Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
#256
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
"Lee Florack" <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care
>> in the world.
It's a virtual monopoly, and consumers (1) are discouraged
from shopping around for the best prices; (2) usually have
no awareness of what their insurer is paying for medical
care and how this differs from what someone with other or no
insurance would pay.
Unlike auto repair shops, when was the last time anyone saw
doctors' offices advertising the cost of a routine 10k mile
body checkup in the local newspaper? Or what's the cheapest
ER within twenty miles for getting a laceration sewed up?
Given the wait times in many ERs for such an injury, may as
well make the driving radius 100 miles. (Wait times can
routinely be long in some ERs, because some are dedicated to
certain types of injury, and these injuries fill up the ER.)
Consumers, overcome with fear uncertainty and doubt, now
view health insurance as not something for peace of mind but
something from which they should get their money's worth
every year. Which of course just raises health insurance
prices more.
It seems increasingly more "funny money" is getting around,
too. E.g. in the past year for two minor procedures, once
the billing source heard I was not affiliated with any
insurer but was paying directly, they slashed my bills. So
now the uninsured can count on the insured to pay the cost
of "negotiating" lower fees? I do not want to rely on this
(even though in theory I received a smaller bill these last
times). It's not free market action. Consumers have no idea
of the actual costs of services.
It does resemble a pyramid scheme: Insurance Company X says
that, by purchasing their plan, you'll get a 20% discount
from the "normal" price that doctor's office Y charges. Y
does not want to give money away, so s/he raises the prices
on services. X responds by raising the prices for the
consumer. The consumer Z is just happy s/he's getting 20%
off whatever price.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the
>> government
>> could make it worse.
Government intervenes to prevent monopolistic practices all
the time. While health care providers and insurers may not
be breaking the law on trusts (= monopolies), they are
violating the principles on which this law is based.
> What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind,
> NOTHING could be worse than having the government run
> anything so important. Everything I've ever seen the
> government try to take over is always poorly run and more
> costly. Can you think of anything they've run better and
> more cheaply?
This is a trick question, since rarely have direct
comparisons been possible.
We could talk about the construction of interstate highways,
USPS vs. UPS (they seem pretty competitive), disaster relief
(despite Katrina, it would be only conjecture to say a
private firm could handle such a situation better), Medicare
for the 65 and older crowd vs. private insurance today, and
not get anywhere meaningful.
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care
>> in the world.
It's a virtual monopoly, and consumers (1) are discouraged
from shopping around for the best prices; (2) usually have
no awareness of what their insurer is paying for medical
care and how this differs from what someone with other or no
insurance would pay.
Unlike auto repair shops, when was the last time anyone saw
doctors' offices advertising the cost of a routine 10k mile
body checkup in the local newspaper? Or what's the cheapest
ER within twenty miles for getting a laceration sewed up?
Given the wait times in many ERs for such an injury, may as
well make the driving radius 100 miles. (Wait times can
routinely be long in some ERs, because some are dedicated to
certain types of injury, and these injuries fill up the ER.)
Consumers, overcome with fear uncertainty and doubt, now
view health insurance as not something for peace of mind but
something from which they should get their money's worth
every year. Which of course just raises health insurance
prices more.
It seems increasingly more "funny money" is getting around,
too. E.g. in the past year for two minor procedures, once
the billing source heard I was not affiliated with any
insurer but was paying directly, they slashed my bills. So
now the uninsured can count on the insured to pay the cost
of "negotiating" lower fees? I do not want to rely on this
(even though in theory I received a smaller bill these last
times). It's not free market action. Consumers have no idea
of the actual costs of services.
It does resemble a pyramid scheme: Insurance Company X says
that, by purchasing their plan, you'll get a 20% discount
from the "normal" price that doctor's office Y charges. Y
does not want to give money away, so s/he raises the prices
on services. X responds by raising the prices for the
consumer. The consumer Z is just happy s/he's getting 20%
off whatever price.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the
>> government
>> could make it worse.
Government intervenes to prevent monopolistic practices all
the time. While health care providers and insurers may not
be breaking the law on trusts (= monopolies), they are
violating the principles on which this law is based.
> What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind,
> NOTHING could be worse than having the government run
> anything so important. Everything I've ever seen the
> government try to take over is always poorly run and more
> costly. Can you think of anything they've run better and
> more cheaply?
This is a trick question, since rarely have direct
comparisons been possible.
We could talk about the construction of interstate highways,
USPS vs. UPS (they seem pretty competitive), disaster relief
(despite Katrina, it would be only conjecture to say a
private firm could handle such a situation better), Medicare
for the 65 and older crowd vs. private insurance today, and
not get anywhere meaningful.
#257
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
"Lee Florack" <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care
>> in the world.
It's a virtual monopoly, and consumers (1) are discouraged
from shopping around for the best prices; (2) usually have
no awareness of what their insurer is paying for medical
care and how this differs from what someone with other or no
insurance would pay.
Unlike auto repair shops, when was the last time anyone saw
doctors' offices advertising the cost of a routine 10k mile
body checkup in the local newspaper? Or what's the cheapest
ER within twenty miles for getting a laceration sewed up?
Given the wait times in many ERs for such an injury, may as
well make the driving radius 100 miles. (Wait times can
routinely be long in some ERs, because some are dedicated to
certain types of injury, and these injuries fill up the ER.)
Consumers, overcome with fear uncertainty and doubt, now
view health insurance as not something for peace of mind but
something from which they should get their money's worth
every year. Which of course just raises health insurance
prices more.
It seems increasingly more "funny money" is getting around,
too. E.g. in the past year for two minor procedures, once
the billing source heard I was not affiliated with any
insurer but was paying directly, they slashed my bills. So
now the uninsured can count on the insured to pay the cost
of "negotiating" lower fees? I do not want to rely on this
(even though in theory I received a smaller bill these last
times). It's not free market action. Consumers have no idea
of the actual costs of services.
It does resemble a pyramid scheme: Insurance Company X says
that, by purchasing their plan, you'll get a 20% discount
from the "normal" price that doctor's office Y charges. Y
does not want to give money away, so s/he raises the prices
on services. X responds by raising the prices for the
consumer. The consumer Z is just happy s/he's getting 20%
off whatever price.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the
>> government
>> could make it worse.
Government intervenes to prevent monopolistic practices all
the time. While health care providers and insurers may not
be breaking the law on trusts (= monopolies), they are
violating the principles on which this law is based.
> What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind,
> NOTHING could be worse than having the government run
> anything so important. Everything I've ever seen the
> government try to take over is always poorly run and more
> costly. Can you think of anything they've run better and
> more cheaply?
This is a trick question, since rarely have direct
comparisons been possible.
We could talk about the construction of interstate highways,
USPS vs. UPS (they seem pretty competitive), disaster relief
(despite Katrina, it would be only conjecture to say a
private firm could handle such a situation better), Medicare
for the 65 and older crowd vs. private insurance today, and
not get anywhere meaningful.
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care
>> in the world.
It's a virtual monopoly, and consumers (1) are discouraged
from shopping around for the best prices; (2) usually have
no awareness of what their insurer is paying for medical
care and how this differs from what someone with other or no
insurance would pay.
Unlike auto repair shops, when was the last time anyone saw
doctors' offices advertising the cost of a routine 10k mile
body checkup in the local newspaper? Or what's the cheapest
ER within twenty miles for getting a laceration sewed up?
Given the wait times in many ERs for such an injury, may as
well make the driving radius 100 miles. (Wait times can
routinely be long in some ERs, because some are dedicated to
certain types of injury, and these injuries fill up the ER.)
Consumers, overcome with fear uncertainty and doubt, now
view health insurance as not something for peace of mind but
something from which they should get their money's worth
every year. Which of course just raises health insurance
prices more.
It seems increasingly more "funny money" is getting around,
too. E.g. in the past year for two minor procedures, once
the billing source heard I was not affiliated with any
insurer but was paying directly, they slashed my bills. So
now the uninsured can count on the insured to pay the cost
of "negotiating" lower fees? I do not want to rely on this
(even though in theory I received a smaller bill these last
times). It's not free market action. Consumers have no idea
of the actual costs of services.
It does resemble a pyramid scheme: Insurance Company X says
that, by purchasing their plan, you'll get a 20% discount
from the "normal" price that doctor's office Y charges. Y
does not want to give money away, so s/he raises the prices
on services. X responds by raising the prices for the
consumer. The consumer Z is just happy s/he's getting 20%
off whatever price.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the
>> government
>> could make it worse.
Government intervenes to prevent monopolistic practices all
the time. While health care providers and insurers may not
be breaking the law on trusts (= monopolies), they are
violating the principles on which this law is based.
> What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind,
> NOTHING could be worse than having the government run
> anything so important. Everything I've ever seen the
> government try to take over is always poorly run and more
> costly. Can you think of anything they've run better and
> more cheaply?
This is a trick question, since rarely have direct
comparisons been possible.
We could talk about the construction of interstate highways,
USPS vs. UPS (they seem pretty competitive), disaster relief
(despite Katrina, it would be only conjecture to say a
private firm could handle such a situation better), Medicare
for the 65 and older crowd vs. private insurance today, and
not get anywhere meaningful.
#258
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
"Lee Florack" <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care
>> in the world.
It's a virtual monopoly, and consumers (1) are discouraged
from shopping around for the best prices; (2) usually have
no awareness of what their insurer is paying for medical
care and how this differs from what someone with other or no
insurance would pay.
Unlike auto repair shops, when was the last time anyone saw
doctors' offices advertising the cost of a routine 10k mile
body checkup in the local newspaper? Or what's the cheapest
ER within twenty miles for getting a laceration sewed up?
Given the wait times in many ERs for such an injury, may as
well make the driving radius 100 miles. (Wait times can
routinely be long in some ERs, because some are dedicated to
certain types of injury, and these injuries fill up the ER.)
Consumers, overcome with fear uncertainty and doubt, now
view health insurance as not something for peace of mind but
something from which they should get their money's worth
every year. Which of course just raises health insurance
prices more.
It seems increasingly more "funny money" is getting around,
too. E.g. in the past year for two minor procedures, once
the billing source heard I was not affiliated with any
insurer but was paying directly, they slashed my bills. So
now the uninsured can count on the insured to pay the cost
of "negotiating" lower fees? I do not want to rely on this
(even though in theory I received a smaller bill these last
times). It's not free market action. Consumers have no idea
of the actual costs of services.
It does resemble a pyramid scheme: Insurance Company X says
that, by purchasing their plan, you'll get a 20% discount
from the "normal" price that doctor's office Y charges. Y
does not want to give money away, so s/he raises the prices
on services. X responds by raising the prices for the
consumer. The consumer Z is just happy s/he's getting 20%
off whatever price.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the
>> government
>> could make it worse.
Government intervenes to prevent monopolistic practices all
the time. While health care providers and insurers may not
be breaking the law on trusts (= monopolies), they are
violating the principles on which this law is based.
> What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind,
> NOTHING could be worse than having the government run
> anything so important. Everything I've ever seen the
> government try to take over is always poorly run and more
> costly. Can you think of anything they've run better and
> more cheaply?
This is a trick question, since rarely have direct
comparisons been possible.
We could talk about the construction of interstate highways,
USPS vs. UPS (they seem pretty competitive), disaster relief
(despite Katrina, it would be only conjecture to say a
private firm could handle such a situation better), Medicare
for the 65 and older crowd vs. private insurance today, and
not get anywhere meaningful.
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care
>> in the world.
It's a virtual monopoly, and consumers (1) are discouraged
from shopping around for the best prices; (2) usually have
no awareness of what their insurer is paying for medical
care and how this differs from what someone with other or no
insurance would pay.
Unlike auto repair shops, when was the last time anyone saw
doctors' offices advertising the cost of a routine 10k mile
body checkup in the local newspaper? Or what's the cheapest
ER within twenty miles for getting a laceration sewed up?
Given the wait times in many ERs for such an injury, may as
well make the driving radius 100 miles. (Wait times can
routinely be long in some ERs, because some are dedicated to
certain types of injury, and these injuries fill up the ER.)
Consumers, overcome with fear uncertainty and doubt, now
view health insurance as not something for peace of mind but
something from which they should get their money's worth
every year. Which of course just raises health insurance
prices more.
It seems increasingly more "funny money" is getting around,
too. E.g. in the past year for two minor procedures, once
the billing source heard I was not affiliated with any
insurer but was paying directly, they slashed my bills. So
now the uninsured can count on the insured to pay the cost
of "negotiating" lower fees? I do not want to rely on this
(even though in theory I received a smaller bill these last
times). It's not free market action. Consumers have no idea
of the actual costs of services.
It does resemble a pyramid scheme: Insurance Company X says
that, by purchasing their plan, you'll get a 20% discount
from the "normal" price that doctor's office Y charges. Y
does not want to give money away, so s/he raises the prices
on services. X responds by raising the prices for the
consumer. The consumer Z is just happy s/he's getting 20%
off whatever price.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the
>> government
>> could make it worse.
Government intervenes to prevent monopolistic practices all
the time. While health care providers and insurers may not
be breaking the law on trusts (= monopolies), they are
violating the principles on which this law is based.
> What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind,
> NOTHING could be worse than having the government run
> anything so important. Everything I've ever seen the
> government try to take over is always poorly run and more
> costly. Can you think of anything they've run better and
> more cheaply?
This is a trick question, since rarely have direct
comparisons been possible.
We could talk about the construction of interstate highways,
USPS vs. UPS (they seem pretty competitive), disaster relief
(despite Katrina, it would be only conjecture to say a
private firm could handle such a situation better), Medicare
for the 65 and older crowd vs. private insurance today, and
not get anywhere meaningful.
#259
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that if you consider the production per manhour in US and
> compare it with manhour in Europe that you will see that the Europe
> figure is much much higher
LINK THAT!!!!
If you CAN, leave out Great Britain..
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
> I think that if you consider the production per manhour in US and
> compare it with manhour in Europe that you will see that the Europe
> figure is much much higher
LINK THAT!!!!
If you CAN, leave out Great Britain..
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
#260
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that if you consider the production per manhour in US and
> compare it with manhour in Europe that you will see that the Europe
> figure is much much higher
LINK THAT!!!!
If you CAN, leave out Great Britain..
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
> I think that if you consider the production per manhour in US and
> compare it with manhour in Europe that you will see that the Europe
> figure is much much higher
LINK THAT!!!!
If you CAN, leave out Great Britain..
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
#261
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that if you consider the production per manhour in US and
> compare it with manhour in Europe that you will see that the Europe
> figure is much much higher
LINK THAT!!!!
If you CAN, leave out Great Britain..
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
> I think that if you consider the production per manhour in US and
> compare it with manhour in Europe that you will see that the Europe
> figure is much much higher
LINK THAT!!!!
If you CAN, leave out Great Britain..
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!
#265
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:22:47 GMT, Lee Florack
<lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government
>> could make it worse.
>
>What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind, NOTHING
>could be worse than having the government run anything so important.
> Everything I've ever seen the government try to take over is
>always poorly run and more costly.
The USPS makes a profit and only charges 39 cents to deliver a letter
to Butt Idaho.
> Can you think of anything
>they've run better and more cheaply?
Well, the US Army used to pay a soldier $15,000 plus rations to drive
a truck in a war zone. Now they give Haliburton a cost-plus contract
to hire civilians at $100,000 to drive a truck which, if blown up or
abandoned, represents a profit for the Company.
> Let's even make that easier.
>Can you think of anything they've run well?
>
>Personally, I want the government in my life much less than it
>already is. Not more.
I would like to have health insurance that I can't lose to the whims
of fate.
<lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government
>> could make it worse.
>
>What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind, NOTHING
>could be worse than having the government run anything so important.
> Everything I've ever seen the government try to take over is
>always poorly run and more costly.
The USPS makes a profit and only charges 39 cents to deliver a letter
to Butt Idaho.
> Can you think of anything
>they've run better and more cheaply?
Well, the US Army used to pay a soldier $15,000 plus rations to drive
a truck in a war zone. Now they give Haliburton a cost-plus contract
to hire civilians at $100,000 to drive a truck which, if blown up or
abandoned, represents a profit for the Company.
> Let's even make that easier.
>Can you think of anything they've run well?
>
>Personally, I want the government in my life much less than it
>already is. Not more.
I would like to have health insurance that I can't lose to the whims
of fate.
#266
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:22:47 GMT, Lee Florack
<lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government
>> could make it worse.
>
>What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind, NOTHING
>could be worse than having the government run anything so important.
> Everything I've ever seen the government try to take over is
>always poorly run and more costly.
The USPS makes a profit and only charges 39 cents to deliver a letter
to Butt Idaho.
> Can you think of anything
>they've run better and more cheaply?
Well, the US Army used to pay a soldier $15,000 plus rations to drive
a truck in a war zone. Now they give Haliburton a cost-plus contract
to hire civilians at $100,000 to drive a truck which, if blown up or
abandoned, represents a profit for the Company.
> Let's even make that easier.
>Can you think of anything they've run well?
>
>Personally, I want the government in my life much less than it
>already is. Not more.
I would like to have health insurance that I can't lose to the whims
of fate.
<lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government
>> could make it worse.
>
>What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind, NOTHING
>could be worse than having the government run anything so important.
> Everything I've ever seen the government try to take over is
>always poorly run and more costly.
The USPS makes a profit and only charges 39 cents to deliver a letter
to Butt Idaho.
> Can you think of anything
>they've run better and more cheaply?
Well, the US Army used to pay a soldier $15,000 plus rations to drive
a truck in a war zone. Now they give Haliburton a cost-plus contract
to hire civilians at $100,000 to drive a truck which, if blown up or
abandoned, represents a profit for the Company.
> Let's even make that easier.
>Can you think of anything they've run well?
>
>Personally, I want the government in my life much less than it
>already is. Not more.
I would like to have health insurance that I can't lose to the whims
of fate.
#267
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:22:47 GMT, Lee Florack
<lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government
>> could make it worse.
>
>What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind, NOTHING
>could be worse than having the government run anything so important.
> Everything I've ever seen the government try to take over is
>always poorly run and more costly.
The USPS makes a profit and only charges 39 cents to deliver a letter
to Butt Idaho.
> Can you think of anything
>they've run better and more cheaply?
Well, the US Army used to pay a soldier $15,000 plus rations to drive
a truck in a war zone. Now they give Haliburton a cost-plus contract
to hire civilians at $100,000 to drive a truck which, if blown up or
abandoned, represents a profit for the Company.
> Let's even make that easier.
>Can you think of anything they've run well?
>
>Personally, I want the government in my life much less than it
>already is. Not more.
I would like to have health insurance that I can't lose to the whims
of fate.
<lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world.
>> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government
>> could make it worse.
>
>What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind, NOTHING
>could be worse than having the government run anything so important.
> Everything I've ever seen the government try to take over is
>always poorly run and more costly.
The USPS makes a profit and only charges 39 cents to deliver a letter
to Butt Idaho.
> Can you think of anything
>they've run better and more cheaply?
Well, the US Army used to pay a soldier $15,000 plus rations to drive
a truck in a war zone. Now they give Haliburton a cost-plus contract
to hire civilians at $100,000 to drive a truck which, if blown up or
abandoned, represents a profit for the Company.
> Let's even make that easier.
>Can you think of anything they've run well?
>
>Personally, I want the government in my life much less than it
>already is. Not more.
I would like to have health insurance that I can't lose to the whims
of fate.
#268
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
1) Segway
2) Horses
3) pogo sticks
4) Honda androids
J.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
>1) Toyota
>2) Honda
>3) Hyundai
>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
2) Horses
3) pogo sticks
4) Honda androids
J.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
>1) Toyota
>2) Honda
>3) Hyundai
>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
#269
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
1) Segway
2) Horses
3) pogo sticks
4) Honda androids
J.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
>1) Toyota
>2) Honda
>3) Hyundai
>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
2) Horses
3) pogo sticks
4) Honda androids
J.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
>1) Toyota
>2) Honda
>3) Hyundai
>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
#270
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
1) Segway
2) Horses
3) pogo sticks
4) Honda androids
J.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
>1) Toyota
>2) Honda
>3) Hyundai
>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
2) Horses
3) pogo sticks
4) Honda androids
J.
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
>1) Toyota
>2) Honda
>3) Hyundai
>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)