There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

I started with a Google search. And it seems that this question is shrouded with confusion. So I looked on DVLA, direct.gov and the Driving Standards Agency web sites and still drew a blank.

I find this bemusing as more and more cars are being produced with this kind of gear box option. Often called tiptronic, something-else-tronic, flappy paddles etc.

A lot of forums revealed confusion over what a semi-automatic or ACS is. Many contributors often referring to it being an automatic with a D (drive setting) and some selection control. Like the 1,2,3 settings on some Mercs I’ve had that allow the selection of 1st, 2nd or 3rd to help when traction is a problem like in snow or mud.
This isn’t a semi-auto at all. Semi-auto has no Drive setting. It always requires manual selections of the correct gear for the conditions, although using different gear selection techniques and removing the manual depressing of a clutch pedal. It still has a clutch but this is operated automatically by the car’s systems.

As an ex-driving instructor, from when semi-autos were just a new option on cars like Ferraris, I regard this as a manual transmission. Clutch operation is only 20-30% of the extra skills applied when driving a manual car when compared to an automatic.

Having had this ACS car for almost a month now, it actually requires new skills I’m now learning as you can’t introduce the road speed to the new selected gear as smoothly as you can in a manual when changing down for junctions and conditions. Hill starts are also still to master. As is maneuvering in tight spaces.

However, also from the point of view of an ex-driving instructor, it wouldn’t surprise me if these were officially legal to be driven on an auto licence. Given the strange ways the DVLA applies law and policy.

Does anyone have a link to any official line on this question?

If you found this question because you need to know the answer to this question because you are an auto licence holder considering buying a semi-auto, my advice is you get it in writing from the DVLA or DSA and triple check it with your insurance company.
I wouldn’t take any chances as you could possibly find yourself illegal and uninsured (therefore illegal again) in the event of an incident.

Please don’t just take bloke-down-the-pub’s word for it, or even your driving instructors. (I know, instructors are often just as confused on these finer points).

Stay safe, and legal
Lol thanks for pointing out my mistake. It was, of course, meant to say on an “automatic” licence.

But thanks also for your very informative link. Just what I was after.

Which states:

“SEMI-AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS

With these the driver has to select the gear required by movement of the gear lever as with a manually controlled gearbox, but there is no clutch pedal. For driving test and licencing purposes these vehicles are regarded as automatics”

Awesome. In true DVLA fashion they’ve totally de-valued most of the skill difference in the manual/auto relationship. This doesn’t surprise me one bit.

After all these are the people who were proposing a tax system utilising GPS in every vehicle to track all the miles traveled when we have a fuel tax system that does this fully automatically and takes into consideration gass-guzzlers and poorly maintained un-green cars.

I’d hate to work in that office as opening a bag of crisps probably involves an amount of high explosive or some dangerous co

Personally I would like a new faster car such as an Impreza, Evo, 350z, 99 Eclipse/talon AWD, 240sx, etc. But there rare, expensive, hard to insure, and fairly old, plus my Tiburon being my first car its kind of hard to part with. Currently I’m paying around $165 per month on insurance, which isn’t all that bad compared to the 250+ that most pay for Mustangs.

Now anyway, I’m looking for a way to get the most out of my Tiburon for the least price, the parts that will give the best boost for my buck. I know Tiburon are frowned upon by the “tuner community” but I’m just wanting to have some fun for myself. I’m not looking to “deck it out” with 600hp or anything, just get it better than its 172hp and less torque.
And, I don’t want to decrease its gas-milage much since its already sub-par at 18mpg city.

To clarify, an auto can be tuned well, I have seen a few that run extremly well while still looking good. A link is below to give an example of a nicley tuned one.

Please, if you only have negitive comments “Hyundai Sucks!,” just do us all a favor and press Ctrl+F4.

To all that try helping, Thanks,
~Mortaltirant~

P.S. The only body mods I will make if any would be a new front bumper (the 04 to the 06 one), and a new rear b/c previous owner backed into a car leaving a lisence plate outline on it.
When I say tuning I’m speaking of adding turbo/supercharger, headers, cams, intake, etc. I’m going to stick with an auto untill I eventually get a new car. The car only has 26k miles on it, and the biggest problem it has had is the Emergency brake is shot (It never worked from day 1 for me).
Someone below suggested a Cold air intake and exhaust, regarding exhaust do you have to replace the whole thing such as: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/02-06-Hyundai-Tiburon-v6-Dual-Catback-Exhaust-Muffler_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem3a5324d3b5QQitemZ250503025589QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTruckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories

Or just the muffler such as: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Hyundai-Tiburon-Accent-Elantra-Oval-Exhaust-Muffler_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem4148a7e0c2QQitemZ280391835842QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTruckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories

On the description they both say they add horsepower, 20 on the full muffler, and 5-10% on the muffler. It is just ebay so its rare to go by what the seller describes.

*NOTE: my car was not insured since it expired during that month it was at the shop and i was waiting till my car was done to renew my insurance *

my questions are

1) is my car considered a total lost? the ecu,seats,hood,head lights,motor and more were taken apart off the car.

2) can i sue the thefts?

3) if i can sue them what can i sue them for exactly?

4) i want to get my money back for my car ($12,000-$15,000) can i sue for this?

5) or can i sue them and have them repair my car with brand new dealership parts?

6) what type of lawyer do i need?

So I have two questions:

1) I often hear that air travel is safer than automobile travel, but I feel that this analysis could be misleading. Here are a couple of reasons why:

a) In flights that go wrong, you usually die. In automobile accidents you sometimes die but are often just injured. When they compare air safety vs. car safety are they just comparing accidents with accidents or are they comparing deaths to deaths?

b) When they compare air safety vs. auto safety, they are just using numbers from the population as a whole. However, we all know that there is a HUGE difference in safety between different groups of drivers. In fact, the insurance companies base their rates on some of these differences. So if you compare deaths of air safety passengers to the deaths of the SAFEST group of drivers, does air safety still rank favorably?

3) Lastly, when you drive an automobile, YOU personally have a huge contributing factor to the outcome of the safety of the drive. When you fly in an airplane, you give total control over to people that you don’t know and in most cases, never meet or see! Would you drive in an auto with people you didn’t know or couldn’t see?

2) Question #2 pertains to drugs that calm fear of flying… What do you guys recommend that actually works? I don’t care what the side effects are. And don’t recommend Xanax, because I already told you that it sucks.

2011 yellow with black stripes camaro (like the transformers one)
2011 all black mustang gt

i am 18. (yes i know i am young, but don’t tell me about it.) I have the money to buy my own car and this is what i am choosing. I know insurance is high and all of that. I need positives about the cars and only about the cars.

I am comfortable with either auto or manual. I am very comfortable in small and low cars. It is what I have right now.

also for a personal opinion: which would you be more impressed seeing a girl drive? and drive well. (im not a typical “woman” driver – for those who think women drive bad)