Defender Central

[Daurie]

Count the Defenders.. Thought this might be fun to share.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=sr5b47gvkw11&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=7452765&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

[rwollschlager]

i just wish some more of them were over here...legally

[Momo]

Looks like a lot at Solihull...right?

[Carpe]

Oh my...that's just HOT!

[Carpe]

i just wish some more of them were over here...legally

True that. Never ceases to amaze me how many posters in this forum have some 110 with a year other than 1983 or 1993 that try and say 100% legal. Look, if you have to say it's 100% legal in your post, there's probably a very legitimate reason why I should be suspicious. 100% legal goes without saying. Most folks tend to round up, I think, from 42.7% legal to 100% legal.

I agree, though...more here would be a good thing. Canada's import laws are better than ours.

[Daurie]

Personally I think another batch of NADA Defenders is due. Now with the new LR owners who knows what will happen!

[rwollschlager]

an nada defender would be good. as long as its cheaper than the ones on ebay and comes with a nice big warranty :thumb-up:

[Carpe]

Personally I think another batch of NADA Defenders is due. Now with the new LR owners who knows what will happen!
It sounds odd to say this, but I don't want another round of NADA Defenders near as bad as I want the existing crop of Defenders (worldwide) to be made more readily available to the American market. While I understand the spirit of the 25 year old import rule, I have to say that I disagree with it in principle.

I'll never buy a new car (for many reasons). I think it is daft and wasteful to produce as many cars as we do. It's not a sustainable practice, supply greatly outweighs demand, and new trucks quickly devalue and become castaway vehicles because the cost and expertise required to service, repair, and maintain them is disproportionately high in relation to the time and money that folks have as the economy contracts. Give me a truck that I can keep for 20 years...then give me another.

[Terrys]

It sounds odd to say this, but I don't want another round of NADA Defenders near as bad as I want the existing crop of Defenders (worldwide) to be made more readily available to the American market. While I understand the spirit of the 25 year old import rule, I have to say that I disagree with it in principle.

I'll never buy a new car (for many reasons). I think it is daft and wasteful to produce as many cars as we do. It's not a sustainable practice, supply greatly outweighs demand, and new trucks quickly devalue and become castaway vehicles because the cost and expertise required to service, repair, and maintain them is disproportionately high in relation to the time and money that folks have as the economy contracts. Give me a truck that I can keep for 20 years...then give me another.

I couldn't agree more. Detroit wants us to bail them out, so they can continue this trend? Not with my tax dollars, thank you.

[jp-]

I couldn't agree more. Detroit wants us to bail them out, so they can continue this trend? Not with my tax dollars, thank you.

Amen.

I know several people that are aware of the big three buying up patents for fuel efficient engines since the 1940's. We were getting 36mpg in 1930. That is a fact. And yet, they want us to believe that in 2008, 78 years later that 22mpg is good? ("Top of its class in mpg," as they like to say.)

I say let them go bankrupt and then let them reform (under chapter 11 guidelines) and start producing some of the fuel efficient designs they have been sitting on for 60+ years.

[JSBriggs]

.... and start producing some of the fuel efficient designs they have been sitting on for 60+ years.

I wish they would put quality and durability on the top of the list long before fuel efficiency.

-Jeff

[Momo]

How quickly the lessons of the '73 oil crisis have been forgotten.

Meanwhile Honda just opened a new plant in Indiana. I guess they must be doing something right.

I'm with you guys- no bailout. Free markets are cruel but decisive. The irony is that the current crisis may finally open the US market to all those great little turbo diesels that the ROW enjoys.

[Eric W S]

I had a Defender. Never again. I loved the truck, but they have nothing on a well restored series.

EwS

[sayers]

I can remember that in 1997 d90's were 34,500, right off the lot, not a bad price back then. Maybe ta-ta motors will think outside the box and send some defenders our way.

[Carpe]

I wish they would put quality and durability on the top of the list long before fuel efficiency.

-Jeff
Land Rover owners can't throw too many stones at US automakers for quality and durability. Take a quick survey of the forums we are in and you will quickly realize that it is 95% about repair, 3% about buying and selling, and 2% about driving. Our aftermarket for repair parts for Rovers is disproportionately high to that of accessories. Rovers break - that's what they do. We like them because they have character, history, and relatively sound off-road handling. However, we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that we are to be swayed by quality and durability. We like repairability.

[Carpe]

Amen.

I know several people that are aware of the big three buying up patents for fuel efficient engines since the 1940's. We were getting 36mpg in 1930. That is a fact. And yet, they want us to believe that in 2008, 78 years later that 22mpg is good? ("Top of its class in mpg," as they like to say.)

I say let them go bankrupt and then let them reform (under chapter 11 guidelines) and start producing some of the fuel efficient designs they have been sitting on for 60+ years.
Sounds good in principle, but the number of jobs lost for an auto industry bankrupcy would boggle your mind. The bank bailout was much about conceptual money; Billions of dollars of losses were on paper based on speculation of returns and interest lost. When a bank makes a loan, they only have to have 10% of those physical dollars on hand to guarantee the loan. If someone defaulted on a loan, the bank claims the full amount for bad debt write-off because the loans that they sold as securities will no longer to be able to pay the full amount of interest to the investors, but the banks themselves are only out that initial 10% that they were required to have for the loan...bottom line, the loss wasn't as bad as it looked on paper.

In contrast, the auto industry has to deal with physical inventory that is generated by multiple tiers of suppliers. When GM gets debt relief, Delphi is stiffed, Delphi's suppliers are stiffed, Delphi's suppliers' suppliers are stiffed, etc...what that translates to is MASSIVE job losses from the bottom up. To support an OEM operation like the Toyota plant in Canton, MS, it takes upwards of 250 suppliers / service firms (everyone from injection mold companies, to paint suppliers, to office supply companies, to cleaning crews, to communications companies, to food services, etc...) to keep the plant operational. Every time we let one factory tank, you can guarantee that there will be very painful financial and job loss problems for 2 shock circles - the most intense is within 75 miles of the plant, and the second is within 115 miles of the plant. Drive through lovely Flint, MI if you doubt it.

One key problem is Union labor. The average full price of labor for a union worker (salary+benefits+healthcare+amortized retirement / perpetuation of retirement) is roughly $64/hr. Shocking, isn't it?! The average full price of labor for a non union worker under the same considerations is $32/hr. Union labor is an unsustainable model. They have made some great advances for the cause of the worker, but that's about all I can say positively about them. The fact of the matter is that the US automakers don't make a car that is twice as good or twice as reliable or twice as fuel efficient to justify paying their workers twice as much.

We need the US auto industry to succeed for a lot of reasons. We need them to retool to help them succeed. We also need to understand, though, that for every Rover we buy, that's one less GM car sold to us, which means that we are voting on the outcome of this crisis with our dollars.

[Carpe]

I had a Defender. Never again. I loved the truck, but they have nothing on a well restored series.

EwS
Just out of curiosity, what is your criteria for enjoyment of the Series over the Defender? Is it character, dependability, comfort, durability, etc...? Is it something subjective or relatively objective that drives that feeling?

[Eric W S]

Sounds good in principle, but the number of jobs lost for an auto industry bankrupcy would boggle your mind. The bank bailout was much about conceptual money; Billions of dollars of losses were on paper based on speculation of returns and interest lost. When a bank makes a loan, they only have to have 10% of those physical dollars on hand to guarantee the loan. If someone defaulted on a loan, the bank claims the full amount for bad debt write-off because the loans that they sold as securities will no longer to be able to pay the full amount of interest to the investors, but the banks themselves are only out that initial 10% that they were required to have for the loan...bottom line, the loss wasn't as bad as it looked on paper.

In contrast, the auto industry has to deal with physical inventory that is generated by multiple tiers of suppliers. When GM gets debt relief, Delphi is stiffed, Delphi's suppliers are stiffed, Delphi's suppliers' suppliers are stiffed, etc...what that translates to is MASSIVE job losses from the bottom up. To support an OEM operation like the Toyota plant in Canton, MS, it takes upwards of 250 suppliers / service firms (everyone from injection mold companies, to paint suppliers, to office supply companies, to cleaning crews, to communications companies, to food services, etc...) to keep the plant operational. Every time we let one factory tank, you can guarantee that there will be very painful financial and job loss problems for 2 shock circles - the most intense is within 75 miles of the plant, and the second is within 115 miles of the plant. Drive through lovely Flint, MI if you doubt it.

One key problem is Union labor. The average full price of labor for a union worker (salary+benefits+healthcare+amortized retirement / perpetuation of retirement) is roughly $64/hr. Shocking, isn't it?! The average full price of labor for a non union worker under the same considerations is $32/hr. Union labor is an unsustainable model. They have made some great advances for the cause of the worker, but that's about all I can say positively about them. The fact of the matter is that the US automakers don't make a car that is twice as good or twice as reliable or twice as fuel efficient to justify paying their workers twice as much.

We need the US auto industry to succeed for a lot of reasons. We need them to retool to help them succeed. We also need to understand, though, that for every Rover we buy, that's one less GM car sold to us, which means that we are voting on the outcome of this crisis with our dollars.

That's not exactly a true statement about how loans are handled. If they are collateralized, then they aren't on the banks books since they were sold as an asset. GAAP would not allow a loss to be taken by the bank.

Wall Street losses aren't paper losses. That's why we have a credit issue on the street. That's why banks failed. The investors lost real money.

We don't need a US auto Industry that can't compete in today's market. They are out of touch with just about everyone and everything. Let the market do it's thing and wipe the slate clean. The US voted for years on the outcome. We want imports for everything but US trucks if you look at recent sales. I may buy a Jeep, but that is about it.

[Eric W S]

Just out of curiosity, what is your criteria for enjoyment of the Series over the Defender? Is it character, dependability, comfort, durability, etc...? Is it something subjective or relatively objective that drives that feeling?

Series are better off road. They climb well, have a better COG. I outwheeled a 90 rather easily over the summer. You can lock and load a series truck just like any D.

Field repairable. Cheap parts. Simple systems that can be easily diagnosed anywhere.

Copmpared to an under powered 3.9/4.0, no real superiority off road in the D, expensive and limited after market, expensive parts, expensive trips to the shop if you need a diagnosis on the ECM, emmissions, ...

Even the TDI Euro version have gone drive by wire, power windows, air con et al.

AND FINALLY they are making any more series trucks but they will be importing many more crappy old 90s in the near future.

[jp-]

Union labor is an unsustainable model.

I completely agree with you there, and that is reason enough to let them go under, to break the unions.

I know there will be a ripple effect, but that is not reason enough for my tax dollars to go into a black hole. Who is going to bailout the American taxpayer when we get done bailing everyone else out? Let the free market work. We are moving more and more toward socialism and I hope I am not the only one who is more than a little bit afraid of that.

The $700b bailout is an utter disgrace in my view. The fact is the loans are no good. Just because the government takes them over doesn't make them good all of a sudden. And no one is stepping up to pay off my mortgage so why do I have to help pay off someone else's when they never should have bought a house in the first place?

Also - Nissan is in Canton. Toyota is in Tupelo.

Almost went to work for Nissan...


The American car makers have been ignoring the warning signs of Toyota and Honda since the seventies.

[Rineheitzgabot]

I agree with those who think a bailout is a bad idea; here's why:

It is a matter of principle for me. It is not the government's job to do this sort of thing. Would it hurt the economy to let it tank? Absolutely, and it would be, as Carpe put it; mind-boggling. Would it hurt me personally? Absoultely, my 401k has been bleeding for months, and I hate it, but I want a system of government/economy, to be guided by the "invisible hand". Natural adjustments happen all the time in our economy. It is like life. What doesn't kill us, would serve to make us stronger.

Even if it were GUARANTEED to work, in the next year or two, to repair the big three, I would still be against it. It is like junk food. It feels, smells, tastes good, but it is not good for the long haul. Where does this stop? This bailing-out thing. How big does a company have to be, in order to be helped? My company is struggling, why can't they get help?

These gazilion-dollar-a-year CEO's have demonstrated clearly how serious they are about their companies surviving with their $20k chartered jet rides to the capitol this week. They are fat, happy, complacent. This philosophy comes from the top down, and probably says something about our country in general.

In reference to Carpe's per-hour estimate on big-3 workers, I heard it was over $70/hour, to Toyota's just-over $40/hour. This illustrates the "spoiled" nature of labor unions, and it also shines the light on how irresponsible some of the negotiations were in times past, when these benefits packages were developed and signed with said unions. One can only blame management of these companies for these ridiculous contracts, they knew when it came time to "pay the piper", they would be long-since retired.

The only reason I might agree with a bailout is to keep the capacity open for production of war implements for the united states, should we ever need it. There should be extremely tight restrictions on any bailout, including turnover of all upper management. I almost think there are so many layers of management in these fat organizations, that they could get rid of the top three layers, and still function; and possibly even more efficiently.

Accountability has alot to do with it for me as well. When we as people make a bad decision, bad consequences follow; or they should follow. The big three should be made responsible for the bad decisions they have made for decades. This will happen if they are allowed to fail.

If they fail, and if the market supports it, new automakers will take their place; this is the natural course of events. I'll be willing to bet, that the new automakers' business model would be more like the Asian automakers.

I have three children, and I want there to be a healthy landscape for them, and their children. And yes, I believe if we bail them out, that the landscape will be tainted. Like JP used the "S" word.

I could literally go on for pages about this subject, but I'm stepping off my soapbox now.

[LaneRover]

One key problem is Union labor. The average full price of labor for a union worker (salary+benefits+healthcare+amortized retirement / perpetuation of retirement) is roughly $64/hr. Shocking, isn't it?! The average full price of labor for a non union worker under the same considerations is $32/hr. Union labor is an unsustainable model. They have made some great advances for the cause of the worker, but that's about all I can say positively about them. The fact of the matter is that the US automakers don't make a car that is twice as good or twice as reliable or twice as fuel efficient to justify paying their workers twice as much. [/B]

Not that this is actually a winnable argument - think of it as more of a comment. The US automakers don't have to make a car that is twice as good or twice as reliable in order to pay their workers twice as much, as long as the workers are twice as efficient. Or as long as a lot of their work is being sent to cheaper suppliers overseas - oh wait, they are doing that...

There are definitely arguments for and against unions and whenever either side is too powerful it is bad. I personally find it amazing that with so many of the blue collar auto jobs being sent overseas that the white collar end of it has not gotten significantly smaller. You think that with fewer people to manage, you would need fewer managers...

[greenmeanie]

Lanerover,
You bring up a good point about jobs going oversees. Unfortunately the management in my aerospace company have jumped on the globaliziation band wagon and have a plan to send all design work oversees to what they call developing markets. They won't sack my generation but they willnot hire a new generation of US designers. Most of the manufacturing has already gone with only the top level of assembly and testing done here so that the product can get a 'Made in the USA' sticker slapped on it.

They actually perceive an increased need for management in the US as someone has to control the flow of work. I find this an odd outlook as mangement is the most universal of skills but the technical know how that goes into our machinery is the thing you want to protect.

For a lesson on where the US is headed just look at the UK in the 70's and 80's. In some unfortunate respects we are decades ahead of you.

[JimCT]

It is so disappointing to see LR owners spouting Rush Limbaug garbage. Don't you think the Japanese and Korean car makers have their government's help? Certainly when it comes to health care.

[LaneRover]

It is so disappointing to see LR owners spouting Rush Limbaug garbage. Don't you think the Japanese and Korean car makers have their government's help? Certainly when it comes to health care.

Not sure if you are including me with the Rush comment (I am OK if you are and OK if you are not) but the way that government keeps getting bigger and not better (under Dem or Repub) the last thing I want them in charge of is healthcare! Ask the Canadians how long they have to wait for an operation and why those that can afford it come here to get things done.

You definitely can't only blame the unions for the carmakers woes. Too many companies and businesses (and banks) focus too much on the what is profitable NOW and don't look too far enough into the future, don't look enough into the riskiness of focusing too much on their current money making house of cards. I work in the film industry and my work comes and goes, after investing in equipment to help me do what I do I decided to start investing in a little bit of real estate to help make money when work was slow, I decided to diversify a bit. Luckily I started in '98! (Unfortunately I haven't gotten that far but at least far enough that I have a nice piece of property that can hold a lot of derelict Rovers!)

Also too many execs make millions upon millions even while running companies into the ground. But you really can't limit what a company can profit or what it can pay its execs because they will move overseas and you will have even less control over them. Did anyone know that Exxon/Mobile is now a company based in Dubai and not the US?

And as to a comment made earlier. I always heard that it wasn't the car companies that were buying up fuel efficient patents and not using them but the oil companies. Why would the car companies not want fuel efficient vehicles? The oil companies make more money selling us more fuel, they are the ones that would care.

[Jim-ME]

Normally I wouldn't say anything in this type of thread but I can't not say something. We have become a country, quite possibly a world of mindless sheep. Most people do not think for themselves any longer they just jump on the latest bandwagon. Until individuals start being willing to invest the time and effort to become informed and to make decisions based on facts we can't succeed. We need to learn to ask questions, not accept anything but facts, and then to make our own decisions based on fact. I don't care if it is health care or Land Rovers. Use brains not emotions is what will keep this country strong.
Jim

[LaneRover]

Normally I wouldn't say anything in this type of thread but I can't not say something. We have become a country, quite possibly a world of mindless sheep. Most people do not think for themselves any longer they just jump on the latest bandwagon. Until individuals start being willing to invest the time and effort to become informed and to make decisions based on facts we can't succeed. We need to learn to ask questions, not accept anything but facts, and then to make our own decisions based on fact. I don't care if it is health care or Land Rovers. Use brains not emotions is what will keep this country strong.
Jim

I totally agree, the problem today is that with the internet and the plethura of sites on either side of any problem people think they have the truth when in fact they have decided to choose what they think is true.

[yorker]

For a lesson on where the US is headed just look at the UK in the 70's and 80's. In some unfortunate respects we are decades ahead of you.


You know, it is funny more people haven't noted that...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/business/economy/18car.html?pagewanted=print


November 18, 2008

A British Lesson on Auto Bailouts

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/nelson_d_schwartz/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
PARIS — A faltering auto giant whose brands are synonymous with the open road. Hundreds of thousands of unionized workers with powerful political backers. An urgent plea for the government to write a virtual blank check.
This is not the story of Ford (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/ford_motor_company/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and General Motors (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_motors_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org), but British Leyland, a car company that went through £11 billion of inflation-adjusted British taxpayer money, or $16.5 billion, in the ’70s and ’80s before going out of business. All that is left of the company now are memories of cars like the Triumph, and a painful lesson in the limited effectiveness of bailouts.
“It’s all too evocative,” said Leon Brittan, a top official in the government of Margaret Thatcher (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/margaret_h_thatcher/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the free-market-minded prime minister who nevertheless backed the rescue. “I’m not telling the U.S. what to do, but the lessons of the British experience is don’t throw good money after bad. British Leyland carried on for a few more years, but they’re not there now, are they?”
Other experts are sounding the same alarm. “The British Leyland experience is a relevant and cautionary one,” said John Casesa, a principal in the automotive consulting firm Casesa Shapiro Group in New York. “The government got in the business of trying to make a winner out of a structurally flawed company. That’s the risk in the U.S. as well.”
Though Continental automakers have fared better than British ones, Mr. Casesa argues that the long history of government support in Europe made companies like Renault and Fiat strong players in their home markets, but not worldwide.
“With the exception of BMW (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/bayerische_motoren_werke_ag/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and Mercedes, European automakers haven’t been globally successful,” he said. “Nor have they been hugely profitable.”
That comparative history is receiving new attention as Congress turns its attention this week to the fate of Detroit.
The British Leyland bailout remains the classic example of a futile government intervention. The tight cooperation between governments and automakers on the Continent has produced happier results.
For half a century after World War II, the French government was the majority stakeholder in Renault, and Paris still holds a 15 percent stake in the company. In the 1980s, the company received a bailout equal to nearly 4 billion euros, or $5.1 billion in today’s money. Now it is highly profitable — at least compared with its American counterparts.
Today, G.M. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_motors_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s German subsidiary, Opel, is appealing to Berlin for help, seeking more than 1 billion euros in credit guarantees, according to Carl-Peter Forster, G.M.’s European chief.
Monday, Chancellor Angela Merkel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/angela_merkel/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Germany said her government would make a decision before Christmas.
“It’s not decided yet whether these loan guarantees will become necessary,” Mrs. Merkel told reporters in Berlin after meeting with Mr. Forster and other management and labor officials.
“If these guarantees become necessary, those funds should remain within Opel” in Germany, she added, echoing a concern some Americans have expressed that any United States bailout money go only to American automakers.
So far, Asian companies have not complained that such a bailout would amount to an anticompetitive subsidy. But José Manuel Barroso (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/jose_manuel_barroso/index.html?inline=nyt-per), president of the European Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/european_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said last week that he thought an aid package for Detroit could be “illegal” under World Trade Organization (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/world_trade_organization/index.html?inline=nyt-org) rules.
That has not stopped European automakers from seeking 40 billion euros in loans from the European Investment Bank, ostensibly to help develop cleaner cars.
For Garel Rhys, head of the Center for Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff University in Wales, the trajectory of General Motors is reminiscent of British Leyland not only because of the former’s decision to seek aid to avert bankruptcy, but also for its slow, seemingly inexorable loss of market share. “Both had a history of being the biggest in their market but couldn’t adapt as they lost sales,” he said. “They couldn’t get customers back.”
Historically, British Leyland’s roots stretched back further than Henry Ford (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/henry_ford/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s Model T. The company controlled 36 percent of the British market well into the 1970s, with mass-market brands like Austin and Morris and premium lines like MG and Jaguar. But rising competition from Japanese and German automakers, shoddy workmanship and a breakdown in labor relations brought the company to near bankruptcy by 1975, Mr. Rhys said.
Michael Edwardes, who took over as British Leyland’s chief executive in November 1977, recalled that when he joined, no one even knew whether individual brands were profitable. “It was a farce — no one knew what the costs were,” he said.
As it turned out, every MG the company sold in the United States resulted in a loss of $2,000 for British Leyland.
Wildcat strikes consumed more than 32 million worker-hours in 1977, and the company became a symbol of labor strife, with some employees walking out the door with spark plugs in their coat pockets and engines in the trunks of their cars, Mr. Edwardes said.
Mr. Edwardes immediately began reducing the company’s work force of roughly 200,000 — to 104,000 within five years — and closing 19 factories. He appealed to the Thatcher government for aid, arguing the money was needed if British Leyland was going to be able to afford to lay off workers while investing in new models.
Eventually, the government put up £3.6 billion, equal to £11 billion in today’s money. But the rescue did not do much to preserve British Leyland’s labor force or market share in the long term.
By the time it received its last government infusion of cash in 1988, Mr. Rhys said, British Leyland’s market share had slumped to 15 percent. British Leyland evolved into MG Rover, which was eventually acquired by BMW, then spun off, finally going bankrupt in 2005.
According to Mr. Rhys, just 22,000 workers remain at British Leyland’s successor companies, about 10 percent of its work force in the mid-1970s.
“It was a very poor return,” he said. “We felt collectively and nationally that we got our fingers burnt, and this was always used as a reason to avoid bailouts, both by Labor and Conservative governments in Britain.”
Mr. Edwardes still defends the government aid, arguing it preserved parts of the company that remain in business now — like Jaguar and Land Rover, which were bought by Ford.
Jaguar never made a profit for Ford, however, and was sold with Land Rover to Tata Motors (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/tata-motors-ltd/index.html?inline=nyt-org) of India earlier this year. Ford recouped only about half of what it paid to acquire the two brands, and is estimated to have poured $10 billion into Jaguar.
Despite the British experience, the case of Renault, which combined fresh money and new management in the 1980s, showed that government bailouts can be beneficial.
The French government help for Renault also came amid increasing losses for the company. But Mr. Rhys said that unlike British Leyland, Renault was able to use the financing to create new car models that were ultimately successful. That, along with tough cost-cutting by a newly installed chairman, cleared the road to profitability by the time the government began privatizing Renault in the 1990s.
If Washington does go ahead and help Detroit, Mr. Edwardes said, it is crucial that the government overhaul the management of the Big Three. “Throwing money at them isn’t enough,” he said. “They need money and they need new management. They need both, not one or the other.”

[Rineheitzgabot]

It is so disappointing to see LR owners spouting Rush Limbaug garbage. Don't you think the Japanese and Korean car makers have their government's help? Certainly when it comes to health care.

I assume you are referring to me (if you are not, sorry. If you are, here you go). The things I wrote probably do seem similar to Rush Limbaugh's "garbage". I am fairly conservative.

Let's examine what you stated: "...LR owners and Rush Limbaugh...". I have no idea what these have to do with each other, so I am not going to say anything except, should LR owners NOT agree with Rush Limbaugh?

"Don't you think the Japanese and Korean car makers have their government's help?" I don't care if Japanese and Korean car makers get gov't. help. Aside from the fact that they kick our a$$ in all relevant aspects of business that can be measured; if it is true, then I think they are being restricted by socialism as well. They could be so much better than they are now. Government is NOT the answer. REP or DEM. Politicians are happer to take the responsibility because it gives them power.

"Certainly when it comes to health care." As far as human nature goes, I think Lane Rover hit on this. If the doctor you visit does not give a rat's patoot if you are happy with his service, you will receive bad service. This is a given, and will certainly happen if he does not have to compete with his competitors to earn your business. It is unrealistic to think otherwise. Nationalized healthcare is a horrible, horrible idea.


Normally I wouldn't say anything in this type of thread but I can't not say something. We have become a country, quite possibly a world of mindless sheep. Most people do not think for themselves any longer they just jump on the latest bandwagon. Until individuals start being willing to invest the time and effort to become informed and to make decisions based on facts we can't succeed. We need to learn to ask questions, not accept anything but facts, and then to make our own decisions based on fact. I don't care if it is health care or Land Rovers. Use brains not emotions is what will keep this country strong.

I completely agree with you. Look at the concept of global warming. Millions of people around the world have subscribed to this with almost religious fervor, and it is still in the theory stage; it has not been proven.

[greenmeanie]

"Certainly when it comes to health care." As far as human nature goes, I think Lane Rover hit on this. If the doctor you visit does not give a rat's patoot if you are happy with his service, you will receive bad service. This is a given, and will certainly happen if he does not have to compete with his competitors to earn your business. It is unrealistic to think otherwise. Nationalized healthcare is a horrible, horrible idea.



As a UK citizen who has experienced both systems I can safely say I'd take the nationalised health care any day of the week. I have two siblings who have had cause to make good use of the system - one with nerve damage from a car crash and the other with a degenerative nerve issue affecting their throat. Both have received excellent care that would have bankcrupted me under the US system. My grandmother received care that while not extravagent, alllowed her to live a comfortable life up till her 100th year. Not all doctors in the world do it just for the money - some people actually choose the career based onthe idea that it is a noble calling. Understand that in our country you always have the option of buying private health care should you desire it.

I never trust the US system where the doctors are essentially bribed by the drug companies to prescribe their product or test whether you need it or not. Since when did an insurance agent become the expert on the limit of the care I should receive? Nationalized health care is not free as you pay for it with taxes. I do, however, regard it as value for money compared to the services I receive here.

Ok rant off.

[leafsprung]

"Certainly when it comes to health care." As far as human nature goes, I think Lane Rover hit on this. If the doctor you visit does not give a rat's patoot if you are happy with his service, you will receive bad service. This is a given, and will certainly happen if he does not have to compete with his competitors to earn your business. It is unrealistic to think otherwise. Nationalized healthcare is a horrible, horrible idea.

Yeah, because none of the THIRTY SIX nations with better healthcare systems than ours are nationalized :rolleyes::

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Looks like we edged out Slovinia though. Whew.

The reality is that competition as you describe it does not exist in our system and lack of regulation has given rise to ineffective, inefficient, expensive healthcare which is beyond the reach of a significant portion of people. When our healthcare is controlled by the insurance industry, and their bottom line is inversely proportional to the quality of care you receive, what do you think the result will be?

Thank god competition/free markets/capitalism/ronald reagans ghost are all ensuring we are getting a deal on our $hitty healthcare right? Maybe not:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_ 2005.html

The reality is our system is awesome . . .at making money, but fairly poor at caring for peoples health.

[TedW]

This year I am looking at a 21% increase in premium costs for our small company.
Please be careful when listening to scare stories about "government bureaucrats" making medical decisions in a "nationalized" healthcare system. My experience (and, I assume, yours) has been in dealing with the "insurance bureaucrats" who control our current system and who can and do veto the decisions of doctors.

In the past two months I have had two employees denied coverage for serious treatments/surgeries that the Insurance co. deemed "experimental." Forget the fact that the same company covered the same treatments for the same employees last year. You can chalk it up to belt-tightening, I suppose.

Oh, and don't forget about the threats of "rationing" under a universal coverage system. We have plenty of rationing now. Just ask anyone who is not covered / can't get coverage.

Last vent: My Canadian relatives love their system, and would never trade it for our "free market" system. I had an employee (Canadian citizen married to a yank) who would not give up her Canadian citizenship because she wanted to keep her Canadian coverage.

Bring on Single Payer!

Just my $0.02. And I'm a Republican. Flame away..........

[Daurie]

Wow had I know I would have sparked this I might have though twice!! All of these issues are very debatable with first hand experience leaning both directions. As far as global warming goes I have to say I agree it is still in theory stages. There are good arguments for and against it's validity. I know I'm quickly shunned by liberals when I bring up the big global cooling scare back in the 80's. It was quickly forgotten when global warming became "popular". The thing that gets me are people who are quick to cast the blame, that are just as guilty. Talk to me about global warming after you fit catalytic converters or particulate filters to your Rovers.

The thing that concerns me about social health care is really nothing more than the fact that the government will have their hand a little futher into my life. I mean who can tell which is worse at this point, having my health care level controlled by insurance adjusters or government bureaucrats??? If I die I can't pay the insurance company and if I die I can't pay taxes which one will keep me alive just enough to be productive and able to pay them?

As far as health care goes our best defence is against "big healthcare" and/or "big government" is prevention. Big Macs and Whoppers aren't good for longevity.

[Rineheitzgabot]

Yeah, because none of the THIRTY SIX nations with better healthcare systems than ours are nationalized :rolleyes::

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Looks like we edged out Slovinia though. Whew.

The reality is that competition as you describe it does not exist in our system and lack of regulation has given rise to ineffective, inefficient, expensive healthcare which is beyond the reach of a significant portion of people. When our healthcare is controlled by the insurance industry, and their bottom line is inversely proportional to the quality of care you receive, what do you think the result will be?

Thank god competition/free markets/capitalism/ronald reagans ghost are all ensuring we are getting a deal on our $hitty healthcare right? Maybe not:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_ 2005.html

The reality is our system is awesome . . .at making money, but fairly poor at caring for peoples health.



For both, Leafsprung and Greanmeanie:

Please understand with my ranting about not going socialized, I never once said that we have a great system, now. In fact, I believe that our system is a mess, now. It is not due to the free market system, however. I believe it has to do with a runaway legal system, and health insurance companies taking over the roll of the consumer, and lazy citizens who do not "shop" for their healthcare. Yeah, when one (1) tylenol costs $8, when administered by a nurse, rather than a whole bottle for $8 when administered by me, there's a problem. Most people don't know it, and the insurance company pays the bill, and thus, prices continue to rise. Insurance companies just have to follow suit, since they are in the business to make money as well.

Lawsuits are the real problem. Doctors must cover their a$$ in their profession, hence the "fat" bills. Anybody can sue anybody for anything, and in front of a jury, sympathy wins. Who feels sympathetic toward a six-figure-a-year doctor, when a disfigured patient, or a family member of a dead child, god forbid? Answer, I do, however most people don't. The doctors could lose it all, over a malpractice suit. It certainly might be deserved, but we have all certainly heard of bull$hit lawsuits that weren't at all the doctor's fault. I have personally been involved in a manufacturing company that has been sued more than twenty times over the past seven years, and every, single one was complete bull$hit; completely un-warranted, like the coffee-in-the-drivethrough-at-McDonald's-suit that we all have heard of.

I truly appreciate your non-cynical view of some doctors who do not do it for the money, but rather as a sort of a ministry. I wish it were true for all of them. The truth is, in our free market, if you do what you love, and are passionate about it, you will be successful. If you don't love it, don't do it. Enlightened self-interest is the root of a free-market economic system. When the government regulates/controls things too much, it takes away the incentive for the entrepreneur.

I agree with your last statement about the current state of our healthcare system. Again, the bigger problem for me, is the inequity of throwing my tax dollars, at a bunch of fat, happy, complacent, out-of-touch politcians, and hence giving them more power. Government should mildly regulate the free market, but stay the hell out of the way, for the most part. Instead, we seem to be looking to government to solve all our problems, as dare I say it, a "Nanny state".

[leafsprung]

Enlightened self-interest is the root of a free-market economic system. When the government regulates/controls things too much, it takes away the incentive for the entrepreneur.

Again, the current system is not a free market. Socialized medicine clearly works. Most of the best healthcare systems are socialized . . .



Again, the bigger problem for me, is the inequity of throwing my tax dollars, at a bunch of fat, happy, complacent, out-of-touch politcians, and hence giving them more power.

So your real problem is not with socialized healthcare but rather your lack of faith in the american government and its leaders. The ironic thing is that you feel self interest is good in the market, but not in washington.

[Momo]

As an employee of the Federal Government, I can say without a doubt that you don't want Washington in charge of your healthcare.

The institutionalized inefficiency and near total lack of accountability within the Federal Government are enough to scare the hell out of me when it comes to this issue. I see it first hand all the time.

I can give you specific examples, but generally, here's the deal:

When I try to resolve problem X, Y, or Z at work, the name of the game is pass the buck and make excuses. Even when there's action, it is long delayed and usually doesn't resolve the problem the first time. I'm talking about simple issues like plumbing in our building, or equipment repair, or policies/procedures on whatever matter.

When it comes to HR performance issues, the Feds are the most ineffectual managers you'll ever see.
I know people who practically never meet standards and yet they keep their jobs. Performance evals get "pencil-whipped" and corrective actions almost never happen unless it personally affects a manager.

In fact the managers themselves are products of the same culture of low expectations. They often don't know any better. People see they can get by with poor performance so that's exactly what they deliver. I'm talking about people who have a month, a year or even decades on the job.

The Feds do everything low bid. In many instances this is a waste of your money because they end up buying substandard materiel that needs replacement three times as often than if they just bought a better quality widget the first time.

Anyone who wants to convince me that Washington can run healthcare should look at the track record on other social spending. Medicare and Social Security are collapsing. HUD is partly responsible for the mortgage implosion. The Feds have gutted the quality of public education. Would you hire these people to run your business?

Time and again promises are made about how government intervention will fix things, and time and again the spending grows and the results diminish. Can you think of another institution that rewards its own failure with a bigger budget? It's not really a partisan thing, it's because the Feds are bloated and incompetent by design.

Name me one effective social program in the last fifty years that is solvent, efficient and shrinking as a result of its own success.

Finally, show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the Feds have the power to compel all citizens to buy into a national healthcare plan.

[czenkov]

You guys obviously know much more about this than I and I honestly don't have an opinion because of my limited knowledge so I am a little hesitant to post. BUT, I saw an article the other day that talked about how many doctors would opt for a career change if given the chance due to the paperwork and difficulties caused by insurance companies. It made me wonder how many would change careers if they were tied to the profits dictated by government? Not looking for an argument. It is merely a question that wasn't answered by the article IIRC. Oh, and on thread topic - - Cool pic! I would like for the Defender to return to NA. Hopefully Tata will see a market.

[jp-]

Man, some good stuff here.

Momo, your last post was right on. Also, Rineheitzgabot you really hit on the largest problem which is a legal one. We have got to make it harder for all these bogus lawsuits to get rammed through. There was a time in America when lawyers had something called ethics. They refused to take cases that they knew were bogus. They simply told the clients to get lost, that they had no case. Then all of a sudden there were a lot more people studying law and becoming lawyers. Somewhere down the line they decided that it was better to eat than not, and gave up their ethical standards.

There is an easy way to fix this though. It is done in several other countries. If a person brings up a clearly stupid lawsuit and loses, they must pay all costs, theirs and the defendants. That's it.

The more doctors get sued (wrongly) the more cost go up, and the less likely it is for more prospective doctors to enter the field. I even considered it at one point, but no way now.

Also, Yorker, great story on British Leyland. Liberals hate history. Almost all the things they propose have been clearly shown to fail, if only they would open their history books.

Global Warming - There was a fantastic article that I read a few months back called, "It's the Sun Stupid." Few realize that the sun goes through cycles just like our own planet. The majority of our surface temperature is completely dependent on the sun. If more energy is released in one year or over ten years it affects us.

[JSBriggs]

...Name me one effective social program in the last fifty years that is solvent, efficient and shrinking as a result of its own success.

I would completely agree, Mo. The postal service is about as close to a 'success' the Feds have, and their service and quality are woefully lacking when compared to its private counterparts.

And speaking of health care, at what point did heath care become an insurance issue? At what point did paying $100 to see a doctor become so intolerable that we demanded insurance so we would only have a $20 co-pay? When these are the things that we (as Joe American) feel we are entitled to, and make it a prioriety for government to address, it just reiterates that we are just a bunch of spoiled rich kids. Compare our standard of living to that of the rest of the world. The fact that we have running water (hot and cold even) puts us above what most of the world has. Health care for them is a luxury.

-Jeff

[Rineheitzgabot]

Again, the current system is not a free market. Socialized medicine clearly works. Most of the best healthcare systems are socialized . . ..

It is more free market than any other system in the world. Your opinion about what works and what doesn't is just that--your opinion, and/or based on a WHO rating (which is based on? Yeah, like the WHO is a completely UN-biased organization). Look and see where in the world, the majority of R+D is done in the Pharmaceutical industry. Without a free market, and the potential financial gain, sorry, no R+D like this. No Cialis. No Plavix. No Viagra (did I just type that?). :o



So your real problem is not with socialized healthcare but rather your lack of faith in the american government and its leaders. The ironic thing is that you feel self interest is good in the market, but not in washington.

There is no irony in this; however, this is an interesting comment. I am not sure what point you are trying to make, but I will attempt to explain, based on what I think you are trying to say. Yes, I absolutely believe that enlightened self-interest is the key to a free market system. No, I absolutely do not think that self-interest is good in government leaders. This may sound ridiculous, but this is where I think of an occupation being a sort of ministry. Public servants are what they are supposed to be. Most senators and representatives have held positions too long, and have forgotten who they work for. Do YOU think that self interest is good in our government leaders? :confused:

Decisions that are made by our leaders in the government should not lead to personal, financial success for them. Who knows, maybe this is WHY I think they are corrupt (because they are employed for years, making 6-figures, and never experience the glory of winning or the agony of defeat. This, perhaps makes them fat, happy, and complacent).

I apologize for the dissertation on human nature and what not, but my problem is philosophical, and general. It is not about something specific and timely, but rather what our constitution stands for.

[leafsprung]

There is no irony in this

The irony is that you extol the virtues of a capitalist system yet lament the leadership it has given rise to.


Compare our standard of living to that of the rest of the world. The fact that we have running water (hot and cold even) puts us above what most of the world has. Health care for them is a luxury.

Briggs, you need to get out more. Lets compare our quality of life to the average developed nation. Our education system is worse, life expectancy is lower, and we work longer hours with less vacation. Id like to think we can imrove on that.


Global Warming - There was a fantastic article that I read a few months back called, "It's the Sun Stupid." Few realize that the sun goes through cycles just like our own planet. The majority of our surface temperature is completely dependent on the sun. If more energy is released in one year or over ten years it affects us.

The sun is in a period of reduced activity at the moment so that idea is bogus. I support any theory that asserts man has a negative affect on his environment and encourages people to clean up their collective acts. Its foolish to believe we can keep pissing in the stream and think we are not going to taste something funny eventually. Now, where can i get a global cooling bumper sticker?

[Rineheitzgabot]

The irony is that you extol the virtues of a capitalist system yet lament the leadership it has given rise to.

Still don't see any irony. A system of government is separate from an economic system, and should be.


The sun is in a period of reduced activity at the moment so that idea is bogus. I support any theory that asserts man has a negative affect on his environment and encourages people to clean up their collective acts. Its foolish to believe we can keep pissing in the stream and think we are not going to taste something funny eventually. Now, where can i get a global cooling bumper sticker?

Global warming is a THEORY. Irony? here's some irony: How did the glaciers melt, if there hasn't been warming of the globe in the past, and certainly BEFORE the advent of the evil combustion engine. Global cooling? You seem to be joking about it, but brother, many scientists were "all over that" as recent as 30 years ago. Don't you see the irony? In the history of the world, there have always been the chicken littles warning us of the impending rapture. Our godless society needed something to believe in, so the next "sky is falling"-concept became global warming. Mark my words, someday we will be joking about global warming, just as you joke about global cooling (which attenuates your whole argument).

MOMO, your post above is well put.

[greenmeanie]

Finally, show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the Feds have the power to compel all citizens to buy into a national healthcare plan.

Momo that's called taxes. It is the cost of being a civilised country. I do not mind paying taxes as long as I see it as value for money. I resent paying taxes to the current government as I do not see their use of that money as giving me value. I do think of paying taxes for national healthcare as value for money compared to health insurance.

Your description of the feds pretty much describes any corporation that is large enough for people to hide. It was very resonant of my company.

Next time you fly look at the machine you are sitting in. All the components were made by the lowest bidder. The same principles are applied across most industries.

[Eric W S]

Still don't see any irony. A system of government is separate from an economic system, and should be.



Global warming is a THEORY. Irony? here's some irony: How did the glaciers melt, if there hasn't been warming of the globe in the past, and certainly BEFORE the advent of the evil combustion engine. Global cooling? You seem to be joking about it, but brother, many scientists were "all over that" as recent as 30 years ago. Don't you see the irony? In the history of the world, there have always been the chicken littles warning us of the impending rapture. Our godless society needed something to believe in, so the next "sky is falling"-concept became global warming. Mark my words, someday we will be joking about global warming, just as you joke about global cooling (which attenuates your whole argument).

MOMO, your post above is well put.

Good Point. Known fact that the world does indeed go thru Ice Ages. We're actually due for one in the near future. 10,000 year cycle.

But there is strong evidence that our foot print on the planet is causing some alarming things.

EwS

[Rineheitzgabot]

Momo that's called taxes. It is the cost of being a civilised country. I do not mind paying taxes as long as I see it as value for money. I resent paying taxes to the current government as I do not see their use of that money as giving me value. I do think of paying taxes for national healthcare as value for money compared to health insurance.

Your description of the feds pretty much describes any corporation that is large enough for people to hide. It was very resonant of my company.

Next time you fly look at the machine you are sitting in. All the components were made by the lowest bidder. The same principles are applied across most industries.


Where in the history of the world has socialism worked? The above seems to be an attempt to mainstream socialism, and the effect it has. My company produces a high liability product; lifting humans into the air. We do not always go with the low bid. Quality and delivery are sometimes more important than price.

If you believe that any large corporation is like the government, and is run inefficiently, with little accountability, then why would you want to throw your own money to them (you are making a case for taxes).

When my company runs into economic problems, we have to cut costs. This is done through several means; almost all of these means are painful. Most companies in the private sector must do this. When was the last time the government did this? When was the last time they cut costs; laid people off, cut entitlement programs, etc? Their first order of business upon finding out that they can't pay for something is to increase revenues, which equals higher taxes!

Man, how great that would be if I could hand down en edict to all my customers to mandate that they purchase more from me, or simply raise the price to whatever I needed it to be! Impossible? The government does it perpetually!

[greenmeanie]

I think you may see the world as a little too black and white. All countries are a mixture of socialism/fascism/capatilism etc. and all are shades of grey. Taxes are required for funding social programs and a common infrastructure which is a form of socialism. No country functions without it.

My company is in the same industry as yours. The FAA and military organizations (government) take great care in putting in place mechanisms to make sure that we manage that risk which is why we pay a premium for the quality of parts and delivery. That does not mean that we still buy them from the supplier that provides the lowest bid while meeting our requirements.

“When was the last time the government did this? When was the last time they cut costs; laid people off, cut entitlement programs, etc?” Umm look at the reduction in the US military in the 1990s. Ask any nurse in the British NHS system about cost control when it comes to medical care.

As I said I do not mind paying taxes if I see that I get value for money. I do not consider all government programs to be well run but that is a matter of process control rather than inherent issues with government itself. I consider national health care to be value added while I do not agree with the foreign policy expenditure of the current government.

“Man, how great that would be if I could hand down en edict to all my customers to mandate that they purchase more from me, or simply raise the price to whatever I needed it to be! Impossible?” Umm, have you looked at the health industry in this country over the last few years? I think that is exactly the problem have with private health insurance right now.

[leafsprung]

Still don't see any irony. A system of government is separate from an economic system, and should be.

Im sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but its not seperate, nor will it ever be seperate in this country. The government has a massive role in our ecconomy. Unfettered capitalism is inherently unstable.


Mark my words, someday we will be joking about global warming, just as you joke about global cooling (which attenuates your whole argument).

Perhaps you should re-read. It does not matter if global warming is true or not. We should be striving to reduce pollution regardless of the immediate threat of climate change.

[Rineheitzgabot]

I think you may see the world as a little too black and white. All countries are a mixture of socialism/fascism/capatilism etc. and all are shades of grey. Taxes are required for funding social programs and a common infrastructure which is a form of socialism. No country functions without it.

My company is in the same industry as yours. The FAA and military organizations (government) take great care in putting in place mechanisms to make sure that we manage that risk which is why we pay a premium for the quality of parts and delivery. That does not mean that we still buy them from the supplier that provides the lowest bid while meeting our requirements.

“When was the last time the government did this? When was the last time they cut costs; laid people off, cut entitlement programs, etc?” Umm look at the reduction in the US military in the 1990s. Ask any nurse in the British NHS system about cost control when it comes to medical care.

As I said I do not mind paying taxes if I see that I get value for money. I do not consider all government programs to be well run but that is a matter of process control rather than inherent issues with government itself. I consider national health care to be value added while I do not agree with the foreign policy expenditure of the current government.

“Man, how great that would be if I could hand down en edict to all my customers to mandate that they purchase more from me, or simply raise the price to whatever I needed it to be! Impossible?” Umm, have you looked at the health industry in this country over the last few years? I think that is exactly the problem have with private health insurance right now.

Your comment about the gov't. cutting costs in healthcare and military is a good point, and I mispoke with my generality. I should have said, "When was the last time the government cust costs in a way that would make them unpopular to the masses?" Think about this one before you answer.

I have been accused of seeing things black and white; I will concede. However, I do this in the name of "pushing back". As you both (Leafsprung and Greenmeanie) have indicated, socialism is alive and well in our country. Is it under Stalin? Of course, not. However, what's to stop it? This is why I come across like that.

If I have to accept that some form of socialism exists in our country, so be it; but I will never stop trying to push it back. No matter what state the economy and government are in, currently, it is not what our founding fathers intended, and there is a reason why they intended it to be the way they did--to prevent tyranny.

Leafsprung: Just because I think that the idea of global warming is bogus, does not mean that I think we should start pouring used motor oil down the sewers. I have no problem in encouraging less polution. It must be done in a responsible, practical manner, however.

[greenmeanie]

I wonder why you associate socialism with tyranny? Bear in mind that socialism is not communism so the parallel with Stalin is rather extreme. Even Greenspan admitted that capitalism and the free market had not worked in the manner he had understood and predicted with the results that we are all currently experiencing.

As stated, countries are made up of a mix of different social concepts; too far in any one direction results in eventual collapse and often with dire consequences. This is why a stable, functioning country needs a balance of the two to promote growth and development but also to generate a stable and safe environment for the larger population. That was the purpose of the constitution in its broad sense.

The art of the game is finding those areas that benefit from socialism and using it to the advantage of the population at large. You pay taxes to fund the military, the police and public works such as bridges, roads etc. as it benefits the country as a whole. You pay taxes to funds government that is supposed to structure and steer the economy to make it stable and keep it growing. It is beneficial to do so as a unified country is a far stronger, safer and productive place to live than an anarchic state of individuals.

Nationalised healthcare will not result in red flags or an October Revolution as it meets a basic need of the population.

If healthcare is nationalized there is no reason for drug companies to stop developing new drugs. The market will still be there for new products as the need will still exist. The difference is that the market will change and profit may be more difficult to realize. They will be marketing to a bigger entity who will expect to realize savings by economy of scale which can only benefit us as the end user.

…and it all the fault of the trying to import coilers. I knew the 25 year rule would eventually bring down the country. Long live the leafers

[Rineheitzgabot]

I wonder why you associate socialism with tyranny? Bear in mind that socialism is not communism so the parallel with Stalin is rather extreme. Even Greenspan admitted that capitalism and the free market had not worked in the manner he had understood and predicted with the results that we are all currently experiencing.

As stated, countries are made up of a mix of different social concepts; too far in any one direction results in eventual collapse and often with dire consequences. This is why a stable, functioning country needs a balance of the two to promote growth and development but also to generate a stable and safe environment for the larger population. That was the purpose of the constitution in its broad sense.

The art of the game is finding those areas that benefit from socialism and using it to the advantage of the population at large. You pay taxes to fund the military, the police and public works such as bridges, roads etc. as it benefits the country as a whole. You pay taxes to funds government that is supposed to structure and steer the economy to make it stable and keep it growing. It is beneficial to do so as a unified country is a far stronger, safer and productive place to live than an anarchic state of individuals.

Nationalised healthcare will not result in red flags or an October Revolution as it meets a basic need of the population.

If healthcare is nationalized there is no reason for drug companies to stop developing new drugs. The market will still be there for new products as the need will still exist. The difference is that the market will change and profit may be more difficult to realize. They will be marketing to a bigger entity who will expect to realize savings by economy of scale which can only benefit us as the end user.


I don't have the energy, to go, much longer. Must, keep, America, alive...

...should the U.N. step in, to moderate this thread...(?)

I associate socialism with tyranny because of history. All I can say is that I have not met anyone with such a positive outlook on it (socialism), and man, I hope you are correct.

Why do people go into business? How are tax revenues generated? Answer: All rooted in the potential for profit; hence the enlightened self-interest I talked about. Take that potential away, and tax revenues will diminish. This is the paradox for the left, and something that must be quite scary for them--or at least it should be.

The more control the government has, the less freedom you have. I do not think that there is a conspiracy to do this. However, I think the passions of the moment, move us in directions that aren't always in our best interest, for the long haul.

It is like the story about boiling a frog: You don't boil a frog by dropping it in boiling water, you put it in cold water, then turn on the heat. By the time he realizes what's going on--it's too late.

All I have left to say is that almost all of what you said above is your opinion still, and I will stand firm on everything that I said in the past.

You've ground me down. You win. It would take alot to get me to write another damn response on this thread... :)

[I Leak Oil]

Wow....All this from a silly picture of a parking lot full of used Land Rovers!
All hail the power of the Rover.....

Jason T.

[Eric W S]

It's a good read though. And no one is going "Discoweb" on anyone so it's actually nice to see intelligent discourse on the internet...

[Carpe]

No doubt. So we'll have a bunch of folks hopping out of Low Range on their status and moving into 1st Gear, or whatever the next delineation is once you make 100 comments.

[Jim-ME]

I'm not looking for posting points so I'll give some of this this a go.

Global Warming - I agree with Ike. We have a responsibility to be good stewards of our planet. I will not get into the argument as to if it's real or not but we must wake up, give a crap and make sure that as individuals, we take care of our air, water and soil if we are to survive. If everyone simply adopts this type of philosophy we will be OK.

The debate over health care - I personally don't feel that health care is a god given right but it is easy for me to say because I have a great plan. I will also say that I have put up with a less than desireable job with less than equitable pay to keep my benefits My real feeling is that if we could control the BS lawsuits and the idea that a pill will make you better no matter how you take care of yourself, our health care should be less expensive.

Our economy - We have done this to ourselves out of greed or ignorance or both, and each of us have no one else to blame but ourselves. We want the big house, the Defender 110, the Rangie etc just like the neighbors if we can afford it or not. Hell we work hard we're due. Where is the individuals responsibility here? If I want a pair of Ike's sliders but don't have the money to buy them outright. I have 2 realistic choices, use my home equity to write a check or save the money until I can afford them. What pisses me off is what seems to be current thinking. I should expect Ike to build me a set out of the kindness of his heart because he has the sliders but I don't have the money. Why should I have to wait to pay for what I want? This kind of attitude really burns my ass. You have, I want, therefore you give me.

Just an old fart's ramblings,
Jim

PS
Ike,
I owe you for the hand throttle clip. Please PM me and I'll sent you the money. :)

[Eric W S]

I'm not looking for posting points so I'll give some of this this a go.

Global Warming - I agree with Ike. We have a responsibility to be good stewards of our planet. I will not get into the argument as to if it's real or not but we must wake up, give a crap and make sure that as individuals, we take care of our air, water and soil if we are to survive. If everyone simply adopts this type of philosophy we will be OK.

The debate over health care - I personally don't feel that health care is a god given right but it is easy for me to say because I have a great plan. I will also say that I have put up with a less than desireable job with less than equitable pay to keep my benefits My real feeling is that if we could control the BS lawsuits and the idea that a pill will make you better no matter how you take care of yourself, our health care should be less expensive.

Our economy - We have done this to ourselves out of greed or ignorance or both, and each of us have no one else to blame but ourselves. We want the big house, the Defender 110, the Rangie etc just like the neighbors if we can afford it or not. Hell we work hard we're due. Where is the individuals responsibility here? If I want a pair of Ike's sliders but don't have the money to buy them outright. I have 2 realistic choices, use my home equity to write a check or save the money until I can afford them. What pisses me off is what seems to be current thinking. I should expect Ike to build me a set out of the kindness of his heart because he has the sliders but I don't have the money. Why should I have to wait to pay for what I want? This kind of attitude really burns my ass. You have, I want, therefore you give me.

Just an old fart's ramblings,
Jim

PS
Ike,
I owe you for the hand throttle clip. Please PM me and I'll sent you the money. :)

What he said!

I knew we were heading for a catastrophe when the banks stopped asking you why you were 3 days late on a 20 dollar credit card....


EwS

[jp-]

Socialism is not too far removed from communism, don’t kid yourself Green.

The danger of socialism is real, because it removes motivation from the masses. The true greatness of capitalism is the motivational factor that it has. In other words, I can have anything that I am willing to work for. That is what makes America great. Because any man, by his own hard labor, or inventiveness, can succeed and improve his standing in life. Show me where that exists in a socialist state?

I personally know the former head surgeon of Ukraine. He was paid no more than a plumber. He went through the efforts to become a doctor simply because he wanted to. He immigrated to the United States about 10 years ago to the great dissatisfaction of the Ukrainian government. He wanted more for his family and children than just a plumber.

Socialism drags everyone down to a lower level. It does not raise everyone up to the level of the wealthy as some on here seem to believe. Why must I feel guilty if I want my children to go to a better school, and I can work harder to do that? Maybe I shouldn’t have even gone to school, and should have just stayed a dishwasher? Life without motivation is bleak indeed. Those who are the angriest over what they do not have, are often the laziest in our society.

[Les Parker]

Just a freindly nudge, this string seems to be going away from "All Things Landrover", please stay within the bounds of our common interest.

Tks

:nono:

[jp-]

Just a freindly nudge, this string seems to be going away from "All Things Landrover", please stay within the bounds of our common interest.

[Please no aggression here !!!!)

[jp-]

The sun is in a period of reduced activity at the moment so that idea is bogus. I support any theory that asserts man has a negative affect on his environment and encourages people to clean up their collective acts. Its foolish to believe we can keep pissing in the stream and think we are not going to taste something funny eventually. Now, where can i get a global cooling bumper sticker?

The article merely pointed out that our global temperature was largely (nearly entirely) dependent on the output of the sun. It was by a solar scientist. The article itself did not lean to warming or cooling, as near as I recall. Personally, I'm not a meteorologist and I don't profess to know what our future climate will do. I just wish that all these alarmists would shut up as well, as they are not meteorologists or even scientists. The whole thing is far too alarmist for my taste. Plus, I have a problem with the fact that meteorologists can't accurately predict weather two weeks out, yet they know exactly what our climate will do in 10-20 years... A lot of people out there are trying to make this a debate instead of leaving it to the scientists.

I am all for keeping the environment as clean as possible and polluting less. I just don't want to shutdown our coal power plants based on an unproven theory...


Look at all the pretty Defenders...obligatory comment.

[greenmeanie]

Ummmm Defenders are build in a union shop – I suppose that explains the quality????

JP, If you want to continue off line PM me as it is quite fun. If not I undestand.

[jp-]

Green, I certainly see the validity of the examples you provided. Don’t get me wrong.

And, it wouldn’t be stretching for me to say that were I to have something very bad happen to me I’d like to be fixed up at no cost to me. Having $60,000 in debt after one accident/medical emergency is not something that I look forward to. However, I’d like for all of the Ethiopians to have excellent health care too, and why not all of Africa? There comes a point in your model of national health care where it will not work. Exactly what that point is, I can’t tell you, but it will happen as the population increases. Just because we may only have to pay a little more in taxes, and might not have to currently wait to see a doctor are not reasons enough to go to nationalized healthcare. Who’s to say what this system will look like in 10 years, or 20? It could be bankrupt and cost 10 times more to operate, and doctor wait times could increase dramatically (especially as we import more and more illegal aliens unchecked into our country). As others on here have pointed out, the government would not close down the operation at that point, it would just raise taxes and keep a then failing system propped up, until such time as more money was required. We have seen the government work. Cutting costs and jobs are next to impossible even in the face of unimaginable incompetence from the leaders of these government programs. Just because the system works elsewhere does not mean it will work well here, or that it will continue to work well where it has been instituted. I’m not saying that it is impossible, but it will require numerous things to be successful in the long-term, such as a very stable population, a stable GDP, and medical costs that do not rise considerably over the inflation rate on a year-to-year basis.

Again, I refer back to my earlier posts, there are many things we can do to lower the cost of our current system rather than adopt a new one.

-All future posts by PM- I promise. This is a great thread though.

[yorker]

Wow....All this from a silly picture of a parking lot full of used Land Rovers!
All hail the power of the Rover.....

Jason T.

:popcorn:what?! Land Rovers? where!!?:popcorn:

[greenmeanie]

There you go - straight from the NHS. See that's the reason for nationalised health care - the ambulances are cooler.

http://www.roversnorth.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1415&stc=1&d=1227656369


Jp-
The simple answer to your statement is that free national health care is available to anyone who pays taxes into the system. It used to be available for anyone until we started having an influx of US citizens arriving and abusing our system expecting free care. The law has now changed to make it that visiting foriegn nationals are expected to pay for the care they receive.

Another thing to be aware about is that the UK NHS is sub divided into hospital trusts. Each trust is essentially run like a business except that it is non-profit. This helps introduce some accountability, efficiency and cost effectiveness.

Now I understand that the Canadian system is far more flawed which is why I have not used it as an example. You are correct in that any system introduced must be created in a way to give value for money and my taxes.

Wikipedia has a reasonable article addressing arguements from both sides and also soem interestign comparisons. I say this as it saves me writing another dissertation.

[Momo]

I've found this thread really interesting, and it's nice to depart from the same old LR topics. Personally I look at this thread as a glimpse of who you guys are beyond our common interest. Sort of like the campfire bull sessions that naturally drift away from Rovers.

What do you think the goal of nationalized healthcare would be? Better affordability? Better access? Decreased morbidity/mortality rates? Greater innovation? We can't have it all.

There is no such thing as a free system, Gregor. You said it yourself, maybe without even realizing it.

I pay good money for a family of three (soon four), and we use the heck out of our plan. When I compare the cost to the benefit it's worth every penny and most importantly I get to decide.

There's no excuse for almost anyone to go uncovered, but the vast majority of Americans who have no health coverage have chosen to opt out. Not my problem. But to take more of my earnings to pay for a compulsory system that will require frank rationing and inevitably run a deficit? No way. That's an encroachment on my liberty. Use your own liberty.

In my role as a paramedic I have had plenty of patients who call us for minor problems, get a ride to the ER, and pull out the Medi-Cal card (That's the CA state funded plan). Lots of those patients had an Escalade in the driveway, an enormous plasma TV on the wall, or other nonsense. What should I pay for your poor choices?

The US has led the world in medical research, pharmaceuticals & tech development not because the government directed it or funded it but because the free market made it possible. All those socialist systems that are supposedly better than ours have benefitted from American innovation.

And about those WHO rankings? France is number one, and their life expectancy is two years better than ours. Big deal. Informed consumers who make good lifestyle choices, exercise their freedom to choose their plan, and make use of preventive care- that's what we need. Not an expansion of central authority over our lives.

The main problem with our current system is third party payment. Clearly we need to work that out. Tort reform is sorely needed too. However, the delivery of services, basic and advanced, is very good.

And oh yeah, a Ford ambulance chassis beats a Land Rover any day unless you are in the styxx. There, I said it. How's that for controversial? :D

[Rineheitzgabot]

I've found this thread really interesting, and it's nice to depart from the same old LR topics. Personally I look at this thread as a glimpse of who you guys are beyond our common interest. Sort of like the campfire bull sessions that naturally drift away from Rovers.

What do you think the goal of nationalized healthcare would be? Better affordability? Better access? Decreased morbidity/mortality rates? Greater innovation? We can't have it all.

There is no such thing as a free system, Gregor. You said it yourself, maybe without even realizing it.

I pay good money for a family of three (soon four), and we use the heck out of our plan. When I compare the cost to the benefit it's worth every penny and most importantly I get to decide.

There's no excuse for almost anyone to go uncovered, but the vast majority of Americans who have no health coverage have chosen to opt out. Not my problem. But to take more of my earnings to pay for a compulsory system that will require frank rationing and inevitably run a deficit? No way. That's an encroachment on my liberty. Use your own liberty.

In my role as a paramedic I have had plenty of patients who call us for minor problems, get a ride to the ER, and pull out the Medi-Cal card (That's the CA state funded plan). Lots of those patients had an Escalade in the driveway, an enormous plasma TV on the wall, or other nonsense. What should I pay for your poor choices?

The US has led the world in medical research, pharmaceuticals & tech development not because the government directed it or funded it but because the free market made it possible. All those socialist systems that are supposedly better than ours have benefitted from American innovation.

And about those WHO rankings? France is number one, and their life expectancy is two years better than ours. Big deal. Informed consumers who make good lifestyle choices, exercise their freedom to choose their plan, and make use of preventive care- that's what we need. Not an expansion of central authority over our lives.

The main problem with our current system is third party payment. Clearly we need to work that out. Tort reform is sorely needed too. However, the delivery of services, basic and advanced, is very good.

And oh yeah, a Ford ambulance chassis beats a Land Rover any day unless you are in the styxx. There, I said it. How's that for controversial? :D


Is that the river, styx? :D Might be, if Greenweenie gets his way. :)

Momo: I enjoyed your measured, intelligent, input. Are you running for office in 2010?:confused:

By the way, which is more cost effective to maintain; the Defender or the Ford? Gotcha, Greenie. Perfect example of government waste. I truly would love to see an exact cost comparison between a Defender and other, comparable vehicles, over their life-cycle.

I know, I know, I said I wouldn't write anything else, but MOMO's piece was so compelling...

[4flattires]

There....I said it.

I like it in a house, but not when using my mouse. I like it here, and I like it there.

I like ice cream....everywhere.

The Dr.

[leafsprung]

There's no excuse for almost anyone to go uncovered, but the vast majority of Americans who have no health coverage have chosen to opt out.

You fail to recognize those who are denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition or are otherwise deemed to be a bad investment. There is very little incentive for insurance companies to actually cover those who need care and to pay claims and there is every incentive not to.



The US has led the world in medical research, pharmaceuticals & tech development not because the government directed it or funded it but because the free market made it possible. All those socialist systems that are supposedly better than ours have benefited from American innovation.

And yet for every dollar spent on research two were spent on advertising. Sure makes me feel good that my relatives exhorbitant prescription costs go towards filling the dumpsters behind doctors offices with unwanted pens, mugs, and notepads. Im also glad there are plenty of weight loss pills, male enhancements, tooth whiteners and depillitory creams (after all thats what makes money right?) Being rail thin and hairless while sporting a bleached smile and a b0ner is the same as being healthy right? :confused:



And about those WHO rankings? France is number one, and their life expectancy is two years better than ours. Big deal. Informed consumers who make good lifestyle choices, exercise their freedom to choose their plan, and make use of preventive care- that's what we need. Not an expansion of central authority over our lives.

How much is two years of your life worth to you? Its difficult to measure quality of health, but Im willing to bet it is significantly higher as well. The thing is, there is generally no difference in your personally autonomy between the systems. You currently have an insurance company (who profits directly from denying your family heathcare) with the exact same authority over your lives that you are bemoaning; AND you are happy about it!

[Rineheitzgabot]

There....I said it.

I like it in a house, but not when using my mouse. I like it here, and I like it there.

I like ice cream....everywhere.

The Dr.


Dude. :D

Hey man, I can see those goofy-ass eyes bulging out on that 88! Why haven't you registered?? Wasssup?! :p

Okay. Do I need to say it? Please. :o

ps: Doctor Seuss was a communist

[TedW]

QUOTE

"And about those WHO rankings? France is number one, and their life expectancy is two years better than ours. Big deal. Informed consumers who make good lifestyle choices, exercise their freedom to choose their plan, and make use of preventive care- that's what we need. Not an expansion of central authority over our lives. "


France spends 11% of their GDP on healthcare, and they cover everyone. We spend 16% of our GDP on healthcare, and 45 million of us (roughly 15%) are left out. And French folks smoke a lot more than we do. And they still live longer. Go figure.

This has been a very civil discussion, IMO. And very important. Kudos to the SERIES Land-Rover community for being so high-minded. Let's all keep open minds and look for solutions in spite of where the answers might come from.

[greenmeanie]

Momo,
In reply to your question as it was a good one.
Better affordability -
Yes. Ted W makes the point. I also like the idea that an illness would not bankcrupt me.
Better Access -
Yes. I like the idea of being able to sign up with a local doctor instead of having urgent care half way across the city and my child's doctor 7 miles away because that is what the health plan offered my employers dictates.
Decreased morbidity/mortality rates-
It certainly can't hurt. Even dying now costs money.
Innovation -
Leafsprung makes the point. The same drugs are prescribed under both systems so where's the difference other than marketing? The US system may provide a more lucrative market but that does not mean that there are no other markets.

I think I made the point about taxes early on. I don't mind paying them if I get value for money. That certainly applies to health care. My opinion is tha nationalised health care presents more value for money than private health insurance.

Your point about MediCal is exactly why national health is desirable. As everyone contributes, everyone is entitled to the ambulance regardless of their means. Poor choices or not you don't pay any more, the same way your lifestyle cannot be criticised in your moment of need.

Your point on third party payment and tort reform is well made. I also resent the idea that I can be billed several parties through a hospital for services without an itemised bill. Should an anesthetist be able to add a charge to my bill without ever being required for a procedure. Who knows if his service is not itemised.

The Rover thing was just added to provide some Rover content for our moderator and I hope you got that. Other than the sign there is not much to make that thing a medical vehicle. Anyway everyone knows the best Rover ambi is the 101fc.

[pvkd]

As a UK citizen who has experienced both systems I can safely say I'd take the nationalised health care any day of the week. I have two siblings who have had cause to make good use of the system - one with nerve damage from a car crash and the other with a degenerative nerve issue affecting their throat. Both have received excellent care that would have bankcrupted me under the US system. My grandmother received care that while not extravagent, alllowed her to live a comfortable life up till her 100th year. Not all doctors in the world do it just for the money - some people actually choose the career based onthe idea that it is a noble calling. Understand that in our country you always have the option of buying private health care should you desire it.

I never trust the US system where the doctors are essentially bribed by the drug companies to prescribe their product or test whether you need it or not. Since when did an insurance agent become the expert on the limit of the care I should receive? Nationalized health care is not free as you pay for it with taxes. I do, however, regard it as value for money compared to the services I receive here.

Ok rant off.

Greenmeanie,

As another British Subject I also with experience of both systems I agree.

[JSBriggs]

Dude. :D

...

ps: Doctor Seuss was a communist

Speaking of the enviroment, 'A Thneed's a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need!'

-Jeff

[Les Parker]

Hmm. I too have had the experiences of both formats, my only postive on the west side of the Atlantic, is the ease of getting prompt attention and being able to choose the specialist I see. The quality of care, the ease of throwing me some pills (as they cure ALL ailments, dont they?) is wanting in both zones.
Stay healthy !!! Not needing anyone's assistance is, I believe, the safest way.

[sayers]

How did dreaming of defenders turn into a healthcare issue ?

[JSBriggs]

How did dreaming of defenders turn into a healthcare issue ?

see post #9, that is the tangent point.

-Jeff

[jp-]

I'm willing to make a concession. National healthcare could work if a lot of pre-conditions are met, and if the system is properly managed.

However...

I hope that most of us on here are smart enough to realize that our current government can't/won't do either of those two things. Which therefore means we should be against it. Couple this with the fact that NH will open the door for more socialist programs that some so-called "do-gooder," or self-proclaimed, "savior, fuhrer", etc... will try to ram down our throats and it begins to look more and more like a really bad idea.