2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - Off Topic Comments

"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!"

I, for one, appreciate the fact that Steven has allowed these seemingly off-track comments. So few people in the U.S. really have the faintest idea of how far-reaching the auto industry and its effects are. With approximately one in fifteen U.S. jobs tied directly or indirectly to the American auto industry, discussions of related topics is very much appropriate to a vehicle-related site.

The U.S. auto industry involves financial institutions, insurance firms and the health care industry. As stated earlier, one of the U.S. auto makers largest problems is the draconian health care system here that costs auto makers billions of dollars. Unlike more enlightened countries, such as the UK and Canada, many people here scream bloody murder at the idea of our government doing anything to help our poor or elderly citizens. Lobbying groups such as the AMA put out false information to frighten our citizens into avoiding providing our people with health care. They tell us that you have to wait 6 months to see a doctor if you have a medical emergency in Canada or the UK. This is patently false. I have friends in both Canada and the UK and they literally fear coming to the U.S. because they might become ill or involved in an accident, and either be denied care or literally bankrupted by an emergency room visit.

There is one case here where a child was left to bleed to death in an emergency room without care because his father had to rush home to get his insurance card before a doctor would even LOOK at the child. The family sued and it was one of the largest awards ever made for medical malpractice at the time. This sort of thing happens EVERY DAY in the U.S., and health care is VERY MUCH a part of the economic problems facing domestic auto makers.

Comparing vehicles is far more involved than saying "I prefer Ford" or "I prefer Toyota". We need to look at the disastrous effects of buying from foreign companies, and we need to understand the archaic governmental policies here that hinder our businesses. The American public (the 50% that CAN read) need to inform themselves about many aspects of our economy while we still have one to read about. A foreign commentator on a TV show recently referred to "undeveloped countries such as Australia and the U.S." He was pretty much right on (about the U.S. at least).

I could wait til my teeth fall out naturally from age, and be one of the many new Camry owners about.

"There is one case here where a child was left to bleed to death in an emergency room without care because his father had to rush home to get his insurance card before a doctor would even LOOK at the child. The family sued and it was one of the largest awards ever made for medical malpractice at the time. This sort of thing happens EVERY DAY in the U.S., and health care is VERY MUCH a part of the economic problems facing domestic auto makers."

Note that the family sued and won. Why would they win? Why is it called malpractice? Answer: because it ISN'T common or considered acceptable. Your point that it happens daily is completely baseless. It happens, but it is uncommon and, again, NOT THE RATIONALE BEHIND A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. It results in lawsuits, public outrage, and loss of prestige. None of these things would be true if it happened "EVERY DAY in the U.S.".

There IS a reasonable basis for a single-payer system but this is an AUTO BLOG!! Yes it has an affect on the automakers but so would the higher taxes that would be necessary to pay for such a system --- it ain't free no matter what.

You would likely be surprised that I don't take a hard position because the facts of which I am aware don't support doing so. I have concerns and doubts that such a system would be cheaper, but it is perhaps valid to say that healthcare should be a right and not merely the privilege of the very poor, the wealthy, and those of the middle class who are not self-employed. There are aggravating and mitigating points on both sides.

There is absolutely no point in arguing this any further, though, because this is the wrong venue and we can't even get to the real arguments on both sides of this issue. This relates to auto making only in the same way that it relates to doing any kind of business here in the U.S. Everyone faces the same realities, so it isn't truly an appropriate subject for this forum unless we want to also plumb the depths of business models, advertising, merchandising, accounting, and employee relations.

So... I'm out. If getting the last word is your definition of success, then have at it. I'm back to cars.

Yes, many Camry owners ARE elderly, and the car is perfect for them. They never use 10% of any car's potential. And therein lies the problem with the Tundra. It, too, was built in much the same manner as the Camry. It simply cannot handle being used like a Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado would. It, too, is a perfect vehicle for retired elderly men who putter around hauling garden supplies. In real, day-to-day work usage it leaves a lot to be desired.

"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."

I think you're misinterpreting what the situation on Wall Street and its relationship with the government has been. Banks, lenders, and financial institutions were never "forced" to loan money. The reality is that financial institutions wanted to loan more money to higher risk clientele. As I mentioned before, lobbies had much to do with getting the government to look the other way.

Now why would banks want to lend to riskier borrowers? The reasons are complex, but to boil it down to a few of them, one is that few banks actually hold onto mortgages for very long. Instead, mortgages are soon sold off up stream to other banks and investment firms. Reason no.2 is that investing in risk means higher returns and quicker profits.

What enabled the risk to seem more digestible was the ease of obtaining insurance. What I mean by this is that it's actually extremely easy to setup a financial insurance entity that can insure anything. Let's say that you're afraid Brazil could someday go bankrupt because you have large investments in Brazilian companies. No problem, just find an insurance firm that will insure your assets in Brazil. Pay them 100k to insure 100 million worth of investments. The insurance company likely never has to pay out anything, and thus probably doesn't actually have enough to cover those insured if there was.

That's precisely what happened on Wall Street: Banks sold high risk debt, but also bought insurance from companies like AIG. When these banks began to show heavy losses from mortgage defualts, AIG was unable to pay, hence their failure and why the US stepped in and shored things up, because had they not, the entire system would have collapsed. All because everyone assumed that their backs were covered when in fact nobody had any safety rope whatsoever, since what was being insured had no real value to begin with, since the investments in question were heavily tied to overpriced real estate.

Bottom line: You can't make money off of non-existent, non-performing capital.

As you can see, these people on Wall Street basically played with the money of everyone in a very irresponsible way.If you think this sounds crazy, than perhaps you would agree with me that indeed - these companies acted with great abandon. These industries MUST be regulated, because not having any regulation is exactly what created this entire problem. There is no such thing as capitalism without regulation. You cannot expect a balanced system unless corporate interests are held accountable for their actions.

People need to get out there and actually understand how the market works.

"A foreign commentator on a TV show recently referred to "undeveloped countries such as Australia and the U.S." He was pretty much right on (about the U.S. at least)."

His being foreign must qualify him. What a stupid statement! The U.S. is still the world's largest economy, Has the most powerful military, is the seminal leader of the G8 (group of eight INDUSTRIALIZED nations, has the highest quality healthcare (though its not generally available), is the technological leader, is the leader in the area of innovation, and has the world's most stable government. The lack of socialized healthcare seems like a minor difference in light of these facts. It could be a good idea to consider the possibility that his comment was "sour grapes" from another disappointed socialist.

I think that within the next two years you'll see a rebound in GM and Ford's fortunes (I'm not sure what will happen to Chrysler) as they now have cost structures that rival their foreign counterparts. Hopefully they will allow "car guys" rather than accountants design their vehicles. This could be a very exciting time as we see improvements in quality, technology, "greenness", and fuel economy. Already their trucks, in particular, are class acts.

10:39 The Tundra has more horsepower, torque, and towing capacity than either of those trucks if I'm not mistaken. Not to mention it's a Toyota, and not a Chevy, which means that it isn't a misaligned collection of cheap parts like a Chevy is.

"People need to get out there and actually understand how the market works."

And your post is informative and simple enough to help us do exactly that. Thank you.

"The Tundra has more horsepower, torque, and towing capacity than either of those trucks if I'm not mistaken. Not to mention it's a Toyota, and not a Chevy, which means that it isn't a misaligned collection of cheap parts like a Chevy is."

Look up the 2005 Toyota Camry long-term test on Edmunds. MULTIPLE posts WITH pictures about the poor alignment of interior pieces and the crappy quality of which it was assembled.

Tundra has more hp... so great if you do straight line stoplight to stoplight. I think the best again is to test drive. I personally like the better handling, people carrying, ride, comfort, load capacity, towing capability and better warranty with the new GM Silverado however.

"(The U.S.) has the highest quality healthcare (though its not generally available) "

The "though it's not generally available" says it all. What good is high-quality health care if your child is left unattended in an emergency room to bleed to death while you have to run home to get your insurance card (better yet, what if you don't HAVE insurance). Every day in the U.S. people are condemned to lingering, agonizing deaths because they are denied health care (and PLEASE, none of this "hospitals HAVE to treat emergencies". It isn't true). DEVELOPED nations care about their people... ALL of them. The foreign reporter was correct: The U.S. IS an "undeveloped" nation. Hopefully that will change.

As for the auto industry, the lack of medical care for our citizens is the BIGGEST factor in their financial issues. It has NOTHING to do with fuel economy (GM builds more fuel-efficient vehicles than Honda and Toyota COMBINED) or reliability (Ford is rated equal in reliability to the best Japanese manufacturers). The F-150 is once again "Truck of the Year" and STILL the best-selling vehicle by a HUGE margin for 28 straight years.

11:28;

As for your health care comments... you already said all that. But as I said, you can dance alone because we can't even agree enough on the base facts to have an informed debate.

As for your automotive comments I agree with pretty much all you said, but would add that GM and Ford, if they can make it through the recession, will become leaner and meaner competitors. Their cost structures are now competitive.

They are, indeed, building many fuel efficient models. Now they just need to be able to make some money on them. Unlike Toyota and Honda, GM hasn't been able to profitably build smaller vehicles for years. The government FORCED them to build them via CAFE. But they built them relying on trucks and SUVs to keep them profitable (I read this on about.com cars and Car and Driver, by the way).

The other thing I would add is that, health care aside, the domestics had a much higher wage, benefit, and legacy structure (according to the automakers' own figures as reported nearly everywhere) which was forcing them to build vehicles elsewhere... which has served the Japanese well as they are able to profitably build here and propagate the claim that they are just as "domestic" as the Big Three.

But tomorrow is a new day and the domestics may well recover their former glory. It will take time, but the cost of failure would be nearly unthinkable.

"and PLEASE, none of this "hospitals HAVE to treat emergencies". It isn't true"

You may want to check some legal sites before you say more. There is a federal statute called EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) that requires hospitals (public and private) to provide limited screening, emergency care and stabilization if they are equipped to, or to provide transport to the proper facility if they aren't. In addition, Certain states also impose duties to offer emergency assistance, especially if the facility is a non-profit or charitable health care provider.

11:28.

Agree with everything you said.

I think properly run (by citizens and elected officials at a regional level) national health care is a conservative idea. What company (i.e., GM) would not like to get health care costs off their balance sheet and have that responsibility transferred to where it rightfully belongs, the person receiving the health care? Companies should "hire" people, not be forced to "adopt" them. Is it any wonder companies are shifting their operations overseas?

I do not support government intervention into businesses. All these "bailouts" that are occurring are atrocious. Japan tried exactly what the US is trying in the early 1980's and their entire economy almost collapsed. But, the health care crisis (and I do not care what anybody says, we have one) is a national security issue. Thus, it falls within the very limited scope of what government should get involved in.

I should not have to face losing my house if someone in my family or I gets sick. I own my own company and and have to buy private health insurance. It is bad enough that I spend more for health insurance than my mortgage and all my other expenses. But, do you know what would happen if I ever had to use it? We would get dropped, or our premium would become so high that we could not possibly afford it?

My family and I have a policy that we will only use our health insurance in a dire emergency, because once we use it, we all know that is the end of it, or at the very least the end of my company, because I will have to go back to being a 9-5 employee on a stipend salary, just to get "guaranteed" coverage. That doesn't seem like the American dream to me.

I suspect that all of the people here who disagree with national health care are on the dole receiving health insurance from their employers. I bet you would be singing a different tune if you ever wanted to stop being a perpetual employee and work for yourself.

11:28 OK... 1. GM does NOT build more fuel efficient vehicles than Honda OR Toyota, and most definitely not combined. Honda and Toyota are the two most 'fuel efficient' auto manufacturers in the world. GM is not.

2. Ford is NOT rated in reliability with ANY Japanese auto manufacturer. ALL major publications still, as usual, rate Japanese automobiles at the top of that list.