why are uaw retirees treated as if they are more important than white collar workers?
where do i start?
in free countries people like some levels of democracy and some even go far as to think they should have a small voice in the place where they spend most of their working lives. they join unions and while unions do not have veto power they can require that the employer listen and can serve as a check on management excesses. when profits are good, unions can demand that the workers get a fair share. when times are bad like now--then it can go the other way--concessions.
but more important is the issue of contract. unions try to exact promises for better wages, health and safety and working conditions and then have those promises enforceable under labor agreements. if you are not covered by a contract you legal state is that of an "at- will" employee--your terms and conditions of employment are --at the will or fiat of the employer on a day to day basis. you are subject to dismissal for any reason or no reason and the promises made to you can be changed at any time.
thus the uaw secured contract language in the 50's (when it was cheap) providing that hourly retirees would get health care in their retirement. this language was renewed in every contract. ( once achieved, the uaw decided it wasn't real excited about giving it back) the uaw tried to organize salaried employers telling them that while uaw benefits were generally being passed onto them after ever contract negotiations ( until the late 90's), these promises were not backed by a written contract. the white collar workers apparently hoped GM would never take away benefits from retirees and that it was beneath them to join a union or pay dues. so the white collar workers banked their "hopes" and saved their dues.
their choice of course.
this doesn't make either group less or more important - or for that matter less or more deserving. (it may say something about their relative intelligence but i won't go there)
the bigger question is my earlier one wondering why such fundamental issues as the health care of your family should be left to the abilities or power of the union at the bargaining table or for that matter the whim of an "at will" employer to bestow or retract such benefits at its whim--particularly after you have already retired.
my medicare point was only used to illustrate that we already have "socialized medicine" now if it would only turn all those old people like me into real socialists we might get somewhere. seriously there are many single payer system alternatives available if we can overcome the oppostion of the insurance companies who take 1/3 of every health care dollar and return 0 in terms of health care. some claim that drug companies and doctors may be ripping off the health care system too--but being critical of them would be unfairly attacking the rich and powerful and obvious benefits of trickle down economics. again as i recall, when hillary was pushing national health care in the 80's, i seem to recall some republicans, insurance and drug companies were telling us that saving money on health care costs would make us socialists, like all those other countries were delivering better health care at half the cost per citizen.
so the forces of the status quo beat it back and health care costs have more than doubled since then..
as i recall you are also a big fan of the current health system which has health care premiums costs rising at 15-20% a year with 46 million without coverage. the same system that caused your teamster health and pension fund trustees to cancel your health care because it was getting a little pricey - a decision which you applaud as i recall.
so the fact that a better or at least equivalent national health care system in canada costs them about 50% of the per citizen cost of the usa system is due to the fact we have more expensive equipment here. haven't heard that stretch before--you wouldn't happens to have any documentation for that would you?
I know you like to twist what I say to try and make your argument convincing. However you do generally fail. I did not say that we have more expensive equipment. I said we have more equipment in more hospitals for our patients to use than they do in Canada. I will find the article that claimed Philadelphia hospitals have more MRI machines than all of the hospitals in Canada. Philadelphia is not known as a medical center in the US. It just gives a relative figure of how poorly the Canadian health care system is equipped. Here is an example for you to think about. It deals with treatment times in Canada.
The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks
A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007, an all-time high, according to new research published Monday by independent research organization the Fraser Institute.
"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada.
The report, released yesterday by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), revealed Canada's supply of the machines per capita ranks below many OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries and is even below the median ranking.
A broad range of other countries -- from Spain to Korea to Finland -- has more MRI and CT scanners per million people than does Canada.
The report also reveals that despite promises from federal and provincial governments to solve the problem, waiting times for MRIs appear to have increased nationwide. It found that Canada had 151 MRI scanners at the beginning of 2004, more than four times the number it had a decade ago
According to OECD the USA in 2004 had an MRI count of 9704 machines in use.
Canada = 151 MRI machines for 33,212,696 (July 2008 est.) people
United States = 9704 MRI machines for 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.) people
That means for every 31,309 people in the USA there is a MRI machine if needed. In Canada there is one MRI machine for every 219,951 people. That my friend is a reason that Canada spends so much less than we do on health care. By the way the price of an MRI has gone up since my union friend was installing them in 1997. They are now over $3 million each. Can you see why the health care is substandard in Canada. We would not tolerate the waiting times they are forced by law to live or die with. You can bash the United States as much as you like. I happen to be proud of this countries accomplishments under our FREEDOM of Choice, that you would like taken away.
the bigger question is my earlier one wondering why such fundamental issues as the health care of your family should be left to the abilities or power of the union at the bargaining table or for that matter the whim of an "at will" employer to bestow or retract such benefits at its whim--particularly after you have already retired.
You are correct it should not be. It should be left to the individual to make his or her own choice of what level of health care they feel they need. This is still sort of the Land of the Free. Just as many states have incorporated "Right to Work" laws to protect the INDIVIDUAL from Union thugs. We should have the right to choose our own health care provider. If the government had not gotten involved we would not have such an over priced boondoggle to deal with. We should have competitive insurance the same as we do for our cars. We are forced in some states to carry car insurance to protect others from our reckless driving. The person that does not carry health care is costing all of US more money. The problem is Unions and corporations have just bowed to the HMOs and did not fight back when a hospital charges the insurance carrier $15k for one nights stay. There is plenty of blame to spread around. The Government will not and cannot fix all the problems. People have to fix their own problems.
my guess is because they are a medical test covered (reimbursable) by many health plans.
My main guess would be for the doctor to cover his a__ from a malpractice lawsuit, if they don't diagnose correctly. The suing lawyer would ask if an MRI was done and if it COULD have jelped, and if the doctor says no, then the doctor is in trouble. So if there is any doubt, the doctor is forced to do extra testing to protect himself. So costs increase the more we expect of doctors to be infallible.
Now my point here is that one of the reasons the cost of medical is so high is that the insured and well off are paying for all those who do not have insurance.
Thats true to an extent. However, managed care is where rates are agreed to. I'm sure that GM/UAW and others use managed care? So an operation which is billed at $21,000 is paid at $7,000. I've seen this first hand as a benefits coordinator and dealing with the managed care folks. However, the anesthesiologist was paid the full amount and didn't move off his/her price. Who knows whats going on? Some indigents can also work out a payment plan which is less than half the original charge. As older folks go into nursing homes, some start transferring assets to their children/relatives. They have to do it 3 years prior to transfer assets, Bush was trying to make it 5 years. If not a lien can be put on their residences. There is some merit to the health spending account, whereby your spending your own money and or money that you don't spend will be yours to do with what you want in the end. Don't confuse this with a flexible spending account which must be spent in that year. Bottom line is that using the emergency room as a clinic is wasteful and are many other practices in this nations health care industry.
I have never been through one or even seen one. I would guess it is a tool to discover certain ailments. And a way to cover the doctor's behind. hardly a day goes by that someone I know has had an MRI. I guess if you really need the test it would be nice to get it in a reasonable time. Many forms of the cancer and tumors are detected with an MRI. Those are ailments that need quick attention many times. Waiting 10 to 12 weeks could be the difference between life and death.
I can just hear the UAW retiree scream when the doctor says I think you have cancer. I won't know until we get the results from your MRI. I think the waiting list in your area is 12 weeks. Then we can schedule a specialist to look at the results and that will be another 18 weeks. I hear people upset when they have to wait a week to get results from the lab. For those that really believe in government provided health care need to research Oregon and Hawaii's universal health care.
Doug Farrago comments on the failure of universal children's coverage in Hawaii, where the program was discontinued after 7 months. It's a good example of what would happen if health care was "free":
Families that had private coverage were dropping it so they could get the free care as well. I don't think this experiment should be ignored. It really needs to be examined to see what went wrong and how Americans think. As physicians, we all want people to have the appropriate healthcare but it can be abused and just giving it away will bankrupt us all. The people of Hawaii have spoken and they have said that even if they have the money to pay for their doctor's visit or medication, they still would rather get it for free.
The UAW members need to be freed from their entitlement mentality.
seriously there are many single payer system alternatives available if we can overcome the oppostion of the insurance companies who take 1/3 of every health care dollar and return 0 in terms of health care. some claim that drug companies and doctors may be ripping off the health care system too
Anyone who thinks Honda/Toyota are great companies would have to agree with their "NO VALUE ADDED" mentality and oppose waste aka MUDA. Why aren't we running the health care system like all the business schools preach. Surely Toyota, the darling of the business schools for efficiently operated companies can be cited here, and as a prime examples of America being a special interest/lobby operated country and a far cry from economic rational. Treat the medical community ,AMA, as if it is sacred cow and the lowly UAW as a parasite on the society? Please bombard us with some logic and quit boot licking these folks for the simple reason that you think they are better/richer than yourself and therefore have your best interests in mind. Your going to have to be consistent if your reasoning/argument are to have any merit.
i know that about the machines, but healthcare has been an often referenced item in this discussion. i was pointing out the most obvious reason why there are so many here in the states.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Again our friend mr Lumpy feels that GM and the UAW would be making money if we had free health care for every citizen. I think the UAW has built their members up to think they are worth more than they are. How is there any more skill involved in putting a tire and wheel on a new car vs doing the same procedure at the local Tire Rack? Yet the guy in the UAW protection program gets $30 per hour and the guy at the tire rack gets under $10 per hour. There is a HUGE disparity between pay for doing the same job across this great land. The UAW would rather bring GM to their knees in bankruptcy than to give a nickel from their senior members & retirees. They have no problem selling out the new guy. I say that is not a Union. That is a union divided, that will never survive.
There really is a ton of stuff that an MRI machine (made by GE and maybe even by union labor but definitely not UAW) can see that nothing else can. I've been through one a couple of times. Annoying and claustrophobia inducing but effective.
I'm sure they are fair game for overuse.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
You said ==> "The UAW would rather bring GM to their knees in bankruptcy than to give a nickel from their senior members & retirees. They have no problem selling out the new guy. I say that is not a Union. That is a union divided, that will never survive. "
That is what I have been saying all along... the UAW has forgotten why they were created and are now more like self-serving moneygrubbers who will destroy the USAs auto-industry. People are purchasing NON union-made cars *because* the UAW has forced the automakers to cheepen their products in order to pay for the outrageous UAW contracts.
I fear that the UAW will discover too late what they have done and there may be no turning back at that point. If they were smart, the UAW would volintaraly move to help the automakers survive by offering up SIGNIFICANT changes in the contracts. Making all the pay-scales the same as NONunion autoworkers would be a great start. (...but a very small start compared to what NEEDS to happen)
i could look it up but i seem to recall that the average ceo in the 50-60's made something like 60 times the average pay of the employees of the company but that this ratio has now jumped to sometime like 350 times. don't hold me to those precise mumbers but you see my point. sorry i just don't hate or despise tthe idea of a factory rat making $28-29 an hour whether at toyota or GM.
interesting you would prefer that the uaw sell out its retirees rather than new hires.
however the retirees where not only uaw members for their working lives but also the recipients of a written contractual promise repeated restated over their working lives, that they would have health care during their retirement. understand also that most retirees may not have many options and may even have a hard time getting a decent job nowadays.
the new hire has not been promised anything or paid any dues. indeed he or she has a choice on whether to take the $15 a hour job or not.
somehow i have the feeling that if the uaw had agreed to cancel health insurance for its hundreds of thousands of big3 retirees in exchange for keeping new hires at $28 an hour with full benefits--you would be among the first to condemn the UAW for selling out its retirees.
I think the UAW did all it could to protect its retirees by assuming the risk of managing the VEBAS and still give the big3 relief..if the vebas can't keep up with annual 15-20% health care costs then those trustees will have to do what the teamsters trustees did to you -- start eliminating health care coverage. for some strange reason you thought this was just peachy when it happened to you, but i suspect that most UAW retirees may be unhappy with the UAW if their health care is reduced or lost under the UAW VEBAS.
the big 3 employers called the 2007 transformational. they will have these huge legacy costs off their books and a new workforce would be slowly added at half the wages and benefits.
i would like to bet that 99% of you who were critical of the bridge loans and incorrectly blamed the uaw for the international credit crunch which triggered the problem, where not aware of the health care concessions negotiated in 2006 and the somewhat major changes in the 2007 master agreements But i forgive you. you approach the issue with the firm opinion that the uaw was the prime reason that the bridge loans were needed and despite claims of having an open mind--don't wish to have it cluttered with facts which are not consistent with that firm opinion.
for some strange reason you thought this was just peachy when it happened to you,
You keep saying that long enough and you will believe it is true. I was VERY upset when the Teamsters dropped health care for the retirees. I was even more upset that they changed the retirement age from 45 to 57. I was just about ready to retire and get out of the Arctic cold. When it was finally presented to the rank and file, it made sense to keep the retirement solvent rather than take a chance on depleting the fund. At the time we were shelling out more to the retirees than was coming in from the members and the investments. We also had a cash out clause and a couple large bargaining units closed up shop when the price of oil fell. Those guys all cashed out depleting the fund even more. That option was also done away with. Thankfully today the fund gains each year instead of losing ground. It should be able to keep paying us our pension for however long we are here.
somehow i have the feeling that if the uaw had agreed to cancel health insurance for its hundreds of thousands of big3 retirees in exchange for keeping new hires at $28 an hour with full benefits--you would be among the first to condemn the UAW for selling out its retirees.
I believe a Union should be for all members not just the elite few. I have no problem with a pay scale with increases over time. I see no reason to pay a line worker new or 30 years seniority $28+ per hour. The job in reality just does not warrant that kind of pay. If the person has a specialty that is different. Some one that slaps doors on all day long can be trained in a matter of weeks just does not deserve $28 per hour. Now if the company wants to give bonuses when they make a big profit. I think that is a wonderful idea. That is an incentive to make the cars better. Paying two people doing the same job at two different wage scales is asking for one to be disgruntled. If I am working along side some old dude making $15 per hour doing the same job I am why should I work as fast as he does? Again we are not talking about machinist, millwrights, electricians etc. We are talking simple tasks that you can train a person to do in a very short period of time. This new hire not only is paid half what the lazy old fart next to him gets. He has no pension, mediocre health care. I would be ashamed to say I was part of the UAW. And yes if the rank and file voted to throw the retirees under the bus I would scream about that. I am looking for equal concessions. That is what Unions are for to keep everyone on the same level.
but i am somewhat befuddled by the argument that we pay twice as much per citizen as canada on healthcare ( now about $8,000 versus about 4,000 for them) because they have fewer MRI machines. for a nation of 32 million or so, they would have to buy a lot of MRI machines to spend something like 130 trillion (if i have my zeros) on MRI machines to catch up to our costs. (let's buy stock in that company). seriously the suggestion is that the lack of adequate numbers of MRI machines (fewer per citizen than the usa) explains both the twice as high us costs and the "substandard" canadian healthcare. which according to the last survey shows 87% of canadians as satisfied or very satisfied with their health care.
if healthcare is substandard in canada, then one would expect that it would not only be reflected in widespread dissatisfaction in such surveys but also comparative data on various health care indicators which are not as subjective. data on such things as life expectancy and other favorable health care outcome factors are used by the world health organization in its rankings of health care systems. when you look at the WHO rankings they show that the us is ranked 37th and canada is at 30 with cuba, japan and the ec countries which have national health care all ranked ahead of the usa. moreover again all these other national health insurance countries ranked higher than the usa spend roughly half per citizen that the usa spends
those fearing that they are about to be infected with socialism because our current health care system is about to collapse or be ended in congress (take your pick) , still have not explained how we can continue to handle both a 15-20% annual increase in health care premiums coupled with a 1-2 million annual increase in the number of those (mostly children) without any insurance coverage (estimated to be 45, 999,998 at the end of 2008..
the bush administration's partial solution, as you may recall, was a medical ira--you would set aside a certain percentage of your disposable income in a trust fund to be used to pay your medical bills when you retired. Unfortunately not too many walmart employes or unemployed people ( or even GM salaried employees) have benefited from trickle down economics and thus have not been able to set up such iras with their excess income.
just to get back on point - in requesting thier 17 billion dollar bridge loan, all the big 3 claimed. along with bush, even darth vader cheney. treasury, SEC,. those involved in the wall street, AIG, Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns and numerous other "economists" involved in the prior trillion dollar round of grants -- that the auto industry problems were mainly attributable to a drying up of credit which had in turn been triggered by underegulated and somewhat greedy or risky trading in housing related mortgages.
the other industrialized countries making such loans to their auto industries also appear to be in agreement with this analysis and none of them are specifically conditioning loans on the backs of the factory rats in their countries.
however, it appears to me that the bulk of the comments here are to the effect that all of these "experts" are wrong and that despite the facts of uaw concessions since 2006 and the fact that wage rate in toyota and GM plants are almost equivalent, the real problem is the UAW contracts -- even though hourly costs are less than 10% of the cost of production. from there the argument goes, that despite the fact that no mention was made of reducing incomes for the wall street types (where labor costs are about 60% of total costs and some are paid slightly higher than $28 an hour), the auto loans should be conditioned upon the UAW's agreement to jump on the bangladesh wage spiral downward train.
anyone have any reputable authority (other than anecdotal stories about joe the 150k hilo driver) for that conclusion?
interesting that you only focus on the declining income side to the teamster health and pension trust fund problem with no mention of what was happening on the cost side--the 15-20% annual increase in annual health care premiums that is our current system and has been for about 20-25 years and is predicted to continue indefinitely. do you think this increase in health care costs had anything to do with the trustee's decision to stop paying health care benefits? if you check the hundreds or thousand of health care payers who have made similar decisions (to cancel or greatly reduce) they all seem to mention these spiralling costs. i suspect the letters you received from the trustees mentioned spiralling health care costs. but since this is the system you want to maintain rather than be infected with socialism--how can you be upset? as i said before you got exactly what you wanted and voted for. however, i must sincerely apologize for saying previously that you also "deserved" what you got - no one, not even a republican, deserves to lose their health care coverage.
uaw retirees are not the elite few. GM alone has more than 400,000 . i beleive current hourly GM employment is under 100,000.
the uaw big three retirees incurred some court approved cutbacks in 2006. they are also taking some risks that the VEBAS, supposedly be funded at about 50 cents on the dollar ( assuming ultimate rejection of the administration's demand that more stock be substituted for hard cash) survive through their retirement. many think that this is impossible if health care costs continue to rise as they have for the last 20-25 years. but this is a risk the uaw was courageously willing to take on its own shoulders.
again those faced with taking big 3 factory jobs at $15 an hour with greatly reduced benefits have a choice to either accept that offer or apply to wall street where i hear the the taxpayers are not as concerned about subsidizing wages and benefits which are slightly higher.
they would have to buy a lot of MRI machines to spend something like 130 trillion (if i have my zeros) on MRI machines to catch up to our costs. (let's buy stock in that company).
They would have to add over 900 MRI machines to have the same coverage we have in the USA. That would cost them less than $3 billion. Should be a slam dunk for a country as rich in oil and other natural resources as Canada. Of course each of those is in a hospital or large clinic so add a few more billion to the price tag. You should be able to see the dilemma they face with their LONNNNG waiting lists for just about every procedure.
which according to the last survey shows 87% of canadians as satisfied or very satisfied with their health care.
You managed to spin that little tidbit also. It said 87% satisfied or SOMEWHAT satisfied. In other words it will have to do because we got no other choice and I don't want to pay any more taxes to those schmucks running the health care.
such things as life expectancy and other favorable health care
You keep repeating the same things over and over. Life expectancy has little to do with health care and a lot to do with life style. They do not live in the fast lane and suffer from obesity from eating too much processed food. That also brings up an issue that has gotten a lot of press with the UK and their health care. They are refusing treatment to smokers and people that are obese. Do you know any UAW retirees that fit those parameters? They are OUT in the cold. Sorry no can treat you till you lose 100 lbs of Ugly fat.
still have not explained how we can continue to handle both a 15-20% annual increase in health care premiums coupled with a 1-2 million annual increase in the number of those (mostly children) without any insurance coverage (estimated to be 45, 999,998 at the end of 2008..
Well if our new President does what he says it may go a long way to fixing the waste in Medicare. The 1000s of Medicare patients receiving treatments that are not needed and getting kick backs. I posted a very recent article on just how it is done. We are wasting billions every year on Medicare, medicaid, section 8 and SS fraud. We get those holes plugged up it should be enough to offer a low cost plan for all those children. I am totally against any free plan. That breeds corruption.
I have never blamed the housing bubble on the UAW or GM or Ford. They are victims of the financial mess that was a combination of greed and stupidity. Mostly by our Congress and past Presidents. There are Congress men in the banking committee that should go to jail. Same with any financial executive that pushed sub prime loans. They have destroyed our economy for probably another decade or more. Left our grandchildren to pay the price. That is where the low wages will come about. If we go into a depression, guys like Wagoner will be lucky to get $28 per hour. Many more fat cats will be jumping in front of trains or out or windows. It is going to get ugly. Most Americans do not know how to live way below their income. It is something not taught in school.
again those faced with taking big 3 factory jobs at $15 an hour with greatly reduced benefits have a choice to either accept that offer or apply to wall street
You really know nothing about human nature. We had a guy working in our bargaining unit for a Long time that did absolutely nothing. He was at top pay. New guys would see that and think they could get away with the same crap. He is making as much as I am. Why should I bust my butt? He finally got transferred as we had no management with the brains to document his incompetence and fire him. You cannot have two people doing the same thing for different wage scales. Now if the new guy can work up to $28 an hour after 2-3 years they have some incentive to do a good job. If they will never achieve the same wage and benefits of the older workers. You are in trouble. If GM thinks they can buy out all the old guys with a package the UAW may survive.
We had a 6 years progression and that caused a lot of dissension in the ranks. The primary goal of a Union is to treat all members equally. The UAW is failing miserably.
i must sincerely apologize for saying previously that you also "deserved" what you got - no one, not even a republican, deserves to lose their health care coverage.
I do understand your frustration as I went through it 20 years ago. I was prepared to take over my own health care when I retired for the two years until Medicare kicked in. I was not expecting Uncle Sam to take $96 per month for Medicare I had paid for. But I get by quite well.
The real key is shopping all the HMO options. CA has a lot. I would rather live in another state because of the high taxes here on income even pensions. However I found Kaiser to be the most bang for the buck. My wife has had it for 30 years and is pleased. It is quite reasonable compared to all the others I looked into. Unfortunately it is only offered in a few states. Same Kaiser that built cars through the 1950s. I am sure they were UAW built.
lumoy: [ i wish i saw the same reactions against the trillion dollars we have spent on our immoral destruction of iraq. ( check a site called national priorities where you will learn that your household is spending about $120 a month on iraq and that 42% of your federal tax dollars are going to the pentagon)]
That site is incorrect. Defense and security spending account for 29.2 percent of total discretionary federal spending. By far the largest portion of federal spending goes to Social Security and Medicare, which together account for 43.5 percent of total discretionary federal spending. If you are upset about federal spending, then you will need to address spending on Social Security and Medicare.
I agree with the 29.2% number, but I believe the spending for the Iraqi war is off-the -books, so to speak. It does not count as part of the defense appropriations.
People keep coming back to the Chrysler loan guarantees of 1980(?). But, there are significant differences, in my mind, between then and now. According to an old Time article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947356,00.html) Chrysler was given a $1.2 bil loan guarantee. It had 1978 sales of $13.6 bil, lost $204 mil that same year, and had a book value of around $800 mil. So, theoretically at least, if Chrysler had defaulted on the loan guarantees, the govt could have liquidated Chrysler and come out with most of the money it had guaranteed.
The current bailouts to GM and Chrysler are nowhere near as good for the loan guarantor (the taxpayers). GM is receiving several (many?) times it's book value, as is Chrysler. Should the companies fail to make it and are liquidated, the taxpayers will be lucky to get back 10 cents on the dollar. That's just one of the things that makes this such a bad deal compared to 1980.
Reports: GM, Chrysler bailout deals bar strikes Friday January 9, 7:13 am ET Reports: General Motors, Chrysler federal bailout loans in default if union strikes
The Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News report Friday that the default is part of the deal GM signed with the Bush administration last month to get $13.4 billion in loans. The Detroit News reports Chrysler's loan deal has a similar provision.
The United Auto Workers isn't a party to the deal and hasn't threatened a strike.
The Free Press says if GM defaults on its loans, the U.S. Treasury Department could demand remand repayment and force GM into bankruptcy.
The UAW and the automakers have a Feb. 17 deadline for concessions to lower labor costs.
The United Auto Workers isn't a party to the deal and hasn't threatened a strike.
If the UAW is not a party to the bailout, we should not give the money to GM. They cannot avoid bankruptcy unless all parties work together. It would not surprise me to see the UAW strike if they thought they could hold Congress and the taxpayers hostage. They went on strike earlier this year against the plants building lambda and Malibu vehicles. Just happened to be the only vehicles GM was having much success with. The UAW is not interested in the health of GM, the economy or the Domestic auto industry. They have proven that time and again. It is time someone held the UAW's feet to the fire. I can see a NO strike clause as imperative to getting GM back on stable ground.
Anyone who thinks Honda/Toyota are great companies would have to agree with their "NO VALUE ADDED" mentality and oppose waste aka MUDA. Why aren't we running the health care system like all the business schools preach.
The simplest and least expensive way to pay for health-care is for the customer to pay the service provider directly. As soon as you involve filling out forms, submitting bills, negotiating charges, justifying, and processing checks, you run up costs. Figure out how much work it is for a single visit. Now multiply that by the billions of medical charges the 300 million in the U.S. submit each year. That's all waste. It is waste because the pushing of bills (papers) is of no value to the patient, and the hospital or doctor does not benefit. The only people who benefit are the workers at the insurance companies, and the clerks in the government who have a job pushing papers.
If my company had the option, I'd say give me the $ you're paying for my healthcare in my paycheck, and I'll take care of it from there.
lumoy: and when national health care is mentioned, the right wing reponds with --but that would be "socialized medicine"
medicare is "socialized medicine". taxpayer funded, single payer system with an age 65 requirement--just get rid of the age 65 condtion.
And I still haven't received a response to my question as to why, if nationalized care is the answer, the UAW hasn't agreed to move retired blue-collar workers to Medicare, and save the companies money.
I'll tell you why - the benefits aren't as generous as those provided under the current UAW plan. That is why GM is paying so much for health care. The benefits enjoyed by both current workers and retirees are far more lavish than those enjoyed by Medicare recipients, as well as those enjoyed by the people who rely on the Canadian national plan.
lumoy: i realize that to many the uninsured and underinsured (majority of them are children) are invisible or nearly so, but to some of us, they human beings--indeed, we are paying for national health care now for every human being in iraq.
You keep repeating that the majority of uninsured or underinsured are children, and this is false. Here are the facts, straight from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
The uninsured are more likely to be young...21% of the uninsured are below age 18 and 63% are under age 34. Young adults age 18-34 are disproportionately uninsured relative to their representation in the overall population, while older adults are slightly under-represented relative to the overall population.
Here's more: Although children and the elderly have the highest likelihood of being below 200% of poverty, government programs like Medicaid and SCHIP for children and Medicare for the elderly result in those groups having the lowest uninsured rates. (emphasis added)
As I said before, the uninsured are more likely to be young, relatively healthy adults.
lumoy: why should such a fundamental issue (which about 70% of consider to be a basic right) be subject to the whims of the bargaining table or worse the whims of an employer whose is structurally and understandably committed to capitalism--not providing health care.
again case closed
Except that, in the early 1990s, UAW and other unions were lukewarm to Hillary Clinton's proposal to nationalized health care coverage...they knew that it would result in a reduction in benefits. So, once again, the UAW's call for nationalized health care is more than a little disingenuous, in view of their behavior on this very subject.
"The UAW has been pushing for national health insurance since President Truman proposed it in 1948.
Health care costs alone – for that matter, total labor costs – don’t explain General Motor’s U.S. market share falling from 41 percent in 1985 to just over 25 percent today.
Decisions about products, marketing and advertising strategies, and many other factors – including bad U.S. trade policy – have something to do with that, too."
In other UAW news, "Another supplier throws in the towel. A Fulton County manufacturing plant that builds plastic interiors for U.S. automakers is permanently closing. All 100 employees at Johnson Control Injection Molding, formerly Plastech will be out of a job in March.
...a number of the layoffs involved union jobs, specifically UAW jobs."
lumoy: if healthcare is substandard in canada, then one would expect that it would not only be reflected in widespread dissatisfaction in such surveys but also comparative data on various health care indicators which are not as subjective.
And if private insurance coverage were so bad, one must ask why surveys regularly show that over 80 percent of Americans with such coverage are completely satisfied with it.
lumoy: just to get back on point - in requesting thier 17 billion dollar bridge loan, all the big 3 claimed. along with bush, even darth vader cheney. treasury, SEC,. those involved in the wall street, AIG, Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns and numerous other "economists" involved in the prior trillion dollar round of grants -- that the auto industry problems were mainly attributable to a drying up of credit which had in turn been triggered by underegulated and somewhat greedy or risky trading in housing related mortgages.
A smokescreen. GM was losing billions before 2008. It was not a healthy company even prior to the current economic downturn. GM was headed for bankruptcy even before this current mess. The collapse of the credit bubble only made the inevitable happen sooner.
And a fair amount of the problem with today's auto market is that manufacturers artificially inflated sales by giving credit to buyers who had no business buying a brand-new vehicle. They did this to keep the lines running.
Which two companies were the primary culprits in this?
GM and Chrysler...so their claims that they are merely victims of a bursting housing/credit bubble are nonsense. If anything, THEY helped create the bubble in the first place by giving credit to anyone with a pulse (and remember that GMAC also made mortgage loans).
That was in 1948 and in 1968...and please note that this doesn't dispute that the UAW and other unions were either cool to Hillary Clinton's proposal, or opposed it behind the scenes.
Saying one supports the abstract concept of "national health care" is easy...the test comes whether the UAW (or anyone else) will support a specific proposal, because any national health care plan that will not bankrupt the country will not be nearly as generous as the current UAW plan. Nothing I've seen shows me that the UAW is ready to make that sacrifice as of yet.
Except that, in the early 1990s, UAW and other unions were lukewarm to Hillary Clinton's proposal to nationalized health care coverage...they knew that it would result in a reduction in benefits. So, once again, the UAW's call for nationalized health care is more than a little disingenuous, in view of their behavior on this very subject.
That is an excellent point. Mr Lumpy avoids or skirts that issue when I bring it up. The Democrats had two years to implement a comprehensive health care plan. They got nowhere and the public was tired of a do nothing Congress and overwhelmingly elected Republicans to take their places in 1994.
And another thing the UAW loves to rag on is NAFTA. Well it was that same do nothing Democrat Congress that pushed NAFTA through and Bill Clinton signed it December 1993. More than a full year before the Republicans gained control of Congress.
If UAW members would get out of the Midwest and look around the country they would see just how LUCKY they are. They need to come out to CA where the cost of living makes Michigan look 3rd world. They would see people at a much higher skill level making about a 3rd less than they are. Instead of counting their blessings they strike for no good reason the company that is giving them a higher standard of living than most professionals in the the USA. I cannot see a reason in the World how a lug nut assembler makes more money than 99% of the college educated school teachers in the USA. I don't know of any school district that pays a thirty year tenured school teacher $100k per year. And they work many hours past the normal school day. So the OT argument does not hold water.
Saying one supports the abstract concept of "national health care" is easy...the test comes whether the UAW (or anyone else) will support a specific proposal
Again you have hit it on the head. I remember a big flap during the primaries when Hillary proposed a mandatory US health care system. If you did not pay the premiums it would be garnished from your wages. That got the press going. Probably one of the nails in her coffin.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
I can hear lumpy and the UAW leaders screaming over that if it was implemented.
i could look it up but i seem to recall that the average ceo in the 50-60's made something like 60 times the average pay of the employees of the company but that this ratio has now jumped to sometime like 350 times. don't hold me to those precise mumbers but you see my point. sorry i just don't hate or despise tthe idea of a factory rat making $28-29 an hour whether at toyota or GM.
GM CEO salary ~$2 million (no OT no bonus no beni's) GM hourly worker at $30/hour ~$60,000 (no OT no bonus no beni's)
33:1 ratio
GM CEO with bonus's/OT ~15 mllion GM hourly with OT/Bonus's ~80,000
And I still haven't received a response to my question as to why, if nationalized care is the answer, the UAW hasn't agreed to move retired blue-collar workers to Medicare, and save the companies money.
I'll tell you why - the benefits aren't as generous as those provided under the current UAW plan. That is why GM is paying so much for health care. The benefits enjoyed by both current workers and retirees are far more lavish than those enjoyed by Medicare recipients, as well as those enjoyed by the people who rely on the Canadian national plan.
i believe the UAW retirees do go on medicare at 65. Where do you see elsewhere? The insurance pays for is to increase the beni's OVER what they get for medicare. At least that is what I thought happened. Something called medigap?
gagrice: They would see people at a much higher skill level making about a 3rd less than they are. Instead of counting their blessings they strike for no good reason the company that is giving them a higher standard of living than most professionals in the the USA. I cannot see a reason in the World how a lug nut assembler makes more money than 99% of the college educated school teachers in the USA.
I don't care how much UAW members make...if the company can afford to pay them those wages.
If GM can charge enough for Chevys, Buicks, Cadillacs, etc. to pay the UAW members $400,000 a year, with six weeks vacation, and have them carried to and from the factory parking lot in sedan chairs borne by Playboy bunnies, then that is fine with me.
But if said company is going broke (which GM was even before the current bursting of the credit/housing bubble), and begging the government for money, then it's fair to ask whether the company can afford this level of generosity.
For the record, I think that the federal government should have told GM and the UAW that everyone from the CEO to the janitor will accept the wages and benefits comparable to what Toyota pays for the same positions, and that all GM factories will immediately adopt the same work rules that Toyota and Honda use in their transplant factories.
Ironically, that wouldn't hurt the wages of UAW members - Toyota workers make about the same amount of money. It would have exposed the disparity in work rules and health care coverage, which is why the UAW would oppose it.
Until I read your post, I have had almost no faith in any unions, or organizations that have "protection" mission statement (professional corporations, business associations, lobbiests, etc.). I saw (still see) them in general as short-sighted and egoistical and operating generally in "cover your ears and eyes and scream on top of your lungs, blame everybody but yourself" societies. However, your story and Teamsters shows to me that there are still some reasonable people out there who can actually see beyond next paycheck/stimulus/bailout/pork barrel and act on it accordingly. I have serious doubts whether it is a majority stance. But at least makes argument that it's actually possible and "reasonable labor union/professional corporation" doesn't have to be an oxymoron.
Finally catching up here..."The government severely limits malpractice lawsuits"...
It is easy to say that, but if it happens to you you won't feel that way...I realize, as an attorney, that I am biased, but tort reform is the equivalent to disarming David and giving the slingshot to Goliath...
Say you limit medmal to $100K or $250K...that sounds like a lot of money, but, over a potental lifetime, it isn't...let's say that you go in for an appendectomy but the Doc negligently removes your left leg or your right arm...your life is radically altered forever, possibly needing assistance or a wheelchair...you really think that the interest on $250K would assist in your living expenses for the next 25 years, always remembering that it was a Doctor's negligence that put you in this condition???...now, if you are trying to stop awards of $50 million or more, I see your point...but most "tort reform" wants to limit awards to $250K or less, and, for the damage stupid medics can do to a person, $250K is a drop in the bucket...plus, maybe we could change the laws so that if an award for medmal exceeds a certain level, then the Doc's license is revoked, in all states, so he can never practice and make that mistake again...
Let's really go off the wall...you are 27 years old, blind in one eye and going in for surgery...the Doc accidentally operates on the wrong eye, and screws up and you are now totally blind...is $100K enough???...let's not be absurd...$250K enough???...let's not be ridiculous...is a $million enough???...is $5 million enough???...how would you like to spend the next 50-plus years without vision, and you want to limit the medmal payout???...if it was your daughter, would YOU think $250K is EXCESSIVE, like tort reform advocates say it is???
Everybody wants to limit the payout caused by bad doctors, but nobody EVER thinks about stopping the Doc from ever doing it again...leva the payout limits alone and get rid of Docs who have more than one medmal payout...maybe THAT will cause medmal rates to go down, along with the cost of defensive medicine...enough points on your driver's license and it is revoked...why not the same on medmal Docs licenses???
Those who scream for tort reform the loudest often have no idea of the real consequences of what they are asking for...
FWIW...in GA, 85% of all medmal suits are found IN FAVOR of the Doc, meaning that very little medmal is actually medmal, but more like "bad outcome", meaning the Doc made no mistakes, but the patient did not like the outcome...kinda like Phyllis Diller suing a facial plastic surgeon because her facelift did not make her look like Britney Spears or Christie Brinkley... Staying on topic, as I never wander, I also note that there are probably UAW members, and spouses of UAW members that may have had their opinions on tort reform, and this is a response to them, and a criticism of the stupid restrictive work rules that will cause GM and Ford to file Chapter 11...
Amen Bob, but this discussion is getting to be a soapbox for all sorts of national issues that appear to have only a tangential connection with the UAW.
At least all of y'all have learned to briefly mention the UAW in passing as you gripe about everything else under the sun. :P
Problem with tort law is not economical damages - it's the non-economical damages, especially punitive awards that go to victims. If somebody needs hundreds of thousands for future medical treatment, yes, if you can prove loss of health has a direct effect on somebody's ability to obtain income (engineer having brain damage, or laborer losing limbs), sure. But there is no logical reason in the world for anybody to collect multimilion awards just because they were lucky to be unlucky and "justice is done to punish the wrongdoers".
Want to punish companies - fine, make them pay those miltimilion dollar as donations to charities (say family makes determination which ones). Reduce legal fees to be collected on those, too. Enough incentive for the companies to "do good" and prevent lawyers from chasing ambulances without real cause.
Let's really go off the wall...you are 27 years old, blind in one eye and going in for surgery...the Doc accidentally operates on the wrong eye, and screws up and you are now totally blind...is $100K enough???...let's not be absurd...$250K enough???...let's not be ridiculous...is a $million enough???...is $5 million enough???...how would you like to spend the next 50-plus years without vision, and you want to limit the medmal payout???...if it was your daughter, would YOU think $250K is EXCESSIVE, like tort reform advocates say it is???
I see why medical is so expensive in this country now. There is never enough.
FWIW...in GA, 85% of all medmal suits are found IN FAVOR of the Doc,
That tells me 85% of malpractice lawsuits are frivolous. GM and the rest of US have to pay more for medical care because each and every health care person carries a HUGE malpractice insurance policy. I would agree with you if those that do sue and lose are forced to pay all costs including the malpractice insurance for the health care person they sued. Malpractice lawsuits are too one sided. The cost to all of US is not warranted by a very minute number of high profile cases where a doctor screwed up. My auto liability insurance does not cost what malpractice insurance costs. Yet I can do as much damage to another individual as any doctor. What gives with that?
Sorry Steve, I just don't believe the big paydays for people are good for the country. It is sad when a wrong foot gets cut off. But I should not have to pay the price. Same goes for GM and their over paid UAW workers. I don't want to reward the UAW greed that has driven the domestics into bankruptcy.
FWIW...in GA, 85% of all medmal suits are found IN FAVOR of the Doc, meaning that very little medmal is actually medmal, but more like "bad outcome".
My brother's been a physician for 20 years, and he's nearly quit; selling his practice instead and working as an employee of an HMO. He's told me that most malpractice claims never go to court for anyone to rule IN FAVOR; meaning that insurance companies are very likely to settle any case with any close validity BEFORE going to trial. Insurance companies fight those cases that have little to no validity, and thus that is why you see a high-% in favor of the doctors/hospitals (defendants).
Again paper pushing to process claims, and legal bills to sue and defend do not provide any benefit to the UAW member or people in general. It is all WASTE.
That waste is then passed on to us in the price of labor that goes into the car.
We live in a ridiculously complex and expensive society where very few people actually make anything; with swarms of other professions and bureacrats basically adding parasitic costs.
My latest personal example of adding wasteful cost - the ISO 14001 Environmental Consultants that have leached onto my company.
remarks of senator hillary rodham clinton at uaw legislative conference of 2/8/06
How do we go forward and not back? Let’s start with healthcare. I tried to do something about this and the UAW was one of my greatest partners. I still have the scars to show for how difficult it was, but I’m not giving up, we need to fix our healthcare system, and give people quality affordable healthcare.
You know the statistics. We were driving down the number of uninsured in the 1990’s, now it’s back up. More than 45 million of your fellow Americans are uninsured. We are spending 16 percent of our entire national income on health care. I’ll give you a little inside information: we don’t even get as good healthcare as people who spend less than we do.
Here we are spending all this money. We’ve got 45 million uninsured. 50 million people, mostly working people and their children who get their healthcare from Medicaid. And we don’t even get the best quality healthcare by spending all that money because we spend so much of it on intermediaries.
I’ve been in six pharmacies in the last month. It’s heartbreaking to see people trying to get their prescriptions filled. Most of them poor people, sick people, people with disabilities. They’ve been assigned to some insurance company. They’re not even getting the drugs that their doctors prescribed and we’re taking billions of your hard earned tax dollars and giving it to insurance companies to get them to provide prescription drugs to our elderly and people with disabilities. That’s not efficient, that not cost-effective, that’s wasteful.
And that’s the kind of direction that this Administration wants to take us in healthcare. And the rising costs are making it harder and harder for employers to afford healthcare. And what are some doing? You know very well. They’re cutting it back, they’re requiring more pay, and even worse, they are moving jobs offshore.
If we don’t get a consensus about what to do about healthcare, we are going to lose our competitive battle in the global economy. We need to, first, do everything possible to stand against the President’s budget which came out Monday. As bad as things are now, this budget is unbelievably bad. You will see the proposed budget slashes $36 billion for Medicare. It cuts $500 million from veterans’ healthcare, increasing enrollment fees and drug costs for veterans. This really gets me. I don’t know how many veterans are out here, and I don’t know how many of you go to the VA system, but the VA system is the most efficient, highest quality institution in our healthcare system because starting in the 1990’s, we began to push it forward into the future.
Electronic medical records, giving the government the right to negotiate for drug prices. Now the Administration wants to make it too expensive for veterans to use. We’re going to stand against that. Anybody who has served this country deserves to have access to a VA system that takes care of them for life.
One more thing: I have fought, for the last three years, to make sure we gave healthcare to National Guard and Reserve members. We’re getting there, we’ve finally got it passed. But that’s another issue I care deeply about. I don’t know if many of you knew this, but when National Guard and Reserve members started being called up, 25 percent of them did not have health insurance. That’s the country we’re living in, folks.
Where is the money going? Well, you know what choices are in this budget. Cut Medicaid, raise costs for veterans, but don’t mess with their tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.
This budget has half a trillion dollars in tax cuts aimed at the wealthiest of Americans. Its embarrassing, isn’t it. We’re cutting not only veterans benefits, we’re cutting childcare, healthcare for children, we’re cutting law enforcement, we’re cutting everything. Just so millionaires can have their tax cuts.
NY Times 1/1/94 interview of uaw president owen bieber
"You can't just keep talking about good high-paying jobs," he said.
But Mr. Bieber acknowledged that his union had suffered because of inroads overseas competitors had made in the auto industry, seizing about a quarter of the domestic market for new cars and trucks.
To help stem the flow of industrial jobs overseas, Mr. Bieber said, the U.A.W. will continue fighting for Mr. Clinton's health-care plan. While the union favors a single-payer approach, Mr. Bieber said, Mr. Clinton's plan, as presented, offers the best hope for restraining health-care costs for large employers, which will help keep their labor costs competitive.
The Toyota/Honda philosophy is to ask whether the step or process ADDS VALUE to the final product, and, if so, can it be done more efficiently.
I know what value added and touch labor is. You certainly can't be saying that insurance companies are value added in any respect. Anyone can buy this product online in this day in age.
that is a very nice little speech, but in all due respect to doctors, they are turning us into a nation of drug addicts. recently, i went to the pharmacy to get a prescription for pain medication. no it wasn't for those little blue pills that the UAW supposedly consumes so many of. luckily, i didn't need it and i only bought it because the co pay was $10. while i was waiting i saw all those plastic pill boxes. you know with 7 day or 30 day compartments in them. i would rather turn in my life card than end up like that.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
A lot of hooey by Hillary. So why didn't she and Bill get it done from January 1993 to January 1995 when they had total control of the Congress? All her speech was pandering to a bunch of people that are clueless. No concept of the reality of what she is trying to pull. When and if the Left get their way with health care, I don't want to hear any whining from the UAW retirees, when they have to wait 6 months to get an audience with a specialist.
And again you have side stepped the real issue. How will GM survive unless everyone in the UAW takes a cut in pay? Not just Wagoner. Though I think he belongs in the unemployment line.
Comments
where do i start?
in free countries people like some levels of democracy and some even go far as to think they should have a small voice in the place where they spend most of their working lives. they join unions and while unions do not have veto power they can require that the employer listen and can serve as a check on management excesses. when profits are good, unions can demand that the workers get a fair share. when times are bad like now--then it can go the other way--concessions.
but more important is the issue of contract. unions try to exact promises for better wages, health and safety and working conditions and then have those promises enforceable under labor agreements. if you are not covered by a contract you legal state is that of an "at- will" employee--your terms and conditions of employment are --at the will or fiat of the employer on a day to day basis. you are subject to dismissal for any reason or no reason and the promises made to you can be changed at any time.
thus the uaw secured contract language in the 50's (when it was cheap) providing that hourly retirees would get health care in their retirement. this language was renewed in every contract. ( once achieved, the uaw decided it wasn't real excited about giving it back) the uaw tried to organize salaried employers telling them that while uaw benefits were generally being passed onto them after ever contract negotiations ( until the late 90's), these promises were not backed by a written contract. the white collar workers apparently hoped GM would never take away benefits from retirees and that it was beneath them to join a union or pay dues. so the white collar workers banked their "hopes" and saved their dues.
their choice of course.
this doesn't make either group less or more important - or for that matter less or more deserving. (it may say something about their relative intelligence but i won't go there)
the bigger question is my earlier one wondering why such fundamental issues as the health care of your family should be left to the abilities or power of the union at the bargaining table or for that matter the whim of an "at will" employer to bestow or retract such benefits at its whim--particularly after you have already retired.
my medicare point was only used to illustrate that we already have "socialized medicine" now if it would only turn all those old people like me into real socialists we might get somewhere. seriously there are many single payer system alternatives available if we can overcome the oppostion of the insurance companies who take 1/3 of every health care dollar and return 0 in terms of health care. some claim that drug companies and doctors may be ripping off the health care system too--but being critical of them would be unfairly attacking the rich and powerful and obvious benefits of trickle down economics. again as i recall, when hillary was pushing national health care in the 80's, i seem to recall some republicans, insurance and drug companies were telling us that saving money on health care costs would make us socialists, like all those other countries were delivering better health care at half the cost per citizen.
so the forces of the status quo beat it back and health care costs have more than doubled since then..
as i recall you are also a big fan of the current health system which has health care premiums costs rising at 15-20% a year with 46 million without coverage. the same system that caused your teamster health and pension fund trustees to cancel your health care because it was getting a little pricey - a decision which you applaud as i recall.
so the fact that a better or at least equivalent national health care system in canada costs them about 50% of the per citizen cost of the usa system is due to the fact we have more expensive equipment here. haven't heard that stretch before--you wouldn't happens to have any documentation for that would you?
The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks
A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007, an all-time high, according to new research published Monday by independent research organization the Fraser Institute.
"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html
http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf
The report, released yesterday by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), revealed Canada's supply of the machines per capita ranks below many OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries and is even below the median ranking.
A broad range of other countries -- from Spain to Korea to Finland -- has more MRI and CT scanners per million people than does Canada.
The report also reveals that despite promises from federal and provincial governments to solve the problem, waiting times for MRIs appear to have increased nationwide.
It found that Canada had 151 MRI scanners at the beginning of 2004, more than four times the number it had a decade ago
According to OECD the USA in 2004 had an MRI count of 9704 machines in use.
http://www.ecosante.fr/index2.php?base=OCDE&langh=ENG&langs=ENG
Canada = 151 MRI machines for 33,212,696 (July 2008 est.) people
United States = 9704 MRI machines for 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.) people
That means for every 31,309 people in the USA there is a MRI machine if needed. In Canada there is one MRI machine for every 219,951 people. That my friend is a reason that Canada spends so much less than we do on health care. By the way the price of an MRI has gone up since my union friend was installing them in 1997. They are now over $3 million each. Can you see why the health care is substandard in Canada. We would not tolerate the waiting times they are forced by law to live or die with. You can bash the United States as much as you like. I happen to be proud of this countries accomplishments under our FREEDOM of Choice, that you would like taken away.
You are correct it should not be. It should be left to the individual to make his or her own choice of what level of health care they feel they need. This is still sort of the Land of the Free. Just as many states have incorporated "Right to Work" laws to protect the INDIVIDUAL from Union thugs. We should have the right to choose our own health care provider. If the government had not gotten involved we would not have such an over priced boondoggle to deal with. We should have competitive insurance the same as we do for our cars. We are forced in some states to carry car insurance to protect others from our reckless driving. The person that does not carry health care is costing all of US more money. The problem is Unions and corporations have just bowed to the HMOs and did not fight back when a hospital charges the insurance carrier $15k for one nights stay. There is plenty of blame to spread around. The Government will not and cannot fix all the problems. People have to fix their own problems.
My main guess would be for the doctor to cover his a__ from a malpractice lawsuit, if they don't diagnose correctly. The suing lawyer would ask if an MRI was done and if it COULD have jelped, and if the doctor says no, then the doctor is in trouble. So if there is any doubt, the doctor is forced to do extra testing to protect himself. So costs increase the more we expect of doctors to be infallible.
All of which seems to be pretty far afield from
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
the UAW.
Thats true to an extent. However, managed care is where rates are agreed to. I'm sure that GM/UAW and others use managed care? So an operation which is billed at $21,000 is paid at $7,000. I've seen this first hand as a benefits coordinator and dealing with the managed care folks. However, the anesthesiologist was paid the full amount and didn't move off his/her price. Who knows whats going on? Some indigents can also work out a payment plan which is less than half the original charge. As older folks go into nursing homes, some start transferring assets to their children/relatives. They have to do it 3 years prior to transfer assets, Bush was trying to make it 5 years. If not a lien can be put on their residences. There is some merit to the health spending account, whereby your spending your own money and or money that you don't spend will be yours to do with what you want in the end. Don't confuse this with a flexible spending account which must be spent in that year. Bottom line is that using the emergency room as a clinic is wasteful and are many other practices in this nations health care industry.
I have never been through one or even seen one. I would guess it is a tool to discover certain ailments. And a way to cover the doctor's behind. hardly a day goes by that someone I know has had an MRI. I guess if you really need the test it would be nice to get it in a reasonable time. Many forms of the cancer and tumors are detected with an MRI. Those are ailments that need quick attention many times. Waiting 10 to 12 weeks could be the difference between life and death.
I can just hear the UAW retiree scream when the doctor says I think you have cancer. I won't know until we get the results from your MRI. I think the waiting list in your area is 12 weeks. Then we can schedule a specialist to look at the results and that will be another 18 weeks. I hear people upset when they have to wait a week to get results from the lab. For those that really believe in government provided health care need to research Oregon and Hawaii's universal health care.
Doug Farrago comments on the failure of universal children's coverage in Hawaii, where the program was discontinued after 7 months. It's a good example of what would happen if health care was "free":
Families that had private coverage were dropping it so they could get the free care as well. I don't think this experiment should be ignored. It really needs to be examined to see what went wrong and how Americans think. As physicians, we all want people to have the appropriate healthcare but it can be abused and just giving it away will bankrupt us all. The people of Hawaii have spoken and they have said that even if they have the money to pay for their doctor's visit or medication, they still would rather get it for free.
The UAW members need to be freed from their entitlement mentality.
Anyone who thinks Honda/Toyota are great companies would have to agree with their "NO VALUE ADDED" mentality and oppose waste aka MUDA. Why aren't we running the health care system like all the business schools preach. Surely Toyota, the darling of the business schools for efficiently operated companies can be cited here, and as a prime examples of America being a special interest/lobby operated country and a far cry from economic rational. Treat the medical community ,AMA, as if it is sacred cow and the lowly UAW as a parasite on the society? Please bombard us with some logic and quit boot licking these folks for the simple reason that you think they are better/richer than yourself and therefore have your best interests in mind. Your going to have to be consistent if your reasoning/argument are to have any merit.
i was pointing out the most obvious reason why there are so many here in the states.
Again our friend mr Lumpy feels that GM and the UAW would be making money if we had free health care for every citizen. I think the UAW has built their members up to think they are worth more than they are. How is there any more skill involved in putting a tire and wheel on a new car vs doing the same procedure at the local Tire Rack? Yet the guy in the UAW protection program gets $30 per hour and the guy at the tire rack gets under $10 per hour. There is a HUGE disparity between pay for doing the same job across this great land. The UAW would rather bring GM to their knees in bankruptcy than to give a nickel from their senior members & retirees. They have no problem selling out the new guy. I say that is not a Union. That is a union divided, that will never survive.
I'm sure they are fair game for overuse.
That is what I have been saying all along... the UAW has forgotten why they were created and are now more like self-serving moneygrubbers who will destroy the USAs auto-industry. People are purchasing NON union-made cars *because* the UAW has forced the automakers to cheepen their products in order to pay for the outrageous UAW contracts.
I fear that the UAW will discover too late what they have done and there may be no turning back at that point. If they were smart, the UAW would volintaraly move to help the automakers survive by offering up SIGNIFICANT changes in the contracts. Making all the pay-scales the same as NONunion autoworkers would be a great start. (...but a very small start compared to what NEEDS to happen)
i could look it up but i seem to recall that the average ceo in the 50-60's made something like 60 times the average pay of the employees of the company but that this ratio has now jumped to sometime like 350 times. don't hold me to those precise mumbers but you see my point. sorry i just don't hate or despise tthe idea of a factory rat making $28-29 an hour whether at toyota or GM.
interesting you would prefer that the uaw sell out its retirees rather than new hires.
however the retirees where not only uaw members for their working lives but also the recipients of a written contractual promise repeated restated over their working lives, that they would have health care during their retirement. understand also that most retirees may not have many options and may even have a hard time getting a decent job nowadays.
the new hire has not been promised anything or paid any dues. indeed he or she has a choice on whether to take the $15 a hour job or not.
somehow i have the feeling that if the uaw had agreed to cancel health insurance for its hundreds of thousands of big3 retirees in exchange for keeping new hires at $28 an hour with full benefits--you would be among the first to condemn the UAW for selling out its retirees.
I think the UAW did all it could to protect its retirees by assuming the risk of managing the VEBAS and still give the big3 relief..if the vebas can't keep up with annual 15-20% health care costs then those trustees will have to do what the teamsters trustees did to you -- start eliminating health care coverage.
for some strange reason you thought this was just peachy when it happened to you, but i suspect that most UAW retirees may be unhappy with the UAW if their health care is reduced or lost under the UAW VEBAS.
the big 3 employers called the 2007 transformational. they will have these huge legacy costs off their books and a new workforce would be slowly added at half the wages and benefits.
i would like to bet that 99% of you who were critical of the bridge loans and incorrectly blamed the uaw for the international credit crunch which triggered the problem, where not aware of the health care concessions negotiated in 2006 and the somewhat major changes in the 2007 master agreements But i forgive you.
you approach the issue with the firm opinion that the uaw was the prime reason that the bridge loans were needed and despite claims of having an open mind--don't wish to have it cluttered with facts which are not consistent with that firm opinion.
You keep saying that long enough and you will believe it is true. I was VERY upset when the Teamsters dropped health care for the retirees. I was even more upset that they changed the retirement age from 45 to 57. I was just about ready to retire and get out of the Arctic cold. When it was finally presented to the rank and file, it made sense to keep the retirement solvent rather than take a chance on depleting the fund. At the time we were shelling out more to the retirees than was coming in from the members and the investments. We also had a cash out clause and a couple large bargaining units closed up shop when the price of oil fell. Those guys all cashed out depleting the fund even more. That option was also done away with. Thankfully today the fund gains each year instead of losing ground. It should be able to keep paying us our pension for however long we are here.
somehow i have the feeling that if the uaw had agreed to cancel health insurance for its hundreds of thousands of big3 retirees in exchange for keeping new hires at $28 an hour with full benefits--you would be among the first to condemn the UAW for selling out its retirees.
I believe a Union should be for all members not just the elite few. I have no problem with a pay scale with increases over time. I see no reason to pay a line worker new or 30 years seniority $28+ per hour. The job in reality just does not warrant that kind of pay. If the person has a specialty that is different. Some one that slaps doors on all day long can be trained in a matter of weeks just does not deserve $28 per hour. Now if the company wants to give bonuses when they make a big profit. I think that is a wonderful idea. That is an incentive to make the cars better. Paying two people doing the same job at two different wage scales is asking for one to be disgruntled. If I am working along side some old dude making $15 per hour doing the same job I am why should I work as fast as he does? Again we are not talking about machinist, millwrights, electricians etc. We are talking simple tasks that you can train a person to do in a very short period of time. This new hire not only is paid half what the lazy old fart next to him gets. He has no pension, mediocre health care. I would be ashamed to say I was part of the UAW. And yes if the rank and file voted to throw the retirees under the bus I would scream about that. I am looking for equal concessions. That is what Unions are for to keep everyone on the same level.
but i am somewhat befuddled by the argument that we pay twice as much per citizen as canada on healthcare ( now about $8,000 versus about 4,000 for them) because they have fewer MRI machines. for a nation of 32 million or so, they would have to buy a lot of MRI machines to spend something like 130 trillion (if i have my zeros) on MRI machines to catch up to our costs. (let's buy stock in that company).
seriously the suggestion is that the lack of adequate numbers of MRI machines (fewer per citizen than the usa) explains both the twice as high us costs and the "substandard" canadian healthcare. which according to the last survey shows 87% of canadians as satisfied or very satisfied with their health care.
if healthcare is substandard in canada, then one would expect that it would not only be reflected in widespread dissatisfaction in such surveys but also comparative data on various health care indicators which are not as subjective. data on such things as life expectancy and other favorable health care outcome factors are used by the world health organization in its rankings of health care systems. when you look at the WHO rankings they show that the us is ranked 37th and canada is at 30 with cuba, japan and the ec countries which have national health care all ranked ahead of the usa. moreover again all these other national health insurance countries ranked higher than the usa spend roughly half per citizen that the usa spends
those fearing that they are about to be infected with socialism because our current health care system is about to collapse or be ended in congress (take your pick) , still have not explained how we can continue to handle both a 15-20% annual increase in health care premiums coupled with a 1-2 million annual increase in the number of those (mostly children) without any insurance coverage (estimated to be 45, 999,998 at the end of 2008..
the bush administration's partial solution, as you may recall, was a medical ira--you would set aside a certain percentage of your disposable income in a trust fund to be used to pay your medical bills when you retired. Unfortunately not too many walmart employes or unemployed people ( or even GM salaried employees) have benefited from trickle down economics and thus have not been able to set up such iras with their excess income.
just to get back on point - in requesting thier 17 billion dollar bridge loan, all the big 3 claimed. along with bush, even darth vader cheney. treasury, SEC,. those involved in the wall street, AIG, Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns and numerous other "economists" involved in the prior trillion dollar round of grants -- that the auto industry problems were mainly attributable to a drying up of credit which had in turn been triggered by underegulated and somewhat greedy or risky trading in housing related mortgages.
the other industrialized countries making such loans to their auto industries also appear to be in agreement with this analysis and none of them are specifically conditioning loans on the backs of the factory rats in their countries.
however, it appears to me that the bulk of the comments here are to the effect that all of these "experts" are wrong and that despite the facts of uaw concessions since 2006 and the fact that wage rate in toyota and GM plants are almost equivalent, the real problem is the UAW contracts -- even though hourly costs are less than 10% of the cost of production. from there the argument goes, that despite the fact that no mention was made of reducing incomes for the wall street types (where labor costs are about 60% of total costs and some are paid slightly higher than $28 an hour), the auto loans should be conditioned upon the UAW's agreement to jump on the bangladesh wage spiral downward train.
anyone have any reputable authority (other than anecdotal stories about joe the 150k hilo driver) for that conclusion?
uaw retirees are not the elite few. GM alone has more than 400,000 . i beleive current hourly GM employment is under 100,000.
the uaw big three retirees incurred some court approved cutbacks in 2006. they are also taking some risks that the VEBAS, supposedly be funded at about 50 cents on the dollar ( assuming ultimate rejection of the administration's demand that more stock be substituted for hard cash) survive through their retirement. many think that this is impossible if health care costs continue to rise as they have for the last 20-25 years. but this is a risk the uaw was courageously willing to take on its own shoulders.
again those faced with taking big 3 factory jobs at $15 an hour with greatly reduced benefits have a choice to either accept that offer or apply to wall street where i hear the the taxpayers are not as concerned about subsidizing wages and benefits which are slightly higher.
They would have to add over 900 MRI machines to have the same coverage we have in the USA. That would cost them less than $3 billion. Should be a slam dunk for a country as rich in oil and other natural resources as Canada. Of course each of those is in a hospital or large clinic so add a few more billion to the price tag. You should be able to see the dilemma they face with their LONNNNG waiting lists for just about every procedure.
which according to the last survey shows 87% of canadians as satisfied or very satisfied with their health care.
You managed to spin that little tidbit also. It said 87% satisfied or SOMEWHAT satisfied. In other words it will have to do because we got no other choice and I don't want to pay any more taxes to those schmucks running the health care.
such things as life expectancy and other favorable health care
You keep repeating the same things over and over. Life expectancy has little to do with health care and a lot to do with life style. They do not live in the fast lane and suffer from obesity from eating too much processed food. That also brings up an issue that has gotten a lot of press with the UK and their health care. They are refusing treatment to smokers and people that are obese. Do you know any UAW retirees that fit those parameters? They are OUT in the cold. Sorry no can treat you till you lose 100 lbs of Ugly fat.
still have not explained how we can continue to handle both a 15-20% annual increase in health care premiums coupled with a 1-2 million annual increase in the number of those (mostly children) without any insurance coverage (estimated to be 45, 999,998 at the end of 2008..
Well if our new President does what he says it may go a long way to fixing the waste in Medicare. The 1000s of Medicare patients receiving treatments that are not needed and getting kick backs. I posted a very recent article on just how it is done. We are wasting billions every year on Medicare, medicaid, section 8 and SS fraud. We get those holes plugged up it should be enough to offer a low cost plan for all those children. I am totally against any free plan. That breeds corruption.
Medicare Fraud
I have never blamed the housing bubble on the UAW or GM or Ford. They are victims of the financial mess that was a combination of greed and stupidity. Mostly by our Congress and past Presidents. There are Congress men in the banking committee that should go to jail. Same with any financial executive that pushed sub prime loans. They have destroyed our economy for probably another decade or more. Left our grandchildren to pay the price. That is where the low wages will come about. If we go into a depression, guys like Wagoner will be lucky to get $28 per hour. Many more fat cats will be jumping in front of trains or out or windows. It is going to get ugly. Most Americans do not know how to live way below their income. It is something not taught in school.
You really know nothing about human nature. We had a guy working in our bargaining unit for a Long time that did absolutely nothing. He was at top pay. New guys would see that and think they could get away with the same crap. He is making as much as I am. Why should I bust my butt? He finally got transferred as we had no management with the brains to document his incompetence and fire him. You cannot have two people doing the same thing for different wage scales. Now if the new guy can work up to $28 an hour after 2-3 years they have some incentive to do a good job. If they will never achieve the same wage and benefits of the older workers. You are in trouble. If GM thinks they can buy out all the old guys with a package the UAW may survive.
We had a 6 years progression and that caused a lot of dissension in the ranks. The primary goal of a Union is to treat all members equally. The UAW is failing miserably.
I do understand your frustration as I went through it 20 years ago. I was prepared to take over my own health care when I retired for the two years until Medicare kicked in. I was not expecting Uncle Sam to take $96 per month for Medicare I had paid for. But I get by quite well.
The real key is shopping all the HMO options. CA has a lot. I would rather live in another state because of the high taxes here on income even pensions. However I found Kaiser to be the most bang for the buck. My wife has had it for 30 years and is pleased. It is quite reasonable compared to all the others I looked into. Unfortunately it is only offered in a few states. Same Kaiser that built cars through the 1950s. I am sure they were UAW built.
That site is incorrect. Defense and security spending account for 29.2 percent of total discretionary federal spending. By far the largest portion of federal spending goes to Social Security and Medicare, which together account for 43.5 percent of total discretionary federal spending. If you are upset about federal spending, then you will need to address spending on Social Security and Medicare.
I agree with the 29.2% number, but I believe the spending for the Iraqi war is off-the -books, so to speak. It does not count as part of the defense appropriations.
(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947356,00.html)
Chrysler was given a $1.2 bil loan guarantee. It had 1978 sales of $13.6 bil, lost $204 mil that same year, and had a book value of around $800 mil. So, theoretically at least, if Chrysler had defaulted on the loan guarantees, the govt could have liquidated Chrysler and come out with most of the money it had guaranteed.
The current bailouts to GM and Chrysler are nowhere near as good for the loan guarantor (the taxpayers). GM is receiving several (many?) times it's book value, as is Chrysler. Should the companies fail to make it and are liquidated, the taxpayers will be lucky to get back 10 cents on the dollar. That's just one of the things that makes this such a bad deal compared to 1980.
Friday January 9, 7:13 am ET
Reports: General Motors, Chrysler federal bailout loans in default if union strikes
The Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News report Friday that the default is part of the deal GM signed with the Bush administration last month to get $13.4 billion in loans. The Detroit News reports Chrysler's loan deal has a similar provision.
The United Auto Workers isn't a party to the deal and hasn't threatened a strike.
The Free Press says if GM defaults on its loans, the U.S. Treasury Department could demand remand repayment and force GM into bankruptcy.
The UAW and the automakers have a Feb. 17 deadline for concessions to lower labor costs.
Better stay on the line boys and girls!
Regards,
OW
If the UAW is not a party to the bailout, we should not give the money to GM. They cannot avoid bankruptcy unless all parties work together. It would not surprise me to see the UAW strike if they thought they could hold Congress and the taxpayers hostage. They went on strike earlier this year against the plants building lambda and Malibu vehicles. Just happened to be the only vehicles GM was having much success with. The UAW is not interested in the health of GM, the economy or the Domestic auto industry. They have proven that time and again. It is time someone held the UAW's feet to the fire. I can see a NO strike clause as imperative to getting GM back on stable ground.
The simplest and least expensive way to pay for health-care is for the customer to pay the service provider directly. As soon as you involve filling out forms, submitting bills, negotiating charges, justifying, and processing checks, you run up costs. Figure out how much work it is for a single visit. Now multiply that by the billions of medical charges the 300 million in the U.S. submit each year. That's all waste. It is waste because the pushing of bills (papers) is of no value to the patient, and the hospital or doctor does not benefit. The only people who benefit are the workers at the insurance companies, and the clerks in the government who have a job pushing papers.
If my company had the option, I'd say give me the $ you're paying for my healthcare in my paycheck, and I'll take care of it from there.
medicare is "socialized medicine". taxpayer funded, single payer system with an age 65 requirement--just get rid of the age 65 condtion.
And I still haven't received a response to my question as to why, if nationalized care is the answer, the UAW hasn't agreed to move retired blue-collar workers to Medicare, and save the companies money.
I'll tell you why - the benefits aren't as generous as those provided under the current UAW plan. That is why GM is paying so much for health care. The benefits enjoyed by both current workers and retirees are far more lavish than those enjoyed by Medicare recipients, as well as those enjoyed by the people who rely on the Canadian national plan.
lumoy: i realize that to many the uninsured and underinsured (majority of them are children) are invisible or nearly so, but to some of us, they human beings--indeed, we are paying for national health care now for every human being in iraq.
You keep repeating that the majority of uninsured or underinsured are children, and this is false. Here are the facts, straight from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
The uninsured are more likely to be young...21% of the uninsured are below age 18 and 63% are under age 34. Young adults age 18-34 are disproportionately uninsured relative to their representation in the overall population, while older adults are slightly under-represented relative to the overall population.
Here's more: Although children and the elderly have the highest likelihood of being below 200% of poverty, government programs like Medicaid and SCHIP for children and Medicare for the elderly result in those groups having the lowest uninsured rates. (emphasis added)
As I said before, the uninsured are more likely to be young, relatively healthy adults.
lumoy: why should such a fundamental issue (which about 70% of consider to be a basic right) be subject to the whims of the bargaining table or worse the whims of an employer whose is structurally and understandably committed to capitalism--not providing health care.
again case closed
Except that, in the early 1990s, UAW and other unions were lukewarm to Hillary Clinton's proposal to nationalized health care coverage...they knew that it would result in a reduction in benefits. So, once again, the UAW's call for nationalized health care is more than a little disingenuous, in view of their behavior on this very subject.
Health care costs alone – for that matter, total labor costs – don’t explain General Motor’s U.S. market share falling from 41 percent in 1985 to just over 25 percent today.
Decisions about products, marketing and advertising strategies, and many other factors – including bad U.S. trade policy – have something to do with that, too."
2005 remarks by Gettelfinger
In other UAW news, "Another supplier throws in the towel. A Fulton County manufacturing plant that builds plastic interiors for U.S. automakers is permanently closing. All 100 employees at Johnson Control Injection Molding, formerly Plastech will be out of a job in March.
...a number of the layoffs involved union jobs, specifically UAW jobs."
Fulton County manufacturing plant closing (WTVG)
And if private insurance coverage were so bad, one must ask why surveys regularly show that over 80 percent of Americans with such coverage are completely satisfied with it.
lumoy: just to get back on point - in requesting thier 17 billion dollar bridge loan, all the big 3 claimed. along with bush, even darth vader cheney. treasury, SEC,. those involved in the wall street, AIG, Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns and numerous other "economists" involved in the prior trillion dollar round of grants -- that the auto industry problems were mainly attributable to a drying up of credit which had in turn been triggered by underegulated and somewhat greedy or risky trading in housing related mortgages.
A smokescreen. GM was losing billions before 2008. It was not a healthy company even prior to the current economic downturn. GM was headed for bankruptcy even before this current mess. The collapse of the credit bubble only made the inevitable happen sooner.
And a fair amount of the problem with today's auto market is that manufacturers artificially inflated sales by giving credit to buyers who had no business buying a brand-new vehicle. They did this to keep the lines running.
Which two companies were the primary culprits in this?
GM and Chrysler...so their claims that they are merely victims of a bursting housing/credit bubble are nonsense. If anything, THEY helped create the bubble in the first place by giving credit to anyone with a pulse (and remember that GMAC also made mortgage loans).
The Toyota/Honda philosophy is to ask whether the step or process ADDS VALUE to the final product, and, if so, can it be done more efficiently.
Saying one supports the abstract concept of "national health care" is easy...the test comes whether the UAW (or anyone else) will support a specific proposal, because any national health care plan that will not bankrupt the country will not be nearly as generous as the current UAW plan. Nothing I've seen shows me that the UAW is ready to make that sacrifice as of yet.
That is an excellent point. Mr Lumpy avoids or skirts that issue when I bring it up. The Democrats had two years to implement a comprehensive health care plan. They got nowhere and the public was tired of a do nothing Congress and overwhelmingly elected Republicans to take their places in 1994.
And another thing the UAW loves to rag on is NAFTA. Well it was that same do nothing Democrat Congress that pushed NAFTA through and Bill Clinton signed it December 1993. More than a full year before the Republicans gained control of Congress.
If UAW members would get out of the Midwest and look around the country they would see just how LUCKY they are. They need to come out to CA where the cost of living makes Michigan look 3rd world. They would see people at a much higher skill level making about a 3rd less than they are. Instead of counting their blessings they strike for no good reason the company that is giving them a higher standard of living than most professionals in the the USA. I cannot see a reason in the World how a lug nut assembler makes more money than 99% of the college educated school teachers in the USA. I don't know of any school district that pays a thirty year tenured school teacher $100k per year. And they work many hours past the normal school day. So the OT argument does not hold water.
Again you have hit it on the head. I remember a big flap during the primaries when Hillary proposed a mandatory US health care system. If you did not pay the premiums it would be garnished from your wages. That got the press going. Probably one of the nails in her coffin.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
I can hear lumpy and the UAW leaders screaming over that if it was implemented.
GM CEO salary ~$2 million (no OT no bonus no beni's)
GM hourly worker at $30/hour ~$60,000 (no OT no bonus no beni's)
33:1 ratio
GM CEO with bonus's/OT ~15 mllion
GM hourly with OT/Bonus's ~80,000
187:1 ratio
I'll tell you why - the benefits aren't as generous as those provided under the current UAW plan. That is why GM is paying so much for health care. The benefits enjoyed by both current workers and retirees are far more lavish than those enjoyed by Medicare recipients, as well as those enjoyed by the people who rely on the Canadian national plan.
i believe the UAW retirees do go on medicare at 65. Where do you see elsewhere? The insurance pays for is to increase the beni's OVER what they get for medicare. At least that is what I thought happened. Something called medigap?
I don't care how much UAW members make...if the company can afford to pay them those wages.
If GM can charge enough for Chevys, Buicks, Cadillacs, etc. to pay the UAW members $400,000 a year, with six weeks vacation, and have them carried to and from the factory parking lot in sedan chairs borne by Playboy bunnies, then that is fine with me.
But if said company is going broke (which GM was even before the current bursting of the credit/housing bubble), and begging the government for money, then it's fair to ask whether the company can afford this level of generosity.
For the record, I think that the federal government should have told GM and the UAW that everyone from the CEO to the janitor will accept the wages and benefits comparable to what Toyota pays for the same positions, and that all GM factories will immediately adopt the same work rules that Toyota and Honda use in their transplant factories.
Ironically, that wouldn't hurt the wages of UAW members - Toyota workers make about the same amount of money. It would have exposed the disparity in work rules and health care coverage, which is why the UAW would oppose it.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
It is easy to say that, but if it happens to you you won't feel that way...I realize, as an attorney, that I am biased, but tort reform is the equivalent to disarming David and giving the slingshot to Goliath...
Say you limit medmal to $100K or $250K...that sounds like a lot of money, but, over a potental lifetime, it isn't...let's say that you go in for an appendectomy but the Doc negligently removes your left leg or your right arm...your life is radically altered forever, possibly needing assistance or a wheelchair...you really think that the interest on $250K would assist in your living expenses for the next 25 years, always remembering that it was a Doctor's negligence that put you in this condition???...now, if you are trying to stop awards of $50 million or more, I see your point...but most "tort reform" wants to limit awards to $250K or less, and, for the damage stupid medics can do to a person, $250K is a drop in the bucket...plus, maybe we could change the laws so that if an award for medmal exceeds a certain level, then the Doc's license is revoked, in all states, so he can never practice and make that mistake again...
Let's really go off the wall...you are 27 years old, blind in one eye and going in for surgery...the Doc accidentally operates on the wrong eye, and screws up and you are now totally blind...is $100K enough???...let's not be absurd...$250K enough???...let's not be ridiculous...is a $million enough???...is $5 million enough???...how would you like to spend the next 50-plus years without vision, and you want to limit the medmal payout???...if it was your daughter, would YOU think $250K is EXCESSIVE, like tort reform advocates say it is???
Everybody wants to limit the payout caused by bad doctors, but nobody EVER thinks about stopping the Doc from ever doing it again...leva the payout limits alone and get rid of Docs who have more than one medmal payout...maybe THAT will cause medmal rates to go down, along with the cost of defensive medicine...enough points on your driver's license and it is revoked...why not the same on medmal Docs licenses???
Those who scream for tort reform the loudest often have no idea of the real consequences of what they are asking for...
FWIW...in GA, 85% of all medmal suits are found IN FAVOR of the Doc, meaning that very little medmal is actually medmal, but more like "bad outcome", meaning the Doc made no mistakes, but the patient did not like the outcome...kinda like Phyllis Diller suing a facial plastic surgeon because her facelift did not make her look like Britney Spears or Christie Brinkley...
Staying on topic, as I never wander, I also note that there are probably UAW members, and spouses of UAW members that may have had their opinions on tort reform, and this is a response to them, and a criticism of the stupid restrictive work rules that will cause GM and Ford to file Chapter 11...
At least all of y'all have learned to briefly mention the UAW in passing as you gripe about everything else under the sun. :P
(and welcome back to the fray, Bob)
Lauer Interviews GM's CEO, UAW President
"Gettelfinger said he was not willing to reopen agreements he signed with GM in 2007."
Want to punish companies - fine, make them pay those miltimilion dollar as donations to charities (say family makes determination which ones). Reduce legal fees to be collected on those, too. Enough incentive for the companies to "do good" and prevent lawyers from chasing ambulances without real cause.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Let's really go off the wall...you are 27 years old, blind in one eye and going in for surgery...the Doc accidentally operates on the wrong eye, and screws up and you are now totally blind...is $100K enough???...let's not be absurd...$250K enough???...let's not be ridiculous...is a $million enough???...is $5 million enough???...how would you like to spend the next 50-plus years without vision, and you want to limit the medmal payout???...if it was your daughter, would YOU think $250K is EXCESSIVE, like tort reform advocates say it is???
I see why medical is so expensive in this country now. There is never enough.
That tells me 85% of malpractice lawsuits are frivolous. GM and the rest of US have to pay more for medical care because each and every health care person carries a HUGE malpractice insurance policy. I would agree with you if those that do sue and lose are forced to pay all costs including the malpractice insurance for the health care person they sued. Malpractice lawsuits are too one sided. The cost to all of US is not warranted by a very minute number of high profile cases where a doctor screwed up. My auto liability insurance does not cost what malpractice insurance costs. Yet I can do as much damage to another individual as any doctor. What gives with that?
Sorry Steve, I just don't believe the big paydays for people are good for the country. It is sad when a wrong foot gets cut off. But I should not have to pay the price. Same goes for GM and their over paid UAW workers. I don't want to reward the UAW greed that has driven the domestics into bankruptcy.
My brother's been a physician for 20 years, and he's nearly quit; selling his practice instead and working as an employee of an HMO. He's told me that most malpractice claims never go to court for anyone to rule IN FAVOR; meaning that insurance companies are very likely to settle any case with any close validity BEFORE going to trial. Insurance companies fight those cases that have little to no validity, and thus that is why you see a high-% in favor of the doctors/hospitals (defendants).
Again paper pushing to process claims, and legal bills to sue and defend do not provide any benefit to the UAW member or people in general. It is all WASTE.
That waste is then passed on to us in the price of labor that goes into the car.
We live in a ridiculously complex and expensive society where very few people actually make anything; with swarms of other professions and bureacrats basically adding parasitic costs.
My latest personal example of adding wasteful cost - the ISO 14001 Environmental Consultants that have leached onto my company.
You need to hire a couple UAW thugs to handle that situation :shades:
How do we go forward and not back? Let’s start with healthcare. I tried to do something about this and the UAW was one of my greatest partners. I still have the scars to show for how difficult it was, but I’m not giving up, we need to fix our healthcare system, and give people quality affordable healthcare.
You know the statistics. We were driving down the number of uninsured in the 1990’s, now it’s back up. More than 45 million of your fellow Americans are uninsured. We are spending 16 percent of our entire national income on health care. I’ll give you a little inside information: we don’t even get as good healthcare as people who spend less than we do.
Here we are spending all this money. We’ve got 45 million uninsured. 50 million people, mostly working people and their children who get their healthcare from Medicaid. And we don’t even get the best quality healthcare by spending all that money because we spend so much of it on intermediaries.
I’ve been in six pharmacies in the last month. It’s heartbreaking to see people trying to get their prescriptions filled. Most of them poor people, sick people, people with disabilities. They’ve been assigned to some insurance company. They’re not even getting the drugs that their doctors prescribed and we’re taking billions of your hard earned tax dollars and giving it to insurance companies to get them to provide prescription drugs to our elderly and people with disabilities. That’s not efficient, that not cost-effective, that’s wasteful.
And that’s the kind of direction that this Administration wants to take us in healthcare. And the rising costs are making it harder and harder for employers to afford healthcare. And what are some doing? You know very well. They’re cutting it back, they’re requiring more pay, and even worse, they are moving jobs offshore.
If we don’t get a consensus about what to do about healthcare, we are going to lose our competitive battle in the global economy. We need to, first, do everything possible to stand against the President’s budget which came out Monday. As bad as things are now, this budget is unbelievably bad. You will see the proposed budget slashes $36 billion for Medicare. It cuts $500 million from veterans’ healthcare, increasing enrollment fees and drug costs for veterans. This really gets me. I don’t know how many veterans are out here, and I don’t know how many of you go to the VA system, but the VA system is the most efficient, highest quality institution in our healthcare system because starting in the 1990’s, we began to push it forward into the future.
Electronic medical records, giving the government the right to negotiate for drug prices. Now the Administration wants to make it too expensive for veterans to use. We’re going to stand against that. Anybody who has served this country deserves to have access to a VA system that takes care of them for life.
One more thing: I have fought, for the last three years, to make sure we gave healthcare to National Guard and Reserve members. We’re getting there, we’ve finally got it passed. But that’s another issue I care deeply about. I don’t know if many of you knew this, but when National Guard and Reserve members started being called up, 25 percent of them did not have health insurance. That’s the country we’re living in, folks.
Where is the money going? Well, you know what choices are in this budget. Cut Medicaid, raise costs for veterans, but don’t mess with their tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.
This budget has half a trillion dollars in tax cuts aimed at the wealthiest of Americans. Its embarrassing, isn’t it. We’re cutting not only veterans benefits, we’re cutting childcare, healthcare for children, we’re cutting law enforcement, we’re cutting everything. Just so millionaires can have their tax cuts.
"You can't just keep talking about good high-paying jobs," he said.
But Mr. Bieber acknowledged that his union had suffered because of inroads overseas competitors had made in the auto industry, seizing about a quarter of the domestic market for new cars and trucks.
To help stem the flow of industrial jobs overseas, Mr. Bieber said, the U.A.W. will continue fighting for Mr. Clinton's health-care plan. While the union favors a single-payer approach, Mr. Bieber said, Mr. Clinton's plan, as presented, offers the best hope for restraining health-care costs for large employers, which will help keep their labor costs competitive.
I know what value added and touch labor is. You certainly can't be saying that insurance companies are value added in any respect. Anyone can buy this product online in this day in age.
recently, i went to the pharmacy to get a prescription for pain medication.
no it wasn't for those little blue pills that the UAW supposedly consumes so many of.
luckily, i didn't need it and i only bought it because the co pay was $10.
while i was waiting i saw all those plastic pill boxes. you know with 7 day or 30 day compartments in them.
i would rather turn in my life card than end up like that.
And again you have side stepped the real issue. How will GM survive unless everyone in the UAW takes a cut in pay? Not just Wagoner. Though I think he belongs in the unemployment line.