[equalizer]

[quote=flu]Lol. I think it’s not just toyota. A good percentage of cars are all DBW..Must euro has been DBW for some time.

BTW:
ABCnews is to toyota as 60 minutes was to Audi 5000 a few years ago.

I wouldn’t call a “professor” from a school heavily funded from Government Motors, wiring a shunt resistor between two lines that are intended to be separate, to artificially accelerate a car, to have much credibility…though, I do think toyota’s got some problems with the software.

Basically, this problem is to complicated for someone who doesn’t have access to the code to find the “cause”…Everyone else claiming to know what the problem is just a media attention whore at this point.

Folks, here’s my prediction. Car prices across the board are about to plummet….Toyota is going to give steep discounts off of their cars, and extend warranties to something ridiculous….just to keep sales numbers afloat. It will ridiculous pricing…GM/Ford/Chyrsler/Honda/Hyundai etc will have no choice but to follow through…It’s going to be a race to the bottom.

Still waiting for that 2011 redesigned Ford Edge to cost less than what the outgoing 2010 model will be…(Glad I didn’t buy a 2010)…[/quote]
Agree that ABC report is lame, but there may be problem here that is difficult to duplicate.
Is everyone who stated that accelator stuck mistaken or outright lying? Did that guy in the Prius the other day make the whole thing up? Why doesn’t Toyota update system to have brakes cut acceleration signals like German cars supposedly do?

[equalizer]

[quote=Rich Toscano]This conversation reminds me of a great article I read a while back about the problem with US healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

(Ignore the lame title, for which some magazine editor should be fired).

As I recall, the author makes a compelling case that it is the “comprehensive insurance” model that is the root of the problem, because the “customer” is not the actual patient but the insurance company, medicare, etc. This puts all kinds of distorted incentives into the system and reduces efficiency.

What’s interesting is that as far as I can tell (and I admit I’m not too punched in), most of the debate right now centers around who should pay. And this is an important question, but I think the better question to address first would be that of what we are paying for. Clearly, as davelj’s stats show, we are paying more and getting less. There is a reason behind that that needs to be fixed, and simply shifting the payment from one party to another won’t do it.

I’m probably not doing the article justice. I highly recommend it.

Rich[/quote]
Rich,
I quoted the great article back here in Oct 09.
http://piggington.com/healthcare_yes_this_subject_again

Businessweek has an article about end of life care and breakdown of costs. “The bills for his seven years of medical care totaled $618,616, almost two-thirds of which was for his final 24 months.”

Here’s the general conversation with most people with good insurance: “I’ve got great coverage, let the SOBs eat cake or go to TJ, etc”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_11/b4170032321836.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories

[equalizer]

[quote=Rich Toscano]This conversation reminds me of a great article I read a while back about the problem with US healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

(Ignore the lame title, for which some magazine editor should be fired).

As I recall, the author makes a compelling case that it is the “comprehensive insurance” model that is the root of the problem, because the “customer” is not the actual patient but the insurance company, medicare, etc. This puts all kinds of distorted incentives into the system and reduces efficiency.

What’s interesting is that as far as I can tell (and I admit I’m not too punched in), most of the debate right now centers around who should pay. And this is an important question, but I think the better question to address first would be that of what we are paying for. Clearly, as davelj’s stats show, we are paying more and getting less. There is a reason behind that that needs to be fixed, and simply shifting the payment from one party to another won’t do it.

I’m probably not doing the article justice. I highly recommend it.

Rich[/quote]
Rich,
I quoted the great article back here in Oct 09.
http://piggington.com/healthcare_yes_this_subject_again

Businessweek has an article about end of life care and breakdown of costs. “The bills for his seven years of medical care totaled $618,616, almost two-thirds of which was for his final 24 months.”

Here’s the general conversation with most people with good insurance: “I’ve got great coverage, let the SOBs eat cake or go to TJ, etc”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_11/b4170032321836.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories

[equalizer]

[quote=Rich Toscano]This conversation reminds me of a great article I read a while back about the problem with US healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

(Ignore the lame title, for which some magazine editor should be fired).

As I recall, the author makes a compelling case that it is the “comprehensive insurance” model that is the root of the problem, because the “customer” is not the actual patient but the insurance company, medicare, etc. This puts all kinds of distorted incentives into the system and reduces efficiency.

What’s interesting is that as far as I can tell (and I admit I’m not too punched in), most of the debate right now centers around who should pay. And this is an important question, but I think the better question to address first would be that of what we are paying for. Clearly, as davelj’s stats show, we are paying more and getting less. There is a reason behind that that needs to be fixed, and simply shifting the payment from one party to another won’t do it.

I’m probably not doing the article justice. I highly recommend it.

Rich[/quote]
Rich,
I quoted the great article back here in Oct 09.
http://piggington.com/healthcare_yes_this_subject_again

Businessweek has an article about end of life care and breakdown of costs. “The bills for his seven years of medical care totaled $618,616, almost two-thirds of which was for his final 24 months.”

Here’s the general conversation with most people with good insurance: “I’ve got great coverage, let the SOBs eat cake or go to TJ, etc”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_11/b4170032321836.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories

[equalizer]

[quote=Rich Toscano]This conversation reminds me of a great article I read a while back about the problem with US healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

(Ignore the lame title, for which some magazine editor should be fired).

As I recall, the author makes a compelling case that it is the “comprehensive insurance” model that is the root of the problem, because the “customer” is not the actual patient but the insurance company, medicare, etc. This puts all kinds of distorted incentives into the system and reduces efficiency.

What’s interesting is that as far as I can tell (and I admit I’m not too punched in), most of the debate right now centers around who should pay. And this is an important question, but I think the better question to address first would be that of what we are paying for. Clearly, as davelj’s stats show, we are paying more and getting less. There is a reason behind that that needs to be fixed, and simply shifting the payment from one party to another won’t do it.

I’m probably not doing the article justice. I highly recommend it.

Rich[/quote]
Rich,
I quoted the great article back here in Oct 09.
http://piggington.com/healthcare_yes_this_subject_again

Businessweek has an article about end of life care and breakdown of costs. “The bills for his seven years of medical care totaled $618,616, almost two-thirds of which was for his final 24 months.”

Here’s the general conversation with most people with good insurance: “I’ve got great coverage, let the SOBs eat cake or go to TJ, etc”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_11/b4170032321836.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories

[equalizer]

[quote=Rich Toscano]This conversation reminds me of a great article I read a while back about the problem with US healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

(Ignore the lame title, for which some magazine editor should be fired).

As I recall, the author makes a compelling case that it is the “comprehensive insurance” model that is the root of the problem, because the “customer” is not the actual patient but the insurance company, medicare, etc. This puts all kinds of distorted incentives into the system and reduces efficiency.

What’s interesting is that as far as I can tell (and I admit I’m not too punched in), most of the debate right now centers around who should pay. And this is an important question, but I think the better question to address first would be that of what we are paying for. Clearly, as davelj’s stats show, we are paying more and getting less. There is a reason behind that that needs to be fixed, and simply shifting the payment from one party to another won’t do it.

I’m probably not doing the article justice. I highly recommend it.

Rich[/quote]
Rich,
I quoted the great article back here in Oct 09.
http://piggington.com/healthcare_yes_this_subject_again

Businessweek has an article about end of life care and breakdown of costs. “The bills for his seven years of medical care totaled $618,616, almost two-thirds of which was for his final 24 months.”

Here’s the general conversation with most people with good insurance: “I’ve got great coverage, let the SOBs eat cake or go to TJ, etc”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_11/b4170032321836.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories

[equalizer]

[quote=sdrealtor]Thanks for the input but I’d really like to keep the focus on my eureka moment of sorts. It just seems to me that in the last few years demand has become more concentrated than it was. The pace at which information is disseminated has picked up and will only accelerate. While there are other forces out there, it seems like the Internet its instant availability of information on what is for sale has been inflationary not deflationary as I would have expected.[/quote]
Yes, you are stating the Ebay effect where desirable items now can get widespread attention and auction effect. Of course, this process should be creating wider gap between “great” properties and sub-par properties. Is this what you are seeing?

PS
We can ignore the pink elephant, but women do make most if not all real estate decisions, no? That must too PC for this site because we know how it NEVER broaches divisive politics or any taboo subjects, etc.

[equalizer]

[quote=sdrealtor]Thanks for the input but I’d really like to keep the focus on my eureka moment of sorts. It just seems to me that in the last few years demand has become more concentrated than it was. The pace at which information is disseminated has picked up and will only accelerate. While there are other forces out there, it seems like the Internet its instant availability of information on what is for sale has been inflationary not deflationary as I would have expected.[/quote]
Yes, you are stating the Ebay effect where desirable items now can get widespread attention and auction effect. Of course, this process should be creating wider gap between “great” properties and sub-par properties. Is this what you are seeing?

PS
We can ignore the pink elephant, but women do make most if not all real estate decisions, no? That must too PC for this site because we know how it NEVER broaches divisive politics or any taboo subjects, etc.

[equalizer]

[quote=sdrealtor]Thanks for the input but I’d really like to keep the focus on my eureka moment of sorts. It just seems to me that in the last few years demand has become more concentrated than it was. The pace at which information is disseminated has picked up and will only accelerate. While there are other forces out there, it seems like the Internet its instant availability of information on what is for sale has been inflationary not deflationary as I would have expected.[/quote]
Yes, you are stating the Ebay effect where desirable items now can get widespread attention and auction effect. Of course, this process should be creating wider gap between “great” properties and sub-par properties. Is this what you are seeing?

PS
We can ignore the pink elephant, but women do make most if not all real estate decisions, no? That must too PC for this site because we know how it NEVER broaches divisive politics or any taboo subjects, etc.

[equalizer]

[quote=sdrealtor]Thanks for the input but I’d really like to keep the focus on my eureka moment of sorts. It just seems to me that in the last few years demand has become more concentrated than it was. The pace at which information is disseminated has picked up and will only accelerate. While there are other forces out there, it seems like the Internet its instant availability of information on what is for sale has been inflationary not deflationary as I would have expected.[/quote]
Yes, you are stating the Ebay effect where desirable items now can get widespread attention and auction effect. Of course, this process should be creating wider gap between “great” properties and sub-par properties. Is this what you are seeing?

PS
We can ignore the pink elephant, but women do make most if not all real estate decisions, no? That must too PC for this site because we know how it NEVER broaches divisive politics or any taboo subjects, etc.

[equalizer]

[quote=sdrealtor]Thanks for the input but I’d really like to keep the focus on my eureka moment of sorts. It just seems to me that in the last few years demand has become more concentrated than it was. The pace at which information is disseminated has picked up and will only accelerate. While there are other forces out there, it seems like the Internet its instant availability of information on what is for sale has been inflationary not deflationary as I would have expected.[/quote]
Yes, you are stating the Ebay effect where desirable items now can get widespread attention and auction effect. Of course, this process should be creating wider gap between “great” properties and sub-par properties. Is this what you are seeing?

PS
We can ignore the pink elephant, but women do make most if not all real estate decisions, no? That must too PC for this site because we know how it NEVER broaches divisive politics or any taboo subjects, etc.

[equalizer]

If you don’t have all expenses tracked, you could try Quicken or their free service at mint.com, which gets raves reviews, but all your data is on their server.

[equalizer]

If you don’t have all expenses tracked, you could try Quicken or their free service at mint.com, which gets raves reviews, but all your data is on their server.

[equalizer]

If you don’t have all expenses tracked, you could try Quicken or their free service at mint.com, which gets raves reviews, but all your data is on their server.

[equalizer]

If you don’t have all expenses tracked, you could try Quicken or their free service at mint.com, which gets raves reviews, but all your data is on their server.

[Author]

Posts