1959 Bel Air versus 2009 Malibu - NMC but at least car-related

"Tim M." > wrote in message
...
On Oct 19, 6:00 am, pws > wrote:
> Tim M. wrote:
> > Thank-you for perfectly illustrating my point!
>
> How did he illustrate your point?
>
> You claimed, and I quote, "I know people at work whose PARENTS had one
> bad experience with a Dodge Omni or a Ford Tempo back in the 1970's or
> 1980's, and those people will NEVER consider an American car."
>
> This was not his parent's Omni that he is talking about, it was his own,
> so it actually does not illustrate your point in any way at all.
>
> You are starting to stand very alone here in defending the pure ****
> vehicles that Detroit has been producing, and is still producing today.
>
> All it takes is a little common sense not to buy these awful cars.

Actually, I started out by defending a single American car - the
current Chevy Malibu, that was characterized as "junk" and
"pathetic." Nor do I think it is an awful car, nor do I think that
"common sense" is what people are using when they choose cars,
certainly not for the most part.

Regardless, that defense seemingly opened the door to open season on
American cars and the history of American cars in general.

I simply have a different viewpoint than many other Miata owners in
this regard, and while folks are certainly entitled to their
viewpoint, I have owned (and worked on) enough foreign and U.S cars
personally to be comfortable in my viewpoint that the criticisms of
American cars are vastly overblown in the mind of the public, and that
the reputations of certain Japanese manufacturers are equally
overblown.

I never stopped buying American cars, and I never stopped buying
Japanese or European cars when they fit my needs, so I have a pretty
well rounded background of experience to go on, a background I'm sure
I'll continue to rely on - as well as magazine road tests and JD
Powers and other quality sureveys as well as friends and family's
inputs, and yes - even enthusiasts groups like this one's inputs -
when it comes time to buy vehicles in the future.

What I won't do is say "I'll never buy another vehicle from X
manufacturer" because of a single - or even a couple - of bad personal
experiences with a previous make or model of that manufacturer's
vehicles. I just won't. I'm going to take each car, or motorcycle,
on its own merits and how well it matches my needs, and I'm not going
to eliminate ANY vehicle that might put a smile on my face just
because of who made it or where it was made.

Finally, back to the original point? 30 years have passed since
Squat's Dodge Omni 024 was built. That's a full generation,
regardless of whether he owned it or his parents owned it. So even
though he owned it, it is still a lousy comparison point for deciding
what to buy now. It would be no more useful for me to say "Wow, my
Mom's 1981 Dodge Omni 4-door automatic spent less time at the dealer
being repaired than did either my 1983 VW GTI or my wife's 1984 VW
Jetta GLI, and it cost less, so I am going to buy a 2010 Chrysler
Sebring instead of a 2010 VW R32."

Now if he simply said "I don't care whether Dodge builds any quality
cars now or not, I'm going to continue to punish the company for the
rest of my life by withholding my consumer dollars because of the one
bad car I bought from them 30 years ago," that's different. I
understand that. I understand consumer rage and disappointment. I
won't patronize my local cable company because of a consumer service
dispute with them that occurred 20 years ago; I use a satellite TV
company because of that, and I don't even compare prices or quality
because that particular company simply isn't going to derive any
economic benefit from my consumer dollars. If they provided better
quality service for less mony than the satellite company, (for all I
know, they might!) it wouldn't change my mind. But I don't assume
that they are still doing to others what they did to me 20 years ago,
either. (otoh, for all I know, they might!)

I was pointing out that such sentiments lead to things like children
never considering a consumer item their parents once bought, simply
because of the strength of emotion behind them.

Tim,
Keep in mind that cars are something that you keep for a very long time
(hopefully).
We don't change them often so as children, we see how our parents cars
performed and that influences our decisions as adults. I have based my
current car decisions on the reliability of the vehicle. since I have owned
enough crap cars that I will buy something "un-cool" if it is reliable and
dependable.
The three best that I have owned have been Mazda's. I have seen an early
80's Toyota Corolla perform remarkably well after abusive treatment by a
freidn of mine. I have a buddy that has driven 200k miles on a Honda Accord.
True, These are not pure, statistical samples but as consumers, we go with
the info that we have available. We could read consumer reports but they
don't go out and randomly test 30 used cars of each make/model and drive
them on a daily basis to see what breaks and what survives.

Not all US cars are crap and not ALL Japanese cars are bullet proof.
However, I'd bet my money that a random sample of 10 - 5yr old
Honda/Toyota/Mazda cars would be in better shape than 10 -
Ford/Chevy/Chrysler. Seeing how American consumers are buying foreign cars
and not purchasing Us cars, I seem to be in the majority.

In a way, this ****es me off, Many fine "Foreign" cars are built right here
in the US. This tells me that it is not a UAW problem but an
engineering/marketing problem. My favorite cars at the last Auto show were
the Ford Mustang and the Ford Full size pickup. However, If I could buy a
car these days, it would probably be a Miata or a Mazda 3 wagon with the
performance option. (The Scion xB is kinda cool. I have rented them and like
the vehicle.)
Cheers and happy cruising!
Squat

I'd like to point out that the American car manufacturers, like most
employers, offer health insurance as a benefit to their employees. Look
at this chart

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

and see what kind of comparative disadvantage this imposes on Detroit.
(Also note that the data come from 2003; the disparity between the U.S.
and the rest of the world has grown ebven worse since then.)

The per capita expenditure on health for the U.S. in 2003 was $6,711 and
all American car manufacturers - in fact, all American businesses which
provide health insurance as part of their employee benefits - paid
proportionally. Meanwhile in Germany it was $2,983; in Japan, $2,249,
and in France, which has what is regarded as the best health care on the
planet, $3,048. Less than half for comparable or superior health care!
Less than half!

The difference, of course, is that in these countries the citizens,
through their governments, actually regulate the health care system for
their benefit, whereas in the U.S. the insurance companies control
health care in order to maximize their own profits. It's as though we
had decided to privatize the roads, and there was a toll booth every
five miles up and down every highway. The toll booth operators would be
rolling in dough, and the rest of the country would grind to a halt.

Instead of worrying about what the UAW does for its members and how can
we reduce their benefits to third-world levels, Americans should focus
on restraining the out-of-control costs of health care for all
citizens. We should start by dragging all those parasitical health
insurance companies into the nearest ditch and shooting them in the
head.

yrs WDK

On Oct 20, 1:44*am, "Squat" > wrote:

(public service bandwidth snip)

> Cheers and happy cruising!

Thanks, and thanks for the friendy response!

Tim

health care reform as pro business. that is the way to sell it! hope obama
reads your post.

"johnny p." > wrote in message
...
> I'd like to point out that the American car manufacturers, like most
> employers, offer health insurance as a benefit to their employees. Look
> at this chart
>
> http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
>
> and see what kind of comparative disadvantage this imposes on Detroit.
> (Also note that the data come from 2003; the disparity between the U.S.
> and the rest of the world has grown ebven worse since then.)
>
> The per capita expenditure on health for the U.S. in 2003 was $6,711 and
> all American car manufacturers - in fact, all American businesses which
> provide health insurance as part of their employee benefits - paid
> proportionally. Meanwhile in Germany it was $2,983; in Japan, $2,249,
> and in France, which has what is regarded as the best health care on the
> planet, $3,048. Less than half for comparable or superior health care!
> Less than half!
>
> The difference, of course, is that in these countries the citizens,
> through their governments, actually regulate the health care system for
> their benefit, whereas in the U.S. the insurance companies control
> health care in order to maximize their own profits. It's as though we
> had decided to privatize the roads, and there was a toll booth every
> five miles up and down every highway. The toll booth operators would be
> rolling in dough, and the rest of the country would grind to a halt.
>
> Instead of worrying about what the UAW does for its members and how can
> we reduce their benefits to third-world levels, Americans should focus
> on restraining the out-of-control costs of health care for all
> citizens. We should start by dragging all those parasitical health
> insurance companies into the nearest ditch and shooting them in the
> head.
>
> yrs WDK

Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> Thank God, maybe Pat is mellowing out just a touch in his old age ;-)
> I love it!
>
> Chris
> 99BBB

Hey, frak off Chris! (Oh ****, I just showed my Battlestar Galactica
geekiness)

Mellow my ass............. ;-)

Pat - 47 days to age 40, and hating it..........

pws > wrote:

> Pat - 47 days to age 40, and hating it..........

I was 40, it didn't hurt a bit!



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

On Oct 20, 7:07*pm, pws > wrote:
> Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> > Thank God, maybe Pat is mellowing out just a touch in his old age ;-)
> > I love it!
>
> > Chris
> > 99BBB
>
> Hey, frak off Chris! (Oh ****, I just showed my Battlestar Galactica
> geekiness)
>
> Mellow my ass............. *;-)
>
> Pat - 47 days to age 40, and hating it..........

Relax, 40 is the new 25!!! (which leaves me theoretically at the new
32.......) ;-)

Hey, even the big corporate boys have figured out that universal healthcare
is pro-business. Problem is SOME business don't agree (the for profit
insurance companies) and they're spending the lobbying cash like it is
water! Fueling re-election campaigns far and wide!

Wow, how many ways can we travel off topic in this one thread ;-)

Chris
99BBB

"Christopher Muto" > wrote in message
t...
> health care reform as pro business. that is the way to sell it! hope
> obama reads your post.
>
> "johnny p." > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'd like to point out that the American car manufacturers, like most
>> employers, offer health insurance as a benefit to their employees. Look
>> at this chart
>>
>> http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
>>
>> and see what kind of comparative disadvantage this imposes on Detroit.
>> (Also note that the data come from 2003; the disparity between the U.S.
>> and the rest of the world has grown ebven worse since then.)
>>
>> The per capita expenditure on health for the U.S. in 2003 was $6,711 and
>> all American car manufacturers - in fact, all American businesses which
>> provide health insurance as part of their employee benefits - paid
>> proportionally. Meanwhile in Germany it was $2,983; in Japan, $2,249,
>> and in France, which has what is regarded as the best health care on the
>> planet, $3,048. Less than half for comparable or superior health care!
>> Less than half!
>>
>> The difference, of course, is that in these countries the citizens,
>> through their governments, actually regulate the health care system for
>> their benefit, whereas in the U.S. the insurance companies control
>> health care in order to maximize their own profits. It's as though we
>> had decided to privatize the roads, and there was a toll booth every
>> five miles up and down every highway. The toll booth operators would be
>> rolling in dough, and the rest of the country would grind to a halt.
>>
>> Instead of worrying about what the UAW does for its members and how can
>> we reduce their benefits to third-world levels, Americans should focus
>> on restraining the out-of-control costs of health care for all
>> citizens. We should start by dragging all those parasitical health
>> insurance companies into the nearest ditch and shooting them in the
>> head.
>>
>> yrs WDK
>
>

On Oct 20, 6:53*am, "johnny p." > wrote:
> I'd like to point out that the American car manufacturers, like most
> employers, offer health insurance as a benefit to their employees. *Look
> at this chart
>
> http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
>
> and see what kind of comparative disadvantage this imposes on Detroit.
> (Also note that the data come from 2003; the disparity between the U.S.
> and the rest of the world has grown ebven worse since then.)
>
> The per capita expenditure on health for the U.S. in 2003 was $6,711 and
> all American car manufacturers - in fact, all American businesses which
> provide health insurance as part of their employee benefits - paid
> proportionally. *Meanwhile in Germany it was $2,983; in Japan, $2,249,
> and in France, which has what is regarded as the best health care on the
> planet, $3,048. *Less than half for comparable or superior health care!
> Less than half!
>
> The difference, of course, is that in these countries the citizens,
> through their governments, actually regulate the health care system for
> their benefit, whereas in the U.S. the insurance companies control
> health care in order to maximize their own profits. *It's as though we
> had decided to privatize the roads, and there was a toll booth every
> five miles up and down every highway. *The toll booth operators would be
> rolling in dough, and the rest of the country would grind to a halt.
>
> Instead of worrying about what the UAW does for its members and how can
> we reduce their benefits to third-world levels, Americans should focus
> on restraining the out-of-control costs of health care for all
> citizens. *We should start by dragging all those parasitical health
> insurance companies into the nearest ditch and shooting them in the
> head.
>
> yrs WDK

Personally, I think health insurance should be outlawed. Yep.
Mandatory, CATASTROPHIC health coverage should be the norm, where you
can't lose your livelihood, your home, your retirement, your life
savings, or your children's college savings due to sickness, disease,
or accident. Those who can't afford the premiums for such should get
a tax credit (not deduction; credit) for the cost of the premium.
Public option, sure. For regular, routine, everyday health care,
return the costs to the user and let THEM put pressure on the health
care providers to control costs at the point of purchase, just as they
do with other consumer goods and services. Remove the income
percentage rule on health care tax DEDUCTIONS, and let everyone deduct
the actual cost of their health spending from their income. Give
lower income families a tax credit for annual health care spending,
and get the insurance companies and their legions of claims denying
paper pushers (and their overhead costs and profits) out of our health
care decisions.

But no one in a million years would go for the above!

In article
>,
"Tim M." > wrote:

> Those who can't afford the premiums for such should get
> a tax credit (not deduction; credit) for the cost of the premium.

But that won't help folks who don't make enough to owe taxes, unless it
gets added to their withholding refunds. You might be surprised how much
you can make without owing taxes, due to certain deductions. It could be
as much as double the official "poverty" level--not dirt-poor, but still
having to make careful choices, and unable to afford $1000/month for
insurance.

Current high-deductible catastrophic insurance plans are predatory
rip-offs. It can be difficult to get them to pay for *anything*. The
automatic initial response these days is to deny any claim, and make you
appeal the ruling. Policies are deliberately written in weasel language
to suggest one thing, then you're told you misinterpreted the plan and
your claim is not covered.

All insurance companies blow dead rats.

--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C