Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
#151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
wanted.
At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required
emission and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of
capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already
produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements.
By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new
technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the
America automobile industry by ten years. It would have been far better to
set goals rather than timetables, as the government now does, and allowed
those billions to spent on R&D rather than production facilities. The far
better vehicles of today in terms of crash safety, fuel efficiency,
nearly zero emissions, as well as the improved reliability and longevity
could have been available ten or even fifteen years sooner.
mike hunt
"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IVyAg.10774$oz.9574@trnddc07...
> JohnR66 wrote:
>>
>
> Toyota and Honda pull off major redesigns of their big selling cars every
> 3-6 years. Once upon a time, the US companies INVENTED the idea of
> constant design updates to keep the vehicles interesting. Somehow in the
> 1970s they lost the ability to do so. One could blame government
> regulations, but how then do you explain the fact that the Japanese pull
> it off like clockwork while selling cars all over the world in left and
> right side control configurations as well?
>
> John
>
>
spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
wanted.
At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required
emission and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of
capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already
produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements.
By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new
technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the
America automobile industry by ten years. It would have been far better to
set goals rather than timetables, as the government now does, and allowed
those billions to spent on R&D rather than production facilities. The far
better vehicles of today in terms of crash safety, fuel efficiency,
nearly zero emissions, as well as the improved reliability and longevity
could have been available ten or even fifteen years sooner.
mike hunt
"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IVyAg.10774$oz.9574@trnddc07...
> JohnR66 wrote:
>>
>
> Toyota and Honda pull off major redesigns of their big selling cars every
> 3-6 years. Once upon a time, the US companies INVENTED the idea of
> constant design updates to keep the vehicles interesting. Somehow in the
> 1970s they lost the ability to do so. One could blame government
> regulations, but how then do you explain the fact that the Japanese pull
> it off like clockwork while selling cars all over the world in left and
> right side control configurations as well?
>
> John
>
>
#152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
wanted.
At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required
emission and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of
capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already
produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements.
By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new
technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the
America automobile industry by ten years. It would have been far better to
set goals rather than timetables, as the government now does, and allowed
those billions to spent on R&D rather than production facilities. The far
better vehicles of today in terms of crash safety, fuel efficiency,
nearly zero emissions, as well as the improved reliability and longevity
could have been available ten or even fifteen years sooner.
mike hunt
"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IVyAg.10774$oz.9574@trnddc07...
> JohnR66 wrote:
>>
>
> Toyota and Honda pull off major redesigns of their big selling cars every
> 3-6 years. Once upon a time, the US companies INVENTED the idea of
> constant design updates to keep the vehicles interesting. Somehow in the
> 1970s they lost the ability to do so. One could blame government
> regulations, but how then do you explain the fact that the Japanese pull
> it off like clockwork while selling cars all over the world in left and
> right side control configurations as well?
>
> John
>
>
spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
wanted.
At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required
emission and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of
capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already
produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements.
By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new
technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the
America automobile industry by ten years. It would have been far better to
set goals rather than timetables, as the government now does, and allowed
those billions to spent on R&D rather than production facilities. The far
better vehicles of today in terms of crash safety, fuel efficiency,
nearly zero emissions, as well as the improved reliability and longevity
could have been available ten or even fifteen years sooner.
mike hunt
"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IVyAg.10774$oz.9574@trnddc07...
> JohnR66 wrote:
>>
>
> Toyota and Honda pull off major redesigns of their big selling cars every
> 3-6 years. Once upon a time, the US companies INVENTED the idea of
> constant design updates to keep the vehicles interesting. Somehow in the
> 1970s they lost the ability to do so. One could blame government
> regulations, but how then do you explain the fact that the Japanese pull
> it off like clockwork while selling cars all over the world in left and
> right side control configurations as well?
>
> John
>
>
#153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
wanted.
At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required
emission and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of
capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already
produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements.
By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new
technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the
America automobile industry by ten years. It would have been far better to
set goals rather than timetables, as the government now does, and allowed
those billions to spent on R&D rather than production facilities. The far
better vehicles of today in terms of crash safety, fuel efficiency,
nearly zero emissions, as well as the improved reliability and longevity
could have been available ten or even fifteen years sooner.
mike hunt
"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IVyAg.10774$oz.9574@trnddc07...
> JohnR66 wrote:
>>
>
> Toyota and Honda pull off major redesigns of their big selling cars every
> 3-6 years. Once upon a time, the US companies INVENTED the idea of
> constant design updates to keep the vehicles interesting. Somehow in the
> 1970s they lost the ability to do so. One could blame government
> regulations, but how then do you explain the fact that the Japanese pull
> it off like clockwork while selling cars all over the world in left and
> right side control configurations as well?
>
> John
>
>
spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
wanted.
At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required
emission and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of
capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already
produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements.
By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new
technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the
America automobile industry by ten years. It would have been far better to
set goals rather than timetables, as the government now does, and allowed
those billions to spent on R&D rather than production facilities. The far
better vehicles of today in terms of crash safety, fuel efficiency,
nearly zero emissions, as well as the improved reliability and longevity
could have been available ten or even fifteen years sooner.
mike hunt
"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IVyAg.10774$oz.9574@trnddc07...
> JohnR66 wrote:
>>
>
> Toyota and Honda pull off major redesigns of their big selling cars every
> 3-6 years. Once upon a time, the US companies INVENTED the idea of
> constant design updates to keep the vehicles interesting. Somehow in the
> 1970s they lost the ability to do so. One could blame government
> regulations, but how then do you explain the fact that the Japanese pull
> it off like clockwork while selling cars all over the world in left and
> right side control configurations as well?
>
> John
>
>
#154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
" dbu," wrote:
>
> In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>,
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> > <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including
> > >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that
> > >national health coverage will be free, do you?
> >
> > No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone
> > has it.
>
> I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains
> how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay
> BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this
> monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets
> batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate
> details. Scary.
> --
>
If it were to be run like anything else the guv'ment does... We be screwed!
JT
#155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
" dbu," wrote:
>
> In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>,
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> > <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including
> > >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that
> > >national health coverage will be free, do you?
> >
> > No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone
> > has it.
>
> I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains
> how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay
> BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this
> monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets
> batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate
> details. Scary.
> --
>
If it were to be run like anything else the guv'ment does... We be screwed!
JT
#156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
" dbu," wrote:
>
> In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>,
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> > <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including
> > >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that
> > >national health coverage will be free, do you?
> >
> > No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone
> > has it.
>
> I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains
> how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay
> BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this
> monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets
> batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate
> details. Scary.
> --
>
If it were to be run like anything else the guv'ment does... We be screwed!
JT
#157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
John Horner wrote:
>
> Hachiroku wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 +0000, John Horner wrote:
> >
> >
> >>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
> >>
> >>1) Toyota
> >>2) Honda
> >>3) Hyundai
> >>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
> >
> >
> >
> > Make that:
> > 1) Toyota-GM
> > 2) Honda
> > 3) Ford
> >
>
> An interesting take. I can't see Toyota going all the way to the altar
> with GM though. What would Toyota get out of it? Also, Toyota has a
> long history of being an independent company in mind and action.
> Nissan, on the other hand, started out as a company which was always in
> bed with at least one foreign company and continues that pattern today.
>
> I can see the long-shot Nissan-Renault-GM deal happening as a much
> higher probability than an Toyota-GM tie up.
>
> John
GM is a poor candidate for takeover due to it's outrageous union/pension
commitments. I see the company being broken up and assets sold within
the next five years.
JT
#158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
John Horner wrote:
>
> Hachiroku wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 +0000, John Horner wrote:
> >
> >
> >>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
> >>
> >>1) Toyota
> >>2) Honda
> >>3) Hyundai
> >>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
> >
> >
> >
> > Make that:
> > 1) Toyota-GM
> > 2) Honda
> > 3) Ford
> >
>
> An interesting take. I can't see Toyota going all the way to the altar
> with GM though. What would Toyota get out of it? Also, Toyota has a
> long history of being an independent company in mind and action.
> Nissan, on the other hand, started out as a company which was always in
> bed with at least one foreign company and continues that pattern today.
>
> I can see the long-shot Nissan-Renault-GM deal happening as a much
> higher probability than an Toyota-GM tie up.
>
> John
GM is a poor candidate for takeover due to it's outrageous union/pension
commitments. I see the company being broken up and assets sold within
the next five years.
JT
#159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
John Horner wrote:
>
> Hachiroku wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 +0000, John Horner wrote:
> >
> >
> >>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
> >>
> >>1) Toyota
> >>2) Honda
> >>3) Hyundai
> >>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
> >
> >
> >
> > Make that:
> > 1) Toyota-GM
> > 2) Honda
> > 3) Ford
> >
>
> An interesting take. I can't see Toyota going all the way to the altar
> with GM though. What would Toyota get out of it? Also, Toyota has a
> long history of being an independent company in mind and action.
> Nissan, on the other hand, started out as a company which was always in
> bed with at least one foreign company and continues that pattern today.
>
> I can see the long-shot Nissan-Renault-GM deal happening as a much
> higher probability than an Toyota-GM tie up.
>
> John
GM is a poor candidate for takeover due to it's outrageous union/pension
commitments. I see the company being broken up and assets sold within
the next five years.
JT
#160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
Just as with everything else you buy, YOU will pay the price. The
difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what you
buy. If the government takes over they will tell you what to pay and take
if from you in taxes. They will tell you to whom you must go, and when, to
receive your 'Free' care. Has the government EVER run anything efficiently
that you know of? Look at Medicare. When presented it was estimated to
cost a certain amount annually in ten years. Those that were opposed to the
government getting into healthcare said it will cost twice that much, they
were wrong. It cost five times as much. Before Medicare it cost around two
hours pay to go to a doctor, now it cost six hours pay. A hospital bed a
days wages, now you can not get a bed for a weeks wages. Look at drugs for
seniors. Even with a competitive system to keep cost down, cost of drugs to
the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen if everyone,
including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and healthcare?
mike hunt
" dbu," <howard@dynoadorky.com> wrote in message
news:howard-2D59DE.03331804082006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>,
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits,
>> >including
>> >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe
>> >that
>> >national health coverage will be free, do you?
>>
>> No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone
>> has it.
>
>
> I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains
> how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay
> BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this
> monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets
> batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate
> details. Scary.
> --
>
difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what you
buy. If the government takes over they will tell you what to pay and take
if from you in taxes. They will tell you to whom you must go, and when, to
receive your 'Free' care. Has the government EVER run anything efficiently
that you know of? Look at Medicare. When presented it was estimated to
cost a certain amount annually in ten years. Those that were opposed to the
government getting into healthcare said it will cost twice that much, they
were wrong. It cost five times as much. Before Medicare it cost around two
hours pay to go to a doctor, now it cost six hours pay. A hospital bed a
days wages, now you can not get a bed for a weeks wages. Look at drugs for
seniors. Even with a competitive system to keep cost down, cost of drugs to
the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen if everyone,
including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and healthcare?
mike hunt
" dbu," <howard@dynoadorky.com> wrote in message
news:howard-2D59DE.03331804082006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>,
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits,
>> >including
>> >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe
>> >that
>> >national health coverage will be free, do you?
>>
>> No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone
>> has it.
>
>
> I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains
> how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay
> BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this
> monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets
> batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate
> details. Scary.
> --
>
#161
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
Just as with everything else you buy, YOU will pay the price. The
difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what you
buy. If the government takes over they will tell you what to pay and take
if from you in taxes. They will tell you to whom you must go, and when, to
receive your 'Free' care. Has the government EVER run anything efficiently
that you know of? Look at Medicare. When presented it was estimated to
cost a certain amount annually in ten years. Those that were opposed to the
government getting into healthcare said it will cost twice that much, they
were wrong. It cost five times as much. Before Medicare it cost around two
hours pay to go to a doctor, now it cost six hours pay. A hospital bed a
days wages, now you can not get a bed for a weeks wages. Look at drugs for
seniors. Even with a competitive system to keep cost down, cost of drugs to
the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen if everyone,
including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and healthcare?
mike hunt
" dbu," <howard@dynoadorky.com> wrote in message
news:howard-2D59DE.03331804082006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>,
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits,
>> >including
>> >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe
>> >that
>> >national health coverage will be free, do you?
>>
>> No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone
>> has it.
>
>
> I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains
> how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay
> BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this
> monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets
> batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate
> details. Scary.
> --
>
difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what you
buy. If the government takes over they will tell you what to pay and take
if from you in taxes. They will tell you to whom you must go, and when, to
receive your 'Free' care. Has the government EVER run anything efficiently
that you know of? Look at Medicare. When presented it was estimated to
cost a certain amount annually in ten years. Those that were opposed to the
government getting into healthcare said it will cost twice that much, they
were wrong. It cost five times as much. Before Medicare it cost around two
hours pay to go to a doctor, now it cost six hours pay. A hospital bed a
days wages, now you can not get a bed for a weeks wages. Look at drugs for
seniors. Even with a competitive system to keep cost down, cost of drugs to
the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen if everyone,
including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and healthcare?
mike hunt
" dbu," <howard@dynoadorky.com> wrote in message
news:howard-2D59DE.03331804082006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>,
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits,
>> >including
>> >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe
>> >that
>> >national health coverage will be free, do you?
>>
>> No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone
>> has it.
>
>
> I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains
> how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay
> BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this
> monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets
> batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate
> details. Scary.
> --
>
#162
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
Just as with everything else you buy, YOU will pay the price. The
difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what you
buy. If the government takes over they will tell you what to pay and take
if from you in taxes. They will tell you to whom you must go, and when, to
receive your 'Free' care. Has the government EVER run anything efficiently
that you know of? Look at Medicare. When presented it was estimated to
cost a certain amount annually in ten years. Those that were opposed to the
government getting into healthcare said it will cost twice that much, they
were wrong. It cost five times as much. Before Medicare it cost around two
hours pay to go to a doctor, now it cost six hours pay. A hospital bed a
days wages, now you can not get a bed for a weeks wages. Look at drugs for
seniors. Even with a competitive system to keep cost down, cost of drugs to
the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen if everyone,
including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and healthcare?
mike hunt
" dbu," <howard@dynoadorky.com> wrote in message
news:howard-2D59DE.03331804082006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>,
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits,
>> >including
>> >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe
>> >that
>> >national health coverage will be free, do you?
>>
>> No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone
>> has it.
>
>
> I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains
> how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay
> BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this
> monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets
> batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate
> details. Scary.
> --
>
difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what you
buy. If the government takes over they will tell you what to pay and take
if from you in taxes. They will tell you to whom you must go, and when, to
receive your 'Free' care. Has the government EVER run anything efficiently
that you know of? Look at Medicare. When presented it was estimated to
cost a certain amount annually in ten years. Those that were opposed to the
government getting into healthcare said it will cost twice that much, they
were wrong. It cost five times as much. Before Medicare it cost around two
hours pay to go to a doctor, now it cost six hours pay. A hospital bed a
days wages, now you can not get a bed for a weeks wages. Look at drugs for
seniors. Even with a competitive system to keep cost down, cost of drugs to
the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen if everyone,
including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and healthcare?
mike hunt
" dbu," <howard@dynoadorky.com> wrote in message
news:howard-2D59DE.03331804082006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>,
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits,
>> >including
>> >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe
>> >that
>> >national health coverage will be free, do you?
>>
>> No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone
>> has it.
>
>
> I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains
> how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay
> BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this
> monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets
> batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate
> details. Scary.
> --
>
#163
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Mike Hunter wrote:
> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
> spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
> build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
> lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
> wanted.
>
Once again you are full of excuses for ineffective management.
You failed to mention the complete focus of the US companies on raking
in profits from the truck and SUV boom while paying the management and
workers handsomely and failing to invest effectively in the future.
You have a pattern Mike. When GM makes bad intake manifold gaskets for
two decades you blame goverment regulations (asbestos). When the auto
makers get killed by foreign competition you blame the government. I
suppose that if you break your own leg in your front yard you will come
up with a reason why emissions legistlation kept you from filling in the
hole left by a ground squirrel!
You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
reminds me of you .
John
> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
> spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
> build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
> lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
> wanted.
>
Once again you are full of excuses for ineffective management.
You failed to mention the complete focus of the US companies on raking
in profits from the truck and SUV boom while paying the management and
workers handsomely and failing to invest effectively in the future.
You have a pattern Mike. When GM makes bad intake manifold gaskets for
two decades you blame goverment regulations (asbestos). When the auto
makers get killed by foreign competition you blame the government. I
suppose that if you break your own leg in your front yard you will come
up with a reason why emissions legistlation kept you from filling in the
hole left by a ground squirrel!
You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
reminds me of you .
John
#164
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Mike Hunter wrote:
> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
> spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
> build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
> lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
> wanted.
>
Once again you are full of excuses for ineffective management.
You failed to mention the complete focus of the US companies on raking
in profits from the truck and SUV boom while paying the management and
workers handsomely and failing to invest effectively in the future.
You have a pattern Mike. When GM makes bad intake manifold gaskets for
two decades you blame goverment regulations (asbestos). When the auto
makers get killed by foreign competition you blame the government. I
suppose that if you break your own leg in your front yard you will come
up with a reason why emissions legistlation kept you from filling in the
hole left by a ground squirrel!
You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
reminds me of you .
John
> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
> spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
> build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
> lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
> wanted.
>
Once again you are full of excuses for ineffective management.
You failed to mention the complete focus of the US companies on raking
in profits from the truck and SUV boom while paying the management and
workers handsomely and failing to invest effectively in the future.
You have a pattern Mike. When GM makes bad intake manifold gaskets for
two decades you blame goverment regulations (asbestos). When the auto
makers get killed by foreign competition you blame the government. I
suppose that if you break your own leg in your front yard you will come
up with a reason why emissions legistlation kept you from filling in the
hole left by a ground squirrel!
You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
reminds me of you .
John
#165
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Mike Hunter wrote:
> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
> spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
> build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
> lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
> wanted.
>
Once again you are full of excuses for ineffective management.
You failed to mention the complete focus of the US companies on raking
in profits from the truck and SUV boom while paying the management and
workers handsomely and failing to invest effectively in the future.
You have a pattern Mike. When GM makes bad intake manifold gaskets for
two decades you blame goverment regulations (asbestos). When the auto
makers get killed by foreign competition you blame the government. I
suppose that if you break your own leg in your front yard you will come
up with a reason why emissions legistlation kept you from filling in the
hole left by a ground squirrel!
You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
reminds me of you .
John
> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
> spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
> build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
> lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
> wanted.
>
Once again you are full of excuses for ineffective management.
You failed to mention the complete focus of the US companies on raking
in profits from the truck and SUV boom while paying the management and
workers handsomely and failing to invest effectively in the future.
You have a pattern Mike. When GM makes bad intake manifold gaskets for
two decades you blame goverment regulations (asbestos). When the auto
makers get killed by foreign competition you blame the government. I
suppose that if you break your own leg in your front yard you will come
up with a reason why emissions legistlation kept you from filling in the
hole left by a ground squirrel!
You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
reminds me of you .
John