Looking for a mid-size domestic car recommendation

"Dori A Schmetterling" wrote

Although a certain number of homeless in the US are on the streets rather than in extended-care/half-way house situations, the vast majority are in other categories: 1) single-parent households (usually mother and children) that have been abandoned by the father, 2) low-wage transient laborers who don't have the financial capability to rent (or who are saving all their money and will move back to their permanent home after the work season), and 3) the congenitally un-employed/homeless that just like it - some of these are professional mendicants (ie, beggars).

Floyd

An arguement that could always be inserted into any otherwise intelligent discussion.

There are certainly other groups - I was only highlighting one group that grew substantially in the UK substantially at the point of closure of what were long-stay hospitals a few years ago. (It must be said that many of these buildings were inefficient and Victorian, but the government chose not to replace them.)

I am aware of some homeless who like it that way, whatever the reason, but I am sure they are a small percentage.

The rest don't want to be there.

DAS

Once again you have chosen to base your opinion on faulty information. The market has expanded from the vehicles available from around five manufactures in the US to the vehicles from around a dozen manufacture for all over the world. The volume of sales has grown from around 6 million annually then to around 18 million annually today. The fact is GM sells more vehicles today than they did back in the early fifties when they commanded

50% of all vehicles sold in the US.

mike hunt

Art wrote:

We have some mentally ill patients, many of which, at least in Michigan, were given the boot to the street when we got rid of the last few 'insane asylum's' that we had in the area. The last one to close in the area was over 100 years old, but the state no longer felt like funding it. We have a few homeless that are mentally ill, but I don't forsee it making up a majority. A majority of the homeless, or I guess I should say beggars, are men. Some honestly want help and admit it. But others just want to booze themselves, they will ask for money for food, and if you offer them food they tell you to "F*%& off!". I don't feel much compassion for them. By no means is it easy being homeless, you have a heck of a hill to climb, but its possible.

As far as asking how many homeless I speak to or read about, I serve food to the homeless around the holidays those which most are very thankful for the warm food and warm place to spend some time and the good company. Many of them are men, some are women with children. Some are families.

My point isn't that homeless don't deserve anything, but there are people that give this idea that we should spend billions a year to feed and cloth and shelter homeless, when really we should be offering some sort of employment and perhaps low cost options to them. Not particularly free.

| | Spoken like a true republican. | | |

And that makes it factually incorrect...how?

Wow I'm surprised that this thread is still going. As to "what is the future? That's a hard one to answer as is often said "the future has yet to be written" any pandemic or planetary environmental change can shift people's views pretty quickly. Though the concensus seems to be (if things continue on the present path) a slow withering of the nation state and the rise of the city state.

But opinions of the future, as with A**holes are, one per person on the planet.

And why is it that there is such a difference, that you notice the larger number of men? Is it that social programs are geared towards women? Is it that there is a larger percentage of men who are "mentally ill who have been thrown out of institutional care?

Or have we as a society made a large number of poor men "unemployable" through criminal convictions that are referred to as "youthful indiscretions" when they are done by the wealthy? Ask GWB & Bill Gates how their Drug infractions have hurt their access to capital and employment...... Just a thought.

How about in the 60's and 70's. And are you including all of the companies overseas, because I don't think the readers of this thread were interested in the output of those factories.

I forgot to add that market share is just as important as total number of vehicles.

Apparently you don't even understand your own posts. You said 'GM management manages to go from 50% market share to 28% market share in a couple of decades.' The ONLY time GM was at 50% was in the fifties. The fact remains the volume of sales has grown from around

6 million, the time GM sold 51% of the vehicles sold in the US annually, to around 18 million today of which GM sells around 28%. GM sells more vehicle today, not less, as you implied in your post. You do the math

mike hunt

Art wrote:

I don't have a lot of compassion for people who demand "free" stuff that somebody else has to pay for. Especially when that "somebody else" is *me*.

Look, Dan, the group of people who want socialized medicine in America are the same ones who demand free car repair. There is a part of human nature that causes us to feel entitled to getting things at no cost. The better among us resist the urge to demand stuff for free.

Now there are things which government provides, however imperfectly, because it is most expedient for it to do so. Not the best, mind you, just the most expedient. National defense. Roads. The courts. Police and fire service.

But medicine? We need to nationalize 1/7th of our economy? And in so doing reduce the level of service to what can be found in Canada or Great Britain? No, thank you!

I *like* having well-paid, competent doctors who perform their services promptly because of the competitive environment. I *like* having a choice of hospitals, each offering different areas of medicine as their specialty. And I *like* having the benefit of living in a country with the best medicine in the world. Please

*don't* screw it up because not everyone can just walk right in and pay cash! Don't make a great system not work well for *anyone* because it doesn't currently work for a minority today!

Please.

--Geoff

When people who can't get or can't afford health insurance get the sniffles or a hangnail or the flu, they go to the emergency room because that's the only access they have to health care. Hospitals do not turn away ER patients because they cannot pay. As a result, all of us pay, and we pay a whole hell of a lot more than if there were some comprehensive system to take care of these people.

Source?

And even the best and poorest of us bleed when cut.

You seem to be confusing me with someone who thinks the US should have nationalized health care.

You seem to know nothing about the level of service in Canada. In Canada, most people with most ailments get the treatment they need quickly and efficiently and with great competence. (How do I know? Well, I've lived here for the past few years. How do *you* know? Sumpin' you heard on Rush Limbaugh?)

There is no lack of choice in doctors and hospitals in Canada. The notion that Canadians don't get to choose their doctors or their hospitals is a fabricated myth.

HMO's are "great"? Horseshit. If you want to talk about lack of choice in doctors and hospitals, HMOs are what we're going to discuss.

I don't know what the answer is for health care in the US but the current system is broken. 5 years ago a study indicated that 100k people are being killed every year by hospital mistakes. Hospitals promised to improve. The results? A revised study now says the number is closer to 200k per year being killed by hospital errors. Clearly the current "competitive" environment for hospitals is not leading to good health care. If you need a cite, check your last Sunday newspaper. Numbers were in People's Pharmacy which is syndicated in most major newspapers.

Constitution

Mike you must enjoy being wrong all the time.

"General Motors has been consistently losing market share since the early

1970s. While nearly one in every two domestic vehicle sales used to fall under the GM umbrella, the company's share now hovers around 27 percent (including fleet sales), with substantial erosion occurring in the last five years"

What is your point, clearly you are mistaken once again. What you were implying when you said in your original post "Seems to me when highly paid GM management manages to go from 50% market share to 28% market share in a couple of decades, there is something wrong with the executive compensation system." GM is selling MORE vehicles not fewer. The fact they are doing so against vastly superior numbers of manufactures with whom they must compete today, disputes you mistaken opinion. Obviously you haven't done the math. The fact is, even though GM's market share has dropped to 28% of the market compared to 50% of the smaller market at one time, that the executives of GM are in fact apparently earning whatever remuneration they receive.

mike hunt

Art wrote:

If you have a problem with your HMO, you have the wrong HMO. I have been covered by an HMO for nearly twenty years. There are page after page of doctors, both GP's specialist, hospitals and pharmacies where I can go for treatment or medications. There are no lifetime limits or high deductibles, $10 for a GP, $25 for a specialist. I have never had a problem obtaining the superior services offered by my HMO and the fee is less than for lower, less comprehensive coverage, offered under Medicare or my previous BC/BS coverage.

mike hunt

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

Yep. And when a lot of those same people with hangnails need a ride to get to the ER, they call 911. There's another flagrant abuse. Do we need a 'comprehensive system' to cover taxicab service too, Dan?

I'd like to know what you're calling your 'comprehensive system' if socialized medicine (a.k.a. nationalized health care) isn't the correct term.

You like punitive taxation for little in return, eh? Or is it maybe the

100 km/h national speed limit that was the big attraction?

Perhaps it was the climate!

:-)

How do *you* know? Sumpin' you heard on Rush

Actually, no. My source of information on the state of Canadian health care is from my Canadian co-workers who commute here from Windsor. And the truth is, they all carry U.S. health insurance at extra cost to themselves, because when they really need care they want to come *here*.

Anecdotal, I know. So is your assertion that 'most people with most ailments' blah, blah blah. In addition, I'll see your 'most people with most ailments' and raise you to 'most people with *all* ailments' -- which is the situation in the US.

And Canada's isn't a particularly bad socialized system. From my co-workers in Great Britian, I hear that the situation is truly dire. Emergency room queues that can last for days. (DAS care to comment?)

Maybe in Greater Toronto this is true. I occasionally listen to

*Canadian* talk radio (you know, during the hours that Limbaugh isn't on here in the US) and hear the locals out in Canadian farm country bitch about how poor the health care is in southwest Ontario. I'm sure its worse in the other provinces, I just don't pick them up on my car radio.

Y'know Dan, Canada is just a few miles away. It's not hard for somebody in Detroit to know what the score is across the river. All I have to do is flip around the tuner and pay attention to what's going on.

You, on the other hand. are living in the single richest town in Canada, the one that Canadians all bitch about getting the lions share of the tax benefit. Then you try to extrapolate your experience to that of Canadians in general. Somehow I doubt that's close to being the case.

That being said, there are places in rural America where you don't have as many choices as we do here. That's one _big_ reason why I won't live in 'em.

There's a parallel health care system in America provided for our military veterans. My father-in-law is stuck with that beast of a system. I'm sure most anyone subject to the VA system would agree that

*government run* system sucks ass. Who in their right mind would want to turn over more of our health care to the government after seeing its performance in the VA system?

I don't have an HMO. I've got PPO coverage. And it's just fine, thank you. I go anywhere I want to *in the world* and it's covered. And for the price of selecting a doctor that participates 'in-network' -- and it's a big network -- I go for just a minor deductible in addition to my monthly premiums. Paying for medical care just is *not* a concern for me.

I've had a choice of cheaper HMO-style coverage. I turned it down, knowing full well that you get what you pay for. So my paychecks are a little smaller than my HMO-choosing co-workers.

So what? Me, my wife and two kids are covered by the best damn medical system anywhere in the world. I'm willing to pay for that. Why isn't anyone else?

It all comes down to choices and priorities. If your priorities are such that taking care of your health and that of your family isn't paramount, then I guess you will eventually have reason to bitch about the cost of health care in America. Too friggin' bad.

What I truly dislike is the idea that because *my* priorities are such that health care IS paramount that I'm accused of being somehow less than compassionate when others who made poor choices complain and I turn a deaf ear. Natural selection at work, IMO.

Funny, there's a pattern here. I buy and pay for medical insurance the same way I buy and pay for automobile insurance. My risks are managed!

So what's the problem?

--Geoff

Wow. I would like to have those things to but who among us still does? My insurance demands that I go to a primary care Dr. and I have to convince him there is a problem before I am allowed to go to another Dr. I'm only allowed to go to one hospital chain even though there are several that are better. And I'm one of the fortuante ones (right now)!

My out of pocket expenses have gone from $50 per hospital visit to $2000 per visit. No more prescription drugs coverage and the cost have almost doubled. It's not my employer... they provide the info on what health care was costing and what it would cost to maintain the same level of service along with a note apologizing and explaining that they just can't afford to maintain the previous coverage levels.

What about those who can't afford insurance? What about those that have to choose between drugs and food? What about the unemployed whos family COBRA coverage cost them half a months unemployment check?

And why is it that the government can't afford to help the working poor in this country with health care but they will happily pay thousands per month for facilities full of drooling babbling shells that used to be people?

I don't know what the answer is but I'm willing to give socialized medicine a try. If healthcare continues on its current path I can't see myself having insurance in another couple of years and that scares me to no end,.

Steve B.