PDA

View Full Version : Cash for clunkers SUCKS



Pages : [1] 2

gary350
08-15-2009, 08:48 AM
You might want to think about buying a few old vehicles to have. Prices are going up by the week. Car sales people are all telling me that the cash for clunkers program is driving up the price of old cars. Some of the vehicles have increased in price $2000 in a month. Vehicles that people were trading in a month ago people are holding on to them now because they are now worth more than the $4500 cash for clunker price. There is a place on Broad street in Murfreesboro that all the cash for clunkers are going to, they drain the oil and fill the crank case with water then run the engine until it throws a rod or locks up. Then the vehicles are sent off to be crushed. What a f##king waste. They are destroying a 1000 cars a day in Murfreesboro. A car salesman told me yesterday the estimate is to destroy 1.2 million cars every month. I am going to buy 2 old SUV. I like having an SUV it is great for camping and hauling my bicycle and I couldn't care less that it gets 18 mile per gallon not 40 like the government wants. I am looking for a very old 1968 or so Chevy Suburban that I can rebuild the engine and total restore it to drive. I am going to buy another SUV like the one I have before the prices go much higher, probably a little newer with the same body style. Next thing the government will outlaw the sale of parts so we won't be able to repair the old vehicles and keep them running. I saw Auto Zone Reps on TV complaining about what cash for clunkers is doing to their sales. I will never buy a new American made vehicle I refuse to support the over paid $75 per hour auto works and the excetivites that get $800,000. bonus checks every year.

J Tiers
08-15-2009, 09:11 AM
Did you miss the fact that cars older than 1984 are NOT covered?

There's a large wasteland of POS cars in the 1980's and 1990s...... good riddance, to some degree..... All those later K-cars..... too bad many of the k-cars get too high MPG to be "clunked"

And according to the paper here, the parts from the car can be taken off and used, as long as the engine block is siezed..... At least some sense is involved.

it's true that a lot of scrappies are amazed that good working cars are being "clunked", but that's sort of the point....... to get the 9 mpg stuff off the road permanently.

Mind, I don't think it's being handled appropriately, I think it is actually an expensive cluster.... , a huge piece of corporate welfare, the likes of which even the nazipublicans (I heard that offensive term recently) never did in their wildest dreams.

I'd rather let the car companies make whatever they want, it can get 1 mpg if they wish.....

Then tax the fuel mileage..... sliding scale increasing faster as mileage goes down, paid annually on vehicles you OWN, old or new, independent of miles driven. That would take care of this "consumers demand powerful low mileage vehicles" thing.

PTSideshow
08-15-2009, 09:21 AM
First off, there are few if any of
I refuse to support the over paid $75 per hour auto works any more between the layoffs and the buy outs and the reductions in hourly wages that the unions agreed to the $75.00 is BS.
And before you jump on. I am not an auto worker or have been in the 30 plus years.

Wife worked for a supplier till they terminated most of their workers and may no longer be here in the fall.(she never made anything close to $75.00 with benies) most suppliers are non union or low wage union shops. Due to the Auto companies telling them that will only pay .50¢ for a part that costs the company .75¢ to make with out profit.

The bigger problem is going to be, what happens to cars that you need a mortgage to buy and have a battery life of 3 to 6 years and need to be replaced. And nobody is talking a about the life of the batteries in the green cars. Costs that were tossed aboout at the suppliers was around 6 grand a battery pack. Now who is going to want to pay for a used car in the price range and then have to spend say $6,000 bucks so you can drive it or pay the big bucks the deals will be asking if they replace the battery packs first.

The problem is that a larger section of the economy will be hurt if not killed.

Auto auctions are taking 20 minutes in this Detroit area now. Since the car dealers.

No parts for a large segment of the new older cars in the next few years at salvage yards.

Short term dropping of scrap prices due to the abundance of mixed auto shred.

Used cars dealers are not selling nor can they buy any late model cars.

As you said the boom in auto parts sales has dropped off.

Repair shops have seen a down turn or drop in big ticket repairs. As the sheeple follow the B.S to the dealer ships.

Tranny work and other major repairs are off.

And the list goes on.

What is going to happen when the new car loan bubble burst in a couple years. And the repo's become the new foreclosure!

Some of the dealers are having people sign liability forms to the effect, that they will pay the dealers the $4,500 if the government runs out. Which is supposed to be illegal according to the clunkers program.

So yes blame it on the shlub working on the line, that has no more input or control. Of the union contract, than you do to the Bush or Bama White house.

By the way all of the American big 3 have way less content to qualify as real made in America products.
:)

JoeFin
08-15-2009, 09:37 AM
Have you noticed as the economy improves just a fraction of an iota the price of oil goes up.


I saw Auto Zone Reps on TV complaining about what cash for clunkers is doing to their sales.

My kid has a summer job at “Pick and Pull” right now. The economic down turn has been a “Boom” to places like them because people have been fixing the cars they have rather then running out buying new cars. Sounds more like your Autozone Reps are winning because the Boom is running out for them.


Mind, I don't think it's being handled appropriately, I think it is actually an expensive cluster.... , a huge piece of corporate welfare, the likes of which even the nazipublicans (I heard that offensive term recently) never did in their wildest dreams. .

You wait till now to complain about Corporate Welfare? Where were you and all this fiscal responcibility when the $750 Billion Medicare part D was being formulated by the RATpubliCONs


A landmark in corporate welfare
Medicare Part D is a fiscal debacle – and a lobbyist's dream.

SAN FRANCISCO - Medicare Part D makes it easier for America's elderly to buy prescription drugs. It also gives drug companies a free ride on the backs of the next generation.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p09s02-coop.html

saltmine
08-15-2009, 09:44 AM
I don't like supporting executives that do nothing, and get $800,000 bonuses either...but you're in error about mechanics in general.

Everybody thinks that just because the sign on the wall says $75 an hour or $125 an hour the guy working on your car is getting that....wrong!

The guy who has to actually make the repairs is only getting $18 to $24 an hour. And that's not 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. It's paid out per job.
If your car needs an hour worth of work, and you get charged an hour, the guy who's working on it gets an hour pay...regardless of how long it takes.

A good example is the "Y" pipe on a Ford (International) diesel. Ford specifies the job takes 3 hours to perform (that's what you get paid) In the "real world" replacing the pipe requires removal of the truck's cab from the chassis to gain access to the pipe.(We're talking something like a full day or two) to be paid 3 hours labor...

The other thing most people don't realize is the fact that ALL mechanics (OK, Technicians) are required to buy their own tools. The average Tech owns between $10,000 and $40,000 in hand and specialty tools. Add this to the fact that most mechanics' training is "on their dime" and you'll see why experienced mechanics are leaving the business in droves.
Low pay, expensive tool outlays, time consuming and expensive training, poor medical coverage, and sorry engineered cars and trucks.

I was there, for 45 years. Never made more than $50,000 in a year. I still have my tools, which are largely useless now that I've retired. A $55,000 investment that I'll never recover.(most mechanics' tools sell used for pennies on the dollar, if you can find somebody to buy them.)

Of course, now that I'm retired, I have to pay those exorbitant labor prices just like the rest of you.

$125 an hour....the mechanic gets $20...What happens to the rest? The service writer($100,000 a year), the store(it costs the average repair shop $2000 a month to pay the electric bill), the service manager($100,000 a year), the owner($$$)....They all get "a piece of the pie".

But wait! with all of the experienced people leaving the business, who's gonna fix the "high tech" cars and trucks? Kids....yeah, kids...Coming out of "Vocational schools", poorly trained and starry eyed because their instructors told them they'll be able to earn $100,000 the first year they're on the job. Kids that know more about "Rap" and video games than the workings of a modern automobile....Are you scared yet? I know I am.

mixdenny
08-15-2009, 09:48 AM
There is a place on Broad street in Murfreesboro that all the cash for clunkers are going to, they drain the oil and fill the crank case with water then run the engine until it throws a rod or locks up. Then the vehicles are sent off to be crushed. What a f##king waste. They are destroying a 1000 cars a day in Murfreesboro. A car salesman told me yesterday the estimate is to destroy 1.2 million cars every month.

The program has its pros and cons, but at least get things straight. The dealers have only one option to destroy the engine: drain the oil and fill with two quarts of sodium silicate, which turns hard like glass when it heats up.

The engine and transmission cannot be reused, by legislation. Everything else is OK, although it has to be crushed within so many months. Many scrappers just choose to crush them right away, that is thier decision.

About 250,000 cars have been turned in. If the program is refunded, there will be a total of 750,000 cars scrapped under the program.

Dennis

Glenn Wegman
08-15-2009, 09:54 AM
[QUOTE=saltmine]
A good example is the "Y" pipe on a Ford (International) diesel. Ford specifies the job takes 3 hours to perform (that's what you get paid) In the "real world" replacing the pipe requires removal of the truck's cab from the chassis to gain access to the pipe.(We're talking something like a full day or two) to be paid 3 hours labor...
[QUOTE]

Yes, but you didn't mention the fact that there are also jobs that may pay 5 hours that can be accomplished in 1.5 hours.

saltmine
08-15-2009, 09:58 AM
Another joke...Toyota Prius owners trading in their cars at 50,000 miles.
At 50,000 miles the battery pack in a Prius is down to 50% of it's original capacity. What does this mean to the car buyer? Simple, a dying battery pack in a hybrid means the car will have to rely on other sources of energy to perform properly. Yeah, you guessed it! The Prius will end up using more fuel, have a shorter rage, and if converted, spend more time on the charger.

Of course, as a new owner, you could shell out $5500 for a replacement pack, plus labor. Then you can drive around happily with flowers coming out of your exhaust pipe...until something else fails.

Face it....Most hybrids built today, will be the "White Elephants" of tomorrow.

JoeFin
08-15-2009, 09:59 AM
Yes, but you didn't mention the fact that there are also jobs that may pay 5 hours that can be accomplished in 1.5 hours.

I have yet to see peice work benifit the worker

S_J_H
08-15-2009, 10:03 AM
Car sales people are all telling me that the cash for clunkers program is driving up the price of old cars. Some of the vehicles have increased in price $2000 in a month.

That really makes no sense to me.
The way I read the rules is you have to have had ownership of said " clunker car" for 1 year. This keeps people from going out and buying a POS and trading it in for $4500.
So the the clunkers value should only be of any increased value to the owner who is going to trade it in for a new car. Otherwise it has no additional value to anybody.
Steve

PTSideshow
08-15-2009, 10:10 AM
Some of the dealers are now whining, as 85% of the app's for the CFC program are getting rejected. and the have to resubmit them. They are talking about increasing the number of people processing the claims from 250 to 1000 people. All are contract workers to fulfillment companies. More low wage jobs that can't afford the cars. go figure.:rolleyes:

saltmine
08-15-2009, 10:10 AM
When I first started in the business, there "were" jobs like that, Greg. But manufacturers actually have scores of "time & motion" experts working full time to shave every cent they can off of the labor times...Why? Because while the vehicle is under warranty, the manufacturer is responsible for paying the mechanics to perform the repairs....And, since the guys doing the "Time studies" are accountants, and not mechanics, they have no idea what they're cutting. After the vehicle is out of warranty, the people who write the labor guides (note I said "guides") just take the warranty labor and add an hour or two...Again, paper shufflers, not mechanics.

I know what some of you are thinking...Why don't the manufacturers pay the mechanics to do the job properly, instead of "cheap as possible"...Simple economics. Once the car is sold, the manufacturer wants little or nothing to do with it. Some manufacturers have a policy of letting the customer do their "final engineering" in the field (Chrysler is especially bad about this).

Truth be known, if the manufacturers paid people on the service level, properly, they wouldn't be able to pay their CEO's $10 million a year, with $800,000 bonuses every time they get a hangnail.

Glenn Wegman
08-15-2009, 11:08 AM
I have yet to see peice work benifit the worker

I was just making a point that there is sometimes an average involved! Not every job is a loss.

tmc_31
08-15-2009, 11:11 AM
Does anybody know what happens to the sodium silicate in the engine when the engine is reprocessed into new steel? Is it going to become a permanent part of the new steel and change it's chemical properties, or is it removed in the smelting?


Tim

mixdenny
08-15-2009, 11:46 AM
Another joke...Toyota Prius owners trading in their cars at 50,000 miles.
At 50,000 miles the battery pack in a Prius is down to 50% of it's original capacity. What does this mean to the car buyer? Simple, a dying battery pack in a hybrid means the car will have to rely on other sources of energy to perform properly. Yeah, you guessed it! The Prius will end up using more fuel, have a shorter rage, and if converted, spend more time on the charger.


Facts, people, facts. The Prius battery is carefully maintained at a 45% to 75% capacity charge by the charge controller. It has plenty of excess capability. The design service life is at least 180,000 miles. Fleets of Prius taxis in Canada have logged well in excess of 200,000 miles on each vehicle. The Prius has been sold in North America since 2001. To date, not a single Prius battery has been replaced for failure.

Yes, at some point the battery will need replacement. But 50,000 miles means nothing to it.

Dennis

JoeFin
08-15-2009, 11:47 AM
Does anybody know what happens to the sodium silicate in the engine when the engine is reprocessed into new steel? Is it going to become a permanent part of the new steel and change it's chemical properties, or is it removed in the smelting?


Tim

Good Point

Because you know sure as sunshine, the Chinese who are going to buy up this scrap by the boatload arn't going to give a crap about the quality of the steel they sell back to America

Ries
08-15-2009, 11:59 AM
People object to this program for political reasons- and thats fine-
But to say it, and it alone, is the reason used car prices go up, or scrap yards are crushing cars, or parts will be unavailable- sorry, thats just bogus.

For the last 20 years or so, most cars have been too complicated, electronic, and designed to be disposable- which means that the old days, of nursing that 68 F100 along for 300,000 miles- its been gone for a long time.
My seat of the pants guess is that the half life of a new car these days is about 5 years- that is, in 5 years, half of em are off the road, in ten years another half, and by 15 years or so, there are only about ten percent of any given car still running.

I had a 1992 car that had 5, count em, 5 computers in it. Thats almost 18 years ago. Cars like that die a natural death, because nobody stocks all those funky 20 year old electronics, and nobody would want to pay for em even if you could buy em. And computers dont usually work, when you rip em out of a weathered hulk at pic-a-part.

So the design and manufacturing trends in the auto industry have signed the death warrant for a lot of cheap used cars a long time ago.

Then, the trends in scrap yards go way farther back as well- for at least the last ten years, there has been a trend in the junkyard industry to keep cars for a very short time. Nothing to do with cash for clunkers- its all about the benjamins.
It costs a fortune these days to run a junkyard, with land costs, taxes, insurance, labor, and so on. Most junkyards in america keep a junk car for 30 days. One month. Thats the way it has been for at least 5 years. So the availability of salvaged car parts has been way down for a long time.
Sure, there are a few old mom and pops that keep cars forever- and, usually, when those guys die, the yards change that policy within a month- cause it doesnt pay. There has been huge consolidation in the scrapyard business- chains now own as many as 500 junkyards nationwide (thats per chain) and they run them businesses with ruthless, cost cutting precision. At many yards, there is a computer printout every morning that tells which hulks are "ripe" that day, having been out there 30 days, and they get crushed.

In addition, we scrap, every year in the USA, 5 million cars. Thats just the normal attrition rate. WE have about 300 million cars and trucks on the road, and every year, about 5 million die.
So how can you say that a small percentage of the normal amount that get crushed, maybe 600,000 or 700,000, this year, is somehow going to outweigh the 20 million in the last 4 years? It just isnt enough to make a huge impact on salvage parts, or used car availability.

What is really driving up the price of used cars is the bad economy- we bought something like 10 million fewer cars than we would have, in the last two years, because we are broke. But the same 5 million cars per year puked out and got scrapped- so the normal amount of filter down, of cars that would be sold as used to replace new cars, didnt happen, and the whole system is tighter than we are used to.

DR
08-15-2009, 12:08 PM
The reason used car prices seem to be so high (or even going up) is because people are not trading them in on new cars.

My local Toyota dealers says their new car sales are down 50% from better times. Their used car lot is practically empty.

Ries
08-15-2009, 12:12 PM
Just for the record-
The Ten Most Traded-In Vehicles in the Cash for Clunkers program:

1. Ford Explorer 4WD
2. Ford F-150 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
7. Ford Explorer 2WD
8. Ford F-150 Pickup 4WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

saltmine
08-15-2009, 01:19 PM
Statistics, Mixdenny. You can prove anything with statistics.

First, Toyota is going to clam up if any bad press gets out about their precious hybrid.
At the same time, they'll broadcast to the world everything that works.

From the "inside" Toyota has gone through a bunch of battery packs, but they try to keep it a secret. From my sources, they tell me the packs are failing between 50,000 and 80,000miles, and, in many cases, Toyota is eating the cost to keep the complaints down to a manageable level.
Prius packs are still the high internal resistance, low output, Nickel-metal-Hydride cells. GM and Ford are using the newer, more expensive, higher energy density lithium-ion and lithium-polymer cells. Of course, the lithium cells have a shorter service life than the NimH packs, but nobody is going to admit it.

On another note: you said "Properly maintained packs"....Uh, maybe in a Taxi fleet, but "Joe-Average-Treehugger" isn't going to even attempt to follow any kind of maintenance schedule.

Plenty of Toyota Prius' getting wrecked, though. Some of the idiots driving them are so busy looking at their "energy usage displays", they end up rearending the car in front of them.

lazlo
08-15-2009, 01:35 PM
From the "inside" Toyota has gone through a bunch of battery packs, but they try to keep it a secret. From my sources, they tell me the packs are failing between 50,000 and 80,000miles, and, in many cases,

The US Prius has been out for almost 9 years, and like Dennis says, there have been very few battery failures, and plenty of cars on the road with over 200,000 miles.


Toyota is eating the cost to keep the complaints down to a manageable level.

Toyota wouldn't be "eating the cost" to keep battery failures a secret -- the standard Prius battery warranty is 8 years, and 100,000 miles.

lazlo
08-15-2009, 01:43 PM
The way I read the rules is you have to have had ownership of said " clunker car" for 1 year. This keeps people from going out and buying a POS and trading it in for $4500.

So the the clunkers value should only be of any increased value to the owner who is going to trade it in for a new car. Otherwise it has no additional value to anybody.

Stop talking sense Steve :)

The clunker has to be owned and actively insured for the 12 months preceding the trade. I have a friend who traded in a car, and he had switched insurers during the 12 months, and he got all kinds of grief from the program.

By the way, Ries listed the top ten most traded clunkers. Here's the top three most purchased vehicles, in order of total sales under the Clunkers program:


Toyota Corolla
Honda Civic
Toyota Camry

JCHannum
08-15-2009, 03:12 PM
That list is from DOT figures, which count each different configuration as a separate model, skewing the results. Reporting by model, the Toyota drops to ninth spot.

The real top ten includes two full sized pickups and tells a very different story about the buying the plan has spurred.

1. Ford Escape
2. Ford Focus
3. Jeep Patriot
4. Dodge Caliber
5. Ford F-150
6. Honda Civic
7. Chevrolet Silverado
8. Chevrolet Cobalt
9. Toyota Corolla
10. Ford Fusion

Article here; http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/edmunds-dots-cash-for-clunkers-top-ten-list-gets-it-wrong/

Artificially spurring auto sales through CFC has a couple of side effects. One is that it removes affordable cars that still get acceptable mileage from the market, punishing those who cannot afford new vehicles. This is the reason the cost of vehicles in this price range will rise. It is the simple economics of supply and demand.

Another is that it is doing nothing more than compressing sales into the period of the program. Anybody contemplating purchase of a new vehicle will buy it now, when the rebate is in effect rather than wait until later at full price. Tody's sales, in a very large part are November and December sales. You can expect to see a big drop as soon as the program ceases.

mochinist
08-15-2009, 03:32 PM
Funny how the far right is all of a sudden concerned with poor people being able to afford a car.

Skunkeye
08-15-2009, 03:56 PM
Funny how the far right is all of a sudden concerned with poor people being able to afford a car.

Funnier is the fact that the far left doesn't believe in an individual's right to the proceeds of their labor, or in equal treatment under the law. Stuff like that always cracks me up.

Jim Shaper
08-15-2009, 04:10 PM
Funnier is the fact that the far left doesn't believe in an individual's right to the proceeds of their labor, or in equal treatment under the law. Stuff like that always cracks me up.

That's cause the far left doesn't labor, but rather skims off those who do.

mochinist
08-15-2009, 04:14 PM
Funnier is the fact that the far left doesn't believe in an individual's right to the proceeds of their labor, or in equal treatment under the law. Stuff like that always cracks me up.Whats even funnier is how the far right and left change the subject when they have no valid response;)

saltmine
08-15-2009, 04:15 PM
It's a shame....All of those "Affordable" cars being taken off the road...WTF??

There are still many far worse clunkers still on the road....Usually being driven by people who can't afford things like good tires, insurance, and proper repairs.
Just my luck....to get run into by some "poor unfortunate" who can't pay for insurance....or brakes.


I better call my insurance agent and make sure I'm covered for "uninsured driver"

danlb
08-15-2009, 04:15 PM
From the "inside" Toyota has gone through a bunch of battery packs, but they try to keep it a secret. From my sources, they tell me the packs are failing between 50,000 and 80,000miles, and, in many cases, Toyota is eating the cost to keep the complaints down to a manageable level.



Oh NO! That means that my battery died 3 years and 50,000 miles ago! Hmmmm. And yet it still runs fine. And it still gets better than 45 mpg despite SF bay area traffic jams, hot weather and climbing a 1 mile long 5% grade twice a day.

:)

Living in the bay area, I know a LOT of people with Priuses, and not one has had a battery problem. I'll probably be the first to have a battery fail, since mine's over 7 years old and every battery dies eventually.

I think your "Inside Sources" are inside Ford, GM or Chrysler. Maybe they are "inside" a bar down the street. They sure aren't familiar with Toyota.

Dan

saltmine
08-15-2009, 04:21 PM
BTW, Lazlo...I still think the Prius is technology that isn't ready for the general public. It needs another couple of years development, instead of letting the buying public do their "field testing"

Besides....it's a gay little car....almost as gay as a PT Cruiser convert, or a Jack Roush Mustang.

I don't drink, Dan. But I do have a lot of friends and acquaintances in both GM and Ford Regional Zone Offices, and I used to work at Ford's Arizona Proving Ground. We were beating the snot out of Mazda Tribute hybrids(Ford Escape) long before Toyota ever thought of the Prius.

lazlo
08-15-2009, 04:22 PM
That list is from DOT figures, which count each different configuration as a separate model, skewing the results. Reporting by model, the Toyota drops to ninth spot.

The real top ten includes two full sized pickups and tells a very different story about the buying the plan has spurred.

So, which list do you prefer? The DOT list that Fox says shows C4C is a failure because only four vehicles on the list come from a domestic auto maker, or the Edmunds list, based on early data from the dealers, that Fox says shows C4C is a failure because eight vehicles on this list come from a domestic auto maker, but include high gas mileage crossover SUV's ? :)

If you look at the top 10 list of cars that were being turned in, most of it was Ford Explorers. If people are swapping Explorers for Escapes, that's a huge mileage improvement -- the Escape gets 28 MPG:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/Escape.jpg

saltmine
08-15-2009, 04:30 PM
Common misconception, Dan. The battery pack doesn't just "die" like the batteries in a flashlight. As they age, the internal resistance increases, and they refuse to hold a complete charge, regardless of how long you charge it.
Eventually, you'll find it using more and more fuel while it's computer attempts to bring the pack up to it's correct charge level...You'll also notice it won't drive as far on just the battery as it used to.
These packs can be down to 30% capacity and still not give any warning.

The Mazda Tributes we had at APG were at the end of their pack life, and seldom delivered more than 18mpg.

lazlo
08-15-2009, 04:41 PM
BTW, Lazlo...I still think the Prius is technology that isn't ready for the general public. It needs another couple of years development, instead of letting the buying public do their "field testing"

Seems like pretty simple technology to me, and I'm a EE. Heck, even the Tesla is very simple in design -- a bank of batteries driving a 3-phase induction motor with a VFD through it's DC bus.

In any event, there've been over 750,000 Prius' sold since then first appeared in the US. I've driven them as a rental car, and don't particular like them (I drive a very environmentally unfriendly sports car :o ), but the JD Powers statistics show the Prius is pretty reliable.


Besides....it's a gay little car....almost as gay as a PT Cruiser convert, or a Jack Roush Mustang.

Now that I agree with. :) The guy in the next cube traded in a Jeep Cherokee for a Honda Fit. When I looked out the window to see it, I blurted out "that looks like something a coed would drive." He's still mad at me :D

JCHannum
08-15-2009, 04:45 PM
Fox has nothing to do with it. Edmunds is an independant auto related organization that collates and publishes such data, it was reported on CNN. I am not saying anything except that the DOT figures do not give a true picture of what CFC has accomplished. People have taken advantage of the offer to turn in their older vehicles for newer ones with better mileage. It has succeeded to that point.

However, it appears that, while there was some downsizing, the US buying public still prefers pickups and SUV's over econoboxes.

Doc Nickel
08-15-2009, 04:58 PM
Every time somebody gets into an argument about their Ford hybrid or Toyota priapus, I wander out and take my 462-cubic-inch carbureted V8 powered 1966 Toronado out for a completely pointless 15MPG joyride. :D

http://www.docsmachine.com/nonPB/may2005toro.jpg

It's as long as two Priuses, outweighs four of them, and has more engine displacement than six of them. The hood is long enough to play volleyball on, it seats six comfortably (it came from the factory with six seatbelts) and will hold eight if they're friends.

It has zero emissions controls except for a PCV valve. The gas tank is vented to the open air, there's no EGR, no catalytic converter, no charcoal cannister, no oxygen sensor.

But it's not eligible for "cash for clunkers". Ask yourself why that might be.

Doc.

Jim Shaper
08-15-2009, 05:14 PM
But it's not eligible for "cash for clunkers". Ask yourself why that might be.

Doc.

Because commercial parts recyclers (junk yards) don't carry these vehicles anyway and that limits the economic impact of removing them from circulation.

The age limit (in my best guess) is intended to cripple the parts supply for the new enough but older cars and thus make these vehicles impossible to service by removing that supply line and forcing a new car to be purchased (somewhere in the economy).

Finding a bone yard in the twin cities metro that has parts for cars over 20 years old is becoming difficult. If you offered up 4500 to unload a $200 car that if something were to be severely damaged on would necessitate the purchase of another car from lack of donor parts alone, there's really no reason to pay the guy driving it anyway as the situation would resolve itself at the very moment of failure (or impact).

JCHannum
08-15-2009, 05:17 PM
Is the plural of Prius Priuses? Shouldn't it be Prii?

Keep that Toronado Doc. While I didn't go, the Woodward Avenue dream cruise is today in Detroit. There is still nothing quite like the sound and smell of an egregiously overcarbureted big block.

Take that all you stinking of ozone Prii.

Mcruff
08-15-2009, 05:21 PM
We were beating the snot out of Mazda Tribute hybrids(Ford Escape) long before Toyota ever thought of the Prius.
I seriousy doubt that as the Prius was sold in Japan (1997) even before Ford had an idea for the Escape let alone the hybrid. The Escape came out in 2001 and the Hybrid 2004, the Prius had already been on the market in other parts of the world for 5 years before the Escape or Tribute were released. So given equal times to develop, Toyota was way ahead on design when Ford started.

Skunkeye
08-15-2009, 05:37 PM
Whats even funnier is how the far right and left change the subject when they have no valid response;)

Valid response to what? Your assertion that the far right is suddenly concerned about the poor's ability to afford a car?

Your assertion is absurd. Conservatives often care more about the poor than liberals, the difference is they donate the money that they themselves earn to charities, instead of demanding other people's money to pay for the liberal's largesse. While the far right may well feel for the poor, they realize that a limited government's role is not to provide for all of an individual's needs, but rather focus on the purposes outlined in the Constitution. The far left postures as the party of compassion, but it is truly The Road to Serfdom.

JCHannum
08-15-2009, 05:49 PM
It seems Japan has had a similar program in effect, heavily subsidizing Prii and flat screen TV's to save the climate and as an economic stimulus. It also seems it is beginning to backfire on for some of the very reasons cited here as to why CFC is not a particularly good program.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUST7890620090814

danlb
08-15-2009, 05:59 PM
Mcruff took the words out of my mouth. The Ford Escape is based on the Toyota technology used in the Prius, so saltmine must have been playing with some other technology if it was before the prius was even thought of. No wonder Saltmine has such a bad feeling about hybrids.

It's always funny when someone ascribes sexual meaning to a car. It tends to invalidate all the rest of that person's opinions.

Dan

lazlo
08-15-2009, 06:36 PM
Every time somebody gets into an argument about their Ford hybrid or Toyota priapus, I wander out and take my 462-cubic-inch carbureted V8 powered 1966 Toronado out for a completely pointless 15MPG joyride. :D.

Mine's a 2009, and has considerably more horsepower, but same gas mileage. Doesn't seat six though :p

lazlo
08-15-2009, 06:38 PM
Conservatives often care more about the poor than liberals, the difference is they donate the money that they themselves earn to charities, instead of demanding other people's money to pay for the liberal's largesse.

That's funny -- I didn't see many charitable contributions last Summer when Wall Street raided $4 Trillion out of the world's 401K's :)

But hey, the taxpayers are paying for $1.08 Billion in AIG's Executive Bonuses for 2009 -- maybe they'll donate some of that...

Jim Shaper
08-15-2009, 06:56 PM
What makes you think wall street is aligned with the right? They're gamblers, not the businessmen who actually create and maintain jobs and economic stability.

Black_Moons
08-15-2009, 07:10 PM
tmc_31: Your right, I can't wait to machine something from china and find a nice sodium silicate inclusion to snap my new endmill.

Skunkeye
08-15-2009, 07:19 PM
That's funny -- I didn't see many charitable contributions last Summer when Wall Street raided $4 Trillion out of the world's 401K's :)

But hey, the taxpayers are paying for $1.08 Billion in AIG's Executive Bonuses for 2009 -- maybe they'll donate some of that...

Just because the market went down doesn't mean Wall Street is solely to blame. Government was lax in its SEC enforcement, in its Fannie/Freddie oversight, in its encouragement of mortgages poor people couldn't afford. People bear responsibility for buying a house they couldn't afford as an investment, flipping houses with borrowed money, living beyond their means, making investments they didn't understand.

And maybe if people respected the idea of limited government, our money wouldn't be bailing out GM, Chrysler, AIG, Banks, unions, clunkers, the lazy, and the career victims.

Also have to wonder about the science behind it. A $4500 car has what 5 years of life in it? Is the MPG differential enough to offset the carbon footprint of a new car? The foundry work, machining, stamping, transportation, etc? I'd be curious if anyone has crunched the numbers. It's pork, handout to GM, and sadly this is what America has come to.

Doc Nickel
08-15-2009, 07:19 PM
Mine's a 2009, and has considerably more horsepower, but same gas mileage. Doesn't seat six though :p

-Your what? Can't be a Toronado, as Olds was folded up several years ago.

And you sure about that "more HP"? This one's got a '68 455 which was rated at the brochure in '68 at something like 380HP and 510ft/lb. I've got a hotter cam (the lumpiest I could get at the time and still have some vacuum at idle) and bigger valves (2.17" intakes as opposed to the 2.07" factories) plus a smidge more compression (shaved heads) and displacement (thirty over.)

If it weren't for the "depressed" Toro intake, it'd be very close to a build Hot Rod did in '86 or '87 for a "Junkyard Dog" Cutlass build, which dynoed at somewhere north of 450hp and 550 to 580 ft/lb. I have that issue around here somewhere...

That's considered low, today- a more recent magazine "shoot out" had a BBOlds pushing 650hp and 750+ ft/lb, no nitrous, no supercharger, pump gas. 'Course, it was a bit more radical with a $4,000 billet steel crank, and $3,000 aluminum heads, but hey. :D

Doc.

chief
08-15-2009, 07:38 PM
It's just another hand out program designed to buy votes, the program saves nothing. I wouldn't doubt that come next April the rebate will be taxed as personal income. Truly amazing how people will give up their freedom for a few pieces of stale bread or believe that they are entitled to everything in life
for free.

PTSideshow
08-15-2009, 08:12 PM
Keep that Toronado Doc. While I didn't go, the Woodward Avenue dream cruise is today in Detroit. There is still nothing quite like the sound and smell of an egregiously overcarbureted big block.

Take that all you stinking of ozone Prii.

Yes it is,and it is only going to draw about 40,000 people, and being local I wouldn't get with in 5 miles of it with out a lunch and water for 2 days:D They had guys out there staking out places to watching the cars at 5am this morning and there were people cruising :eek: Of course they have been crusing for over a week every night! :cool:

JoeFin
08-15-2009, 08:14 PM
Just because the market went down doesn't mean Wall Street is solely to blame. Government was lax in its SEC enforcement, in its Fannie/Freddie oversight, in its encouragement of mortgages poor people couldn't afford. People bear responsibility for buying a house they couldn't afford as an investment, flipping houses with borrowed money, living beyond their means, making investments they didn't understand.

They knew the markets were going to tank a full 8 months before they actually dropped dead in Sept 2008, yet they never said a word

Sportandmiah
08-15-2009, 08:44 PM
Although somewhat interesting, can someone school me how this thread fits into the General Home Machinist section?

lazlo
08-15-2009, 08:52 PM
What makes you think wall street is aligned with the right? They're gamblers, not the businessmen who actually create and maintain jobs and economic stability.

Do you think there's a single Wall Street trader who isn't a Republican? :rolleyes:


Just because the market went down doesn't mean Wall Street is solely to blame.

All those trillions everyone lost from their 401K and their pension funds didn't just evaporate -- it just changed hands. Who do you think owned all those Credit Default Swaps, that were betting on the mortgage backed securities ( AKA junk bonds), failing? There were a lot of new billionaires made in the summer of 2008...

Doc Nickel
08-15-2009, 09:51 PM
Do you think there's a single Wall Street trader who isn't a Republican?

-Um, ol George Soros trades heavily on "Wall Street" (meaning the Stock market) and he's a couple car lengths to the left of even Obama.

Are you going to honestly try to suggest that nobody that trades in the stock market is a Democrat?

Doc.

oldtiffie
08-15-2009, 10:06 PM
Although somewhat interesting, can someone school me how this thread fits into the General Home Machinist section?

Good question - a very good question.

It seems to be an "American thing" as self-evidently those of us outside the USA (and there are a lot of us) keep on solving what ever problems we have and put up with what we can't and just get on with life.

Once they get that glassy-eyed look and the bit between their teeth, there is no stopping them. They all but "talk in tongues" and once in that "groove" or trance or euphoria the rest of the world (and other HSM-ers) become irrelevant and for all practical purposes, cease to exist.

Its like a "worked-up" Evangelist/Revivalist "service".

They are either in the "Lord be Praised" and "Hallelujah" bit or invoking the Devil - or both.

Just let it run its course as it will soon die out - until next time.

It seems to me to be a lot a hyper-ventilation and blood pressure over something that I suppose that they (all/both sides) know a lot about but which they either cannot or will not do anything of substance or constructive about.

saltmine
08-15-2009, 10:38 PM
We're all being played like a cheap piano. The politicians and the "movers & shakers" of big industry have been playing us for suckers, and like the sheep we are, we played along....just like they wanted.

C4C is going to run it's course, and the car dealers will see sales go right into the toilet, just like before. The big banks and financial institutions will grab all of the money they want, whenever they want it, without interest, or even a "thank you" to the middle class taxpayers. Obama will continue to hand out money like it grows on trees, and pretty soon will have to tax the bejesus out of the normal people.

All of you guys who bought Prius' take note....The Prius isn't groundbreaking technology, nor is it going to save us from oil dependency. The Prius is just the next "must have" Yuppie tree-hugger vehicle. It used to be the BMW...then it was the huge SUV..and now it's the "Green, Tree-hugger-mobile". When somebody comes out with an all electric POS, all of you will dump your Prius' and rush out to buy one, mark my words.
Even if the technology isn't worked out, it'll be a "must have" in high social circles.

One of you mentioned your Prius was getting 45mpg....Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but I know several people back in the 1970's that were getting 45-50mpg driving carbureted Hondas and Renaults. In fact, I owned a Renault that consistently delivered 48mpg, and I beat the snot out of it.

Escape hybrid? Another Yuppie "must have"....the Chevrolet Equinox with a conventional gas engine gets better gas mileage, and it's about half the price of a Prius....But you won't be able to brag about your "green hybrid" over tea, with an Equinox.

GM is using hybrid technology that was developed in partnership with BMW. Needless to say, the BMW-GM technology makes a Toyota Prius look like "Fred Flintstone's" car. The Japanese won't be able to beat this technology, because they don't have anything yet ot copy.

wierdscience
08-15-2009, 10:57 PM
When a Volkswagon TDI gets 50+ mpg why would anyone want a hybrid anything?

lazlo
08-15-2009, 11:03 PM
When a Volkswagon TDI gets 50+ mpg why would anyone want a hybrid anything?

Agreed - two of my friends bought TDI's with CFC, and I'm pretty impressed. Although when the economy recovers, if diesel skyrockets like it did in the Summer of '07, that's going to offset a lot of the savings. Wasn't diesel $4.50/gallon?

By the way Darin, your inbox is still full :)

danlb
08-15-2009, 11:34 PM
All of you guys who bought Prius' take note....The Prius isn't groundbreaking technology, nor is it going to save us from oil dependency. The Prius is just the next "must have" Yuppie tree-hugger vehicle. It used to be the BMW...then it was the huge SUV..and now it's the "Green, Tree-hugger-mobile". When somebody comes out with an all electric POS, all of you will dump your Prius' and rush out to buy one, mark my words.
Even if the technology isn't worked out, it'll be a "must have" in high social circles.

One of you mentioned your Prius was getting 45mpg....Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but I know several people back in the 1970's that were getting 45-50mpg driving carbureted Hondas and Renaults. In fact, I owned a Renault that consistently delivered 48mpg, and I beat the snot out of it.

Escape hybrid? Another Yuppie "must have"....the Chevrolet Equinox with a conventional gas engine gets better gas mileage, and it's about half the price of a Prius....But you won't be able to brag about your "green hybrid" over tea, with an Equinox.

GM is using hybrid technology that was developed in partnership with BMW. Needless to say, the BMW-GM technology makes a Toyota Prius look like "Fred Flintstone's" car. The Japanese won't be able to beat this technology, because they don't have anything yet ot copy.

The only reason I bother to reply is that the post is full of such blatant misinformation.

The Prius IS a groundbreaking technology. It allows a car to get the mileage of a 1970 micro econobox while:
1) Creating 1/100 the pollution
2) Seating 4 normal sized people comfortably,
3) Driving normally
4) Lasting as much as 250,000 miles
5) Having a price similar to similarly equipped, similar sized and similarly performing cars.

Now the wonderful GM products... Most are of a type known as a 'mild' hybrid. They kill the motor at a stop light and have an 36 volt battery pack to run the heavy duty starter. Nothing great there. The new GM hybrid is only used in a few models. It is similar to the design to the Toyota design, right down to using two electric motors and a 300 volt battery pack. Who is copying from Toyota? Hmmmm.

Personally, I'd resent the statements about the 'tree huggers' but considering the source... Well, it's just meaningless. :)

BTW, that was clever to compare a Ford Escape Hybrid (built for power, not economy) and a Chevy equinox then compare the price to a Prius. Even that did not work. LOL. Here are the facts:
1) The escape hybrid is rated 32 MPG combined, the Equinox is 21.
2) The starting price for an Equinox is just under $25K. Prius is just over $22K

BTW, there are many different hybrid designs. The parallel hybrid holds the most promise for efficiency, since the gasoline and electric subsystems are sized to provide part of the power. The mild hybrid barely uses the electric motor, and the series hybrid (the Volt) have to have a larger motor AND a larger battery AND a larger gas engine.

I'm sure the VOLT will be mentioned soon. The 230 MPG is a smoke and mirrors number. The energy in the battery costs the same as 1/6 of a gallon of gas, but that only takes you 40 miles (max). A 500 mile trip will use battery for 40 miles, then gas for 460 miles. While using gas it will get around 38 MPG (projected last year).

So let's see. The dirty, smelly small 40 MPG econoboxes of the 1970's that were junked before they saw 75K miles have been replaced by clean, powerful, long lasting family sized cars that get even better mileage. I'd say that was a win.

I carefully looked at all the possibilities before buying my Prius. It was a good decision then, and would be a good one today.


Dan

danlb
08-15-2009, 11:49 PM
When a Volkswagon TDI gets 50+ mpg why would anyone want a hybrid anything?


Several reasons:

:)

1) Diesel fuel stinks when you are pumping it.
2) They are better than before, but still noisey.
3) They get 51 MPG only on fan sites.
4) There are driving patterns where the hybrid shines.

Here are the figures for the 2009 Jetta TDI:

6-speed manual: 30 city/41 highway
DSG: 29 city/40 highway"

When I drive in commute traffic, I spend 40 minutes a day in stop and go driving. The Jetta mileage would drop lower than it's 29 MPG city rating, since the engine will idle while stopped. The Hybrid (virtually all of them) do well in stop and go because the engine is killed when you are not moving. The electric motor (in most hybrids) moves the car when you are creeping along. I get 45MPG despite these conditions.

But I'm biased, so feel free to disregard. :)

Dan

JoeFin
08-15-2009, 11:52 PM
We're all being played like a cheap piano. The politicians and the "movers & shakers" of big industry have been playing us for suckers, and like the sheep we are, we played along....just like they wanted.

Amen Brother


Concentration of wealth in hands of rich greatest on record

The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans now have a larger share of total income than they ever have in records going back nearly a century — an even larger amount than during the Roaring Twenties, the last time the US saw such similar disparities in wealth.
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/15/concentration-of-wealth-in-hands-of-rich/

Mark Hockett
08-16-2009, 01:01 AM
BTW, Lazlo...I still think the Prius is technology that isn't ready for the general public. It needs another couple of years development, instead of letting the buying public do their "field testing"

Besides....it's a gay little car....almost as gay as a PT Cruiser convert, or a Jack Roush Mustang.

I don't drink, Dan. But I do have a lot of friends and acquaintances in both GM and Ford Regional Zone Offices, and I used to work at Ford's Arizona Proving Ground. We were beating the snot out of Mazda Tribute hybrids(Ford Escape) long before Toyota ever thought of the Prius.

Ford bought their hybrid design from Toyota because they couldn't come up with a decent design of their own.

winchman
08-16-2009, 02:02 AM
"The Prius IS a groundbreaking technology. It allows a car to get the mileage of a 1970 micro econobox while: .......
3) Driving normally"

Your definition of "normal" must be pretty abnormal.

Roger

danlb
08-16-2009, 02:25 AM
"The Prius IS a groundbreaking technology. It allows a car to get the mileage of a 1970 micro econobox while: .......
3) Driving normally"

Your definition of "normal" must be pretty abnormal.

Roger

My definition of normal is to drive just like I drove all my other cars. Usually, I'm the first off the line at the light. I drive any speed I want on the freeway. I can climb any hill BETTER than most of the other cars I've owned, and I've owned a lot.

If I want to play I can drive very carefully and bring the mileage up by another 5 to 10 MPG. I don't bother. I get 45 MPG while driving 65 to 70 on the freeway (up hill even) and spending way too much time stuck in traffic.

There are differences. The power is smoother than a 4 banger has a right to be. The power is instant, no waiting for it to hit the powerband. The CVT means no jerking as it shifts. All in all it's quite enjoyable. The only problem (since mine is the 2002 model) is that the 0-60 is not a lot better than my F150. I've still never had a problem merging on the freeway, and I do that daily.

I suspect that if you find a Toyota hybrid has to be driven strangely, then you probably have the same problem with most mainstream cars.

Bear in mind that there are many hybrid designs, and the mild hybrids (like Chevy, Saturn and Honda) are not necessarily any smoother than a normal gas engine. Some of them don't even make use of the extra torque that an electric motor can provide. If that's your point of reference, it's worthwhile to check out the other models.

Dan

gnm109
08-16-2009, 10:12 AM
Because commercial parts recyclers (junk yards) don't carry these vehicles anyway and that limits the economic impact of removing them from circulation.

The age limit (in my best guess) is intended to cripple the parts supply for the new enough but older cars and thus make these vehicles impossible to service by removing that supply line and forcing a new car to be purchased (somewhere in the economy).

Finding a bone yard in the twin cities metro that has parts for cars over 20 years old is becoming difficult. If you offered up 4500 to unload a $200 car that if something were to be severely damaged on would necessitate the purchase of another car from lack of donor parts alone, there's really no reason to pay the guy driving it anyway as the situation would resolve itself at the very moment of failure (or impact).


I think that you are quite correct about the age limit being planned to cripple the parts supply. This will also cause a lessening of employment in the auto repair and parts industry. If you are a company manufacturing replacement parts for older cars you won't bother making them for those models anymore. Additionally, mechanics and technicians won't be needed to install parts not needed for cars that are no longer on the road.

Can this be an unintended consequence? I think not. It's simply what happens when the government gets involved in social sculpturing. It's what they do.

After all, by later giving handouts to those unemployed by the sweeping new programs, they will gain additional voters which is one of the side benefits for the dems.

This program reminds me of Hitler's Volkswagen program back in the 1930's. All German workers were required to establish a savings account to pay towrds a new Volkswagen. Once they had enough Marks in their "Volkswagen Sparkasse" (savings) account, they could go to the factory and drive their car home. Unfortunately, Hitler used the money for WWII. Who knew?

For this and a host of other reasons too long to list, I'm unalterably opposed to the government getting involved in any aspect of free enterprise. They are incompetent to handle it and "Cash for Klunkers" is an example. Perhaps it should be renamed to "Cash for Perfectly Good Used Cars".

gnm109
08-16-2009, 10:17 AM
Lazlo said, inter alia: "Do you think there's a single Wall Street trader who isn't a Republican? "

This is only a guess but maybe Bernie Madoff was a democrat. After all he set a new standard for robbing from the rich and keeping the proceeds for his own purposes. That has a democratic ring about it to me. :)

wierdscience
08-16-2009, 11:02 AM
Several reasons:

:)

1) Diesel fuel stinks when you are pumping it.
2) They are better than before, but still noisey.
3) They get 51 MPG only on fan sites.
4) There are driving patterns where the hybrid shines.

Here are the figures for the 2009 Jetta TDI:

6-speed manual: 30 city/41 highway
DSG: 29 city/40 highway"

When I drive in commute traffic, I spend 40 minutes a day in stop and go driving. The Jetta mileage would drop lower than it's 29 MPG city rating, since the engine will idle while stopped. The Hybrid (virtually all of them) do well in stop and go because the engine is killed when you are not moving. The electric motor (in most hybrids) moves the car when you are creeping along. I get 45MPG despite these conditions.

But I'm biased, so feel free to disregard. :)

Dan

Aunt and Uncle have a 09' Jetta diesel that averages 40,but since diesels mileage increases after break in 45+ as an average will be possible.Of course milage depends on HOW you drive,more than what you drive.

There is a LOT more leg room in the Jetta and it will actually pass another vehicle running 75.

I also have questions about the safety of a Prius after seeing the damage done to one by a motorcycle.

danlb
08-16-2009, 12:36 PM
Aunt and Uncle have a 09' Jetta diesel that averages 40,but since diesels mileage increases after break in 45+ as an average will be possible.Of course mileage depends on HOW you drive,more than what you drive.

Very true. By hypermiling I can get close to 60 MPG. Do TDI's really get better mileage as they age? I thought the turbo and precise fuel injection sort of negated that.

There is also WHERE you drive. Cruising down I 5 at 70 MPH I get close to 50 MPG. Driving 55 on the same stretch (staying in the truck lane) brings it over 55 MPG. Driving down that long, gentle grade between Palm springs and Arizona, I got over 90 MPG during an 80 mile stretch of road.



There is a LOT more leg room in the Jetta and it will actually pass another vehicle running 75.


Must be New Math. From their sites:
Jetta: Front / Rear 41.2 in / 35.4 in
2010 Prius: Front / Rear 42.5 in / 36.0 in

In effect, they are almost the same. In reality, the Prius has MORE leg room front and back.

If you are passing people who are doing 75, please buy a GOOD muscle car. I want you out of my lane as fast as possible. If you are talking about passing on a multi lane freeway, then of course the Prius has no problem with that. BTW, did you know the Prius is still pulling strongly at 90 MPH? It's got a limiter to restrict it to 103 MPH to protect internal parts, because it will go faster than that if allowed to.

I don't know of anywhere in California where it's legal to pass a car that is doing 75 MPH.



I also have questions about the safety of a Prius after seeing the damage done to one by a motorcycle.

Since a Honda Goldwing weighs in at 792 pounds dry, I'm not surprised. Throw 500+ pounds of anything at any car at 60 MPH plus and you see major damage. The question is how well the safety cage held up. Did the passengers survive?

I've still seen nothing to make me think a TDI is more desirable than a Toyota hybrid.

Dan

Jim Caudill
08-16-2009, 02:30 PM
Well a long time ago....
I owned and drove (as far as I could) a '78 VW Diesel Rabbit made in Germany (@ the Ghia factory IIRC) and an '80 VW Diesel Rabbit (made in the USA). I also owned an Oldsmobile diesel (1980?). All these vehicles cost way more in repairs than they ever saved in gasoline. The VW's were exciting to drive on 2 lane roads in Texas and Arkansas: you'd try to pass someone after switching "off" the A/C and pray you could get it done before another car materialized over the next rise in the road (even if it was 1/2 mile away). Going cross-country on hills, meant going as fast as possible downhill and knowing when to downshift as you watched your speed decay going up the other side. You hoped you never had to get down to second when climbing up the I-80 eastbound hill just out of Port Jervis, NJ.

Every diesel I owned had to have head gaskets and fuel pumps replaced. Both VW's eventually had their heads replaced and the Olds was junked when its head cracked.

It's not the owner/driver either. I bought the diesels because I used to do in-frame overhauls of Cummins engines and worked my way though college working on VW's in Ct. We owned the diesels when I was serving as a pilot in the USAF (I later got my A&P mechanic license working with aero-clubs).

I guess I still have a soft spot for VW diesels - the wife and I test drove the "New Beetle" when they first came out with the Turbo'ed diesel (based on the Jetta). Glad we didn't give-in, the VW's have been, and still are, plagued by the same type of electrical issues that have been VW's hallmark since the old Rabbit days. If you live in anything but the desert, Rabbit electrics could make Lucas look like the Eveready bunny, if you can believe that.

lazlo
08-16-2009, 02:52 PM
Very true. By hypermiling I can get close to 60 MPG. Do TDI's really get better mileage as they age? I thought the turbo and precise fuel injection sort of negated that.

Dunno about MPG on the TDI improving with age, but for the record, the TDI is rated at 41 MPG highway. People are reporting higher than that, but I wonder if it's downhill with a strong tailwind :)

These cars are the best in class for gas mileage -- does it matter what kind of engine they use to get their results?

Jim Caudill
08-16-2009, 03:20 PM
You know what I don't get? Why doesn't Toyota build the Prius car without the Hybrid components? Think about it, the Prius gets around 47 mpg driving on the highway for extended cross-country trips. In that mode, the electrics are pretty much just "dead weight". So, if you eliminated everything to do with the electrics, you'd have a car that should weigh considerably less, cost less to produce, and have more stowage space. Imagine a Prius size/style car for $6000 less, that gets about 50 mpg on the highway.

danlb
08-16-2009, 03:22 PM
I'm beginning to sound like a zealot (even to myself) so I'll back off this thread for a while.

The mild hybrids (Honda, GM, etc) do not get a lot of benefit at freeway speeds. The parallel hybrids (Prius) turn off the gas engine about 1/2 the time on a level road. It's part of how they manage the battery level. Without that, the Prius would get mileage similar to other mid size cars. The problem is that the hybrids that get great mileage get that mileage by integrating an underpowered gas engine with an electric motor. Between the two they have the performance of a regular car. Remove the electric side and you will need a bigger gas engine, and it will run 100% of the time, and you'd have a vanilla 30 MPG car.

When asked "does it matter what kind of engine they use" I think of the dozen days a year when my daily drive into San Jose presents me with a view of smog from one end of Silicon Valley all the way up the penensula to San Francisco. Some days you can barely make out the freeway signs 1/2 mile away. That's a valley with very little heavy industry.

The cleaner the cars (even if they do not get better mileage) the better the air quality, and that would be a nice thing.

The diesels are much better than they used to be, but their particulates (soot) are much higher and the CO2 is almost twice that of a Prius. ( http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm )

It would be nice if we could get to the point where major polulation areas no longer have to declare "bad air days" where people with asthma and other problems are advised to stay inside and not exert themselves.

And that brings us back to the cash for clunkers.. Virtually all 2009 and 2010 models are remarkably cleaner running than cars built in the 1980s. Considering the number of SUVs and pickups sold in the 1990s there is a lot of room for improvement there too. Remember, trucks and SUVs had different pollution standards, so buying a car to replace that 1995 SUV is a vast change, polution wise.

Dan

ckelloug
08-16-2009, 04:41 PM
I have no safety worries about the Prius. I have barrel rolled one. It was fatal to the Prius itself but I walked away without a scratch. I fell asleep on a desolate road on my way to a remote work site. Thankfully it was a rental with corporate mandated LDW. The Prius did a good job of protecting me and the B pillars didn't bend or anything like that.

J Tiers
08-16-2009, 05:23 PM
Apparently the #1 vehicle turned in as a clunker is the Ford Explorer, in terms of total numbers. I'd have to think about it to recall where I got that fact, but I recall it coming up recently, possibly on TV news.

That makes sense... The early "Exploders" got dramatically lower mileage than it seemed they should. A neighbor had one, and the fuel got to be a real problem, I believe it got 12 or so MPG, but really wasn't any bigger than my 25 mpg+ S10.

Teenage_Machinist
08-17-2009, 12:16 AM
I have heard of an increase in hiring after "Cash for clunkers"

That said, this thread cannot fail to turn to hell.

Doc Nickel
08-17-2009, 12:25 AM
Apparently the #1 vehicle turned in as a clunker is the Ford Explorer, in terms of total numbers.

-Keep in mind that's in no small part due to the sheer numbers of Explorers out there. It's been a top seller since the early ninties, and there's huge numbers of them out there.

Hell, I drive one myself, and you can't swing a cat without hitting three in any local parking lot.

Doc.

Mark Hockett
08-17-2009, 12:41 AM
You know what I don't get? Why doesn't Toyota build the Prius car without the Hybrid components? Think about it, the Prius gets around 47 mpg driving on the highway for extended cross-country trips. In that mode, the electrics are pretty much just "dead weight". So, if you eliminated everything to do with the electrics, you'd have a car that should weigh considerably less, cost less to produce, and have more stowage space. Imagine a Prius size/style car for $6000 less, that gets about 50 mpg on the highway.
Jim,
The first generation Prius was based on an Echo chassis and the Echo did get great fuel economy.

dp
08-17-2009, 12:56 AM
Do you think there's a single Wall Street trader who isn't a Republican? :rolleyes:

You have got to be kidding. Have you already forgotten Hillary's miracle investments?

psomero
08-17-2009, 02:27 AM
Statistics, Mixdenny. You can prove anything with statistics.

First, Toyota is going to clam up if any bad press gets out about their precious hybrid.
At the same time, they'll broadcast to the world everything that works.

From the "inside" Toyota has gone through a bunch of battery packs, but they try to keep it a secret. From my sources, they tell me the packs are failing between 50,000 and 80,000miles, and, in many cases, Toyota is eating the cost to keep the complaints down to a manageable level.
Prius packs are still the high internal resistance, low output, Nickel-metal-Hydride cells. GM and Ford are using the newer, more expensive, higher energy density lithium-ion and lithium-polymer cells. Of course, the lithium cells have a shorter service life than the NimH packs, but nobody is going to admit it.

On another note: you said "Properly maintained packs"....Uh, maybe in a Taxi fleet, but "Joe-Average-Treehugger" isn't going to even attempt to follow any kind of maintenance schedule.

Plenty of Toyota Prius' getting wrecked, though. Some of the idiots driving them are so busy looking at their "energy usage displays", they end up rearending the car in front of them.




since when do lithium ion or polymer batteries have shorter service life than NiMH?

remember when cellphones used NiMH batteries? 15 years ago, i recall needing to carry two or three batteries for the older motorola flip phones and them requiring very strict charge/discharge cycles, otherwise they'd get the battery memory thing going on and they'd effectively be ruined. those batteries also took forever to charge.

now, my LiPo phone battery can be charged any time, regardless of the current charge remaining on the battery or how long i plan on having it plugged in, the charging process takes a fraction of the time, and i haven't yet had to buy a replacement or backup LiPo battery for a cellphone, despite using the same phone for years.

the same NiMH to lithium-based battery jump happened with cordless power tools and laptops also.

psomero
08-17-2009, 02:40 AM
-Um, ol George Soros trades heavily on "Wall Street" (meaning the Stock market) and he's a couple car lengths to the left of even Obama.

Are you going to honestly try to suggest that nobody that trades in the stock market is a Democrat?

Doc.


don't forget warren buffet, too...

wierdscience
08-17-2009, 08:11 AM
Very true. By hypermiling I can get close to 60 MPG. Do TDI's really get better mileage as they age? I thought the turbo and precise fuel injection sort of negated that.

Once a diesels rings seat the compression and milage increases.The 45+ is driving normally not paying attention to anything.


There is also WHERE you drive. Cruising down I 5 at 70 MPH I get close to 50 MPG. Driving 55 on the same stretch (staying in the truck lane) brings it over 55 MPG. Driving down that long, gentle grade between Palm springs and Arizona, I got over 90 MPG during an 80 mile stretch of road.

Hell my parent's 03 Crown Vic gets 40 on the downhill:)




Must be New Math. From their sites:
Jetta: Front / Rear 41.2 in / 35.4 in
2010 Prius: Front / Rear 42.5 in / 36.0 in

In effect, they are almost the same. In reality, the Prius has MORE leg room front and back.

It's not ridng in the car as much as getting in and out of it.At 6-5" it ain't easy.The one Prius I rode in had a floor well that was fairly deep as I recall.This is needed since it's bascially an aluminum uni-body.The Jetta doesn't have much of a lip,it was MUCH eaiser to get in and out of.


If you are passing people who are doing 75, please buy a GOOD muscle car. I want you out of my lane as fast as possible. If you are talking about passing on a multi lane freeway, then of course the Prius has no problem with that. BTW, did you know the Prius is still pulling strongly at 90 MPH? It's got a limiter to restrict it to 103 MPH to protect internal parts, because it will go faster than that if allowed to.

Ya,I knew they would roll at a 100,Al Gores goofy son got busted runing 100+ on his way to a candy party:D


I don't know of anywhere in California where it's legal to pass a car that is doing 75 MPH.
Legal?


Since a Honda Goldwing weighs in at 792 pounds dry, I'm not surprised. Throw 500+ pounds of anything at any car at 60 MPH plus and you see major damage. The question is how well the safety cage held up. Did the passengers survive?

The FD was there doing an extraction,bike was a sportster T-boned her on the passenger side doing about 40 when she pulled out infront of him.He was standing up talking to the cops,she was pinned and bleeding.I left at that point since I wasn't needed.For the record I don't like any of the new small cars in terms of safety.I do believe we have sacrificed safety at the alter of milage/misguided conservation.


I've still seen nothing to make me think a TDI is more desirable than a Toyota hybrid.

Dan

Lower initial cost would be one to look at and the battery mfg easily offsets any damage a little soot and co2 a diesel produces.

J Tiers
08-17-2009, 08:29 AM
-Keep in mind that's in no small part due to the sheer numbers of Explorers out there. It's been a top seller since the early ninties, and there's huge numbers of them out there.

Hell, I drive one myself, and you can't swing a cat without hitting three in any local parking lot.

Doc.

So what? it's a crappy design, a "rollover box" that gets half the mileage it should and has no redeeming value. Squash all of them. melt all the parts, and don't waste time about it.

As much as I think Hummers are for people with more money than sense, the Hummers do actually work..... they have a useful purpose, they are just sold to the wrong people.


and the battery mfg easily offsets any damage a little soot and co2 a diesel produces.

You'd need to prove that.... And the soot is at ground level, blasted directly into the faces and lungs of people on the sidewalk.

In your little town it may not be a big deal, but even in a little class 5 city like St Louis, it makes a difference. Stinks, it does.

wierdscience
08-17-2009, 08:32 AM
I'm beginning to sound like a zealot (even to myself) so I'll back off this thread for a while.

Nah,it's just Smug:D http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103216/



When asked "does it matter what kind of engine they use" I think of the dozen days a year when my daily drive into San Jose presents me with a view of smog from one end of Silicon Valley all the way up the penensula to San Francisco. Some days you can barely make out the freeway signs 1/2 mile away. That's a valley with very little heavy industry.

The cleaner the cars (even if they do not get better mileage) the better the air quality, and that would be a nice thing.

The diesels are much better than they used to be, but their particulates (soot) are much higher and the CO2 is almost twice that of a Prius. ( http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm )

It would be nice if we could get to the point where major polulation areas no longer have to declare "bad air days" where people with asthma and other problems are advised to stay inside and not exert themselves.

But that has more to do with where you drive.The LA basin has captured and held soot since the Indians owned it.It's more the fault of geography.

Living closer to work and driving less is a better plan,course(and no offense here)that would mean abandoning the Cali-nimby attitude.Battieris are clean to use,but nasty to produce,trading cleaner air for soil and water contamination isn't much of a trade.


And that brings us back to the cash for clunkers.. Virtually all 2009 and 2010 models are remarkably cleaner running than cars built in the 1980s. Considering the number of SUVs and pickups sold in the 1990s there is a lot of room for improvement there too. Remember, trucks and SUVs had different pollution standards, so buying a car to replace that 1995 SUV is a vast change, polution wise.

Dan

80 model vehicles?No really,my old 86' Ranger used less fuel than my 90' Model does and both use less than a current issue 09'.CAFE is to blame for much of that,the injection/pollution control systems on the older models were simpler,yielded much less restriction and got much better milage.All of the models mentioned were/are multi-port fuel injected and they all got 28+mpg.

A better program would have been a tax credit for people who got they're vehicles tuned up.A car will run 100,000 miles on the same set of plugs these days,even though the mileage starts declining around 60,000.That would have employed more people and been better for the environment.

Giving some one $3500 for a 2mpg improvement is pretty silly considering all the energy required to produce that new car for only a marginal increase in economy.A new set of spark plugs an air filter and a tire check will get most cars of that era another 4mpg and not cost the taxpayers nearly as much.

Sorry at the end of the day I do believe that CFC is just bread and circus for the masses.

J Tiers
08-17-2009, 08:53 AM
Battieris are clean to use,but nasty to produce,trading cleaner air for soil and water contamination isn't much of a trade.



Baloney.....

its one heck of a lot easier to control pollution at ONE factory (or even 10), than it is to control pollution at 500,000 cars which are typically poorly maintained by the average yokel owner.

mayfieldtm
08-17-2009, 09:54 AM
Saltmine wrote...
< the lithium cells have a shorter service life than the NimH packs, but nobody is going to admit it. >

Nada.

All Rechargeable batteries have left a bad taste in our mouths.

The Trick is ( for Prius Battery )... Toyota never lets the battery discharge below 20% and never charges the Battery over 80%, This shoots the lifetime through the roof. Some of our Battery Guru's might be able to explain why that is.

I'm almost to 160,000 miles and 7 years, same battery, same 45mpg city and 55-70 on freeway. Jeeeee... According to the Maintenance Schedule, only another 190,000 miles and I get to check and change the Break Pads!

I'd like to see a Hybrid Diesel. One of the Technical hang-ups is that the Diesel Engine doesn't like to be stopped and started, stopped and started as fast and as often a needed for a good Hybrid design.


Tom M.

Steve Seebold
08-17-2009, 10:53 AM
I just read on another site that if you gat the $4,500.00 Cash For Clunkers, you will also get a 1099 at the end of the year for $4,500.00.

Ed P
08-17-2009, 11:07 AM
First let me say I like the Prius, if I didn't have to haul things
around I would own one, they look like lots of fun to drive, but
I do not think they are practical and here is why. It has been
widely reported and most recently in Road and Track magazine
that Toyota sells the Prius at a loss. They recently reported that
the new third generation Prius is about at the break even point,
so Toyota is still not making a profit on them. That's not practical
nor would it be for the owner if they had to pay a reasonable price
for the car as the point of break even would be too far in the future.
These cars are very expensive to manufacture. They are also not
practical for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and here is an example why.
Suppose we each drive 15,000 miles a year. You are a tree hugger and
sell your economy car that gets 35 miles per gallon and spend a buch of
money for a hybrid and now get 50mpg. I'm just a poor dumb redneck with
a pickup that gets 12 mpg, but I'm feeling guilty. So I change out the
rear end for one with taller gearing and maybe change out the computer
chip that limits horsepower a little (things that would cost next to nothing
if done on the assembly line) and now I'm getting 15mpg. So now you went
from 35 to 50 mpg, I went from 12 to 15 mpg. Who is saving more gas, you
or me?


Well within a couple of gallons I'm saving twice as much as you. That's
right twice. Now which makes more sense, going out and buying a hybrid
or making small changes to the low mileage cars and getting far greater
benefit at a fraction of the cost? Some here thinks it's the hybrid option
and the way the President talks up hybrids he seems to agree.

Ed P

gnm109
08-17-2009, 11:24 AM
My brother came to Northern California to pick up a ball mill in his Ford Explorer a few years ago. It was too large to fit in the back of the Explorer so we went to a U-Haul to rent a one-way trailer so that he could take the machine down to So-Cal.

They wouldn't rent to him because he had a Ford Explorer. It was on their list of "dangerous vehicles" - that is, vehicles that represent a possibility of roll over. We had to disassemble the machine and finally got it into the Explorer.

Ford Explorers are also noted for having weak transmissions. He had to have his rebuilt at 50,000 miles. Other than that, they are an OK vehicle. Frankly, I don't see much difference between an Explorer and other similar SUV's but what do I know?

saltmine
08-17-2009, 11:24 AM
Aren't we lucky. As Steve pointed out, expect to get a 1099 at the end of the year....if you took the government up on their offer. Amusing.

I used to try to offer some guise of authority whenever I posted a comment. But, no matter how well educated one is, there's always somebody who will utter the phrase,"You don't know what you're talking about." Many are finding out that I did, but that's a small victory.

The whole Toyota Prius controversy was just too amazing for me to fathom.
I'm sure a lot of HSM readers are aware of and even watched episodes of "South Park"....And now, a huge cloud of "Smug" is hanging over the HSM web-site.
"Smug Alert" (Episode 1002) is about the citizens of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's idyllic town start "saving the environment" by buying "hybrids".
The hybrids look strangely familiar, with a remarkable resemblance to the popular Toyota Prius...with the word "Hybrid" emblazoned on the sides.
All of the hybrids look the same, and the owners soon begin exhibiting a certain "smugness" about the cars they drive. They also like to drink moderately priced California wines, and love to smell their own farts.

When I first saw this episode, I assumed it was Stone and Parker's satirical commentary, and nothing more.

I was wrong. After talking with and reading the posts of Prius owners, I've come to the conclusion that it's far more real, than animated comedy.

One amsuing picture comes to mind, as the family drives away, we see a shot of the rear of the "hybrid"...Instead of "Prius" emblazoned across the rear deck, the word "PIOUS" replaces it. amusing.

Some of the HSM gang seem to fall into the stereotypical Prius owner persona portrayed in the show....Brow-beating anybody that doesn't drive a "hybrid", drinking moderately priced California wine, and smelling their own farts.

Funny thing....These same people were looking down their noses at anyone who didn't drive a huge, gas guzzlng SUV, ten years ago.

Welcome to South Park.

lunkenheimer
08-17-2009, 01:01 PM
Just to clarify one assertion-there will not be a 1099. The credit is specifically not taxable. See the bottom of this page:

http://www.cars.gov/faq

wierdscience
08-17-2009, 02:00 PM
Baloney.....

its one heck of a lot easier to control pollution at ONE factory (or even 10), than it is to control pollution at 500,000 cars which are typically poorly maintained by the average yokel owner.

Your not taking in count the damage done during mining and refining the metals used in making those batteries.Of course thst all happens Over there so nobody really cares.

Doc Nickel
08-17-2009, 04:10 PM
So what? it's a crappy design, a "rollover box" that gets half the mileage it should and has no redeeming value.

-Sure. One of the best-selling vehicles ever has "no redeeming value". And considering that it's still one of the best sellers, even after a couple of highly-publicised accidents (that the drivers tried to blame on the truck, rather than their own driving or trying to carry too heavy a load) and even after the gas-price spikes.

Uh-huh.


[UHaul] wouldn't rent to him because he had a Ford Explorer. It was on their list of "dangerous vehicles"[.]

-Which is bullsh*t; What other vehicles sold in the US might be on a "dangerous vehicles" list? Dangerous by whose standard? The DOT? The NHSC?

The fact is, UHaul's "list" consists of a single entry.

In one of those well-publicised rollovers ten or fifteen years ago, the driver was towing a UHaul trailer, or perhaps a trailer using a UHaul-installed trailer hitch. In the ensuing (pardon the pun) lawsuits, Firestone (the rollovers were due to tires blowing out) tried to claim the truck was at fault (too-high a CG, despite that CG being the same or lower than many other vehicles on the road) and Ford in turn tried to claim the trailer and/or hitch was at fault.

I don't recall the ultimate outcome of that particular suit, but the concept is valid- too heavy a load (the Explorer really is only a quarter-ton truck, and four passengers can hit that limit easily) while simultaneously pulling a possibly-identically-overloaded trailer. A tire blows out, the driver doesn't know how to correct a skid, the trailer fishtails, boom.

Anyway, UHaul got dragged into the suit, and afterwards, in "retaliation", UHaul handed down a corporate edict saying they would no longer install hitches on Explorers. Quoth Wikipedia:


U-Haul will not rent a trailer to be attached to any Ford Explorer. According to U-Haul: "U-Haul has chosen not to rent behind this tow vehicle based on our history of excessive costs in defending lawsuits involving Ford Explorer towing combinations. This policy is not related to safety issues. This is an unusual circumstance for U-Haul."

(Highlighting mine.)

Doc.

wierdscience
08-17-2009, 07:04 PM
Yep,and oddly enough U-Haul has no problem sending you out with a POS truck,trailer,or tow dolly.They were sued plenty by quite a few people not to long ago.

Seems like there were 5.5million Explorers sold world wide,yet less than 200 suits.Not a significant number.

saltmine
08-17-2009, 07:20 PM
At last...something I have first hand knowledge of....

Yes, early '90's Ford Explorers were involved in quite a few rollovers caused by tires separating, and wrapping around the rear axles. This was brought about by a design flaw that Ford engineers pointed out to Ford management, and were promptly slapped down and told to shut up and go back to work.

The design flaw was the placement of the rear suspension, particularly the angle of the shock absorbers, which left the Explorer with a very high center of gravity, in the rear, and a high "roll center". This aggravated things by delivering a harsh ride quality. Ford management decided to find an alternate solution to the ride problem, and soon, all Explorers were re-badged and owners advised to run the rear tire pressure at 24psi, in an effort to tame the harsh ride quality. Firestone, a major supplier of tires for Ford since the first Model "T" rolled off the production line, wasn't told about the tire pressure change.
Running a modern steel-belted radial tire at such a low pressure caused excessive heat build-up n the rear tires, and soon the Firestone Wilderness radials were shedding their tread. NHTSA investigations revealed that the tires were the cause of many of the accidents...until Firestone discovered Ford had advised owners to lower rear tire pressures to improve the ride.
This set off a "he said-she said" finger pointing battle between Ford and Firestone, each refusing to take the blame.

When the smoke cleared, Ford redesigned the Explorer twice,(once in mid-year) drastically changing the shock absorber calibration and angles,and springs, eventually tossing out the whole rear suspension and replacing it with an independent rear wheel suspension, similar to the units used on later model Expeditions.
Firestone still refuses to take responsibility and Ford refuses to, also.
But...you won't see a new Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury with Firestone tires.

saltmine
08-17-2009, 07:28 PM
Also...Many people were caught up in the "Firestone Wilderness radial" recall on Ford Explorers...Thousands were sent recall notices advising them to take the vehicle to their local dealer, and have the Firestone tires replaced....Goodyear made a killing during the recall, and got a ton of good "press".

Amusingly, when the Firestone tires were traded out, the replacement tires were installed, properly inflated, and nothing else was said.

At the time of the recall, many GM owners visited their dealers with their Chevy Tahoes, fitted with Firestone Wilderness radials, and were told the recall was only on Ford Explorers.....The Firestones on the GM SUV's were properly inflated, to begin with.

ligito
08-17-2009, 08:16 PM
I don't know of anywhere in California where it's legal to pass a car that is doing 75 MPH.

Dan

Last time I drove from LA to Indio, on I-10 at 10:00 PM, if you weren't doing 85 +, you would have been run over.

J Tiers
08-17-2009, 08:47 PM
-Sure. One of the best-selling vehicles ever has "no redeeming value". And considering that it's still one of the best sellers, even after a couple of highly-publicised accidents (that the drivers tried to blame on the truck, rather than their own driving or trying to carry too heavy a load) and even after the gas-price spikes.

Uh-huh.


Ah, bull****.........

Sales quantity has no relation to whether the vehicle is any good or not..... as you should already know. People buy on looks, and NOT on utility, whatever lies they tell themselves and others.

As an example of the "value" of popularity......People do all sorts of stupid things to cars...... "lowriders", which are, admittedly, in many cases cool-looking... but the "look" makes the car close to useless for most purposes.... yet they are wildly popular in certain circles. I include the S10 "extreme" in that.. A factory low-rider, with 59 pages of what you can't actually do with it that you'd expect to do with a pickup*.

Saltmine has effectively demolished your other misconception about accidents, which if you were paying ANY attention, you'd already know about and not NEED to be told about.

And I didn't see any reference by you to the gas mileage..... which was and continued to be so low for the size vehicle that several people I know who had them ended up dumping them at losses as totally unaffordable..... Even several years ago you could buy a crew cab pickup that gets over 2x better mileage than the 12 to 15 mpg most of them apparently got (per owner reports).

So... let's see......a "sport utility" vehicle that is dangerous on city streets let alone on the dirt roads which the vehicle type is allegedly good for, which gets abysmal gas mileage to boot. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yep, I'd call that "no redeeming features".....


*Yes, sonny, that IS an exaggeration.

J Tiers
08-17-2009, 09:07 PM
First let me say I like the Prius, ...................
These cars are very expensive to manufacture. They are also not
practical for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and here is an example why.
Suppose we each drive 15,000 miles a year. You are a tree hugger and
sell your economy car that gets 35 miles per gallon and spend a buch of
money for a hybrid and now get 50mpg. I'm just a poor dumb redneck with
a pickup that gets 12 mpg, but I'm feeling guilty. So I change out the
rear end for one with taller gearing and maybe change out the computer
chip that limits horsepower a little (things that would cost next to nothing
if done on the assembly line) and now I'm getting 15mpg. So now you went
from 35 to 50 mpg, I went from 12 to 15 mpg. Who is saving more gas, you
or me?


Well within a couple of gallons I'm saving twice as much as you. That's
right twice. Now which makes more sense, going out and buying a hybrid
or making small changes to the low mileage cars and getting far greater
benefit at a fraction of the cost? Some here thinks it's the hybrid option
and the way the President talks up hybrids he seems to agree.

Ed P

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT

I rarely like the european way of turning every unit on its head, but MPG is one of the ones that makes absolute sense.

Gallons per mile is where it's at.

That leads straight to gallons total used per vehicle.

if you drive 15,000 miles per year, at 12 mpg, you use 0.083333 gallon per mile. Your total yearly usage to do what you want to do, is then 0.08333* 15,000 = 1250 gallons

If your new vehicle gets 17 mpg, that is .0588 gallons per mile. The same 15,000 miles now requires only 882 gallons...... you just saved 368 gallons per year.

At $3 per gallon, your saving is $1100 per year. If gas goes to $5, you save $1840 per year.

Now, suppose your vehicle is like my truck and gets 28 mpg.... that's .0357 gallon per mile. The 15,000 miles uses 535 gallons.

You decide that is way too expensive, so you buy a "Smart" car that gets 40 mpg, to save the planet.... you give up a lot, but it's worth it to save all that gas, and the planet...... and you go away hugging trees (hopefully not when driving).

What wonders did you do for the environment? You use 0.025 gallon per mile.... and use for your 15000 miles the tiny sip of gas represented by 375 gallons...... Wait...... you drive a car you "wear" and need two trips to the grocery store to get your food home, and you saved only 160 gallons per year?

Every year you can look forward to that fat saving of 160 x $5 or $800, and it only cost you $25,000 to get that saving...... What a deal!

Sure, that car is going to last 32 years so you can start to get a payback.......

Oops, gas is $3 right now, at most, so make that savings only $480....

I guess you'll have to drive it for 52 years to break even.......

dp
08-17-2009, 09:22 PM
Gallons per mile is where it's at.

Nope - energy expended per passenger mile is where it's at. My Harley gets around 40 mpg. That's more than twice what my Jeep gets. But my Jeep can haul 5 people. In fact my Dodge Ram can haul 5 people and two Harleys from Seattle to the Floriduh Keys cheaper than two Harleys can haul that load the same distance. And with the Harleys, one of the 5 has to stay home.

All these are gasoline powered. There's no all electric vehicle except a train that can do the same thing, especially in the heat of summer or the frigid cold of winter, but electric rail doesn't go from Seattle to Floriduh. Or much of anywhere else. Get into hybrids and you start compromising and giving up even more.

J Tiers
08-17-2009, 09:32 PM
Nope - energy expended per passenger mile is where it's at. My Harley gets around 40 mpg. That's more than twice what my Jeep gets. But my Jeep can haul 5 people. In fact my Dodge Ram can haul 5 people and two Harleys from Seattle to the Floriduh Keys cheaper than two Harleys can haul that load the same distance. And with the Harleys, one of the 5 has to stay home.
.

That is, as they say, WRONG ............... in most cases.

Yes it is obviously true, IF you assume full usage.

Reality is: "the bigger the SUV, the smaller the woman driving it"...... Most vehicles are not CLOSE to fully loaded for most of their miles, and the mileage is NOT usually a lot better when running light.

dp
08-17-2009, 10:16 PM
That is, as they say, WRONG ............... in most cases.

Yes it is obviously true, IF you assume full usage.

Reality is: "the bigger the SUV, the smaller the woman driving it"...... Most vehicles are not CLOSE to fully loaded for most of their miles, and the mileage is NOT usually a lot better when running light.

Then how about a law that says you stay off the roads at peak hours if you don't have at least two people in the car?

saltmine
08-17-2009, 10:17 PM
You guys are right about using the right vehicle for the job...It's actually more economical, and "greener".

A good example is my Nephew. When he got married, he had a "hopped-up" Dodge SRT-4 Neon. It was blazingly fast (at the time), but could only manage about 14mpg on the highway. After their firstborn, his wife realized she had to make several trips to complete the week's shopping, take the kid to daycare, and any travelling was cramped for the three of them...

Last year, he picked up a used 1/2 ton Suburban, and got rid of the Dodge.
Much to his (and his wife's ) suprise, the Suburban delivered better highway mileage than the SRT-4 ever did, and his wife found she could get all of her errands and shopping done in one trip with the Suburban. Even though the Dodge had better in-town gas mileage, the Suburban accomplished the same tasks with far fewer trips, so the fuel economy evened out. A big plus came when they took a vacation, with their two kids (now) and the grandparents, all in the Suburban...My nephew says they'd be travelling in two cars or making two trips if they still had the SRT-4.

Using the proper tools for the job is something most of us understand.

danlb
08-18-2009, 12:55 AM
Nah,it's just Smug:D



Sorry about that. It's a side effect of the way I try to research things before I buy them. I researched the car and all of it's pro's and cons before I decided to plunk down my cash for it. Because of the scarcity in 2000 and 2001, I had plenty of time to read everything from the early research to the California Zero Emissions mandate that spawned at least one workable hybrid or EV from every major car company. Then I've put almost 100K on one over the last 7 years in every conceivable climate and a wide array of terrain.

Since I know the difference between fact and fancy, I tend to feel it's in the best interests of people other than the posters to be informed. I'd hate for someone to pass over a valid choice when checking out new (or used) cars based on idle speculation posed as fact or misinformation passed on from a talk show or opinion column.





Living closer to work and driving less is a better plan,course(and no offense here)that would mean abandoning the Cali-nimby attitude.Battieris are clean to use,but nasty to produce,trading cleaner air for soil and water contamination isn't much of a trade.

80 model vehicles?No really,my old 86' Ranger used less fuel than my 90' Model does and both use less than a current issue 09'.CAFE is to blame for much of that,the injection/pollution control systems on the older models were simpler,yielded much less restriction and got much better milage.All of the models mentioned were/are multi-port fuel injected and they all got 28+mpg.


I agree wholeheartedly with the first point. I was out of work for 4 months longer than necessary because I tried to find a local job first.

I don't know what to say about the second point. Neither the 86 or 90 ranger is particularly clean compared to a 2009 pickup. The 1990 is rated as being dirtier and 1 MPG worse. Cafe is a Fuel Economy standard, which barely applied to trucks and SUVs. If the CAFE was to blame for worse mileage, it could only be by being too lax. It looks like there were no major changes to the spec of the 4 cyl, 2.3L ranger over the last 23 years. Most all of them get about the same mileage and create the same amount of CO2. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm


EPA regulates emissions, and light pickups were pretty much given a free pass up till the last decade. I could not locate the emissions for vehicles before 2000.

BTW, the 4 cyl Ranger would not qualify for cash for clunkers.

danlb
08-18-2009, 01:15 AM
That leads straight to gallons total used per vehicle.

if you drive 15,000 miles per year, at 12 mpg, you use 0.083333 gallon per mile. Your total yearly usage to do what you want to do, is then 0.08333* 15,000 = 1250 gallons

If your new vehicle gets 17 mpg, that is .0588 gallons per mile. The same 15,000 miles now requires only 882 gallons...... you just saved 368 gallons per year.

At $3 per gallon, your saving is $1100 per year. If gas goes to $5, you save $1840 per year.

Now, suppose your vehicle is like my truck and gets 28 mpg.... that's .0357 gallon per mile. The 15,000 miles uses 535 gallons.

You decide that is way too expensive, so you buy a "Smart" car that gets 40 mpg, to save the planet.... you give up a lot, but it's worth it to save all that gas, and the planet...... and you go away hugging trees (hopefully not when driving).

What wonders did you do for the environment? You use 0.025 gallon per mile.... and use for your 15000 miles the tiny sip of gas represented by 375 gallons...... Wait...... you drive a car you "wear" and need two trips to the grocery store to get your food home, and you saved only 160 gallons per year?

Every year you can look forward to that fat saving of 160 x $5 or $800, and it only cost you $25,000 to get that saving...... What a deal!

Sure, that car is going to last 32 years so you can start to get a payback.......

Oops, gas is $3 right now, at most, so make that savings only $480....

I guess you'll have to drive it for 52 years to break even.......


You forgot a few major points:

1) You sold that truck that gets lousy milleage for 1/3 of what you paid for it and apply that to the purchase. That takes $10,000 off the purchase price.
2) The MSRP for the smart car (not a great choice, BTW) is only 17,000 dollars, so you only have to make up that $7,000 in gas savings.
3) You eventually sell the smart for 1/3 of what you paid for it. That recoups $5,600. Now you only have to make up $1,300 dollars.


Wait a second. In the first example that was only one year.

After that you can rent a luxury car for vacations and have large objects delivered and still have cash left over.

Dan
(BTW: there are more practical cars that sell for around that price that get similar gas mileage)

danlb
08-18-2009, 01:24 AM
I almost forgot my favorite "compare cost" instance.... :)

When I needed to buy a new car I had a choice. I could have bought many different cars, but I was looking at a Jaguar and a Volvo as well as the Prius. The Prius was $22,000 out the door. That saved me $30,000 right there.


I see that most models of the 2009 Ford F150 have a higher MSRP than the Prius, the most expensive being $8,000 more than the most expensive Prius. It is my belief that the "hybrid premium" is highly overblown.

But that is just opinion.

Dan

Doc Nickel
08-18-2009, 01:42 AM
Yep, I'd call that "no redeeming features".....

-Sorry JT, that's arguing an opinion (yours) against the facts (better than six million sales since 1990.) From it's introduction in '97, it took almost ten years ('til '06) for Prius sales to total half a million. In 2000 alone, Ford sold almost 450,000 Explorers.

You may not like it, and may invent reasons to 'justify' that dislike, but they are still just an opinion.

Doc.

J Tiers
08-18-2009, 08:21 AM
Your not taking in count the damage done during mining and refining the metals used in making those batteries.Of course thst all happens Over there so nobody really cares.

Not so fast.....

Mining does not HAVE to be done in a disastrous way, although it typically is, especially in less developed economies.

And the total worldwide damage due to oil drilling and production of gasoline is almost surely more widespread and more in total than mining of certain specific materials could ever hope to equal..... Let's not mention the mining of the vehicle materials... I'll cut you THAT much slack.....

Exxon Valdez... the poster child incident, of course..... but the yearly spills and deliberate dumping probably eclipses it....

J Tiers
08-18-2009, 08:22 AM
Then how about a law that says you stay off the roads at peak hours if you don't have at least two people in the car?

So shut up and pass one.

J Tiers
08-18-2009, 08:44 AM
-Sorry JT, that's arguing an opinion (yours) against the facts (better than six million sales since 1990.) From it's introduction in '97, it took almost ten years ('til '06) for Prius sales to total half a million. In 2000 alone, Ford sold almost 450,000 Explorers.

You may not like it, and may invent reasons to 'justify' that dislike, but they are still just an opinion.

Doc.

No Doc, there is no "sorry" about it, except your "sorry", "sad sack", "big loser" example.

It is PURELY an "opinion" that six million sales of a gas guzzling vehicle that is sold on the basis of performance that almost none of the purchasers can ever use, and which the vehicle cannot provide in any case, is in some remote way good.

Yes, that is an opinion, but it isn't a good one.

I really hate to break it to you that you have been "suckered in" to a viewpoint that greater sales of a vehicle which is, in net effect , a big disaster, is good for you.

No, Doc, it is not good for you. Doc, you need to realize that those sales were good for Ford.... Ford got the money, you didn't, Doc. They paid a bunch of workers, yes, which is no doubt your point.

The same workers who built those "Explorers" could have built anything else as well. They could have built a nearly identical Explorer that got decent mileage and didn't roll over, but they were not given that choice.

They built Explorers because Ford made them popular by glitzy ads, and created an environment where those vehicles were 'sexy".

They built crummy Explorers because Ford used YOUR argument, that "X million sales can't be wrong", to justify not changing the many bad aspects of the vehicle.

A Ford Explorer that got the mileage that my in-laws' Ford full size crew cab pickup gets (like about 30 mpg) would have been FINE. And I will guarantee you that decent mileage would NOT have killed sales...... That truck performs very well.

But somehow Ford could not provide that... or chose not to, and that left the Explorer at 12 to 15 MPG or so..

Yep, "clunk" all those old gas guzzlers, they are just another cause of $8 gas.

J Tiers
08-18-2009, 08:59 AM
You forgot a few major points:


Dan, You pretty much missed the point. maybe I didn't make it clear enough......

The point is partly the $$ savings, but MUCH MORE that your net reduction in gas usage is far larger when you replace a very bad MPG vehicle with a moderately bad one.

If you replace a vehicle that gets decent mileage with one that gets somewhat more MPG, your gas savings are far less.

In one case, you saved 368 gallons per year from a 5 mpg improvement. You were certainly able to retain the functionality, since full size trucks now get up to 30 MPG.

In the other case, you replaced a functional vehicle with a nearly non-functional one, and your net savings is less than HALF the previous example, only 160 gallons per year, despite the 12 mpg improvement.

If you replace the 12 mpg truck with a 30 mpg truck such as my in-laws have, both "full size" Fords, you save 750 gallons per year. But that is a huge step up in mileage, with very little functionality downside.

Moving from that truck to the Smart car (or similar vehicle) is a huge down-step in function, and actually saves very little gas.

The savings are from removing the really low MPG vehicles.

After that you are into diminishing returns, and you would be far better advised to finish the job of removing the worst vehicles first. THEN you can look at the "icing on the cake".....

wierdscience
08-18-2009, 09:01 AM
Not so fast.....

Mining does not HAVE to be done in a disastrous way, although it typically is, especially in less developed economies.

And the total worldwide damage due to oil drilling and production of gasoline is almost surely more widespread and more in total than mining of certain specific materials could ever hope to equal..... Let's not mention the mining of the vehicle materials... I'll cut you THAT much slack.....

Exxon Valdez... the poster child incident, of course..... but the yearly spills and deliberate dumping probably eclipses it....

That was the point I was making,the batteries aren't being produced here,if they were they would cost probably 5x as much and make the cars totally un-affordable.

I have a customer that does air,water and soil polution surveys around the world.He tells me even in developed countries Nickel and Cadnium producing facilities are nasty.One Russian Nickel facility is so nasty that the surrounding top soil can now be processed for Nickle.

madman
08-18-2009, 09:05 AM
My 1984 Ford F250 is still running Daily. Just finally (after 25 years rebuilt the carb and changed the leaky intake manifold gasket). Man she runs so good. I hope to keep oil spraying it and driving it for some more decades to come. It will probably outlive my old ass.

wierdscience
08-18-2009, 09:16 AM
II don't know what to say about the second point. Neither the 86 or 90 ranger is particularly clean compared to a 2009 pickup. The 1990 is rated as being dirtier and 1 MPG worse. Cafe is a Fuel Economy standard, which barely applied to trucks and SUVs. If the CAFE was to blame for worse mileage, it could only be by being too lax. It looks like there were no major changes to the spec of the 4 cyl, 2.3L ranger over the last 23 years. Most all of them get about the same mileage and create the same amount of CO2. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm


EPA regulates emissions, and light pickups were pretty much given a free pass up till the last decade. I could not locate the emissions for vehicles before 2000.

BTW, the 4 cyl Ranger would not qualify for cash for clunkers.

The emissions controls on all of the older Rangers is virtually the same as the cars of the time,a Ranger is closer to a mid-sized sedan than a mid-size pickup.The 86 and 90 are basically identical that would hold true through 92'.My dad is driving a 94' which is completely different.Same small v-6,twice as many Cat converters,different ignition the works,it averages 24mpg.

The way the Feds determine mileage is really bizarre and has changed several times over the years.Emissions is another subject entirely,that one my boss was involved in,surprising how little science was involved in setting the EPA regs for air pollution.It had much more to do with politics than science.

The law of unintended consequences was completely ignored and we are not better for it.

danlb
08-18-2009, 09:57 AM
Dan, You pretty much missed the point. maybe I didn't make it clear enough......

The point is partly the $$ savings, but MUCH MORE that your net reduction in gas usage is far larger when you replace a very bad MPG vehicle with a moderately bad one.



But if you replace a very bad MPG vehicle with a very good one, the savings are even greater.

I bought an F150 4x4 in 1992 when my commute was 2 miles a day. I did not mind the 10 MPG (12 MPG on the freeway) when gas was $1.50 a gallon.

When the local jobs went away (mergers and takeovers suck) I ended up working in SF. With traffic jams it sucked up 10 gallons of gas a day. Add toll bridges and parking and it just sucked. I hated commuting in that monster, but It was what I had at the time.

I replaced it with a car that has given a consistent 45 mpg in commute. It eats two gallons of gas each day on the same commute.

10 * 5 * 50 * $1.50 = 3750 a year in gas alone for my truck. $750 for my car. By the time gas hit $4.50 I was commuting to San Jose instead. Had I still driven the truck, it would have cost me $180 a week instead of the $35 that I was paying. That's $9,000 a year for the San Jose commute VS $1,687 that year.

Mine HAS paid for itself. And it cost me less than I was going to spend otherwise.

BTW, I would never advocate selling a perfectly good car just to buy another one with better mileage. Unless you have a real gas guzzler it will seldom work out.

But here's the real point. If you are selling your car anyway, the hybrids are a perfectly valid choice, especially if you are a commuter. I can't understand why people make up reasons to hate them. It must be misplaced brand loyalty or something.

So check one out if you are going to buy a car anyway. Some of them are really, really nice.

Dan

tony ennis
08-18-2009, 10:03 AM
J Tiers:
its one heck of a lot easier to control pollution at ONE factory (or even 10), than it is to control pollution at 500,000 cars which are typically poorly maintained by the average yokel owner.


Weird Science:
Your not taking in count the damage done during mining and refining the metals used in making those batteries.Of course thst all happens Over there so nobody really cares.

Those are unrelated issues. Concentrating pollution generation is one of electric cars' biggest advantages. And mining responsibly can be done though it is difficult to do for commodity items.

The crux of the 'global pollution' situation as hinted at by Wierd Science is that developing nations (such as China and India) are going through the same heavy-industry-economic-boost phase that the US did 150 years ago.

They are not about to give that prosperity up for any reason.
They are not subject to our laws.
We got ours, and now they want theirs.

The US could become amazingly green and it wouldn't matter overall. We can't make them be clean, and it sounds hypocritical to ask. All we can do is make our corner of the world a little nicer.

-=-=-=-
I love me an unintended consequence. What I find delicious about enviro-regulation is that, while crafted with good intent, it increases pollution. The expense of complying to the regulations drives industry to places with relaxed regulations - also known as the 3rd world. So pollution increases. It occurs to me that making batteries is such a toxic process that you'd think the enviros would demand that the batteries be made in Europe, the US, or Japan, where we can keep an eye on things. For some reason, no.

It doesn't do anyone any good to be super-green when our neighbors are not. The developing/developed nations need to become green in lockstep, if such a thing is deemed a desirable goal. Note that in the recent Kyoto agreement, India (and China?) had exclusions for their pollution.

-=-=-=-

Finally, does anyone really think CFC is really about getting stinky cars off the road? Or is it more about causing debt and getting money flowing into the auto industry again?

tony ennis
08-18-2009, 10:13 AM
If you are selling your car anyway, the hybrids are a perfectly valid choice, especially if you are a commuter.

I know several Prius owners. They all love them. If I were getting an around-town sedan, I still would not get a hybrid. I would probably get a Civic or something and save a ton of money.


I can't understand why people make up reasons to hate them. It must be misplaced brand loyalty or something.


Enviros tend to be over-the-top obnoxious. They make me want to do the opposite of what they say, whatever it is they say.
The hybrids are more complex than regular cars and thus will require more repairs. That's an additional expense. One of my pals has a Prius that's in the shop with some regularity and it's $800 each time.
Fear of the new. What if you get one and it sucks. Now you're out a lot of money.
Fear of the batteries failing.

aboard_epsilon
08-18-2009, 10:19 AM
they have a similar scheme here in the UK running ..

as far as i can see its for the people that usually buy new cars then get rid after say 6-8 years .,..only this time they benefit ..

so is bonus to these people who were going that way anyways..and not to others.

there ain't anyway i can afford a new car .. :(

all the best.markj

saltmine
08-18-2009, 10:53 AM
Funny, the way some people think.

When I worked at the Ford Arizona Proving ground, in Yucca, Arizona, one of the guys took notice that the huge Ford Excursion we were testing had an enormous appetite for gasoline. Most of the time, it was using fuel at a rate of twice that of a similar sized Suburban. When asked if they planned to do something about the unusually high fuel consumption, one engineer replied," Oh, we're not ...the people we sell them to aren't concerned with fuel economy." Of course, when gas hit $4 a gallon, even the rich folks started whining about gas mileage.

tony ennis
08-18-2009, 11:40 AM
Saltmine - that's natural. When the parameters of an equation change, the results can be different. When people make an economic decision, they do so with the implicit assumption that the parameters aren't going to change drastically.

I would also say if gasoline became free, some of these Hybrids owners would complain also as their resale value went splat.

Doc Nickel
08-18-2009, 03:23 PM
No, Doc, it is not good for you. Doc, you need to realize that those sales were good for Ford.... Ford got the money, you didn't, Doc. They paid a bunch of workers, yes, which is no doubt your point.

-Wow, they were right, you are a crotchety old fart.

No, my "point" is that the bulk of Explorer owners bought their truck fully knowing and accepting the "low" mileage in trade for the other benefits (passenger capacity, 4WD, cargo capacity, etc.)

You can't "sucker" people into six million sales over twenty years, no matter how much you decry otherwise.

Doc.

Ries
08-18-2009, 07:56 PM
No, my "point" is that the bulk of Explorer owners bought their truck fully knowing and accepting the "low" mileage in trade for the other benefits (passenger capacity, 4WD, cargo capacity, etc.)

You can't "sucker" people into six million sales over twenty years, no matter how much you decry otherwise.

Doc.

I think an equally valid point would be that the bulk of the Explorer owners who sold their trucks to Cash for Clunkers did so fully knowing what the truck was worth on the open market- and knowing and accepting that they were getting a good deal.

You can't "sucker" people into taking less than market value for a car- they are totally able to sell the car themselves, if it is really worth more than $4500.

I keep saying this, and somehow it keeps getting ignored- 5 million cars a year are scrapped in the USA. So a lot of Explorers are going to that junk heap in the sky every year, no matter what.

Most owners of a 13 to 18 year old Explorer were tickled pink to get the $4500, and were not doing it to save the earth- they just knew the old buggy was about to die anyway, and that this was the best deal they were gonna get.

Doc Nickel
08-18-2009, 08:34 PM
You can't "sucker" people into taking less than market value for a car- they are totally able to sell the car themselves, if it is really worth more than $4500.

-And I am in no way denying that. I have my reservations against C4C, but I'm not trying to claim anything special about Explorers.

JT is claiming- or trying to claim- that Explorers in effect have no redeeming value. They're apparently rollover-prone, get low mileage, etc, etc. I'm simply trying to state otherwise; It's one of the top sellers in the US, both per year and in overall sales numbers, and you simply don't get sales like that if the thing is majorly deficient.

Hell, even those highly-publicised lawsuits had minimal effect on Explorer sales.

Sure, it doesn't get the mileage a Prius gets. So what? I drive maybe fifty miles a week, rarely more than 200. But I'm constantly carrying sheets of plywood or bars of steel and aluminum from the metals supplier (I just brought back two 10' sticks of shd80 aluminum tubing- let's see you do that in a Prius without sticking it out a window or lashing it to the roof) or hauling the chopsaw, bucket of screwguns and some lumber.

How many Dana 60's can you put in a Prius, I wonder? :D

JT wants to think that nobody that has ever owned an Explorer has ever had to carry anything but a cell phone and a double latte. He keeps coming back to the single woman driver, and thinking that stereotype represents everybody that owns an Exploder.

Doc.

gwilson
08-18-2009, 08:38 PM
I have had it with Ford,and I have had 4 new ones. My last one was a 1999 Windstar van.It had both front window motors go bad within 50,000 miles. Also,the power steering went bad,as did the tie rods,and a bunch of other stuff I can't even remember by now.

I am now driving a Honda van,and Ford can go jump as far as I am concerned.

J Tiers
08-18-2009, 10:04 PM
-

JT wants to think that nobody that has ever owned an Explorer has ever had to carry anything but a cell phone and a double latte. He keeps coming back to the single woman driver, and thinking that stereotype represents everybody that owns an Exploder.

Doc.

I gave that example ONCE, Doc...... But it's really a lot more true than you want others to think......

Maybe she has two toddlers in back......... so what, is that a full load? She'd be better off with a 30 mpg van....... The in-laws have one of those too....

But lots of bigger vans get bad gallonage also, they are not perfect..... A friend's FORD work van, for no particularly good reason, got about 9 mpg..... empty, loaded, whatever....

No, Doc, popularity is no guarantee of goodness. Hitler was wildly popular...... But, like Hitler, the Explorer, and most of its siblings from other providers, ultimately failed to deliver on the promises.

In the case of the SUVs, implied promises of off-road performance that they made in the adverts. And most people who drive one never even drive on a dirt road, let alone off-road. They bought into the image, and denied their fuel cost pain.....

Doc, you just don't get it. Maybe you CAN'T get it.

Ford could have made a perfectly good Explorer that looked and acted the same, but got much better mileage, and didn't roll over*. The fact that they didn't is just their stubborn clinging to your tired old argument..... "It's selling, so it's perfect".

If you offer only one choice, if the customer wants that type item, they buy that one choice you have.

We'll never know what might have happened if they had offered a different choice. It's possible SUVs might have taken a different course......

The Ford Explorer was nearly the first of the lot, and GM used it as an example of "what people want", and "what people will put up with to get it". They swallowed that idea totally.

You see where THAT bogus idea got GM..................Broke and out of business if the government hadn't saved them.

Nope, peddle your tired, discredited, literally bankrupt argument elsewhere.... it won't fly here.


* other SUVs roll over too. I've seen them do it on smooth pavement in the city. Jeep liberty was the latest, a sharp turn, one that I take at decent speed 3 times a week..... the Liberty ended up on its top.

danlb
08-18-2009, 11:11 PM
Hell, even those highly-publicised lawsuits had minimal effect on Explorer sales.

Sure, it doesn't get the mileage a Prius gets. So what? I drive maybe fifty miles a week, rarely more than 200. But I'm constantly carrying sheets of plywood or bars of steel and aluminum from the metals supplier (I just brought back two 10' sticks of shd80 aluminum tubing- let's see you do that in a Prius without sticking it out a window or lashing it to the roof) or hauling the chopsaw, bucket of screwguns and some lumber.


Doc, you have made the correct decision for your situation. You need cargo capacity on a regular basis, and drive fairly little. A hybrid would be a bad choice. The only thing that would make it even worse would be if you only drove short, 5 minute trips.

I can easily fit a chopsaw, bucket of screwguns and even a few 2x4's in my car. Heck, I can fit the contents of an overflowing Costco shopping cart in my car. The car is bigger than most people think.


If you want some irony....

I'm in the uncomfortable position of having to tell my wife that I don't want her to buy a Camry hybrid to replace her 17 year old car. She really likes my Prius and wants her own hybrid. But she only drives a few miles a week with one 50 mile trip a month. She's a perfect mismatch for a hybrid. She would not even drive it enough to keep the battery pack charged.

See? Irony. :)

Dan

Doc Nickel
08-18-2009, 11:15 PM
Doc, you just don't get it. Maybe you CAN'T get it.

-Kettle, thy name is Black. :D

Sorry. I understand why you, personally, don't like them, but in the same way I understand why many, many more people do like them.

Prior to my Explorer, I had an old Pontiac which had been converted from the Olds diesel over to an Olds 307. The damn thing couldn't pull a fat girl off a tricycle, passing at highway speeds required 24 hours' notice and an official escort, and mainly, I got damn tired of having to borrow a truck every time I needed to get material.

The Explorer- and I was no Ford fan prior to it- gave me shift-on-the-fly 4WD, better mileage (barely- maybe 18 vs. the 14/15 of the Pontiac) easier starting in the winter (EFI as opposed to an old carb) more power and vastly more cargo room.

And unlike my Chevy pickup (prior to the Pontiac) the cargo space was enclosed, so I didn't have to worry as much about somebody walking off with my tools while I was in the grocery store.

Doc.

Jim Shaper
08-18-2009, 11:36 PM
I don't know too many minivan's that will ever see 30mpg. Maybe the old 80's turbo 2.2L, but not the current bloated stow-n-go generation of soccer mom haulers. The first gen mini's were probably a thousand pounds lighter than anything made now. I have to labor lifting the seats out of their stowage (still completely attached to the chassis), and I could easily yank the whole bench out of my dad's old 89 grand caravan.

Our 2006 town and crappy sure won't hit 30. The wife can't even keep it over 18 in town with short trips. I can see the north side of 24 if I get it out on the freeway and she hasn't been driving it (we're talking tank averages here, not hypothetical ideal, or short stretch observed mileage). If you want to play mileage games, I can get 100mpg with my 4.4L DOHC v8, just get me on a light grade and let gravity rule the .31 drag coefficient :rolleyes: . In reality, my car gets 18 all tank long, but I also hammer the throttle at the light and don't poke around people when passing.

Personally, if it weren't paid for and ours since it rolled off the dealers lot, I'd be working on convincing the mrs to swap it for a 4wd tahoe. Mileage wouldn't be much different, and we'd actually have towing capacity. When the economy turns around, I'll probably just buy one as a third vehicle (we have two drivers in the house).

tony ennis
08-19-2009, 12:33 AM
We have a 2000 Explo[d|r]er. It's drives ok. The mileage isn't great. Neither of us really like it.

But it's paid for. We don't want to be saddled with a car payment so we'll be keeping it for a while. If we replaced it we'd buy used.

By my calculations, if we replaced it with something with double the mileage (easily done) then we'd save $1,300 a year, at $3/gallon. So if we bought a new car for $400/month, the fuel savings would negate the first 3 months of car payments each year. Which means we'd lose $400 a month for the next 9 months.

It's hard to justify a new car economically when your old one is reliable and paid for.

Rustybolt
08-19-2009, 07:23 AM
JT.
Women like SUVs because their size and 4X4 capabilities make them more independant.The women. It's not a matter of what they can carry, its a matter of not depending on someone else.

wierdscience
08-19-2009, 08:21 AM
SUV's filled a hole in the market left by the mfgs.The need for a station wagon.Remember those lumbering giants in the 70's?20 ft long,6,000lbs 350 CID +,ya those things.There used to be a lot of them.My uncle had one,a Ford in fact LTD wagon with a 351M and a C-6 tranny,it was a 3/4 ton truck in disguise.
Those things disappeared in the 80's.Chrysler came out with the Mini-van and they sold very well since they were first to try and fill the hole.But they didn't do things that the old station wagons could like pull a boat or a camper.

Now I am sure someone here will chime in and say"I pulled my 32' boat up Pikes peak with my 2.5l Caravan blah,blah,blah" well if you did you only did it once:)

SUV roll overs?Well I can guarantee there are some people who can roll a tank.In fact I will go so far as to say the driving of most on the road sucks.This fact is reflected in they're fuel consumption and accident reports.

Doc is right,out of millions of Explorers sold there have been very few roll over events and most of those were by people with a loaded roof rack running 85 down the interstate probably talking on the phone.I see them all the time,six people inside and 500lbs of crap on the roof passing me while I'm running 75.

Rant mode off,I gotta go polish the Ranger:D

J Tiers
08-19-2009, 09:03 AM
There actually IS a place for the SUV.... Aside from the scrap pile. There actually ARE people who can use them. It would be nice if those people were offered a REAL one, of course, not the "roving house" they have become now.

The first problem is not that the SUV as it was originally conceived is bad... The problem is that so many of them were sold to (and I DO mean "sold to", not "bought by"), people that had no reason to have one. But they were "sold" the SUV because supposedly once they had it then they 'could and would" suddenly become outdoors camping types, roving the outback. Reality is they drive out "back of the mall", as their most out-of-the-way trip.

never make the mistake of believing people are rational. They make decisions for all sorts of crazy reasons.

The alternate selling point was because as the biggest thing on the road, they made some folks (the tiny women) feel safer.

The second problem is what they have "morphed" into..... which is a virtual house, with amenities, entertainment, etc. I saw one with a microwave oven in it, some sort of custom addition, I hope.... So far no commode, but who knows?

Then also, in the process, many have become simply outsized, bloated cars, without meaningful off-road capability, or much of any load capacity aside from people. And with the carpeted interiors, who'd put a nasty, dirty load of tools or whatever in one anyway? And that's if the people in question OWN any tools.

Most owners never use even the limited capabilities of the SUV. I see a lot of tassel-shoed lawyers and executives driving sparkly-clean SUVs..... Maybe once in 3 years they drive onto a construction site..... and park in the cleanest spot.

If you can use an SUV, and actually own a functional SUV, so much the better for you.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that because you can use one on the ranch, that everyone else uses one on a ranch.... Those cardigan-wearing executives and tiny women wouldn't know how to FIND a ranch, don't know what tools are, can't drive a stick, and think all roads are paved.

I happen to think the original Explorer is a bad example, but it became a 'standard". There are lots of bad standards.... hogsheads, firkins, pottles, drams, minims, inches etc, all "standard" units of measure, but most are long obsoleted for the bulk of purposes.

If your old original Explorer got 18 mpg, great..... my neighbor's got about 12, and it was an early one, before the Excursion and those others.

For a while it seemed that the primary requirement for a NEW SUV was that the previous largest one should fit inside the next, like a set of russian dolls. Mileage was secondary, gas was cheap. I see that has changed.

Vans that get 30 mpg? Yep. But you are right, they are NOT those huge things that I see from time to time. They are not the 9 mpg units from the 80's either.

But there certainly are recent pickups and vans that get 30 MPG now on the road.

BTW, none of teh SUVs that I have seen flipped had a thing on top of the roof...... They had an idiot at the wheel, possibly...... but I see more flipped SUVs that cars.

Those "cardigan crowd" executives also seem to think that an SUV can do anything, even with an inexperienced driver....... drive 75 in 6" snow, on ice, in teh rain, you name it. I've seen them try that stuff, and roar right off the road into the ditch. Those big tires seem to float on the least rain, too.....

JCHannum
08-19-2009, 09:57 AM
The SUV has been around for years. GMC & Chevrolet were first with the Suburban and large Blazers. It was after the G'ment passed gas guzzler laws penalizing autos, but not trucks that they really caught on.

They did become a status symbol for the suburban newly rich or wannabe looklike newly rich, and many who purchased them had no real use for them or the faintest idea of how to drive them.

The rollovers are the fault of the drivers for the most part, not the vehicle. I saw a soccer mom coming down an exit ramp on the cell realize she was in trouble, crank a hard right and put it up on two wheels. It came down by itself, but was heading in the wrong direction by the time she was done. Never dropped the cell though.

After a snow here, 9 out of 10 vehicles you see in the ditches are SUV's because the drivers somehow think they can drive the same as if the roads are dry.

aboard_epsilon
08-19-2009, 10:32 AM
i don't understand the term soccer mom ..
i looked it up in wikipedia ..and says overburdened mother ferrying kids to soccer events ..

i thought you Americans didn't bother with soccer ..so why its widespread use.

all the best.markj

mochinist
08-19-2009, 10:58 AM
i don't understand the term soccer mom ..
i looked it up in wikipedia ..and says overburdened mother ferrying kids to soccer events ..

i thought you Americans didn't bother with soccer ..so why its widespread use.

all the best.markjAmerican moms like soccer because it is safer than american football(supposedly:p, not looking to argue about it, could careless about both sports)plus the girls can play it. As for us bothering with soccer, I think that is more to do with watching pro soccer on tv or in person.

gnm109
08-19-2009, 11:04 AM
i don't understand the term soccer mom ..
i looked it up in wikipedia ..and says overburdened mother ferrying kids to soccer events ..

i thought you Americans didn't bother with soccer ..so why its widespread use.

all the best.markj


Soccer is one of the most popular games in junior high and high schools in the U.S. All of my three chldren played in leagues when in school. They got good exercise with lots of fun and play. The only thing they had to fear was irate, out of control parents.

One guy had his son get carded one day and we had to actually tie him up and wait until he calmed down. He wanted to kill the referee. Such passion!

lazlo
08-19-2009, 11:11 AM
i don't understand the term soccer mom ..
i looked it up in wikipedia ..and says overburdened mother ferrying kids to soccer events...

Like many things on Wikipedia, that's not particularly accurate.

In the US, "Soccer Mom" is a partially disparaging term: it refers to the bored Yuppie (affluent, white-collar) Mom, almost always driving 10 miles below the speed limit, swerving down the road in a gigantic SUV, with a cell phone stuck to her ear. Their children have names like Brittany and Brendon, and the back of the SUV is usually plastered with sports team/cheerleading/honor role bumper stickers :)

Austin is the Soccer Mom capital of the world :p

Believe it or not, Soccer is immensely popular among the Yuppie population in the 'States, and Soccer Moms really do take their kids to soccer practice/matches. I was part of the first wave of American kids playing competitive soccer in High School in the 80's, but soccer's popularity really exploded in the 90's, which is why the American Soccer team is sucking less and less each year.

As I'm unfortunately finding out first-hand, competitive swimming is the "In" sport for Yuppie girls. That's worse than watching golf :eek:

saltmine
08-19-2009, 11:51 AM
Perhaps it's time to clarify a few things.

First, General Motors, namely the Chevrolet Division, have the dubious honor of building the first "SUV". Back in 1937 the US Army was looking for a steel bodied, station wagon that could carry cargo and personnel without being overloaded.
At the time, "station wagons" were generally cars with the body removed and wooden bodies built up to form the traditional "station wagon" body. Why wood? Well, wood is considerably lighter than steel, and the load carrying capacity of older cars was severely limited. (Yeah, you think Ford sedans in the 1930's had factory installed sun roofs? Wrong! The hole in the roof, covered over with a tarred canvas sheet, framed in wood, was because stamping out the roof in one piece would have made the car very top heavy, and unable to carry hardly anything.)
The Army proposed a steel bodied station wagon that could carry six passengers, and a 500 lb cargo. Chevrolet took the challenge, and instead of using a passenger car chassis, they used a Chevrolet truck chassis, and built a steel body on it, to meet Army standards. Thus was born the Chevrolet Suburban. Most Suburbans were earmarked for military service, but a few wound up in civilian hands and were soon earning their keep as small buses and light passenger car-like trucks. They saw service all over the world, and served the Army well for many years.
After the war, there were many imitators. The Jeep Wagoneer, the International "Carryall", and even the Ford panel truck. BTW, the Suburban has been in production for 72 years. The latest "pretender to the throne" was the Ford Excursion, which was produced a few years then discontinued due to it's poor sales, enormous size, and poor fuel economy.
Chrysler Corporation tried in the early 1950's with the Dodge "Powerwagon" but it was more truck than it needed to be, and failed.

The Four-wheel-drive utility of the wartime Jeep carried on into the '60's with Jeeps. First built by Willys, then AMC, and finally by Chrysler.

Recently, the Army requirement for a 1/4 ton truck with passenger carrying capability gave birth to the Ford Bronco-Chevy Blazer-Dodge Ram-Jeep Cherokee type vehicle. These became quite popular and were soon generically being called "SUV's" (Sport Utility Vehicles)

The original SUV was designed to be a work vehicle, and most were quite capable off-road (in 1984, a Chevy S-10, 4 X 4, sponsored by a Southern California car dealer, entered and won it's class in the Baja 1000 off-road race. It was a showroom stock, unmodified truck, that was driven to the race, and driven home after the conclusion of the race...something that hasn't been duplicated again for over 25 years)

But, due to customer complaints, the rough riding, utilitarian suv's were continuously modified to suit the average owner, and the off-road capability was all but lost.

Yes, the SUV is still being made. One of the largest users of SUV's is police agencies...Not because they haul kids and groceries around, but because they're versatile. Currently, many police agencies are using the Chevrolet Tahoe as a replacement for their Crown Victoria police cruisers.
Strangely enough, the SUV seems to be perfectly suited to wear the badge of law enforcement.

Golf?? Isn't that the game that was thought up by a Scotsman, and actually is as boring as watching paint dry?

aboard_epsilon
08-19-2009, 12:20 PM
soccer mom ..

thanks guys ..im a bit more clued up now ..
didn't realise soccer had taken off over there in such a big way ..

myself, i hate soccer.

all the best.markj

bmw625
08-19-2009, 12:43 PM
Like many things on Wikipedia, that's not particularly accurate.

In the US, "Soccer Mom" is a partially disparaging term: it refers to the bored Yuppie (affluent, white-collar) Mom, almost always driving 10 miles below the speed limit, swerving down the road in a gigantic SUV, with a cell phone stuck to her ear. Their children have names like Brittany and Brendon, and the back of the SUV is usually plastered with sports team/cheerleading/honor role bumper stickers :)

Austin is the Soccer Mom capital of the world :p

Believe it or not, Soccer is immensely popular among the Yuppie population in the 'States, and Soccer Moms really do take their kids to soccer practice/matches. I was part of the first wave of American kids playing competitive soccer in High School in the 80's, but soccer's popularity really exploded in the 90's, which is why the American Soccer team is sucking less and less each year.

As I'm unfortunately finding out first-hand, competitive swimming is the "In" sport for Yuppie girls. That's worse than watching golf :eek:


you forgot the dyed blonde hair. at least in this area
bw :D

Jim Shaper
08-19-2009, 02:11 PM
Vans that get 30 mpg? Yep. But you are right, they are NOT those huge things that I see from time to time. They are not the 9 mpg units from the 80's either.

But there certainly are recent pickups and vans that get 30 MPG now on the road.


http://minivans.about.com/od/fueleconomy/tp/top5_fuel.htm

Not a bloody one of them... ;)

Rustybolt
08-19-2009, 06:04 PM
i don't understand the term soccer mom ..
i looked it up in wikipedia ..and says overburdened mother ferrying kids to soccer events ..

i thought you Americans didn't bother with soccer ..so why its widespread use.

all the best.markj


Ssssshhh. Quiet. Soccer is huge in the burbs. Personally I put it on par with baseball,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. But put pads and iceskates on the players and give em a stick and some ice, well now, THAT'S a game!

JCHannum
08-19-2009, 09:01 PM
It seems the G'ment is having administrative problems with the program to the point that a large group of dealers in New York have pulled out of the plan because they have not received payment and many more are expressing fears of not getting paid. Many dealers are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars at this point.

J Tiers
08-19-2009, 09:41 PM
The Ford Explorer was one of the first of the new 'SUVs", apparently starting in 1991, and I don't give a rats ass if there were vehicles that could in hindsight be so classified previously. Many of them didn't "go", like the "Jeepster", which I think I have seen two of, ever.

I'm Still calling the Explorer one of the first of the new breed, although I'll admit the Blazer for instance, is earlier. The Explorer is just the "face" of the SUV group, no doubt because of all the negative publicity.

I see from the EPA mileage listings that those folks claiming 18 mpg with the "Exploder" might be fudging a bit..... I see significant "12 to 17" and "14 to 18" numbers, with the higher being highway only.

Even if your best mileage is a mile or so better than that, as mine often is, that's not 18 average..............




i thought you Americans didn't bother with soccer ..so why its widespread use.

all the best.markj

It's nothing new.....

I played in a well organized and fairly long established high school league in the middle-late 1960's ("high school" = grade 9 thru 12 for the "others" among us:D). We just couldn't call the game by it's REAL name.

saltmine
08-19-2009, 11:28 PM
The Bronco II was the precursor to the Explorer. Smaller, and lighter, with a smaller engine, it was a real POS. I had an '84 Blazer, and it averaged 22-24mpg...Never saw an Exploder do any better than 18mpg, even on the highway, going downhill, with a tail-wind.
The Bronco II, Blazer, and the Jeep Cherokee all came out about the same time (early '80's), but the Explorer darkened our automotive doorsteps in the mid-'80s, shortly before Chrysler decided to get on the "bandwagon" with their Durango....we won't go there.

Soccer is known worldwide as "football"...Nothing in common with the American game. Fortunately, International Football players aren't a bunch of overpaid prima donnas, who prance around the field like a bunch of Kansas City Faggots, take 6 months off when they break a nail, and take home more money in one month than the President makes in one full term.

Soccer is actually rated as one of the world's most strenuous sports....Of course, the jury is still out on that one, Motocross is ranked second.

J Tiers
08-20-2009, 08:40 AM
Soccer is known worldwide as "football"...Nothing in common with the American game.

Not with American "Football" anyhow.

Plenty in common with the American "soccer"......

oldtiffie
08-20-2009, 08:47 AM
It seems the G'ment is having administrative problems with the program to the point that a large group of dealers in New York have pulled out of the plan because they have not received payment and many more are expressing fears of not getting paid. Many dealers are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars at this point.

It sure seems so Jim:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/business/20clunkers.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

spope14
08-20-2009, 04:57 PM
Cash for Clunkers ends Monday the 24th. Just saw that news.

I must have not bought clunkers, neither of my old cars qualifies, so I will still have parts available.

gmatov
08-21-2009, 04:21 AM
JC,

A few dealers here say the same thing. Funny though, those dealers are out of cars. No stock TO sell, so easy to say I Quit.

Monday it is over, 8 PM. Now, on Tuesday AM, with no traffic in the store, what will they say? "Jeez, we didn't know how good that was for us."


Saltmine,

The stars get big money. Manchester or maybe Real Madrid, I forget, just payed the other 220 million bucks just for the RIGHT to bargain with 2 star players to come to their team. They have to come up with the millions to get THEM to sign a contract.

I think the biggest team over there is more valuable than the biggest US football team.

Mexico, during the swine flu panic, played a week or so of games with just the players in the stadium. No spectators. 100 thou or more NOT in the seats, no gate, but the games went on.

An average sized stadium over there is bigger than 90% of our football stadiums. And they fill the seats. Cousin's friend just came back from Serbia, went to a game, seats filled AND the steps down between seat sections also. MORE than filled to capacity.

I learned to like it 12 years ago when my g'daughter started playing. Now have her and 2 young g'sons starting, so another 12 years or so coming up. Love it. Hate US football, was a game across the street, behind me, I wouldn't turn around to watch it.

BTW, I bought under the clunkers program. Could not have gotten 20% as much selling my old truck. Repairs it needed exceeded the value of it.

Cheers,

George

JCHannum
08-21-2009, 07:22 AM
George; There is no need to defend the Obama administration, the numbers speak for themselves. here is the news release detailing the closing of the program Monday.

http://money.aol.com/article/cash-for-clunkers-to-end-on-monday/632791

A brief recap, the program is for 3 billion dollars and they have spent 1.9 billion, so they are shutting it down for a clean cut-off. They have either have no idea of how much has been committed and are closing it because they are afraid it will exceed the 3 billion, or they do and are afraid it will. Either they are clueless or lying.

Of the 1.9 billion known to be committed, they have paid out 145 million, leaving the dealers on the hook for remaining amount of 1.55 billion dollars. At this point, they have reviewed only 40% of the applications.

This is a great example of the G'ment in operation, they entered into this totally unprepared with absolutely no idea of how to administer it. When it went south, they threw more money at it. They still have no idea of how much it is going to cost, so they have shut it down prematurely in hopes that it does not overrun, knowing that if it does, the health/insurance legislation will be affected.

Meanwhile the small businessman is expected to sit and wait to see if or when he will get his money. These guys have no idea of how business works, and nothing makes it plainer than the inability to admininster what should be a simple straightforward program such as this.

oldtiffie
08-21-2009, 07:58 AM
..............................


Of the 1.9 billion known to be committed, they have paid out 145 million, leaving the dealers on the hook for remaining amount of 1.55 billion dollars. At this point, they have reviewed only 40% of the applications.

This is a great example of the G'ment in operation, they entered into this totally unprepared with absolutely no idea of how to administer it. When it went south, they threw more money at it. They still have no idea of how much it is going to cost, so they have shut it down prematurely in hopes that it does not overrun, knowing that if it does, the health/insurance legislation will be affected.

Meanwhile the small businessman is expected to sit and wait to see if or when he will get his money. These guys have no idea of how business works, and nothing makes it plainer than the inability to admininster what should be a simple straightforward program such as this.

Jim.

You have it right.

I'd imagine that most of the money that the Dealers are trying to get re-imbursed by the Government is money that the Dealers have borrowed from the banks.

I'd guess too that the banks are chasing the Dealers for it and are likely to mark the Dealers down as a poor(er??) credit risk - which the Dealers, naturally, are trying to avoid.

I'd bet that the Dealers, who in effect are agents of or for the Government, are considerably concerned and less than pleased and have more than a little to be concerned about

To say that bank credit is "tight" for business - any but especially small business - would be quite an understatement.

I can appreciate the concerns of the Banks and the Dealers.

I'd think that the credibility of the Government would be more than a little bit diminished here - especially if undue costs are carried by the Dealers and the Banks who I presume are acting in good faith.

The main ones who are in front (or not as far behind as they were) are the car manufacturers which the Government has bailed out and has a commercial interest in - and the Government.

I have trouble believing that this is happening even though I know it is happening.

lazlo
08-21-2009, 08:44 AM
George; There is no need to defend the Obama administration, the numbers speak for themselves. here is the news release detailing the closing of the program Monday.

http://money.aol.com/article/cash-for-clunkers-to-end-on-monday/632791

Yep, the numbers speak for themselves: car dealers have sold 457,000 new cars worth $1.9 billion in 6 weeks.

GM announced plans to rehire more than 1,300 workers and automakers have been paying overtime to boost production. Hyundai recalled 3,000 workers in Alabama.

So not surprisingly, the flood of CFC applications and cars sales has overwhelmed the Car Dealers, Banks, and the Department of Transportation, but you do think any organization, private or government, could process and audit 457,000 applications in 6 weeks?

Medicare, the government's Socialized Medicine, has an administrative overhead of 3%. That means that $3 dollars of every $100 dollars spent on medical services through Medicare is spent on filling out paperwork.

The overhead on private health insurance is 32%: $32 dollars of every $100 spent on medical services is spent filling out paperwork.

To put that in perspective, the private healthcare industry says that they spend $450 Billion in administrative costs each year. That's purely paperwork -- that figure does not include any legal overhead, malpractice lawsuits, etc.

So one year's work of private healthcare industry paperwork is enough to fund expanding Medicare to cover the 50 million uninsured Americans for the next 10 years...

wierdscience
08-21-2009, 08:59 AM
And next year when new car sales are flat again all those folks will be laid off again,and collect un-employment again and the companies stock will dive again and we will be right back where we started,except $3billion more in debt.

J Tiers
08-21-2009, 09:02 AM
So not surprisingly, the flood of CFC applications and cars sales has overwhelmed the Car Dealers, Banks, and the Department of Transportation, but you do think any organization, private or government, could process and audit 457,000 applications in 6 weeks?


pretty solid evidence of cluelessness and astoundingly poor planning. or a plan that it would fail, requiring more government spending to fix the problem

No clue that it might work... or a hope that it would NOT work?

No decent plans to handle it if it DID work, so more evidence that it was intended to fail.

I think it was never INTENDED to work...... How else to explain teh utterly insufficient plans, unless you assume government isn't very smart, which we Know can't be correct.... :rolleyes:

lazlo
08-21-2009, 09:05 AM
How else to explain teh utterly insufficient plans, unless you assume government isn't very smart, which we Know can't be correct.... :rolleyes:

Of course government isn't really smart. But people, in general aren't really smart, including the car dealers: a large percentage of the CFC applications were filled-out incorrectly.

But the simplest answer to your question: Cash For Clunkers (the original, $1 Billion allotment) was supposed to last until November. Nobody, in their wildest dreams, expected the cattle stampede in the first 6 days when the program was launched on July 1.

dockterj
08-21-2009, 09:17 AM
So one year's work of private healthcare industry paperwork is enough to fund expanding Medicare to cover the 50 million uninsured Americans for the next 10 years...[/COLOR]

Where does that number (50 million) come from?

lazlo
08-21-2009, 09:26 AM
Where does that number (50 million) come from?

Department of Commerce. It's the data from the 2007 Census. Another 6 million souls have been laid-off since November 2007, so add another 6 million uninsured families that number:

http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/insured-v-uninsured-thumb.png

andy_b
08-21-2009, 09:56 AM
Several reasons:

:)

1) Diesel fuel stinks when you are pumping it.
2) They are better than before, but still noisey.
3) They get 51 MPG only on fan sites.
4) There are driving patterns where the hybrid shines.

Here are the figures for the 2009 Jetta TDI:

6-speed manual: 30 city/41 highway
DSG: 29 city/40 highway"

When I drive in commute traffic, I spend 40 minutes a day in stop and go driving. The Jetta mileage would drop lower than it's 29 MPG city rating, since the engine will idle while stopped. The Hybrid (virtually all of them) do well in stop and go because the engine is killed when you are not moving. The electric motor (in most hybrids) moves the car when you are creeping along. I get 45MPG despite these conditions.

But I'm biased, so feel free to disregard. :)

Dan

i own a Passat TDI.

1) i guess diesel fuel stinks, if you are sticking your nose under the filler cap while filling your tank. of course, i love the smell of old machines and kerosene tractors, so i may be immune to the "stench" of diesel.

2) you have obviously never rode in a VW diesel. they are as quiet inside as any other vehicle on the road due to a double-firewall. i guess if you drive your car by hanging outside the driver's side door it may be a bit louder.

3) i am not a fan site, but i have gotten over 50 MPG on several occasions. the terrain i travel when my wife and i go to visit family 50 miles away just happens to fit a happy medium where we have gotten 50-52MPG on many trips (and no, it isn't all downhill :) ). we have just over 100k miles on the car, and the lifetime average has been 35MPG. that includes many miles of city driving, as well as 1000-mile roadtrips at 90 MPH with the AC blasting. if my wife and i drive the speed limit, we can easily average over 40 MPG per tank of fuel (over 500 miles). i'm guessing a Prius' mileage drops off if you run it at 90 MPH for a few hours.

4) you are correct that inner-city traffic is the optimum situation for a hybrid. i avoid the cities as much as possible, so i have no need to drive a vehicle optimized for driving situations i try to avoid. by the way, my other vehicle is a F350 that gets 12 MPG. i hauled several loads of firewood with it this week. i'd like to see what happens when you stack 3500 pounds of firewood on top of a Prius. :)

andy b.

plastikosmd
08-21-2009, 09:58 AM
Medicare, the government's Socialized Medicine, has an administrative overhead of 3%. That means that $3 dollars of every $100 dollars spent on medical services through Medicare is spent on filling out paperwork.


Well maybe that is why medicare is currently running net 730 with me. They have not paid a bill in 2 years. At this point we cannot afford to take any additional medicare referrals for elective issues.

andy_b
08-21-2009, 10:03 AM
Department of Commerce. It's the data from the 2007 Census. Another 6 million souls have been laid-off since November 2007, so add another 6 million uninsured families that number:

http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/insured-v-uninsured-thumb.png

that uninsured number includes more than 20 million people here illegally, as well as people WHO CHOOSE NOT TO PURCHASE INSURANCE. when i was in college i "chose not to purchase insurance". i broke my ankle, and went to the ER. as with any hospital in the US, i was patched up, and even went for some physical therapy, all "for free". several years later when my wife and i went to purchase our first home, the credit check showed i owed almost $700 in medical bills from my stupidity, i mean accident. i paid it and that was that.

andy b.

lazlo
08-21-2009, 10:11 AM
that uninsured number includes more than 20 million people here illegally, as well as people WHO CHOOSE NOT TO PURCHASE INSURANCE.

The census data does not include illegals. The census data is collated and tracked by social security number.

It does include people who "elected" to not have insurance, but that's healthcare industry code for "can't afford to pay for the insurance."

By the way, the healthcare controversy Du Jour is "The Public Option" -- the idea of having an optional government HMO, with private doctors, private facilities -- basically, Medicare expanded to cover the uninsured.

Ironically, some GOP members are proposing that instead of the Public Option, we expand the government health insurance that's provided to Congress and all government workers. That's basically the exact same thing Obama's proposing.

But the problem is, the health insurance corporations don't want the competition -- that's bad for Capitalism :p, so amusingly they are now using the same Tea Party tactics to shoot down the Republican proposal too. :rolleyes:

andy_b
08-21-2009, 10:23 AM
Well a long time ago....
I owned and drove (as far as I could) a '78 VW Diesel Rabbit made in Germany (@ the Ghia factory IIRC) and an '80 VW Diesel Rabbit (made in the USA). I also owned an Oldsmobile diesel (1980?). All these vehicles cost way more in repairs than they ever saved in gasoline. The VW's were exciting to drive on 2 lane roads in Texas and Arkansas: you'd try to pass someone after switching "off" the A/C and pray you could get it done before another car materialized over the next rise in the road (even if it was 1/2 mile away). Going cross-country on hills, meant going as fast as possible downhill and knowing when to downshift as you watched your speed decay going up the other side. You hoped you never had to get down to second when climbing up the I-80 eastbound hill just out of Port Jervis, NJ.

Every diesel I owned had to have head gaskets and fuel pumps replaced. Both VW's eventually had their heads replaced and the Olds was junked when its head cracked.

It's not the owner/driver either. I bought the diesels because I used to do in-frame overhauls of Cummins engines and worked my way though college working on VW's in Ct. We owned the diesels when I was serving as a pilot in the USAF (I later got my A&P mechanic license working with aero-clubs).

I guess I still have a soft spot for VW diesels - the wife and I test drove the "New Beetle" when they first came out with the Turbo'ed diesel (based on the Jetta). Glad we didn't give-in, the VW's have been, and still are, plagued by the same type of electrical issues that have been VW's hallmark since the old Rabbit days. If you live in anything but the desert, Rabbit electrics could make Lucas look like the Eveready bunny, if you can believe that.

the Olds was a gas engine with the compression raised to make it a diesel, not exactly the smartest thing to do. even back them GM was building their usual garbage. i wish the govt would let them fail, but that is another story.

you obviously have not driven a modern VW turbo diesel. i can easily spin the tires on my wife's 2005 Passat from a dead stop. by my way of figuring, if the tires are spinning, then i have more than enough horsepower to get me where i'm going as quickly as i want to get there. as for hills, the tranny may downshift a gear when i punch it, but i have yet to find a hill i couldn't take at well over the posted speed limit, even with the AC on.

we had a glow plug go on ours about 20k miles ago, and it is due for the timing belt change (100k). we also changed the fuel filter. other than that we have done nothing to it except fill it with diesel and put on a set of tires. in fact, it still has the original brakes on it, and yes, they pass inspection.

andy b.

andy_b
08-21-2009, 10:35 AM
The census data does not include illegals. The census data is collated and tracked by social security number.



wrong. the census data most certainly does include illegals, and so does the 40 million number. the census data counts the number of people living in an area, it does not count the number of legal citizens. there is currently a debate as to whether congressional district reapportioning should include the illegals (or maybe just 3/5 of the illegals).

i could have afforded health insurance, but i CHOSE not to purchase it. how many "uninsured" have satellite TV, the newest cell phone, hi-speed internet access, and the newest shoes and handbags? they have made a choice that watching TV and texting their friends is more important than health insurance. perhaps the MA plan of fining people who make non-government approved choices is the way to go.

i'm not saying any more on the health care issue as this thread was about C4C, which is already OT for the forum. i shouldn't have commented in the first place.

andy b.

JCHannum
08-21-2009, 11:06 AM
Ironically, some GOP members are proposing that instead of the Public Option, we expand the government health insurance that's provided to Congress and all government workers. That's basically the exact same thing Obama's proposing.

The G'ment health insurance is through private insurance companies, paid for by the G'ment. A proposal to eliminate this and require G'ment employees, including congress members to be covered by Obamacare was quickly defeated, proving that while Obamacare is good for us proles, the elite elected officials deserve better.

lazlo
08-21-2009, 11:13 AM
The census data does not include illegals. The census data is collated and tracked by social security number.
wrong. the census data most certainly does include illegals

Sigh. You need to re-read your high school civics book. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution created the National Census, which determines the number of Congressional Representatives in your state. It does NOT include illegal immigrants.

In fact, there's a hugely controversial Congressional debate about whether the 2010 Census should include illegal immigrants. Not surprisingly, there's bi-partisan support in Texas, Florida and Arizona, because each States would gain an extra congressional seat, which is patently ridiculous, since illegal immigrants are not citizens, and don't vote.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

lazlo
08-21-2009, 11:19 AM
The G'ment health insurance is through private insurance companies, paid for by the G'ment. A proposal to eliminate this and require G'ment employees, including congress members to be covered by Obamacare was quickly defeated, proving that while Obamacare is good for us proles, the elite elected officials deserve better.

Or does it simply mean that the health care industry paid for it to be shot down, just like they paid for the 2003 Medicare Reform Act, which makes it illegal for the Medicare program to negotiate pharmaceutical costs with the health care industry.

Think about the level of health care corruption that represents. Bush's own Congressional Budge Office estimated it will cost the taxpayers $198 Billion dollars over 10 years.

So why is the healthcare industry now fiercely fighting the GOP proposal to expand the government/Congressional healthcare to the uninsured?

Competition bad. Profit good. Big Executive bonuses even better :rolleyes:

Of course, we need to pay the health care corporations to be rich, so they can trickle-down to us. Wait...? :D

JCHannum
08-21-2009, 12:11 PM
This is a quote from a Brit poster on another board, I offer it here as how the world sees us;

Let's see if I got this right.

You're going to pass a $Trillion dollar health care plan, written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
financed by a country that's nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

Only in America.

Harry

lazlo
08-21-2009, 12:27 PM
This is a quote from a Brit poster on another board, I offer it here as how the world sees us;

That post is a construction of the GOP and has been making the rounds at all the Winger sites, it did not come from a "British Poster on another Forum".

Similarly, the "Schoolteacher" did not write that "Letter to Obama" -- it's just garbage you're being fed:

From "The White Sepulchre" (you just can't make sh!t like that up!) :rolleyes:
"My mother sent me this today:" (http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/)

"You're going to pass a $Trillion dollar health care plan, written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke."


rec.boats: (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats/browse_thread/thread/5ca4ab03217ce6f7/0eae0e64e6d47268?show_docid=0eae0e64e6d47268)

"You're going to pass a $Trillion dollar health care plan, written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke."

...and on, and on.

So here's my response to Glenn Beck or Rush, whoever wrote that ;)

America spends the highest amount on healthcare of any industrialized nation: 15.3% of GDP, yet we have the 37th worst healthcare in the world, because we've allowed a parasitic trillion dollar insurance industry to serve as middle-men between patients and doctors.

Worse, private health insurers won't cover applicants with pre-existing conditions, expensive procedures (rescission* (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/06/healthcare-ceos-shoot-themselves-foot)), or procedures they deem as "unnecessary."

By contrast, we have several government sponsored health care programs that are very successful: the government employee's HMO provided to Congress, the Veteran's Administration, and Medicare. The existing Government healthcare programs do not selectively chose low-risk patients. Combined, they cover over 60 million American citizens, and all three have 10 times less administrative overhead than the private sector.

Should we continue to allow our health care industry to bleed us dry as we spiral deeper into debt?



*When you pay your premiums for years to a healthcare insurer, then get sick, and then have your insurance canceled.

psomero
08-21-2009, 01:01 PM
Last time I drove from LA to Indio, on I-10 at 10:00 PM, if you weren't doing 85 +, you would have been run over.


he didn't say it doesn't happen (95% of the time), he just said he doesn't know where it is legal, which is nowhere to the best of my knowledge...

psomero
08-21-2009, 01:04 PM
JT wants to think that nobody that has ever owned an Explorer has ever had to carry anything but a cell phone and a double latte. He keeps coming back to the single woman driver, and thinking that stereotype represents everybody that owns an Exploder.

Doc.



oddly enough, i know a single woman driver who owns two explorers and never carrys anything but a cellphone and groceries.

not saying that has any swing on his or your argument, but it was odd to think about it...

JCHannum
08-21-2009, 01:40 PM
There are lots of quotes floating around, the one cited was from a British contributor to another site, it is not original with him.

Regardless of its origin, it is no more or less valid than reciting the points of the administration you quote. Holding Medicaire and the VA programs up as an example of what can be expected from a G'ment run plan makes the idea even more frightening.

None of this has anything to do with CFC however.

lazlo
08-21-2009, 02:33 PM
Holding Medicaire and the VA programs up as an example of what can be expected from a G'ment run plan makes the idea even more frightening.

If you're adamantly against government-run healthcare, do you think we should cancel Medicare too? The 6 million people who have been laid-off in the last two years paid into the Medicare system too, but they're not covered because of the crappy way our system works.

This is the vinyl LP that actor Ronald Regan was paid, by the Health insurance companies, to narrate in 1965. He's describing the evils inherent in Socialized Medicine, with exact same arguments: it's rampant liberalism, it's going to lead to the spread of socialism, if you vote for socialized medicine, the US will become the Soviet Union, children won't be able to choose their profession ...

The thing is, he's talking specifically about Medicare:

http://www.youtube.com/v/iShCXx_xZDQ&hl=en&fs=1&

JCHannum
08-21-2009, 04:37 PM
I am adamantly against government getting any larger or more involved in running my life. I am forced into Medicare and Social Security, not by choice. I paid into SS for my entire working career and Medicare since its inception.

Medicaire is poorly managed, and run. Doctors are held up for payment and forced to accept what the G'ment will pay and to perform what the G'ment prescribes. The user is forced to play all sorts of games and jump through hoops to qualify for payment and still has to purchase supplemental insurance for adequate coverage. Add to that, it is going broke, just like the Post Office. Obamacare will fund itself in part by using Medicare funds further diminishing it.

Given the choice to not have had Medicare to begin with, I would most certainly vote against it. There is nothing to make me believe the G'ment will administer a health care program any differently than it has mismanaged any other program that is has ever gotten involved in.

plastikosmd
08-21-2009, 04:40 PM
I think you may want to research the WHO ranking system. Sadly, like all stats, thrown about on both sides, the rating is misused and really doesnt mean much except to grab headlines.

The rankings are made from 5 factors weighted as below:
1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
4. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
5. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent



“Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy” which on the surface makes sense as a measure of the health of a country. Of course, life expectancy is related to many factors not related to health care. Homicide rate, MVA’s from this statistic etc. are included. If you adjust these out, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth. So basically take out the things not tied to health care and our life expectancy actually one of the best. Also look at the 'real' numbers here. We aren not talking 70 yr old (current for us) vs 90, but 70 vs, 72..etc. I agree 2 years is worth something...just understand the numbers

“Financial fairness”- It measures the % of income spent on health care which basically means it places a more value on systems that force the wealthy to pay for the country's health care. This factor doesnt measure the quality of health care but rather how the costs are "equaled" out. So a country in which all health care is paid for by the gov't via a progressive tax system but delivers terrible care, they would score perfectly in this ranking. I have to do a bit more research...I believe Columbia is number 1. This means rich or poor...you each pay an equal portion toward health care...what I am not sure about is that is an equal percent...this rating may fall with the current plan if 'tax the rich' is where the money comes from. Tho I'm not sure until i do a bit more research. As far as the ranking...as a consumer and provider, it is near meaningless atm.


“Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, another thing that does not actually measure the quality of health care delivery. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but terrible, health care throughout the system. This is 37.5% of the ranking. While it is important to look at health delivery/responsiveness etc esp. to the poorer segments of a population, like a all stats..you can prove anything you want by looking at the data a different way.

As far as reponsiveness we are currently ranked 1st (time to see a doc) etc.
Looking at a local example ..,Mass health, wait times have gone from something like 20 to 50 or more days now....I just read it..cant site source from last week....so maybe we will drop. Clearly it will not improve with the current changes.


As one person quoted when reading the ranking system...

"So if obama's plan goes through, without anyone even getting care through the obama plan, our rankings in the WHO rankings would immediately skyrocket without our healthcare actually changing. "

I dont agree with 'skyrocket', but you need to be careful about quoting numbers when you cant explain where they are derived from.

dockterj
08-21-2009, 04:50 PM
The census data does not include illegals. The census data is collated and tracked by social security number.


Is that something that changed with the 2007 census? I don't remember seeing a SSN on the form.

JoeFin
08-21-2009, 05:10 PM
That post is a construction of the GOP and has been making the rounds at all the Winger sites, it did not come from a "British Poster on another Forum".

Lazlo

Why do you waste your time - The Frothing at the mouth GOP faithful aren't concerned with facts or reality and deserve all the diservice the GOP politicians will bring them

These guys won't be concerned about Health Insurance cost until the 1st time they have to use it and are BANKRUPTED and have to sell off their shop in a Public Liquidation Auction

But "Just for Spits and Giggles" here is a list of some of the Political Propaganda the GOP has been putting out


Sarah Palin


Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

http://www.tampabay.com/universal/politifact/rulings/tom-pantsonfire.gif

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/10/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-barack-obama-death-panel/



Liberty Counsel

Page 992 of the health care bill will "establish school-based 'health' clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!"

http://www.tampabay.com/universal/politifact/rulings/tom-pantsonfire.gif

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/07/liberty-counsel/school-health-clinics-would-not-provide-abortions/




Chain e-mail

"All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free-health-care-illegal-immigrants-health-bill/



Chain e-mail

In the health care bill, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/health-choices-commissioner-does-not-decide-your-h/




Glenn Beck

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."

http://www.tampabay.com/universal/politifact/rulings/tom-pantsonfire.gif

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/




Betsy McCaughey

The health care reform bill "would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner."

http://www.tampabay.com/universal/politifact/rulings/tom-pantsonfire.gif

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/betsy-mccaughey/mccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi/




The Rush LickBalls / GOP crowd are having a Really Hard Time Living in Reality right now and do little more these days other then make up school ground rumors to bolster their Erectile Dysfunctioning Egos

But again ..

lazlo
08-21-2009, 05:18 PM
I think you may want to research the WHO ranking system. Sadly, like all stats, thrown about on both sides, the rating is misused and really doesnt mean much except to grab headlines.

The rankings are made from 5 factors weighted as below:
1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
4. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
5. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

Scott, good post, but I have to disagree with your dismissing the WHO ranking. Your resource has renamed the WHO ranking categories to soften the blow, but the actual WHO ranking categories are:

25% Health
25% Health inequality
12.5% Level of responsiveness
12.5% Distribution of responsiveness
25% Fairness in financing


Like you say, health is ranked by “disability adjusted life expectancy.” In other words, they take the CIA's life expectancy ratings, and subtract-out murder, automobile accidents, etc.

"Health Inequality" is the statistical deviation of “disability adjusted life expectancy" across income level -- in other words, if rich people have good life expectancy, but poor people don't, you get penalized.

Similar deal for responsiveness (how long it takes to see a doctor), and fairness of responsiveness (how long it takes for a rich person to see a doctor versus a poor person). The former we're ranked #1 in the world, the latter (# days to see a doctor based on income level) is the worst in the industrialized world.

"Fairness in financing" is the per capita health insurance cost as a percentage of income. As several of our British brethren have commented, we especially fail here - we spend 2 -3 times as much, per person, for health insurance, than any country in the world.

If Obama's bill were passed, the only immediate improvement we'd see in the WHO healthcare rankings is the distribution of responsiveness: for the uninsured, the responsiveness is 0.

Here's WHO's paper describing the rankings, and the results:

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

Doc Nickel
08-21-2009, 07:50 PM
Why do you waste your time - The Frothing at the mouth GOP faithful aren't concerned with facts or reality and deserve all the diservice the GOP politicians will bring them[.]

-Hey cheesedi*k. It might behoove you to keep in mind that the extreme fringe doesn't represent everyone, m'kay?

Current polling support for Obamacare is currently hovering around 45% and falling. Are you going to try and tell me that 55% of the US is a rabid "frothing at the mouth" GOP loyalist?

Personally, I don't give a rat's damn about "death panels" (which was hyperbole) or any other such nonsense. Despite the fact I tend to identify on the Conservative side, believe it or not, I'm smart enough to think for myself.

And the fact is- fact, not hyperbole- that at the moment, we cannot afford "universal" health care, our current government-run heath systems (Medicare/caid) are failing badly as it is, and to top it off, Obama is trying to tell us that we'll be able to cover more people (46 million uninsured) but for less money... somehow.

Those three bullet points are facts. We're already running on borrowed money right now (the G'ment ran out of cash a month ago) and both the debt and deficits are at record highs- levels two and three and four times greater than the democrats were roasting Bush over a slow fire for just a year or two ago. The Care/Caid thing is clear as vodka for anyone that has read anything more strenuous than Calvin & Hobbes in the last ten years, and Obama's self-contradictions on costs (among others) can be found widely online- that is, anywhere outside of the TPM/DailyKos echo-chambers.

And those three facts alone are reason enough to oppose it. Screw "death panel" bullpucky, or whatever Markos is foisting off on you readers to distract you from the mechanics of the bill; We can't afford it, Government can't run it, and Obama doesn't even know what's in it well enough to argue it without contradicting himself.

So here's an idea: If you want us to listen to you, you need to stop listening to our fringe. In turn, we'll stop listening to your fringe. Obama's already lost the bulk of the moderates that got him elected, and unless he does a heavy one-eighty, will be a one-term president. And guys like you aren't helping.

Doc.

JCHannum
08-21-2009, 08:01 PM
That pretty well explains the situation.

Thanks for clearing things up Doc.

plastikosmd
08-21-2009, 08:27 PM
My point is not to debate the number 37. My point is that a lower number does not in any way equate to either a better system or better care. Over half of the variables used do not equate to better care. It is not meaningless but just another stat that can be used in many ways without proving a point.

w_hartung
08-21-2009, 08:38 PM
Is that something that changed with the 2007 census? I don't remember seeing a SSN on the form.


From Virginia's Health and Human Services:

“The United States Census does not determine whether residents are in the US legally. There is no portion of the Short Form asking about citizenship status, length of time in the US, or country of origin. The Long Form does ask for country of origin, and length of time in the US. Furthermore, the Long Form does ask if the person is a US citizen. However, the only non-citizen option is, "No, not a citizen of the United States". There is no further classification as Permanent Resident Alien, Lawful Permanent Resident, or Temporary Worker all of whom are legal residents, but not citizens. There is no specific classification for Undocumented Aliens, they too are lumped in the "Not a Citizen category. Unless there is a legislative mandate requiring a change to be made, the 2010 Census will be conducted in the same manner.”

http://www.hhr.virginia.gov/initiatives/immigrationcommission/Undocumented_Immigrant_Census_Data.pdf

JoeFin
08-21-2009, 08:45 PM
-Hey cheesedi*k. It might behoove you to keep in mind that the extreme fringe doesn't represent everyone, m'kay?

Current polling support for Obamacare is currently hovering around 45% and falling.

Doc.

CNN polling had 54% FAVORING Health Insurance Reform, and in case, your GOP clouded judgement has been affected resently by frothing at the mouth over your "Life Size - Sarah Palin/Rambo" poster - 54% is a MAJORITY

And TO DATE No one has proposed Universal Health Care

So in a Category of 1 to 10 of "Actually Knowing what Your talking About" you ranking some where around - let me see...... -2. Or as some like to put it "Just a 'Taint' away from Rush LickBalls

Beside All the GOP PROPAGANDA Medicare still has exremely low administrative cost when compared to private Health Insurance. About 3% compared to 16 - 25% administrative cost. Additionally Medicare doesn't have a "Profit Margin" either. Not that I'm against profits and capitolism. Just that when it is paid out of a Public Fund it doesn't make a lot of sense

Here is some information about Medicare's Administrative Cost (http://www.dora.state.co.us/Insurance/senior/misc2.pdf) from the Colorado Dept of Regulatory Agencies

andy_b
08-21-2009, 09:39 PM
CNN polling had 54% FAVORING Health Insurance Reform, and in case, your GOP clouded judgement has been affected resently by frothing at the mouth over your "Life Size - Sarah Palin/Rambo" poster - 54% is a MAJORITY

And TO DATE No one has proposed Universal Health Care

So in a Category of 1 to 10 of "Actually Knowing what Your talking About" you ranking some where around - let me see...... -2. Or as some like to put it "Just a 'Taint' away from Rush LickBalls

Beside All the GOP PROPAGANDA Medicare still has exremely low administrative cost when compared to private Health Insurance. About 3% compared to 16 - 25% administrative cost. Additionally Medicare doesn't have a "Profit Margin" either. Not that I'm against profits and capitolism. Just that when it is paid out of a Public Fund it doesn't make a lot of sense

Here is some information about Medicare's Administrative Cost (http://www.dora.state.co.us/Insurance/senior/misc2.pdf) from the Colorado Dept of Regulatory Agencies


he may rank -2 on knowing what he is talking about, but you're running a close second at -1 on the reading comprehension end of things. 55% being against the health care plan being discussed in Congress DOES NOT EQUAL 54% being in favor of health insurance reform. they are two different, though related, issues.

andy b.

lazlo
08-21-2009, 10:15 PM
My point is not to debate the number 37. My point is that a lower number does not in any way equate to either a better system or better care. Over half of the variables used do not equate to better care.

Scott, look at what WHO is measuring:




25% Health
25% Health inequality
12.5% Level of responsiveness
12.5% Distribution of responsiveness
25% Fairness in financing


health is ranked by “disability adjusted life expectancy.” In other words, they take the CIA's life expectancy ratings, and subtract-out murder, automobile accidents, etc.

Americans have the shortest life expectancy in the industrialized world. We have the widest variation of life expectancy between the rich and the poor in the industrialized world, and the widest variation in the amount of time it takes to see a doctor, depending on your income level.

Oh, and we have, by a factor of 250%, the highest per capita health care cost in the world.

Other than that, our system works great.

By the way, most Republican Congressmen agree that our healthcare system is horribly corrupt, inefficient, and ineffective. What we're all arguing about is whether we should fix it.

From yesterday's Radio Show,
Rush Limbaugh tells caller who can't afford $6,000 to treat broken wrist:" Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist" (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908200032)

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908200032

lazlo
08-21-2009, 10:25 PM
Since there are a lot of Stephen Hawking fans here, you might find this amusing. "The Register" is a British technology news page:

Stephen Hawking both British and not dead (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/hawking_british_and_alive/)

Obama health reform critics face inconvenient truth

In perhaps the most amusing effort to discredit US President Barack Obama's plan for nationalized health care - if not the most ridiculous - US financial newspaper Investor's Business Daily has said that if Stephen Hawking were British, he would be dead.

"The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof, are legendary," read a recent editorial from the paper. "The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror script...

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

The paper has since been notified that Hawking is both British and still among the living. And it has edited the editorial, acknowledging that the original version incorrectly represented the whereabouts of perhaps the world's most famous scientific mind. But it has not acknowledged that its mention of Hawking misrepresented the NHS as well.

"I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS," Hawking told The Guardian. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

The best you can say about Investor's Business Daily is that unlike US radio talk host Rush Limbaugh, it has not compared Obama's health care logo to a swastika.

JoeFin
08-21-2009, 10:33 PM
Health Care cost per capita
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/08/business/economy/08economix.chart.2.jpg

madman
08-21-2009, 10:33 PM
If it sucks SO MUCH Just Dont do It. Make sense???????????????

dp
08-21-2009, 10:34 PM
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that our health system is responsible for our living as long as we do. Of the nations rated we probably have the worst diet, worst exercise regimen, worst life style, and least justification to life longer than we do.

Don't remember where I said this earlier this week, but if you are going to compare the health of people in Chicago with the people in Tibet you are not going to get useful results. The entire concept is bogus. We can't even compare US citizens against Canadian citizens for the same reasons - we're not good at keeping ourselves healthy between visits to the clinic.

dp
08-21-2009, 10:36 PM
Since there are a lot of Stephen Hawking fans here, you might find this amusing. "The Register" is a British technology news page:

Stephen Hawking both British and not dead (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/hawking_british_and_alive/)

Obama health reform critics face inconvenient truth

In perhaps the most amusing effort to discredit US President Barack Obama's plan for nationalized health care - if not the most ridiculous - US financial newspaper Investor's Business Daily has said that if Stephen Hawking were British, he would be dead.

OMFG, that's funny!

lazlo
08-21-2009, 10:48 PM
If it sucks SO MUCH Just Dont do It. Make sense???????????????

Look very hard at the second graph Joe posted.

Most Americans, in both parties, agree that our healthcare system is FUBAR. The status quo is unsustainable.

wierdscience
08-21-2009, 10:57 PM
Republicans are not at all oppsed to heathcare reform.The problem is all of the reform has been stripped from the current pile of bills.

There is no medical tort reform,no insurance reform,no national insurance market,no co-ops,the only thing these bills currently offer is shifting control to the federal government and creating another even larger bureaucracy.Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Medicare and medicaid are not more efficient at administration.They shift nearly all of the paper work over onto doctors and facilities that accept it which are getting fewer daily,it's a shell game nothing more.

We also have three state run examples of failure right here in the states.

No the only reason the Dems haven't shoved this down our throats yet is because they want a few RINOs to go along so when it fails they can claim it was a bi-partisan effort and not totally they're fault.

They may go ahead and do it anyway,but it will become a millstone around they're necks come 2010 and 2012.

JCHannum
08-21-2009, 10:57 PM
There is no question that there are problems with the health care system in the US. They come from many sources. The solution is not to replace the entire system with yet another government program that is doomed from the start, but to undertake a comprehensive study, preferrably by an apolitical entity, to identify and suggest corrections and solutions.

There is little in the proposed system that actually addresses improving healthcare. In fact the title of the initiative has morphed from healthcare reform to health insurance reform.

Want a peek at a government Health Care program? Take a look at what goes on in the VA, and tell me how this represents an improvement;

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/money/20482254/detail.html

Hollowbuilt
08-21-2009, 11:04 PM
My wife and I pay over 24,000 USD to Blue Cross every year. We both have pre existing conditions. And we live in California. But the real reason US Health Care is so expensive, is because it is delivered in the USA and is a product of the USA.

Education, for the most of us, is a USA product delivered to us in the USA. So is Fire Protection, Police Protection, and protection from felonious people (Prisons).

These products, mentioned above, are Union Protected. So, relatively speaking, they are expensive.

And while California is going to go bankrupt from supporting these Unions and their great pay/benefit packages, I just wonder at it all. Saw a brand-new Jaguar with a Firemans plate on it just the other day. Not bad for a job that requires a high school diploma.

Chris

Doc Nickel
08-21-2009, 11:06 PM
CNN polling had 54% FAVORING Health Insurance Reform, and in case, your GOP clouded judgement has been affected resently by frothing at the mouth over your "Life Size - Sarah Palin/Rambo" poster - 54% is a MAJORITY[.]

-My, aren't you pleasant to chat with. Yessir, I've seen various polls ranging from only 34% in favor, to close to 60% in favor. The reliable polls, though, place it at less than fifty percent at the moment.


And TO DATE No one has proposed Universal Health Care

-Excuse me? Just what the hell do you think Obamacare IS? Despite your lickspittle lefty talking points (see? I can do it too! :D ) the current plan will result in government-only, single-payer heath care. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. And if that resulting government-only health care isn't then "universal", then it will be, by definition, "rationed"- which is, as I'm sure you're aware, another one of those tighty-righty complaints.

You're trying to do the same as the Administration- telling us the program will do one thing, when as it's written, it'll do something else entirely. We call that bait-and-switch.


Beside All the GOP PROPAGANDA Medicare still has exremely low administrative cost when compared to private Health Insurance.

-So is that why it's damn near bankrupt? Medicaid is almost broke too. So's the Post Office. We won't even mention the whole Social Security Ponzi scheme... Is this the Government you want as the sole and only supplier of health care?

Look, I happen to agree with you. We need some form of health care reform, and while the "46 million uninsured" is a myth (or at least hyperbole) there are, indeed, people that could use "free" health care. (Which is not in any way, of course, "free"- it just means "paid for by someone else".)

The problem here is that Obama is a amateur. He really doesn't have any idea what's going on, or how to do anything other than campaign. He told Congress to pass a "Stimulus" bill, but gave no direction or parameters whatsoever. He left it entirely up to Reid and Pelosi, who went nuts jamming every pork-barrel Lib project they could find into it, but left out details like, you know, how to properly distribute it, how to track usage and distribution, adding any requirements for use of the funds, etc.

Obama then called on Congress to pass Health Care Reform. Same game- that's all the instructions he gave them- "Reform health care". Everyone had their idea of what should be included and what should be excluded, and what should be changed or replaced or removed. The bill is a complete and utter mess, and again, Obama gave no direction whatsoever- and has demonstrated his obvious unfamiliarity with key parts many times- and just wanted it rammed through by August, whether or not anyone's read it or not.

This was, of course, the man who campaigned on the idea of letting "sunshine" into the legislative process- posting bills online for at least five days before he signed it. (One of the first campaign promises he broke, by the way.)

The current bill is still in flux, with several committees working on it- yet he still wanted Congress to vote on it.

Besides that, he has overwhelming majorities in both houses- he could steamroller the bill through without a single Republican vote- but he still complains about Republican interference holding up the bill.

So while I agree we do need some sort of reform- in part, tort reform, in part an overhaul of Medicare/caid, plus almost certainly some new programs. But the way Obama is trying to ram it through is extremely dishonest- he's lying to you, he's lying to me, he's lying to the media, and he's lying to congress.

Rather than try to negotiate, and accomodate concerns or features of the bill that people might not like, he wants to jam it down our throats whether we want it or not. And when someone expresses a concern, does he address that concern? No, he calls them "unamerican", or, as you do, a Limbaugh loyalist. So instead of being the bipartisan president he campaigned as, he's shown himself to be even more partisan than the hated Bush, thin-skinned and extremely arrogant.

Couple that arrogant throat-ramming with the fact the bill itself is crap, and there's no wonder why it's meeting increasing opposition. You're calling people names simply for the fact they're not blindly agreeing to this horribly bad bill, and mocking a few fringe claims thinking they're the reason for mainstream opposition.

As I said before- you're not helping.

Doc.

plastikosmd
08-21-2009, 11:31 PM
1) I do not disagree the system needs work. I already said...if you come to my office with an issue and you have medicare...I'm sorry I can no longer see you...net 720 (2 years) is as far as I will extend credit. This is sad as 40 % of my time and surgeries are donated/free care.

2) You stated your bias in the WHO numbers, I stated mine. Considering I donate time to some of those countries on the list..and some of my associates donate to others that rank above us...the numbers do not provide you the full picture...sorry. I would not have to go to those countries and provide care..for what is standard here. And yes, my clinic here runs 3 days a week, staffed by our residents/nurses and attendings...all for free, including surgeries.

3) Working at the VA and dealing with medicare/caid, there is no way I believe or trust our goverment on any level to cut cost and provide quality care. They are the definition of waste. It is almost laughable. There has been ample time to 'reform' the above systems..and they are one big sinkhole. Go ahead and create another one.

I'm not saying dont reform the system, ...it needs it...just be sure you have some idea of what 'reform' is. Right now, it is all useless soundbytes...

JoeFin
08-21-2009, 11:39 PM
To call it “Obamacare” and claim it IS or to claim You Know for a Fact it Will Eventually Lead to Universal Healthcare is a LIE


-Excuse me? Just what the hell do you think Obamacare IS? Despite your lickspittle lefty talking points (see? I can do it too! :D ) the current plan will result in government-only, single-payer heath care. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. And if that resulting government-only health care isn't then "universal", then it will be, by definition, "rationed"- which is, as I'm sure you're aware, another one of those tighty-righty complaints.

You're trying to do the same as the Administration- telling us the program will do one thing, when as it's written, it'll do something else entirely. We call that bait-and-switch.

Doc.

Most Americans still want a Public Option Plan because they do not trust the Insurance companies – and for good reason. And if the Health Insurance Companies can not compete, it is merely because the Greedy Bastards do not want to.

Most countries that Do Have Universal Health Care also have a 2 tierd system of both Public and Private funding


Two-tier health care is a term used by some to describe a situation that arises when there is a basic health care system financed by government providing medically necessary but perhaps quite basic health care services, and a secondary tier of care for those with access to more funds who can purchase additional health care not covered by the publicly financed system or which permits better quality or faster access.
Most countries have both public and privately funded health care, but the degree to which this creates a quality differential depends on the way the two systems are managed, funded, and regulated. Some publicly funded universal health care systems deliver excellent service and the private system tends to be small and not highly differentiated. In other, typically poorer countries, the public health system is underfunded and over stretched, offering opportunities for private companies to deliver better quality, more time, albeit more expensive health care coverage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-tier_health_care

Does it keep cost down?

Does it keep Health Insurance Companies Honest

You bet it does – just look at the chart of Health Care cost per capita. Those same countries on the list have 2 tiered health coverage – and they still pay ½ of what we pay

Health Care Cost per Capita
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif

So to call it “Obamacare” and claim it IS or will eventally lead to Universal Healthcare is a LIE

dp
08-21-2009, 11:40 PM
What the hell happened to the clunkers thread?

A.K. Boomer
08-22-2009, 12:42 AM
Good one DP, I tuned into this to see what was going on and thought id landed on yet another planet (I have to deal with these kinda "issues" just getting around the house anymore - or so it seems)
anyways -- clunkers is about to fizzle and its about time, something like 51% of the rebates were going to purchase kia's and hyundie's and the like --- does south korea have any plants in the US yet?

I really did see some kind of a need for a jump start - but since its the big 3 that are hurting and since its OUR gubbermint that's doing the bailing -- couldnt we have installed some kind of a clause that made it an american vehicle exclusive or would that have been some kind of discrimination?:rolleyes:

just thinking out loud with a head full of ale...

lazlo
08-22-2009, 12:52 AM
Just what the hell do you think Obamacare IS? Despite your lickspittle lefty talking points (see? I can do it too! :D ) the current plan will result in government-only, single-payer heath care. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.

OBama's bill is not a single-payer system. You know this Doc.

The "Public Option" that's got the health insurance industry panicked is simply an optional government provided health insurance plan, using existing doctors, and labs. In other words, it's exactly like Medicare.

That's why the health insurers are spending $1 Million dollars/day of our insurance premiums bussing Bubba to Town Halls with signs that say "What's Wrong with Profit?"

What's wrong with profit is that the health insurance industry are basically ticket scalpers that have inserted themselves between the patient and the doctor. The reason the health insurance industry spends $450 Billion dollars in "administrative costs" each year, is because they have to pay for private jets and million dollar executive bonuses, for example. For what?

Medicare, VA, and the National Health Care programs of all the industrialized nations do not operate with the expressed purpose of generating a trillion dollar revenue stream for organizations that provide no value add to the system. That's why Medicare and the VA have 3% overheads.

The primary purpose of the Public Option is to provide competition for the private insurers. That's why the health insurance industry is fighting it so hard.


So is that why it's damn near bankrupt? Medicaid is almost broke too. So's the Post Office. We won't even mention the whole Social Security Ponzi scheme...

I don't know if you've noticed, but our country has been bankrupt since George Sr. And as we all know, Junior ran out the debt clock in Time Square with tax cuts to the rich, borrowing money for an unjust war, and spending $8.5 trillion dollars bailing out Wall Street from their Junk Bond Ponzi scheme, so that the taxpayers can pay the AIG Execs $1.08 Billion in performance bonuses each year.

So suddenly we're worried about spending $50 Billion/year on health care? At it's peak, Bush was spending $60 Billion/year in Iraq.


We need some form of health care reform, and while the "46 million uninsured" is a myth (or at least hyperbole) there are, indeed, people that could use "free" health care. (Which is not in any way, of course, "free"- it just means "paid for by someone else".)

The updated 2009 Census results come out on September 10, and the number of uninsured will increase wildly, because over 6 million people have lost their jobs since November, 2007 -- so add 6 million families to the masses of the uninsured.

The Public Option isn't free -- if you elect to enroll in the Public Option, you will pay an insurance premium, just like you do for private insurance.


You're calling people names simply for the fact they're not blindly agreeing to this horribly bad bill, and mocking a few fringe claims thinking they're the reason for mainstream opposition.

What sickens most Americans is that a naive segment of our population is being fed a steady ration of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt from the usual suspects, and Fox/The Tea Party are passing out flyers with instructions on how to disrupt the town halls:

Flyer from The Tea Party:

Disrupting the Town Halls: Best Practices: (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/townhallactionmemo.pdf)

– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”

– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

And so, before the whole World, our Town Halls have turned into sickening scenes of ignorance, hate, and fear. People showing up to Town Halls with swastikas and loaded assault rifles, people screaming racial epithets, ...

http://www.youtube.com/v/GVS4Zgjm8HE&hl=en&fs=1&

Jim Shaper
08-22-2009, 12:59 AM
The sales occurring here means they're still generating sales taxes, income taxes (for the sales staff), title and registration taxes, insurance premium increases, potentially raising revenue taxes on those corporations who still have to pay the feds to operate here, and I'm sure I'm missing a couple others...

Just like it was in the army - they pay you, and then take it all back.

Doc Nickel
08-22-2009, 02:01 AM
OBama's bill is not a single-payer system. You know this Doc.

-No, they're trying to tell us it's not single-payer, but the way it'll pan out if implemented- unintended consequences and all that- is that employers and others will drop their own insurance in a heartbeat- it costs employers money, after all- shifting huge numbers from current private coverage over to public.

Besides that, as the bill is written, only coverage current as of when the bill is passed (or some included deadline) will be 'grandfathered' in. That coverage you can keep... until you change jobs, or want to change doctors or providers, etc.

It's not that simple, but the fact is, the bill will eventually shift the bulk of insured persons over to government coverage. At best you can call it "stealth" single-payer, but in the end, it's still single-payer.


The "Public Option" that's got the health insurance industry panicked is simply an optional government provided health insurance plan, using existing doctors, and labs. In other words, it's exactly like Medicare.

-Optional, as I noted above, until you change jobs or doctors. If implemented as currently written, within ten or fifteen years, it will become de facto single-payer, which is what it's designed to do.


Medicare, VA, and the National Health Care programs of all the industrialized nations do not operate with the expressed purpose of generating a trillion dollar revenue stream for organizations that provide no value add to the system. That's why Medicare and the VA have 3% overheads.

-And Medicare/caid and the VA are of course sterling examples of high-quality, low-cost care. I seem to recall Bush being hammered over the shoddy care returning Iraq vets were receiving from the VA, just a few years ago.

And again, 3% overhead or 30% overhead, both Medicare and Medicaid are effectively bankrupt, yet we're being told that we can add forty million more people to the coverage, but somehow it'll cost less than they're spending now. It's insulting that they think we'll believe that.


The primary purpose of the Public Option is to provide competition for the private insurers. That's why the health insurance industry is fighting it so hard.

-And I'm sure you think that the only opposition is coming from the insurance companies. Obama can spend $140 million to promote the legislation (through a rather shady backroom deal with PhRMA, that's lining his Chief of Staff's pockets?) but the insurance companies can't spend money against a badly-written, rushed and damaging bill that will directly affect both them and the patients they serve?


I don't know if you've noticed, but our country has been bankrupt since George Sr. And as we all know, Junior ran out the debt clock in Time Square with tax cuts to the rich, borrowing money for an unjust war, and spending $8.5 trillion dollars bailing out Wall Street from their Junk Bond Ponzi scheme, so that the taxpayers can pay the AIG Execs $1.08 Billion in performance bonuses each year.

-Which just makes me wonder all that much harder why people are trying to roll over another 15% of our GDP over to government control, after said government has already tripled the deficit over what they were lambasting Bush for just a year ago, and are on track to quadruple the debt in the next ten years.

Oh sure, we're broke, we're in debt to the Chinese up past our eyeballs, but hey, let's shove through a badly-written bill that'll add forty million more people to Medicare.

As I've said, I agree that we need some sort of reform. But this isn't the way to do it.

Doc.

gmatov
08-22-2009, 03:01 AM
Hey, Doc,

Guys like YOU, who know EVERYTHING, don't help either. Yoiu THINK you know it all. You TELL us you are only a little bit Rep, like girls can be a "little bit pregnant".

****, next post, you said it, JC swears to it. Sheesh.

Our CURRENT system spends 2.5 TRILLION bucks on health care. One sixth of our GDP. No one else in the world spends a greater percentage.

Medicare is owed TRILLIONS that YOU will have to pay before you die, redeeming Treasury Notes. YOU got the benefit of borrowing those surpluses to keep your current taxes low. You gotta pay the piper if you wanna dance.

Your "fringe" is Grassley, Minority Leader, NO? Oh, NO, Boner is. Grassley is only the guy who helped write the bill, and now thinks it needs to have 80 votes, instead of 51, or the 61 for cloture.
Doc,

We can't afford 48 million people without medical care. You might have the best in the world. You come face to face with an uncovered person with something contagious, YOU got it, JUST because you are so mean (read stingy) that you deny care to people who can carry disease to you or yours.

It says reams that the Heath Care Industry swore they would cut 150 BILLION from FUTURE health costs, IF the present plan would require that all those NOT covered were required to buy insurance. 15 BILLION per year, if you would MAKE 46 million BUY insurance, is a bargain. They would rake in much more than 15 billion per year in premiums.

Ditto for the 80 billion that drug companies forswore over 10 years, if the Gov didn't insist on bargaining on the price of drugs. 8 billion per year, and there are drugs that near 8 billion per year in sales, for ONE drug, the efficacy of which is NOT proven, most of which are reformulations, today, to maintain their patent.

The bill will not pass. 40 Reps are stronger than 60 dems. The Reps have all the money on their side, as well as all the liars, including some of you who religiously preach their mantra.

Cheers,

George

Doc,

You lie.

"after said government has already tripled the deficit "

The "deficit" for this year is still part of the Bush legacy. Plus, we have 9.5% unemployment, soon to rise. 450 billion goes to paying interest on the Debt that Bush brought to 11 TRILLION bucks, from about 5 TRILLION when Clinton left office. Deficit spent more in dollars, and maybe as percent of GDP than in major wars.

Our debt is about par with our, today, GDP, because we are in damned near Depression. We spent and are still spending several hundred billions per year in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have more civilians in the USG than we have ever had, those of whom in Government office, make twice what the "beaurocrat" makes.

Were I a Gov employee making half what a Blackwater or other contractor makes, and he asked me what we do now, I would say, "Hey, you make the money. You decide." There are more civilian contractors assigned to the Military than we have Troops. Halliburton is happy as hell. I am not. You seem to be, since you like the status quo.

Edit 2:

Doc: Full of **** 2:

"it costs employers money, after all- shifting huge numbers from current private coverage over to public."

BS. YOU follow the Party Line. Obama said "You will NOT have to change your coverage." FAIR says: "He's NOT telling the truth. What if an employer decides to CANCEL his coverage of his employees? They'll HAVE to join the Public Option."

No ****. You, out of spite, cancel the employee's coverage, they have AN option, which they did NOT have before, other than to pay 12 to 18 thou to replace it on their own.

This WOULD be a good reason to leave an employer who cancels their coverage, which some of you THINK is 40 bucks an hour or some such ridiculous figure that a Unionized plant is required to pay per employee. If it's 2 bucks an hour to some of you in job shops, you will not buy anywhere near the same coverage on your own.

Take the Gov option and tell your "ex" employer you will go get a job with a less miserly boss. Tomorrow, if enough of you leave, he will give you a raise to come back. If not, f'im. Take another higher paying job. If you HAVE to buy your own Ins, it will be with after tax dollars. He pays for it with pre-tax dollars. Deductible. You don't get to deduct. He pays 2 bucks, deducts the 2 bucks, 1/3 or so tax break.

"As I've said, I agree that we need some sort of reform. But this isn't the way to do it."

Bull****. I don't believe for a second you think we need ANY reform, unless it is Rep reform that maybe calls for "restraint" on the part of the employee and any Union involved. How many employees do you have ? Are they taking you to the poorhouse? Would you throw a nickle into the Salvation Army kettle, or are they, TOO, moochers?

gmatov
08-22-2009, 03:45 AM
Oh, z****, dp gotta chime in again.

Of the nations rated we probably have the worst diet, worst exercise regimen, worst life style, and least justification to life longer than we do.

Australia has been measured as the fattest country in the Industrialized world. Yes, they actually do outweigh us. They eat more than we do, they drink more than we do, although they wouldn't DREAM of drinking YOUR favourite Foster's Beer.

Japanese smoke more than we do, drink more than we do, work, or used to, more than we do. Many died from overwork, before, don't know if it is still true.

Most Europeans drink more than we do, work less than we do. 35 or so hours a week, and we are over 40 as an average. They have more vacation, so less stress from work. I wonder at the smoking rate in the healthiest countries. We are down to about 25% or so, yet MANY lung cancer deaths.

Maybe you don't know all of what you speak? Scientists can't come to a concensus, but YOU know what it's all about? Why are they not paying you big money to consult for the NIH?

Cheers,

George

dp
08-22-2009, 04:03 AM
Oh, z****, dp gotta chime in again.

Of the nations rated we probably have the worst diet, worst exercise regimen, worst life style, and least justification to life longer than we do.

Australia has been measured as the fattest country in the Industrialized world. Yes, they actually do outweigh us. They eat more than we do, they drink more than we do, although they wouldn't DREAM of drinking YOUR favourite Foster's Beer.

Japanese smoke more than we do, drink more than we do, work, or used to, more than we do. Many died from overwork, before, don't know if it is still true.

Most Europeans drink more than we do, work less than we do. 35 or so hours a week, and we are over 40 as an average. They have more vacation, so less stress from work. I wonder at the smoking rate in the healthiest countries. We are down to about 25% or so, yet MANY lung cancer deaths.

Maybe you don't know all of what you speak? Scientists can't come to a concensus, but YOU know what it's all about? Why are they not paying you big money to consult for the NIH?

Cheers,

George

But George - nobody does it all wrong as well as we do all of it wrong. It's not enough that we drink, smoke, eat badly, don't exercise, and sit for hours before our televisions in a fart-fill atmosphere of our own creation - we jump out of airplanes, we hang glide, we motorcycle, we hang off the sides of sheer cliffs by our nails, we hike in the woods with bears, and we have unsafe sex. Well, I don't, but you get the point. Unlike most of the world, George, particularly Tristan de Cunha, Tibet, Athabasca, and the island kingdom of Tonga, we exceed everyone's expectations of how not to live healthy by a wide margin. Only Emperor Penguins live closer to the edge than do Americans. And, perhaps, manatees.

Point being our health care system is far more challenged than that of Tristan de Cunha, as a random example, where the greatest health threat is terminal boredom.

gmatov
08-22-2009, 04:03 AM
Wierd,

I gotta ask you a Barney Frank question. "What planet do you spend most of your time on""

"Medicare and medicaid are not more efficient at administration.They shift nearly all of the paper work over onto doctors and facilities that accept it which are getting fewer daily,it's a shell game nothing more."

I don't think there is a single Doctor or Hospital that ever deals WITH Medicare. Medicare CONTRACTS with Health care providers to do the paperwork. You NEVER deal with the USG itself, you deal with the Insurance Company representatives who handle the Medicare patients, for which they take their pound of flesh.

Bookkeepers, ie.

Insurance companies pay all the bills for Medicare. That seems to me to mean that when guys like YOU bitch about 60 billion bucks of Medicare Fraud, it means that YOUR insurance company screwed Medicare and by the same token, YOU out of 60 billion bucks.

Why is it OK for a private company to screw you out of 60 billion bucks, and YOU blame it all om Medicare? They are INCOMPETENT! THEY waste BILLIONS!!!

Every billion that is defrauded from Medicare passes through that Insurance Company's hands, and that Insurance Company gets its commission on every single dollar.

Were there an honest and thorough investigation into Medicare Fraud, I would wager that 99% of the heads of Insurance Companies would face MAJOR fines and jail time. Steal a billion from the taxpayer via Medicare, OK. Steal a page from a Post-It pad, you're fired.

You guys seem to like it the way it is.

Cheers,

George

gmatov
08-22-2009, 04:23 AM
dp,

I drink, I used to smoke, still do, a little, I eat what I consider well, you might not (not unhealthy, I don't think, just you might not think that beans and kraut can be considered eating well, 'specially as a soup), I don't exercise, and I do sit before the comp, with the TV for background noise.

Rest of them things, no way. You simply do NOT jump out of a perfectly functioning airplane.

It does not really matter. If another country has a higher longevity than we do, WHY? You can't say it is Tibet, all they eat is rice, or Tonga, all they eat is fish and bananas, or Japan, who smoke at least as much, and eat raw fish, some poisonous, and lots of rice, BUT, you gotta remember they have Kobe beef, the most fabulously marbeled steaks you will ever find. LOTS of fat in them.

England, France, Italy, possibly Germany, all eat at least as much fat as we do, drink as much as we do, live longer than we do. Within a couple pounds as to average weight, too, I would wager.

Funny thing is, until about 40 years ago, stocky people were considered to be the healthiest of us until the Ascetics came into power. "You're not SUPPOSED to enjoy food or anything else. You're supposed to exist to WORK!"

You play into the controllers hands when you endorse "Healthy Lifestyle" as a State norm. How many miles per day do you put on YOUR treadmill? You are probably short. it SHOULD be connected to your Ins Co's computers. Premium adjusted to suit.

Cheers,

George

Doc Nickel
08-22-2009, 04:37 AM
Guys like YOU, who know EVERYTHING, don't help either.

-True. But in this particular case, who started denigrating others as "Lumbaugh followers" and "frothing-at-the-mouth" loyalists?

I'll be happy to discuss this with you, but if all you can do is insult and spew venom, why the hell should I listen to your point of view? Or, for that matter, why should I believe Obama when he calls me a "planted astroturfer" or a "shill for the insurance industry" or "unpatriotic"?


We can't afford 48 million people without medical care.

-Sure we can. We're doing it now. And besides, hasn't it occurred to anyone to look at just who, exactly, are the 'uninsured'?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon072409.gif


The bill will not pass. 40 Reps are stronger than 60 dems. The Reps have all the money on their side, as well as all the liars, including some of you who religiously preach their mantra.

-And when you use derogatory language like that, why do you wonder why people don't flock to your side?

You're doing the same thing Obama, Reid and Pelosi are doing- you're demonizing anyone that doesn't follow lockstep with your views. And a great deal of the resistance they're getting is because they're trying to ram it down our throats.

Had Obama simply made and stated his decision to revamp health care, say, before the end of his first term- rather than "by August"- and then calmly and methodically- and publicly- getting the input of the American people, of the doctors and practitioners who would have to handle the new patients, of the drug companies (who, like the oil companies are not "evil huge corporations") and so on, and began drafting a well-researched bill that, while probably still somewhat argued over (hey, it's America) would perhaps be far better- as in actually beneficial- and at least palatable to the most people.

But he didn't want to do that. He wanted, to put it bluntly, a trophy. He considers the $700 billion horrifically-wasteful and almost entirely ineffectual Stimulus as a "trophy", a piece of landmark legislation for him. That's all health care was too- just a score for his playbook. He was almost entirely hands-off in developing it or even suggesting what was to go in it or how it was to be administrated- and now that he's meeting resistance, he's done nothing to 'discuss' aspects of it, he's just gone on TV to tell us how wonderful it is. Oh, and to call everyone that disagrees with him- a large segment of the population- "unpatriotic" and a "shill", and then telling them to "shut up and get out of the way".

Sorry, that's not how a politician billed as being "brilliant" and an "exceptional orator" is supposed to lead the nation.


The "deficit" for this year is still part of the Bush legacy.

-True, in part. Bush, however, didn't pass the $787 billion "stimulus", which by itself added a third again to fiscal 2009's deficit, bringing the total to some $1.3 trillion. The Dems, Obama included, were lambasting Bush just a couple of years ago, over what they called an "unsustainable" $450bn deficit.


Plus, we have 9.5% unemployment, soon to rise.

-9.7%, actually, with the true number being closer to the mid-teens if you count people who are no longer receiving unemployment benefits but have still not yet found a job.

And I seem to recall that one of the reasons given for the Stimulus- and it's haste in passing and it's known wads of pork- was to keep unemployment under eight percent. But hey, I'm totally okay with believing them about health care after that whopper. :D


Bull****. I don't believe for a second you think we need ANY reform, unless it is Rep reform that maybe calls for "restraint" on the part of the employee and any Union involved.

-And there you go again. Your side and your viewpoint are the only possible correct ones, and anyone that disagrees with you is an evil, nasty, heartless scum-sucking bastard. Way to win converts to your side, big guy. It isn't working for Obama either, and you don't even know why. You can't even comprehend why someone might disagree with you, and I see the same exact arrogance every time I catch Obama on TV.

You guys gave Bush a ration of crap when he said "You're either with us or you're against us"- said to actual terrorist-sponsoring nations. Now and Obama are saying the same thing, slightly reworded- and to your own countrymen- and wonder why you're plummeting in the polls.

Sorry to disappoint, but I do, in fact, think we need some health care reform. If not outright reform, we at least need to tweak Medicare/caid to reduce waste and get 'em back in the black again.

No, I don't know how to do it, or what, specifically, needs to be done. I'm neither a doctor (despite the internet nick) nor an insurance company shill. But as I recall, neither is anyone in Congress, nor is Obama himself (although his wife was apparently involved in something called a "patient dumping" scheme- which I'm sure is just more Limbaugh hot air) and neither did they consult any doctors before starting to draft the bill.

I would be far more supportive of the bill had they done so, rather than pushing for a ridiculously short and entirely arbitrary deadline to sign.

Doc.

wierdscience
08-22-2009, 08:05 AM
Wierd,

I gotta ask you a Barney Frank question. "What planet do you spend most of your time on""

Unfortunatley the same one you do,go home.


"Medicare and medicaid are not more efficient at administration.They shift nearly all of the paper work over onto doctors and facilities that accept it which are getting fewer daily,it's a shell game nothing more."

I don't think there is a single Doctor or Hospital that ever deals WITH Medicare. Medicare CONTRACTS with Health care providers to do the paperwork. You NEVER deal with the USG itself, you deal with the Insurance Company representatives who handle the Medicare patients, for which they take their pound of flesh.

You have no clue of what your talking about.


Insurance companies pay all the bills for Medicare. That seems to me to mean that when guys like YOU bitch about 60 billion bucks of Medicare Fraud, it means that YOUR insurance company screwed Medicare and by the same token, YOU out of 60 billion bucks.

That statement is just bizzare.


Why is it OK for a private company to screw you out of 60 billion bucks, and YOU blame it all om Medicare? They are INCOMPETENT! THEY waste BILLIONS!!!

Every billion that is defrauded from Medicare passes through that Insurance Company's hands, and that Insurance Company gets its commission on every single dollar.

They aren't screwing me out of anything,I shop for my insurance like everyone should.If we could buy insurance across state lines I could buy insurance even cheaper.But no the Dems don't want that,can't have competition between the G'mint plan and private insurance.


Were there an honest and thorough investigation into Medicare Fraud, I would wager that 99% of the heads of Insurance Companies would face MAJOR fines and jail time. Steal a billion from the taxpayer via Medicare, OK. Steal a page from a Post-It pad, you're fired.

You guys seem to like it the way it is.

Cheers,

George

If there was an investigation into Medicaid and Medicare 1/3 of the people recieving it would be off it.

tony ennis
08-22-2009, 11:58 AM
It's a complex issue. I have these questions that have not been answered by our Betters:

1a. Why does the world flock to the US when they need above-and-beyond medical care? My Ecuadoran pal Juan came to the US for his brain surgery. He stayed :)

1b. Will this new system endanger our capacity to provide the best medical treatment in the world?

2. Why does sit take 3 months to get an MRI in Canada? My mom needed one for her knee within the last few months and got it in a week.

3a. Socialized medicine is shown to be sustainably expensive - and ever growing - in all nations supporting it. What is different about Obama's plan that will make it sustainable?

3b. Why aren't other nations using this technique?

4. Every government program to date - every one of them - keeps expanding. What is different about this one?

5. Can anyone think of a way to get insurance for the uninsured 10m without ganking the other 290m in the process?

6. Why is health insurance so expensive? Why can't we get a collection of typical medical bills and trace the whereabouts of each dollar? It seems to me this would tell us where the seemingly exponential expense is happening.

This non-debate is very shrill and full of misinformation. It is driven by ideology and politics, not rational thought.

JoeFin
08-22-2009, 12:10 PM
Originally Posted by gmatov
Insurance companies pay all the bills for Medicare. That seems to me to mean that when guys like YOU bitch about 60 billion bucks of Medicare Fraud, it means that YOUR insurance company screwed Medicare and by the same token, YOU out of 60 billion bucks.

That statement is just bizzare.

This Testimony Before the House Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations would disagree with you


False Claims

Billing companies that engage in behavior that gives rise to false claims can be held accountable under the False Claims Act. One such case was brought through qui tam or "whistleblower" lawsuits. The firm, Emergency Physicians Billing Service, had promised its clients it would increase their reimbursements by 10 to 25 percent. Unfortunately, it did so by "upcoding," or filing claims for a higher level of service than was actually delivered. Reassignment violations and misrepresentations on Medicare enrollment applications were also identified.

In a settlement agreement last fall with the federal government and 28 individual states, the firm and its owner, and J. D. McKean, Jr., M.D., agreed to pay $15.5 million. In addition, McKean is excluded for 15 years from participation in any federal health care program. The firm has entered into a comprehensive Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Inspector General. And the federal government is negotiating additional settlements with approximately 25 emergency physician groups that were clients of the firm.

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000406a.html

Goggle can be Your Friend - that is if you use it

JoeFin
08-22-2009, 12:18 PM
It's a complex issue. I have these questions that have not been answered by our Betters:

1a. Why does the world flock to the US when they need above-and-beyond medical care? My Ecuadoran pal Juan came to the US for his brain surgery. He stayed :) .

Probably because Ecuador is a Economically Challenged 3rd world country


2. Why does sit take 3 months to get an MRI in Canada? My mom needed one for her knee within the last few months and got it in a week..

Funny - I had to hire a Lawyer to force my Health Insurance Provider to give me a MRI in 1994, otherwise I would still be waiting for treatment


3a. Socialized medicine is shown to be sustainably expensive - and ever growing - in all nations supporting it. What is different about Obama's plan that will make it sustainable?

Better question would be "Why are countries with Socialised Medicine paying LESS Per Capita (some 1/3 of the cost) for Health Care then the United States?


Can anyone think of a way to get insurance for the uninsured 10m without ganking the other 290m in the process?

Problem is Tony - you are already being "Ganked"

Hospitals are alowed "by law" to charged increased fees to cover "unreimbursed medical cost" (which is a fancy way of saying The Uninsured) to the tune of $1000 for every family in America presently paying for Health Insurance. The Question I have is "How much of this "Unreimbursed Medical Expense" is caused by Health Insurance Companies routinely denying claims

Rustybolt
08-22-2009, 03:15 PM
JoeFin said,
"To call it “Obamacare” and claim it IS or to claim You Know for a Fact it Will Eventually Lead to Universal Healthcare is a LIE"


Remember the war on poverty? We lost.

Remember the war on drugs? We lost

The income tax was supposed to be temporary. Guess what? We lost. It became the 16th amendment and got us the IRS.



Rustys seventh law of governments. Any power delegated to a ruling body will soon expand to control every area it can.
Sorry, joe. Once you've handed the responsibility to delegate to the government they will soon delegate everything. Why in the world do you think It will be different this time? No I'm not lying.


Never, ever, give the government control over any aspect of our life. See the IRS example above.

lazlo
08-22-2009, 04:31 PM
This non-debate is very shrill and full of misinformation.
Yes it is.


Why does the world flock to the US when they need above-and-beyond medical care?

They don't. Canadian, European, Australian and Japanese doctors and surgeons are every bit as good as our own.
In fact, 26% of the physicians in the US are from other countries:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upl...orce-paper.pdf


Number of Physicians in U.S 921,904
Number of IMG Physicians 236,669 (from 127 countries)


Why does sit take 3 months to get an MRI in Canada?
It doesn't. Those are the "Lies and Misinformation" that Obama discussed in his last television broadcast (that struck such ire with Fox).

As we have been repeatedly told by Evan and the other Canadian members, it's farce perpetuated by the Right Wing that there are only three MRI's in Canada, and that it takes 3 months to get one. Stephen Hawking is British, and he's still alive. Don't believe everything the health insurance companies, Glenn Beck and Rush are telling you :)

Glenn Beck: "there's only one MRI machine in the six western [Canadian] states"


Socialized medicine is shown to be sustainably expensive - and ever growing - in all nations supporting it. What is different about Obama's plan that will make it sustainable?
Why aren't other nations using this technique?

Look at the two charts from the New York Times that Joe posted. Left is the percentage of our total economy spend on health care. Right is how much each person spends on healthcare. Guess which curve is the US?

Which system is sustainable, and which is not?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpghttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/08/business/economy/08economix.chart.2.jpg



Why is health insurance so expensive? Why can't we get a collection of typical medical bills and trace the whereabouts of each dollar?
Because a third of every dollar you spend goes to corporate profit.

It is driven by ideology and politics, not rational thought.
Your post is based purely on rational thought, and the other 208 posts are not? :rolleyes:

lazlo
08-22-2009, 04:54 PM
Why is health insurance so expensive? Why can't we get a collection of typical medical bills and trace the whereabouts of each dollar? It seems to me this would tell us where the seemingly exponential expense is happening.

There used to be a great pie chart on Wikipedia showing how each dollar was spent, but that page is being modified so frequently and so radically by both sides that they've removed all the graphs, and a bunch of detail on the American system too :rolleyes:

dp
08-22-2009, 06:27 PM
Yes it is.



They don't. Canadian, European, Australian and Japanese doctors and surgeons are every bit as good as our own.
In fact, 26% of the physicians in the US are from other countries:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upl...orce-paper.pdf

Did you miss that Canada is outsourcing health care to the US?

http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/

If this continues we'll have to consider it in our capacity planning.

lazlo
08-22-2009, 06:35 PM
Did you miss that Canada is outsourcing health care to the US?

http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/


Well, as a Washingtonian, you know well that busloads of Americans go to Canada for health care, either because they're uninsured, or because their procedure isn't covered under their health plan, and the cost for a Canadian doctor to perform the same procedure is 3 - 5 times less than in the 'States.

When I lived in Olympia, a ton of Intel employees went to Canada to get Lasix, because most American health insurance plans won't cover it, and it's much cheaper in Canada.

In any event, that article sounds suspiciously like the Investor's Business Daily article about Stephen Hawking.

I'll defer to our Canadian brethren. It this true?

Hospitals in border cities, including Detroit, are forging lucrative arrangements with Canadian health agencies to provide care not widely available across the border.

Agreements between Detroit hospitals and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for heart, imaging tests, bariatric and other services provide access to some services not immediately available in the province, said ministry spokesman David Jensen.

The agreements show how a country with a national care system -- a proposal not part of the health care changes under discussion in Congress -- copes with demand for care with U.S. partnerships, rather than building new facilities.

Michael Vujovich, 61, of Windsor was taken to Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital for an angioplasty procedure after he went to a Windsor hospital in April. Vujovich said the U.S. backup doesn't show a gap in Canada's system, but shows how it works.

"I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having angioplasty in Detroit," he said. His $38,000 bill was covered by the Ontario health ministry.

...

Dany Mercado, a leukemia patient from Kitchener, Ontario, is cancer-free after getting a bone marrow transplant at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit.

Told by Canadian doctors in 2007 he couldn't have the procedure there, Mercado's family and doctor appealed to Ontario health officials, who agreed to let him have the transplant in Detroit in January 2008.

dp
08-22-2009, 06:50 PM
.

In any event, that article sounds suspiciously like the Investor's Business Daily article about Stephen Hawking.

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohip/outofcountry/us_preferred_providers/bariatric_services.html

The lasik issue was one of coverage, not availability. It's pretty good evidence of how the public option can put private carriers out of business. That's what was happening in Hawaii until they shut down universal health care.

Arcane
08-22-2009, 09:25 PM
Glenn Beck: "there's only one MRI machine in the six western [Canadian] states"

Did he really say that? Exactly that?? I can't believe anyone over the age of 8 could possible say that as a statement of fact.

wierdscience
08-22-2009, 09:42 PM
This Testimony Before the House Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations would disagree with you



Goggle can be Your Friend - that is if you use it

Like I said bizzare,that was a BILLING company and not an insurance company.Why do doctors hire billing companies?Because Medicaid and Medicare shove all that paper off on the Docs.

Thank you for making my point.

JCHannum
08-22-2009, 10:51 PM
Glenn Beck: "there's only one MRI machine in the six western [Canadian] states"

Did he really say that? Exactly that?? I can't believe anyone over the age of 8 could possible say that as a statement of fact.

There are a couple of organizations who have nothing better to do than monitor the talk radio shows and quote the hosts out of context. Glenn Beck frequently relies on heavy satire to get a point across, this was undoubtably such an instance.

That said, there is an enormous difference in the availability of MRI machines in the US vs Canada.

JoeFin
08-22-2009, 10:51 PM
Like I said bizzare,that was a BILLING company and not an insurance company.Why do doctors hire billing companies?Because Medicaid and Medicare shove all that paper off on the Docs.

Thank you for making my point.

No problem - there are ample examples of Medical Insurence Companies being indicted on Medicare Fraud as well


New York health fraud investigators nabbed 171 suspects, $9 million in 2008

New York’s health insurance fraud investigators recovered $9 million and initiated 171 arrests in 2008, the New York State Insurance Department reported.

The insurance department said an investigation of inflated billings by five medical providers who submitted inflated claims to the New York State Health Insurance Program was “instrumental” in generating the $9 million in recovered losses. Those medical providers also paid $78,551 in fines.

http://ifawebnews.com/2009/03/10/new-york-health-fraud-investigators-nabbed-171-suspects-9-million-in-2008/

But this fellow is really interesting - He is an Expert Witness specializing Medical Insurance Fraud



Brian Heller, Ph.D.
Litigation & Arbitration

I have been court qualified as both a fact witness and an expert witness in healthcare litigation. The following is a sample list of cases in which I have been involved:

A health insurance company was sued for misrepresentation and non-adherence to industry standards in its processing and payment of medical claims.

A hospital CEO was terminated after he reported to the Board of Directors that the hospital's management company was possibly committing Medicare fraud. Subsequently, the former CEO was unable to find an equivalent position within the region's hospital community

A health plan was sued for the wrongful death of a panel member resulting from delay in receiving needed care during a medical emergency

A health plan was sued under the Federal False Claims Act by a 'whistle blower' for alleged misrepresentation on application(s) to obtain Medicare contract(s).

A Medicaid health plan was sued on claims of denial of service to a member due to errors in eligibility systems. I offered opinions in the following areas:

A] how the health plan met or didn't meet its contractual obligations concerning notifying/updating its providers of member eligibility status

B]how the provisions of the health plan contract that controlled this matter offered benefits to the member in contradiction to the written assertions

C]how the health plan met or didn't meet industry standards

A class action suit was brought against a health insurance company for claimed irregularities in its calculation of deductibles and lifetime maximum benefits

A woman who was an HMO member was provided routine gynecological services by her primary care physician instead of being referred to a specialist and there was both a claimed delay in diagnoses and incorrect diagnosis/treatment, resulting in death

http://www.brianhellerphd.com/litigation-expert.html

You can pay into your Health Insurance plan for your whole life and the moment you really need it they will pull the Financial Rug out from underneath you as demonstrated by the above and my own experiences

JoeFin
08-22-2009, 10:54 PM
Glenn Beck frequently relies on heavy satire to get a point across, this was undoubtably such an instance.

Anyone stupid enough to listen to Glenn Beck and his outragious lies shouldn't be allowed to vote

We don't allow mentally retarded people to vote in this country

dp
08-22-2009, 10:58 PM
Glenn Beck: "there's only one MRI machine in the six western [Canadian] states"

Did he really say that? Exactly that?? I can't believe anyone over the age of 8 could possible say that as a statement of fact.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/119356.php

If he said that he's got bad data. I've never heard his show but I found this on the net: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907150016

He seems like a whack job to me. I wonder why anyone cares about what he says. Mind you, this is my only experience listening to him, but sometimes you learn a lot with the right example.

Then I saw this and I laughed.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908180010

JCHannum
08-22-2009, 11:10 PM
Media Matters is one of the main organizations that I was referring to. It is sponsored by libs and dedicated to shutting down talk radio. I listen to Glenn Beck occasionally, like any other voice in the argument, he has good and bad points. All sides deserve to be heard.

wierdscience
08-22-2009, 11:17 PM
No problem - there are ample examples of Medical Insurence Companies being indicted on Medicare Fraud as well

And a "Government option" will do nothing to curtail fraud.





You can pay into your Health Insurance plan for your whole life and the moment you really need it they will pull the Financial Rug out from underneath you as demonstrated by the above and my own experiences

You can pay into a government plan and have the exact same thing happen,only you have no legal recourse.

JoeFin
08-22-2009, 11:25 PM
Media Matters is one of the main organizations that I was referring to. It is sponsored by libs and dedicated to shutting down talk radio. I listen to Glenn Beck occasionally, like any other voice in the argument, he has good and bad points. All sides deserve to be heard.

The question being "Should persons in authority be allowed to dispense Dis-Information at will?

During the Cold War with Russia, True Americans felt propaganda was very dangerous tool of Socialism, and Glenn Beck time and time has been caught spreading propaganda.

I am glad to see Betsy McCaughey, originator of the "Death Panel" propaganda has been forced to resign from her job


Death panel originator Betsy McCaughey resigns in disgrace

Death panel originator Betsy McCaughey resigns in disgrace after humiliating herself on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. An obviously prepared and informed Stewart calmly demonstrated McCaughey's entire position on health care reform to be as solid as Swiss cheese.

McCaughey, former Lt. Gov. of New York, is given credit as the originator of the death panel myth. This false claim that Democrats’ health care reform proposals will lead to the creation of “death panels,” has been a staple of the Republican campaign of misinformation and dirty tricks.

The "unplugging grandma" meme has been a successful diversion and distraction to meaningful and relevant discussion about health care reform.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m8d21-Death-panel-originator-Betsy-McCaughey-resigns-in-disgrace

I think anyone morally irresponcible enough to perpetuate propaganda so harmful to Americans should be asked to leave the country and surrender their citizenship at the boarder

nuff said

JCHannum
08-22-2009, 11:39 PM
The Portland Progressive Examiner columnist reporting on a John Stewart show is not news, it is opinion.

He cites Media Matters for verification. There it is again.

Media Matters is a George Soros backed organization and every bit as biased as its sister Moveon.org.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150

JoeFin
08-22-2009, 11:42 PM
And a "Government option" will do nothing to curtail fraud.

No one said the Public Option would curtail fraudulent billing practices

But if you had read the quotation from Brian Heller, Ph.D. webpage you would see a host of other problems Health Insurance companies inflect on long term good paying customers. Denied Coverage, Delayed Coverage, accounting errors…… the list goes on.

Health Insurance Companies have sought to deny coverage as means to increase profits for a very long time now. You are just fortunate enough and healthy enough to where this hasn’t occurred to you.

At 35 it happened to me. Non Smoker, Non Drinker, Gym Rat, on a Health kick, was refused an MRI after 1 of the fellow physicians in the same hospital ordered it for my treatment. Bottom Line - I had to hire an attorney in order to get treatment. The end result - they confirmed L-4 & L-5 disk were indeed herniated - a work related injury that would be covered by workman's comp and not the Health Insurance provider


You can pay into a government plan and have the exact same thing happen,only you have no legal recourse.

I doubt that

But I’ll wait until either of us actually reads the bill and see what it says. Until then it is speculative and conjecture

But I will say this - if you can appeal Social Security Determinations, Medicare Determinations, even State Department Immigration Determinations - "What exactly makes you feel you won't be able to hire an attorney "Free of Charge" on their dime and appeal their determinations

lazlo
08-22-2009, 11:49 PM
[Glenn Beck] seems like a whack job to me. I wonder why anyone cares about what he says.

Then I saw this and I laughed.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908180010

That truly is funny Dennis!

Stewart calls out Beck on his hypocrisy about the quality of health care in America (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908180010)


Some here may be astonished to know that Glenn Beck used to be on CNN. The story of the atrocious medical care he received, and his series of segments campaigning against "The Nightmare that is our Health Care System" were somehow forgotten when he was hired by Fox.:confused:

January, 2008
Glenn Beck (at CNN):


"I received surgery that went horribly awry."

"One of the most eye-opening experiences of my life, to receive healthcare in the United States."

"This hospital treated the President of GE, if they don't care about the President of GE, do you think that they care about schlub -- an average working stiff (like me)?"

"No matter how much the healthcare system tried to keep me down, I'm back!"

...and then, Glenn Beck ran a series entitled "Healthcare: Condition Critical"

The lead-in: "My Personal Journey through the Nightmare that is our Health Care System."

January, 2009
Glenn Beck (at Fox):


"We have the best health care in the whole world!"

How can you believe a word that comes out of this guy's mouth?? :rolleyes:

JoeFin
08-22-2009, 11:54 PM
The Portland Progressive Examiner columnist reporting on a John Stewart show is not news, it is opinion.

He cites Media Matters for verification. There it is again.

Media Matters is a George Soros backed organization and every bit as biased as its sister Moveon.org.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150

Ok - How about a Pulitzer Prize Winning for Debunking Political News organisation such as PolitiFact.

Glen Beck only has 2 ratings "Pants on Fire" & "False"



Glenn Beck - "John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."
http://www.tampabay.com/universal/politifact/rulings/tom-pantsonfire.gif

Glen Beck - "Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We're the only country in the world that has it."
http://www.tampabay.com/universal/politifact/rulings/tom-false.gif

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/

If you listen to him and you believe him and ordinary folk start to assume you are mentally challenged - its your own dammed fault

Like I said Mentally Retarded People should not vote

J Tiers
08-23-2009, 12:10 AM
This debate seems to polarize people into nazis, other totalitarians, crazy liberals, nutjob conservatives, etc, etc, etc. People who used to make sense are suddenly parroting the party line. How much are they being paid, by who, and for what purpose?

The Insurance companies are apparently sending their CEOs to Washington for soundbites "loving up" the healthcare plans, while they at the same time send their operatives to steal organization's letterheads and send out propaganda against it ostensibly coming from the various organizations.

There is a whole lot going on, and the upshot of it seems to be that the cash cow is in danger.

let me ask you a few questions.....

1) Is your "heath insurance denier" widening your coverage and loosening up on what they choose to call "pre-existing conditions"?

2) Would you consider it good for them to collect your premiums, and then deny you coverage if you were diagnosed with something that looks like being expensive?

3) since the whole idea of insurance is for the premiums you pay, on average, to cover your total cost of care, with a profit for the insurance provider, just how is your cost going to be reduced?

4) How can a for-profit insurance company EXIST if they do not essentially rigidly exclude anyone who is going to cost them more than a few thousand dollars, i.e. less than their total pay-in?

5) Your $500 per month pays them $6000 per year, less profits, administration costs, and payments to others. What can you buy in heath care these days for, say, $4000? You basically can't fix a broken leg for that money anymore.

6) So, I ask you again....... just how are they going to stay in business if they pay very many $60,000+ bills? It takes probably 20 people's premiums to pay that bill, along with the overhead, let alone the even higher bills that are quite common these days.

7) if you say that they bargain with doctors for lower costs...... That is just squeezing the doctors, who are stuck in the middle...... and driving them out of business.

8) Why shouldn't the insurance companies just deny coverage whenever they can get away with it, and raise rates as high as they can? How else can they get competent executives and pay them 6 million per year, while paying out when they absolutely can't escape it?

9) How does the above differ from "rationed care"? The insurance company is deciding that certain people are too sick, and should die without wasting money on treatment.

10) Why should the insurance companies be the only ones who can have "death panels"? Actually, they don't even waste money on "panels", they make a few general rules and probably one person evaluates a case against the rules and based on them makes the decision for "patient X" to die untreated.

11) what does this have to do with clunkers? Are we going to inject granny with sodium silicate and make her run until she falls over dead?

lazlo
08-23-2009, 12:14 AM
Another amusing video from that page Dennis posted: Betsy McCaughey was fired yesterday as the CEO of Cantel Medical Corporation, after she appeared on the Jon Stewart Show.

McCaughey wins "World's Worst Person" award after being fired from medical company board (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908210054)

Turns out that Ms. McCaughey is the person who coined the expression "Death Squads" based on her reading of the section describing the Living Will consultations.

Jon Stewart pointed out that the consultations are exactly that: completely optional consultations about how to handle a potentially terminal illness. If, during the consultation, the patient requests a living will, it, may contain whatever the patient wants: a DNR may be requested, or a patient may request the doctors pull out the stops and do everything to save them, "including gold-plated enemas." :D

Jon Stewart was quoting her chapter and verse the bill, while Ms McCaughey acted like a deer in the headlights.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/exclusive---betsy-mccaughey-extended-interview-pt--1

Jon's took the document from Ms McCaughey, and read the section back to her, where it clearly explained that the during the optional consultation, the patient may request a creation of, and adherence to, orders for life sustaining treatment. Jon's final comment was that her patently false misinterpretation of the consultation section was "Hyperbolic and Dangerous."

Edit: Sorry Joe, I didn't realize that you had posted a similar article about Betsy McCaughey. She came off as such a knucklehead on that Jon Stewart video (don't you think you should mark the pages in the giant document you plan to present on National Television??) - I don't understand how the heck she managed to be the Lieutenant Governor of New York!

dp
08-23-2009, 12:29 AM
Turns out that Ms. McCaughey is the person who coined the expression "Death Squads" based on her reading of the section describing the Living Will consultations.

She did something similar in during the HillaryCare debacle - made up something totally indefensible. The Hillary program was sufficiently flawed it didn't need prevarication to take it down - it was going down on it's own steam. Just like the BarryCare program.

dp
08-23-2009, 12:44 AM
GM is ramping up production as a result of the cash for banks program.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/08/gm_to_increase_production_at_l.html

Mission accomplished.

J Tiers
08-23-2009, 12:53 AM
America spends the highest amount on healthcare of any industrialized nation: 15.3% of GDP, yet we have the 37th worst healthcare in the world, because we've allowed a parasitic trillion dollar insurance industry to serve as middle-men between patients and doctors.

Worse, private health insurers won't cover applicants with pre-existing conditions, expensive procedures ....or procedures they deem as "unnecessary."


See the previous for insurance company options.......

I don't agree that the insurance companies are totally corrupt...... They have company.... drug companies, heath care equipment companies, basically every portion of the system, including the government entities overseeing it, and the lawyers for plaintiffs, is corrupt.

And, given the 'input variables", they are actually behaving rationally..... even if not morally, ethically, or in the best interests of their paying customers. but who expects morality or ethics from a corporation? That is SO pre-1960......

Plus, YOU are to blame for rising costs......

An MRI is a good tool. Expensive, but good.

Using an MRI when another technique would work is just silly, raising costs with no benefit.

So why is it done? Because if there is an outcome that YOU don't like, you will sue, and if there was a better tool that "might" have disclosed the condition that you really had, and it was not used, the doctor loses.

So the doctors are forced to use the most expensive tools "for hangnails and for cancer".

The equipment companies and drug makers love this. New drugs come out all teh time, each with an 'advantage" that makes them better, but of course more expensive.....

New EQUIPMENT comes out all the time, and the very newest MUST be installed or "patients won't come anymore, they will go where the equipment isn't 2 years old and so obviously hopelessly out of date"......

The government doesn't help..... they have all sorts of rules and regulations about drugs and equipment, etc, many of which are very good, actually. But despite all this, it seems to come out regularly that a new drug actually has fatal or harmful side effects, and a whole group who have been taking it now have serious problems that are unrelated to their original conditions....... So the expensive government watchdogs were asleep at the switch, or so busy with one sort of recordkeeping that their real oversight function was ignored.

And, the drug companies were so busy jumping through government hoops that they failed to check for, or were so committed $$-wise that they covered up, the problems.

it is the relentless newness of medical technology that causes expensive care.

The insurance companies are complicit, but by NO means the total cause. it is the whole dang INDUSTRY..... This is their lobster and steaks, not to mention their mansions, boats and Lamborghinis.... OF COURSE they want to keep it going.

And teh only way they can is to make sure that only the newest and most expensive types of care are accepted by the public...... REGARDLESS of whether the new stuff is actually better.

Americans have bought into the need for the most expensive things..... SUVs, televisions, running shoes, and heath care.....for examples..... EVEN THOUGH a better product is virtually always available at a lower cost.

THAT is what is driving this......

Americans equate lower cost with "not as good", and do NOT want to listen to anyone who challenges that notion. With heath care a real hot button,

"Lower cost" is NOT what anyone wants to hear if it might actually apply to THEM...... it's fine for the homeless, or the peons who don't drive as nice a car, etc.....

Edit........

A side effect of all the equipment is to turn doctors into the equivalents of the "machinists" who push the 'go" button on the CNC machine...... they soon won't know HOW to do anything but order up a battery of tests and see what shows up. That may already be happening....

When that takes over, you will really be in a world of hurt........ technology will be in charge, once and for all.... Doctors will be helpless without it, and costs will really take off.

JCHannum
08-23-2009, 07:03 AM
GM is ramping up production as a result of the cash for banks program.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/08/gm_to_increase_production_at_l.html

Mission accomplished.

Actually, is is mission sort of accomplished. GM is putting the Lordstown plant back on line with four ten hour shifts per week. This plan was in effect before CFC. They are adding two ten hour shifts next month as a result of CFC. That is only an additional twenty hours of production, not an ongoing increase in production.

The NY Times has a slightly different take on the effectiveness of the program that opens with this sentence;

"The government’s cash-for-clunkers program provided a short-term bonanza for automakers but will not have a lasting effect on an industry mired in its worst sales slump in 25 years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/business/22clunkers.html?ref=todayspaper

JCHannum
08-23-2009, 07:47 AM
Ok - How about a Pulitzer Prize Winning for Debunking Political News organisation such as PolitiFact.

Glen Beck only has 2 ratings "Pants on Fire" & "False"



If you listen to him and you believe him and ordinary folk start to assume you are mentally challenged - its your own dammed fault

Like I said Mentally Retarded People should not vote

Insults will be overlooked considering the source. Listen to whomever you chose, but do due diligence before fully accepting what anybody says. This applies to BO as well.

PolitiFact is a relatively unbiased source of information. They are not cowed by BO and detail 19 pages of unkept campaign promises and another page of broken promises, including this one made exactly one year ago of how health care reform was going to be handled;

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/

"Obama promised — repeatedly — an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he hasn't delivered. Instead of open talks of C-SPAN, we've gotten more of the same — talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress. We might revisit this promise if there's a dramatic change, but we see nothing to indicate anything has changed. We rate this Promise Broken."

A lot of people are finding they did not get who they thought they were voting for, and are more than a bit irate about it.

andy_b
08-23-2009, 08:59 AM
We don't allow mentally retarded people to vote in this country

if you are talking about the US, you are wrong.

andy b.

Rustybolt
08-23-2009, 09:56 AM
JC
Having grown up in and around Chicago and having known many people who have worked both for and against city and county politics, I can't say I didn't see this coming. Try to warn people and this is what you get. Oh well.

wierdscience
08-23-2009, 10:00 AM
The question those in support of this should ask themselves is-

If this plan is so great and so wonderful,then why doesn't the congress,senate and the president agree to be covered by the same system?

Here's a tip,they know what's in the bill.

lazlo
08-23-2009, 10:18 AM
If this plan is so great and so wonderful,then why doesn't the congress,senate and the president agree to be covered by the same system?

I was covered by that program: FEHB (Federal Employees Health Benefits) when I was at the Army Research Laboratory from '88 - '96. It was fine -- like any private insurance that I've had since. The monthly premiums were about the same, as a percentage of salary, that I'm paying now for Cigna, and it uses private doctors, private facilities, like any private health insurance.

I just looked it up: FEHB (the Congressional Health Insurance) covers 8.5 Million Federal Employees, so it's about 1/3 the size of Medicare, and since it's not profit motivated, it has the same administrative overhead: 3%.

One huge difference: FEHB does not discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions. Pregnancy, for example is a pre-existing condition, and no health insurer will accept you if you have a pregnant family member.

So there are a group of Republicans who are proposing to expand FEHB (the so-called Congressional health insurance) to replace the "Public Option."

That sounds like a great idea -- what's wrong with that?


The uninsured can opt-in to FEHB. The Federal Government would presumably waive or defer the insurance premium if you're on unemployment.

Everyone else who already has health insurance can either chose to remain on their own program, or decide to opt-in to FEHB.

The uninsured have the option of being covered, and the health insurance industry has a major competitor -- a big incentive to drive down prices across the board.

Mission accomplished.

wierdscience
08-23-2009, 10:39 AM
I was covered by that program: FEHB (Federal Employees Health Benefits) when I was at the Army Research Laboratory from '88 - '96. It was fine -- like any private insurance that I've had since. The monthly premiums were about the same, as a percentage of salary, that I'm paying now for Cigna, and it uses private doctors, private facilities, like any private health insurance.

I just looked it up: FEHB (the Congressional Health Insurance) covers 8.5 Million Federal Employees, so it's about 1/3 the size of Medicare, and since it's not profit motivated, it has the same administrative overhead: 3%.

One huge difference: FEHB does not discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions. Pregnancy, for example is a pre-existing condition, and no health insurer will accept you if you have a pregnant family member.

So there are a group of Republicans who are proposing to expand FEHB (the so-called Congressional health insurance) to replace the "Public Option."

That sounds like a great idea -- what's wrong with that?


The uninsured can opt-in to FEHB. The Federal Government would presumably waive or defer the insurance premium if you're on unemployment.

Everyone else who already has health insurance can either chose to remain on their own program, or decide to opt-in to FEHB.

The uninsured have the option of being covered, and the health insurance industry has a major competitor -- a big incentive to drive down prices across the board.

Mission accomplished.


They are refusing to be subject to the same system they want for us.

Just like they refuse to send they're kids to the same schools as ours

Just like they refuse to fly in the same planes as us.

They're healthcare is paid for by we the people the common taxpayer.

lazlo
08-23-2009, 10:52 AM
They are refusing to be subject to the same system they want for us.

I think there's a misconception here -- Congress' health insurance is the same as all 8.5 Million Federal Employees.


They're healthcare is paid for by we the people the common taxpayer.

When you pay for private health insurance, the average of $7 - $8,000 that each family pays each year in the US is only 1/3 of the total payment -- your employer pays the other 2/3: another $14,000 - $16,000 on top of that to the health insurance company.

So the taxpayers pay for the employer contribution for the 8.5 Million Federal Employees, but the Federal employees pay the 1/3 insurance premium just like any private health insurance -- it's not free.

And FEHB (the "Congressional" health insurance) wasn't Nirvana -- they didn't have the Swedish Bikini team fanning you with palm leaves while you waited to see the doctor :) It was just an insurance provider. You still see your same old doctor, use the same old hospital, ...

J Tiers
08-23-2009, 11:19 AM
But the federal plan apparently pays much less for the same procedure than even a private provider.

The retail rate for a doctor visit is around $200-$400, if you actually pay "cash" with no insurance. The insurance company may pay $90 to $150. The government, according to figures one of you folks here on the forum provided, pays about $25 to $40.

I don't know which is the right number....... but I can tell which is lower. And I very much suspect that the rate at which the government pays is lower than the true cost.

When many doctors refuse to take any medicare patients, there must be a reason. And that reason must be that they are paid an amount which does not cover their costs. The costs may be exacerbated by paperwork... no matter, it is all just a cost of doing business, and if the payment were sufficient, the doctor would just hire another medicare liaison person or two.

A government plan which drives doctors out of business is unsustainable.

The only ways to get healthcare costs down are as follows:

1) reduce the amount of care that is actually available, basically return to 1920's care levels, or the care levels in Soviet Russia, but apply that level to everyone.

2) manage to make the same healthcare provision cost less, by some sort of magic.

3) some combination of the two.

Number three is what we have now, some get much, some get nothing. Average the care provided to the rich with that provided to the poorest, and you DO get something similar to 1920. Especially when antibiotics no longer work, and we return to a 'pre-penicillin" status.

Number two is obviously not possible...... costs are much more likely to go UP than down, over time.

Number one is not what anyone wants to accept, even though they really have something close to it in many cases right now. it is ADMITTING that which is the problem. people are "in denial".

What we may get is number three...... but the lowest level care will come UP, while the highest goes DOWN. The average will be an acceptable level of care, with some more expensive options removed.

There will probably be expensive private insurance to cover the expensive types of care that are no longer part of the mix for most plans.

Personally, I think the best that can be expected now is to keep most of what we have, with no public option available, but making the pre-existing condition exclusions go away.

That will rapidly become too expensive, and we will be re-visiting this later, when even MORE people have no insurance.

This is just a run-up. The more 'raw" the results are, the better, if you are in favor of "single payer" insurance, which is certainly no guarantee of good care.

We had a health care protester who wants NO government option injured at a local rally...... he is collecting donations because he is uninsured........

wierdscience
08-23-2009, 11:20 AM
100% of the Federal system is paid for by taxpayers(it's where they're salary comes from)

You will be able to opt into that system-assuming you can afford it.If you can't you will find yourself in the bottom tier of the new two-tiered system.

The claim that all American will have the same care as the federal system is bogus.

lazlo
08-23-2009, 11:31 AM
100% of the Federal system is paid for by taxpayers(it's where they're salary comes from).

No, that's incorrect. FEHB is optional, and if you opt-in, it's deducted out of your paycheck, just like any private insurance.

I still have my pay stubs from back then, if you want me to scan it :)

wierdscience
08-23-2009, 11:32 AM
But the federal plan apparently pays much less for the same procedure than even a private provider.

The retail rate for a doctor visit is around $200-$400, if you actually pay "cash" with no insurance. The insurance company may pay $90 to $150. The government, according to figures one of you folks here on the forum provided, pays about $25 to $40.
.

If that is what they are charging,then you must be in a high Tort state,or near a large city with a doctor shortage.

I am self-employed and self-insured meaning I pay 100% of my insurance costs.80/20 $2m accident and major medical with a $10,000 deductible costs me less than $1200/year(we have a tort limit here).

I pay cash for whatever office visits,test etc I may need.Doctors visit costs me $48 cash and carry,$125 on average for a specialist.There is no paper work other than updating my file which is done with an ink pen and printing me a receipt.

Part of the problem here is people wanting coverage that pays for every aspirin and band-aid which they do not need.

wierdscience
08-23-2009, 11:32 AM
No, that's incorrect. FEHB is optional, and if you opt-in, it's deducted out of your paycheck, just like any private insurance.

I still have my pay stubs from back then, if you want me to scan it :)

Who paid your salary?

lazlo
08-23-2009, 11:41 AM
Who paid your salary?

The taxpayer. So you're saying, that since I was paying $200/month in insurance premiums to the Federal Health Insurance program, it was "free"? :rolleyes:

FEHB is optional. I could have chosen to not be covered by health insurance, and get an extra $200/month in my paycheck. But that would be financial Russian Roulette in the US.

So here's the current FEHB health insurance premiums chart, from the governement FEHB web page. If a Federal Employee/Congressman elects to insure their family under this program, it costs $807/month total, which happens to be the individual premium I'm paying to Cigna for private health insurance. Nvidia is paying another $1600/month to Cigna for the employer contribution:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/FEHB.png

So once you remove the profit motive and your insurance premium isn't paying for private jets and big executive bonuses, you get a government insurance premium that's 1/3 of private insurance.

wierdscience
08-23-2009, 12:35 PM
Ya,they are really making a killing at #35 on the list:rolleyes:
#1 On the list is no suprise since I know several folks who's cellphone and internet bills cost more than their insurance.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/

If your paying more in one month that I am in one year,you either have aspirin and bandaid coverage or you need to shop around.

The Dems have demonized the insurance industry like every other industry(except trail lawyers)and managed to scare everyone into believing if they don't have insurance they're only option is dying in the streets.Geez,if it were really that way out of the 47million there should a few thousand corpses lying around on any given day.

We know after all that of the 47 million claimed unisured even proponets of the plan admit it will at best cover only 17 million of those.Not much of a deal for $1T extra in costs.

And no one has answered where that extra $1T will come from.I suppose raising corporate taxes will be the first idea,then a VAT for the rest of us and repealing the tax cuts for everyone,but that still won't be enough the GAO has already said so.

I'm tired of arguing this point,I am going to start tying nooses,if the bill passes I can sell them and make a killing to the folks heading towards DC.

Rustybolt
08-23-2009, 12:45 PM
Just a point of fact.
Isurance companies don't make any money on premiums. In most cases they lose money on premiums. Insurance companies make their profits on investments.

lazlo
08-23-2009, 12:59 PM
Ya,they are really making a killing at #35 on the list:rolleyes:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/

Despite the worst recession in American' history, United Healthcare's Q2 Quarterly Report. I just UHC from Yahoo Finance. The other healthcare companies continue to increase revenues by > 7%/year over year:

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP REPORTS SECOND QUARTER RESULTS
• Revenues of $21.7 Billion Increased 7% Year-Over-Year
• Net Earnings of $0.73 Per Share Increased 9% Year-Over-Year from $0.671
• Year-To-Date Cash Flows from Operations Total $1.6 Billion
• Company Improves 2009 Net Earnings Projection to $3.00 to $3.15 Per Share

Private Health Insurance Profits Soar (http://vancouver.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/private-health-insurance-profits-soar.aspx?googleid=230780)

The big three carriers in Washington, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. Their cash surplus went from $833 million in 2002 to $2.2 billion in 2006.
...
Interestingly enough they did it while covering less people. Over 2.37 million people were covered by the three in 2002 compared to 1.9 million in 2006. So the cost of health care is still going up, but the profits by private health insurance companies are rising even faster.
...
medical costs rose 16 percent in the same period that health insurance profits went up 23 percent. In 2007, Washington legislators tried to pass a law allowing the Insurance Commissioner to regulate health insurance rates. The law failed.