Heh.  I forgot the "out."  Hadn't had my coffee yet...

<G>

JT

What's the matter with using jackstands (of the appropriate
size) to support a car while doing work underneath it?

snip

We need a

1.  Do NOT crawl under a jacked up car with jackstands in place!

JT

lol

... but to a large extent, I /do/ agree with this part of
your analogy. Indeed, from what I'm reading in reputable
publications, the medical-insurance billing process is so
complicated that mistakes are very common. IIRC, and
ballpark, 30% or more of the time there is a significant
billing error by health care/insurance services. Whether
they're intentional, or just gross gross negligence is
another matter.

I give the current, non-Medicare U.S. health care system 20
years or less. By which time I will be on Medicare. Still,
if all Americans are paying less for health care (while some
are paying a bit more in taxes), that will impact on
inflation, etc.

Nice tip re garages, water heaters, and leaky car fuel
tanks. Whoa! Glad you're still alive to post here! We need a
top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's
Honda," drawn from real life experiences.

then theres double-billing.

the time i twisted my ankle i did everything by the book, (listed urgent
care facility, paid my co-pay, etc.) bout a year later i got a bill from
a doctor i NEVER saw that day, for treatment/services i NEVER received.
only 2 people i saw were the receptionist, and a licensed vocational nurse.

went straight into the shredder and havent heard anything since.

the dealer version of that is the:

"you need to come back with a check because..."

1) the car was mica blue metallic, and we forgot metallic paint was extra

2) down payment was too small

3)credit didnt go through

4)numbers didnt add up

5)want another chance to ream ya

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. It seems to me that
hospitals will not generally haggle over costs with
individuals without health insurance.

I guess that's incentive to at least have catastrophic
health insurance. Even though one may be well below the
(usually several thousand dollars) deductible for, say, a
hospital visit, one is obtaining the discounted rates that
one's insurance company has previously negotiated with the
hospital.

So if one wants the discount, one is sort of forced into
dealing with insurance companies. But then by being insured
one is forced into subsidizing a lot of people who aren't
careful with their health. Because of the way the
insurance-health care system (monopoly? ponzi scheme?) is
set up, there's little incentive for them to refuse
unnecessary medical services. Hence doctors may prescribe
away, lining their wallets and bringing income to hospitals,
and promoting the "more is better" mentality while
simultaneously claiming it's necessary because they'll be
sued for malpractice if anything goes wrong. Meanwhile, the
added cost is passed along to those who work to stay healthy
and not abuse the insurance system.

I know buying insurance is about buying peace of mind. One
should not expect to ever get back what one pays. Just seems
that in the last 15 years or so, too many expect to get back
from their premiums what they paid and then some, by
excessive use of  medical services that benefits them not at
all.

Of course, with uninsured individuals in need of significant
health care services, at some point Medicaid will kick in.
But that also pushes up costs for everone else. Plus, by the
time such people finally get to the hospital, a malady that
might have been easily cured a year ago has exploded into a
very expensive proposition.

Seems to me a Universal Health Care system would solve a lot
of these problems. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would stop
this persistent spiralling of costs that, as I suggest
above, seems more and more like a Ponzi scheme every year.

to bring this back to hondas...

the above reminds me that for every smart internet shopper that gets a
good deal through costco, sams, AAA, etc

there are several that get ripped off, pay "added dealer markup", etc.

It shouldn't be such a goddarned maze. A few weeks ago a
Harvard PhD, a multi-degreed engineer, and a doctor wrote
the NY Times each wrote letters saying they couldn't figure
out how to navigate the new Medicare drug benefit. Add my
father, also multi-degreed, an engineer, from one of those
high-falutin' schools who has mentioned twice in the last
six weeks that he is struggling mightily with it, as well.
If people as educated as this can't figure out how to get
the benefit, what about the roughly 80% of adults in the
U.S. who never even graduated from any college?

I have read that the uninsured are charged a higher fee
(around 30%) because collecting from them is harder. It's
revolting that different fees are charged for the same
service, but there is, in part, a limited method to the
madness.

Also, I hear health care services write off the shortfalls
as losses.

I hate to dismiss it as "a lot of funny money is floating
around," but the stories I'm reading in reputable
publications sure make it seem like there's little order in
the system. Bargaining over fees and haggling over what
exactly was prescribed given by hospitals seems common. If
one doesn't know the ins and outs, one is doomed, ISTM.

Throw in the NY Times piece recently on people with /good
health insurance/ who were driven into bankruptcy because
having to pay "only 10%" of a million dollars of medical
services is still a lot of money.

I don't know the term, but a former neighbor who was president of the local
hospital at the time explained it pretty much that way, and it made a lot of
sense. He said health care at any particular standard costs a certain amount
to deliver. First in line is the gov't, which says you will deliver for the
amount we pay you or you won't do business at all. Next in line are the
large insurance carriers, like Blue Cross, which say you will deliver for
what we pay or you will be left in the cold. The remainder of the cost is
spread among the self-payers at many times the fair price, because the
others just won't pay. A while ago I had to appeal an emergency room visit
that had been denied... my cost was to be $1300 and BCBS eventually picked
it up for $300. That left the $1000 shortfall to end up on somebody else's
bill.

Mike

<snip>

For sure, Elle, plus the enormous cultural reticence to admit that the
free market / rugged individualism isn't hacking this particular issue
and that the govt might offer something worthwhile.

There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem
with health care in the US stems from the insured consumer's insulation
from the economic consequences of his health care choices. Sounds as
though that's what you're talking about above?

I'll believe you. :-)

I don't know.

I think it's hard to compare the successes of two companies
satisfying the same basic need, but also many others,
operating in two different countries, with different
cultures  and mores and different governmental philosophies.

I reckon you're mostly right.

I think also of reports (or the cinemization) of lawsuits
where car companies defend against making a certain design
change, because the cost of the 'wrongful death' yada
lawsuits is much lower than the cost of the design change.

Still, on a day to day basis with engineers, I don't buy
that they are idiots who never object to certain proposed
features as being inherently unsafe that will result in a
car with many problems, threatening life and property. And
so costing the company money, yada.

After I posted, I did notice one of the lastest articles on
GM's problems said a major component was the cost of the
company's health care plans.

Some are saying that's GM management's screwup, though.

So, no, I don't have all the facts. Surely there's a site or
two that talks about why GM and Ford are doing so poorly,
and how Honda manages in comparison.

As you suggest below, my suspicion is that some large
companies are already starting to push somewhat for
universal care. (I may have read as much.) They won't be
gung-ho for it, I suppose, for some time (if ever), because
their business ties in with that of insurers.

I'm not talking about a conspiracy, but more about how
executives look out for each other; one hand washes the
other; etc.

Sure.

We'd then maybe have a two-pronged attack on current
American cultural mores: With the ailing American car
companies, more small cars would go on the road. With the
ailing health insurance system, Americans would be more
willing to accept catastrophic health insurance plans and
not accept every last procedure/drug (efficacies being not
clear) their doctor prescribed.

<snip>

Advertising first, check out the history of GM.

Didn't the Japanese carmakers answer this question in the 70's?

Which safety innovations (after the rear view mirror, which was a racing
innovation) were not mandated? The US automakers have fought every
change tooth & nail (emissions as well as safety - Ford famously tried
to sell safety in their '56 models & lost a bundle).

So, you don't want to comment until all the facts are in? (a famous
quote by Gen Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove"). ;)

The Japanese carmakers seem to be able to crank out cars profitably from
their US plants, so I don't think it's primarily the cost of labor. Did
you have anything specific in mind with "labor problems"?

"These companies have obligations to shareholders and their employees to
turn a pretty profit, or else"

Leading to many very unhappy employees & shareholders as of late.  ;)

One final observation - the price of every new GM car includes something
like $1,500 for health care costs (plus another chunk for retirement),
which foreign carmakers, Asian & European, don't incur because those
countries have universal health coverage & retirement. Wouldn't it be
ironic if it were the auto (and other) CEOs who lead the charge to
universal health coverage in the US? <this is an auto related
observation, not a political one, and I won't debate the politics of
such a move>

I agree that marketing and advertising and making a buck
play a huge role in design. I agree the outcome is most
certainly not always a better design, engineering-wise. I
could even stomach someone's argument that most design
changes are not engineering oriented at all.

But America is also a revoltingly consumer-ist society.
Which came first--the advertising blitzes pushing "bigger;
more," or some sort of instinctual drive from Americans to
insist on bigger more--is debatable.

So Americans want pickup trucks and SUVs which rarely
satisfy any physical need and are merely to keep up with the
Joneses. What's an auto company executive to do to keep food
on his family's table? So to speak.

But safety, things like better fuel mileage or more Hp
performance, are not ignored. Many improvements do lengthen
the life of a car, etc.

Yes, I know. But I hesitate to say more without reading up
on why GM and Ford has been going down the proverbial can
the last several years. I thought it was more like labor
problems: GM and Ford can't build a car cheaply. I dunno.
Someone can post a citation on why they're failing while I
guess Honda and Toyota are doing fine. 'Cause America still
loves big, gas guzzling vehicles, from what I see.

You seem to be ignoring the <false> demand generated by skillful
advertising.

So how much has GM made the past year? Ford? How about Honda & Toyota? Hmmm.

Do you think that car companies should produce what the
companies think is right for the American consumer, or what
consumers want?

These companies have obligations to shareholders and their
employees to turn a pretty profit, or else.

and instead of investing that money on a DECENT small car design, they
blow it.

meanwhile, the japanese took the money they made off selling excellent
small cars and trucks, and invested it in making bigger trucks. the
tundra is a really nice truck! course it should be, since the engine
design was based on the lexus LS series.

I give you the pick-up and the platform frame SUV built on chasis and
suspensions from 1950 that all the people in the country have flocked to
dealerships like sheep and plunked billions of dollars on and to which the
automobile companies have spent next to nothing on in technology.

When someone posts a decent citation of whatever Honda is
proposing be flown-by-wire, then comment will be worthwhile.

To categorically reject change because the "current system
is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates
obliviousness to the many points in automotive history when
of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way
yielded some advantage, so it predominated.

We have been served up a lot of dumb ideas in the past...ideas
which were interesting, but not worth the cost and the risk.

I am sure we will continue to make firm advancements in
transportation science.  If Honda wants to spend the  money
to offer a solution to a problem that does not exist, go for it.

Ya, so was the horse and buggy, the bicycle, etc.

This reminds me of Bill Gates comment a few decades ago that
no one should ever need more than 64k of RAM on his/her
computer.

What you quote is incredibly short-sighted. It demonstrates
a lack of willingness to do any kind of investigation of why
fly-by-wire was considered. In short, these are the words
not of an engineer, scientist, or technical person but a
ninny, and a ninny tired of having more demanded of him for
his labors, at that.

He's happy with the status quo. Others are not. He should
get out of the business or certainly never enter it.

    This concern has been answered eloquently by a contributor to
these newsgroups a few years ago.  Sorry I can't name the author, but
that person hit the nail squarely on the head with these words:

    ".........more importantly than that, you've got to have the
insight and wisdom to know when something has been developed to the
point where further development amounts to pointless engineering
masturbation.

    "The hydraulic brake system is a textbook model of development
to perfection. So was the hydromechanical automatic transmission --
computerisation of the automatic transmission has taken away
three-for-one in durability, dependability and cost of repair what
little it has given us. We know how to make steering systems that work
and essentially never give trouble. There is, therefore, no valid
reason for steer-by-wire."

Hi there.

I have been looking at the new Honda Civic, it's pretty sweet, and the
welds and everything are as nice as anything I have ever seen. I just
have a question about the "Drive by wire" system that they are supposed
to have.

What happens if the Engine dies on you? In my current car, my timing
chip went once and the engine went out. I had enough steering control
left, even without power steering, to pull my car over before it came
to a stop. If the drive by wire system has no "real" or active
connection, how can it work if the engine or electronics quit on you?
Are there any backups built into the system in case any of that stuff
happens? And what if your battery dies and you need to push the car?
Can you turn the steering wheel to adjust your wheels when you push the
car?

Much thanks, sorry to bother.

David