Jump to content

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

No need to - you have mentioned Boston on a few occasions 😎. I know the area quite well in fact, living in Pboro. 

 

 

Yes Lady Hale is an amazing and highly intelligent woman. I felt some very deep emotions watching and listening to her - people like her restore faith in humanity and give hope that there may be some light at the end of this long dark tunnel. Talking of which - you should take a trip down the Mersey Tunnel over to the Wirral, some lovely landscapes out that way (only joking Edo 😁). My wife is from there. 

 

 

i must say, as an outsider currently meandering through the UK this last couple of weeks have been fascinating to watch 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

i must say, as an outsider currently meandering through the UK this last couple of weeks have been fascinating to watch 

 

As a British person, it's "gringe-worthy" to watch at best.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

As a British person, it's "gringe-worthy" to watch at best.

 

i can guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Rats. Dobbed myself in then.

Haven't lived there for 32 years and still (or again?) living it down. I think it may be time to say I'm not from there anymore.

I can sympathise with that, I've never lived there but was born there. The only good thing I've found is the look on the person at the passport desk, they see Boston as place of birth, assume you're American then find out you're lumbered with a broad Lincolnshire accent 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

And people, didn't you just love that senior lady judge who read the verdict? She looks like someone's kindly country grandma, but she sharp as a razor.  

 

As someone else said. Appears just another kindly older lady but who over tea drops out details of the assassination assignments she undertook with the French Resistance (she is not actually old enough)

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bionic said:

I can sympathise with that, I've never lived there but was born there. The only good thing I've found is the look on the person at the passport desk, they see Boston as place of birth, assume you're American then find out you're lumbered with a broad Lincolnshire accent 🤣

😀This week I had to explain which one it was, and its unenviable record in the referendum, in French, to an incredulous Belgian. The words "catastrophe" and " désastre" came up. As they did in Germany (Katastrophe), and France, and Luxembourg (Katastrof), and Strasbourg (sorry, can't find the Alsacian).....

Edited by spacecadet
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, spacecadet said:

 

sorry, can't find the Alsacian)

 

 

Isn't it running 10 Downing Street?

 

Oh no, that's the Rottweiler.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

 

Isn't it running 10 Downing Street?

 

Oh no, that's the Rottweiler.

 

Alan

brown nosed poodle.

Or see Steve Bell's version.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/09/2019 at 02:00, John Mitchell said:

 

Your system is ahead of Canada's. We still have to pay for prescription drugs (except when in hospital), but prices are a fraction of what they are in the US. I also have reasonably priced extended care insurance that covers some of the cost of meds. Fortunately, I only have a couple that I need to take.

 

A word of warning -- I didn't go to see my doctor for several years during my later fifties because I never seemed to have anything wrong with me. When I finally did go for a checkup at the age of 59, I had some nasty health surprises even though I felt just fine. I now visit him on a regular basis.

I got arthritis in my early 20s. I actually believe it was a case of rheumatic fever, (which affects joints) undiagnosed, since I had a severe strep infection (also wrongly diagnosed as bronchitis) for over a month that put me in the hospital for 2 weeks. 

Every drug I tried to help the joint pain gave me ulcers. I finally found one my stomach could handle, but it was a Tier 1 drug, no generic, and my copay was still astronomical.

I found it in Canada, and ordering it by mail, even without going through my insurance, was way cheaper than getting it here through insurance. Kind of a pain waiting two weeks or so, but doable.

At last, they’ve finally provided the generic version here a couple of years ago in the U.S. and it’s cost is on par with Canada using my insurance.

I guess you all know the U.S. is subsidizing your low drug prices because your strong government knows how to handle drug companies. The U.S. can’t seem to do that because of lobbying or whatever reason. As a result, the prices here are so high to make up for lost profits in other countries. The drug companies are so rich, but they aren’t about to cut anyone a break unless their corporate arms are twisted behind their backs, and you all have discovered what joint to twist.

Betty

Edited by Betty LaRue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

 

I guess you all know the U.S. is subsidizing your low drug prices because your strong government knows how to handle drug companies. The U.S. can’t seem to do that because of lobbying or whatever reason. As a result, the prices here are so high to make up for lost profits in other countries. The drug companies are so rich, but they aren’t about to cut anyone a break unless their corporate arms are twisted behind their backs, and you all have discovered what joint to twist.

Betty

 

 

how are you subsidizing our costs?  Do you really think they sell at a loss in other countries?  If they did they would in no way be selling, they still need to show profit to shareholders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

how are you subsidizing our costs?  Do you really think they sell at a loss in other countries?  If they did they would in no way be selling, they still need to show profit to shareholders. 

No they aren’t losing $$ as a general rule, but recently I read of a country that the drug company quit supplying an important drug because the demanded price by that country was below the drug company’s cost of making it. All I’m saying is that the greedy drug companies aren’t going to give up their sky high profits. So if they can’t get that high profit from the countries who have excellent bargaining strategies, they will up the price for the countries who don’t have those strategies. 

You all know that whether it is drugs, shoes, or the daily newspaper, a company will charge as much as they can get away with. And the United States is allowing them to get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

No they aren’t losing $$ as a general rule, but recently I read of a country that the drug company quit supplying an important drug because the demanded price by that country was below the drug company’s cost of making it. All I’m saying is that the greedy drug companies aren’t going to give up their sky high profits. So if they can’t get that high profit from the countries who have excellent bargaining strategies, they will up the price for the countries who don’t have those strategies. 

You all know that whether it is drugs, shoes, or the daily newspaper, a company will charge as much as they can get away with. And the United States is allowing them to get away with it.

 

Big Pharma isn't nice. That's for sure. The price difference -- up to 85% in some cases -- between brand name and generic drugs verges on criminal.

 

Go Bernie! 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Big Pharma isn't nice. That's for sure. The price difference -- up to 85% in some cases -- between brand name and generic drugs verges on criminal.

 

Go Bernie! 😄

You almost pulled me into politics. I backed away. 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

You almost pulled me into politics. I backed away. 😜

 

Well, I wasn't thinking about politics per se, rather this recent news tidbit:

 

"An "insulin caravan" rolled through the border city of Windsor, Ont, carrying about 15 people with Type 1 diabetes. In the U.S., the cost of a vial of insulin is about $450. In Canada, the same vial will average about $30."

 

It would be nice if this were fake news, but apparently it isn't. Talk about criminal pricing...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Uk a branded drug such as Nurofen is £4 a pack. Generic ibuprofen is 40p a pack. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Well, I wasn't thinking about politics per se, rather this recent news tidbit:

 

"An "insulin caravan" rolled through the border city of Windsor, Ont, carrying about 15 people with Type 1 diabetes. In the U.S., the cost of a vial of insulin is about $450. In Canada, the same vial will average about $30."

 

It would be nice if this were fake news, but apparently it isn't. Talk about criminal pricing...

 

 

I agree. Something has to be done. For years, there was no generic for my drug. And even with insurance, the copay was huge. It still was costly from Canada, but less not using insurance than buying here with insurance, and I got more pills for that price from Canada.

 

I believe Canada might be charging out of country people more than their own citizens. Why? Because they can. It’s not going through the government, but through online companies. So they can still earn quite a bit of profit, but still give us a break. Just not a huge break.

Now that we have a generic, the cost for me with insurance is less than from Canada.

Betty

Edited by Betty LaRue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

I agree. Something has to be done. For years, there was no generic for my drug. And even with insurance, the copay was huge. It still was costly from Canada, but less not using insurance than buying here with insurance, and I got more pills for that price from Canada.

 

I believe Canada might be charging out of country people more than their own citizens. Why? Because they can. It’s not going through the government, but through online companies. So they can still earn quite a bit of profit, but still give us a break. Just not a huge break.

Now that we have a generic, the cost for me with insurance is less than from Canada.

Betty

 

Charging out-of-country people for prescription drugs wouldn't be legal or even possible in legitimate Canadian pharmacies. Questionable online outfits might be a different story, of course. Glad you guys are finally getting a break from Big Pharma. It's about time, eh? Those caravan shoppers sure look happy to get their insulin at a reasonable price. I would be too if I needed it (fortunately I don't -- touch wood).

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎20‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 05:12, Ed Rooney said:

 

I'd rather be dead in a ditch.

IE Fisheye lens, I'm with you Edo......

 

Sorry did not realize the discussion had turned to "Big Pharma" and U.S. Drug prices.

Edited by Chuck Nacke
Humor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

IE Fisheye lens, I'm with you Edo......

 

Sorry did not realize the discussion had turned to "Big Pharma" and U.S. Drug prices.

 

No problem. That ditch is starting to get pretty crowded I imagine. But we won't go there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think of Street Stock Subjects on three levels: A are landmarks and other obvious choices, the stuff we see on postcards and posters. B subjects usually illustrates the specifics of something. C are subjects that work visually but we might just pass them by rather than snap the shutter.  

 

 

M8A257.jpg

 

 

B

 

W6DRX6.jpg

C

 

 

T7NR5D.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/09/2019 at 10:12, Ed Rooney said:

 

I'd rather be dead in a ditch.

 

PT3THB.jpg

 

Well this one's had a couple of sales recently - I quite like it.

Edited by Phil Robinson
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

I think of Street Stock Subjects on three levels: A are landmarks and other obvious choices, the stuff we see on postcards and posters. B subjects usually illustrates the specifics of something. C are subjects that work visually but we might just pass them by rather than snap the shutter.  

 

 

M8A257.jpg

 

 

B

 

W6DRX6.jpg

C

 

 

T7NR5D.jpg

 

 

 

That sounds like a useful classification system. Since I'll be in Montreal next week, I picked up a copy of a new travel guide to the city, one that uses a lot of photos, and looking at the images, I can easily fit them into the three categories that you mention. Something else that I noticed, is that a lot of the images have either no people in them or are ones in which the photographer has been careful not to make individuals stand out -- e.g. faces are not visible or people are in groups. I think this is something to keep in mind these days. Also, there are a lot of category B detail shots -- architectural detail, closeups of food, signs, etc. -- and fewer "postcard" (category A) images than in older guides. Perhaps these are two other trends to consider.  Category C images don't fare too well in this particular guide, but you can't go wrong with cobblestones.  🤠

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in Montreal this time a year ago, John -- and lovely weather it was. I kept getting lost in the Old Town, which made for a lot of extra walking, but you won't have that problem. 

 

My near obsession with cobblestones might come from the time I covered the Sorbonne riots in Paris in the spring of 1968. I watched the protesters tear up the heavy stones and throw them at the police. Then in the morning, workers would come and replace them. Those guys were artisans. 

 

This is the pathetic job they do in NYC.

 

DY4HYH.jpg

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

I was in Montreal this time a year ago, John -- and lovely weather it was. I kept getting lost in the Old Town, which made for a lot of extra walking, but you won't have that problem. 

 

My near obsession with cobblestones might come from the time I covered the Sorbonne riots in Paris in the spring of 1968. I watched the protesters tear up the heavy stones and throw them at the police. Then in the morning, workers would come and replace them. Those guys were artisans. 

 

This is the pathetic job they do in NYC.

 

DY4HYH.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

I leave tomorrow for Montreal. Shall say hello to the Old Town for you. I too have a thing about cobblestones and the like. In Vancouver, they sometimes used wooden blocks to pave streets at one time. You can still see them in a few places in the historical parts of town --

 

old-wooden-paving-blocks-on-a-street-in-

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

This is the pathetic job they do in NYC.

 

DY4HYH.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Although strictly speaking those are setts, not cobblestones.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.