R.I.P. General Motors (1931-2006)

(...)

Why is it the drug companies' responsibility to provide drugs cheaply? It
costs millions of dollars to develop a drug. They should provide it cheap
because someone can't live without it?

I guess electricity should be given away because people can't live without
it.

If getting low-cost drugs to people is such a priority, then the government
should pay for it.

Jeff

 

We can live without electricity more than some drugs.

Cheap is in the eye of the beholder. Companies are entitled to make a fair
profit. They are not entitled to excessive charges to pay for the gifts
from the marketing people, and other waste in their system. They should
also be given some protection from the vulture lawyers that are making the
big bucks on the backs of the rest of us.

There is no simple answer to the cost of drugs, but it can be improved if
everyone makes an effort.

 

I didn't say *cheaply* - I said cheapER. You cannot convince me that the
outrageous prices for meds are all justified. If someone wants to pay
exhorbitant prices for Viagra, for instance, that's fine - you don't
absolutely need it, but you sure as hell need heart-related meds.

Now you're just being facetious

Re-read what I said about the middle-folks. Not everyone qualifies for
government help.

Natalie

 

The Plymouth brand was dying for years, if for no other reason than the
name did not sound "cool". Eagle had a perception of being lower quality
that the same model that was built on the same assembly line as the
Mitsubishi.

The salesman I bought my LeSabre from cannot comprehend that Buick dropped
the long standing names and now use Lacrosse and Lucerne. He does not
realize Buick is trying to garner customers from the under 50 age group and
the old names are going to always be associated with old people buying
stodgy old cars.

Sex sells and the old models just did not have it. Nor do the new Ford
lines. The 500 looks like a great stylish car from the 80's. Chrysler
looks like a grouper fish with small windows.

 

I disagree John. The problem with Dodge and Plymouth was that they were the
same car and appealed to the same crowd. That made them head to head
competitors within the same manufacturer family. That's not the case with
GM. Even when Olds was in the lineup, it really did not compete with
Buick - they were different buyers. More so now that Olds is gone, GM does
not produce cars that compete with each other. They appeal to different
segments of the market. That is healthy, especially when they can take
advantage of parts interchangeability. What GM needs to do in my opinion is
reduce cost from labor, possibly reduce manufacturing costs not related to
labor (not sure how efficient they really are at this point), and come up
with a plan to regain consumer confidence. That in my opinion is going to
have to center around the glaring issues like the gaskets.

Frankly I believe the American consumer would express a lot of confidence if
GM would simply admit to the gasket problems and announce a going forward
plan that would offer the promise of no future gasket problems. I really
don't believe the American consumer is anxious to see GM fail and would
really rather believe in GM again.

 

Even if what you believe to be true were true, you still pay more since you
would only change the part once.


mike hunt

 

And don't forget the insurance companies who make deals with drug companies
too.

Starting with the companies themselves.

Natalie

 

I had a 1972 Pinto and that thing was lucky to make 75,000 miles. It was the
biggest piece of s--- that was ever made.

 

I think my Vega was worse-more of that "wonderful" GM engineering. No
wonder is headed to bankruptcy like a rocket sled on rails!

 

I guess it all depends on how well one maintains their vehicles. I had a
total of three, a '75 and a '79 as well as the '71 I still own. Both of the
others were driven to over 200K trouble free.


mike hunt

 

If that is the case, Buick should have kept the Lacrosse name in Canada.
Young males would want it for not other reason than the name. ;-)

 

and the point was that Dodge was a 'value' brand like chevy and ford, and
plymouth was... um... just cheaper than dodge.!

Really, you see it that way?

so, chevy is mainstream-value?
Pontiac is sporty-Value
(except for the corvette, oh and the upcoming camaro, both of which are
chevys. Oh!, and the SS versions of the chevy products. Other than
that, crystal clear)
And Buick is kinda TraditionalAmerican/Near-ImportLuxury - Value.
GMC is, um... chevy truck techiefied?
Caddy is upscale 'american'(but not quite european) luxury.

to be honest, with the way chevy is marketed, they could remove GMC and
Pontiac to not compete with Chevy.

Caddy is the ONLY GM brand that's crystal clear on their mission,
message, and product direction (and it shows in their sales and quality).

and product people want. The cobalt is a nice small car, but I heard on
friday they're going to be slowing down production at the plant because
of slow sales.
It's a very good "small car", but it's a bit generic, boring, and not
bad.... it's just *nothing*. There's no sport to it, no styling to stand
out... it could be any manufacturer.
I do recommend it to people, but I think the Caliber is going to clean
it's clock.

I don't think the average consumer knows about any GM gasket problem, or
really cares.

 

The Eagle brand was created when AMC was aquired by Chrysler. Chrysler
mostly wanted the Jeep brand. AMC had a brand new car ready to go, which was
the Eagle Premier. They had a contract with Renault to buy a certain number
of engines for the car (I think they were 3.0 liter engines similar to the
ones used in the Peugeot 505 V6 and some Volvo models), so Chrysler decided
to bring it out in a new brand. They also put in imported models like the
Talon from Mitsibushi. I think the car was a pretty good car, but the
interior had a lot of cheap plastic. The engine layout was weird in that it
had the same orientation as a rear-wheel drive car (with the crankshaft
running from front to back instead of being transverse-mounted), but it was
front wheel drive.

I think the Eagle brand was killed off before Chrysler was aquired by
Diamler.

Another opinion is that GM needs to do is to differentiate its brands so
that its brands are really different from one another. Ford is trying to do
that with its Lincoln, Mercury, Ford, Volvo and Jag brands.

Of course, GM has GMC, Chevy, Buick, Caddy, Pointiac, Hummer and Saab, so it
has a lot of differentiating to do. (I may have left out one or two brands.)

Jeff

 

Don't forget Saturn. The different kind of car company that now is
just another exercise in badge engineering. Can't imagine they will
be around in five years.

 

Ever drive a Chevette? <G>

I have a company issued 2001 Cavalier LS. What a total load of crap.
Since we've got a fleet of them, the company mechanics are prepared
for failures before they happen. What fails on one at XX miles, fails
on all of them. Cutting and welding was required to change a power
window motor!! <G>

I've reasonably driven every one of the 63,000 miles on the Cavalier,
and I can't believe people buy 'em by choice. The car is simply
minor league compared to anything that sold for a similar price from
Honda or Toyota.

 

It was actually at the top of my mind when I started the post, and just
slipped my mind.
I used to love Saturn, for all it's faults. Now, it's just another brand
with the same platforms, etc. GM neglected it, and then figured that the
way to fix it wasn't continued autonomy, but to 'roll' it up as just
another division.
IF their intention is to continue chevy as an "american" car company, and
they continue to provide Saturn platforms developed in Europe, then I can
see them developing Saturn into an import/european - fighter brand.

You know, what they thought about Oldsmobile 15-20 years ago??

It's a shame, I love Saturn, it's history, and what they were trying to
do...but it just all ended up wrong and past management never, ever
clearly defined the markets each division would go for. honestly, chevy,
pontiac, then olds as an import fighter (never worked out that way), and
then add Saturn to the mid-priced section?

Yeah, think about that and then ask why GM is where they are!
JP

 

You picked an interest analogy. The price of electricity is
regulated in most places because it is an essential utility
and tends to be a natural monopoly. Are you suggesting that
drug prices should be similarly regulated?
John

 

Your company must think highly of you! Or do the bad employees get an
'82 Yugo? *LOL*

 

That drug companies are companies who are in business to make a profit. That
is why they develop drugs. While many of their scientists and researchers
work to improve life, their reason for being in business is to make money.
They deserve to make a profit on their investment when they develop new
drugs.

Jeff

 

Amen, Natalie

Just about every time I go into the doctors I see a rep trying to make a
call, if not two.

Charles of Schaumburg