Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
Clusterheadaches.com
 
Search box updated Dec 3, 2011... Search ch.com with Google!
  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegisterEvent CalendarBirthday List  
 





Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print
ICFBI !!! (Read 16256 times)
monty
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline




Posts: 1056
The Swamp, Florida
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #100 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 10:42am
 
HSJones wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:12am:
I admire FDR and he saved us from being conquered the the Nazis and Japan, but the one thing that I do not admire about him was his refusal to let a shipful of German Jewish immigrants enter the US before we entered the war-all of them were shipped back to Germany and killed in the concentration camps; I also do not admire him for placing American Japanese in concentration camps.  


I agree.  Denying ships like the S.S. St. Louis the right to disembark its passengers is a black spot on the history of the US. Even today, there are arbitrary distinctions being made - Cuban refugees are given special status (no doubt that they are fleeing a miserable situation) but refugees of violence and oppression from other lands do not get the same treatment, and are often denied entry and sent back to torture or death.  This wouldn't have been an issue before Chester Arthur ... until then, there was no concept of illegal immigration.

HSJones wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:12am:
It was the worst abuse of the Constitution and human rights in American history ...


Really? Worse than slavery? Worse than the wars against the Indians?
Back to top
  

The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is far short of what we actually must do.
 
IP Logged
 
BarbaraD
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


Hugs to ya


Posts: 8333
Douglasville, TX
Gender: female
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #101 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 1:32pm
 
HSJones wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:12am:
Bob P wrote on Mar 13th, 2009 at 5:14pm:
Quote:
According to this article in American Heritage, illegal immigration was invented by Chester Arthur in 1882.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register.

Chester may have been the first illegal immigrant but FDR opened the flood gates.


FDR opened the floodgates to immigration?  I admire FDR and he saved us from being conquered the the Nazis and Japan, but the one thing that I do not admire about him was his refusal to let a shipful of German Jewish immigrants enter the US before we entered the war-all of them were shipped back to Germany and killed in the concentration camps; I also do not admire him for placing American Japanese in concentration camps.  Not only were they illegally denied their freedom, but their personal property and homes were sold at a fraction of their worth at auctions and even today the survivors and their families have not been giving any compensation except for a coupe of thousand dollars.  The Neisi (sp?) division, composed of volunteer Japanese Americans fought the Nazis in Europe and was the most highly decorated division in US history DESPITE having their parents and younger siblings being imprisoned for no reason other than being of Japanese Americans.  It was the worst abuse of the Constitution and human rights in American history and will never be able to be erased (and by the way, despite taking about 40 years to repay those whose property was illegally seized by the government, the most anyone got was a couple of thousand dollars whereas much of that property is now worth hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars).  Those in the camps (located in deserts) never rioted or caused any troubles and their sons who volunteerd for combat were among the bravest American soldiers that we have ever had (for Hawaii US Senator Daniel Inoue lost an Army in combat in Italy)..  While Blacks were not imprisoned, they too served honorably although discriminated against because of their race and the Black fighter pilots, known as the Tuskegee pilots, were also the most decorated combat flying units in WWII.  Most blacks were not allowed to be anything but cooks and servants in the Navy and as laborers in the Army.  Even today, without Black people volunteering, we woulld have to resort to a draft to fight the "war on terrorism".  Think about it.  Just one more thing:  there was virtually no immigration during Roosevelt's terms in office.

It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for us to have won WWII for it was Black workers who took the place of drafees and harvested the food for our troops and civilians (of course, they were treated poorly-did you know that most of the "Red Ball Express" drivers were Black men?  When Truman finally did away with segregation after WWII, our modern armed forces were born.  We owe a debt of thanks to them and to the Japanese Americans that can never be fully repaid though, sadly, most Americans have no knowledge of their accomplishments (and one high school SENIOR asked me if the Germans were on our side during WWII!)  Cry

Mr. Jones... don't know where your info came from, but...

My DADDY won WW11 single-handed with his fearless tank (the "Baby Barbara") and made the world safe for democracy.... That's all "documented" in the Coffee Shop in Gladewater Texas (check for yourself) and has been well known for decades... Smiley

But our family never received a stinkin' cent in compensation for the HELL he went thru and the sacrafices he gave for his country... and actually he never expected anything. Mom and me just stayed home and waited for him to come home and live in our free country....

Hugs BD

Back to top
  

What don't kill ya, Makes ya stronger!
 
IP Logged
 
Batch
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


Control The Beast With
O2 & D3 You Must


Posts: 3708
Bremerton, WA
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #102 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 1:34pm
 
Quote:
The USA is currently using a GDP of 16.5 and not all of it's citizens are covered.
Interesting set of figures on government health care Tony...  This is exactly the kind of objective info we need to see.  However,  we still need the “subjective” side of the story to get the whole picture so we can measure apples to apples so to speak.  The CATO Institute has gone over data similar to what you posted and came up with the following:

Quote:
Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.

Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.

We need to get folks like Michael Berger, Oliver Reeh, and others living in Europe to give us their perspectives…  I think folks here in the US would be interested to hear what they have to say about government provided health care…

While we’re on this topic, let's put these figures in a slightly different context...  We are already paying for $588 Billion for Medicare and Medicaid (2008 Federal Budget)  That comes to 4% of the GDP for 2008, and these programs were never designed to provide health care for every US citizen...  Supposedly only wage earners and their spouses who paid payroll tax… but now that the liberals have seen fit to offer this benefit to illegal aliens, most of whom have been here a short time so haven’t paid their fair share, the level of health care is being diluted.

Let's do the math to see what would happen if we had to pay for Universal Health Care in 2008...  (BTW… the 4x cheaters gave me a headache so I've bumped the font size back up to the original setting).  

The latest estimate of the US GDP for 2008 is $14.58 trillion (buying power), $14.33 trillion (exchange rate), and $14.51 (Federal Budget).  Lets use the bigger figure in the following calculation cause bigger is always better...  Right?

If we assume an average annual cost of health care premiums per person of $7,900 (and this figure has already been opined earlier in this thread by MJ as being very conservative - read low and clearly lower than the cost of Government run VA medical coverage), and a US population of 310 million.  When we do the math we get 310 x 106 times 7.9 x 103 = 2,449 x 109 = $2.45 Trillion dollars a year for Universal Health Care or 16.9% of the 2008 GDP.  

But we're already paying tax for Medicare and Medicaid and even the least casual observer knows old government programs never die so that brings the total healthcare cost to  $3.04 Trillion… and that still doesn’t include the VA or the State’s contributions to Medicaid – read Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP), so we get $3.04 Trillion UHC/$14.58 Trillion GDP = Universal Health Care that would cost us 20.8% of the 2008 GDP.

Well…  At first glance, that may be acceptable to some folks…  but we still need to pay for all the other “Entitlements” like the single biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world…  the Social Security system, with estimated costs of $613 Billion in 2008 and $645 Billion in 2009.  

And guess what…  just like convicted criminal Madoff, the clever liberals broke into the Social Security piggy bank and spent all of it…  mostly to pay for social entitlements…  And that my friends, is also a matter of record…  In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson transferred the Social Security Trust Fund to the general fund… to pay for the War on Poverty…  A war the liberals started…  that we still haven’t won…  So now we perpetuate the Ponzi scheme by appropriating funds each year to make the payments…

There’s also the matter of an estimated $250 Billion in interest on the National Debt (The latest figure for interest paid on the National Debt for 2008 is $412 Billion), and…  Heck! I’ll just jump to the bottom line for the “Mandatory” outlays for 2008…  $ 1.484 Trillion dollars…

And of course… NONE OF THESE “MANDATORY” OUTLAYS FOR SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS ARE CALLED FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!  (And Yes… the all caps are for emphasis.)

Now let’s look at the “Discretionary Outlays” for Defense for FY2008  at $482 Billion Plus the Defense Supplement for the “Global War On Terror” $195 Billion… by the time you add the odds and ends, the Defense Budget for FY2008 comes to over $700 Billion…  

(BTW… I love the way Congress changed the wording on the Federal budget to make entitlements “Mandatory” and Defense, the only thing spelled out in the preamble to our Constitution as something to be provided, is now termed “Discretionary” by the liberals) …  

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Please note the words “provide” and “promote”…  Big Difference…  Google it if you’re not sure…

Jumping to the bottom line for FY2008 Budget “Estimate” we get:
2008 Estimated Receipts = $2.52 Trillion,  Outlays = $2.93 Trillion and we end up with an Estimated Deficit of  $410 Billion… And now we add the cost of Universal Health Care at an estimated $2.45 Trillion dollars…  and the annual Budget Deficit jumps to $2.86 Trillion dollars…  Yikes!  

Now let’s see what happens in 2009 if we add the estimated cost of Universal Health Care where the budget estimated shows Receipts of $2.7 Trillion, Outlays of $3.1 Trillion and a Deficit of $407 Billion… But Wait…  That was before TARP…  so add another $700 Billion (we won’t count the 8% increase in the “Omnibus” funding bill for 2008 that included over 8,000 earmarks, the $1 Trillion or so the Fed and the FDIC kicked in that will need to be replaced)…  plus at least half the $ 876 Billion ARRA Stimulation Bill  ($1 Trillion dollars including interest)…  And that brings the FY 2009 Deficit to at least $1.9 Trillion dollars…  and the Obamadude as well as princess Pelosi and her politburo are still on a roll to add even more to the Deficit…

Now if we add the cost of Universal Health Care at an estimated $2.45 Trillion dollars we come up with and estimated annual Budget Deficit of $ 4.35 Trillion dollars…  YGBSM!

Folks…  We’re still talking chump change when you look at the National Debt…  Congress (read princess Pelosi and her politburo in the House) has been spending our asses off and put us in debt to the tune of $10,983,549,928,728.74 ($10.98 Trillion Dollars) as of 03/12/2009…   And that is a matter of record…  

For those of you who skipped class when American Government was being taught or who were unfortunately subject to socialist propaganda and missed the facts…  None of the Presidents are directly responsible for the Budget Deficits…  Only the House of Representatives has the authority to appropriate funds…  Read the Constitution gave the House of Representatives the authority to originate all bills to levy taxes and spend government money…

In closing, for the liberals among us here in the US,  your beloved messiah, the anointed one, or Obamadude as I call him…  who you believe is looking out for the middle class as he promised in his campaign…  has just signaled he might not oppose Taxing Health Benefits…

Take care,

V/R, Batch

Back to top
  

You love lots of things if you live around them. But there isn't any woman and there isn't any horse, that’s as lovely as a great airplane. If it's a beautiful fighter, your heart will be ever there
pete_batcheller  
IP Logged
 
wildhaus
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline




Posts: 860
Wildhaus|Switzerland
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #103 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 2:11pm
 
I live in Switzerland, and as Tony has taken Switzerland as an example for “nation wide” health insurance, I would like to shed some “light” on this topic from my perspective..

Yes, we do have a good nation-wide health insurance, provided by private health insurance companies, not a government system paid by taxes, yes, the “government” dose subsidize the hospital facilities to some extend, not the health care, and this is a very small part of the taxes we pay, education is a very big chunk... for example....
The health insurance is a very expensive one!  but, that is for reasons that mostly do not apply in the USA.  We are a very small country, about 7.7 million people (2009), and almost every big canton (State to you) (26 cantons, incl. half cantons) has a larger medical center, be it in St. Gallen, Zurich, Basel, Bern Lausanne, Geneva, and a few more locations, providing almost all the services one would need, and that is very costly!   Although comfortable… is it necessary?...  I think, as long as we can afford it, why not.  Is it logical?  Oh well that’s Swiss internal politics, and it is not relevant to this post.

But we do not have the “habit” or problem of litigation the way it is practiced in the USA that forces the medical institutions to pass the costs of malpractice insurance on to the “customer”, and that inflates the costs of your treatments in the USA...

One more thing that one very rarely sees in Switzerland, is the need for second and 3rd opinions.  That’s a very costly habit, for what ever reason.

I pay (per month) SFr. 928.80 (USD785.20) for a family of 4, that is a private insurance, including all my needs, be it O2, Zomig, and alternative meds., be it treated by the top Dr’s, and more, for that matter for all the family the same conditions...... and until now no questions asked... by the health insurance.

I pay it gladly, as I know I need it, and use it, with respect, so I try not abuse the offered services, or take advantage of the tremendous treatment possibilities. I simply try to use the services in a comprehensive and responsible way.


Michael
Back to top
  

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register
 
IP Logged
 
Charlie
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


Happy to be here


Posts: 18971
Jamestown, NY
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #104 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 2:33pm
 
Screw statistics. As I left the idiot MD that for some inexplicable reason decided to pick medieval butt probing for a specialty.....I'll never understand this unless there is some kind of kink involved.......egad!  Shocked, Anyway, I ran into a representative of an evil drug company delivering all kinds of goodies and whoknowswhatelse to this moron.

This is a big reason medieval buttreamings cost more than a SUV.

Charlie
Back to top
  

There is nothing more satisfying than being shot at without result---Winston Churchill
135447360 mondocharlie mondocharlie  
IP Logged
 
monty
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline




Posts: 1056
The Swamp, Florida
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #105 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 2:46pm
 
Good to hear about another country's system.

In the US, medical malpractice is not a big factor in the cost. Medical malpractice insurance goes up every time the stock market goes down - insurance companies like AIG screw everyone, and blame patients. 

Quote:
Re-igniting the medical malpractice overhaul debate, a new study by Dartmouth College researchers suggests that huge jury awards and financial settlements for injured patients have not caused the explosive increase in doctors' insurance premiums.

The researchers said a more likely explanation for the escalation is that malpractice insurance companies have raised doctors' premiums to compensate for falling investment returns.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register


Back to top
  

The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is far short of what we actually must do.
 
IP Logged
 
Opus
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline


"We have met the enemy...
and he is us"


Posts: 2746
Sidney,NY USA
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #106 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 3:21pm
 
monty wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 2:46pm:
In the US, medical malpractice is not a big factor in the cost.<snip>


Maybe it isn't where you live. Using Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register for Chenango county in New York State, population 51,401, the rates are per year:

Orthopedic Surgery $37,352

Cardiac Surgery $30,045

Family/General Practice & Minor Surgery $11,593

Obstetrics and Gynecology $50,143

The median income per household is $33,679.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register

Paul
Back to top
  

I no longer post because no one cares what I say.
WWW pjbgravely pjbgravely  
IP Logged
 
monty
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline




Posts: 1056
The Swamp, Florida
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #107 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 4:03pm
 
Opus wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 3:21pm:
Maybe it isn't where you live. Using Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register for Chenango county in New York State ...


I didn't say that malpractice insurance wasn't expensive - my point was that the amount of underlying medical malpractice damages does not justify the high rates that insurance companies charge.  Those insurance companies make their money by holding and investing the premiums - when they lose on Wall Street or in Las Vegas, they raise rates on doctors and start chain emails about outrageous (and fictitious) malpractice cases.

If a doctor has 1000 patients he or she sees throughout the year, that amounts to $11 to $50 per patient for insurance. Not a trivial sum, but not closely related to what the average doctor costs the insurance companies.  The average OB-GYN salary is between $200,000 to $300,000, which means that they bill at three times that rate and have $400K to $600K for operating costs ... should be enough to cover the costs of doing business, although the insurance companies are going to leech as much as they can.  

By way of comparison, how much does the average doctor pay for rent, electricity, wages for staff, medical supplies, continuing education and professional licensing, filing paperwork with 7 insurance companies using 7 different billing systems, and all the other costs of doing business?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 16th, 2009 at 4:59pm by monty »  

The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is far short of what we actually must do.
 
IP Logged
 
Batch
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


Control The Beast With
O2 & D3 You Must


Posts: 3708
Bremerton, WA
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #108 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 6:00pm
 
There you go again Monty...  

More spin and redirection to divert people away from the fact that National Health Care is not only possible without big government taxing a country back to the stone age, but that it works wonderfully well in Switzerland based on private medical insurance, free market competition... and the principals of capitalism.

Why is it so hard for liberals to accept the truth when it proves their socialist Ponzi schemes are not necessary?  

Now that was a rhetorical question...  We all know liberals can't take truth like this because if more people understood the fact that liberals must have control in order to force their socialist agenda on everyone, they would never get elected...

That's probably why liberals want keep the people dumbed down by perpetuating one of the most ineffective and most expensive public education systems per capita in the world...  

Thank you Michael for pointing out that free market based national health care is possible without grossly inefficient government intervention, and that it works very well in Switzerland with people using private medical insurance...  

Take care,

V/R, Batch
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 16th, 2009 at 6:02pm by Batch »  

You love lots of things if you live around them. But there isn't any woman and there isn't any horse, that’s as lovely as a great airplane. If it's a beautiful fighter, your heart will be ever there
pete_batcheller  
IP Logged
 
Artonio
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


I Love


Posts: 604
New Castle, Pa
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #109 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 7:39pm
 
Free market is a wonderful thing... and if left unchecked (not to be confused with regulated) a loaf of bread will cost us $274.00... believe it or not... that is a good thing. I can afford it and if I only wish to eat one slice and throw the rest away... so what? STFU Don't whine to me that you're hungry instead, use the energy to go work as a slave in my factory. What's that you say? You can't work because you're paralyzed from the eyebrows down... well all I can say is... it sucks to be you... now stop bothering me.

There seems to be no limits to human greed... and that my friends, has nothing to do with political affiliation. I guess one can make the argument that if you are willing to take the risk and put in the time with any enterprise you deserve the largest share of the profits. It only stands to reason that if you are fortunate enough to be blessed with employment, work 60 hour weeks, you should have no problem shopping at the company store even if you could never afford the product that you are making.

I often found it ironic that some of those who wrote the constitution owned slaves... and that the term slave or slavery was never mentioned in the constitution.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if all of the haves could just move to a beautiful island where they would not have to be bothered by the have-nots ?

All praises and honor to you John Galt.
Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register

with warm regards,
Tony


Back to top
  

For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill. President Barack Obama
WWW  
IP Logged
 
monty
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline




Posts: 1056
The Swamp, Florida
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #110 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:29pm
 
Batch wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 6:00pm:
There you go again Monty...  

More spin and redirection to divert people away from the fact that National Health Care is not only possible without big government taxing a country back to the stone age, but that it works wonderfully well in Switzerland based on private medical insurance, free market competition... and the principals of capitalism.

Why is it so hard for liberals to accept the truth ...


It's not hard at all.  We should look at Switzerland and other developed nations that seem to do a better job than the US.  The Scandinavian systems, Germany, UK, and Canada as well.  Find the simplest, best way to fix the problems with the US system. Can the wingnut conservatives accept these points:
Quote:
The Swiss system is similar to the “managed competition” health care plan proposed by the Clintons in the early 1990s.

Subsidies:  designed to prevent any individual from having to pay more than 10 percent of income on insurance, and one third of Swiss citizens receive this type of subsidy.

Regulation: All insurance is private insurance.  However, insurance companies are mandated to offer the same “basic benefits package."

According to a WHO study, Switzerland ranks second only to the U.S. in terms of timely care. (One thing both do well, in very different ways!)

Mandates that all must buy insurance may not work in less civilized countries like the US: In Switzerland, a mandate for auto insurance has nearly 100% compliance, but in the U.S. the auto insurance mandate’s compliance rate is only around 83%.

US could do it better in some ways: Switzerland has strong regulation with respect to nonphysician health care professionals (e.g., nurses, PAs, NPs,) and thus patients are often compelled to use expensive physicians even when this may not be medically necessary.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register


Quote:
Characterised by liberalism and federalism, Switzerland has an extremely well developed healthcare system.

Competition: a degree of competition into the health care system that is certainly comparable to the Netherlands.

Premiums are community rated, that is, the same for every person taking out a policy with a given company in a given area,
regardless of individual risk rating. (no cherry picking and excluding pre-existing conditions, but the people who make healthy choices subsidize those who don't).

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register



The industry that now controls the US system spent a lot of money last time there was serious talk of change, and they will do so again. Because economically, the optimal solution is not one where everyone has coverage and decent services at an affordable price.  Pareto efficiency in health care means maximal profits with high prices and some people not having coverage.  We can only move from maximum economic efficiency to maximum social efficiency if there are regulations to curb the excesses of the market.  That's what Switzerland did, and that is what the US has to do. You won't like it.

As I said before, there would be no clamor for changing our current system if it worked well. I don't want government to get involved in bookstores or restaurants or other sectors where the market works (except for normal zoning and health/safety regulations).  Otherwise, let people buy and sell as they wish.  Your hyperbolic rhetoric about socialism and marxism simply don't fit what Democrats want.  We tried getting a Swiss styled system under the Clintons, and then the shrieking classes went apoplectic about socialist plots and visions of sugar plum fairies that danced in their heads.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:01pm by monty »  

The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is far short of what we actually must do.
 
IP Logged
 
Opus
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline


"We have met the enemy...
and he is us"


Posts: 2746
Sidney,NY USA
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #111 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:59pm
 
monty wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 4:03pm:
I didn't say that malpractice insurance wasn't expensive - my point was that the amount of underlying medical malpractice damages does not justify the high rates that insurance companies charge.<snip>
If a doctor has 1000 patients he or she sees throughout the year, that amounts to $11 to $50 per patient for insurance. Not a trivial sum, but not closely related to what the average doctor costs the insurance companies.  The average OB-GYN salary is between $200,000 to $300,000, which means that they bill at three times that rate and have $400K to $600K for operating costs ... should be enough to cover the costs of doing business, although the insurance companies are going to leech as much as they can.  <snip>


The Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register is $69,000

  This cost has to passed to the patients, and thus passed on the the insurance companies which results in higher premiums.

  My union is self insured, premiums keep going up because costs keep going up. Every increase in premiums are scrutinized and questioned.

  Fixing the malpractice lawsuit problem would be a big step in lowering medical costs, at least in my area. No politician will do this because either they are lawyers or they have them as friends.

Paul
Back to top
  

I no longer post because no one cares what I say.
WWW pjbgravely pjbgravely  
IP Logged
 
HSJones
Locked
Offline


I Love CH.com!


Posts: 14
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #112 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:28pm
 
Anybody know of a poor MD pr one on foodstamps?  When I see my doctor (and god knows what he is charging the insurance company), he usually sees me for 15 minutes and has every other waiting room with a patient in it-I think that he must make well over $5000 dollars an hour before expenses and at least keeps several thousand dollars a week for himself after expenses.  The parking spaces in the hospital reserved for MDs contiain Mercedes, Porsches, etc.  In most of Europe each MD is assigned a certainn number of patients and he is paid quite well for that PLUS he can see private patients and god knows what they are charged.  Sorry, but I have no sympathy for doctors's problems given the amount of money that they make.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:31pm by HSJones »  
 
IP Logged
 
monty
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline




Posts: 1056
The Swamp, Florida
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #113 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:29pm
 
So how do you propose fixing it, Opus?  A cap of $250,000 damages for all cases, including when an intoxicated doc botches spinal surgery and a person is condemned to a life of excruciating pain??  
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:37pm by monty »  

The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is far short of what we actually must do.
 
IP Logged
 
HSJones
Locked
Offline


I Love CH.com!


Posts: 14
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #114 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:42pm
 
monty wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:29pm:
So how do you propose fixing it, Opus?  A cap of $250,000 damages for all cases, including when an intoxicated doc botches spinal surgery and a person is condemned to a life of excruciating pain??  


No, an incompetent MD who causes the serous injury of death of a patient should pay up, lose his/her license and get sent to prison like any other thug who hurts or kills people.  The title "MD" does not put the person who has it above the law, neither civil nor criminal and in the siutation that you described the doctor should be tried in both types of courts.  If he/she causes the death or serious injury of a person due to negligence or intoxication then he/she should spend a LONG time in prison having his/her anus examined by the other prisoners.
Back to top
  
 
IP Logged
 
Batch
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


Control The Beast With
O2 & D3 You Must


Posts: 3708
Bremerton, WA
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #115 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:43pm
 
I think it's time we quantified the issue posed by many that the founding fathers of our Nation who were also signers of the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution were all slave owners or favored slavery.

The topic of slavery and our Nation’s founders happens to be a topic I studied in an elective course in Political Philosophy while I was working on my degree in Chemistry at the University of Washington.  

The professorial tag team that taught the course on alternating days were a married couple…  He was white, she was black, and both were excellent… For reference, he was a Democrat and she was a Republican.  They both spent a day on the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.  Their presentations were objective with ample proofs from the National Archives…

I’ve long since lost my notes taken during this class, but the following from Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register covers the same theme presented:

“One of the most frequent tactics employed to discredit America's Founding Fathers is to say that the Founding Fathers were all pro-slavery racists and hypocrites. Therefore, why should we care what their views were on any subject? African-American professor Walter Williams wisely explained the use of this tactic in these words:

   “Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers' ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists.”

These people paint a false picture of the Founding Fathers and the issue of slavery. The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers.

The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery - and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.

Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).

It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.

Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil--and their support went beyond words.

For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

   “I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.

In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.

It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:”

   “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
         -George Washington

Take care,

V/R, Batch

Back to top
  

You love lots of things if you live around them. But there isn't any woman and there isn't any horse, that’s as lovely as a great airplane. If it's a beautiful fighter, your heart will be ever there
pete_batcheller  
IP Logged
 
Opus
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline


"We have met the enemy...
and he is us"


Posts: 2746
Sidney,NY USA
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #116 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 10:06pm
 
monty wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 9:29pm:
So how do you propose fixing it, Opus?  A cap of $250,000 damages for all cases, including when an intoxicated doc botches spinal surgery and a person is condemned to a life of excruciating pain??  



Personally I don't know that answer. That is for people who can handle money decisions a lot better than me. All I know is the system is broken, Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register but other patients foot the bill. A doctor that does do something to hurt patients ( like the surgeon cutting off the wrong foot ) doesn't pay directly for their negligence. They probably lose their job but not their house.

Paul
Back to top
  

I no longer post because no one cares what I say.
WWW pjbgravely pjbgravely  
IP Logged
 
Batch
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


Control The Beast With
O2 & D3 You Must


Posts: 3708
Bremerton, WA
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #117 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 10:23pm
 
 More typical liberal spin tactics Monty…  mix fact with fiction…  Baffle’m with propaganda and dazzle’m with footwork…


Quote:
We tried getting a Swiss styled system under the Clintons, and then the shrieking classes went apoplectic about socialist plots and visions of sugar plum fairies that danced in their heads.

True… you did try to push Universal Health Care through under the Clintonistas…  but it was more like Swiss cheese…  with unsustainable black holes to suck up taxpayer’s available wealth at every income level…  Even the democrats bailed out on “Hillary Care” when they saw the fundamental concept and terrible flaws that made it indefensible in Congress…

Folks may find the following illuminating…
  • A June 18, 1993 internal Memorandum entitled, “A Critique of Our Plan,” authored by someone with the initials “P.S.,” makes the startling admission that critics of Hillary’s health care reform plan were correct: “I can think of parallels in wartime, but I have trouble coming up with a precedent in our peacetime history for such broad and centralized control over a sector of the economy…  Is the public really ready for this?… None of us knows whether we can make it work well or at all…”
  • A “Confidential” May 26, 1993 Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Hillary Clinton entitled, “Health Care Reform Communications,” which criticizes the Task Force as a “secret cabal of Washington policy ‘wonks’” that has engaged in “choking off information” from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton “use classic opposition research” to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to “expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists” in order to deflect criticism. Senator Rockefeller also suggested news organizations “are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news] coverage.”

I take it you’re still not ready to check your guns at the door and sit at the table under one of the two signs for an objective debate…

Take care,

V/R, Batch

Back to top
  

You love lots of things if you live around them. But there isn't any woman and there isn't any horse, that’s as lovely as a great airplane. If it's a beautiful fighter, your heart will be ever there
pete_batcheller  
IP Logged
 
Kevin_M
CH.com Sponsor
***
Offline


withered branches grow
green again.


Posts: 8754
Michigan, USA
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #118 - Mar 16th, 2009 at 10:29pm
 
Batch,

I sense a common ground of reasonable objective motivation here.

Batch wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 10:20am:
Affordable health care a complex issue, but it can be solved.  

I don’t know about you but I think this is exactly the kind of dialog we need.



Taking a look-see at how it may be accomplished, the example of Switzerland deserved comment.

Batch wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 6:00pm:
National Health Care is not only possible without big government taxing a country back to the stone age, but that it works wonderfully well in Switzerland based on private medical insurance, free market competition... and the principals of capitalism.


While in agreement with the possibility of a better way for us here, also hoping economically more efficient, there are seeming certain compromises I'd like your opinion on as to the extent of you deem fair.  Previous mention has been to set the conversation only under one of two flags.

Batch wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 10:20am:
If you want to come to the table to work on that solution, then we check our guns at the door and sit under one or the other of two big signs that lets all concerned know our allegiance and goals...



What you have described as working "wonderfully well" has what seems certain departures from "free market competition" and "principles of capitalism".  It looks like government regulation and not allowing for profit to be made have been used to accomplish this.

Artonio wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 5:41pm:
Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.


Working "wonderfully well" seems inclusive of government regulation and some muffling of capitalism.  Would you submit your thoughts here?


Another item that could show an applicable difference is the previously stated 46% uninsured rate here, while in Switzerland:

Artonio wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 5:41pm:
95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed.


Is our health insurance resolution starting from a deeper hole to dig out of and perhaps more drastic in reversing, especially in this employment scenario?



I'll conclude by sidetracking and asking your indulgence to read the link that follows.  I'm not too familiar with political slants and have preferred to be more accepting of information that withholds any words lending editorial on one's own information in that respect.  I'll cite a for-instance:

Batch wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 1:34pm:
...the clever liberals broke into the Social Security piggy bank and spent all of it...  mostly to pay for social entitlements...  And that my friends, is also a matter of record...  In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson transferred the Social Security Trust Fund to the general fund... to pay for the War on Poverty...  A war the liberals started...  that we still haven’t won...



I've noticed here below, there is an explanation of on-budget, off-budget inclusion interpretation of SS to the general fund that was explained due to perhaps better grasping of budget understanding.  

Quote:
Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds.

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register



Refreshingly noted was the ability to explain without using words of political leaning.  If you were to read the link, I'd appreciate your comments.  There seemed also a conflicting problem at the time with the growing expense of Viet Nam and domestic social programs at the time.  LBJ wished to come across as very positive with the ongoing, about then simultaneously pinning a medal on Westmoreland for his thusfar commanding, and all just before the Tet Offensive.  I realize it was put down, but believe Westmoreland to be replaced later.  

BTW.  I learned here from you of Operation Linebacker. considered highly influencial swaying negotiations and effective.  Very much kudos to you, buddy!   Wink    

A Guilio Douhet leaning maybe partly still surviving.  And thank you Billy Mitchell, his Argonne-Meuse assistance forgotten between wars.  Pershing was fantastic with military education and preparedness but technologically stagnant, learning from Civil War mentors.  Surprising since his idol Grant saw the advantage of rifled bores.  
 Perhaps the only military aircraft named for a person, Mitchell B-25, if I recall from memory.  Aside, any info to offer of whatever laser-guided briefings of the time?  


Just additionally, I've noticed information given citing the source being a lobbyist group with media ties and perhaps tending to frame the desires of its funders into the best light.  Voicing of written opinions that may have certain monied interests priortized when looking over a situation can instill skepticism, having nothing to do with personal perceptions.  While not always easy to exclude, when employed, there can be a tendency to cross-check to adapt subjective thought to a little further evidence to preserve trust with perceptions of objectivity and reasonableness coming through to the forefront to remain amiably engaged.  

Thank you for tolerance, time, and whatever thoughts you may be feel free to consider.    Smiley



Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 17th, 2009 at 12:55am by Kevin_M »  
 
IP Logged
 
HSJones
Locked
Offline


I Love CH.com!


Posts: 14
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #119 - Mar 17th, 2009 at 1:26am
 
You need to step away from the computer and get l**D!  I have never read such obsessive-compsive as yours in my ife-as a matter of fact, DON'T go hook up with a girl, you'd bore her to death!

When you went to school were you taught to use 10 words when 2 would do?  See a doc about some lithium, my friend. Shocked
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 17th, 2009 at 1:29am by HSJones »  
 
IP Logged
 
Artonio
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


I Love


Posts: 604
New Castle, Pa
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #120 - Mar 17th, 2009 at 1:35am
 
HSJones wrote on Mar 17th, 2009 at 1:26am:
You need to step away from the computer and get l**D!  I have never read such obsessive-compsive as yours in my ife-as a matter of fact, DON'T go hook up with a girl, you'd bore her to death!

When you went to school were you taught to use 10 words when 2 would do?  See a doc about some lithium, my friend. Shocked


Way out of line. Show a little respect please.

with warm regards,
Tony
Back to top
  

For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill. President Barack Obama
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Artonio
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline


I Love


Posts: 604
New Castle, Pa
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #121 - Mar 18th, 2009 at 12:40pm
 
Kevin_M wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 10:29pm:
Batch,

I sense a common ground of reasonable objective motivation here.

Batch wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 10:20am:
Affordable health care a complex issue, but it can be solved.  

I don’t know about you but I think this is exactly the kind of dialog we need.



Taking a look-see at how it may be accomplished, the example of Switzerland deserved comment.

Batch wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 6:00pm:
National Health Care is not only possible without big government taxing a country back to the stone age, but that it works wonderfully well in Switzerland based on private medical insurance, free market competition... and the principals of capitalism.


While in agreement with the possibility of a better way for us here, also hoping economically more efficient, there are seeming certain compromises I'd like your opinion on as to the extent of you deem fair.  Previous mention has been to set the conversation only under one of two flags.

Batch wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 10:20am:
If you want to come to the table to work on that solution, then we check our guns at the door and sit under one or the other of two big signs that lets all concerned know our allegiance and goals...



What you have described as working "wonderfully well" has what seems certain departures from "free market competition" and "principles of capitalism".  It looks like government regulation and not allowing for profit to be made have been used to accomplish this.

Artonio wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 5:41pm:
Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.


Working "wonderfully well" seems inclusive of government regulation and some muffling of capitalism.  Would you submit your thoughts here?


Another item that could show an applicable difference is the previously stated 46% uninsured rate here, while in Switzerland:

Artonio wrote on Mar 15th, 2009 at 5:41pm:
95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed.


Is our health insurance resolution starting from a deeper hole to dig out of and perhaps more drastic in reversing, especially in this employment scenario?



I'll conclude by sidetracking and asking your indulgence to read the link that follows.  I'm not too familiar with political slants and have preferred to be more accepting of information that withholds any words lending editorial on one's own information in that respect.  I'll cite a for-instance:

Batch wrote on Mar 16th, 2009 at 1:34pm:
...the clever liberals broke into the Social Security piggy bank and spent all of it...  mostly to pay for social entitlements...  And that my friends, is also a matter of record...  In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson transferred the Social Security Trust Fund to the general fund... to pay for the War on Poverty...  A war the liberals started...  that we still haven’t won...



I've noticed here below, there is an explanation of on-budget, off-budget inclusion interpretation of SS to the general fund that was explained due to perhaps better grasping of budget understanding.  

Quote:
Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds.

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register



Refreshingly noted was the ability to explain without using words of political leaning.  If you were to read the link, I'd appreciate your comments.  There seemed also a conflicting problem at the time with the growing expense of Viet Nam and domestic social programs at the time.  LBJ wished to come across as very positive with the ongoing, about then simultaneously pinning a medal on Westmoreland for his thusfar commanding, and all just before the Tet Offensive.  I realize it was put down, but believe Westmoreland to be replaced later.  

BTW.  I learned here from you of Operation Linebacker. considered highly influencial swaying negotiations and effective.  Very much kudos to you, buddy!   Wink    

A Guilio Douhet leaning maybe partly still surviving.  And thank you Billy Mitchell, his Argonne-Meuse assistance forgotten between wars.  Pershing was fantastic with military education and preparedness but technologically stagnant, learning from Civil War mentors.  Surprising since his idol Grant saw the advantage of rifled bores.  
 Perhaps the only military aircraft named for a person, Mitchell B-25, if I recall from memory.  Aside, any info to offer of whatever laser-guided briefings of the time?  


Just additionally, I've noticed information given citing the source being a lobbyist group with media ties and perhaps tending to frame the desires of its funders into the best light.  Voicing of written opinions that may have certain monied interests priortized when looking over a situation can instill skepticism, having nothing to do with personal perceptions.  While not always easy to exclude, when employed, there can be a tendency to cross-check to adapt subjective thought to a little further evidence to preserve trust with perceptions of objectivity and reasonableness coming through to the forefront to remain amiably engaged.  

Thank you for tolerance, time, and whatever thoughts you may be feel free to consider.    Smiley





Good Post!
Back to top
  

For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill. President Barack Obama
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Lobster
CH.com Alumnus
***
Offline




Posts: 2417
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #122 - Mar 18th, 2009 at 1:12pm
 
I like what you are saying Batch... but do note that it is more Libertarian than Conservative. 
Rush would punt you in the nuts if he read your 'too much government' posts.

As a fairly non-political observer, I have noted the following:
This administration's government exercises authority far beyond what the founding fathers envisioned.
The prior administration's government exercised authority far beyond what the founding fathers envisioned.
The administration before that's government exercised authority far beyond what the founding fathers envisioned.
The administration before that's government exercised authority far beyond what the founding fathers envisioned.
The administration before that's government exercised authority far beyond what the founding fathers envisioned.

Republicans and Democrats and Conservatives and Liberals are all sides of the same 'more government' coin.

And I agree... mixing government and health care is a bad idea.
Back to top
  

Rock beats Scissors.
 
IP Logged
 
-johnny-
CH.com Sponsor
***
Offline


theres no smoking on the
dock


Posts: 1642
fayette county ohio
Gender: male
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #123 - Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:22pm
 
monty wrote on Mar 10th, 2009 at 1:33pm:
Much of that is from larger cars.  Even the Corolla is much larger than it was decades ago.  People who buy cars that are stingy on gas tend to be stingy consumers - the profit is in building larger vehicles that include theatre systems, fountains, and a full kitchen. That's what people want, that's what people pay for.


i'm not buying that. my 78 f250 4x4 with a 300 cid 4bbl carb, headers, heavy ass cast iron 4 spd transmission and transfer case, 35" tires and a #300 tube steel front bumper with a heavy duty warn winch gets 14mpg.

my wifes 96 s15 gmc jimmy with stock features and a 4.3 muti port fuel injected engine gets 16mpg.

very different vehicles in size and fuel configuration. same fuel millage.

anybody remember when ford came out with that pantywaste looking body style in 96 and they discontinued the 460, 351w,302, and 300 i6 engines with the new dohc triton engine with the 30 mile long timing chain that clicks and rattles. when the triton first came out it got 14 mpg in a thin steel mostly plastic half ton pick up. just recently they started upping their fuel millage. they could have done this years ago but they didn't.

ford mustangs and falcons made back in the mid 60s with the 6cyl and tiny v8 still got around 20+mpg even on unleaded gas. and believe me theres alot more steel in an old mustang than the plastic one they make today and allot less aerodynamics.

hell my 63 dodge dart gets 24 mpg. 45 years later thier bragging about 30 maybe 35mpg out of a compact car?
                                                                             bullshit
Back to top
  

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register
 
IP Logged
 
monty
CH.com Hall of Famer
*****
Offline




Posts: 1056
The Swamp, Florida
Re: ICFBI !!!
Reply #124 - Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:49pm
 
-johnny- wrote on Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:22pm:
i'm not buying that.




Which part?  

The part about the Corolla? The Corolla started out as a sub-compact with a 1.1 liter engine. Today it is a 1.8 liter compact.  Along the way, engine technology improved, but the car got larger and heavier and more powerful, which offset much of the mileage improvements. I would rather drive a 2005 car that gets 35 mpg than a 1975 car that got the same.  

The part about larger, fancier cars being more profitable?  That's true as well.  I saw numbers a few years ago that showed that the factories made around $10,000 on the average SUV, while they lost a little bit on the smaller cars, and they were happy to operate like that as long as their market share of SUVs was going up,up,up.

Does that mean that these trends are 100% uniform?  Not necessarily. You could be right about the cars that you mentioned - I'm not familiar with those.  But overall, small cars have gotten larger, and big, fancy cars are where the profits have been.  
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:55pm by monty »  

The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is far short of what we actually must do.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print

DISCLAIMER: All information contained on this web site is for informational purposes only.  It is in no way intended to be used as a replacement for professional medical treatment.   clusterheadaches.com makes no claims as to the scientific/clinical validity of the information on this site OR to that of the information linked to from this site.  All information taken from the internet should be discussed with a medical professional!