If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"No One" wrote:
Yes, maybe you are right. Film is more expensive in Canada. $159CDN is more than the $141USD @ B&H. Where did you get the price quote for 8x10/50 TRI-X at C$159? Is it current? Was there a volume purchase discount? I've heard that Treckhall has good prices (some better than US) and is very willing to sell to Canadian LF photographers. http://www.treckhall.com/index.html I'm assuming that you buy in larger volume than I do, but where do you purchase supplies? Before Henry's bought them, the Focus Centre (Ottawa) was very supportive of local LF photographers providing us with volume discounts, maintaining stock on hand, etc. Now that they're Henry's they seem to have no interest in LF users. They've become a retail store for consumer digital. They won't even order LF film, instead they tell me I can do it for myself on the web. I guess Ottawa is just a remote outpost for them. As long as I am ordering on the web - why stop at Henry's - the world is at my doorstep and I can get better pricing. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Douglas" wrote in message ... "No One" wrote: Yes, maybe you are right. Film is more expensive in Canada. $159CDN is more than the $141USD @ B&H. Where did you get the price quote for 8x10/50 TRI-X at C$159? Is it current? Was there a volume purchase discount? Vistek - go figure. I've heard that Treckhall has good prices (some better than US) and is very willing to sell to Canadian LF photographers. http://www.treckhall.com/index.html I calle dthem athey insisted that Tri-X was discontinued. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Nah... whether Bush or Kerry wins - you probably don't want our tax load. But we need a larger pop base (IMO) so feel free - you're welcome. While YMMV I have lived and worked on both side of the border. The taxation on $100k in income is more or less the same in Canada and the US. Although there is variance form state to state and province to province. The tax load on the larger film formats is a burden in leg, back and emotional strength. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Douglas" wrote in message m...
Canadian drugs are not 'cheaper'. We're subsidizing them from the US, or by Canadian taxpayers, or both. "Argon3" wrote: No fooling. Several years back I went to the off-license in Victoria BC and bought a six pack and a pack of Marlboros and the bill was something like $15 Canadian (can't remember the exchange rate back then but it wasn't as "advantageous" to a US'ers than it has been recently). Took the swag back to the hotel and told my wife, "Well, here's your big night out in Canada." I figured that the health system was supported by the taxes on booze and smokes...thus giving me an understanding of many of the "Bob and Doug MacKenzie jokes" that SCTV laid on us. We all love and respect Canada around here (my house, anyway) and if we can ever help smuggle some 8X10 across the border to help out our Canadian brethren, I say we go for it...but then I come from Chicago where Al Capone benefited immeasurably from the fine Canadian hooch that he managed to smuggle across the border. You Canucks better watch it...if Bush wins again, you may have a sudden influx of refugees from "down south". best, argon C$15 for a six pack & smokes! That would be a bargain today. Yes, we do pay for the health system here and many of the other benefits of being a Canadian. They tax the delightful sins at a terrific rate. However, one does make a choice. The prohibition example is very pertinent. There have been numerous examples where the US & Canada have 'nicely' offset each others periodic excessive practices to the benefit of all. The differential in pharmaceutical drugs is a current example, running through this thread. It won't last - American prices for pharmaceuticals will have to come down. With an aging population, the US administration (whoever they are) will get 'canned' if they allow the US premium pricing practice to continue. The diff in cost, to individuals who's lives depend upon it, is too large. State gov are already rebelling. They're really exposed on this one right before an election. The lunacy of Washington's position is obvious when they're now looking for help with the flu vaccine supply issues. They are vulnerable on the supply problem but much more so on the larger issue of defending US pharmaceutical pricing. It's not credible to decide that Canadian pharmaceuticals are only 'safe' when there is a supply problem but not when there is a pricing problem. Canadian photographers benefit because we can shop the largest marketplace in the world for everything photographic. Even without smuggling film across the border we benefit the same as you. Nah... whether Bush or Kerry wins - you probably don't want our tax load. But we need a larger pop base (IMO) so feel free - you're welcome. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Douglas" wrote in message m...
Canadian drugs are not 'cheaper'. We're subsidizing them from the US, or by Canadian taxpayers, or both. "Argon3" wrote: No fooling. Several years back I went to the off-license in Victoria BC and bought a six pack and a pack of Marlboros and the bill was something like $15 Canadian (can't remember the exchange rate back then but it wasn't as "advantageous" to a US'ers than it has been recently). Took the swag back to the hotel and told my wife, "Well, here's your big night out in Canada." I figured that the health system was supported by the taxes on booze and smokes...thus giving me an understanding of many of the "Bob and Doug MacKenzie jokes" that SCTV laid on us. We all love and respect Canada around here (my house, anyway) and if we can ever help smuggle some 8X10 across the border to help out our Canadian brethren, I say we go for it...but then I come from Chicago where Al Capone benefited immeasurably from the fine Canadian hooch that he managed to smuggle across the border. You Canucks better watch it...if Bush wins again, you may have a sudden influx of refugees from "down south". best, argon C$15 for a six pack & smokes! That would be a bargain today. Yes, we do pay for the health system here and many of the other benefits of being a Canadian. They tax the delightful sins at a terrific rate. However, one does make a choice. The prohibition example is very pertinent. There have been numerous examples where the US & Canada have 'nicely' offset each others periodic excessive practices to the benefit of all. The differential in pharmaceutical drugs is a current example, running through this thread. It won't last - American prices for pharmaceuticals will have to come down. With an aging population, the US administration (whoever they are) will get 'canned' if they allow the US premium pricing practice to continue. The diff in cost, to individuals who's lives depend upon it, is too large. State gov are already rebelling. They're really exposed on this one right before an election. The lunacy of Washington's position is obvious when they're now looking for help with the flu vaccine supply issues. They are vulnerable on the supply problem but much more so on the larger issue of defending US pharmaceutical pricing. It's not credible to decide that Canadian pharmaceuticals are only 'safe' when there is a supply problem but not when there is a pricing problem. Canadian photographers benefit because we can shop the largest marketplace in the world for everything photographic. Even without smuggling film across the border we benefit the same as you. Nah... whether Bush or Kerry wins - you probably don't want our tax load. But we need a larger pop base (IMO) so feel free - you're welcome. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
... No, what you are not paying in Canada is liability inusrance. The concept of a gazillion dollar out of court settlement due to someone having an adverse reaction to a drug does not exist. Legislation has been proposed in the USA to limit liability claims - over and over. Who's killing that legislation? I'll bet it's the liberals who whine about the cost of meds. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
jjs wrote:
: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message : ... : No, what you are not paying in Canada is liability inusrance. The concept : of a gazillion dollar out of court settlement due to someone having : an adverse reaction to a drug does not exist. : Legislation has been proposed in the USA to limit liability claims - over : and over. Who's killing that legislation? I'll bet it's the liberals who : whine about the cost of meds. It's the ambulance chasing lawyers like edwards. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Uranium Committee" wrote: in message
Canadian drugs are not 'cheaper'. We're subsidizing them from the US, or by Canadian taxpayers, or both. This is seriously off-topic now, but I am by no means innocent so last comment... Arguing to change US legislation to allow US residents to buy prescription drugs, at lower prices, from Canada, is an interesting solution, don't you think? Many of the drugs originate in the US! Why should changing the address of the retail outlet impact the price? Why would the pharmaceutical co allow Canadians to buy at lower prices - are they really willing to forego profits in all markets other than the US? Most of the western world (by which I mean UK, continental Europe, Canada, Mexico) controls the prices of drugs in their jurisdictions. Better (lower) prices, than in Canada, can be found in the UK. On the other hand the US allows the pharmaceutical co to charge whatever the market will bear. In the US large groups (e.g. your Gov & large HMO's) benefit by negotiated prices, small groups, that have no bargaining power, (like the uninsured) pay more. You can argue that this is the way it should be and I'll accept that - it's your choice. However, the price difference is not accounted for by subsidization and not by liability insurance either. You can argue that the US is paying for the costly and risky R&D but there is no evidence of that either. There is alot of discussion and commentary on this you can google for them. One of the most incisive is the following: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/angell.html Let's get back to LF photography... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
... jjs wrote: : "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message : ... : No, what you are not paying in Canada is liability inusrance. The concept : of a gazillion dollar out of court settlement due to someone having : an adverse reaction to a drug does not exist. : Legislation has been proposed in the USA to limit liability claims - over : and over. Who's killing that legislation? I'll bet it's the liberals who : whine about the cost of meds. It's the ambulance chasing lawyers like edwards. I sure would like an election in which I'm not simply voting AGAINST someone. Both these candidates just suck, but one is a chronic, hopeless sociopath with a mental age of 12. Four more years of Bush and we can kiss this country Goodbye. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "jjs"
wrote: Four more years of Bush and we can kiss this country Goodbye. Quite possibly or worse. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|