Print

Print


We don’t want to be Royals………: )  WWII was the British-Canadian ticket to national health care (NHC). England, especially London had been so horribly bombed to rubble, the parliament realized the most powerful way to keep citizens who survived protected was immediate creation of ‘medical care for all’. Huge security blanket for the populace. Your gov’t considers access to health care a right just as critical to public welfare as clean water….which is brilliant strategy long term.  Big pharma has to negotiate drug prices there.  We USAers live w the healthcare is a privilege model. And big pharma spends unfathomable lobby $ getting congressional members to keep dismantling consumer protections. 2004 law passed that prohibited the gov’t from negotiating for lower drug prices. Then began the surge of laws protecting giants like Medtronic (pace makers, etc) from being sued. The MO seems to be relentless consumer protection laws and regulations under attack, while pushing for massive privatization for-profit human service institutional takeovers. I

 


From: SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration- [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Barry K. MacKay
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SCIART] Work for free is not confined to art

 

Two of the things confuse Canadians…why Americans don’t want the government to help protect them against the effects of disease and illness (but seem to have no problem with obscene amounts to protect them from the vastly less dangerous and widespread threat of terrorists…a minute fraction of one percent of what illness does in terms of hurting Americans, killing them, and damaging them economically), and the other is why our own increasingly fanatical leader seems to want to emulate that.

 

There are quite a few other things…but, if I mention them I’ll get accused of (a) being anti-American (I’m not, anything but, in fact) and (b) someone will complain that I’m way too far off topic.    One does not want collusion, but I can’t imagine how telling people how much you earn for a given job equals anything like powerful companies getting together to fix prices, or how telling people what they can say constitutes free speech…up here who would care?.   

 

Are not artists usually among the freest and the most enterprising of free enterprisers?

 

Barry

 

 

Barry Kent MacKay

Bird Artist, Illustrator

Studio: (905)-472-9731

http://www.barrykentmackay.ca
[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration- [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Bartrug
Sent: May-04-14 8:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SCIART] Work for free is not confined to art

 

The wiles and wherefores of law are often confounding.  Back in the 80's hospitals and community pharmacies started banding together in groups so they could receive lower (bulk) prices from wholesalers.  Nope.  Price fixing.  It almost took an act of Congress (this was when Congress was still able to act) to allow this process to continue.

Freedom of speech?  I didn't know you lived in Europe.

:)b 

 

On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Catherine Wilson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Is it collusion if it is posted publicly? (Which is what I'm thinking of doing now.) Can it be price fixing if its many prices from many sources that are all personal data points? I want to look deeper into this. 

 

Um and what about freedom of speech?

 

________________________________________________

Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at
http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv

________________________________________________

Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at
http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv

________________________________________________

Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at
http://www.gnsi.org/resources/reviews/gnsi-sciart-l-listserv