Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
#169
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GM still outsells Honda in 2006
Mike Hunter wrote:
> Duh to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan: "There you go again," saying
> things with seeming authority yet getting the facts wrong. Denso GLOBAL is
> the Japanese sales company that owns Denso. Japanese assemblers in the US
> buy from Denso GLOBAL because of Japanese tax laws that earn credit for
> Japanese corporations that buy form other Japanese corporations. Japan
> offers tax credits for exports and on capital returned to Japan .
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
Any backup for your assertions there Mikey? I'm suspect that we will
once again hear about how you don't do research for other people.
There is no such company as "Denso Global" and I would love to see
independent information backing your tax law claims.
Go ahead, just this once prove me wrong.
John
> Duh to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan: "There you go again," saying
> things with seeming authority yet getting the facts wrong. Denso GLOBAL is
> the Japanese sales company that owns Denso. Japanese assemblers in the US
> buy from Denso GLOBAL because of Japanese tax laws that earn credit for
> Japanese corporations that buy form other Japanese corporations. Japan
> offers tax credits for exports and on capital returned to Japan .
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
Any backup for your assertions there Mikey? I'm suspect that we will
once again hear about how you don't do research for other people.
There is no such company as "Denso Global" and I would love to see
independent information backing your tax law claims.
Go ahead, just this once prove me wrong.
John
#170
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GM still outsells Honda in 2006
Mike Hunter wrote:
> Duh to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan: "There you go again," saying
> things with seeming authority yet getting the facts wrong. Denso GLOBAL is
> the Japanese sales company that owns Denso. Japanese assemblers in the US
> buy from Denso GLOBAL because of Japanese tax laws that earn credit for
> Japanese corporations that buy form other Japanese corporations. Japan
> offers tax credits for exports and on capital returned to Japan .
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
Any backup for your assertions there Mikey? I'm suspect that we will
once again hear about how you don't do research for other people.
There is no such company as "Denso Global" and I would love to see
independent information backing your tax law claims.
Go ahead, just this once prove me wrong.
John
> Duh to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan: "There you go again," saying
> things with seeming authority yet getting the facts wrong. Denso GLOBAL is
> the Japanese sales company that owns Denso. Japanese assemblers in the US
> buy from Denso GLOBAL because of Japanese tax laws that earn credit for
> Japanese corporations that buy form other Japanese corporations. Japan
> offers tax credits for exports and on capital returned to Japan .
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
Any backup for your assertions there Mikey? I'm suspect that we will
once again hear about how you don't do research for other people.
There is no such company as "Denso Global" and I would love to see
independent information backing your tax law claims.
Go ahead, just this once prove me wrong.
John
#171
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GM still outsells Honda in 2006
Mike Hunter wrote:
> Duh to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan: "There you go again," saying
> things with seeming authority yet getting the facts wrong. Denso GLOBAL is
> the Japanese sales company that owns Denso. Japanese assemblers in the US
> buy from Denso GLOBAL because of Japanese tax laws that earn credit for
> Japanese corporations that buy form other Japanese corporations. Japan
> offers tax credits for exports and on capital returned to Japan .
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
Any backup for your assertions there Mikey? I'm suspect that we will
once again hear about how you don't do research for other people.
There is no such company as "Denso Global" and I would love to see
independent information backing your tax law claims.
Go ahead, just this once prove me wrong.
John
> Duh to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan: "There you go again," saying
> things with seeming authority yet getting the facts wrong. Denso GLOBAL is
> the Japanese sales company that owns Denso. Japanese assemblers in the US
> buy from Denso GLOBAL because of Japanese tax laws that earn credit for
> Japanese corporations that buy form other Japanese corporations. Japan
> offers tax credits for exports and on capital returned to Japan .
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
Any backup for your assertions there Mikey? I'm suspect that we will
once again hear about how you don't do research for other people.
There is no such company as "Denso Global" and I would love to see
independent information backing your tax law claims.
Go ahead, just this once prove me wrong.
John
#172
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:9yydnZYLNvdg4U_ZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Build cars like the Mustang and Corvette and sell them for $10,000 LOL
That is just about how much those 2 models are worth.
#173
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:9yydnZYLNvdg4U_ZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Build cars like the Mustang and Corvette and sell them for $10,000 LOL
That is just about how much those 2 models are worth.
#174
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:9yydnZYLNvdg4U_ZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Build cars like the Mustang and Corvette and sell them for $10,000 LOL
That is just about how much those 2 models are worth.
#175
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
news:44D356C2.73316FCD@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
>
>
> 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
You been listening to Michael Savage again!!!!
I don't very often, but last night he was ranting about Foreigners killing
the US car industry, and then about applying ridiculous tarrifs to imported
cars.
Then, he says the Big 3 don't listen to the Union leaders,
THEN he says the car companies need to back the Unions down!!!
Well, which is it?!?!?!?
#176
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
news:44D356C2.73316FCD@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
>
>
> 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
You been listening to Michael Savage again!!!!
I don't very often, but last night he was ranting about Foreigners killing
the US car industry, and then about applying ridiculous tarrifs to imported
cars.
Then, he says the Big 3 don't listen to the Union leaders,
THEN he says the car companies need to back the Unions down!!!
Well, which is it?!?!?!?
#177
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
news:44D356C2.73316FCD@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
>
>
> 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
You been listening to Michael Savage again!!!!
I don't very often, but last night he was ranting about Foreigners killing
the US car industry, and then about applying ridiculous tarrifs to imported
cars.
Then, he says the Big 3 don't listen to the Union leaders,
THEN he says the car companies need to back the Unions down!!!
Well, which is it?!?!?!?
#178
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
news:OaOcnVJcOYmtxU7ZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> 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.
>> --
>>
>
>
Instead of creating a nationwide healthcare system, we oughta shore up
the free market healthcare system in several ways. First, we need more
MD's and nurses, and this can be done by creating more medical colleges
and expanding nursing education programs. Quality of care would go up,
and costs would go way down. Supply and demand. There are few spots
open in medical schools. The difference in credentials between those
getting in and those not getting in are negligable at best. There are
many qualified people who can't get into medical school, because there
are so few spots open. Also nursing. A family friend is a nursing
professor at a university near here. There are way more applicants to
the nursing program than spots open in the program -- about 5 to 1.
There aren't many spots open (even though there's a huge demand for
nurses to the point that some make $50/hour), because there aren't
enough nursing instructors (they'd rather make $50/hour as nurses in the
hospital rather than $20/hour as nursing instructors at a college). We
need to increase funding for nursing instructors so as to train more
nurses. Also, we need to cap these huge medical malpractice jury
awards. Many times, the awards are lopsided. A few victims get the
lion's share of the malpractice dollars available, while others get
nothing due to the malpractice insurance co. going bankrupt. Capping
awards would lower the huge rates that doctors have to pay. All of
these measures WOULD lower medical cost and increase the level of time a
physician could spend with their patients, and overall improve the
healthcare industry.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
news:OaOcnVJcOYmtxU7ZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> 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.
>> --
>>
>
>
Instead of creating a nationwide healthcare system, we oughta shore up
the free market healthcare system in several ways. First, we need more
MD's and nurses, and this can be done by creating more medical colleges
and expanding nursing education programs. Quality of care would go up,
and costs would go way down. Supply and demand. There are few spots
open in medical schools. The difference in credentials between those
getting in and those not getting in are negligable at best. There are
many qualified people who can't get into medical school, because there
are so few spots open. Also nursing. A family friend is a nursing
professor at a university near here. There are way more applicants to
the nursing program than spots open in the program -- about 5 to 1.
There aren't many spots open (even though there's a huge demand for
nurses to the point that some make $50/hour), because there aren't
enough nursing instructors (they'd rather make $50/hour as nurses in the
hospital rather than $20/hour as nursing instructors at a college). We
need to increase funding for nursing instructors so as to train more
nurses. Also, we need to cap these huge medical malpractice jury
awards. Many times, the awards are lopsided. A few victims get the
lion's share of the malpractice dollars available, while others get
nothing due to the malpractice insurance co. going bankrupt. Capping
awards would lower the huge rates that doctors have to pay. All of
these measures WOULD lower medical cost and increase the level of time a
physician could spend with their patients, and overall improve the
healthcare industry.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
#179
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
news:OaOcnVJcOYmtxU7ZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> 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.
>> --
>>
>
>
Instead of creating a nationwide healthcare system, we oughta shore up
the free market healthcare system in several ways. First, we need more
MD's and nurses, and this can be done by creating more medical colleges
and expanding nursing education programs. Quality of care would go up,
and costs would go way down. Supply and demand. There are few spots
open in medical schools. The difference in credentials between those
getting in and those not getting in are negligable at best. There are
many qualified people who can't get into medical school, because there
are so few spots open. Also nursing. A family friend is a nursing
professor at a university near here. There are way more applicants to
the nursing program than spots open in the program -- about 5 to 1.
There aren't many spots open (even though there's a huge demand for
nurses to the point that some make $50/hour), because there aren't
enough nursing instructors (they'd rather make $50/hour as nurses in the
hospital rather than $20/hour as nursing instructors at a college). We
need to increase funding for nursing instructors so as to train more
nurses. Also, we need to cap these huge medical malpractice jury
awards. Many times, the awards are lopsided. A few victims get the
lion's share of the malpractice dollars available, while others get
nothing due to the malpractice insurance co. going bankrupt. Capping
awards would lower the huge rates that doctors have to pay. All of
these measures WOULD lower medical cost and increase the level of time a
physician could spend with their patients, and overall improve the
healthcare industry.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
news:OaOcnVJcOYmtxU7ZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> 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.
>> --
>>
>
>
Instead of creating a nationwide healthcare system, we oughta shore up
the free market healthcare system in several ways. First, we need more
MD's and nurses, and this can be done by creating more medical colleges
and expanding nursing education programs. Quality of care would go up,
and costs would go way down. Supply and demand. There are few spots
open in medical schools. The difference in credentials between those
getting in and those not getting in are negligable at best. There are
many qualified people who can't get into medical school, because there
are so few spots open. Also nursing. A family friend is a nursing
professor at a university near here. There are way more applicants to
the nursing program than spots open in the program -- about 5 to 1.
There aren't many spots open (even though there's a huge demand for
nurses to the point that some make $50/hour), because there aren't
enough nursing instructors (they'd rather make $50/hour as nurses in the
hospital rather than $20/hour as nursing instructors at a college). We
need to increase funding for nursing instructors so as to train more
nurses. Also, we need to cap these huge medical malpractice jury
awards. Many times, the awards are lopsided. A few victims get the
lion's share of the malpractice dollars available, while others get
nothing due to the malpractice insurance co. going bankrupt. Capping
awards would lower the huge rates that doctors have to pay. All of
these measures WOULD lower medical cost and increase the level of time a
physician could spend with their patients, and overall improve the
healthcare industry.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
#180
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
news:OaOcnVJcOYmtxU7ZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> 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.
>> --
>>
>
>
Instead of creating a nationwide healthcare system, we oughta shore up
the free market healthcare system in several ways. First, we need more
MD's and nurses, and this can be done by creating more medical colleges
and expanding nursing education programs. Quality of care would go up,
and costs would go way down. Supply and demand. There are few spots
open in medical schools. The difference in credentials between those
getting in and those not getting in are negligable at best. There are
many qualified people who can't get into medical school, because there
are so few spots open. Also nursing. A family friend is a nursing
professor at a university near here. There are way more applicants to
the nursing program than spots open in the program -- about 5 to 1.
There aren't many spots open (even though there's a huge demand for
nurses to the point that some make $50/hour), because there aren't
enough nursing instructors (they'd rather make $50/hour as nurses in the
hospital rather than $20/hour as nursing instructors at a college). We
need to increase funding for nursing instructors so as to train more
nurses. Also, we need to cap these huge medical malpractice jury
awards. Many times, the awards are lopsided. A few victims get the
lion's share of the malpractice dollars available, while others get
nothing due to the malpractice insurance co. going bankrupt. Capping
awards would lower the huge rates that doctors have to pay. All of
these measures WOULD lower medical cost and increase the level of time a
physician could spend with their patients, and overall improve the
healthcare industry.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
news:OaOcnVJcOYmtxU7ZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> 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.
>> --
>>
>
>
Instead of creating a nationwide healthcare system, we oughta shore up
the free market healthcare system in several ways. First, we need more
MD's and nurses, and this can be done by creating more medical colleges
and expanding nursing education programs. Quality of care would go up,
and costs would go way down. Supply and demand. There are few spots
open in medical schools. The difference in credentials between those
getting in and those not getting in are negligable at best. There are
many qualified people who can't get into medical school, because there
are so few spots open. Also nursing. A family friend is a nursing
professor at a university near here. There are way more applicants to
the nursing program than spots open in the program -- about 5 to 1.
There aren't many spots open (even though there's a huge demand for
nurses to the point that some make $50/hour), because there aren't
enough nursing instructors (they'd rather make $50/hour as nurses in the
hospital rather than $20/hour as nursing instructors at a college). We
need to increase funding for nursing instructors so as to train more
nurses. Also, we need to cap these huge medical malpractice jury
awards. Many times, the awards are lopsided. A few victims get the
lion's share of the malpractice dollars available, while others get
nothing due to the malpractice insurance co. going bankrupt. Capping
awards would lower the huge rates that doctors have to pay. All of
these measures WOULD lower medical cost and increase the level of time a
physician could spend with their patients, and overall improve the
healthcare industry.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----