2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - Off Topic Comments

"the largest lobbies in Washington are ALL either real estate, investment banking, or mortgage related lobbies whom are the biggest contributors to political campaigns. That includes both parties, Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, and so on. Untold hundreds of millions of dollars per year from real estate and mortgage industries alone. All in an effective effort to get politicians to look the other way as these industries became more and more deregulated and chaotic."

The solution is not to regulate industry. It is Washington who accepts all of the special interest money you mention and needs to clean out their own house. We tried regulating the banking industry, requiring banks to loan money to people who could not afford to pay them back. Now the banks are in trouble because of all the bad debt they have on their books. The government's devious response to have taxpayers buy up all this bad debt that it (government) created so they can slither in and take over the industry.

The real corruption in the banking industry is the Federal Reserve system, where we have a group of unelected and unconstitutional banking authorities controlling our monetary policy to profit themselves, while blindly running the economy into the ground with their flawed economic models.

"The U.S. is the only civilized nation on Earth that sits idly by and allows our poor, elderly and children to die for lack of medical care."

I have relatives in Germany, England and Canada. All with socialized health care. All with much worse health care than in the United States. 75 years old and need a heart bypass operation? Denied in every country except the US. If US citizens ever have to endure what other countries get for health care, there will be riots here. Your wife needs an "emergency" pap smear in Canada? There is a six month wait. So people come down to the US and pay for what they need.

All the rest of the comment that came from I whole heartedly agree with however. Overly generous benefits to workers and retirees of domestic car companies have been crippling to them. I am amazed at how competitive the domestic cars are considering what disadvantages they are forced to deal with.

Business owners no doubt also have some definite tax advantages, buying some pretty nice new vehicles, and also insure under the business with other fleet vehicles. My concern is increasingly seeing more and more vehicles becoming increasingly boring with the potato-bean shape underpowered, uninspired vehicles that no doubt sell, but why is my question. My friend with her new Prius cares zero about cars, just a vehicle that gets her there. Maybe she finds enjoyment reaching the destination afterward, but not driving there. I enjoy driving vehicles, and granted this is a full size truck review, so it's a truck.

The potato shape may work well in a wind tunnel, and there is more fitting people inside to consider than design and handling in many cases. As an example, I had a new Datsun 280ZX 2+2 (back seat) in 1982 that still was my "family car" with young children and it was a very nice design, fun to drive although a bit underpowered but I enjoyed it.

When my kids got older I had 2 seaters and a family car that was still performance oriented at least. It would be nice to see some more inspired designs that are fun to drive and a vehicle you want to run to and drive. I would be so disappointed to drive many of the 2009 vehicles I'm seeing. I hope to never lose my zest for driving - maybe when I am old and poor sighted that may not be a factor and I'll just write a check for a bland car and hand me the keys. Maybe driving is just becoming a basic appliance for many people.

My good friend in Canada lost his mother last year. She spent 31 days in intensive care. The bill? $0 thanks to Canada's excellent health care system. My mother spent 3 days in intensive care some years ago. Her bill was $37,000+. I'll take Canada or the UK's system ANY DAY over ours. My friends in Canada and the UK constantly rib me about our "barbaric" health care system because it helps only those who are wealthy and allows the poor to die without care. That IS barbaric. I'd rather wait 30 days for an elective procedure than die because I can't pay $20,000 an hour for a surgeon's new Mercedes. If we had socialized medicine it would increase the productivity of our country and save billions in tax money. By denying people health care we allow them to succumb to easily treatable conditions and end up an even BIGGER drain on taxpayers.

"My friends in Canada and the UK constantly rib me about our "barbaric" health care system because it helps only those who are wealthy and allows the poor to die without care. That IS barbaric."

Yeah... particularly if it were true. Most hospitals either won't or can't by law turn away a patient based on their ability to pay -- something about that "do no harm" thing. So this isn't about the poor being left to die. It's about cost, efficiency, and quality. In fact the poor and the rich are fine. It's the self employed and uninsured middle class that are the real issue because if they get seriously ill, they may go bankrupt trying to pay for care. Once they are bankrupt they're covered. Then they will qualify for medical assistance.

My wife had worked for public health both providing direct care and assessing for other agency care for 10 years. Now she is the director of a hospice and homecare program in central Minnesota. These issues are a daily reality for her. There is a very real healthcare gap problem.

But will socialized medicine help? It may or may not depending on how it is implemented. Right now, for example, insurance creates a major cost vs. care issue. Years ago, before large sums of people were insured, care was less expensive for a couple of reasons.

#1 Insurance separates cost from care. So patients naturally want the latest care regardless of cost. Before that was the case people had to look at the cost of a procedure and providers had to keep costs down if they wanted to get paid.

#2 Insurance companies are deep pockets that just spread out the costs among thousands of people. So without these deep pockets care HAD to be less costly.

If the government solution is simply to insure everyone, the end result will be excellent care but at even higher prices than today... even though caregivers wouldn't have to defray the costs of non-payers among paying "customers".

I think this would be the case simply because the government is inefficient at most things and because adding to the insurance roles only makes the afore-mentioned problems even worse.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but since this is a automotive site, the connection to healthcare is tenuous at best. This comment among others is really a prime example of what "off-topic" really means :) So... can we get back to arguing about cars?

I posted this comment on another thread. It seems appropriate here too, so I'll just paste it:

"The biggest financial issue facing the U.S. auto industry is the huge cost of healthcare for workers and retirees."

That and paying their workers twice as much, a burdensome pension system, other "legacy" costs, union requirements that force manufacturers to use more workers than necessary to do any given job, and (lest we all forget) a major recession brought on by a collapse in the credit markets (credit people need to buy cars).

A long drawn out debate about "socialized" health care would be inappropriate to this blog. But, because it's been mentioned here and on other threads, I'd like to chime in.

All available figures related to the cost of such a system are mere estimates and not hard sums. The government doesn't know for sure how much this system would cost (or whether it would be more or less than the auto bailout). Some of the reasons (actually questions) for this are:

Will people overburden the new system every time the hypochondriac media says that a sniffle is a sign of cancer?

How efficient will the system be?

How efficient will the associated bureaucracy be?

Will inefficiency eat up benefits born of scale?

Will voters demand the Nth degree of care with the latest technology?

Will the government then need to regulate prices on medical supplies?

How high up the line will it go?

To keep costs down, will the government begin to regulate our choices (Do you exercise? Do you smoke? Do you drink alcohol? Do you drive a lot?)?

With each new area comes more regulation and more bureaucracy. Will that become unbearably expensive?

They don't know and neither do we. We just know that health care has gotten too expensive, so we're casting around for solutions. Because of Washington's pro/con culture, we can't be sure that those who compile figures are truly independent and covering all the angles.

My biggest concerns with this type of system are that:

#1 Over time it will almost certainly cost more than current estimates suggest (it IS the government after all).

#2 It will erode our freedom further as the government tries to keep costs under control by regulating risky behavior.

I'm not offering a solution, just a warning. Just because someone (even a sincere someone like Mr. Obama, for example) says that it will cost $XXXXXXXX, doesn't make it true. All such figures are little more than educated flights of fancy. Let's just hope and pray that they get it right.

I agree, if you are old, move to Canada, but I have had several neighbors that came down from Canada, transfers at both GM and Chrysler, that indicated it's very very expensive to live there. Maybe we can have our taxes raised tremendously prior to our retirement and much higher priced goods (I hope you do not smoke or pay what they cost per pack/carton in Canada for example).

Anyway, if you are old, move there for your poor health, if you are younger live here. If my health were an issue, I would likely select Costa Rico for dental alone. Maybe go on vacation, have Lasik etc done outside the country, but I still would prefer my own country for my medical.

Even better than addressing these health concerns on a car review... do not just read magazines, test drive everything in your price range before you buy. Don't get so locked up in a brand to not personally get behind the wheel and really like what you select. And get a decent warranty.

I suggest everyone in this forum read "The United States of Toyota" by Peter DeLorenzo before flippantly commenting that destroying the U.S. auto industry is "their business if they choose to buy from a foreign company". His figures indicate that ONE IN FOURTEEN jobs in the U.S. is either directly or indirectly related to the U.S. auto industry. You may not even KNOW if your job is related to domestic car makers or not... until you get your pink slip.

"Costa Rico"

Do you mean Costa Rica or Puerto Rico? The amalgam seems an unlikely source for good dental care :)

Costa Rica. I agree I'll take health care here as well. And also avoid the Tundra for a better domestic full size as well.

"Even better than addressing these health concerns on a car review... do not just read magazines, test drive everything in your price range before you buy. Don't get so locked up in a brand to not personally get behind the wheel and really like what you select. And get a decent warranty."

I totally agree, and have long urged people to do just this. I am a car nut and love to just go out and drive different cars. I have many friends who work at dealerships and service departments in my area, and on several occasions I've been offered a new car to use for the entire day or weekend. A 5-minute test drive tells you very little, especially if you can't really drive the guts out of the vehicle to assess its performance capabilities. When people whine about buying a "puny performing" vehicle they'll get no sympathy from me. You can tell in TEN SECONDS if a car is "puny". Simply floor the accelerator and if you aren't doing 60mph in 10 seconds, I'd say it is "puny". That's not to say many "puny" cars aren't very good and economical cars. It depends on your needs and preferences. Some of my 10+ second cars were extremely good for the tasks I expected of them.

With all that said, after driving domestic, Japanese, Korean, German and Swedish cars, I always come to the same conclusion: For the overall BEST in warranty, performance, value and reliability, NOTHING has ever proven better for us than a Ford, GM or Chrysler, whether it be cars, trucks or SUV's. New domestics are just better overall than anything available today. This is especially true of full-sized trucks. The Tundra falls so far short in this area it should not even be considered.

"Yeah... particularly if it were true. Most hospitals either won't or can't by law turn away a patient based on their ability to pay -- something about that "do no harm" thing. So this isn't about the poor being left to die"

You might inform the family of a young man who was left on the concrete walk outside an emergency room to die for want of a shot of insulin here in our area about this "myth".

Wow! This thread has gotten so far off topic, I'm very surprised that Steven (steven@carsurvey.org) hasn't pulled the plug on adding comments to it!

"Costa Rico"

"Do you mean Costa Rica or Puerto Rico? The amalgam seems an unlikely source for good dental care :) "

I'm really not quite sure where discussions of dental fillings apply on a car review site. I suppose if you drove a really rough-riding car, such as a Mustang GT or Scion Tc it might apply, as those cars DO tend to jar your fillings out!! :)

"You might inform the family of a young man who was left on the concrete walk outside an emergency room to die for want of a shot of insulin here in our area about this "myth"."

I didn't use the term "myth" but I DID use the term "Most". My wife has worked in 4 different health systems in two states... two public, two private. All offered service at no cost to those who couldn't pay. It's also notable that the young man that you referred to apparently made the news by his misfortune. That suggests just how extraordinary his circumstance was. Even your outrage, alone, should confirm this. This was not a daily occurrence and was not likely the result of a policy of patient denial. Please understand here that I don't know for sure if the policies in MN and ND are based upon state laws or federal ones, but the stated basis of these laws is universal... to whit, the hippocratic oath. The failure to provide care is considered my most (there is some debate on this subject) to be the same as "doing harm".

Anyway patient denial is uncommon and not the real base rationale for a government-based single payer system. Unfortunately this is an inappropriate forum for this discussion.

So back to cars.

"I'm really not quite sure where discussions of dental fillings apply on a car review site. I suppose if you drove a really rough-riding car, such as a Mustang GT or Scion Tc it might apply, as those cars DO tend to jar your fillings out!! :) "

So does my Jeep. But, oh what fun!! Dentist be d@#$ed :)

I used to own a 2000 Tundra. It was sold at 107,000 miles and was a good reliable vehicle during that time-frame. However, I will be buying domestically for my next truck. The Tundra WAS a lightweight vehicle and not great for trailering heavy stuff. The suspension was too soft to keep a trailer running straight in a side wind. My old Chevy was stiffer but it liked to wander a bit due to play in the steering. Newer Domestics look to be fairly reliable (according to CR) and have great features for trailering. Also Toyota's recent quality glitches make me nervous about longer-term wear and tear. If they missed a number of "misforged" cams, etc. what else have they missed that will only show up just after the warranty expires or at 100,000 miles? The latest model just seemed like it was released half-baked... which isn't very confidence inspiring. It's usually good to wait a few years before buying a new model anyway because everyone makes mistakes.