Cutting subsidies to oil companies feels like a given. But taxing it at the lowest level risks damaging the economy. Subsidies probably have to be removed slowly. A tax at the pump wouldn't hurt the economy as much.

If there was a federal tax of say $4 per gallon, that would go a long way when it comes to financing medical programs (That have expenses from traffic related injuries), as well as giving incentives to buy good mpg cars (Which, by the way, are already available in the old world, even in full size models http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/v70/first-drives/volvo-v70-1.6d-drive-se).

Whoever messed up that law where it was actually more economic to buy a "truck" (i.e. SUV) than a sane car for people, should personally be responsible for sucking that carbon out of the atmosphere. I understand americans are often tired of "regulation" when it seems to be just completely idiotic results coming from compromises and lobbying (I guess/hope, since otherwise it has to come from incompetence). Regulation done right is often very useful. Remember, it should gain *everyone* if it is done right.

The full size Volvo V70 estate does ....wait for it... 54 miles per gallon.

Its mind blowing to sit here and watch a discussion where people question whether it is "Physically possible" to build such cars, or whether they will be around in 2025. You can buy (and many do) a full size family station wagon that does 54mpg! You don't have to get a "subcompact" or even a "compact"! http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/v70/first-drives/volvo-v70-1.6d-drive-se

Small cars have bad crash surviability not mainly because they are light, but because they are *small*. A normal full size family car weighs 3-4000lbs. A large SUV a bit more. But the most important thing is things like deformation zones etc. Many SUV's have a horrible record in crash tests.

It's too simplistic to think of car safety only in terms of weight. There are loads of more important factors. If your children are under four, they should ride backwards (better backwards in the small car, than front facing in the suv, when they collide, just to give an example). Stuffing kids in crap seats inside a huge car gives a very false sense of security.

I'd put my family in a car with a high rating from crash tests. There are new full size volvo estates that will make 54mpg, In a collision between new full size volvo and [insert whatever car] I'd probably want to be in the Volvo, regardless how big the oncoming SUV is.

My picture of a "soccer mom" is a woman in a large Volvo stationwagon (estate, whatever you like to call them) Volvo calls them V70.

As it happens, their most popular V70 model in many european countries already does the 54mpg that the current administration sets as a 2025 TARGET. Thats a full size car. Not a big suv, but a full size car. And its a car with an internal combustion engine _only_ No hybrid tech, no vodoo.

So clearly, there is no contradiction with using a full size, heavy, soccer-mom car, and doing 54mpg

No, someone else (management) is always responsible for the company's products and services. An employee risks being fired for not doing their job, but that's all. We are only talking incompetence here, not deliberate error. To put it another way: if I'm going to take some of the economic/legal risk that he company should be taking, then this company better pay me extra (say, about twice what it would cost me to insure against this) or they can look for other developers, and presumably finding those they will have to sue a lot.

I was aware it it American run, but thought the American-centeredness was just de-facto. So are Americans really in majority here? Feels hard to believe that they would be even 1/4 of the worlds English speaking geeks...

At least bother to clarify that this is really a question aimed at US contractors. For the rest of us (a majority of slashdotters?) this is a non-issue.

I think they are one of few treatments that actually have a negative cost in the system. You create a taxpayer for a few thousand bucks, remember?

I think what would scare me the most is even having to pay attention to what kind of treatment I'm getting, or research if there are better alternatives that I'm being denied. I'm happy as long as I can be sure my treatment is as good as my neighbors, and my country has a healthcare ranked as among the best in the world. As soon as a public health care system is no longer top rated, it all falls apart. You'd start to worry about whether you need private coverage in order to get the advanced treatments etc. Then it doesn't work.

I can pay to get more luxury (my own room), or to get a procedure done in private (thereby bypassing queues for non-emergency treatment). If I had to start paying to get a treatment that would be more effective, it would already be a useless system. This is the reason why you can't (and shouldn't) half-do a single payer system. You have to all out do it. And it has to be top notch, meaning you will have, like Sweden, a tax pressure of around 60% in order to pull that off (that said, 60% goes a long way in e.g. ensuring 1.5years of parental leave too for example).

Its the first time I have a "troll" score on a post I've made. Funny how it isn't even on a troll post.

So once you have been de-livered they do bother to put in a new one?

I partly agree with both: in a single payer system, having private companies make profits from public funds has proven problematic in some areas, while not in others. Emergency care can be handled well by a private company funded by the single payer. Having small clinics being bayed by the single payer for "number of patients treated" essentially, has meant that clinics compete for the "cheap" or "quick" patients, leaving the expensive and slow treated for the clinics run by the public system. Sweden is slowly learning where there is a place for private business in publicly funded healthcare, and where it doesn't work. It is a big issue in next years elections.

Private healthcare (as in both privately paid for and privately delivered) is a non-issue. You can always get what you want to pay for. Providing healthcare for those that can pay for it has never been a problem anywhere or any time. It isn't even a political issue. What confuses me isn't that a large part of americans still favour a private insurance based system. The confusing bit is that there is a majority that supports a single-payer system, but that it is STILL difficult politically.

I made that question inflammatory on purpose. But I think there is a big divide between the reasoning in the US, and in what I like to call "the rest of the modern world".

Having other (private) insurances such as car-, or home insurance cover medical expenses just means those are more expensive. If the US ever had a single payer tax financed system, of course employers would NOT pay for healthcare, and car insurance would NOT pay for healtcare in that system. What does your car insurance cost? How much of that premium is there to cover lawsuits and/or medical treatments for whoever is hit by your car? How much of that premium is there because there may be a legal procedure first?

What if the person you ran over just got the best treatment possible, straight away, no questions asked? What would that do to your car insurance premium?

Saying that "there is a narrow window left between other insurances" just points out that its scary as hell to have a system where healtcare is provided by a patchwork of different insurances where some may even be bound to your employment and so on (That would scare the hell out of me). The fact that a doctor would have to check with some insurance company before giving me a medical treatment to see if it is covered also scares the hell out of me.

Still the same as defense. Also comes out of someones paycheck. And what the government promises, they better deliver if they want to be reelected. You are still not making a point I feel.