or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Why Is Skiing So Expensive In The USA?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Is Skiing So Expensive In The USA? - Page 10

post #271 of 350
NO!
u can not have a totally privatised health system!!!!!

private system = profit driven
profit drive = need to pay for service
need to pay = not everyone can pay

therefore, the poor cannot afford healthcare
meaning the gap between rich and poor will expand

now

drugs costs money to research and develop.

cost + profit = retail price
cost + proft = really high retail price
really high retail price + poor people = poor people cant buy drugs
poor people cant buy drugs = poor people die

i dont know how they do it in the US, but in australia, we have both government and private, and it works reasonably well...the only bad thing is the low wages for nurses, causing a low supply, meaning inability to open more beds.

if government puts more money into public sector, it saves alot more in promting private health insurance and private health insurance rebate (in australia)
post #272 of 350

Pretty expensive everywhere, but...

I skied for years in the States but live in Europe now. True, lift tickets cost a bit less here, generally around EUR30. Food on the hill seems to be more reasonably priced too, for the most part. But:
  • Gas costs a fortune here, so even if you live close to the hill, you'll spend more getting there than you would in the States.
  • Lodging is spendier too, though it generally includes 2 meals. They hit you up on a per-person rather than per-room basis, with the result that you'll often spend twice as much. (No better lodging deal in the world than the Jackson Hostel X, btw).
  • While you get more vertical for your buck, services are sketchy. Lifties do a poor job (or no job), grooming sucks, lots of avy-prone resorts don't blast, there's usually no ski patrol to slow down out of control ya-hooes and bathrooms can be third world.
  • On the plus side, the lifts are always open longer (generally 830-4).
On both sides of the Atlantic, the best way to ski is to buy a season pass. If you can rack up the days, it ends up being a great deal, especially if there are early buyer discounts.
post #273 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
here in australia, it's quite hard to get to the snow. most people rent stuff, i know hardly anyone with their own gear.

i myself, have decided that i'll make skiing a sport ill invest on, i made quite a few sacrifices to other hobbies and collections, and i'm working more hours to save for a 5 day trip. sometimes i think if it's really worth it, but when i think about going down the mountain and feeling the air in my face, the closest feeling i'll ever get to flying without wings...i believe it's worth it. plus it also motivates me to become fitter.

i just bought my first pair of ski pants, it's the off seasons here. im not rich, no where near it, but i budget myself and look at ways to save and to invest...
it's like kids with their heavily moded cars...at least skiing is making us healthier (go easy on the beer).
: .... are there 2 australias???? because nearly every skier I know owns their own gear..... the only people I know of that rent are the beginners(never skied before) OR some of the once a year warriors...

It is hard to get to the snow from Brisvegas or WA, SA.... but from Melbourne or Canberra it is pretty close to ski & about 5.5 hours from Sydney...
post #274 of 350
haha serious?
5.5 hours is long! i have a friend who lives in canada, and was telling me it only takes him 45mins....

hmm..looks like there's alot i still need to learn.

but just one question..
would equipment be cheaper down here? or up north?
post #275 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
NO!
u can not have a totally privatised health system!!!!!

private system = profit driven
profit drive = need to pay for service
need to pay = not everyone can pay

therefore, the poor cannot afford healthcare
meaning the gap between rich and poor will expand

now

drugs costs money to research and develop.

cost + profit = retail price
cost + proft = really high retail price
really high retail price + poor people = poor people cant buy drugs
poor people cant buy drugs = poor people die

i dont know how they do it in the US, but in australia, we have both government and private, and it works reasonably well...the only bad thing is the low wages for nurses, causing a low supply, meaning inability to open more beds.

if government puts more money into public sector, it saves alot more in promting private health insurance and private health insurance rebate (in australia)
A privatised system does not mean that the government does not pay for services. We have a privatised system to buy food. And yet, the government is still able to provide food stamps for the poor (although I would argue that food stamps aren't really aimed to help the poor, but thats a different discussion). However, notice that we don't tolerate the government providing poor people with food directly.

I have no problem with the government providing money for people to purchase health insurance. But I do not believe that the government should be in the business of being a health insurance provider. Just as you wouldn't like to consume government produced food or wear government produced clothing, why would you like to consume government produced health insurance? If you want poor people to be covered, give them money and let them decide for themselves what to get, instead of forcing something down their throats. Government provided healthcare seems to have problems with supply (we've already seen problems with wait times in Canada and you've just mentioned number of beds in Australia). And providing everyone with equally crappy healthcare is not necessarily better than a system that results in unequal distribution.

About the gap between rich and poor: thats a totally separate issue. I personally have no problem with a gap between rich and poor, just as long as the poor are provided with some basic services. To have a society where the rich get much richer while the poor get slightly richer is not necessarily a bad thing. (Actually, in the US, we have a structure where poor and particularly the middle class are gradually moving into the upper class, while people in the upper classes are becoming much much richer).
post #276 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly
  • While you get more vertical for your buck, services are sketchy. Lifties do a poor job (or no job), grooming sucks, lots of avy-prone resorts don't blast, there's usually no ski patrol to slow down out of control ya-hooes and bathrooms can be third world.
Just goes to show--you get what you pay for.


But this raises an interesting issue. Why doesn't the U.S. have crappy cheap resorts for poor people like Australia does? Maybe the U.S. does have them and I'm just unaware. In that case, skiing isn't really overly expensive provided you're willing to put up with second rate services. But if these crappy resorts really don't exist, then why not? Maybe there's just no demand from poor people for these resorts. Could it be cultural--that poorer people wouldn't ski even if they could afford it due to social/cultural reasons? (This isn't the only possible reason--it could be that for some reason, these low cost resorts wouldn't be profitable in the U.S. because of greater operating costs)
post #277 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzinwin
Sorry, but I feel like you're not getting my point. You're arguing that because we're not healthy, it must mean that our healthcare system isn't doing a good job. I'm trying to argue that that's not a statement that you can logically make.
I do understand the gap in logic. I'm just saying that its irrelevant. Our health sucks.

Quote:
I don't know what you're referring to--all states have CHIP.
The implementation of systems like this and others that benefit uninsured children vary pretty wildly from place to place. Later, after work, I can expound on that if you like.

Quote:
You're right. But you must realize, there is technically NO difference between employer spending and individual spending (other than individualized plans bear higher cost due to group purchasing). When you get "free" health coverage from your employer, what is happenning is the employer is deducting from your wages and buying you a plan that you did not choose for yourself. Think of it like this: It would be like your employer went grocery shopping for you with YOUR money and bought whatever HE decided. Would you want that for your groceries? If not, why would you want that for your healthcare? Even if you would want that, as a society, this kind of structure prevents competition and without competition, you cannot claim it to be a free market. It's more like a cartel.
Interesting idea.

Your grocery argument notwithstanding, I'll continue to buy ski equipment through my employer. I welcome you to try and get a better deal on the free market.


Quote:
That's because we only have a few big actors doing all the buying. There's no competition. If everyone bought his/her own healthcare, there would be more competition and prices would reflect that.
And many people would still be priced out of the market, which is an unacceptable compromise to me.

Quote:
But what if you lived in Saskatchewan? Would you be ok with waiting 29 weeks? How's that heart condition gonna be by then?
I'm far more worried about avoiding the heart condition in the first place. As you correctly point out, there are a lot of things Americans do that couldn't be remedied even by the best healthcare in the world.

Quote:
And btw, a year of high deductable catastrophic healthcare coverage is about 130 dollars a month. Thats less than the price of premium cable tv with a tivo. (And if Bush gets his way, it will be lowered to 80 dollars/month for ppl in the 35% tax bracket. You can afford to pay 80 dollars for the most important thing in your life, can't you?)
I don't want catastrophic coverage with a high deductible. I want and need the ability to get a physical now and again, and I want and need the ability to snag antibiotics once or twice a year.

My setup right now costs 140 bucks a month with prescription drug benefits and a low deductible, thanks to HealthyNY. COBRA coverage would be about 300.
post #278 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
I do understand the gap in logic. I'm just saying that its irrelevant. Our health sucks.
If that's the case, then you're not really arguing about healthcare, just complaining that our health sucks. And I agree--we need to get off our lazy asses and lay off the bon bons.


Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Your grocery argument notwithstanding, I'll continue to buy ski equipment through my employer. I welcome you to try and get a better deal on the free market.


And many people would still be priced out of the market, which is an unacceptable compromise to me.
The reason why you can't get a better deal in the "free market" is because it's not really a free competetive market. If we would create a truly free market, prices would be different.

If you feel that people would be priced out of the market, I have no problems with the govt providing money for people to price themselves back in (That is indeed what Bush's plan would provide--though you can debate abuot how much money that would entail).



Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
I'm far more worried about avoiding the heart condition in the first place. As you correctly point out, there are a lot of things Americans do that couldn't be remedied even by the best healthcare in the world.
Unless you're an obese person with a weakness for chocolate cake and baby back ribs, you might have a hard time relating to the problem.



Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
I don't want catastrophic coverage with a high deductible. I want and need the ability to get a physical now and again, and I want and need the ability to snag antibiotics once or twice a year.

My setup right now costs 140 bucks a month with prescription drug benefits and a low deductible, thanks to HealthyNY. COBRA coverage would be about 300.
The point is, you're consuming 3600 dollars worth of healthcare insurance every year, whether you goto the doctor or not (part of that is being paid by the government but you're still consuming it). Since catastrophic coverage costs 1560/yr, unless you consume more than 2000 dollars on physicals and antibiotics every year (in which case you must be really healthy or really sick!!!), you would save a lot of money by switching to a high deductible plan. (Lets estimate that you consume 500 dollars worth of physicals a year--that would mean a savings of over 1500 bucks a year, not too shabby). For healthy people especially, a low deductable plan ends up being much more expensive than a high deductable one (I'm including the increased out of pocket costs associated with the high-deductable plan). You could save lots of money on your health insurnace by switching to a high-deductible plan, just like you could save lots of money on your car insurance by switching to Geico!
post #279 of 350
mrzinwin, we do have those places in the USA, just not as many as we used to.
post #280 of 350
government provided health care doesnt neccesary mean it's bad.
im on the road to becoming a doctor, and ill most likely be working in a public hospital, does that mean im not as good a doctor as one in the private hospital?
again i dont know what it's like in the US, and actully reading this is helping me with my studies (haha).

i believe that its the government's responsibility to provide basic health care to all, and i like the idea of private health insurance as well. i actully like the two tiered system here, but the government should maybe take money out of other not-as-urgent services and put it in more-urgent-problems like increasing beds.

but i disagree about the healthcare system being totally free. being totally free means prices would most likely to fluctuate, and since health care is so sensitive and important to ALL, a totally free market would single out some people.
btw, totally free market means no government intenvention whatsoever
post #281 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
government provided health care doesnt neccesary mean it's bad.
No, not at all. But what I'm looking for is efficiency--getting the most bang for your buck while giving patients the greatest freedom to choose what they want and creating an environment that fosters innovation and technological advancement. Unfortunately, a government run healthcare system is not friendly to any of these goals.

And this has nothing to do with the quality of the doctors themselves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
i believe that its the government's responsibility to provide basic health care to all, and i like the idea of private health insurance as well. i actully like the two tiered system here, but the government should maybe take money out of other not-as-urgent services and put it in more-urgent-problems like increasing beds.
I agree that the govt should provide people with enough money to buy their own basic healthcare. But I do not agree that the government should be the one providing the healthcare itself. The government has shown itself to be inept at producing all types of things. Why would it be good at producing healthcare?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
but i disagree about the healthcare system being totally free. being totally free means prices would most likely to fluctuate, and since health care is so sensitive and important to ALL, a totally free market would single out some people.
btw, totally free market means no government intenvention whatsoever
Well there's no such thing as entirely no government intervention. Even the freest of markets has government regulation (eg. tort law, contract law labor practice law, etc). Indeed without government regulation, free markets would not be able to function. So no, I am not looking for a "totally" free market. What I am looking for is a free market in the sense that the market for groceries is a free market. And again, if poor people cannot afford the high prices of healthcare, I believe the government should step in and give them enough cash so they can afford it. This way, no one would go without basic healthcare, while still maintaining the free market.
post #282 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzinwin
I agree that the govt should provide people with enough money to buy their own basic healthcare. But I do not agree that the government should be the one providing the healthcare itself. The government has shown itself to be inept at producing all types of things. Why would it be good at producing healthcare?
Microsoft have shown themselves to be inept at creating software. Their software costs society billions of dollars in consequential damages each year. While people are quite free to use Linux, or buy a Mac, relatively few people do.

Why not?

If the government doesn't provide our healthcare, what is to protect us from a similar scenario? From a fictional MicroHealth that would corner the "free" market and provide a lousy service at an extraordinary cost?

And regarding your earlier comments, notice that I don't spend 3600 dollars a year on healthcare. Government intervention means that I only spend about 1700. So I receive greater benefits than the ones you describe under Bush's plan, at a similar cost.

edit: And, heh, Geico costs quite a bit more than my insurance provider. Ya gotta shop around.
post #283 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
If the government doesn't provide our healthcare, what is to protect us from a similar scenario? From a fictional MicroHealth that would corner the "free" market and provide a lousy service at an extraordinary cost?

.
Hey - what makes you think there are not parts that function just like that.... check out the pharmaceutical companies for a start.....

Australia has one of the cheapest total cost to consumer(ie including taxes that constitute government subsidy) of pharmaceuticals... USA one of the most expensive(talking western world here).....
For some strange reason on of the big issues in the Free Trade agreement between the 2 countries is our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme... because the whole idea of our PBS is what helps keep our prices down.... other countries are studying it to try to copy it it works so well (Aussies stop laughing - it is actually better than most of the alternative schemes around)...

Now just why would us having cheap drugs worry the USA???
post #284 of 350
plus medical research and develop is quite good, why are you saying that it's not working?
alot of private organisations conduct medical research as well...
post #285 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Microsoft have shown themselves to be inept at creating software. Their software costs society billions of dollars in consequential damages each year. While people are quite free to use Linux, or buy a Mac, relatively few people do.
Why not?
I think microsoft is terrific at creating software. I hate Macs and linux is too complicated for my dumbass. But whether you like/dislike microsoft's software is despite the point. Unless you're arguing that the government should hire software engineers and design software with the "U.S. government quality" brand, the private sector is still where software should be produced. What you are arguing against is monopolies and there's no controversy there--the government needs to step in to regulate monopolies when they form (Now you can argue about what that regulation entails). That's why we have antitrust laws, which are very useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
If the government doesn't provide our healthcare, what is to protect us from a similar scenario? From a fictional MicroHealth that would corner the "free" market and provide a lousy service at an extraordinary cost?
You would have to give me reasons why this would happen. Monopolies cannot form without certain market conditions that need to be in place. Unless you can find evidence of these conditions in the healthcare market, there's no reason that a "healthcare microsoft" would result. However, if one did result, the government would need to step in and regulate it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
And regarding your earlier comments, notice that I don't spend 3600 dollars a year on healthcare. Government intervention means that I only spend about 1700. So I receive greater benefits than the ones you describe under Bush's plan, at a similar cost.
Notice that I didn't say that you spend 3600 dollars a year on healthcare, I said that you consume 3600 dollars a year on healthcare. There's a big difference. Under bush's plan, depending on your income, if you were in the 35% tax bracket, you would only spend about 960 dollars a year on health insurance. And many people under Bush's plan will spend nothing at all. But how much YOU personally spend is besides the point. The point is how much society as a whole spends on you. If we can find a way to spend less and get the same services, everyone wins (except for low-deductible insurance companies). And when you say you spend $1700 a year, thats not really true. You spend $1700 of your own money and close to $2000 of someone else's money. If we can decrease both figures (or even just one of them) without decreasing the amount of care you get, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
edit: And, heh, Geico costs quite a bit more than my insurance provider. Ya gotta shop around.
If you value the concept of "shopping around", you should realize that only the free market system can provide you with that.
post #286 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
plus medical research and develop is quite good, why are you saying that it's not working?
alot of private organisations conduct medical research as well...
That's because the US government isn't the sole entity producing all the healthcare. Profit drives innovation.
post #287 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by disski
Hey - what makes you think there are not parts that function just like that.... check out the pharmaceutical companies for a start.....

Australia has one of the cheapest total cost to consumer(ie including taxes that constitute government subsidy) of pharmaceuticals... USA one of the most expensive(talking western world here).....
For some strange reason on of the big issues in the Free Trade agreement between the 2 countries is our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme... because the whole idea of our PBS is what helps keep our prices down.... other countries are studying it to try to copy it it works so well (Aussies stop laughing - it is actually better than most of the alternative schemes around)...

Now just why would us having cheap drugs worry the USA???
If the PBS is simply a government handout to poor people so they can afford U.S. drugs, that would have the effect of increasing drug prices (from the perspective of the U.S.). But you would have to fill me in with regards to how the PBS works in Australia.

As far as drugs go, the rest of the world is basically free-loading off the money that U.S. citizens pay in the form of high drug prices. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Free-loading implies that one party is benefitting, not necessarily that anyone is being hurt. As long as the lower prices in foreign countries are due to profit maximization strategies made by the drug companies, lower prices abroad have the effect of increasing profit and thus increasing money for R&D. However, in many cases, lower prices are the result of lack of enforcement of patent laws, in which case, the U.S. is being screwed over.
post #288 of 350
can someone 'esplain' to me what this discussion has to do with skiing? I see the odd words "resort", "grooming", "poor service" "poor folks" and liftie.

That hardly makes it a skiing discussion.

Seems Tom/PM is correct, we have attracted another sophist. Must be a blue moon or something!
post #289 of 350
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j
can someone 'esplain' to me what this discussion has to do with skiing? I see the odd words "resort", "grooming", "poor service" "poor folks" and liftie.

That hardly makes it a skiing discussion.

Seems Tom/PM is correct, we have attracted another sophist. Must be a blue moon or something!
J,
Sheesh! You don't know what the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and "whether you like/dislike microsoft's software" has to do with the cost of skiing? What are you? Sensible?
post #290 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j
can someone 'esplain' to me what this discussion has to do with skiing? I see the odd words "resort", "grooming", "poor service" "poor folks" and liftie.

That hardly makes it a skiing discussion.

Seems Tom/PM is correct, we have attracted another sophist. Must be a blue moon or something!
I'm sorry if you feel that our digressions are preventing you from expressing your ideas on the issue of why skiing is so expensive in the United States. If you have any ideas as to why skiing is so expensive that have not been covered by the 270 or so previous posts, please share them. I'm interested to hear what you have to say.
post #291 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzinwin
I'm sorry if you feel that our digressions are preventing you from expressing your ideas on the issue of why skiing is so expensive in the United States. If you have any ideas as to why skiing is so expensive that have not been covered by the 270 or so previous posts, please share them. I'm interested to hear what you have to say.
I opted for the "this ain't skiing" button as the "this is too expensive " horse was shot long ago in ---ooh maybe 3 dozen threads.
post #292 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbroun
J,
Sheesh! You don't know what the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and "whether you like/dislike microsoft's software" has to do with the cost of skiing? What are you? Sensible?
There ius one specifically on health insurance not long ago as well.
post #293 of 350
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzinwin
I'm sorry if you feel that our digressions are preventing you from expressing your ideas on the issue of why skiing is so expensive in the United States. If you have any ideas as to why skiing is so expensive that have not been covered by the 270 or so previous posts, please share them. I'm interested to hear what you have to say.
Mr Z.,
Hey, I don't actually care if ya'll jabber on. It ain't my bandwidth. I meant what I said good-naturedly. I was just poking fun at you two, but with a slight sense of amazement at your sheer stamina.
post #294 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbroun
Mr Z.,
Hey, I don't actually care if ya'll jabber on. It ain't my bandwidth. I meant what I said good-naturedly. I was just poking fun at you two, but with a slight sense of amazement at your sheer stamina.
Hey wbroun--you changed your quote!! Good for you!!

I guess I'm using this forum to do something I don't usually do, which is debate politically charged issues. I live in a city and graduated from a school where people generally have very similar political views and aren't really tolerant of dissenting opinion.
post #295 of 350
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzinwin
Hey wbroun--you changed your quote!! Good for you!!

I guess I'm using this forum to do something I don't usually do, which is debate politically charged issues. I live in a city and graduated from a school where people generally have very similar political views and aren't really tolerant of dissenting opinion.
I understand. Why don't you donate $20 and do the politics stuff in the Epic Supporter Lounge? Just a suggestion, nothing more. And if you become an "Epic Supporter," you can be like me -- basically, an ignorant pain the arse who insults the old-timers and makes tons of snap judgments, the birthright of every newbie.
post #296 of 350
Hey any you guys get hit in the head wif a safety bar lately?
post #297 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15
Hey any you guys get hit in the head wif a safety bar lately?
::
post #298 of 350
Mr Z.
PBS in australia = Govt pays the majority of the price of the drugs, hence reducing the price to consumers.

and why cant a group of skiers come together and discuss politics?
it's a big forum, i get more info on skiing than on foreign healthcare systems in this forum.

but no, i still havnt been hit by a safety bar. have you?
post #299 of 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
Mr Z.
PBS in australia = Govt pays the majority of the price of the drugs, hence reducing the price to consumers.
So technically, the PBS is having the Australian government buy U.S. drugs at negotiated prices and then sell them to Australians at a much reduced price. Now I can see why there's so much contention on the issue of "fair trade." (a term I loathe, but is semi-appropriate in the case of pharm) Because once the gov't is in the business of bidding on price, the cost of drugs can be bid down to near the cost of production (which is almost nothing). This possibility leaves room for potential abuse and that is where the contention lies. The main question is--what is the proper price, and trade agreements are the correct way to settle these issues.

I think the idea of government deciding which drugs to cover and which drugs not to cover is great in principle, but needs to be done right. Assuming that no one is corrupt and everyone is making decisions based only on scientific evidence, the gov't needs to make sure there is enough flexibility. Different drugs are appropriate for different people and the idea of limiting society to 1-2 drugs per disease is dangerous and doesnt reflect heterogeneity within the population. The government needs to ensure flexibility within the system. Having said that, since so many decisions on drugs are currently made based on marketing and not scientific evidence, this practice is definitely a step in the right direction. However, perhaps a better way to do things would be to ban drug marketing altogether (free speech issues aside). Then the decisions would be made by the people who truly should be making them--the doctors.
post #300 of 350
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzinwin
So technically, the PBS is having the Australian government buy U.S. drugs at negotiated prices and then sell them to Australians at a much reduced price. Now I can see why there's so much contention on the issue of "fair trade." (a term I loathe, but is semi-appropriate in the case of pharm) Because once the gov't is in the business of bidding on price, the cost of drugs can be bid down to near the cost of production (which is almost nothing). This possibility leaves room for potential abuse and that is where the contention lies. The main question is--what is the proper price, and trade agreements are the correct way to settle these issues.

I think the idea of government deciding which drugs to cover and which drugs not to cover is great in principle, but needs to be done right. Assuming that no one is corrupt and everyone is making decisions based only on scientific evidence, the gov't needs to make sure there is enough flexibility. Different drugs are appropriate for different people and the idea of limiting society to 1-2 drugs per disease is dangerous and doesnt reflect heterogeneity within the population. The government needs to ensure flexibility within the system. Having said that, since so many decisions on drugs are currently made based on marketing and not scientific evidence, this practice is definitely a step in the right direction. However, perhaps a better way to do things would be to ban drug marketing altogether (free speech issues aside). Then the decisions would be made by the people who truly should be making them--the doctors.
Again, how does this relate to skiing costs in the USA? Perhaps a "precis," to get things back on track? Come on, guys!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Why Is Skiing So Expensive In The USA?