Looking for a mid-size domestic car recommendation

Page 6 of 16  
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:00:39 -0400, "Sijuki"


the books right? ;-) Seriously though.
Sometimes I wonder how much it would have cost to have tested the western population for AIDS & then quarantined the infected persons in the 1980's.
I mean we "quarantine" paranoid schizophrenic's and violent rapists to protect society from their "illness" why do we not do the same for all ailments than can have such a widespread devastating effect?
I read somewhere that 80% of all new British AIDS cases result from "trips" to Africa. Remember what the US & Europe did when China, Hong Kong Toronto & Singapore had a SARS outbreak? How far did SARS spread into the US and Europe?
Just a thought.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Full_Name wrote:

Oh my gosh - the ACLU would have claimed that that was a violation of someone's rights and it never would have been allowed. So instead, millions suffer all in the name of protecting what then were falsely claimed as "the rights" of a few.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don't you ever do any research before you post? The recession started during the last year of the Clinton administration not after Bush took office. It was stopped by about the first 1,000 day of the Bush administration. Whether you or Kerry like it or not the economy has grown for 11 STRAIGHT quarters since 2001. Payrolls and job have expanded for 11 straight months. Hourly wages are up 2% since Bush took office. Productivity has constantly grown over the past three years. The unemployment rate is 5.3%, lower than the 5.4% Bill Clinton was touting during his tenure. Inflation is almost non existent down 3% below Clinton time and down over 16% below Cater 18.8% inflation rate. Best of all. for the less fortunate in the US, their federal income tax rate was reduced by at least 1/3 and removed completely for the lowest wage earners by the Bush tax cuts that went into effect in 2003. Indeed 1.31 million jobs have been lost sine Bush took office but 1.14 million have been created. That is pretty good considering the 500 Billion loss to the economy caused by 9/11 and all that happened since Bush took office. Particularly when one looks how the trade deficit is growing every year as more more American sent THEIR jobs overseas by taking advantage of lower cost goods available on the market today because of the expanding world market
mike hunt
Art wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not sure about the jobs or wages, but then I'm not too concerned with them right now since I'm going to college. I can give you all the unemployment data from when 91-2001, 91-6.8%, 92-7.5% 93-6.9%, 94 6.1%, 95-5.6%, 96-5.4%, 97-4.9%, 98-4.5%, 99-4.2%,00-4.0%, 01-4.8%. GDP was growing all throughout 92-00 years. In 01 it only grew by .3%, between 92 and 00 it grew an average of 3.29%. Inflation on the other hand stayed about the same for both CPI and GDP Deflator from 92-01. I'll be able to put up more stuff too..never thought these books would come in handy :P
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:19:08 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@ptdprolog.net wrote:

4 year term -- 2.74 = 1.26 years (or 1 year 95 days shy of a full term) so after 2/3's of his term in office with a Republican house and Republican Senate the recession finally stopped it's contraction. It was written above that:

http://www.eh.net/hmit/inflation/ ( which only goes to 2002) Inflation rate 2000 = 3.38 % Inflation rate 2001 = 2.86% Inflation rate 2002 = 1.58%
Using these numbers alone for the 2000 - 2002 period a 2% wage growth divided over 4 years = 0.5% per year.... minus a 2000 - 2002 inflation rate of 7.82% leaves a 6.32 % gap between earnings and inflation.
Just for fun looking back we get: Inflation rate 1984 = 4.37 % (Regan Whitehouse) Inflation rate 1990 = 5.39 % (Bush Sr Whitehouse) Inflation rate 1991 = 4.22% (Bush Sr Whitehouse) Inflation rate 1993 = 2.98% (Clinton Whitehouse) Inflation rate 1998 = 1.51% (Clinton Whitehouse) Inflation rate 1997 = 2.35 % (Clinton Whitehouse) It would appear that, along with Whitehouse interns, inflation also went down in the Clinton Whitehouse ;-)
Though, in truth inflation rates are really a smoke & mirror show as I believe that some governments are even excluding some energy costs. Has your fuel become more expensive in the past couple years?? But fortunately:

income tax). Though I suppose if you've got nothing to pay with.... I do like these two lines:

isolation almost sounds somewhat negative towards Bush Jr.
With regards to jobs lost/gained. Some might ask as to pay & benefit levels of new jobs. I know that McDonalds & Walmart have hired quite a few folks recently. Would those be better or worse than the manufacturing jobs lost?
I'm not pro-Democrat (I'm not sure that Mrs. President Clinton was either) and I'm not pro-Republican. But I do believe that the present administration is heading down a wrong path. I really liked Bush Sr. I'm not quite as keen on Jr. I liked Clinton (the man) but I'm not sure that I like Kerry. I've yet to hear a clear plan from him on the economy or how to control Iraq without American's on the ground there.
I'm concerned that as America narrows it's focuses onto Iraq, China grows larger & more powerful by the day. America is turning into a police state & China already is one.
We've gone from a balance of a Russian Dictatorship with an American Democracy towards an American totalitarian state with a Chinese totalitarian state as it's "balance". As much as you may dislike Clinton at least he "accidentally" bombed a Chinese embassy spying on the west. This administration seems hell bent upon shipping the American production capacity to China while ignoring the pending threat.
All quite puzzling to me
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I feel much better already... :-) So it's not only in the UK where people die because of hospitals' mistakes...
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:54:37 +0100, "Dori A Schmetterling"

Watching the evening news and came across this which made me think of your posting. Thought you might enjoy: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1094345351321_7/?hub nada Sat. Sep. 4 2004 11:15 PM ET
Hospital didn't help ill people enter facility CTV.ca News Staff
A British.Columbia Canadian. family believes their daughter died because of hospital bureaucracy. Two weeks ago, Jessica Peace -- a mother of one -- had a drug reaction, stopped breathing and died in hospital. Her uncle, Jim Roberts, took her to the Peace Arch hospital in White Rock -- but not into the hospital. And he thinks she'd still be alive if not for the delay in getting her emergency care. "I honestly don't know why I didn't carry her in, but I thought when you went to a hospital they helped you," he said. When he arrived at the hospital, he left her in the car, ran inside and begged for help. "'My niece is in the car. She's not breathing. I need help,'" was his recollection. "She says, 'I'm sorry sir, you'll have to call an ambulance.'" Roberts was handed a phone and the desk clerk dialed 9-1-1. "I said, 'that's crazy.' She said, 'that's our policy, sir.'" The Peace Arch hospital insists it's not a policy, but that having paramedics to assist is necessary sometimes. "Removing somebody from an automobile and putting them on a stretcher, you need at least two people to do that," said Don Bower of the Fraser Health Authority.
The hospital said a nurse eventually did go out and give Jessica CPR while she was still in the car.
It agrees Roberts shouldn't have had to call for an ambulance himself and it is investigating the matter -- the second such investigation in just over a year.
In May 2003, an 88-year-old man died of cardiac arrest just outside the hospital's doors. Even the RCMP complained it took to long to get the victim help.
"It can't go on like this. More people are going to die," Roberts said, adding, "it's not the first time something like this has happened."
Lisa Trewern can vouch for that, saying, "the same thing happened to me when I took my mom to the hospital on April 3."
She said her mother had severe abdominal pains. While her mother survived, Trewern said she now regrets not having formally reported the matter: "They weren't willing to help me until I got through the doors." Jessica Peace's family is considering legal action while they take care of her son. With a report from CTV's Sarah Galashan

have been as likely?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, but I am not sure if I 'enjoyed' reading about such sad incidents. In fact, I learned recently that the distant relative was twice refused treatment by the A&E (accident & emergency) dept of a Toronto hospital until he practically crawled in in great pain...
It's taken me a while to reply as I was away...a week was in hospital... :-)
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry, distant relative of a Canadian work colleague.
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

I don't trust bulk statistics thrown out like that. There are too many examples of groups with a vested interest in having the results come out a certain way intentionally mishandling the numbers.
For example, statistics are often cited on how certain ethnic groups or nationalities are predicted to be the voting majority (vs. "white" Americans) in the U.S. by such and such a year in the near future. The eye opener comes when you find out that the people putting the statistics together count an individual who meets, say, two (or three) of the criteria for being put into a certain group as two (or three) people in that minority and not one, whereas each individual who meets the criteria for the group that they want to intentionally undercount (i.e. caucasians) are counted as one person. The people publishing the results have a vested interest in cionvincing politicians and others to cater to certain favored groups. It's one thing to report the truth of what the reality is, but it is not acceptable to skew the results like that to trick the public.
Similarly, they re-classified certain sets of symptoms and diseases as AIDS (broadened the definition) to inflate the growth rate of AIDS cases from year to year. Again - the rates of AIDS new AIDS cases were changing, and indeed, maybe the criteria shoudl have been broadened, but it is not right to report shifts in the numbers like that without making it clear that the criteria were changed in teh numbers being compared - IOW, if the criteria changed, then when statistical rate changes are reported, they either need to be adjusted or normalized for the effects of the change in criteria, or, at minimum, it needs to be stated that the criteria changed from one statistic to the next so that people know that they are not an apples to apples comparison - but that information is **NEVER** disclosed when the numbers are thrown out to the public.
I am not saying that such sleight of hand techniques are the case with the 100k hospital-caused deaths per year statistic increasing to 200k, but knowing the politics of those pushing the "our medical system is awful and therefore we need to go to socialized medicine" agenda, I am very skeptical of the numbers that they throw out. What were the criteria? Did the criteria change? Did reporting methods and accuracy change to falsely skew the numbers (either over-reporting or under-reporting on either end of the study? etc., etc....
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hospitals certainly have a financial interest in disputing the numbers and the financial strength to do their own analysis. But to my knowledge they have not done so. Therefore, presumably the nunmbers are accurate.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

I can hear the screams of logic being tortured from here!
--Geoff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Aug 2004 08:31:55 -0700, geoff snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Geoff Gariepy) wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Steve B." wrote:

There are plenty of countries around with socialized systems for you to assess without making an irreversible change here only to find that there are worse systems. Rather than risk ruining what admittedly is less than an ideal system, try one that has already made the change to socialism to see how you like it. That would be better than destroying what we have only to discover that there are much worse systems. Once the change is made, there is never any going back because, as a society, the climb out of the hole is too great once you fall into it (kind of like an addict who can't live with the drugs and can't live without them).
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:37:39 GMT, Steve B. <this is not my real

"reduce the service level" for people with no service to begin with.

pharaceutical company. Their plans are the world health care dream. My Brother in law pays $200.00 per month for a family of 6, MD's? his choice, MRI's? no more than 5 hours wait and no additional, drug coverage? 100% This is the Healthcare that everyone wants to have.
But then again he's got his post grad & hasn't been unemployed or sick.

What is a better question is why they spend tens of thousands locking up idiots who sell dope to each other. Out on the streets they could never afford health or dental care, but in the pen? You're paying for it ! Plus the cost of prison runs somewhere between $15 & $40 K per year per person. I know, not really all that much, but when you look at the levels of the US incarceration it begins to add up.

The best thing you can do for your health in the interim is: A) wear your seatbelt. B) Keep your weight within the ideal range
BUT most importantly.
C) Have a strong social network. (that way if you do lose insurance you'll have people to pressure those in power to guarantee your care).
For a thought, have you tried to join an automotive newsgroup? ;-)
PS the last one wasn't to play down the significance of what you wrote (it is usually an important election issue) but to try to bring a smile. Stress will make you ill.
Here's something from alt.jokes for everyone's weekday smile:
A car company can move its factories to Mexico and claim it's a free market. A toy company can outsource to a Chinese subcontractor and claim it's a free market. A major bank can incorporate in Bermuda to avoid taxes and claim it's a free market. We can buy HP Printers made in Mexico. We can buy shirts made in Bangladesh. We can purchase almost anything we want from many different countries

a Canadian (Or Mexico) pharmacy. That's called un-American!
And you think the pharmaceutical companies don't have a powerful lobby? Think again!
************************************************************************ Have a great week everybody, Get out & enjoy your car ! ************************************************************************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Geoff

I will say problem #1 with drug costs is the unregulated increase in prices for drugs. Sure it costs millions and millions to come up with a drug and get it approved by the FDA... but they get 7 years to make their money back on it... most big hit drugs they make their R&D money back within the first year. Its not til a generic comes out that the price can drop. But that is 7 years down the road. Next time you go to the pharmacy to get your top of the line drug.. ask what the cash cost is for a customer. Most are astonishing. Granted this is a free market economy, but drugs shouldn't be able to be hiked that much. Also doctors keep charging more and more because they want to be paid more. Not that I am saying a doctor doesn't deserve a decent paycheck, he does, especially the guy that is supposed to be removing the lump on your kidney/liver/pancreas/ovary/testicle and you want him to make sure he does it right. But there is a limit to making good money and causing your patients to go broke. Of course... I will stop there and say this... a big portion of what they charge (the doctors) is to pay for the outrageous insurance premiums they must carry to protect themselves from malpractice... cause its amazing how much they have to pay. Its not just the doctor that left the scalpel in your abdomen on accident. Its the doctor that didn't order one test and you got sick from the thing that test would have tested for and now you sue him for millions of dollars. Its the reckless abandon that people in the U.S. (and I believe spreading across Europe) to sue someone for anything. There are many diseases and almost as many tests to check for them. It shouldn't be required for a doctor to HAVE to order all those tests in fear that he might miss one and you become sick and sue him. The legal system is the first step for reform, and then slowly reform the medical society. If anyone wants some good reading on such issues... check out
"The Death of Common Sense" by Philip K. Howard & "The Collapse of Common Good" by Philip K. Howard
Both are very good books, definately a slight eye opener for some and solidation of ideas for others.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sijuki wrote:

B I N G O ! ! ! !
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, in UK medical insurance for doctors has been rising substantially...
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What you fail to understand is the tort system is part of the solution. When businesses are sued, or realize that they might be sued, they tend to get better.... more efficient and safer. That has not happened in the medical profession. Over 100k patients are being killed every year in hospitals due to medical mistakes and the trend is apparently getting worse according to the newest figures. Arguably the system needs more lawsuits, not fewer, to encourage the hospitals to clean up their act and to become more efficient. That, my friend, is capitalism without the need of government regulation.
(Geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.