300e3f-6108-4618-9db7-
Part of the reason I live in a place where there are not thousands of
others in a square mile. I decided not to learn to like living with
thousands of people in a square mile. So I took advantage of the
right to pursue happiness, and I am a lot happier for it.

That's something I'd look for all conditions being correct. Live where
there's very little traffic, lots of trees and nature in abundance.

Of course, I'd also want some services within 20 minutes travel to be close
at hand. Supermarket, hospital, 5 star restaurant, beer store, liquor store,
bar ~ You know, the necessities in life.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
bar ~ You know, the necessities in life.

Does 50 miles due north of Toronto qualify?G

Apologies, I should have qualified that a little further. My ideal location
would preclude snow of any type, in any season unless it's the local hockey
rink. Something temperate, you know, not too hot, not too cold...

Money being in relatively unlimited supply after winning a 50 million dollar
lottery, I've considered where I'd move to, probably somewhere in the US,
but that's also problematic. I've considered Kansas since it really is
supposed to be flatter than a pancake (since I hate hills so much), but
they've got tornados. Then there's Florida, but they get hurricanes and
flooding. It might be California, but they've got big earthquake potential
and the inevitable, several time a year brush fires, so that's out.

If it's not tornados, it's floods and if it's not floods, it's brush fires.
So, maybe 50 miles north of Toronto does qualify.

Upscale wrote:
wrote in message news:44300e3f-6108-4618-9db7-
Part of the reason I live in a place where there are not thousands of
others in a square mile. I decided not to learn to like living with
thousands of people in a square mile. So I took advantage of the
right to pursue happiness, and I am a lot happier for it.

That's something I'd look for all conditions being correct. Live where
there's very little traffic, lots of trees and nature in abundance.

Of course, I'd also want some services within 20 minutes travel to be
close at hand. Supermarket, hospital, 5 star restaurant, beer store,
liquor store, bar ~ You know, the necessities in life.

To each his own:

Fran Liebowitz said "The outdoors is something through which I pass between
my apartment and my car."

On Jun 17, 5:31*pm, "Upscale" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
bar ~ You know, the necessities in life.

Does 50 miles due north of Toronto qualify?G

Apologies, I should have qualified that a little further. My ideal location
would preclude snow of any type, in any season unless it's the local hockey
rink. Something temperate, you know, not too hot, not too cold...

Money being in relatively unlimited supply after winning a 50 million dollar
lottery, I've considered where I'd move to, probably somewhere in the US,
but that's also problematic. I've considered Kansas since it really is
supposed to be flatter than a pancake (since I hate hills so much), but
they've got tornados. Then there's Florida, but they get hurricanes and
flooding. It might be California, but they've got big earthquake potential
and the inevitable, several time a year brush fires, so that's out.

If it's not tornados, it's floods and if it's not floods, it's brush fires.
So, maybe 50 miles north of Toronto does qualify.

FYI...

http://www.bestplaces.net/

Good luck.

TMT

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:34:35 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

To guys? 80% of the voting block, both right and left are against gay
"marraige"

Frankly..I could care less. If Bruce wants to marry a sheep, let him.

If Bruce wants to consider a sheep his "bride" - well, weirder
things have been done.
But if Bruce wants the law changed to require everyone else to
consider his definition of Animal Husbandry with a sheep to be a real
marriage, that is where I draw the line.

OTOH, we can always redefine "human life" to something more
compatible with our ideology, and then not have to worry about aiding
non-human entities into a post-viable condition.

-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


True enough. Could we call Bruce and Bob, or Bruce and Daisy....an
Alternative Marraige?...or do they simply remain a couple fags or a
sheep ****er?

Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Okay, that confirms that I am not possessing of an "inquiring
mind."
Marriage is one man, and one woman. I do recognize that in some
cultures, it is permissible for a man to do that multiple times (that
is to say, he may have several wives, but he marries each one
individually, and his other wives do not marry each other.)
That's the ideal: one man, one woman, till death do they part. The
fact that some can't forfill that, doesn't change the worth of the
institution. "Abuse does not define the use."

And to be frank, I disapprove when Jack and Jill shack up, as when
Adam and Steve do. It has as much to do with self-control as it does
with cultural mores. It may also have something with my being told
"You have to have a reason Peter, You are a human being. Animals act
on their feelings, people have reasons." in the fifth grade.

But that's another rant for another day.
-
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

The conservatives are the party of terrible ideas. The liberals are
the party of evil and dangerous ideas.


Whatever your political persuasion is you need to start worrying when
Gummer
starts praising you. He's a certifiable nut and far out right winger. So
if
he likes what you are saying you need to do some serious thinking about
what
you said.

And you got the first part right in your last statement but you're
pretty
far off base about liberals. You do know that you are living in what's
known
as a "liberal" democracy don't you? And you do know that the founding
fathers you seem to have some respect for were definitely liberals. So I
guess you don't think much of their "liberal" ideas, which of course,
were
what this country was founded on.

Hawke



You need to explore the roots of the word "liberal". The people who
thus self identify today would have been almost 100% in opposition
to the views of our founding fathers: Limited government via Federalism,
strong independent States' Rights, the doctrine of Enumerated Rights ...
all of these and more are regularly violated by today's so-called
"liberals". In reality, almost all liberals today, and a good many
conservatives are actually "statists" that wish to undo the limits
of Federalism.

If you actually knew what liberals thought you would see how off the mark
your ideas are. You are going to have a hard time finding liberals today who
don't believe in limited government, states' rights, or enumerated rights.
The conflict is in what these mean and how far one goes in believing in
them. You simply think they mean far more than liberals do. But they still
believe in them.

You should also know that the limited government, federalism and weak
central government was already tried by the founding fathers when the
Articles of Confederation were adopted. In fact, it sounds like your idea of
the best government would be like the Articles. Unfortunately, it was the
founding fathers themselves who learned that a stronger central government
was better than the federalism you prefer. So, they tried it and rejected it
for a strong central government. Hamilton and Jefferson fought over this
repeatedly. Hamilton won and even Jefferson acted more like a statist when
he was president. In theory what you advocate sounds good but in reality it
doesn't work.

Hawke

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
So would you rather have the government be involved in health care
or just leave it in the hands of people like used car salesmen?
There are private alternatives that are worse than the government.
How about having Bernie Madoff handling your health care or the
management of AIG? Think they would be better than the government?
I don't. The greed of businessmen is what

False dichtomy and strawman. These are not the only choices.

makes them unacceptable for making decisions on people's health
care. You need people that aren't going to profit from your health
problems making the decisions. Hopefully, medical professionals
without a financial interest would decide what you need.

Hawke



This is hands-down the low point of this thread. If no one made a
profit in healthcare there would be NO healthcare. Why should
gifted people become doctors, pharma reseachers, nurses, or
pharmacists? Without profit where is the incentive to risk $500M -
$1B *per new drug* on the research side of things. In short, there
would be few or no "medical professionals without a financial
interest [to] decide what you need" without the opportunity for
profit.

I'll take greedy business people over boneheaded collectivist
ideology any day of the week.


Of course you would but that is because of your short sightedness
and adherence to discredited right wing ideology, not because of the
facts. Plenty of organizations and businesses are non profit and
they operate just as efficiently and effectively as the for profit
ones. But how can that be when only profits make a business work?
Or maybe your set in stone beliefs are wrong.

A "non profit" that doesn't run at a profit goes under very quickly.
Calling your surplus of income over expendtures something other than
"profit" doesn't make it any less so.

And how many non-profits have brought new products to market?


Who knows?

Do you know of _any_?

But I do know that bringing new products to the market
isn't only what non-profit businesses do.

Hint--new medications are "new products". If, as you seem to be
admitting,
nonprofits do not bring new products to market then who _will_ create new
medications in your workers' paradise?

In fact many of them are
not in business to provide new products at all and have completely
different reasons for being.

That's nice. So where do new meds come from if the pharmaceutical
industry
is run as a non-profit?


The federal government pays for between 50 and 70% of all research and
development costs in the pharma industry. So there's your answer. It's
paying for most of the research for new drugs right now and that will
continue in the foreseeable future. So there you go. By the way, at least
half of the money spent by pharma goes to advertising not R&D.

Hawke

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
Take your pick. You can have your freedom or you can be an American
but you can't have both. Because if you're going to be an American
you have given up some of your freedom to be a part of something
bigger and more important than just your own selfish interests.
Being part of a country and "a people"

You are dead wrong. My formulation is the one the Framers had in
mind. Yours is the artifact of malignant 19th Century philosophy
and evil 20th Century politics

Well, when the framers lived the population was 4 million and 90% of
the population lived within 50 miles of the east coast. Given that,
they hadn't a clue as to what it would take or be like to keep order
in a country the size of this one in the 21st century. Plenty of
ideas of the time have passed. Jefferson thought we should all be
gentlemen farmers. I don't think he had that right. Thinking you are
the only person in the world and are free to do anything you want is
completely passe'.



means that the society and the "people" are more important than the
individuals. Otherwise why would anyone sacrifice anything for
something like "country" when you are all that matters? If you
choose to be a part of

You clearly haven't read or understood a shred of U.S. Revolutionary
history and its intellectual foundations. Guys like Locke and
Jefferson (and Adams, and Madison, and Paine, and Hancock, and
Witherspoon, and ...) would hold your view in utter contempt.

They probably would but they don't have the knowledge that I have
that has come from the hundreds of years since their passing. Times
have changed and if you look carefully you will find that most of
their ideas are either no longer working or are so changed that they
wouldn't recognize them if they saw them in action today. And by the
way, I hold some of their ideas in comtempt too. Lucky for me I have
the benefit of a couple centuries of knowledge they didn't. Otherwise
they would probably have different views too. I can't blame them for
thinking the way they did then because they were ignorant of many
things. But you don't have that excuse.



society and part of a nation you make the choice to give up some of
your personal freedom it's the social contract. If you don't like
the terms then get out and find some place else where you live on
your own and are not a part of a larger entity. But if you are a
conservative you want to have everything you want for yourself
without giving anything up to the whole. In other words the honor
system won't work with people like you.

I am not a conservative. But you are clearly a liberal - your
argument
is intellectually dishonest, unconnected to actual history, and ends
with "love my view or hit the road".


Well, I do believe in liberal democracy, which seems alien to you even
though you live in one. You seem to be stuck in the wrong century.
All I am saying is that the world is a different place and the rules
have changed. You don't get to do everything you want when you live
in a place with thousands of others in a square mile, which is how
most Americans live. Like it or not you are part of the machine, the
society. There are rules to keeping the thing running and keeping
order. You just are a romantic and have not accepted the realities of
today's world. Can't say I blame you for that but this is the time
and place you exist in so I'd say learn to like it. You'll be a lot
happier.

You should learn to quit telling other people how they should live their
lives, then you would be a lot happier.

Can't get anybody you know to listen to this bull**** in person so you
bombard us with it instead.

plonk you and the IP you road in on.


Right wingers are so quick to plonk people. It's no wonder. They truly hate
hearing facts that prove they don't know what they are talking about. The
plonk you just heard was the sound of another right winger's mind slamming
shut to keep the truth from getting in.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
The conservatives are the party of terrible ideas. The liberals are
the party of evil and dangerous ideas.

Whatever your political persuasion is you need to start worrying when
Gummer
starts praising you. He's a certifiable nut and far out right winger. So
if
he likes what you are saying you need to do some serious thinking about
what
you said.

And you got the first part right in your last statement but you're
pretty
far off base about liberals. You do know that you are living in what's
known
as a "liberal" democracy don't you? And you do know that the founding
fathers you seem to have some respect for were definitely liberals. So I
guess you don't think much of their "liberal" ideas, which of course,
were
what this country was founded on.

Hawke


You need to explore the roots of the word "liberal". The people who
thus self identify today would have been almost 100% in opposition
to the views of our founding fathers: Limited government via Federalism,
strong independent States' Rights, the doctrine of Enumerated Rights ...
all of these and more are regularly violated by today's so-called
"liberals". In reality, almost all liberals today, and a good many
conservatives are actually "statists" that wish to undo the limits
of Federalism.

If you actually knew what liberals thought you would see how off the mark
your ideas are. You are going to have a hard time finding liberals today who
don't believe in limited government, states' rights, or enumerated rights.
The conflict is in what these mean and how far one goes in believing in
them. You simply think they mean far more than liberals do. But they still
believe in them.

You should also know that the limited government, federalism and weak
central government was already tried by the founding fathers when the
Articles of Confederation were adopted. In fact, it sounds like your idea of
the best government would be like the Articles. Unfortunately, it was the
founding fathers themselves who learned that a stronger central government
was better than the federalism you prefer. So, they tried it and rejected it
for a strong central government. Hamilton and Jefferson fought over this
repeatedly. Hamilton won and even Jefferson acted more like a statist when
he was president. In theory what you advocate sounds good but in reality it
doesn't work.

Hawke



Today's liberal statists have very little in common with Hamilton OR
Jefferson. Their commitment to limited government and Federalism
is a mere gesture and not uttered with any real depth of conviction.
Were this not so, liberals would not constantly be promoting their
Utopian nanny state foolishness. Limited government advocates do
not promote gun control, limiting CEO salaries, government run healthcare,
welfare, aid to dependent children, HeadStart, government funded abortions,
anti-smoking laws, and all of the rest of the sewage that defines the
contemporary left...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote in message
...
On Jun 16, 10:18 pm, "Hawke" wrote:



You don't get to do everything you want when you live in a place with
thousands of others in a square mile, which is how most Americans live.

Can't say I blame you for
that but this is the time and place you exist in so I'd say learn to like
it. You'll be a lot happier.

Hawke

Part of the reason I live in a place where there are not thousands of
others in a square mile. I decided not to learn to like living with
thousands of people in a square mile. So I took advantage of the
right to pursue happiness, and I am a lot happier for it.

Dan


Me too. But the facts remain the same. Most Americans live in an urban or
suburban setting. By doing so they have to give up some of their freedoms
just to coexist with so many others. And they willingly do so. So I guess
they think the reduction of some rights for the benefits of living in cities
is worth it. That however, is a matter of personal choice, and one that I
chose not to make.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

Right wingers are so quick to plonk people. It's no wonder. They truly hate
hearing facts that prove they don't know what they are talking about. The
plonk you just heard was the sound of another right winger's mind slamming
shut to keep the truth from getting in.

And here I thought we finally had someone with a fresh slant on things,
instead it's more of the same idealogical Chinese wall ... you should
practice what you preach, Dude!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
So would you rather have the government be involved in health care
or just leave it in the hands of people like used car salesmen?
There are private alternatives that are worse than the government.
How about having Bernie Madoff handling your health care or the
management of AIG? Think they would be better than the government?
I don't. The greed of businessmen is what

False dichtomy and strawman. These are not the only choices.

makes them unacceptable for making decisions on people's health
care. You need people that aren't going to profit from your health
problems making the decisions. Hopefully, medical professionals
without a financial interest would decide what you need.

Hawke



This is hands-down the low point of this thread. If no one made a
profit in healthcare there would be NO healthcare. Why should
gifted people become doctors, pharma reseachers, nurses, or
pharmacists? Without profit where is the incentive to risk $500M -
$1B *per new drug* on the research side of things. In short, there
would be few or no "medical professionals without a financial
interest [to] decide what you need" without the opportunity for
profit.

I'll take greedy business people over boneheaded collectivist
ideology any day of the week.


Of course you would but that is because of your short sightedness
and adherence to discredited right wing ideology, not because of the
facts. Plenty of organizations and businesses are non profit and
they operate just as efficiently and effectively as the for profit
ones. But how can that be when only profits make a business work?
Or maybe your set in stone beliefs are wrong.

A "non profit" that doesn't run at a profit goes under very quickly.
Calling your surplus of income over expendtures something other than
"profit" doesn't make it any less so.

And how many non-profits have brought new products to market?


Who knows?

Do you know of _any_?

But I do know that bringing new products to the market
isn't only what non-profit businesses do.

Hint--new medications are "new products". If, as you seem to be
admitting,
nonprofits do not bring new products to market then who _will_ create new
medications in your workers' paradise?

In fact many of them are
not in business to provide new products at all and have completely
different reasons for being.

That's nice. So where do new meds come from if the pharmaceutical
industry
is run as a non-profit?


The federal government pays for between 50 and 70% of all research and
development costs in the pharma industry. So there's your answer. It's
paying for most of the research for new drugs right now and that will
continue in the foreseeable future. So there you go. By the way, at least
half of the money spent by pharma goes to advertising not R&D.

That's misleading. The "R&D" you're talking about is just the basic
research. The pharma industry pays many times that much for the clinical
research and further lab development to bring a drug before the FDA for
approval.

--
Ed Huntress

Hawke wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
So would you rather have the government be involved in health
care or just leave it in the hands of people like used car
salesmen? There are private alternatives that are worse than
the government. How about having Bernie Madoff handling your
health care or the management of AIG? Think they would be
better than the government? I don't. The greed of businessmen
is what

False dichtomy and strawman. These are not the only choices.

makes them unacceptable for making decisions on people's health
care. You need people that aren't going to profit from your
health problems making the decisions. Hopefully, medical
professionals without a financial interest would decide what
you need.

Hawke



This is hands-down the low point of this thread. If no one made a
profit in healthcare there would be NO healthcare. Why should
gifted people become doctors, pharma reseachers, nurses, or
pharmacists? Without profit where is the incentive to risk $500M
- $1B *per new drug* on the research side of things. In short,
there would be few or no "medical professionals without a
financial interest [to] decide what you need" without the
opportunity for profit.

I'll take greedy business people over boneheaded collectivist
ideology any day of the week.


Of course you would but that is because of your short sightedness
and adherence to discredited right wing ideology, not because of
the facts. Plenty of organizations and businesses are non profit
and they operate just as efficiently and effectively as the for
profit ones. But how can that be when only profits make a
business work? Or maybe your set in stone beliefs are wrong.

A "non profit" that doesn't run at a profit goes under very
quickly. Calling your surplus of income over expendtures something
other than "profit" doesn't make it any less so.

And how many non-profits have brought new products to market?


Who knows?

Do you know of _any_?

But I do know that bringing new products to the market
isn't only what non-profit businesses do.

Hint--new medications are "new products". If, as you seem to be
admitting, nonprofits do not bring new products to market then who
_will_ create new medications in your workers' paradise?

In fact many of them are
not in business to provide new products at all and have completely
different reasons for being.

That's nice. So where do new meds come from if the pharmaceutical
industry is run as a non-profit?


The federal government pays for between 50 and 70% of all research and
development costs in the pharma industry.

I'd like to see a source for that number. Strange that the Feds will pay
all that money but not demand that they retain rights to the product
developed--the Feds don't usually work that way.

So there's your answer. It's
paying for most of the research for new drugs right now and that will
continue in the foreseeable future. So there you go. By the way, at
least half of the money spent by pharma goes to advertising not R&D.

So what?

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
Take your pick. You can have your freedom or you can be an American
but you can't have both. Because if you're going to be an American
you have given up some of your freedom to be a part of something
bigger and more important than just your own selfish interests.
Being part of a country and "a people"

You are dead wrong. My formulation is the one the Framers had in
mind. Yours is the artifact of malignant 19th Century philosophy
and evil 20th Century politics

Well, when the framers lived the population was 4 million and 90% of
the population lived within 50 miles of the east coast. Given that,
they hadn't a clue as to what it would take or be like to keep order
in a country the size of this one in the 21st century. Plenty of
ideas of the time have passed. Jefferson thought we should all be
gentlemen farmers. I don't think he had that right. Thinking you are
the only person in the world and are free to do anything you want is
completely passe'.



means that the society and the "people" are more important than the
individuals. Otherwise why would anyone sacrifice anything for
something like "country" when you are all that matters? If you
choose to be a part of

You clearly haven't read or understood a shred of U.S. Revolutionary
history and its intellectual foundations. Guys like Locke and
Jefferson (and Adams, and Madison, and Paine, and Hancock, and
Witherspoon, and ...) would hold your view in utter contempt.

They probably would but they don't have the knowledge that I have
that has come from the hundreds of years since their passing. Times
have changed and if you look carefully you will find that most of
their ideas are either no longer working or are so changed that they
wouldn't recognize them if they saw them in action today. And by the
way, I hold some of their ideas in comtempt too. Lucky for me I have
the benefit of a couple centuries of knowledge they didn't. Otherwise
they would probably have different views too. I can't blame them for
thinking the way they did then because they were ignorant of many
things. But you don't have that excuse.



society and part of a nation you make the choice to give up some of
your personal freedom it's the social contract. If you don't like
the terms then get out and find some place else where you live on
your own and are not a part of a larger entity. But if you are a
conservative you want to have everything you want for yourself
without giving anything up to the whole. In other words the honor
system won't work with people like you.

I am not a conservative. But you are clearly a liberal - your
argument
is intellectually dishonest, unconnected to actual history, and ends
with "love my view or hit the road".


Well, I do believe in liberal democracy, which seems alien to you even
though you live in one. You seem to be stuck in the wrong century.
All I am saying is that the world is a different place and the rules
have changed. You don't get to do everything you want when you live
in a place with thousands of others in a square mile, which is how
most Americans live. Like it or not you are part of the machine, the
society. There are rules to keeping the thing running and keeping
order. You just are a romantic and have not accepted the realities of
today's world. Can't say I blame you for that but this is the time
and place you exist in so I'd say learn to like it. You'll be a lot
happier.

You should learn to quit telling other people how they should live their
lives, then you would be a lot happier.

Can't get anybody you know to listen to this bull**** in person so you
bombard us with it instead.

plonk you and the IP you road in on.


Right wingers are so quick to plonk people. It's no wonder. They truly
hate
hearing facts that prove they don't know what they are talking about. The
plonk you just heard was the sound of another right winger's mind slamming
shut to keep the truth from getting in.

Hawke



Is he a "right winger"? I'd thought Imbecile.

Hawke wrote:

The conservatives are the party of terrible ideas. The liberals are
the party of evil and dangerous ideas.


.... snip

You need to explore the roots of the word "liberal". The people who
thus self identify today would have been almost 100% in opposition
to the views of our founding fathers: Limited government via Federalism,
strong independent States' Rights, the doctrine of Enumerated Rights ...
all of these and more are regularly violated by today's so-called
"liberals". In reality, almost all liberals today, and a good many
conservatives are actually "statists" that wish to undo the limits
of Federalism.

If you actually knew what liberals thought you would see how off the mark
your ideas are. You are going to have a hard time finding liberals today
who don't believe in limited government, states' rights, or enumerated
rights. The conflict is in what these mean and how far one goes in
believing in them. You simply think they mean far more than liberals do.
But they still believe in them.


Then let's use the word "statist" to describe the people in charge of the
current administration and congress. There is no doubt that those in
charge are pushing for larger federal power, more government, higher taxes,
and less personal freedom.

You should also know that the limited government, federalism and weak
central government was already tried by the founding fathers when the
Articles of Confederation were adopted.

Umm, no, the problem with the Articles of Federation was that they were
not true federalism.


In fact, it sounds like your idea
of the best government would be like the Articles. Unfortunately, it was
the founding fathers themselves who learned that a stronger central
government was better than the federalism you prefer. So, they tried it
and rejected it for a strong central government. Hamilton and Jefferson
fought over this
repeatedly. Hamilton won and even Jefferson acted more like a statist
when he was president. In theory what you advocate sounds good but in
reality it doesn't work.

Hawke

The founders recognized that a federal republic should have a central
government with the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and
see to the common defense of the republic. Note the word "regulate" was
*never* meant by the founders to mean controlling or owning businesses
engaged in interstate commerce. However, the federal government was not
intended to be the over-arching controlling authority over citizens' lives
that it has become. The statists are winning right now and that is cause
for grave concern for those who value liberty.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
So would you rather have the government be involved in health
care or just leave it in the hands of people like used car
salesmen? There are private alternatives that are worse than
the government. How about having Bernie Madoff handling your
health care or the management of AIG? Think they would be
better than the government? I don't. The greed of businessmen
is what

False dichtomy and strawman. These are not the only choices.

makes them unacceptable for making decisions on people's health
care. You need people that aren't going to profit from your
health problems making the decisions. Hopefully, medical
professionals without a financial interest would decide what
you need.

Hawke



This is hands-down the low point of this thread. If no one made a
profit in healthcare there would be NO healthcare. Why should
gifted people become doctors, pharma reseachers, nurses, or
pharmacists? Without profit where is the incentive to risk $500M
- $1B *per new drug* on the research side of things. In short,
there would be few or no "medical professionals without a
financial interest [to] decide what you need" without the
opportunity for profit.

I'll take greedy business people over boneheaded collectivist
ideology any day of the week.


Of course you would but that is because of your short sightedness
and adherence to discredited right wing ideology, not because of
the facts. Plenty of organizations and businesses are non profit
and they operate just as efficiently and effectively as the for
profit ones. But how can that be when only profits make a
business work? Or maybe your set in stone beliefs are wrong.

A "non profit" that doesn't run at a profit goes under very
quickly. Calling your surplus of income over expendtures something
other than "profit" doesn't make it any less so.

And how many non-profits have brought new products to market?


Who knows?

Do you know of _any_?

But I do know that bringing new products to the market
isn't only what non-profit businesses do.

Hint--new medications are "new products". If, as you seem to be
admitting, nonprofits do not bring new products to market then who
_will_ create new medications in your workers' paradise?

In fact many of them are
not in business to provide new products at all and have completely
different reasons for being.

That's nice. So where do new meds come from if the pharmaceutical
industry is run as a non-profit?


The federal government pays for between 50 and 70% of all research and
development costs in the pharma industry.

I'd like to see a source for that number. Strange that the Feds will pay
all that money but not demand that they retain rights to the product
developed--the Feds don't usually work that way.

They don't retain the rights. It's a backhanded way to finance university
medical research; they cut off most federal money, so now the universities
get to keep the licensing fees.

However, as I mentioned, the R&D that Hawke is talking about is *basic*
research, and only a small fraction of the total research costs needed to
get a drug ready for medical use. Most of it -- especially the very
expensive clinical trials -- are paid by the pharma industry.


So there's your answer. It's
paying for most of the research for new drugs right now and that will
continue in the foreseeable future. So there you go. By the way, at
least half of the money spent by pharma goes to advertising not R&D.

So what?

The "half" figure is not accurate, either. It's less than 1/3.

This is a controversial subject and the only way to get a realistic view of
it is to really dig deep into the facts. The advocates on both sides have a
very easy time of muddying the waters because the system is very complex.

--
Ed Huntress

That's nice. So where do new meds come from if the pharmaceutical
industry is run as a non-profit?


The federal government pays for between 50 and 70% of all research and
development costs in the pharma industry.

I'd like to see a source for that number. Strange that the Feds will pay
all that money but not demand that they retain rights to the product
developed--the Feds don't usually work that way.

That figure comes from the book "Bad Samaritans" written by Ha-June Chang
the economist and protege of Nobel Prize winning economist Joe Steglitz.

So there's your answer. It's
paying for most of the research for new drugs right now and that will
continue in the foreseeable future. So there you go. By the way, at
least half of the money spent by pharma goes to advertising not R&D.

So what?

So when they cry about how much they are spending having to do research so
they can bring new drugs to the market it's nice to know they are spending
just as much on their advertising. So obviously the R&D costs aren't killing
them like they want you to think. And don't you think that the drug
companies should be spending a lot more on finding new cures for medical
problems than simply on hawking them? Personally, I'd like to see them quit
advertising altogether and spend all their money of research and
development.

Hawke

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Hawke wrote:

The conservatives are the party of terrible ideas. The liberals are
the party of evil and dangerous ideas.


... snip

You need to explore the roots of the word "liberal". The people who
thus self identify today would have been almost 100% in opposition
to the views of our founding fathers: Limited government via
Federalism,
strong independent States' Rights, the doctrine of Enumerated Rights
....
all of these and more are regularly violated by today's so-called
"liberals". In reality, almost all liberals today, and a good many
conservatives are actually "statists" that wish to undo the limits
of Federalism.

If you actually knew what liberals thought you would see how off the
mark
your ideas are. You are going to have a hard time finding liberals today
who don't believe in limited government, states' rights, or enumerated
rights. The conflict is in what these mean and how far one goes in
believing in them. You simply think they mean far more than liberals do.
But they still believe in them.


Then let's use the word "statist" to describe the people in charge of
the
current administration and congress. There is no doubt that those in
charge are pushing for larger federal power, more government, higher
taxes,
and less personal freedom.

You should also know that the limited government, federalism and weak
central government was already tried by the founding fathers when the
Articles of Confederation were adopted.

Umm, no, the problem with the Articles of Federation was that they were
not true federalism.


In fact, it sounds like your idea
of the best government would be like the Articles. Unfortunately, it was
the founding fathers themselves who learned that a stronger central
government was better than the federalism you prefer. So, they tried it
and rejected it for a strong central government. Hamilton and Jefferson
fought over this
repeatedly. Hamilton won and even Jefferson acted more like a statist
when he was president. In theory what you advocate sounds good but in
reality it doesn't work.

Hawke

The founders recognized that a federal republic should have a central
government with the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and
see to the common defense of the republic. Note the word "regulate" was
*never* meant by the founders to mean controlling or owning businesses
engaged in interstate commerce. However, the federal government was not
intended to be the over-arching controlling authority over citizens' lives
that it has become. The statists are winning right now and that is cause
for grave concern for those who value liberty.


Here's the problem you're having. What the founders thought doesn't really
matter all that much any more. That's the truth. They had no clue whatsoever
that the world would be anything like it is now, you can't blame them for
that though. Things have changed so much in the last 200 years that little
of what they believed in still applies. If they were alive today they would
understand that the modern U.S. has to operate far differently than it did
when they created it. That means having a strong central government that is
basically the country's real government. Basic things are left to the states
to handle but the federal government is what counts. They never thought that
would happen. They thought the country would always be a confederation of
strong and pretty independent states. Well, it didn't work out that way. It
turned into a strong central government with a confederation of weak states.
But that is how it has to work in today's world.

You can argue over how far the government should go in what it does, and
many people think it's gone too far. But the basic assumption is that the
federal government is the United States government not the state
governments. Over the past eight years we saw a tremendous increase in
government intrusion and power under Bush, which didn't have to be. Now we
have a real problem and the only way to fix it is for the government
(central) to do it. Out of necessity, and for a temporary time, the Obama
administration is going to have to do things it wouldn't ordinarily do. The
same was true with FDR. Exigent circumstances have made a situation where
the central government has to intervene in areas it would rather not be
involved in. Once the crisis has passed Obama's government will shrink and
will be less intrusive than Bush's was. Regardless, because of the evolution
of the nation and the modern world the government has to be a lot bigger
than what people thought in 1776. But despite the changes in thinking from
then until now what you don't get is that while you may want a minimalist
government most of America does not. They want Soc. Sec., they want
Medicare, they want national health care, they want a clean environment,
they want a large national defense. So the reason our government is so big
is because that is what Americans have demanded even though there are those
like you that don't want those things. Like it or not that's the way it is
and that's the way it's going to stay. Like the saying goes, "we're not in
Kansas anymore, Toto".

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
So would you rather have the government be involved in health
care or just leave it in the hands of people like used car
salesmen? There are private alternatives that are worse than
the government. How about having Bernie Madoff handling your
health care or the management of AIG? Think they would be
better than the government? I don't. The greed of businessmen
is what

False dichtomy and strawman. These are not the only choices.

makes them unacceptable for making decisions on people's health
care. You need people that aren't going to profit from your
health problems making the decisions. Hopefully, medical
professionals without a financial interest would decide what
you need.

Hawke



This is hands-down the low point of this thread. If no one made a
profit in healthcare there would be NO healthcare. Why should
gifted people become doctors, pharma reseachers, nurses, or
pharmacists? Without profit where is the incentive to risk $500M
- $1B *per new drug* on the research side of things. In short,
there would be few or no "medical professionals without a
financial interest [to] decide what you need" without the
opportunity for profit.

I'll take greedy business people over boneheaded collectivist
ideology any day of the week.


Of course you would but that is because of your short sightedness
and adherence to discredited right wing ideology, not because of
the facts. Plenty of organizations and businesses are non profit
and they operate just as efficiently and effectively as the for
profit ones. But how can that be when only profits make a
business work? Or maybe your set in stone beliefs are wrong.

A "non profit" that doesn't run at a profit goes under very
quickly. Calling your surplus of income over expendtures something
other than "profit" doesn't make it any less so.

And how many non-profits have brought new products to market?


Who knows?

Do you know of _any_?

But I do know that bringing new products to the market
isn't only what non-profit businesses do.

Hint--new medications are "new products". If, as you seem to be
admitting, nonprofits do not bring new products to market then who
_will_ create new medications in your workers' paradise?

In fact many of them are
not in business to provide new products at all and have completely
different reasons for being.

That's nice. So where do new meds come from if the pharmaceutical
industry is run as a non-profit?


The federal government pays for between 50 and 70% of all research and
development costs in the pharma industry.

I'd like to see a source for that number. Strange that the Feds will
pay
all that money but not demand that they retain rights to the product
developed--the Feds don't usually work that way.

They don't retain the rights. It's a backhanded way to finance university
medical research; they cut off most federal money, so now the universities
get to keep the licensing fees.

However, as I mentioned, the R&D that Hawke is talking about is *basic*
research, and only a small fraction of the total research costs needed to
get a drug ready for medical use. Most of it -- especially the very
expensive clinical trials -- are paid by the pharma industry.


So there's your answer. It's
paying for most of the research for new drugs right now and that will
continue in the foreseeable future. So there you go. By the way, at
least half of the money spent by pharma goes to advertising not R&D.

So what?

The "half" figure is not accurate, either. It's less than 1/3.

This is a controversial subject and the only way to get a realistic view
of
it is to really dig deep into the facts. The advocates on both sides have
a
very easy time of muddying the waters because the system is very complex.

--
Ed Huntress


Like I said, I'm getting those stats from Ha-Joon Chang, the well noted
economist (Google him if you like). In his book he goes into this. Since
he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this specifically I
think his statistics are probably accurate. He has great credentials. A
Cambridge educated economics professor, with a mentor like Joe Steglitz,
writing on this I think is a pretty reliable source. Of course, you can
disagree with him but I'd like to see the credentials of who you do believe.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Hawke wrote:

The conservatives are the party of terrible ideas. The liberals are
the party of evil and dangerous ideas.

... snip
You need to explore the roots of the word "liberal". The people who
thus self identify today would have been almost 100% in opposition
to the views of our founding fathers: Limited government via
Federalism,
strong independent States' Rights, the doctrine of Enumerated Rights
...
all of these and more are regularly violated by today's so-called
"liberals". In reality, almost all liberals today, and a good many
conservatives are actually "statists" that wish to undo the limits
of Federalism.
If you actually knew what liberals thought you would see how off the
mark
your ideas are. You are going to have a hard time finding liberals today
who don't believe in limited government, states' rights, or enumerated
rights. The conflict is in what these mean and how far one goes in
believing in them. You simply think they mean far more than liberals do.
But they still believe in them.

Then let's use the word "statist" to describe the people in charge of
the
current administration and congress. There is no doubt that those in
charge are pushing for larger federal power, more government, higher
taxes,
and less personal freedom.

You should also know that the limited government, federalism and weak
central government was already tried by the founding fathers when the
Articles of Confederation were adopted.
Umm, no, the problem with the Articles of Federation was that they were
not true federalism.


In fact, it sounds like your idea
of the best government would be like the Articles. Unfortunately, it was
the founding fathers themselves who learned that a stronger central
government was better than the federalism you prefer. So, they tried it
and rejected it for a strong central government. Hamilton and Jefferson
fought over this
repeatedly. Hamilton won and even Jefferson acted more like a statist
when he was president. In theory what you advocate sounds good but in
reality it doesn't work.

Hawke
The founders recognized that a federal republic should have a central
government with the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and
see to the common defense of the republic. Note the word "regulate" was
*never* meant by the founders to mean controlling or owning businesses
engaged in interstate commerce. However, the federal government was not
intended to be the over-arching controlling authority over citizens' lives
that it has become. The statists are winning right now and that is cause
for grave concern for those who value liberty.


Here's the problem you're having. What the founders thought doesn't really
matter all that much any more. That's the truth. They had no clue whatsoever

Not to statists and other apologists for collectivism. For those of
us that wish the blessings of personal liberty to continue, they do
very much still matter.

that the world would be anything like it is now, you can't blame them for
that though. Things have changed so much in the last 200 years that little
of what they believed in still applies. If they were alive today they would

Not when it comes to the power of the collective over the individual
it hasn't changed. Nothing in the so-called changed world mitigates the
need to vastly limit government power - perhaps even moreso than in the
Framers' time. They didn't have GPS, surveillance electronics, the NSA,
and all the rest at their disposal. Their ideas still tower today, except
of course among the whiney statists that increasingly infest the body
politic. Whiney statists that cannot bear the thought of being self
reliant, responsible, and otherwise free, and prefer the shackles of
being kept public pets.


understand that the modern U.S. has to operate far differently than it did
when they created it. That means having a strong central government that is
basically the country's real government. Basic things are left to the states
to handle but the federal government is what counts. They never thought that
would happen. They thought the country would always be a confederation of
strong and pretty independent states. Well, it didn't work out that way. It
turned into a strong central government with a confederation of weak states.
But that is how it has to work in today's world.

The "modern U.S. [government]" only operates far differently because
its citizens have increasingly abandoned their birthright of personal
liberty, and for no other necessary reason.

You can argue over how far the government should go in what it does, and
many people think it's gone too far. But the basic assumption is that the
federal government is the United States government not the state
governments. Over the past eight years we saw a tremendous increase in

That is your assumption, not mine. Then again, I am not a collectivist.
The Federal government was chartered to ensure liberty, defend the union
against aggression, and make sure the several states did not foulup
interstate commerce (that and run the postal system). It need do nothing
more that this today for the nation to remain quite healthy. Everything
else can be done by the states severally, or possibly in voluntary
coordination with one another. There is no need for a $3T Federal government
except to keep a good many incompetents employed and for the malignant
political ooze to slither its way to the top.

government intrusion and power under Bush, which didn't have to be. Now we

Bush was a statist. He had some virtues but being a strict
Constitutional originalist wasn't one of them.

have a real problem and the only way to fix it is for the government
(central) to do it. Out of necessity, and for a temporary time, the Obama

Utter nonsense. This argument of necessity is trotted out every time
the statists want to expand the power of government. Our Dear Leader
of the moment does so breathlessly on a moment-by-moment basis.

administration is going to have to do things it wouldn't ordinarily do. The
same was true with FDR. Exigent circumstances have made a situation where

They are going to do them for the same reason FDR did - to aggregate
personal power, diminish the liberty of the individual, and tighten
the iron fist of the government on the people.

the central government has to intervene in areas it would rather not be
involved in. Once the crisis has passed Obama's government will shrink and
will be less intrusive than Bush's was. Regardless, because of the evolution

You are living in a fantasy world. There is no significant recorded example
of political vomitus like Obama having achieved power ever stepping away
from it.

of the nation and the modern world the government has to be a lot bigger
than what people thought in 1776. But despite the changes in thinking from

Bigger in absolute size because of the size of the nation, but not bigger
in absolute scope. The military today of necessity has to be larger than
the one in 1776, but that doesn't mean we now need the DEA, EPA, an Education
department, and all the rest of the Federal stupidities currently in place.

then until now what you don't get is that while you may want a minimalist
government most of America does not. They want Soc. Sec., they want
Medicare, they want national health care, they want a clean environment,

Yes, yes, a whopping 53% of the electorate (and declining) decided to
vote for personal irresponsibility, lack of integrity, mooching, whining,
and trying to get others to pay their debts. This too has no good ending
as we shall all witness soon enough. Immoral acts do not get sanitized
merely because they were voted into place. And immoral acts always have
unhappy endings.

they want a large national defense. So the reason our government is so big

And defense is one of the very few things specifically enumerated to the
Federal government as its responsibility.

is because that is what Americans have demanded even though there are those
like you that don't want those things. Like it or not that's the way it is
and that's the way it's going to stay. Like the saying goes, "we're not in
Kansas anymore, Toto".

Oh dear, you're dunking in the collectivist goo seems most complete.
"If the mob wants it, it must be right." I'd point out that every
act of evil in history started out with either "For the good the people"
or "Because the people demand it." Enjoy your collectivist outcomes -
I shall not be here to see them. Those of you who will be are headed
for slavery...

Hawke




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Hawke wrote:
Since he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this specifically I
think his statistics are probably accurate.

This statement would be achingly funny if it weren't so achingly sad...

Google "Dismal Science"...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
So would you rather have the government be involved in health
care or just leave it in the hands of people like used car
salesmen? There are private alternatives that are worse than
the government. How about having Bernie Madoff handling your
health care or the management of AIG? Think they would be
better than the government? I don't. The greed of businessmen
is what

False dichtomy and strawman. These are not the only choices.

makes them unacceptable for making decisions on people's health
care. You need people that aren't going to profit from your
health problems making the decisions. Hopefully, medical
professionals without a financial interest would decide what
you need.

Hawke



This is hands-down the low point of this thread. If no one made a
profit in healthcare there would be NO healthcare. Why should
gifted people become doctors, pharma reseachers, nurses, or
pharmacists? Without profit where is the incentive to risk $500M
- $1B *per new drug* on the research side of things. In short,
there would be few or no "medical professionals without a
financial interest [to] decide what you need" without the
opportunity for profit.

I'll take greedy business people over boneheaded collectivist
ideology any day of the week.


Of course you would but that is because of your short sightedness
and adherence to discredited right wing ideology, not because of
the facts. Plenty of organizations and businesses are non profit
and they operate just as efficiently and effectively as the for
profit ones. But how can that be when only profits make a
business work? Or maybe your set in stone beliefs are wrong.

A "non profit" that doesn't run at a profit goes under very
quickly. Calling your surplus of income over expendtures something
other than "profit" doesn't make it any less so.

And how many non-profits have brought new products to market?


Who knows?

Do you know of _any_?

But I do know that bringing new products to the market
isn't only what non-profit businesses do.

Hint--new medications are "new products". If, as you seem to be
admitting, nonprofits do not bring new products to market then who
_will_ create new medications in your workers' paradise?

In fact many of them are
not in business to provide new products at all and have completely
different reasons for being.

That's nice. So where do new meds come from if the pharmaceutical
industry is run as a non-profit?


The federal government pays for between 50 and 70% of all research and
development costs in the pharma industry.

I'd like to see a source for that number. Strange that the Feds will
pay
all that money but not demand that they retain rights to the product
developed--the Feds don't usually work that way.

They don't retain the rights. It's a backhanded way to finance university
medical research; they cut off most federal money, so now the
universities
get to keep the licensing fees.

However, as I mentioned, the R&D that Hawke is talking about is *basic*
research, and only a small fraction of the total research costs needed to
get a drug ready for medical use. Most of it -- especially the very
expensive clinical trials -- are paid by the pharma industry.


So there's your answer. It's
paying for most of the research for new drugs right now and that will
continue in the foreseeable future. So there you go. By the way, at
least half of the money spent by pharma goes to advertising not R&D.

So what?

The "half" figure is not accurate, either. It's less than 1/3.

This is a controversial subject and the only way to get a realistic view
of
it is to really dig deep into the facts. The advocates on both sides have
a
very easy time of muddying the waters because the system is very complex.

--
Ed Huntress


Like I said, I'm getting those stats from Ha-Joon Chang, the well noted
economist (Google him if you like). In his book he goes into this. Since
he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this specifically I
think his statistics are probably accurate. He has great credentials. A
Cambridge educated economics professor, with a mentor like Joe Steglitz,
writing on this I think is a pretty reliable source. Of course, you can
disagree with him but I'd like to see the credentials of who you do
believe.

Hawke

Well, I could quote the figures that he cites, and show you their
weaknesses.

But what you quote is not, I think, what Chang says. Here's what I was able
to find in his writing:

"A lot of research is conducted by non-profit-seeking organizations -- even
in the US. For example, in the year 2000, only 43% of US drugs research
funding came from the pharmaceutical industry itself. 29% came from the US
government and the remaining 28% from private charities and universities."

He cites a source that I can't identify (I was searching on Amazon's
previews) but the numbers sound familiar. I think they come from pharma
itself. What Chang doesn't note, however, is that the part that comes from
universities is paid for, after the government NIH grants are accounted for,
by licensing fees to Big Pharma. In other words, pharma pays more than half
of the total, and a couple of times what government is paying.

That's not to absolve pharma of the way it operates, but the picture is a
lot more complicated than these few figures suggest. Their entire business
model is under threat right now. Coming up with new "small-molecule" drugs
has gotten to be extremely tough. And the biotech industry, which has lost
money, as a whole, every year since it came into existence, is not a
promising replacement. It's a good way to go broke.

The industry is going through a crisis and it will be shaken up. The
question is who will wind up paying for all of the research. In the end, of
course, it's you and me, any way you look at it. But we'd make out a lot
better if we were Canadian or French.

--
Ed Huntress

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Hawke wrote:
Since he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this
specifically I think his statistics are probably accurate.

This statement would be achingly funny if it weren't so achingly sad...

Google "Dismal Science"...


Back before "Scientific American" became "Politically Correct American",
there was a tremendously good column on what the author called "math
abuse". Algore's Hockey Stick chart would be a classic example.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Hawke wrote:
Since he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this
specifically I think his statistics are probably accurate.
This statement would be achingly funny if it weren't so achingly sad...

Google "Dismal Science"...


Back before "Scientific American" became "Politically Correct American",
there was a tremendously good column on what the author called "math
abuse". Algore's Hockey Stick chart would be a classic example.




Gore's every utterance is a fraud upon humanity. I'd be suspicious
about him saying "It's raining today" without independent verification.
Peace Prize Boy appears poised to leverage his phony pseudo-science
into a $200M fortune courtesy of the tax payers of the U.S.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

The federal government pays for between 50 and 70% of all research
and
development costs in the pharma industry.

I'd like to see a source for that number. Strange that the Feds will
pay
all that money but not demand that they retain rights to the product
developed--the Feds don't usually work that way.

They don't retain the rights. It's a backhanded way to finance
university
medical research; they cut off most federal money, so now the
universities
get to keep the licensing fees.

However, as I mentioned, the R&D that Hawke is talking about is *basic*
research, and only a small fraction of the total research costs needed
to
get a drug ready for medical use. Most of it -- especially the very
expensive clinical trials -- are paid by the pharma industry.


So there's your answer. It's
paying for most of the research for new drugs right now and that
will
continue in the foreseeable future. So there you go. By the way, at
least half of the money spent by pharma goes to advertising not R&D.

So what?

The "half" figure is not accurate, either. It's less than 1/3.

This is a controversial subject and the only way to get a realistic
view
of
it is to really dig deep into the facts. The advocates on both sides
have
a
very easy time of muddying the waters because the system is very
complex.

--
Ed Huntress


Like I said, I'm getting those stats from Ha-Joon Chang, the well noted
economist (Google him if you like). In his book he goes into this. Since
he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this specifically
I
think his statistics are probably accurate. He has great credentials. A
Cambridge educated economics professor, with a mentor like Joe Steglitz,
writing on this I think is a pretty reliable source. Of course, you can
disagree with him but I'd like to see the credentials of who you do
believe.

Hawke

Well, I could quote the figures that he cites, and show you their
weaknesses.

But what you quote is not, I think, what Chang says. Here's what I was
able
to find in his writing:

"A lot of research is conducted by non-profit-seeking organizations --
even
in the US. For example, in the year 2000, only 43% of US drugs research
funding came from the pharmaceutical industry itself. 29% came from the US
government and the remaining 28% from private charities and universities."

He cites a source that I can't identify (I was searching on Amazon's
previews) but the numbers sound familiar. I think they come from pharma
itself. What Chang doesn't note, however, is that the part that comes from
universities is paid for, after the government NIH grants are accounted
for,
by licensing fees to Big Pharma. In other words, pharma pays more than
half
of the total, and a couple of times what government is paying.

That's not to absolve pharma of the way it operates, but the picture is a
lot more complicated than these few figures suggest. Their entire business
model is under threat right now. Coming up with new "small-molecule" drugs
has gotten to be extremely tough. And the biotech industry, which has lost
money, as a whole, every year since it came into existence, is not a
promising replacement. It's a good way to go broke.

The industry is going through a crisis and it will be shaken up. The
question is who will wind up paying for all of the research. In the end,
of
course, it's you and me, any way you look at it. But we'd make out a lot
better if we were Canadian or French.

--
Ed Huntress


It would be nice to speak to Mr. Chang personally and have him explain in
more detail about the statistics he's citing in his book. Unfortunately, I
don't think I'm going to be able to get through to him any time soon. Then
there's the problem of understanding him. I saw him at a Q&A on Book TV and
his Korean accent was so thick I could hardly understand him. I'd like to
hear him and Arnold (Terminator) having a conversation, that would be
something.

We have three good choices for quality health care, four actually. Being
French or Canadian, being filthy rich, or being a member of congress. God
Damn it!, I don't qualify for any of them. Wouldn't you know it. Being a
member of the unwashed masses sucks.

Hawke

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
Since he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this
specifically I
think his statistics are probably accurate.

This statement would be achingly funny if it weren't so achingly sad...


Yeah, that would seem true when you take it out of context like you did.
Anyone reading the following qualifying statements would not get that
impression though. He's not just "any" economist. But then you would argue
with a Nobel Prize winning economist like Joe Steglitz or Paul Krugman
wouldn't you, even though they have Ph.D.s in economics and you don't. You
remind me of the Monty Python comedian who wrote the book, "How to Argue
with Anyone". Your discounting of Chang's work is equally as silly.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
Since he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this
specifically I
think his statistics are probably accurate.
This statement would be achingly funny if it weren't so achingly sad...


Yeah, that would seem true when you take it out of context like you did.
Anyone reading the following qualifying statements would not get that
impression though. He's not just "any" economist. But then you would argue
with a Nobel Prize winning economist like Joe Steglitz or Paul Krugman
wouldn't you, even though they have Ph.D.s in economics and you don't. You
remind me of the Monty Python comedian who wrote the book, "How to Argue
with Anyone". Your discounting of Chang's work is equally as silly.

Hawke



But I'm *not* discounting his work. I'm discounting the confidence you
place in economics as a discipline and upon a single source no less.
Economics is barely a science - hence the term "Dismal Science". It's
predictive powers have been poor at best. You cite Krugman and I'll
cite von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman any one of whom (I'd argue)
contributed considerably more to making economics useful than
Krugman, but of course that's just my opinion and subject to revision.
The point wasn't to make fun of your source, but rather suggest that
breathless confidence in such a source is misplaced. If this thread - and the
entire history of economics - demonstrates anything is that the
field hasn't exactly distinguished itself with great results.

As to having received a Nobel, so did Carter (a incompetent political
hack), Arafat (a murdering thug), and Gore (a fraud and opportunist
feeding at the public trough) thereby demonstrating that the vacuity
of award today as it is made the handmaiden of political correctness.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

The federal government pays for between 50 and 70% of all research
and
development costs in the pharma industry.

I'd like to see a source for that number. Strange that the Feds
will
pay
all that money but not demand that they retain rights to the product
developed--the Feds don't usually work that way.

They don't retain the rights. It's a backhanded way to finance
university
medical research; they cut off most federal money, so now the
universities
get to keep the licensing fees.

However, as I mentioned, the R&D that Hawke is talking about is
*basic*
research, and only a small fraction of the total research costs needed
to
get a drug ready for medical use. Most of it -- especially the very
expensive clinical trials -- are paid by the pharma industry.


So there's your answer. It's
paying for most of the research for new drugs right now and that
will
continue in the foreseeable future. So there you go. By the way, at
least half of the money spent by pharma goes to advertising not
R&D.

So what?

The "half" figure is not accurate, either. It's less than 1/3.

This is a controversial subject and the only way to get a realistic
view
of
it is to really dig deep into the facts. The advocates on both sides
have
a
very easy time of muddying the waters because the system is very
complex.

--
Ed Huntress


Like I said, I'm getting those stats from Ha-Joon Chang, the well noted
economist (Google him if you like). In his book he goes into this.
Since
he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this specifically
I
think his statistics are probably accurate. He has great credentials. A
Cambridge educated economics professor, with a mentor like Joe
Steglitz,
writing on this I think is a pretty reliable source. Of course, you can
disagree with him but I'd like to see the credentials of who you do
believe.

Hawke

Well, I could quote the figures that he cites, and show you their
weaknesses.

But what you quote is not, I think, what Chang says. Here's what I was
able
to find in his writing:

"A lot of research is conducted by non-profit-seeking organizations --
even
in the US. For example, in the year 2000, only 43% of US drugs research
funding came from the pharmaceutical industry itself. 29% came from the
US
government and the remaining 28% from private charities and
universities."

He cites a source that I can't identify (I was searching on Amazon's
previews) but the numbers sound familiar. I think they come from pharma
itself. What Chang doesn't note, however, is that the part that comes
from
universities is paid for, after the government NIH grants are accounted
for,
by licensing fees to Big Pharma. In other words, pharma pays more than
half
of the total, and a couple of times what government is paying.

That's not to absolve pharma of the way it operates, but the picture is a
lot more complicated than these few figures suggest. Their entire
business
model is under threat right now. Coming up with new "small-molecule"
drugs
has gotten to be extremely tough. And the biotech industry, which has
lost
money, as a whole, every year since it came into existence, is not a
promising replacement. It's a good way to go broke.

The industry is going through a crisis and it will be shaken up. The
question is who will wind up paying for all of the research. In the end,
of
course, it's you and me, any way you look at it. But we'd make out a lot
better if we were Canadian or French.

--
Ed Huntress


It would be nice to speak to Mr. Chang personally and have him explain in
more detail about the statistics he's citing in his book. Unfortunately, I
don't think I'm going to be able to get through to him any time soon.

He didn't do the research for that data. He cites another source for it. I
think it's on page 125 or 126. If you have the book, take a look and see
where he got the data.

Then
there's the problem of understanding him. I saw him at a Q&A on Book TV
and
his Korean accent was so thick I could hardly understand him. I'd like to
hear him and Arnold (Terminator) having a conversation, that would be
something.

That sounds like my chemistry teacher in college. That's why I don't know
squat about chemistry. g


We have three good choices for quality health care, four actually. Being
French or Canadian, being filthy rich, or being a member of congress. God
Damn it!, I don't qualify for any of them. Wouldn't you know it. Being a
member of the unwashed masses sucks.

Hawke

It's not going to get much better for a long time. Hope for catastrophic
care aided by the government, which probably will cover nearly everyone, and
fairly large chunks of ordinary care paid out of your own pocket. I expect
some kind of price controls on drugs within five years. The way their
economics are going, they'll try to *raise* prices on a continuing basis,
and every other country but the US will resist. That means we'll pay all of
it until we finally get down to clamping a lid on them.

Or don't get sick. Or shoot yourself when you do. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
Since he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this
specifically I
think his statistics are probably accurate.
This statement would be achingly funny if it weren't so achingly sad...


Yeah, that would seem true when you take it out of context like you did.
Anyone reading the following qualifying statements would not get that
impression though. He's not just "any" economist. But then you would
argue
with a Nobel Prize winning economist like Joe Steglitz or Paul Krugman
wouldn't you, even though they have Ph.D.s in economics and you don't.
You
remind me of the Monty Python comedian who wrote the book, "How to Argue
with Anyone". Your discounting of Chang's work is equally as silly.

Hawke



But I'm *not* discounting his work. I'm discounting the confidence you
place in economics as a discipline and upon a single source no less.
Economics is barely a science - hence the term "Dismal Science".

Well, the term (coined by Thomas Carlyle) actually derives from the fact
that Carlyle thought that Malthus represented economics, and Malthus said,
basically, we should all bend over and kiss our asses goodby. g That was
in the early- to mid-19th century.

It's
predictive powers have been poor at best. You cite Krugman and I'll
cite von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman any one of whom (I'd argue)
contributed considerably more to making economics useful than
Krugman, but of course that's just my opinion and subject to revision.
The point wasn't to make fun of your source, but rather suggest that
breathless confidence in such a source is misplaced. If this thread - and
the
entire history of economics - demonstrates anything is that the
field hasn't exactly distinguished itself with great results.

That's true enough. It's an iffy business, something like medicine.


As to having received a Nobel, so did Carter (a incompetent political
hack), Arafat (a murdering thug), and Gore (a fraud and opportunist
feeding at the public trough) thereby demonstrating that the vacuity
of award today as it is made the handmaiden of political correctness.

Ouch! Some of them were really worthy. Krugman won for New Trade Theory (his
specialty is the economics of international trade). Friedman won for
reviving monetary theory. It was good work, but the world is more
complicated than either of them could accommodate with their regression
models.

--
Ed Huntress

Yeah, that would seem true when you take it out of context like you did.
Anyone reading the following qualifying statements would not get that
impression though. He's not just "any" economist. But then you would
argue
with a Nobel Prize winning economist like Joe Steglitz or Paul Krugman
wouldn't you, even though they have Ph.D.s in economics and you don't.
You
remind me of the Monty Python comedian who wrote the book, "How to Argue
with Anyone". Your discounting of Chang's work is equally as silly.

Hawke



But I'm *not* discounting his work. I'm discounting the confidence you
place in economics as a discipline and upon a single source no less.
Economics is barely a science - hence the term "Dismal Science". It's
predictive powers have been poor at best. You cite Krugman and I'll
cite von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman any one of whom (I'd argue)
contributed considerably more to making economics useful than
Krugman, but of course that's just my opinion and subject to revision.
The point wasn't to make fun of your source, but rather suggest that
breathless confidence in such a source is misplaced. If this thread - and
the
entire history of economics - demonstrates anything is that the
field hasn't exactly distinguished itself with great results.

As to having received a Nobel, so did Carter (a incompetent political
hack), Arafat (a murdering thug), and Gore (a fraud and opportunist
feeding at the public trough) thereby demonstrating that the vacuity
of award today as it is made the handmaiden of political correctness.


You may be surprised but I do agree with you on two points; one is that I
have little faith in economists or economics as a "science", and Nobel
prizes can be pretty meaningless. Even so, as a rule a real scientist who
wins a Nobel prize usually deserves the credit for it. Just because they
goof up every so often when they give them out for political reasons doesn't
mean they are all like that. As for Chang and his work, I think it has merit
and that his statistics are probably accurate. He says that 50% to 70% of
all research in pharma comes from the federal government. I'd be willing to
bet he can back that up pretty well. I doubt he just made that up for his
own gratification. But if you have statistics that prove those numbers wrong
then let's see them.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

The federal government pays for between 50 and 70% of all
research
and
development costs in the pharma industry.

I'd like to see a source for that number. Strange that the Feds
will
pay
all that money but not demand that they retain rights to the
product
developed--the Feds don't usually work that way.

They don't retain the rights. It's a backhanded way to finance
university
medical research; they cut off most federal money, so now the
universities
get to keep the licensing fees.

However, as I mentioned, the R&D that Hawke is talking about is
*basic*
research, and only a small fraction of the total research costs
needed
to
get a drug ready for medical use. Most of it -- especially the very
expensive clinical trials -- are paid by the pharma industry.


So there's your answer. It's
paying for most of the research for new drugs right now and that
will
continue in the foreseeable future. So there you go. By the way,
at
least half of the money spent by pharma goes to advertising not
R&D.

So what?

The "half" figure is not accurate, either. It's less than 1/3.

This is a controversial subject and the only way to get a realistic
view
of
it is to really dig deep into the facts. The advocates on both sides
have
a
very easy time of muddying the waters because the system is very
complex.

--
Ed Huntress


Like I said, I'm getting those stats from Ha-Joon Chang, the well
noted
economist (Google him if you like). In his book he goes into this.
Since
he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this
specifically
I
think his statistics are probably accurate. He has great credentials.
A
Cambridge educated economics professor, with a mentor like Joe
Steglitz,
writing on this I think is a pretty reliable source. Of course, you
can
disagree with him but I'd like to see the credentials of who you do
believe.

Hawke

Well, I could quote the figures that he cites, and show you their
weaknesses.

But what you quote is not, I think, what Chang says. Here's what I was
able
to find in his writing:

"A lot of research is conducted by non-profit-seeking organizations --
even
in the US. For example, in the year 2000, only 43% of US drugs research
funding came from the pharmaceutical industry itself. 29% came from the
US
government and the remaining 28% from private charities and
universities."

He cites a source that I can't identify (I was searching on Amazon's
previews) but the numbers sound familiar. I think they come from pharma
itself. What Chang doesn't note, however, is that the part that comes
from
universities is paid for, after the government NIH grants are accounted
for,
by licensing fees to Big Pharma. In other words, pharma pays more than
half
of the total, and a couple of times what government is paying.

That's not to absolve pharma of the way it operates, but the picture is
a
lot more complicated than these few figures suggest. Their entire
business
model is under threat right now. Coming up with new "small-molecule"
drugs
has gotten to be extremely tough. And the biotech industry, which has
lost
money, as a whole, every year since it came into existence, is not a
promising replacement. It's a good way to go broke.

The industry is going through a crisis and it will be shaken up. The
question is who will wind up paying for all of the research. In the
end,
of
course, it's you and me, any way you look at it. But we'd make out a
lot
better if we were Canadian or French.

--
Ed Huntress


It would be nice to speak to Mr. Chang personally and have him explain
in
more detail about the statistics he's citing in his book. Unfortunately,
I
don't think I'm going to be able to get through to him any time soon.

He didn't do the research for that data. He cites another source for it. I
think it's on page 125 or 126. If you have the book, take a look and see
where he got the data.

Then
there's the problem of understanding him. I saw him at a Q&A on Book TV
and
his Korean accent was so thick I could hardly understand him. I'd like
to
hear him and Arnold (Terminator) having a conversation, that would be
something.

That sounds like my chemistry teacher in college. That's why I don't know
squat about chemistry. g


We have three good choices for quality health care, four actually. Being
French or Canadian, being filthy rich, or being a member of congress.
God
Damn it!, I don't qualify for any of them. Wouldn't you know it. Being a
member of the unwashed masses sucks.

Hawke

It's not going to get much better for a long time. Hope for catastrophic
care aided by the government, which probably will cover nearly everyone,
and
fairly large chunks of ordinary care paid out of your own pocket. I expect
some kind of price controls on drugs within five years. The way their
economics are going, they'll try to *raise* prices on a continuing basis,
and every other country but the US will resist. That means we'll pay all
of
it until we finally get down to clamping a lid on them.

Or don't get sick. Or shoot yourself when you do. d8-)


Boy, those are some swell choices, aren't they? Don't you just love living
in the greatest country in the world? I guess this is as good as it gets.

Hawke

HeyBub wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I guess if you need more reasons, I could come up with some.

So you are saying that the United States should invade a country
because we feel like it?

Yes.


There are thousands of grieving military families who would rip your
heart out of your chest for squandering their children's lives for
your "feel like it" approach.


I feel sorry for the family's loss. But no more so than a loss due to a
mountain climbing accident, a speedway crash, or from a sky-diver's failed
parachute.

Remember, our military are volunteers. They joined the military for the
opportunity to kill people and blow things up. Incidental to that choice was
the chance, of which they were well aware, of death or injury. They
willingly took that chance. For their family's sake. For their country's
sake. For duty's sake. For honor. For glory.

They went to war because they trained for war, because they wanted to go to
war, because they needed to go to war.

Here's the proof: 85% of the soldiers who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan
have reenlisted at the first opportunity. The remaining 15% retired, were
invalided out, or mistakenly married harridans.


You are one ignorant son of a bitch. The vast majority of Veterans
who need VA care are WW-II, Korea or Vietnam era and didn't volunteer.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:56:00 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Hawke wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
Since he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this
specifically I
think his statistics are probably accurate.
This statement would be achingly funny if it weren't so achingly sad...


Yeah, that would seem true when you take it out of context like you did.
Anyone reading the following qualifying statements would not get that
impression though. He's not just "any" economist. But then you would argue
with a Nobel Prize winning economist like Joe Steglitz or Paul Krugman
wouldn't you, even though they have Ph.D.s in economics and you don't. You
remind me of the Monty Python comedian who wrote the book, "How to Argue
with Anyone". Your discounting of Chang's work is equally as silly.

Hawke



But I'm *not* discounting his work. I'm discounting the confidence you
place in economics as a discipline and upon a single source no less.
Economics is barely a science - hence the term "Dismal Science". It's
predictive powers have been poor at best. You cite Krugman and I'll
cite von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman any one of whom (I'd argue)
contributed considerably more to making economics useful than
Krugman, but of course that's just my opinion and subject to revision.
The point wasn't to make fun of your source, but rather suggest that
breathless confidence in such a source is misplaced. If this thread - and the
entire history of economics - demonstrates anything is that the
field hasn't exactly distinguished itself with great results.

As to having received a Nobel, so did Carter (a incompetent political
hack), Arafat (a murdering thug), and Gore (a fraud and opportunist
feeding at the public trough) thereby demonstrating that the vacuity
of award today as it is made the handmaiden of political correctness.

Oh very well said! Bravo Sir...bravo indeed!!

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Jun 22, 10:23*pm, "Hawke" wrote:



We have three good choices for quality health care, four actually. Being
French or Canadian, being filthy rich, or being a member of congress. God
Damn it!, I don't qualify for any of them. Wouldn't you know it. Being a
member of the unwashed masses sucks.

Hawke

I think it ought to be a requirement that members of Congress have to
use only whatever government health plan they come up with.

Dan

On Jun 23, 8:51*am, " wrote:
On Jun 22, 10:23*pm, "Hawke" wrote:



We have three good choices for quality health care, four actually. Being
French or Canadian, being filthy rich, or being a member of congress. God
Damn it!, I don't qualify for any of them. Wouldn't you know it. Being a
member of the unwashed masses sucks.

Hawke

I think it ought to be a requirement that members of Congress have to
use only whatever government health plan they come up with.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Hear, Hear!

I have heard it said that the quickest way to solve the healthcare
mess is to either have congress get the same care we get, or we get
the same care congress currently gets.