Is it legal to sell your used Ipod?

[Gerry Clinchy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...phones/?page=1

Interesting case coming before the Supreme Court.

Something that could be another candidate for unintended consequences. The cases mentioned in this article all mention "new" (un-used) items, but could that extend to even re-selling used items ... like your old computer, cell phone, or even your used car?

[Ken Bora]

that would suck, I very much like lawn sales they are a Vermont tradition.
BUT....
The question that sparked this case. Why was the Thiland kid able to buy the $300 U.S. textbooks in Thiland for only $100? We are constantly gouged here. Totaly overcharged 'cause product makers know we will pay it. Just like when Bernie Sanders brought bus loads of seniors to Canada to buy drugs. Drugs made right here. Drugs that were 1/3rd of the cost if purchased in the great white north instead of here. Why? Was that book maker loosing money printing and shipping a book and selling it for $200 less, than if you walked into the front door of the factory?

[JS]

that would suck, I very much like lawn sales they are a Vermont tradition.
BUT....
The question that sparked this case. Why was the Thiland kid able to buy the $300 U.S. textbooks in Thiland for only $100? We are constantly gouged here. Totaly overcharged 'cause product makers know we will pay it. Just like when Bernie Sanders brought bus loads of seniors to Canada to buy drugs. Drugs made right here. Drugs that were 1/3rd of the cost if purchased in the great white north instead of here. Why? Was that book maker loosing money printing and shipping a book and selling it for $200 less, than if you walked into the front door of the factory?

Key point, Ken, to the economic situation we are in. And it is not something that has happened suddenly. It's been creeping for decades. It is in front of us daily and we just take it for granted.

Is this the result of some flaw in government policy or the result of a free enterprise system we embrace so dearly? Can't interfere with a free market or criticize a businessman for being "successful". Not preaching socialism or even trying to be contentious here, but just pointing out a perspective not often discussed.

With all the mistrust in elected officials and all the conspiracy theories we read about ...

And I am told if we allow them to keep even more of their profits, they will hire more people? I don't think so. Makes one think maybe we should be holding elections for the CEO's????

JS

[Buzz]

that would suck, I very much like lawn sales they are a Vermont tradition.
BUT....
The question that sparked this case. Why was the Thiland kid able to buy the $300 U.S. textbooks in Thiland for only $100? We are constantly gouged here. Totaly overcharged 'cause product makers know we will pay it. Just like when Bernie Sanders brought bus loads of seniors to Canada to buy drugs. Drugs made right here. Drugs that were 1/3rd of the cost if purchased in the great white north instead of here. Why? Was that book maker loosing money printing and shipping a book and selling it for $200 less, than if you walked into the front door of the factory?

This is one thing that has bugged me about healthcare since it came out during the Obamacare debate. We pay way more for prescriptions and medical equipment such as CT and MRI machines than the rest of the world does. Part of the reason is that those other country's governments are negotiating drastically lower prices for their people. I heard the argument from conservatives that we cannot allow this here, because reducing what we pay will stymie research and innovation. I understand that fear, but how long can we afford to pay 17% of our GDP toward healthcare while the rest of the world is paying on average 11%? And to take it a step further, how long can we continue to pay more toward defense than almost the whole rest of the world combined? At some point we have to admit to ourselves that we can no longer afford to do this. We are under pressure from competition with other countries whose people make a fraction of what our workers do for the same jobs. If our people must accept less in lower wages, loss of benefits, loss of pensions, then we have to also quit forcing our people to take it in the shorts on prices and defense spending.

[achiro]

This is one thing that has bugged me about healthcare since it came out during the Obamacare debate. We pay way more for prescriptions and medical equipment such as CT and MRI machines than the rest of the world does. Part of the reason is that those other country's governments are negotiating drastically lower prices for their people. I heard the argument from conservatives that we cannot allow this here, because reducing what we pay will stymie research and innovation. I understand that fear, but how long can we afford to pay 17% of our GDP toward healthcare while the rest of the world is paying on average 11%? And to take it a step further, how long can we continue to pay more toward defense than almost the whole rest of the world combined? At some point we have to admit to ourselves that we can no longer afford to do this. We are under pressure from competition with other countries whose people make a fraction of what our workers do for the same jobs. If our people must accept less in lower wages, loss of benefits, loss of pensions, then we have to also quit forcing our people to take it in the shorts on prices and defense spending.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone from either side of the isle say that our healthcare system doesn't need some sort of overhaul. The problem is that we don't need a bunch of politicians that know nothing about healthcare making the decisions. We need a large group of private practice docs from multiple disciplines, hospital administrators, Medicare and private administrators, maybe some drug company folks, and go from there. People that deal with this stuff everyday are going to come up with a much better solution. Obamacare is a mess that will ultimately make things much worse.

[JS]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone from either side of the isle say that our healthcare system doesn't need some sort of overhaul. The problem is that we don't need a bunch of politicians that know nothing about healthcare making the decisions. We need a large group of private practice docs from multiple disciplines, hospital administrators, Medicare and private administrators, maybe some drug company folks, and go from there. People that deal with this stuff everyday are going to come up with a much better solution. Obamacare is a mess that will ultimately make things much worse.

Russ, the point of my post was to ask where the fault(s) lie. All economic problems seem to be put in the lap of government while the greed of the private sector, as a contributing factor, is ignored. Or even further, applauded as "success" which we should not begrudge.

The health care INDUSTRY is a good example. Health care costs and services did not explode overnight with Obabacare. As a matter of fact, I see some improvements with the plan, but that is not my point here. My point is that we have seen this as a growing problem for at least 40 years IN THE HANDS OF THIS:

large group of private practice docs from multiple disciplines, hospital administrators, Medicare and private administrators, maybe some drug company folks, and go from there. People that deal with this stuff everyday ...

How do you explain this and what makes people think that they:

are going to come up with a much better solution.

When people become angry and frustrated, they direct that anger at the easiest available target. I understand that. It's our nature. It feels good to vent. But it's not productive and never solves the problem. It only prevents open, problem-solving dialogue and preserves the status quo.

JS

[achiro]

Russ, the point of my post was to ask where the fault(s) lie. All economic problems seem to be put in the lap of government while the greed of the private sector, as a contributing factor, is ignored. Or even further, applauded as "success" which we should not begrudge.

The health care INDUSTRY is a good example. Health care costs and services did not explode overnight with Obabacare. As a matter of fact, I see some improvements with the plan, but that is not my point here. My point is that we have seen this as a growing problem for at least 40 years IN THE HANDS OF THIS:


How do you explain this and what makes people think that they:


When people become angry and frustrated, they direct that anger at the easiest available target. I understand that. It's our nature. It feels good to vent. But it's not productive and never solves the problem. It only prevents open, problem-solving dialogue and preserves the status quo.

JS

I am a chiropractor, I know zero about bridge engineering but I could run for office. If I won I would be able to write legislation. Let's say that someone I knew suggested that all bridges should be designed to a certain specification based on their needs. Now I get some other law makers on board but we don't ask any engineers, highway folks, or the state organizations that will be in charge of paying for the projects what they think. I don't have a clue how to build a bridge but I'm now telling people how it should be done. Do you think I could do a better job at designing a bridge than the engineers?

[Buzz]

Do you think I could do a better job at designing a bridge than the engineers?

I'm a power engineer. Back in the 1990's, the feds passed a law known to us as EPACT. It dictated increases in energy efficiency of electric motors with rated speeds of 3600, 1800, 1200, and 900 RPM rated at 200 (or so) horsepower and less. We kicked and screamed as an industry. We told the government that they would cost us and users of our products money that could never be recovered by efficiency improvements. We thought it was an error of epic proportion.

I was put in charge of the project for motors manufactured in North America. This was not a job I wanted, I figured anyone in that position would fail. I spent 2 years of my life on the project. As it turned out, we significantly increased efficiency AND we significantly decreased our costs of manufacturing the product. We did it by decreasing the material required in the designs and by reviewing from top to bottom our manufacturing processes and improving them.

The government didn't tell us how to design motors. They told us what minimum performance was required to participate in the business in North America, and the engineers figured out how to do it while improving our competitive position in the industry. Win-Win... And that job I didn't want ended up giving me favorable visibility in the company globally. I profited personally on a grand scale...

Do I think the government does everything right? Not by a long shot. But in this instance they challenged us as an industry, and the industry responded.

[Gerry Clinchy]

Back to the OP ... I think that this is one time that free enterprise would come down on the side of the individual who makes a purchase in a legal fashion from the owner of the "franchise." Each party entered into that agreement freely and at an agreed-upon price. If the individual should sell it to someone else, then they have not "pirated" the product.

If there is a tariff on importing certain products, then the individual would pay that tariff.

By the same token, the orignal mfr could impose a limit on items purchased by a single individual. Such as: if you order 20 of these items, then the individual might be called a "broker" or "distributor". The company could be free to limit the number of items purchased by a single individual within a given time frame (a year, a month, etc.) This is done at the retail level all the time, when consumers are allowed to purchase a limited # of items at the sale price.

Is it unfair for the mfr to charge less in Thailand for the product than in the US, then the entrepreneurial spirit and mind will do just what this Thailand student did ... and the issue would become a moot point.

But now government will attempt to intervene, in a place where perhaps it should leave well enough alone?

Now, if we extrapolate this basic discussion to the health care system ... health care was delivered very differently when it was a lot cheaper. Insurance was not the force that it is today. The level of sophistication of care was not was it is today. Govt regulations didn't add to the cost of new drugs and devices.

That is not to say that safety issues of drugs and devices should not be addressed ... but I would tend to agree with achiro that BEFORE Obamacare was voted on, the health care providers should have had much more input. Unless we believe that all health care providers are greedy charlatans, that could have made Obamacare much more effective in actually delivering care at reasonable cost. I don't believe that people who choose a career in health care are that venal. Maybe I'm naive?

We can't overlook the fact that if a device made in the USA is sold in the USA, it will now be taxed per unit sold. That tax, as in every case of taxation on industry I can think of, is ultimately a tax on the consumer of the goods.

For those who may not know, every time a mfr sells a unit of a drug (even an OTC) to a facility that accepts Medicaid and Medicare patients, there is a "kick-back" to the Fed gvt. I know because I used to fill out the forms for a company I worked for. So, you might say that our govt is also "negotiating" a lower price for these items. If an Advil is dispensed in a nursing home, the govt is getting a piece of the action. I don't know about devices, but it wouldn't surprise me if the same was true.

Perhaps many have forgotten the story about wheelchairs for Medicare patients. I haven't. Basically, Medicare rents them for a patient. Then the same chairs can be re-rented to future patients just as if they were new items. The "rental" ends up being more expensive than an actual purchase. This was so dumb that when someone brought it to light, the rules for motorized wheelchairs were changed. However, the rules for regular wheelchairs were not changed.

There is a lot that could be done to control costs that is not being done ... and would cause no degradation of services; and one didn't need Obamacare to achieve those improvements. Some things in Obamacare may be good things, but some of them are proving to be quite un-good. I would agree with achiro again. This is probably because "the bridge was built by a politician and not an engineer."

Look how we jumped on the idea of electric cars ... I really think, as Franco might be quick to point out, that electric cars are on their way to obsolesence due to the technology of CNG. Electricity may be great for a cordless screwdriver, but has limited application for passenger cars. And nobody was paying attention to the cost of electricity to charge the dang things ... especially when Obama was predicting that the cost of electricity would "necessarily skyrocket" with his energy policies.

[JS]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone from either side of the isle say that our healthcare system doesn't need some sort of overhaul.

Well then you may not have been around as long as I have because I heard it a lot. The rising cost of health care has been a concern for employers for decades, whether it was provided as a part of employee benefits or was a part of a collective bargaining agreement. In the case of the latter, it was also a serious concern for the unions representing employees of those businesses. Joint labor/management efforts to contain health care costs date back to the early 1970s. I know; I was a part of that.

I attended numerous conferences around the country with presenters from all facets of the issue including representatives of the medical community, official spokesmen for the American Medical Association, lobbyists from the insurance industry, interested parties from corporations large and small, staffers from various elected officials, etc., etc. I can tell you absolutely, that the position of the medical community at that time, and for at least 15 years forward, was that the system WAS NOT in need of an overhaul. There position was always that it was NOT broken and it does not need fixed. They were adamant that the government should keep their nose out of "their" business and let the free market take care of it. They spent millions and millions of lobbying dollars to insure that would be the case.

It was not until many years later, when they saw the train coming down the track, that they began to show any interest in "helping" to formulate any kind of solution.

The problem is that we don't need a bunch of politicians that know nothing about healthcare making the decisions. We need a large group of private practice docs from multiple disciplines, hospital administrators, Medicare and private administrators, maybe some drug company folks, and go from there. People that deal with this stuff everyday are going to come up with a much better solution. Obamacare is a mess that will ultimately make things much worse.

And what information do you have that this model has not been followed? Input from the "experts" is commonly sought by government agencies. (those "costly studies" that we complain are draining our tax dollars?) No politicians have locked themselves into a back room and tried to formulate a medical policy. The medical community is at the table, albeit only because they were dragged there kicking and screaming and now are trying to protect their interest.

JS