I have not owned the Duster long enough to get any racing in yet. It is a clean, unmolested original. Bone stock, original P&I, and under 70k miles. This spring I will be dropping in a 340 drag motor & trans from one of my previous cars.

Personally, I think that nuke wasn't more fully exploited for two reasons: 1) government regulations and 2) public fear. Nuke is great right now, but could be a lot better. However, the "next step" in the use of the fuel rods involves handling of weapons grade materials. Treaties and regulation will not allow that, otherwise the fuel rods would last longer and yield more energy. The public fear... well... it's fear. And it's the only thing we have to fear.

Yes, I know that heating with oil is cheaper than heating with electricity. But if we were to better develop our nuke capabilities, that could change. And when we reach peak-oil, that will change anyway. There is no getting around the fact that "one day" WILL come.

That's when the Duster gets the next engine upgrade...
http://www.snowboard-mag.com/usr_ima...07_468x351.jpg

Really??!!! :eek:

Shaun at what point does it become someones responsibility to supply hear for themselves? I think this is part of the problem with the country. I understand if they are physically or mentally unable to work that we have a social responsibilty to help. But for someone that is capable, I think they need to assume the responsibility to heat their own home. If they cannot get a job that pays enough for the basic needs of survival then oil companies heating their homes does not solve the real problem.

Cashflyer,

7) Overhaul healthcare and do more to reign-in prices charged by prescription drug companys. I know this is anti-capitalism, but heathcare is an expense that creates a national burden - arguably a matter of national concern.

As a pre-announcement to my comments I own some pfizer stock so it definetly swades my opinion.

I am tired of Drug companies getting blamed for the health care costs. These guys spend millions and millions of dollars to create a drug. If by chance one of their drugs has an adverse side effect they get sued for billions. Then they have to fend off generic drug makers who want to copy their product without doing any work. If I were a drug company I would seriously consider shutting my doors and let people go to teva to make them new drugs that save lives. The drug companies deserve to get paid for the risks that they take on. No one ever complains about health care providers. These companies are printing money and since for most people their employer is flipping the bill no one says a word. It is ok with me if you want to reform health care just start looking at the entire profession not just drug makers.

Shaun, I would agree that there should be some sort of allowance for heating one's home. But that isn't what we are talking about, is it? The record oil profits came from the previous quarter which was during the nice hot summer and early fall. So to tax the oil companies now as is being proposed would do precisely NOTHING about heating oil prices.

The way I stated my position, and the way I meant it was an "A and B" solution... not an "A because of B" solution. I think the healthcare industry needs an overhaul, and I think the drug industry needs an overhaul as well.

Maybe I should add a point to my original list and suggest tht we overhaul civil litigation practices. That would solve some of your stated problem.

I actually DO realize that millions, and sometimes Billions, go into R&D on a drug. And I believe that the company has a right to recoup that investment as well as make a profit. However, I do not believe in price gouging when it comes to public health. There are people in our own country that cannot afford the medications they need to be healthy or to stay alive.

You've got a disease, little girl? No prob...we have the meds you need. Oh, wait... you're poor. Nevermind.


What solution do you suggest? Or is the system just fine as long as the dividend checks keep coming?


As for the companies who make generics... it's called competition.


Gouging report
comparison chart


And a question: Why are drug companys able to sell the same drugs cheaper in Canada than in the USA?

Disclaimer: I am not on any medications, nor do I own stock in any pharmaceutical company.

At what point? I'd say 69 year-old widow living on fixed income.

My grandfather is 83 and has a great pension being a postmaster all his life. He is ultra-frugal, except when going out to lunch, then it's all about fried calamari, eggplant parm, salads... but I digress. He lives in the woods, uses oil to heat his home, but he's had the chainsaw running for the past month, a few cord in the cellar and the woodstove ready to go.

It's a double-edged sword. I think it's great that he goes out cuts wood, keeps him young. I think it sad that a very comfortable middle-class man would even think he has to.

"You've got a disease, little girl? No prob...we have the meds you need. Oh, wait... you're poor. Nevermind."

Saving lives with drugs comes to this at some point, I agree. How do you say no to saving a life? To anyone?

What solution do you suggest? Or is the system just fine as long as the dividend checks keep coming?
It is completely uncalled for to make a personal attack on me for my opinion. You own 5 cars why not sell a couple of those and go buy some drugs for someone that can't afford them, I garuntee they are worth more than the dividend that I receive. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but don't attack me based on my opinion.

I wish I had a solution to this I think that is why it is so hard. Oddly we both agree on everything and niether of us have a solution that works. You suggest drug companies stop charging for drugs which doesn't work, and I feel that the drug companies are not reaping huge amounts of money so look elsewhere.

So honestly it is a conundrum because you do not want anyone to die, but the fact of the matter is that drugs do cost money and not matter what you sell them for someone will not be able to afford that price. Unless you charge one customer more than another for the same product. You clearly do not think that is fair because americans pay more for drugs than canadians. This by the way is due to the fact that the canadian gov't buys drugs in bulk from drug companies and the american gov't doesn't.

I check out your links what I looked quickly over was about drug stores marking up generic drugs. So I don't totally understand where that is going, but I could be missing a point.

As for generics being competition, I disagree. If that is competition than it should be fine for me to go copy Star Wars DVD's and sell them for 1/4 of the price. I would be arrested if I were to go on the street and sell exact copies of Star Wars a movie that is going on 30 years old, but I can sell a drug that is exactly the same for a 1/4 of the price and that is fine and dandy? ? ?

Man Shuan I would agree that your grandfather having to do all that is not fair. And this price surge was something that he could not have possibly forseen to prepare for. Retirement is another whole new problem, and honestly you are blessed that he has the ability to do what he does. I've got a grandmother that is bed ridden in an retirement home, and it is not an easy thing to deal with.

The only way I can defend myself against your example is to say that your grandfather fits into the category of physical (not likely) or mental (not likely) inability. So honestly my argument falls apart in your example, because I do not feel that it is fair for retired people to have to work. They have done thier duty.

Now I do not mean to divert your thread. On my rantings because my disagreements are not solutions to our nations problems. Just the first thing that came to my mind when I read your post was people who do not take responsibility for their actions, and I think this is one of the big problems with the country. The drug thing just bothers me and I appologize for getting your thread off topic.

Rich

Rich, good exchange of ideas and I completely agree with you RE: people not taking responsibility for their actions.

I've posted this in the past, pretty much sums up my take on that subject.

"I am really against the welfare system, mainly because it propagates cycles (poverty, need, expectation, abuse) rather than breaks them. The end game is that when you don't work for something, when it's just given to you, you'll never appreciate it, you'll never understand achievement, you'll never learn anything and be able to take those skills to modify them to tackle new challenges. Entitlement programs are poorly designed to make you FEEL like you are one thing, but don't give you the tools to actually BE that thing."

best wishes on your grandmother. Mine was the exact opposite of my grandfather, passing away 5 years ago. You'd swear he is 65 today, she was more like 90 when she passed, all because she didn't stay active. This oil/home heating oil thing is a blessing in disguise to some, a tragedy for others.

Re: Ideas for moving our Country forward
 

Removal of government regulation to enable a private high-speed data infrastructure to make us once again the leader in this area.

Removal of government regulation to enable private companies to usher in a new era of transportation innovation, to make us once again the leader in this area.

Removal of government regulation to enable a privatized topshelf education system, to make us once again the leader in this area.

No offense you may fancy yourself one, but you're not really...

Education.

Reduce the work week to four days.

John, please explain.

You seem to believe in entitlements and nanny government regulation.

You know who will run the government if this happens, right? While all of the Congressmen and Senators are trying to find the bathrooms and not get lost in the Capitol's underground transport, the lobbyists will be the most valuable people in town. They will be happy to show the new citizen politicans the "ropes."

Its a great idea in theory, but in practice it leaves a lot to be desired. Pick a company that you have a major investment in ... would you like their entire management sacked tomorrow so some "real citizens" can take over?

OK, without a post for post drag out John, please don't be shy. I do believe in some of these things, but can you point to examples that make you say I'm not a capitalist? or maybe I overstated that I am a huge capitalist?

Maybe the below will help clarify my position.

1. I believe business can and should make as much money as possible. I think it makes good business sense to give back to the community. Most businesses do. Taking that to the extreme, I am looking for a ghost writer now for a book project: creating a for-profit company based on a philanthropic agenda.

2. Entitlements: see above. I don't think they are entitlements if you are learning to support yourself in the process. As you can see from the text, I clearly don't believe in the Liberal entitlement programs that have plagued this country for so long.

3. Nanny regulations: this would have to be a point for point deal honestly. Many regulations I agree with their intent, environmental, labor, etc. Most are subject to unscrupulous deals made by politicians, hence their failings to do any good and therefore I am against them. Gov. regulation is an oxymoron really.

Rodeo - I agree with you. The Senate is built on long tenures and seniority. That is the institution itself. No matter how nice it would to be rid of Teddy.

What would I change? Tax write offs for second and third homes and all McMansions.

Yeah, I really don't have time right now to have a forum debate - I'm pretty busy. But this is interesting.

You said "And what does that say about our Society when we say it's OK for oil companies to reap massive profits when some people can't afford to keep their homes warm?"

Basically, when you say things like this it sounds like you think Companies "owe" something to society, and that so-called society is some greater-than-good entity that takes care of the poor, etc.

Companies don't owe anything to anybody. They are vilified by our society yet they are its greatest charitable donators. When unmired by unfair taxes and regulations, they give even more back.

It is completely uncalled for to make a personal attack on me for my opinion. You own 5 cars why not sell a couple of those and go buy some drugs for someone that can't afford them, I garuntee they are worth more than the dividend that I receive. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but don't attack me based on my opinion.
4 cars and 1 bike... but who's counting. Although it's not buying drugs, I do donate money that helps keep people alive - I donate to the charities locally that help buy heating oil for the elderly and poor. Maybe my statement hit a little too close to home for you, but the simple fact is that many peoples opinions of right and wrong are directly tied to who puts green in their pocket. Are you sure that you would feel no differently about drug company profits if you had absolutely no interest in their profitability? What if you were on the other end of the spectrum and not able to afford the meds you need? Maybe you're above all that. Great. Sorry.

You suggest drug companies stop charging for drugs which doesn't work, and I feel that the drug companies are not reaping huge amounts of money so look elsewhere.
I actually didn't say STOP charging, I only suggest more reasonable pricing. I wouldn't dream of price fixing on optional items like cigarettes or booze, but for some people drugs are a lot more than just an frivolous indulgence.

I don't have a ready-to-implement solution. And you are correct in that there will always be somebody who cannot afford the cost - no matter how low. I guess for those members of society who are elderly, disables, or etc, there will always have to be some point that the government starts assisting.

Unless you charge one customer more than another for the same product. You clearly do not think that is fair because americans pay more for drugs than canadians. This by the way is due to the fact that the canadian gov't buys drugs in bulk from drug companies and the american gov't doesn't.
Actually, that question was just a question. And you answered it. Thanks.

I check out your links what I looked quickly over was about drug stores marking up generic drugs. So I don't totally understand where that is going, but I could be missing a point.
The point is profit and greed. The chart shows wholesale cost compared to markup on generics. And we know that brand-names cost even more than generics. At what point do we feel that a markup become usurious to the purchaser?

As for generics being competition, I disagree. If that is competition than it should be fine for me to go copy Star Wars DVD's and sell them for 1/4 of the price.
I believe you are confusing patents with copyright. Patents are life limited, conditional, and are non-renewable. Drug patents are only good for 11 years. If a patent isn't properly executed, then a generic company can make a paragraph IV application to enter the market prior to the expiration of the patent. Drug companies know this - it's not like generic companies are blind siding them. A generic drug can only enter the market after the brand-name patent or other marketing exclusivities have expired, or have been successfully challenged in court, and FDA approval is granted.

Review the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act and the Hatch-Waxman Act.



I am still not taking any medications nor do I own any pharmaceutical stock. I also did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
All rights reserved and in God we trust. Amen.

NOTE: If we are to continue this debate, PM me.
I hate that I have hijacked the thread like this. Sorry all!!

Only because we use coal, natural gas and oil (yes! Oil) to make electricty.

When you use nuclear fission, the cost of the fuel is cheap. If 90% of our electric power was generated with Nuclear, no one would heat with oil, gas or anything else. They would use electric resistance heating or heat pumps.

The problem with nuclear power wasn't the government regulations, it was the public fear which drove the regulations to being absurd.

3 Mile Island should be held up as a positive example. You can have the most idiotic people making the worst decisions and completely destroy a nuclear power reactor, and still not kill, or hurt anyone or even leak radiation. It shows the designs and the reg's at the time worked.

Don't compare Chernobyl. That was a "reactor" in a barn. The Soviet Union needed cheap power so bad, that they built the reactors inside sheetmetal factory buildings with almost no shielding and definitely no containment facilities.

What would be the "right" way? Easy. Take the basic design used for Aircraft Carriers, and civilianize it. Create deep bunkers to put them in (old missle silos?), and make them no more than 500-600MW each.

Aurel: What does electricty cost per Kilowatt in France? I'll try to find out on the net as well.