ResMed Attacks Internet Suppliers

[goose]

dog_tired, at $10 a pack it's almost cheaper to smoke pot..... at least then ya get a buzz........

And you are correct!!! There are much more expensive, much slower methods.......
But I'm the worst kind....a quitter. Well not a quitter, a stopper (mentally more palatable ).
I always said I'd stop when it got to $.35 a pack.....not quite, it was $.50 a pack in 1975 when I stopped.....never had the desire after the last puff......

take care,
cheers
goose

[PST]

Now, Obama had passed the PACT ACT (June 30, 2010) and buying tobacco products online will be illegal. Lots of tobacco sellers will be out of business then. Smokers will be forced to pay the $7.95-$10 a pack (New York) and some other states if they want to keep on smoking. Anti smokers will cheer, but remember this.... For every right somebody loses, you might lose your rights too in regards to something else.

Dee, you give the President way too much credit -- this really has little to do with him. The PACT ACT passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming vote back in 2008 but the Senate never got around to it, so Congress had to start over in 2009. This time is passed in the House by 387-25, and then passed in the Senate unanimously, as hard as that may be to believe. Pretty much every member of Congress whose district didn't consist mostly of an Indian reservation voted for it. Who says bipartisanship is dead? In addition, if I understand correctly, the act doesn't make it illegal to sell cigarettes over the internet, it just prohibits the postal service from delivering them.

[roster]

NY, is now raising the price of cigarettes to $10 a pack. For years me and a few of my friends and family have purchased them online for half the price.

The government is using health as an excuse to tax us to death. Smoking is not good for anyone's health, but to the government it is all about money.

Just recently I started to roll my own cigarettes and it now costs me $1-$2 a pack.

It is just plain greed!




If it was, just remember one thing. I am just a basic middle class person in America who is not a multi-million dollar corporation. I pay all my bills and do not live beyond my means. Once in a while I enjoy a simple pleasure whether it is a cup of coffee, a puff on a cigarette or a little treat. I am not greedy if I am trying to save a little money.

I am not greedy if I am trying to save a little money.

All kidding aside, and even as a mouthy antismoking punk, I say you are correct that it is not the government’s duty to force you to quit smoking through higher taxes. It is also abhorrent for our federal and state governments to become addicted to those high tobacco taxes. Our governments are about money and power, and less about protection of individual rights.

I also say good for you for getting the price of a pack under $2. That is the way a market works. If you don’t like the price but still want the product, find an alternative way. That is what fiscally responsible people do. You must be fiscally responsible because you pay your bills and you don’t “live beyond your means”.

So no, I don’t think it is greedy to “save a little money” (or a lot!). I think it is the responsible, patriotic thing to do. To do so is good for you, your family and your fellow citizens.

Roster was that intended for me?

Was it intended for you? It was intended for those who have made a buzzword out of "greed" and use it to attack the best system man has designed to feed us, shelter us, clothe us, entertain us, treat our afflictions, transport us, educate us, and on and on. It was intended for those who believe the government should continue to grow larger and make more of our daily decisions for us and control more of our income. Judging from how you say you live, I am guessing that you are not in that camp.

(Think about giving up smoking. Take up sugar-free bubble gum.)

[Roman Hokie]

"Trying to get everything you want at dirt-cheap prices is greed."

Woof. Woof.

Roster was that intended for me? If it was, just remember one thing. I am just a basic middle class person in America who is not a multi-million dollar corporation. I pay all my bills and do not live beyond my means. Once in a while I enjoy a simple pleasure whether it is a cup of coffee, a puff on a cigarette or a little treat. I am not greedy if I am trying to save a little money.

Hi Goose,
Yes, $10 bucks a pack. I will grow my own tobacco if we go into cigarette prohibition, lol! I can think of much more expensive, slower suicide methods than cigs.

There will never be cigarette prohibition. The states and fed make too much money on smokes. And they give some of that to the tobacco farmers. AND then they sue Big Tobacco for selling it. Does anyone else see how stupid that is?

Yeah, our Blind Guide Guv just signed 9.60 a pack. People will be flocking to the Indian-owned shops (up here, they aren't even ON the reservation). Land trust. There's a lot of hatred toward the Oneidas but then again, many years ago, the state (which didn't have the authority to negotiate with the Oneidas, per US Constitution) decided to buy all the Oneida-owned land when the Oneidas went to Wisconsin. Well, they're back and buying their land back one house (and slot spin) at a time.

[Slinky]

Michigan has a lot of Indian casinos. I have mixed emotions about it. On the one hand I see our current Indians' ancestors sitting up in heaven laughing their fannies off at getting even w/the white man w/drinks and gambling. On the other hand I see their ancestors sitting in heaven shaking their heads w/heavy hearts that their descendents have been reduced to sitting on their fannies doing nothing constructive, w/more money than they know what to do with, unwilling to work, and getting drunk. And behind those Indian casinos I understand is a lot of white man's money as seed money and a lot of the "take" going to these same white men.

[Roman Hokie]

The Oneida Nation's Casino (Turning Stone) just got their "beverage service". They've been open for like 17 years. Smoking is, of course, permitted, despite the fact that it's not on "sovreign" land.

They are, though, the largest employer in the county. Especially with the casino and several local Indian-owned gas stations. The state has forced the gas stations to charge a "nation tax" (which the nation doesn't have to pay to anyone else) to keep the other service stations competitive. I can't get gas there because my "check engine light" comes on more often when I do. Different additives.

[DreamStalker]

"What we have here, is a failure to communicate."

One of the major roots of the problem is our government's requirements for prescriptions for purchase of CPAP machines and same government's requirement that only licensed DMEs can sell machines to patients.

You know what happens once a government regulates something - it takes nearly a revolution to get it deregulated.

If these two regulations would be thrown out, I believe robust markets for new and used machines would develop. Supply chains would become more efficient and prices would fall.

Smart manufacturers would continue to be profitable and some would use the changes in the market to become even more profitable. After all, it is good for the manufacturer when the consumer is happy with the money-value and it is good for the consumer (patient) when the manufacturers of good machines are profitable.

As attractive as some of the latest ResMed machines are, I will vote with my dollars and not buy one of their machines due to their treatment of internet dealers and their failure to provide a patient version of efficacy software. PST's post is correct; I don't know if ResMed has broken a single law. However, I can still boycott them.

If you want to start a Facebook page, the complaints against ResMed need to be very specific. "Capitalist pigs" is not good enough.

Anyone want to tackle writing the complaints out in concise, clear and specific terms?

While I concede that there is no reason at all to require an Rx for a CPAP machine or to prohibit patient use of CPAP software, that does not mean we should deregulate the manufacture or sale of these medical devices. Regulation is needed to make sure that unsuspecting OSA patients are not bamboozled by the manufacturer or retail store … even with regulations in place they make every effort to screw the customer as we are all well aware of. In other words, just because some regulations may be inappropriate or defective regarding CPAP or any other consumer product doesn’t mean that no regulations is a better alternative. I mean, civilization is based on rules and regulations … without any rules or regulations, we have pure anarchy or true Darwinian "Survival of the Fittest". Economic survival of the fittest is not just for those on the economic supply side but also for those on consumer demand side.

The problem with Darwinian economics or total economic deregulation is that: a) corporations can out-finance most any real person, b) corporations can outlive any human and therefore wait out any court battle, c) corporations have no conscience and live not for the customer, not for the society or community, not for country or patriotism, but ONLY for profit.

I think Darwinian economics might work ok in a small economic system of about 150 people, a tribal village for example as long as the concept of corporations were prohibited … where people engaged in capitalism on a person to person basis. However, once that scale is exceeded (as it is in most parts of the world today), pure unregulated capitalism leads straight to corporate control of government, our health, and our lives.

Take the current BP mess for instance. The Louisiana government officials (executive, legislative, and judicial) are all fighting the deep sea drilling moratorium because those very officials are bought and paid for by the oil corporations. Despite years of damage to the state’s natural environment by the oil industry, the state has become addicted to oil money. Even as their state is being terrorized by the oil spill catastrophe, they cannot abstain from the oil money fix and thus remain owned by the oil corporations just like a junkie is to his pusher.

So just because some aspects of government don’t work or some regulations don’t work does not mean that we should do away with government or all regulations … it means we need to take back the government from the corporations which were inadequately regulated from interfering with our government in the first place. We don’t need less government interference in business, we need less business interference in government (make that NO interference of business in government).

Don’t let a “free-market” parrot draped in a US flag sucker you into thinking that government is bad and/or that all government regulation of business is bad, in the pretense of liberty and the constitution … that is nothing but Glen Beckian cow tird nonsense.

[Roman Hokie]

Ironically, DreamStalker, some of the same people who are miffed at Obama's golf outing (which oil continues to flow into the Gulf) are those who want smaller government.

[roster]

.... total economic deregulation ....

I have read tens of thousands of posts in this forum and have yet to see a single one advocate "total economic deregulation".

Yet, that is your constant "windmill" and you will continue to joust it.

[DreamStalker]

.... total economic deregulation ....

I have read tens of thousands of posts in this forum and have yet to see a single one advocate "total economic deregulation".

Yet, that is your constant "windmill" and you will continue to joust it.

"What we have here, is a failure to communicate."


Well then, if you agree with my previous post then we have had a failure to communicate all along.

It is just that when you don't qualify your statements such as this one ...

.... snip ...

You know what happens once a government regulates something - it takes nearly a revolution to get it deregulated.

... snip ...

It implies to some of us ... at least to me, that you think the problem is government and its regulation of business. When you say specifically ...

You know what happens once a government regulates something ...

What exactly does "something" mean?

If you really do indeed agree specifically with this ...

I mean, civilization is based on rules and regulations … without any rules or regulations, we have pure anarchy or true Darwinian "Survival of the Fittest". Economic survival of the fittest is not just for those on the economic supply side but also for those on consumer demand side.

The problem with Darwinian economics or total economic deregulation is that: a) corporations can out-finance most any real person, b) corporations can outlive any human and therefore wait out any court battle, c) corporations have no conscience and live not for the customer, not for the society or community, not for country or patriotism, but ONLY for profit.

and this ...

So just because some aspects of government don’t work or some regulations don’t work does not mean that we should do away with government or all regulations … it means we need to take back the government from the corporations which were inadequately regulated from interfering with our government in the first place. We don’t need less government interference in business, we need less business interference in government (make that NO interference of business in government).

Then we have no conflict in these issues.

Have a happy day!

[BlackSpinner]

While I concede that there is no reason at all to require an Rx for a CPAP machine or to prohibit patient use of CPAP software, that does not mean we should deregulate the manufacture or sale of these medical devices. Regulation is needed to make sure that unsuspecting OSA patients are not bamboozled by the manufacturer or retail store … even with regulations in place they make every effort to screw the customer as we are all well aware of. In other words, just because some regulations may be inappropriate or defective regarding CPAP or any other consumer product doesn’t mean that no regulations is a better alternative. I mean, civilization is based on rules and regulations … without any rules or regulations, we have pure anarchy or true Darwinian "Survival of the Fittest". Economic survival of the fittest is not just for those on the economic supply side but also for those on consumer demand side.

The problem with Darwinian economics or total economic deregulation is that: a) corporations can out-finance most any real person, b) corporations can outlive any human and therefore wait out any court battle, c) corporations have no conscience and live not for the customer, not for the society or community, not for country or patriotism, but ONLY for profit.

I think Darwinian economics might work ok in a small economic system of about 150 people, a tribal village for example as long as the concept of corporations were prohibited … where people engaged in capitalism on a person to person basis. However, once that scale is exceeded (as it is in most parts of the world today), pure unregulated capitalism leads straight to corporate control of government, our health, and our lives.

Don’t let a “free-market” parrot draped in a US flag sucker you into thinking that government is bad and/or that all government regulation of business is bad, in the pretense of liberty and the constitution … that is nothing but Glen Beckian cow tird nonsense.

Yes you only have to read the history of Victorian Unionism to see that. There was a reason for the union movement (and socialism) If you don't want to read history just read Dickens. Most of today's regulations come about over the dead bodies of worker and consumers to temper the greed of corporations and individuals.

[Roman Hokie]

Yeah, BlackSpinner, but now we have union greed going on. I live in a small town and one of the teachers (the state has "tenure" for school teachers here...) makes six figures. About 5% more than the school principal.

Of course, California's teachers are complaining, too, and the average income of those teachers in Capistrano is about 81k. Funny, cuz when they strike, they say, "It's not about the money."

I can understand factor-based unions. But not public service unions.

[Slinky]

At one time I would have agreed w/you. But given the conditions today's teachers encounter .... I have a very good friend who taught in the Chicago school system her entire career, in one of the better "areas", and still the student violence and threats she encountered made me wonder WHY she continued to teach there. I'd have moved on to a smaller, more civilized town!!

And then there is the overall "quality" of students in our school systems. Far too many haven't had the parental discipline and interest that students of previous generations did.

[Roman Hokie]

Then get more counselors in the schools. That's not the educators' job.

We homeschool and still pay our school taxes. We get no benefit for the tax money we are robbed of.

[roster]

Yes you only have to read the history of Victorian Unionism to see that. There was a reason for the union movement (and socialism) If you don't want to read history just read Dickens. Most of today's regulations come about over the dead bodies of worker and consumers to temper the greed of corporations and individuals.

Why do you leave out the government? The government was in a very primitive state of denying individual rights at that time. Males who did not own property could not vote. Women could not vote, sue, or own property.

In divorces, men always took custody of the children. In cases of adultery, a husband only had to prove his wife's adultery. A woman had to prove her husband had not only committed adultery but also incest, bigamy, cruelty or desertion. This was the state of government regulation.

Homosexuality was illegal. Homosexual acts were a capital offence until 1861.

Wikipedia has a nice summary paragraph that says a lot about free markets:

The Victorian Era began with the elite in total control of society and its politics. The Elite class was made up of 300 families which were firmly established as the traditional ruling class. However, the development of new types of values, such as individualism, introduced changes throughout the Victorian Era. The idea of the self-made man became dominant in the middle class. Similar to the American Dream, the idea is that, if they work hard enough, all men can become wealthy.

"The Elite class" operated as a government. This government had control over the market.

The great gains of the Victorian era were the move toward a government that protected individual rights and that included the right to own a business, run it as you see fit, and compete in a free market.

The freeing up of markets during the Victoran age was an early and important step in the globalization of free markets that led to the greatest prosperity in world history. A prosperity in which we still live today. A prosperity in which individuals refuse to work in bad conditions and refuse to let their children work at all. Only through the prosperity brought by free markets and capitalism have we arrived at this position.

Yes, we do need limited government to protect our rights and in the U.S. we are very fortunate to have an established Republic with a God-inspired Constitution to protect us from the government. Now we need to elect leaders who take their oath to the Constitution seriously.

Everyday we vote "for" or "against" individual businesses with our dollars. Please go to the voting booth and vote to keep this inalienable right. Government has control of politics, if government also gets control of the economy, tyranny follows quickly.