24th Feb 2009, 10:31
"There is one case here where a child was left to bleed to death in an emergency room without care because his father had to rush home to get his insurance card before a doctor would even LOOK at the child."
Note that the family sued and won. Why would they win? Why is it called malpractice? Answer: because it ISN'T common or considered acceptable. Your point that it happens daily is completely baseless. It happens, but it is uncommon and, again, NOT THE RATIONALE BEHIND A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. It results in lawsuits, public outrage, and loss of prestige. None of these things would be true if it happened "EVERY DAY in the U.S.".
There IS a reasonable basis for a single-payer system but this is an AUTO BLOG!! Yes it has an affect on the automakers but so would the higher taxes that would be necessary to pay for such a system --- it ain't free no matter what.
You would likely be surprised that I don't take a hard position because the facts of which I am aware don't support doing so. I have concerns and doubts that such a system would be cheaper, but it is perhaps valid to say that healthcare should be a right and not merely the privilege of the very poor, the wealthy, and those of the middle class who are not self-employed. There are aggravating and mitigating points on both sides.
There is absolutely no point in arguing this any further, though, because this is the wrong venue and we can't even get to the real arguments on both sides of this issue. This relates to auto making only in the same way that it relates to doing any kind of business here in the U.S. Everyone faces the same realities, so it isn't truly an appropriate subject for this forum unless we want to also plumb the depths of business models, advertising, merchandising, accounting, and employee relations.
So... I'm out. If getting the last word is your definition of success, then have at it. I'm back to cars.
24th Feb 2009, 10:39
Yes, many Camry owners ARE elderly, and the car is perfect for them. They never use 10% of any car's potential. And therein lies the problem with the Tundra. It, too, was built in much the same manner as the Camry. It simply cannot handle being used like a Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado would. It, too, is a perfect vehicle for retired elderly men who putter around hauling garden supplies. In real, day-to-day work usage it leaves a lot to be desired.
24th Feb 2009, 10:56
I think you're misinterpreting what the situation on Wall Street and its relationship with the government has been. Banks, lenders, and financial institutions were never "forced" to loan money. The reality is that financial institutions wanted to loan more money to higher risk clientele. As I mentioned before, lobbies had much to do with getting the government to look the other way.
Now why would banks want to lend to riskier borrowers? The reasons are complex, but to boil it down to a few of them, one is that few banks actually hold onto mortgages for very long. Instead, mortgages are soon sold off up stream to other banks and investment firms. Reason no.2 is that investing in risk means higher returns and quicker profits.
What enabled the risk to seem more digestible was the ease of obtaining insurance. What I mean by this is that it's actually extremely easy to setup a financial insurance entity that can insure anything. Let's say that you're afraid Brazil could someday go bankrupt because you have large investments in Brazilian companies. No problem, just find an insurance firm that will insure your assets in Brazil. Pay them 100k to insure 100 million worth of investments. The insurance company likely never has to pay out anything, and thus probably doesn't actually have enough to cover those insured if there was.
That's precisely what happened on Wall Street: Banks sold high risk debt, but also bought insurance from companies like AIG. When these banks began to show heavy losses from mortgage defaults, AIG was unable to pay, hence their failure and why the US stepped in and shored things up, because had they not, the entire system would have collapsed. All because everyone assumed that their backs were covered, when in fact nobody had any safety rope whatsoever, since what was being insured had no real value to begin with, since the investments in question were heavily tied to overpriced real estate.
Bottom line: You can't make money off of non-existent, non-performing capital.
As you can see, these people on Wall Street basically played with the money of everyone in a very irresponsible way. If you think this sounds crazy, than perhaps you would agree with me that indeed - these companies acted with great abandon. These industries MUST be regulated, because not having any regulation is exactly what created this entire problem. There is no such thing as capitalism without regulation. You cannot expect a balanced system unless corporate interests are held accountable for their actions.
People need to get out there and actually understand how the market works.
24th Feb 2009, 12:44
His being foreign must qualify him. What a stupid statement! The U.S. is still the world's largest economy, Has the most powerful military, is the seminal leader of the G8 (group of eight INDUSTRIALIZED nations, has the highest quality healthcare (though its not generally available), is the technological leader, is the leader in the area of innovation, and has the world's most stable government. The lack of socialized healthcare seems like a minor difference in light of these facts. It could be a good idea to consider the possibility that his comment was "sour grapes" from another disappointed socialist.
I think that within the next two years you'll see a rebound in GM and Ford's fortunes (I'm not sure what will happen to Chrysler) as they now have cost structures that rival their foreign counterparts. Hopefully they will allow "car guys" rather than accountants design their vehicles. This could be a very exciting time as we see improvements in quality, technology, "greenness", and fuel economy. Already their trucks, in particular, are class acts.
25th Feb 2009, 12:11
10:39 The Tundra has more horsepower, torque, and towing capacity than either of those trucks if I'm not mistaken. Not to mention it's a Toyota, and not a Chevy, which means that it isn't a misaligned collection of cheap parts like a Chevy is.
25th Feb 2009, 13:13
"People need to get out there and actually understand how the market works."
And your post is informative and simple enough to help us do exactly that. Thank you.
23rd Feb 2009, 17:13
I could wait til my teeth fall out naturally from age, and be one of the many new Camry owners about.