I may be being unfair here, but the latest claim amongst American who
like Trump's tariffs is that the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme is a non-tariff barrier to trade. They may be the lunatics
involved here rather than Trump himself.
On 3/20/2025 10:33 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
I may be being unfair here, but the latest claim amongst American who
like Trump's tariffs is that the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme is a non-tariff barrier to trade. They may be the lunatics
involved here rather than Trump himself.
"Free trade" as practiced in the US for the past ~40 years was largely
only one kind of free trade, outsourcing of manufacturing and
low-skilled labor. There's been little free trade in white collar
services like doctors (who get paid 2 to 3x what their counterparts in Western Europe get paid) or medicines, and copyright terms and patent protections only got more stringent.
That is to say the white collar world made out and there was a side
benefit that blue collar ire at wage stagnation and high prices has been politically useful. As it is of course the fault of transgender
athletes, DEI, and too much woke messaging in movies and TV.
I may be being unfair here, but the latest claim amongst American who
like Trump's tariffs is that the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme is a non-tariff barrier to trade. They may be the lunatics
involved here rather than Trump himself.
The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme buys medicines which have
been approved as effective and cost-effective, and sells them on cheaply
to patients whose doctors have prescribed the medicines.
It's no kind of barrier to trade - anybody who wants a particular drug
can buy it directly from the manufacturer at a price they negotiate with manufacturer.
They won't have the buying power of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme,
which buys in much larger volumes, and employs people who know exactly
what they are buying, and who the alternative suppliers are.
When I read the New Yorker I see ads for medicines aimed directly at consumers. I don't see them in periodicals aimed only at the Australian market, not because they are illegal, but because not enough people in Australia would act on such advertisements.
We all know that if a drug is safe and effective we will be able to get
more cheaply through our doctors and the Australian Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme.
There is a lively market for illegal drugs in Australia - tests on the outflow from our sewage systems demonstrate that a lot cocaine and other illegal drugs do get consumed here,
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/12/australia-drug-use- wastewater-testing-methamphetamine-increase
So the US pharmaceutical industry wants to operate with the same kind of freedom as illegal drug traffickers. They wouldn't sell as much - the Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme sell to patients at less than purchase
cost, on the basis that curing patients is cheaper than treating them indefinitely, so we buy more than we would if individual patients had to
pay the full cost - but they might be able to extort higher prices from patients who could afford to pay.
I was in the US last week for a conference.
The mood has really shifted to the worse. Lot's of talk on the radio on people going bankrupt, how to survive the coming years, DOGE violating constitutional rights.
Before going, I had to check my text messages and online social
profiles, to be sure I had not made a comment about Trump. (many
examples of people send to prison for just not linking Trump)
Am 24.03.25 um 01:21 schrieb Klaus Kragelund:
I was in the US last week for a conference.
The mood has really shifted to the worse. Lot's of talk on the radio on
people going bankrupt, how to survive the coming years, DOGE violating
constitutional rights.
Before going, I had to check my text messages and online social
profiles, to be sure I had not made a comment about Trump. (many
examples of people send to prison for just not linking Trump)
A friend of mine wanted to attend the launch of a payload in FLA
that we had worked on for years. He canceled that a few days ago
because of that newfangled DOGE shit. You cannot let Trump's
ankle biters check / copy your company laptop.
I remember I didn't even get the soldering procedure for contemporary
Virtex FPGAs, let alone the chips, for stuff to end up on the ISS,
so I had to use prehistoric ones.
Needless to say, there won't be Xilinx in future projects here and it
won't be FLA but Kourou for takeoff.
It does not pay in the long run to piss off people.
Gerhard
On 20-03-2025 15:33, Bill Sloman wrote:
I may be being unfair here, but the latest claim amongst American who
like Trump's tariffs is that the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme is a non-tariff barrier to trade. They may be the lunatics
involved here rather than Trump himself.
The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme buys medicines which have
been approved as effective and cost-effective, and sells them on cheaply
to patients whose doctors have prescribed the medicines.
It's no kind of barrier to trade - anybody who wants a particular drug
can buy it directly from the manufacturer at a price they negotiate with
manufacturer.
They won't have the buying power of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme,
which buys in much larger volumes, and employs people who know exactly
what they are buying, and who the alternative suppliers are.
When I read the New Yorker I see ads for medicines aimed directly at
consumers. I don't see them in periodicals aimed only at the Australian
market, not because they are illegal, but because not enough people in
Australia would act on such advertisements.
We all know that if a drug is safe and effective we will be able to get
more cheaply through our doctors and the Australian Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme.
There is a lively market for illegal drugs in Australia - tests on the
outflow from our sewage systems demonstrate that a lot cocaine and other
illegal drugs do get consumed here,
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/12/australia-drug-use-
wastewater-testing-methamphetamine-increase
So the US pharmaceutical industry wants to operate with the same kind of
freedom as illegal drug traffickers. They wouldn't sell as much - the
Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme sell to patients at less than purchase
cost, on the basis that curing patients is cheaper than treating them
indefinitely, so we buy more than we would if individual patients had to
pay the full cost - but they might be able to extort higher prices from
patients who could afford to pay.
I was in the US last week for a conference.
The mood has really shifted to the worse. Lot's of talk on the radio on >people going bankrupt, how to survive the coming years, DOGE violating >constitutional rights.
Before going, I had to check my text messages and online social
profiles, to be sure I had not made a comment about Trump. (many
examples of people send to prison for just not linking Trump)
More homeless people than I have seen before (I have been going each
year for 15 years).
I hope it gets better soon and this is just a temporary situation.
More homeless people than I have seen before (I have been going each year for 15 years).
I hope it gets better soon and this is just a temporary situation.
On 3/23/2025 5:21 PM, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
More homeless people than I have seen before (I have been going each year for
15 years).
Homelessness is a persistent problem.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 01:21:24 +0100, Klaus Kragelund
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 20-03-2025 15:33, Bill Sloman wrote:
I may be being unfair here, but the latest claim amongst American who
like Trump's tariffs is that the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme is a non-tariff barrier to trade. They may be the lunatics
involved here rather than Trump himself.
The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme buys medicines which have
been approved as effective and cost-effective, and sells them on cheaply >>> to patients whose doctors have prescribed the medicines.
It's no kind of barrier to trade - anybody who wants a particular drug
can buy it directly from the manufacturer at a price they negotiate with >>> manufacturer.
They won't have the buying power of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme,
which buys in much larger volumes, and employs people who know exactly
what they are buying, and who the alternative suppliers are.
When I read the New Yorker I see ads for medicines aimed directly at
consumers. I don't see them in periodicals aimed only at the Australian
market, not because they are illegal, but because not enough people in
Australia would act on such advertisements.
We all know that if a drug is safe and effective we will be able to get
more cheaply through our doctors and the Australian Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme.
There is a lively market for illegal drugs in Australia - tests on the
outflow from our sewage systems demonstrate that a lot cocaine and other >>> illegal drugs do get consumed here,
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/12/australia-drug-use-
wastewater-testing-methamphetamine-increase
So the US pharmaceutical industry wants to operate with the same kind of >>> freedom as illegal drug traffickers. They wouldn't sell as much - the
Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme sell to patients at less than purchase
cost, on the basis that curing patients is cheaper than treating them
indefinitely, so we buy more than we would if individual patients had to >>> pay the full cost - but they might be able to extort higher prices from
patients who could afford to pay.
I was in the US last week for a conference.
The mood has really shifted to the worse. Lot's of talk on the radio on
people going bankrupt, how to survive the coming years, DOGE violating
constitutional rights.
Before going, I had to check my text messages and online social
profiles, to be sure I had not made a comment about Trump. (many
examples of people send to prison for just not linking Trump)
More homeless people than I have seen before (I have been going each
year for 15 years).
Where was that?
I hope it gets better soon and this is just a temporary situation.
There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA now. Some
have found housing - competing with everyone else - and some have not.
Illegal drugs don't help. Controlling the border will help both
problems.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 01:21:24 +0100, Klaus Kragelund
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 20-03-2025 15:33, Bill Sloman wrote:
I may be being unfair here, but the latest claim amongst American who
like Trump's tariffs is that the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme is a non-tariff barrier to trade. They may be the lunatics
involved here rather than Trump himself.
The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme buys medicines which have
been approved as effective and cost-effective, and sells them on cheaply >>> to patients whose doctors have prescribed the medicines.
It's no kind of barrier to trade - anybody who wants a particular drug
can buy it directly from the manufacturer at a price they negotiate with >>> manufacturer.
They won't have the buying power of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme,
which buys in much larger volumes, and employs people who know exactly
what they are buying, and who the alternative suppliers are.
When I read the New Yorker I see ads for medicines aimed directly at
consumers. I don't see them in periodicals aimed only at the Australian
market, not because they are illegal, but because not enough people in
Australia would act on such advertisements.
We all know that if a drug is safe and effective we will be able to get
more cheaply through our doctors and the Australian Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme.
There is a lively market for illegal drugs in Australia - tests on the
outflow from our sewage systems demonstrate that a lot cocaine and other >>> illegal drugs do get consumed here,
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/12/australia-drug-use-
wastewater-testing-methamphetamine-increase
So the US pharmaceutical industry wants to operate with the same kind of >>> freedom as illegal drug traffickers. They wouldn't sell as much - the
Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme sell to patients at less than purchase
cost, on the basis that curing patients is cheaper than treating them
indefinitely, so we buy more than we would if individual patients had to >>> pay the full cost - but they might be able to extort higher prices from
patients who could afford to pay.
I was in the US last week for a conference.
The mood has really shifted to the worse. Lot's of talk on the radio on
people going bankrupt, how to survive the coming years, DOGE violating
constitutional rights.
Before going, I had to check my text messages and online social
profiles, to be sure I had not made a comment about Trump. (many
examples of people send to prison for just not linking Trump)
More homeless people than I have seen before (I have been going each
year for 15 years).
Where was that?
I hope it gets better soon and this is just a temporary situation.
There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA now.
Some have found housing - competing with everyone else - and some have not.
Illegal drugs don't help. Controlling the border will help both
problems.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 08:40:46 -0700, Don Y
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On 3/23/2025 5:21 PM, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
More homeless people than I have seen before (I have been going each year for
15 years).
Homelessness is a persistent problem.
It's a persistent, gigabuck industry.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 08:40:46 -0700, Don Y
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On 3/23/2025 5:21 PM, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
More homeless people than I have seen before (I have been going each year for
15 years).
Homelessness is a persistent problem.
It's a persistent, gigabuck industry.
On 3/24/2025 2:02 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 08:40:46 -0700, Don Y
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On 3/23/2025 5:21 PM, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
More homeless people than I have seen before (I have been going each year for
15 years).
Homelessness is a persistent problem.
It's a persistent, gigabuck industry.
So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be homeless >anymore, depriving said "gigabuck industry" of their revenue. Of course, >conservatives aren't a fan of that idea, either.
No actual ideas, just complaints, lists of enemies, and conspiracy theories.
On 3/25/2025 7:48 AM, bitrex wrote:
So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be homeless
anymore,
No. There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of support that you provide.
Unless you resort to "institutionalizing" people "for their own good".
Housing needs to be *affordable* and sited in locations that folks
will be comfortable living (and MAKING a living). No one wants to
"invest" in places where the only folks who will want to habitate
can't afford to provide sufficient profit for the investor -- esp
if there are other places where they can make a bigger, quicker buck!
On 3/25/2025 7:48 AM, bitrex wrote:
So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be homeless
anymore,
No. There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of support that you provide.
Unless you resort to "institutionalizing" people "for their own good".
Housing needs to be *affordable* and sited in locations that folks
will be comfortable living (and MAKING a living). No one wants to
"invest" in places where the only folks who will want to habitate
can't afford to provide sufficient profit for the investor -- esp
if there are other places where they can make a bigger, quicker buck!
A lot of "charity" produces little "result". We've canvased lots
of them with an eye towards our estate planning. If you hold
their feet to the fire and ask for documented results of their
past efforts, most will timidly admit that they haven't met
their own stated goals!
["How many of these battered women have you managed to give new
lives through your efforts?" "None, really. They all end up
back in the same sorts of situations that led them to coming here".
"Then, why would I want to gift you anything if your 'results' are
only temporary? What is the 'lifetime maintenance cost' for these
people that you CLAIM to be serving? Aren't you obviously doing
something WRONG??"]
So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be homeless anymore,
depriving said "gigabuck industry" of their revenue. Of course, conservatives aren't a fan of that idea, either.
No actual ideas, just complaints, lists of enemies, and conspiracy theories.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 10:48:36 -0400, bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/24/2025 2:02 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 08:40:46 -0700, Don Y
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On 3/23/2025 5:21 PM, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
More homeless people than I have seen before (I have been going each year for
15 years).
Homelessness is a persistent problem.
It's a persistent, gigabuck industry.
So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be homeless
anymore, depriving said "gigabuck industry" of their revenue. Of course,
conservatives aren't a fan of that idea, either.
No actual ideas, just complaints, lists of enemies, and conspiracy theories.
There are a billion people who would move into the USA, or into
Dallas, if we offer them free housing and food and medical care.
And there are thousands of consultants and providers and NGOs who will
manage the money.
Basic conservation principles are not conspiracy theories.
On 3/25/2025 11:24 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 3/25/2025 7:48 AM, bitrex wrote:
So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be homeless anymore,
No. There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of
support that you provide.
Sure, there are no perfect solutions. So what.
Unless you resort to "institutionalizing" people "for their own good".
Many of he homeless we're discussing are drug-addicted, and lots of Americans seem to want that for the seriously drug addicted. They seem to believe that drug addicts who aren't "trying to get better" need to be forced to.
They seem to be under the misapprehension that recovery from serious drug addiction is a matter of like, finding the right therapist vs. fighting one of
the most complex and poorly understood conditions in modern medicine, with relapse rates worse than the worst cancers even with the best care money can buy.
Unfortunately the outcome of many severe disease processes without reliable cures is death. But the ones who are destined to recover have a better shot at
it with stable housing.
But yes, institutionalization and forced treatment with non-evidence based medicine is doomed to fail and the amount of money that can be wasted there for
little result (and taxpayer outrage at it) far exceeds the little result that could be obtained by cheaper means.
Housing needs to be *affordable* and sited in locations that folks
will be comfortable living (and MAKING a living). No one wants to
"invest" in places where the only folks who will want to habitate
can't afford to provide sufficient profit for the investor -- esp
if there are other places where they can make a bigger, quicker buck!
There's a trickle-down theory of housing that if you just build new market-rate
the prices on older stock will come down, there's a certain logic to it but proponents sometimes use Tokyo Japan as an example of a city that did it "right."
Japan is a terrible example of doing something "right" they had the better part
of two decades of economic stagnation and a whole lost generation to help keep
their housing costs low, it wasn't just urban policy.
Meanwhile the crisis is likely to only get more pressing in the US as housing and particularly rental inventory remains low, and use of AI tools to screen renters is bringing the same "fairness" to the rental market as resume panopticons brought to the IT hiring business.
On 3/25/2025 9:12 AM, bitrex wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:24 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 3/25/2025 7:48 AM, bitrex wrote:
So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be
homeless anymore,
No. There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of
support that you provide.
Sure, there are no perfect solutions. So what.
*Expecting* it to be solvable by "mere handwaving" is naive.
Like the example I gave of the organization, here, that hands
*checks* to homeless youth.
All THAT does is enable them to engage in the same behaviors
that have kept them from "settling down" and overcoming their
current issues.
Many also suffer from mental illnesses. Neither "problem" has quick,
easy cures. Throwing staff and money at it isn't likely going to
achieve any positive results -- except for the exceptional cases
that manage to pull their shit together AND leave the lifestyle
that had *put* them in that situation.
Going back to "the same old crowd" (of friends) is likely going to put
them back where they started (on their failed trajectory).
Healthy foods, access to good medical care, good support/social networks, etc.
Housing, by itself, doesn't do much.
So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be homeless >>>>> anymore,
No. There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of >>>> support that you provide.
Sure, there are no perfect solutions. So what.
*Expecting* it to be solvable by "mere handwaving" is naive.
Like the example I gave of the organization, here, that hands
*checks* to homeless youth.
All THAT does is enable them to engage in the same behaviors
that have kept them from "settling down" and overcoming their
current issues.
Treating adults like naughty grade school children and trying to modify their behaviors using the methods parents (sometimes with some success, at least at that stage of development) use to modify the behaviors of their naughty schoolchildren tends to be ineffective, what a lot of them needed was tough love at age 8 rather than the capricious and dysfunctional parents they actually got.
But the state's usual fashion of tough love tends to get to most of these citizens far too late.
My folks were more dysfunctional and capricious than many but not as bad as some and I had some other more positive influences, so I got a fighting chance.
Other members of "the wrong crowd" I knew back in the day didn't get as fighting a chance and I visit their graves sometimes.
Many also suffer from mental illnesses. Neither "problem" has quick,
easy cures. Throwing staff and money at it isn't likely going to
achieve any positive results -- except for the exceptional cases
that manage to pull their shit together AND leave the lifestyle
that had *put* them in that situation.
Going back to "the same old crowd" (of friends) is likely going to put
them back where they started (on their failed trajectory).
Yes, the "exceptional cases" are indeed who you're working for, but I don't think they're quite as uncommon as you seem to be making them out to be.
Part of the point of "throwing stuff and money" is because you have to show someone love and trust who's likely never experienced it _at all_ before you show them tough love or it just seems like more punishment, not a particularly
effective method of enticing anyone back into society.
Or just don't do anything but have noble ideals and they'll find the money from
the copper in the walls of the development near you and maybe find housing in your shed or under the bridge in your neighborhood, up to you.
Healthy foods, access to good medical care, good support/social networks,
etc.
Housing, by itself, doesn't do much.
Even people with housing often don't have reliable access to those things, much
less without it!
You are sho'nuff fucked if you don't have secure housing in America. Difficult
to even enumerate all the additional ways a person is fucked without it, on top
of whatever mental health and/or addiction issue they're suffering from.
On 3/25/2025 9:12 AM, bitrex wrote:
On 3/25/2025 11:24 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 3/25/2025 7:48 AM, bitrex wrote:
So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be
homeless anymore,
No. There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of
support that you provide.
Sure, there are no perfect solutions. So what.
*Expecting* it to be solvable by "mere handwaving" is naive.
Like the example I gave of the organization, here, that hands
*checks* to homeless youth.
All THAT does is enable them to engage in the same behaviors
that have kept them from "settling down" and overcoming their
current issues.
E.g., allowing them to claim the need for "emergency relief"
(a special "exception" that is put in place to handle those
"emergency situations") to buy food -- when they have spent
their regular stipend check on something *frivolous* doesn't
teach them to avoid the wasteful spending; you've bailed them
out, again!
Unless you resort to "institutionalizing" people "for their own good".
Many of he homeless we're discussing are drug-addicted, and lots of
Americans seem to want that for the seriously drug addicted. They seem
to believe that drug addicts who aren't "trying to get better" need to
be forced to.
Many also suffer from mental illnesses. Neither "problem" has quick,
easy cures. Throwing staff and money at it isn't likely going to
achieve any positive results -- except for the exceptional cases
that manage to pull their shit together AND leave the lifestyle
that had *put* them in that situation.
Going back to "the same old crowd" (of friends) is likely going to put
them back where they started (on their failed trajectory).
They seem to be under the misapprehension that recovery from serious
drug addiction is a matter of like, finding the right therapist vs.
fighting one of the most complex and poorly understood conditions in
modern medicine, with relapse rates worse than the worst cancers even
with the best care money can buy.
No, but folks who don't *commit* to recovery sure as shit aren't going
to STUMBLE into sobriety!
Give every "drunk" Antabuse and you can eliminate alcoholism, right?
(I.e., if the "drunk" isn't committed to getting sober, Antabuse
is just going to piss him off).
Unfortunately the outcome of many severe disease processes without
reliable cures is death. But the ones who are destined to recover have
a better shot at it with stable housing.
Healthy foods, access to good medical care, good support/social networks, etc.
Housing, by itself, doesn't do much.
But yes, institutionalization and forced treatment with non-evidence
based medicine is doomed to fail and the amount of money that can be
wasted there for little result (and taxpayer outrage at it) far
exceeds the little result that could be obtained by cheaper means.
Problems only get solved when you are *committed* to solving them.
If (like the homeless youth issue, above) all you are doing is
paying lip service to the problem, you are effectively just
rationalizing the NEED for your paycheck.
I give my time to organizations that, I see, produce results. As
*I* am involved, I can bear witness to those results -- instead of
being duped/misled by glossy annual reports.
[This subject -- charities -- often comes up at dinner parties; friends/friends-of-friends wondering where to put their donations.
The first thing I tell them is to volunteer *at* the organization
so they can *see* how their monies will be spent. "Gee, they just
bought another building! How many buildings does it take to
HAND OUT STIPEND CHECKS???"]
Housing needs to be *affordable* and sited in locations that folks
will be comfortable living (and MAKING a living). No one wants to
"invest" in places where the only folks who will want to habitate
can't afford to provide sufficient profit for the investor -- esp
if there are other places where they can make a bigger, quicker buck!
There's a trickle-down theory of housing that if you just build new
market-rate the prices on older stock will come down, there's a
certain logic to it but proponents sometimes use Tokyo Japan as an
example of a city that did it "right."
Prices only come down when there is a "surplus" (for some definition of "surplus") of units. We have seen a significant up-tick in home prices
as the influx of Californians (who are used to paying ridiculously
high prices for tiny plots of land) puts a bias in what buyers are
willing to pay for a given property.
[A friend put $200K into a small home he purchased for $500K. And,
thought nothing of it! Really? What was "missing" that needed a
$200K upgrade? You've gained no extra floor space. You have the
same types of appliances (if you consider them part of the property).
The yard is the same. So...?]
Japan is a terrible example of doing something "right" they had the
better part of two decades of economic stagnation and a whole lost
generation to help keep their housing costs low, it wasn't just urban
policy.
Japanese homes (according to a neighbor who lived there for many
years and married a Japanese woman) are considerably different
from US homes.
On 3/25/2025 12:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be
homeless anymore,
No. There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of >>>>> support that you provide.
Sure, there are no perfect solutions. So what.
*Expecting* it to be solvable by "mere handwaving" is naive.
Like the example I gave of the organization, here, that hands
*checks* to homeless youth.
All THAT does is enable them to engage in the same behaviors
that have kept them from "settling down" and overcoming their
current issues.
Treating adults like naughty grade school children and trying to
modify their behaviors using the methods parents (sometimes with some
success, at least at that stage of development) use to modify the
behaviors of their naughty schoolchildren tends to be ineffective,
what a lot of them needed was tough love at age 8 rather than the
capricious and dysfunctional parents they actually got.
That ignores the problem. You have to understand the problem
before you can propose/develop a solution for it. Otherwise,
you are just throwing money and effort at it and "hoping for the best"
But the state's usual fashion of tough love tends to get to most of
these citizens far too late.
The State doesn't have the patience to deal with these problems.
Why should the state have to fix the results of poor parenting,
poor environment, etc.?
If it *should*, then THAT has to become a priority. Otherwise,
The State does what is most expedient (which may not be best nor
cheapest -- politicians tend not to worry about details...)
My folks were more dysfunctional and capricious than many but not as
bad as some and I had some other more positive influences, so I got a
fighting chance. Other members of "the wrong crowd" I knew back in the
day didn't get as fighting a chance and I visit their graves sometimes.
Many also suffer from mental illnesses. Neither "problem" has quick,
easy cures. Throwing staff and money at it isn't likely going to
achieve any positive results -- except for the exceptional cases
that manage to pull their shit together AND leave the lifestyle
that had *put* them in that situation.
Going back to "the same old crowd" (of friends) is likely going to put
them back where they started (on their failed trajectory).
Yes, the "exceptional cases" are indeed who you're working for, but I
don't think they're quite as uncommon as you seem to be making them
out to be.
Everyone wants their donations (which are manifestations of working hours
out of their earlier lives) to be used effectively. It's rare that someone will willingly make a large donation (time or money) in the HOPE of some positive result -- absent any real guarantees!
Part of the point of "throwing stuff and money" is because you have to
show someone love and trust who's likely never experienced it _at all_
before you show them tough love or it just seems like more punishment,
not a particularly effective method of enticing anyone back into society.
We have a significant homelessness problem. In part, because our
climate is more tolerant of living out-of-doors (I knew a guy who
lived in a TENT in his mom's back yard -- she forbid him in the
house; long story). Part because we have a fair bit of "free"
services (e.g., one can ride public transportation "for free"
instead of relying on someone to transport you -- undoubtedly for
a "cut" of your take -- to your "panhandling intersection").
And, because the police tend to be a bit more tolerant than in
other locales.
If someone sets up a tent on the "wild" side of our back fence,
should I just "feel sorry for him"? Run over and give him some cash?
Invite him to dinner? Will ANY of these things actually make a
difference -- or, just encourage others to come by for their share?
These problems are larger than "individuals". And, tend to require
more expertise than "well meaning groups" have available.
Take a look at Efinix.
Gerhard
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
< >https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:14:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
<
https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
Digikey doesn't want to show me (or sell me) anything. OK, deal.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:14:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
<
https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
Digikey doesn't want to show me (or sell me) anything. OK, deal.
On 3/28/25 03:28, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:14:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
<
https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
Digikey doesn't want to show me (or sell me) anything. OK, deal.
It's an FPGA in a 324-ball BGA. A simple search on type number
brings it up easily enough.
Jeroen Belleman
On 28/03/2025 1:28 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:14:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
<
https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
Digikey doesn't want to show me (or sell me) anything. OK, deal.
Maybe the US site will work:
https://www.digikey.com.au/en/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:40:53 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/28/25 03:28, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:14:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
<
https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
Digikey doesn't want to show me (or sell me) anything. OK, deal.
It's an FPGA in a 324-ball BGA. A simple search on type number
brings it up easily enough.
Jeroen Belleman
Digikey.de refuses to believe that I'm a human.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:40:53 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/28/25 03:28, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:14:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
<
https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
Digikey doesn't want to show me (or sell me) anything. OK, deal.
It's an FPGA in a 324-ball BGA. A simple search on type number
brings it up easily enough.
Jeroen Belleman
Digikey.de refuses to believe that I'm a human.
On 28/03/2025 1:28 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:14:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
<
https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
Digikey doesn't want to show me (or sell me) anything. OK, deal.
Maybe the US site will work:
https://www.digikey.com.au/en/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:40:53 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/28/25 03:28, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:14:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
<
https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
Digikey doesn't want to show me (or sell me) anything. OK, deal.
It's an FPGA in a 324-ball BGA. A simple search on type number
brings it up easily enough.
Jeroen Belleman
Digikey.de refuses to believe that I'm a human.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:55:50 -0700, john larkin <jlArbor.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:40:53 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/28/25 03:28, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:14:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
<
https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
Digikey doesn't want to show me (or sell me) anything. OK, deal.
It's an FPGA in a 324-ball BGA. A simple search on type number
brings it up easily enough.
Jeroen Belleman
Digikey.de refuses to believe that I'm a human.
I didn't have any problem using Bing, but I did have to pass an
are-you-human test consisting of holding the cursor down on the test
shape until success, a few seconds.
Joe
If someone sets up a tent on the "wild" side of our back fence,
should I just "feel sorry for him"? Run over and give him some cash?
Invite him to dinner? Will ANY of these things actually make a
difference -- or, just encourage others to come by for their share?
On 2025-03-25, Don Y <[email protected]d> wrote:
If someone sets up a tent on the "wild" side of our back fence,
should I just "feel sorry for him"? Run over and give him some cash?
Invite him to dinner? Will ANY of these things actually make a
difference -- or, just encourage others to come by for their share?
You've got a new neighbor, act apropriately.
On 3/28/25 18:11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:55:50 -0700, john larkin <jlArbor.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:40:53 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/28/25 03:28, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:14:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
<
https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
Digikey doesn't want to show me (or sell me) anything. OK, deal.
It's an FPGA in a 324-ball BGA. A simple search on type number
brings it up easily enough.
Jeroen Belleman
Digikey.de refuses to believe that I'm a human.
I didn't have any problem using Bing, but I did have to pass an
are-you-human test consisting of holding the cursor down on the test
shape until success, a few seconds.
Joe
Maybe it has a robot doing it for you.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:40:53 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/28/25 03:28, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:14:28 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 24.03.25 um 15:16 schrieb john larkin:
Take a look at Efinix.
I'm just looking at this here:
<
https://www.digikey.de/de/products/detail/cologne-chip/CCGM1A1-BGA324/16087879
>
Gerhard
Digikey doesn't want to show me (or sell me) anything. OK, deal.
It's an FPGA in a 324-ball BGA. A simple search on type number
brings it up easily enough.
Jeroen Belleman
Digikey.de refuses to believe that I'm a human.
Many of he homeless we're discussing are drug-addicted, and lots of
Americans seem to want that for the seriously drug addicted. They seem
to believe that drug addicts who aren't "trying to get better" need to
be forced to.
In article <67e2d5f0$0$5280$[email protected]>,
bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
Many of he homeless we're discussing are drug-addicted, and lots of >>Americans seem to want that for the seriously drug addicted. They seem
to believe that drug addicts who aren't "trying to get better" need to
be forced to.
Let's start at the outset. They get addicted because they
1. fled their homeland being bombed
2. get in a destitute financial situation
3. are mentally unstable being in a sect
4. have post war syndrome, having killed too many innocent children.
5. be legally insane, but not be treated and detained properly
On 24-03-2025 15:21, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 01:21:24 +0100, Klaus Kragelund
<[email protected]> wrote:
Most of the peope I saw that was sleeping on the street was blackI hope it gets better soon and this is just a temporary situation.
There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA now. Some
have found housing - competing with everyone else - and some have not.
Illegal drugs don't help. Controlling the border will help both
problems.
people, many with obvious mental problems
One family a collegaue of mine talked to, the husband had a tripple bypass.They had to sell everything they had to pay hospital bills. They
were staying at a hotel, with no plan for what to do when the money runs
out.
Most of the peope I saw that was sleeping on the street was black people, many
with obvious mental problems
One family a collegaue of mine talked to, the husband had a tripple bypass.They
had to sell everything they had to pay hospital bills. They were staying at a hotel, with no plan for what to do when the money runs out.
On 3/24/25 5:46 PM, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
On 24-03-2025 15:21, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 01:21:24 +0100, Klaus Kragelund
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Most of the peope I saw that was sleeping on the street was blackI hope it gets better soon and this is just a temporary situation.
There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA now. Some
have found housing - competing with everyone else - and some have not.
Illegal drugs don't help. Controlling the border will help both
problems.
people, many with obvious mental problems
One family a collegaue of mine talked to, the husband had a tripple
bypass.They had to sell everything they had to pay hospital bills.
They were staying at a hotel, with no plan for what to do when the
money runs out.
I am living in the US for almost 30 years now. Most of the time
self-employed so no cadillac-style corporate health plan. It has never
been a problem to obtain health insurance. It just became more expensive
when Obamacare started.
A good friend of mine in a similar situation (engineer but not
corporate) had a serious heart attack while we were on a cycling trip.
Slim, trim and sporty, I couldn't believe it. I called, the ambulance
arrived two minutes later, he was transported to a hospital and from
there to another because the required procedure was a bit complicated.
His share of the bill was miniscule.
A person with a decent income (engineers et cetera) has enough money to
pay for health insurance for their family. I personally know some who
instead chose to buy a sports car or whatever and take a gamble on their health. Well, this is America, so you have that choice. Of course, like
any gamble making a poor choice can backfire spectacularly (and has). I
can tell a lot of stories about the latter, and none of them were due to
a supposedly poor health system. It was all about choices.
Someone with lower income receives huge subsidies and enjoys almost
zero-cost health insurance. They can also file for charity care at the hospital which, given the income is truly low, is generally granted.
Poor people are on Medicaid where everything is free.
You won't read that in the usual sensationalist press but that's how
health care in America really is. Personally I like it better here than
in Germany where I lived before. Except for the dental insurance which
is pretty much a joke in the US.
What you said, except that I've been here for 42 years. I'm super
grateful not to be under Canada's socialized medicine anymore. My
wife's favorite cousin in Vanouver had to wait SIX MONTHS for thyroid
cancer surgery. Fortunately she survived, little thanks to the Canadian health system.
For dental, you can get a very low cost plan from Aetna that doesn't pay
for anything, but entitles you to the insurance rate from your
dentist--about a 50% discount. It's $60 per year iirc.
The reason is that the insurance companies demand a big discount from
what the dentist's 'rates' are, so dentists don't dare charge you what
they charge the companies. ...
... Fortunately, the free market being what it
is, there's an app for that. ;)
On 4/15/25 9:01 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
[...]
What you said, except that I've been here for 42 years.� I'm super
grateful not to be under Canada's socialized medicine anymore.� My
wife's favorite cousin in Vanouver had to wait SIX MONTHS for thyroid
cancer surgery.� Fortunately she survived, little thanks to the Canadian
health system.
Yep, similar in the UK and other places :-(
I worked at a med devices company for a few years and when I was at the
Mayo Clinic in Rochester MN I heard a lot of Canadian accents. Hoose,
aboot, and so on :-)
Chats in the evenings revealed the usual. Wealthier Canadians carried a
Mayo Care Card. The wife of one guy put it bluntly: "My hubby here would >likely be dead without it". Almost made me choke up. He and I clinked a
pint of IPA to that.
A judge on the Canadian Supreme Court famously wrote "Access to a
waiting list is not access to health care".
For dental, you can get a very low cost plan from Aetna that doesn't pay
for anything, but entitles you to the insurance rate from your
dentist--about a 50% discount.� It's $60 per year iirc.
The reason is that the insurance companies demand a big discount from
what the dentist's 'rates' are, so dentists don't dare charge you what
they charge the companies. ...
Yet they do :-(
I just needed two crowns. They cost $1100 each. Should have been $300
per insurance list but the dentist tacks on a lot of stuff such as lab
fees, prep, cor fee, and yada yada yada. They all do so yuo can't really
do anything about it.
Still, like you said it reduces the cost a little. A friend without
dental "insurance" paif $1500 per crown.
... Fortunately, the free market being what it
is, there's an app for that. ;)
Surprisingly, even the government health plan for older people here in
the US (Medicare) is better than in other countries. I am very involved
in that with a relative and I am amazed what they cover.
Most media constantly razz the US for bad healthcare. IMO that's largely >baloney.
Same for social security. Having lived in several countries I can
compare and the US system wins, big time.
On 4/15/25 9:01 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
[...]
What you said, except that I've been here for 42 years. I'm super
grateful not to be under Canada's socialized medicine anymore. My
wife's favorite cousin in Vanouver had to wait SIX MONTHS for thyroid
cancer surgery. Fortunately she survived, little thanks to the
Canadian health system.
Yep, similar in the UK and other places :-(
I worked at a med devices company for a few years and when I was at the
Mayo Clinic in Rochester MN I heard a lot of Canadian accents. Hoose,
aboot, and so on :-)
Chats in the evenings revealed the usual. Wealthier Canadians carried a
Mayo Care Card. The wife of one guy put it bluntly: "My hubby here would likely be dead without it". Almost made me choke up. He and I clinked a
pint of IPA to that.
A judge on the Canadian Supreme Court famously wrote "Access to a
waiting list is not access to health care".
For dental, you can get a very low cost plan from Aetna that doesn't
pay for anything, but entitles you to the insurance rate from your
dentist--about a 50% discount. It's $60 per year iirc.
The reason is that the insurance companies demand a big discount from
what the dentist's 'rates' are, so dentists don't dare charge you what
they charge the companies. ...
Yet they do :-(
I just needed two crowns. They cost $1100 each. Should have been $300
per insurance list but the dentist tacks on a lot of stuff such as lab
fees, prep, cor fee, and yada yada yada. They all do so yuo can't really
do anything about it.
Still, like you said it reduces the cost a little. A friend without
dental "insurance" paif $1500 per crown.
... Fortunately, the free market being what it
is, there's an app for that. ;)
Surprisingly, even the government health plan for older people here in
the US (Medicare) is better than in other countries. I am very involved
in that with a relative and I am amazed what they cover.
Most media constantly razz the US for bad healthcare. IMO that's largely baloney.
Same for social security. Having lived in several countries I can
compare and the US system wins, big time.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 15:12:47 -0700, Joerg <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/15/25 9:01 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
[...]
What you said, except that I've been here for 42 years. I'm super
grateful not to be under Canada's socialized medicine anymore. My
wife's favorite cousin in Vanouver had to wait SIX MONTHS for thyroid
cancer surgery. Fortunately she survived, little thanks to the Canadian >>> health system.
Yep, similar in the UK and other places :-(
I worked at a med devices company for a few years and when I was at the
Mayo Clinic in Rochester MN I heard a lot of Canadian accents. Hoose,
aboot, and so on :-)
Chats in the evenings revealed the usual. Wealthier Canadians carried a
Mayo Care Card. The wife of one guy put it bluntly: "My hubby here would
likely be dead without it". Almost made me choke up. He and I clinked a
pint of IPA to that.
A judge on the Canadian Supreme Court famously wrote "Access to a
waiting list is not access to health care".
For dental, you can get a very low cost plan from Aetna that doesn't pay >>> for anything, but entitles you to the insurance rate from your
dentist--about a 50% discount. It's $60 per year iirc.
The reason is that the insurance companies demand a big discount from
what the dentist's 'rates' are, so dentists don't dare charge you what
they charge the companies. ...
Yet they do :-(
I just needed two crowns. They cost $1100 each. Should have been $300
per insurance list but the dentist tacks on a lot of stuff such as lab
fees, prep, cor fee, and yada yada yada. They all do so yuo can't really
do anything about it.
Still, like you said it reduces the cost a little. A friend without
dental "insurance" paif $1500 per crown.
... Fortunately, the free market being what it
is, there's an app for that. ;)
Surprisingly, even the government health plan for older people here in
the US (Medicare) is better than in other countries. I am very involved
in that with a relative and I am amazed what they cover.
Most media constantly razz the US for bad healthcare. IMO that's largely
baloney.
Same for social security. Having lived in several countries I can
compare and the US system wins, big time.
I have Kaiser, and now Kaiser+Medicaire. K is great, a true HMO, with
a flat fee per month to keep you healthy. My company pays for
employees.
If you don't like your primary MD, you tell them so and they send
resumes to let you pick another one. My current MD wears miniskirts
and calls me John and I call her Sam.
I just refilled some prescriptions online. They will be mailed to me.
Total cost = zero.
On 4/17/25 3:40 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 15:12:47 -0700, Joerg <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/15/25 9:01 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
[...]
What you said, except that I've been here for 42 years.� I'm super
grateful not to be under Canada's socialized medicine anymore.� My
wife's favorite cousin in Vanouver had to wait SIX MONTHS for thyroid
cancer surgery.� Fortunately she survived, little thanks to the Canadian >>>> health system.
Yep, similar in the UK and other places :-(
I worked at a med devices company for a few years and when I was at the
Mayo Clinic in Rochester MN I heard a lot of Canadian accents. Hoose,
aboot, and so on :-)
Chats in the evenings revealed the usual. Wealthier Canadians carried a
Mayo Care Card. The wife of one guy put it bluntly: "My hubby here would >>> likely be dead without it". Almost made me choke up. He and I clinked a
pint of IPA to that.
A judge on the Canadian Supreme Court famously wrote "Access to a
waiting list is not access to health care".
For dental, you can get a very low cost plan from Aetna that doesn't pay >>>> for anything, but entitles you to the insurance rate from your
dentist--about a 50% discount.� It's $60 per year iirc.
The reason is that the insurance companies demand a big discount from
what the dentist's 'rates' are, so dentists don't dare charge you what >>>> they charge the companies. ...
Yet they do :-(
I just needed two crowns. They cost $1100 each. Should have been $300
per insurance list but the dentist tacks on a lot of stuff such as lab
fees, prep, cor fee, and yada yada yada. They all do so yuo can't really >>> do anything about it.
Still, like you said it reduces the cost a little. A friend without
dental "insurance" paif $1500 per crown.
... Fortunately, the free market being what it
is, there's an app for that. ;)
Surprisingly, even the government health plan for older people here in
the US (Medicare) is better than in other countries. I am very involved
in that with a relative and I am amazed what they cover.
Most media constantly razz the US for bad healthcare. IMO that's largely >>> baloney.
Same for social security. Having lived in several countries I can
compare and the US system wins, big time.
I have Kaiser, and now Kaiser+Medicaire. K is great, a true HMO, with
a flat fee per month to keep you healthy. My company pays for
employees.
If you don't like your primary MD, you tell them so and they send
resumes to let you pick another one. My current MD wears miniskirts
and calls me John and I call her Sam.
Hey, you're married :-)
I just refilled some prescriptions online. They will be mailed to me.
Total cost = zero.
Yep. One downside with Kaiser is that it can take a while until they
take some ailment seriously enough. You have to be the squeaky wheel or
it has had to become really bad, like not able to walk anymore. OTOH
they insist on preventative care which is good. Cancer screening and stuff.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:22:39 |
| Calls: | 12,097 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,858 |