joihan777

On this I absolutely agree. Car manufacturers are mandated to follow many rules/standards. There is no reason businesses can't follow.

I didn't mean the Congressional branch of government..... I meant Obama & certain members of his Executive branch. BTW, drugs are making inroads into Japan..... as well as obesity.

Fair enough. Yes there are many factors that reduce American healthcare's efficacy. Within some systems, Kaiser Permanente for instance, navigating the system is fairly easy. It is the best comprehensive delivery model, as a patient (nurses get sick too), that I've experienced. It is well run and gives fairly good care. This is what I meant by looking at individual successes as opposed to the Obama administration trying to re-invent the wheel, at ours and our children's expense. His administration, I believe, means well in some areas but I think the Republican approach would be better. Basically, he has no business leading the free world. He should have stayed in the Illinois Senate and learned. Edit: I forgot to mention, Japan doesn't NEARLY allow as much immigration, legal or otherwise, as we do so their 'working poor' cannot be the same as ours.

If you mean me as the one BON member, it is because I have been in the medical field for nearly 15 years and I have worked in the best run and worse run hospitals. My experiences about Japanese healthcare are direct from friends and family that are Japanese natives or Americans that live there. I've also been a patient in the best & worse hospitals. I've also seen the political battles the worst-run systems use to gain more money while consistently wasting it. So if you mean me then I going to say that my opinion on the matter is relatively qualified much as I'd trust your opinion on architecture more than others. I know I don't have every single datum at my disposal but my experiences and those I know directly of trend consistently. I'm going to assume healthcare in Tokyo is better than in some dinky little town in the middle of nowhere. OF COURSE nations have different rankings. Richer hospitals thus have better care, usually. So then why do foreigners come to US for healthcare? It is because the WHO averages include America's best hospitals, of which there are many, together with tiny rural facilities, reservation clinics, inner-city public systems etc. America's healthcare problem can't be fixed by pointing a gun at rich people and shouting 'pay up sucka!' The problem stems also from people's horrendous health-care decisions. How many liquor shops/drug dealers infest the ghettos? Where do cigarette manufacturers sell the most product? Where does McFast Food sell the most product? It is in densely populated metropolitan areas full of people who throw their fortunes, and health, away. Until these people learn to value thier health, they will continue to strain the low cost/ public healthcare agencies. Also, public agencies are NOT held to the same scrutiny that private companies are. Even my own employer, a not-for-profit healthcare company, must account for it's decisions to a board of directors that answer to the employees. I don't agree with Obama-care because IMO it doesn't truly address the problem.... it just reinforces the band-aid. I would have prefered to study the BEST of individual systems, not just try to copy national approaches. And I would have prefered Obama-care to apply to Mr. Obama and his staff too. Hmmm.

I can see that, but only if the 2014+ Mustang has a lighter body and/or the EB I-4 comes close to the current 3.7L performance. Otherwise.... no. Someone answered this but I forgot, is there some reason Ford doesn't produce a 2.7L EB V6 for the '14+ Mustangs? The engine would be lighter/ use less fuel than a 3.7L and have a smaller footprint. It'd have similar characterisitcs, performance-wise, to the 3.7L NA. It'd fit in the Edge, Fusion, Taurus, Flex, Ranger & F150s etc. They may even shoehorn it into a Focus or Fiesta. Either way, I hope Mustang Base stays with Camaro-beating performance while having better economy. 31mpg is good today but 5 years from now it will be considered a pig.

The interiors also. Leathered interiors instead of plastic never-never-land. Plus I remember a few niche Lexuses too, like the SC(?) that Michael Jordan's father had. Also, Lexus really does have a very slick advertising plan. Everyone knows that 'Lexus voice' and it's been around since the beginning, conveying a(n albeit false) sense of unwavering stability & permanence.

I hate to put out such a generalized statement, but I think the Lexus/Toyota fans are also much less well educated in all things automotive. Some of my coworkers who own Lexuses are shocked (or offended =) when they're told of their Lexus's roots! That being said, I don't disagree with emulating Lexus to a point, but competing with Cadillac and the more mass marketed BMW/ Mercedes models would be a good strategy too. (I mean NOT the M, AMG models) Not all MB owners are 'uber-loyal' to Mercedes... and with the current economy a slight bit downscaling might be appreciated.

Agreed. I've heard several major corporations already following Obama's plan and will abandon employer provided healthcare and turn over those employees to socialized healthcare (or however one may wish to sugarcoat it). I hope when the libs get ousted from power the GOP had BETTER repeal obamacare and it is in this future environment that I hope the states can parallel run a small business healthcare plan.

My state, California, has thousands and thousands of small businesses that don't provide health insurance benefits. Many owners say doing so would cause their businesses to fail because of the high cost. If the government mandated all small businesses to provide a healthcare benefit, how would these owners manage it? One idea is to pool all small businesses in a statewide program managed parallel to the state benefit system. This would pass volume savings on to businesses while providing the benefit to as many employees as possible. Thoughts?

"way of the Peaceful Warrior" by Dan Millman. Read it and never look back, it will uncorrupt you.

My guess is that the high beltline means smaller, lighter windows thus improving handling.

Looks like an Audi TT, a VW NuBug and a Mini Cooper's three-way's love-child. I can see the bug splatter all over that front. Otherwise pretty trick getting it to look like a little car but retaining a hatchback.

Looked pretty good to me! Is that Kona Blue?

Agreed. Modern nuclear technology make 3-Mile Island meltdowns unlikely. Even the uber-greenie Europeans use nuclear power. The biggest group of protesters might have been seniors because the rallies were during workdays. Believe me, many of us at work last Thursday wish we could have joined.

I agree with Nick, the current Flex's front end is just a little too cluttered/ not iconic enough... I prefer more 'presence'. I think the interiors are too dark. Even if someone wanted an upscale looking 'light medium stone' with wood inserts, the floor carpeting and rear trim panels remain that dark 'not quite black, not quite grey' carpeting color. I know Ford saves a couple of dollars by having only one color but it is ugly! Also, after having driven the 2010 Taurus and then driving the Flex one after the other, the Flex came away as a 'crude' driving experience. The next gen Flex really has to live up to the Taurus' standard. Especially since there is no Taurus wagon! Lastly, the Vista roof on the Edge is better than the Vista roof on the Flex. The Flex's roof windows are a little too small to be useful.

Some of the doctors on my unit are discouraging their children from going into medicine because they see the hippy/socialist push in this nation too strong and most Americans not educated enough on the matter. You are right, we already have universal healthcare. Every ER in America is a part of it, one way or another. I think anyone who doesn't have private healthcare should pay higher medicare payments until they get their own healthcare.

Potheads DO get dumber with use. Not only are there sudies showing this, I've seen several of my friends handicap themselves with marijuana. As for the cadavers in my anatomy class... the one with the fragile aorta was a smoker who died from lung Ca, you could not believe what can happens to lungs! The statement about brain damage found in cadavers were from anatomy teacher and I guess if you want evidence you'd better go ask him.... and that was several years ago! So, in the absence of the direct reference, I've found some other studies noted for you: http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects http://www.uc.edu/News/NR.aspx?ID=9011 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090202175105.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/04/2264668.htm?site=news I also found a good deal of websites that state marijuana has no detrimental effects on brain/ body. Rationale seems to always boil down to 'no conclusive evidence exists...' even though there are studies that 'strongly suggest' it. Bottom line is smoking marijuana is bad for you. And the limited medicinal use can be found in Marinol without wrecking your lungs.

You'd have to be stupid to purposely damage your brain in order to be happy. While having one episode of being stoned obviously wont be your doom, but how many pot-heads stop at one? And the damage from smoking it isn't purely from marijuana... ANY inhaled smoke will shove a ton of free radical ions into your bloodstream, which rip their way into your arterial walls and leave a 'hook' for plaques to build upon. In anatomy class we had two cadavers, one a smoker and one not. The professor dissected out the aortas. The non-smoker had a rubbery aorta. The smoker's crumbled like glass. End of arguement. The free radicals aren't restricted to the arteries either. There is no way on Earth you can justify smoked marijuana's use medically. And I didn't say the cadavers couldn't talk... but go ahead and pat yourself on the back if you want. Whatever intelligence potential you possessed before you started to smoke weed, you will never have again. It is just plain bad.

It bothers me immensely because smoking it ABSOLUTELY causes lung cancer, arteriosclerosis and a multitude of other, expensive conditions that pot-heads will not have the money to pay for. Second, smoking marijuana does make one stupid[er]. I read research on marijuana smoker cadavers. The brains had similar damage as LSD users. Do we need more of this? No. Lastly, legal marijuana already exists: Marinol.

Big difference..... you can grow marijuana without really trying. Alcohol is WAY more complex to produce (well)! Edit: If it becomes legal.. who the heck is going to register their plant? All you need is 2 or 3 bushes and you're set for the year! Sheesh all yo have to do is put in some 'lush' landscaping or a couple of 'decorative' window plants and [bam] you've just went around the whole tax benefit arguement!

The Fiesta is pretty cool for a micro-car... and I think it will do OK, but I wouldn't buy one. Same for the Fusion.... but I still think it's a great car for it's intended market. I need a personal car for commute/fun and a family car for...family & travel. Although I like many cars in the Ford lineup, I will only buy Mustang and maybe an Edge. Now if they made a station wagon Taurus.... hooboy!

Private Security.... what's Blackwater's phone number?

What I don't get is how the heck libs think Rush is stupid but they worship Stephen Colbert... WTH?!?!?

We've had our minivan for 5 years now.... it's time for a smaller car with decent seating and cargo capability. We've tried the Flex but unfortunately it was right after driving the Taurus. The Flex came away as too unrefined and not driveable enough. Since Taurus doesn't come in a station wagon configuration, we're looking at the Edge. Ford, please put in adjustable pedals tied to seat memory. At least in the 'Limited' trims. This will be a family car for us with two distinct drivers and having adjustable pedals would be a Godsend! Please consider it!

Being confident in your logic isn't closed minded. He has accepted refinements to his conclusions, but I've never heard him make a completely wrong conclusion before. I've also never heard any lib call in with proof of his mistakes, even though he asks for it.