As someone who has to take a lot of pills I can tell you that it ain't the end of the world. WIthout them I have big time trouble but with them they tell me to count on another couple of decades. I'll take that.
I used to feel the way you do about pills. It's different when you actually have the decisions to make. I still work and have young kids so I'll be around a bit yet....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
i know that my post was a not for everyone. my kids are somewhat older and i want them to believe in themselves, not count on their parents to fall back on. we have somewhat parallel responsibilites to our kids and parents as the UAW leadership does to their members. i still would 'not like' (don't say hate) a life of taking pills. if i walked a mile in your shoes, maybe i would feel differently. i hope you decide to try out giant slalom skiing when you are 100 years old. :shades:
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
which part of hillary's speech was hooey. the factual statements about the high costs or the bush administrations attempts to cut healthcare for seniors children and veterans?
i don't understand your point about why couldn't the uaw or the clintons get national health care under the clintons. are you suggesting that they could have done it at any time they wanted but really didn't try? are you suggesting that control of congress is all that is necessary to get a law passed? by that way of thinking, Bush could have passed the amnesty for illegal immigrants bill or privatized social security any time he wanted? ( think of having your SS investments in the stock market now!! for you, that would mean 'being hoisted on your own petard' twice! )
I started at the UAW in 1970--all i can tell you is that from day one i was well aware that passage of national health care was one of the UAW's principal legislative goals.
does everyone else but you realize that national health care has not been enacted in the usa (unlike every other industrialized country) because of opposition from insurance and drug companies, most doctors and the republican party. that traditional opposition and the "socialized medicine" boogie man is not going to work this time. the usa's current health care system has failed about as bad as bush.. our health care system's astounding steady annual cost increases and the huge numbers without insurance coverage just cannot be ignored any longer. if you cannot see this, then I can only diagnose you as suffering from such an acute case of ideological blindness so bad that no cure is possible.
fortunately, the major player and real owner of congress has changed sides. the employer community has finally had the scales fall from their eyes. they, along with almost everyone else, can finally see what has to be done. The employer community no longer wants to be the primary health care payers for the country with the responsibility for trying to control costs and/or shift those costs to their employees . this switch finally will bring us much needed national health care-for you to see or at least experience. someday soon..
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".
So if Ford Motor Company knew that its Pinto would catch on fire at a relatively slow rear impact. Knowledge of this, and doing a cost benefit calculation, they saw that the recall would cost more than lawsuits. So they sat on their hands and never ever imagined that a grossly hideous plaintiff would show up for trial. A jury of our peers, sane and rational folks like you and I, decided to teach them a lesson. Ford had ample opportunity and a highly paid legal team to defend them. I think that criminal charges should also have been filed for the reckless behavior. They wanton and willingly had malice of forethought and acted in a reprehensible manner.
Tort reform is a double edge sword. California set caps on awards. An OBGYN made a mistake. $250,000 is what the malpractice insurance paid out. Unfortunately the taxpayers will have to fork out the $2,000,000 to take care of this child for the rest of his/her life. Gee, thats progress???
So why didn't she and Bill get it done from January 1993 to January 1995
I recall the insurance industry, drug makers, and all those special interest groups airing commercials and propaganda. The very folks who claim to be concern for our well being/health came out loud and clear. They are more concern about money. Greed is the reason that rural America is under served and poor folks are not getting medical attention. Its a disgrace that the real reason for going into medicine is greed. Few if any go into medicine for the right reasons and the same could be said about politics.
are you suggesting that they could have done it at any time they wanted but really didn't try
Of course they could have. What was to stop them? It was just a bunch of worthless Democrats that would do whatever Bill wanted. He was more interested in passing NAFTA and buying friends in foreign Countries. I would say he has succeeded even beyond his wildest dreams. The sad part is you believed he would push for Universal Health Care. You know who else got sucked into that idea, Stephanopoulos? He believed that Clinton was a socialist and found out different. The Clinton's are as much globalist as any one in Government. They pander to the UAW to get VOTES. That is it. Obama pandered to the UAW and got votes. I think Bush gave GM & the UAW more than Obama will give. He really does not like the direction of the domestics. Do some research. The only reason he drives a 300C is to go incognito in the hood.
I started at the UAW in 1970
Same year I was part of the RCA Global bargaining unit that voted in the Teamsters. I do not remember hearing any talk of government sponsored health care. The Teamsters had just bought an old hospital and were providing 100% medical, dental and eyecare to all employees working and retired. They then built a state of the art hospital and both my children were born there. It did not cost me a penny. Then as fate would have it the economy in oil took a nose dive and the Teamsters with it. We could no longer offer 100% care. It has gone down to 90%, then 80% now it is 70% for those that are employed. You keep acting like I should be able to do something about the out of control health care. I found Kaiser to be the best bang for the buck. If you lose your deal I would start doing some research. There is not going to be universal health care EVER. It would bankrupt the country faster than any other socialist program. And Obama knows it. You cannot give anything for free without abuse.
The employer community no longer wants to be the primary health care payers for the country
Most of the smart business owners have already shuffled some of the cost onto the employee.
I will ask you again. Who do you propose will pay for this grand health care plan? You can forget cutting back on military. Obama already has plans to expand. He will shift from Iraq to Afghanistan. Already said that was his plan. Pragmatism is a word you need to look at. Nothing you stand for or promote is practical.
I recall the insurance industry, drug makers, and all those special interest groups airing commercials and propaganda.
So you are saying that Bill and Hillary Clinton and the entire Democratic Congress fell for the propaganda. Bill Clinton ran on Universal health care. In fact just about every Democrat since JFK has used it to get votes. Works every time why not use it over and over again. The sheep have short memories and will forget in 4 years.
What the UAW should have done is set up their own Health care system and policed those providers that over charge. I got so mad at a local doctor that took out my sons tonsils. It was of course an outpatient procedure. 4 doctors sent bills to my Teamster's insurance. They had paid $5000 before I had a chance to stop them. How do 4 doctor's get their hand into a boy's mouth at the same time. A month later a friend in Anchorage had her son's tonsils removed and the total bill was $1200. We don't need the government involved we need to police the providers. We should question every bill they send to our insurance company. We are surrounded by crooks and the Congress is the worst of the lot.
A big point of contention in the 1993 negotiations was the control of health care costs. U.A.W. workers have one of the most generous health care systems in American industry, and the union successfully resisted the introduction in 1993 of health insurance deductibles and co-payments for hospital stays.
The latest approach of the Big Three has been to demand cost reductions and minimum quality standards from hospitals and doctors in communities where auto workers make up a large proportion of the working population.
I'd say give me the $ you're paying for my healthcare in my paycheck, and I'll take care of it from there.
I would agree if the supply and demand of markets wasn't tampered with. Special interests and lobby's are a fact of life. Thats real money they spend to get special treatment. Millions for billions are what Washington is all about. Evidently they have plenty of money to spend on "educating/bribing" and their plans are working. This is a far cry from the capitalist system in which the market forces determine supply and demand. Fact is that this is not capitalism and or some type of capitalism which lacks moral turpitude.
Its ok for these folks to defy economic law and not the UAW???
fortunately, the major player and real owner of congress has changed sides. the employer community has finally had the scales fall from their eyes. they, along with almost everyone else, can finally see what has to be done. The employer community no longer wants to be the primary health care payers for the country with the responsibility for trying to control costs and/or shift those costs to their employees . this switch finally will bring us much needed national health care-for you to see or at least experience. someday soon..
Thats going to happen, sure as Obama was elected. Its called progress and out with the old, in with the new. Then too we can look forward to the rebirth of the UAW and strong labor to offset big corporate multinational and big govt. Each keeping each other in check. If you think this up coming generation is going to stand for silly notions of their standard of living declining, your in for a surprise. There is a whole new breed of wildcat out there.
I thought Gettlefinger said NO MAS. Did he dig his heels in and tell them to file for bankruptcy? I really believe that the UAW thinks there is some magic formula that will make it all like it used to be. The good old days when you got laid off and still paid to do nothing. The pension when you turn 48 years old that paid you and your wife for life. The UAW had a great run and it is over the American people as a whole do not have that upper middle class life style. And they sure as anything do not want to use their tax dollars to keep the UAW workers living the high life.
I agree with whom ever posted that paying a lug nut assembler $400,000 per year is fine as long as the company is making money and agrees to the contract. Where the rub comes in is when GM and the UAW come begging those that are lucky to be lower middle class to subsidize the UAW's opulent life style. And making $100k plus per year IS upper middle class. Top 2-3% in the nation.
"Key changes proposed by Frank would ensure oversight of the auto rescue under a trustee or "car czar" and would eliminate language on steps the United Auto Workers union must take in coming weeks to try and reduce industry costs."
If you think this up coming generation is going to stand for silly notions of their standard of living declining, your in for a surprise.
Can't buy it. All I see is a bunch of young hoodlums with pants hanging down to their knees, tattoos all over their body and pierced like a pin cushion. They walk around clueless as to the debt they are going to have. I see mass suicide when reality sets in. You can put your hope in Obama. I think he has already seen the light and it is not the UAW he will pander to. If the UAW and GM cannot build cars to compete with China, Japan and Korea. They will no longer exist. Obama wants to see practical solutions to the energy and fossil fuel usage. GM & the UAW offer nothing but vaporware. The odds on the Volt ever ending up for sale are about the same as the EV-1.
let's see. the clintons' first major initiative was health care. Hillary put a special commission/committee together to plan and prepare a bill. the repukes sued to get all mintues and data of what they did. then a bill was introduced with mostly dem support and almost total repub opposition. then the tv ads started with ted and alice or somebody talking about how the clinton bill would not let them continue to use their own doctor and how some govt official would decide whether they would get treatment. senate repubs threatened to filibuster this went on for almost a year and you say it was all a show!!! could have had it passed anytime they wanted you say. well i think you are drinking too much coffee tonite.
but assume you are right and this was a grand show which somehow made the clintons look good, effective, and powerful 15 years ago.
as you know, since then health care costs have more than doubled and you lost your health care because the teamsters defined contributions trust fund could no longer keep up with the out of sight premium increases. (that was the first time you were hoisted on your own petard!)
but what is your point? are you suggesting the next round of the national health care campaign will be just be another alleged show?
if that is your point the sleep easy -don't waste your time calling your congress persons to express an opinion since its all just a show - however i think you are going to be in for a surprise by this time next year when you awake--
let's see- how do we pay for national health insurance?
usa is paying more than double the cost per citizen for health care of just about every country with national health care 16-18% of GDP versus 7-10% the rest of the sane industrialized world has universal coverage and we currently have lost 46 million in the canyon of no coverage. countries paying half our cost per citizens also have better overall health care as determined by the world health organization.
i say that the 50% of present costs that we save under national health care be used to set up lavish golf resorts for union big shots! by gum garice you finally lead us to a great solution to everyone's problem. ( i may have to start taking lessons though and what do i do with 5 months of snow up here!)
those that don't want to become socialists under national health care can move to mexico or turkey - i believe these two would be the only counties withour national health care in the semi civilized world .
but what is your point? are you suggesting the next round of the national health care campaign will be just be another alleged show?
Yup, because it will never work. I never had health care as a child. My mom and grandma paid to have my tonsils out when I was 6. I am sure it was more than they wanted to pay, but did not lose the house or car. They both worked in the sewing factory in LA during and after the war. Someone will have to pay for this health care you are touting. The UAW worker is at the top of the food chain in America. We shall see how they like paying for those 46 million uninsured you keep bringing up. Heck they are driving GM into bankruptcy paying for 500k retirees. How are they going to cover 46,000,000 more people? What a joke...
Mexico mandates healthcare for all employers. I hire a fellow to work for me. His wife works for Sony in TJ. She has health care for the family. Nothing like the cost that it is here due to your buddy John Edwards and $50,000 malpractice premiums for every doctor.
usa is paying more than double the cost per citizen for health care of just about every country with national health care 16-18% of GDP versus 7-10% the rest of the sane industrialized world
So how will that be less with US covering 46 million more people?
those that don't want to become socialists under national health care can move to mexico or turkey
I was thinking the same thing. Only we should send all whiners and the UAW retirees to Canada. Utopia is Just across the border.
If you think this up coming generation is going to stand for silly notions of their standard of living declining, your in for a surprise
Unfortunately, that is what the younger generation will have to live with. It has to start from the US (since it is spending way beyond its means), and will arrive in Japan / Germany as the US consumption goes down (since their economies feed it). Perhaps not in China, since the average living standards there are so low that their younger generation can look forward to an improvement in their lifetime, even with a global "readjustment" going on.
We are in for hard times, but I look at it this way - the last 10 years were an aberration, and some restraint on "the more you consume the better the economy gets" model is required. So we are simply going to go back to a more sustainable lifestyle. The sooner we start practicing for it, the easier the transition will be.
Is he saying they make $40s per hour? or $40k+ per year? Diesel prices have caused many trucking companies to fold or rebuild and live with the old gear. CA has some real nasty mandates for trucks that has not helped. They want all trucks to be at a certain emissions level starting in 2010. The engines they want have not been developed. So why would anyone buy a new tractor in 2009? Thus the big layoff. It is government causing more problems than they solve. Yet Lumpy has faith in our new President and Congress. Wish I shared his optimism.
That seems a bit low for a UAW worker. I am fine since the election. I am willing to give Obama a chance to prove himself. I don't think the UAW is going to be happy with what he does. Quite frankly I don't think anyone could straighten out the mess we are in for a few years. So I am stuck with 3 mortgage payments and the Hawaii flower market is in the toilet. Life stinks sometimes :shades: Don't worry I am not suicidal. Cannot get rid of me that easy. And I did not invest with Madoff as Spielberg and Katzenberg did. Actually life is darn good. I just like being the curmudgeon.
Looks like Audi wants to build a plant in the U.S. Or maybe they will share the new plant Volkswagon AG is building in Chattanooga,Tenn. It would be nice for Audi to be different and build a plant in the north or midwest part of the U.S.,like around NYC ,Cleveland,Chicago,Kansas City,etc. GM,Ford and Chrysler have plants around these areas.
I'll bet Audi will not do it,who cares about the U.S. big cities ,who cares about the U.S. in the north and midwest areas. Nah . . . go down south where the states give big tax breaks to get these companies there,you got a right to work state ( don't want that bad UAW ) , a young work force ( don't want employees with health issues ) ,away from big city problems and lower labor cost.
The sad fact is some Americans keep buying cars from the transplants,be it built here or overseas when it is obvious what the transplants are doing. These Americans don't think about what is really going on.
Well, it's North Carolina and outside the research corridor, you have empty textile mills, chicken processing plants and maybe some folks are still cutting tobacco.
Thanks for the heads up Okal - hadn't heard about Audi's plans before. Here's a link:
One thing Chattanooga has going for it is the location. Like the folks promoting the Smokies are always saying, it's within a day's drive of half the country. There's some community colleges there, and it's on the Tennessee River for freight with rail and a couple of Interstates crossing there.
Plus VW is building a plant there and already is having excess capacity concerns.
Nah . . . go down south where the states give big tax breaks to get these companies there,you got a right to work state ( don't want that bad UAW ) , a young work force ( don't want employees with health issues ) ,away from big city problems and lower labor cost.
That all makes perfect sense to me. Though I do believe the South has a bit more obesity health issues than the NE or the West. The West is not worth looking at. The labor market would be ok. Environmental regulations would keep any industry from considering CA, OR or WA. Maybe AZ as they are right to work, (no nasty UAW to bankrupt the company).
As far as tax breaks. Michigan is offering $335 million in tax breaks for manufacturing companies to come up into god's country. Probably not enough to offset the cost of labor. You know they would be mobbed by UAW organizers before the first week of production. I think Michigan is at a crossroads. Ohio also. They need to pass a right to work law. That will make them more attractive. Not every worker in the UAW is happy to be paying dues to buy plush golf courses they cannot use or afford. I would imagine most of the new hires are pretty upset with the lopsided contract they work under.
It is amazing how the UAW parallels the US government. The older people are selling out the next several generations to keep their own life style intact.
The sad fact is some Americans keep buying cars from the transplants,be it built here or overseas when it is obvious what the transplants are doing. These Americans don't think about what is really going on.
Building their product for the lowest possible cost is what American capitalism is all about. You can't blame companies from moving jobs to states with the most "business friendly" laws like the ones you mentioned. Two states I've lived in, NY and Florida, are good examples. When I was in NY every corporate merger or buyout resulted in a loss of jobs for the NY plant. Here in Florida I love reading about mergers and buyouts because the Florida plants see a net increase in jobs.
Here in Florida I love reading about mergers and buyouts because the Florida plants see a net increase in jobs.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see which states have healthy economies and which do not. If you live in a right to work state you are less likely to be unemployed than in the states where there is NO FREEDOM of CHOICE for the worker. With the push for EFCA by the Unions and the Democrats you can look for an even wider margin of industry moving to states that are business friendly. I am fully aware that Unions have played a big part in giving the working class a higher standard of living. The UAW pushed it over the top when unskilled line workers make more than professionals with college degrees. Proof is the fact that UAW companies are NOT able to compete with other companies in the USA let alone other countries. Like it or not we are competing globally. Until the rest of the world reaches a higher standard of living we will be dragged down. My kids are not doing as well as I did without a college education. My advice to all new hires in UAW and other unskilled trade Unions. Go back to school while you can still mooch off of mom and dad.
No, the younger generation will need to become professional and use their brains instead. The jobs which needed to be protected by unions are gone. Thhe unions just add costs to both the so-called represented and the management.
Costs will need to be razor thin for some time to come.
Well said, my friend. I'd rather have my kids mooch off me until they get their shingle and leave the union jobs to the people who view the new wage base as an opportunity instead of a loss. This makes for happy workers who don't take their frustrations out on the product and management who scrimp on parts quality because wages constrict margins have room to buy/make premium parts.
but still Wal*Mart is the evil enemy? Umm...how can you avoid Chinese-made products anymore, anyway? Might as well join 'em if ya can't beat 'em, eh?
Word is it that unionization is starting to spread in to hospitals in southern Arizona. Yikes, the worker telling me this had to see my jaw drop down, but our "right to work state" of AZ is changing a bit.
Seems the lowly hospital worker is tired of being pushed around and wants "representation" with worker-employer issues and wants unionization.
News about dues...and well-represented hospital workers. Now that's progressive!
Can't buy it. All I see is a bunch of dirty hippies with their ripped and faded blue jeans, long hair, love beads, peace signs, tie-dye shirts, and granny glasses! They drive around in their VW buses and smoking pot and listening to their Beatles albums! I see mass suicide when reality sets in. :P
Can't buy it. All I see is a bunch of dirty hippies with their ripped and faded blue jeans, long hair, love beads, peace signs, tie-dye shirts, and granny glasses!
I guess you are right. That is where we got those hippies Bill and Hillary Clinton. Oh, and Obama's buddy Ayers was big during that time. I worked through the period, and did not know about Woodstock for months after it happened. The UAW was at their peek membership. Most of them are now retired wondering how much longer GM will carry them.
I think It is worse now. I walk into a place and see someone covered with tattoos, spiked hair and piercings and I turn around and walk out. I still have not gotten over men with ear rings.
I'm with you on the earrings thing for men. Who decided that this was a desirable look for dudes, anyway?
It seems the rock-n-rap stars would participate no matter what the temperature, but when MJ and all the significant athletes had to chime in I knew we were in for a long barf-bag ride with that idea.
Yep, keep them perky high-quality cars off our soil. Force everyone here to buy higher priced/less desireable US made cars.
The best is force the transplants to use domestic parts(the same junk used in my Yukon Denali that keep failing) instead of the good parts produced elsewhere. :sick:
When all cars/parts are made through robotics to get the highest quality and the US has not been at the forefront to get this achieved first, good-bye industry. You can tax and manipulate all you want but if the product is not competitive and does not sell, oh well....
I don't understand the point that Mr. Galley is trying to make about tax policy. Most Western European countries have used the VAT, which is really a hidden (to the end consumer) sales tax, to raise revenue since the 1950s. Given that most of the Euro auto brands sold in this country are, if anything, more expensive than their American counterparts, how does the VAT give them an advantage?
Is he trying to explain why many wealthy car buyers would rather spend $55K or more on a 5-series BMW or E-class Mercedes than $45K on a Cadillac? I don't get it.
Every so often, someone will suggest that the U.S. adopt its own VAT - either to raise more revenue or to reduce reliance on the income tax. But anyone who pays attention to tax policy here knows that the states are fiercely protective of their power to levy sales taxes & will never willingly share that with the Federal government.
I'd also like to see Mr. Galley cite a source for his assertion that the Japanese manipulate the yen to give their auto exports a big cost advantage.
here's a long article i found on truthout by a guy from the center for american progress. I ask you all to read it and i won't bother you again.
By Ben Furnas | January 8, 2009
Introduction
2009 presents a rare opportunity for health care reformers to achieve their goals of affordable, accessible, and effective health care for all. American families and businesses are ready for sweeping changes after years of skyrocketing costs, increasing numbers of uninsured, and inconsistent quality of care. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to make health care a top priority, and congressional majorities are eager to pass reform.
Fifteen years ago, the United States had a similar opportunity to reform health care. But conservatives and insurance industry lobbyists defeated Bill Clinton's efforts by claiming the plan would "socialize medicine," and arguing that there was "no health care crisis." Today, their successors are making the very same arguments against Barack Obama's plan.
If opponents of reform succeed, the next 15 years are likely to resemble the last 15. The result is predictable: higher and higher costs for a health care system that leaves out more and more people. Like today, businesses will be burdened with spiraling costs, states will spend more for safety nets for high-risk populations and the uninsured, and the whole system will encourage excessive and unnecessary spending while leaving millions behind.
Looking back at the last 15 years, we can assess the quality of the American health care system and how we got here. Examining the consequences of the 1994 failure to reform health care should be a stark warning for those who would once again choose to continue our deeply flawed health care system. Rising costs
Since 1994, the cost per person of American health care has more than doubled, with an annual growth rate regularly more than twice that of inflation. Fueled by rising costs of prescription drugs, inefficient outpatient care, expensive and unnecessary medical procedures, and ballooning insurance premiums, these costs are a burden on state and federal governments, businesses, and families.
Per-person health care expenditures in the United States have risen 6.5 percent per year since 2000, and 5.5 percent per year on average since 1994. In contrast, consumer inflation has averaged just 2.6 percent per year.
Health care costs burden American employers, who are forced to cut back on providing coverage and benefits or suffer a competitive disadvantage against international companies who don't bear health costs. Premiums for employer-provided health care have doubled since 2000 (the earliest year the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey has on record). That year the average family premium was $6,800. By 2008, it had risen to $12,700. This premium growth eats away at wages and pressures firms to reduce coverage.
The share of American firms offering health benefits shrank to 60 percent today, from 66 percent in 1999. And the percentage of Americans covered through their employers, where coverage is of a much higher quality than in the individual market, was 59 percent in 2007, down from 64 percent in 1999. Without workplace health insurance, Americans must struggle to find coverage in the unregulated private market (where people with pre-existing conditions find it difficult or impossible to secure coverage), go on public assistance, or become uninsured.
Our productive capacity is suffering, too. The United States spent approximately 16 percent of its 2006 gross domestic product on health care, up from 8 percent in 1975. Without reform, the Congressional Budget Office projects that health expenditures will rise to 25 percent of GDP by 2025. Health care spending among other rich, developed countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development averaged just 9 percent of GDP in 2006.
These costs are increasingly painful for American families, who face higher premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer expenditure data, the share of household income spent on medical expenses has crept up since 1994. A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund found that, "accelerated growth in health care spending has translated into increased burdens on family budgets." According to the most recent data, an average of 13 million families (11 percent of American families) spent 10 percent or more on out-of-pocket health care expenses in 2000-01. That's up from 8 percent in 1996-97.
American spending on health care is wildly out of sync with other large developed economies. A recent McKinsey study found that the United States spent $650 billion more on health care than peer OECD countries even after adjusting for wealth.
Americans spend well over twice as much as the OECD median in annual per-person health care expenditures, and around 150 percent of the next highest-spending country. In 2006 (the most recent data available), the United States spent $6,700 per capita on health care, over double the OECD median expenditure of $3,100. Norway, the second biggest spender, spent $4,500 per person.
Higher medical costs are also taking a toll on America's fiscal health. As the CBO has warned, "the rate at which health care spending grows relative to the economy is the most important determinant of the country's long-term fiscal balance." Federal health care expenditures, including Medicare and Medicaid, have risen to over $800 billion, or $2,650 per person, in 2008, from $300 billion, or $1,600 per person, in 1994 (in constant 2008 dollars). The burden on states has increased as well, to $300 billion in health care costs in 2008, from $190 billion in 1994 (including each state's share of the Medicaid program). These trends are projected to speed up, with per-person federal expenditure nearing $6,000 by 2017 and state and local expenditures projected to increase to $2,000 per-person (in 2008 dollars) over the same period.
While some of this increase is attributable to population growth, an aging population, and changes to the policy structures of Medicare and Medicaid (including an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program), much of it comes from the underlying inefficiencies and excess costs of the American health care system. Vanishing coverage
Despite surging expenditures, the number of Americans going without insurance has risen to 46 million, or 15 percent of the population in 2007, up from 38 million, or 14 percent, in 1999. Among people aged 18-65, the uninsurance rate increased to almost 20 percent in 2007, up from 17 percent in 1999. If the 1999 rate had stayed constant, 4.5 million more American adults would have health insurance today.
In 36 states, the percentage of adults aged 18-65 going without health insurance has increased since 1999. Millions more are living with subpar or insufficient coverage. The Commonwealth Fund found that in 2007 there we
Fueled by rising costs of prescription drugs, inefficient outpatient care, expensive and unnecessary medical procedures, and ballooning insurance premiums, these costs are a burden on state and federal governments, businesses, and families.
All he is doing is pointing out what we all know. He gives no practical solutions to rising health care cost. There is no way that a government run health care will cut costs. A close examination of the rampant fraud in Medicare/Medicaid should make that clear. So how would you bring those costs down? How would you cut the malpractice insurance premiums down to a reasonable level? I have heard of certain specialties like OBGYN that pay more in Malpractice than the doctor nets per year. Drugs could be cut way back by people using generics. My wife's prescriptions from Kaiser are all generic. Costs her $5 copay for as much as 90 days of prescription. Every time tort reform is mentioned the Congress quickly shut that door as they are all attorneys and may end up back out on the road chasing ambulances. As I gave you data we have over 10 times the facilities per person that Canada has. For just twice the price. That makes me wonder where all the money is going in Canada. Do you think we should get rid of 8000 MRI machines so we have the same coverage as Canada.
Give us some solutions. If you do not want to pay your own health care. That means you expect the government to pay the premiums without raising your taxes. How do you suppose that will work? The money has to come from somewhere. We are running out of ink with all the funny money being printed.
PS If you are holding your breath until they squeeze the money out of the fat cats like Bill Gates, Buffett or Oprah. You are going to die from lack of oxygen. The rich have never given up their money in the history of the country. They are not going to start now.
Fifteen years ago, the United States had a similar opportunity to reform health care. But conservatives and insurance industry lobbyists defeated Bill Clinton's efforts by claiming the plan would "socialize medicine," and arguing that there was "no health care crisis." Today, their successors are making the very same arguments against Barack Obama's plan.
Since the Democrats control the executive and legislative branches, then the Democrats and could pass national health care without a single Rep.vote. Aren't you then blaming the Dem. for selling out to the insurance lobbyists?
Could you also explain if all the uninsured do get insurance, the total cost of healthcare goes up. Or does the total system cost stay the same, and everyone gets less healthcare per person? I can see how GM would be happy not having to pay for the UAW and its white collar employees health insurance anymore. But how would this help the UAW worker who will either pay more taxes to fund the 45 million to be covered, OR receive less care?
Forward think people know that the current system is pathetic, to put it kindly.
Our research indicates that the United States spends $650 billion more on health care than might be expected given the country’s wealth and the experience of comparable members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
The US health care payment system, which processes $1.9 trillion a year, is ripe for transformation. The system is inefficient, consuming 15 percent or more of each dollar spent on health care, compared with about 2 percent for the payment system in retailing. Expenditures on the processing of bills, claims, and payments; bad debt; and other transactions total more than $300 billion a year.
Last time Bank of Japan intervened in the currency market was March 2004. And that was to counter a very sharp appreciation of the Yen (breaching 100Yen/USD). Today it is more like 90 Yen / USD - So it has been appreciating in the last four years, with no intervention by BOJ.
And if we go back further, in 1985 Yen was 240/USD. Thus in the last 23 years, it has appreciated against the USD by 266%. So if Japan is manipulating its currency, then it is not doing a very good job of it.
The Auto industry blogs repeatedly bring up this issue (without any specific data to back it up....), however one has to consider a) If companies like Toyota keep on moving production outside Japan, how relevant is Yen manipulation?; b) If Japanese manufacturing is benefiting from currency manipulation, how is it that Mazda or Isuzu (domestic production only) are not "benefiting" (in terms of improving profitability), but Toyota and Honda (moving production overseas) are?
That is all good trivial information. The question still unanswered is how is a government that cannot even keep their own system clean going to do better than the HMOs?
A criminal's perspective on easy fraud In a recent interview with NBC News, a man who made millions of dollars by defrauding Medicare before his arrest explained how easy it was to steal from the government.
"First of all, you create a corporation," he said. "There are some people who are like facilitators, who tell you what it is that Medicare requires." One requirement is to buy some props -- medical equipment and office furniture -- that can help make the corporation appear legitimate during rare inspections by Medicare officials. "A lot of times an inspector doesn't visit a corporation more than once a year," he claimed.
One thing he found shocking was how agreeable Medicare was in paying his phony claims, even after patients whose names were used without permission filed complaints. "Why is Medicare paying" he asked. "Medicare keeps on paying, so who's at fault? I think the government is at fault, the government doesn't have any control of this."
The man said stealing from Medicare can be a very lucrative endeavor. "If in a year you want $6 million or $8 million you can do it."
One Medicare fraud suspect, who is now a fugitive, used to drive a $200,000 Phantom Rolls Royce. "Everyone should be outraged by it," said Ogrosky, "and should be concerned about their taxpayer dollars going to fund this personal wealth that we're seeing in these people who are a really just thieves."
Federal law enforcement official said they've seen other Medicare criminals also living extravagantly from their ill-gotten gains.
"We've seized luxury homes on waterfront properties. We've seized boats, we've seized bank accounts, jewelry worth thousands of dollars," said Delaney. "They're just killing the Medicare program and living the high-life off of it."
The Federal government needs to fix their broken Medicare program, before they expand further. I don't think they are capable of doing that with so many levels of incompetence in our government. They have managed to hose up the banking system, now we want them to totally destroy our health care system.
The Auto industry blogs repeatedly bring up this issue (without any specific data to back it up....)
You have to consider that article was written by a UAW leader with an agenda. He would like to dump the blame for the mess in the Auto industry, he and his colleagues have created, onto anyone or any country. The UAW would say anything to deflect from their own part in the collapse. The 4 Horsemen was a very lame attempt, with little or no truth in fact, mostly fiction. Just one example:
In the late 1990s a barrel of oil sold for $10. The Big 3 enjoyed strong sales and consistent profits
GM did not make a decent profit throughout the 1990s when they were selling SUVs and PU trucks as fast as their little fingers could go. Of course it did not help that the UAW decided to strike right in the middle of a chance at making a decent profit. Wagoner is to blame. When the UAW went on strike in 1998 he could have gotten rid of the UAW millstone around his neck for good. He could have just shut down and moved every plant out of the country. It would have cost a few billion, while they still had a few billion in the bank. Now they are so broke they will have to borrow money just to pay the bankruptcy attorneys.
I am by no means an expert here (some other posters here seem to have a much deeper understanding of this issue), but Japan has a National Health Insurance scheme (we all have to pay into the scheme, and then our medical expenses - or 70% of them - are covered by the insurance) which seems to satisfy the definition of a "socialized health service". You pay as a % of your income, but the returns you receive are based on your usage of the system. Thus high income groups pay a lot more than they get (since usually they also maintain better health)(I must have paid 20x more than what I have received from the system....).
This system, while great for the below median income group, suffers from two major disadvantages (and this is not just my opinion, but a debate going on in Japan) :
1. It encourages inefficiencies. Hospitals have an incentive to keep people in hospitals for as long as possible (to increase occupancy rate - like a hotel...), since they can then charge National insurance for that. When my daughter was born, my wife was ready to go back home after two days (she was in the hospital because a C-section was required), but the Doctor told me "What is the hurry? She can stay here for another five days (the Insurance cover is for a maximum of seven days), so why go home and wash dishes? Here every thing is take care of, ha ha!". You get the point. 2. It is (like the US SS system) a sort of a ponzi scheme, in the sense that the insurance payments are based on the assumption that the population will keep on growing. Now that it is actually declining, the system is in a crisis, and they are starting to reduce the coverage (so the Government is now implementing a "cap" - where costs above a certain amount will require a larger percentage payment by the patient). Obviously for those who are healthier than average, the benefits of this scheme will continue to decline.
There is a third (longer term) disadvantage too - Because this system can encourage the Hospitals and Pharmaceutical companies to gang up and gouge the insurance, Japan mandates a reduction in pricing for prescription drugs (e.g "7% lower this year than last year"). While this may solve the problem of over pricing, this reduces the returns Japanese pharmaceutical companies can get on their investments (since the price will always go down), and thus cannot compete with the likes of Glaxo Smith Kline (who are not mandated to reduce drug prices - and thus can charge whatever the market can bear).
I am not sure which system is better, but just thought that since I live in a socialized system, this perspective might be helpful.
I'm really trying hard you guys, and if you can relate auto worker's health care to car prices, that's one thing. But just kicking around the merits of private vs nationalized health care just doesn't seem topical.
Comments
I used to feel the way you do about pills. It's different when you actually have the decisions to make. I still work and have young kids so I'll be around a bit yet....
we have somewhat parallel responsibilites to our kids and parents as the UAW leadership does to their members.
i still would 'not like' (don't say hate) a life of taking pills.
if i walked a mile in your shoes, maybe i would feel differently.
i hope you decide to try out giant slalom skiing when you are 100 years old. :shades:
i don't understand your point about why couldn't the uaw or the clintons get national health care under the clintons. are you suggesting that they could have done it at any time they wanted but really didn't try? are you suggesting that control of congress is all that is necessary to get a law passed? by that way of thinking, Bush could have passed the amnesty for illegal immigrants bill or privatized social security any time he wanted? ( think of having your SS investments in the stock market now!! for you, that would mean 'being hoisted on your own petard' twice! )
I started at the UAW in 1970--all i can tell you is that from day one i was well aware that passage of national health care was one of the UAW's principal legislative goals.
does everyone else but you realize that national health care has not been enacted in the usa (unlike every other industrialized country) because of opposition from insurance and drug companies, most doctors and the republican party. that traditional opposition and the "socialized medicine" boogie man is not going to work this time. the usa's current health care system has failed about as bad as bush.. our health care system's astounding steady annual cost increases and the huge numbers without insurance coverage just cannot be ignored any longer. if you cannot see this, then I can only diagnose you as suffering from such an acute case of ideological blindness so bad that no cure is possible.
fortunately, the major player and real owner of congress has changed sides. the employer community has finally had the scales fall from their eyes. they, along with almost everyone else, can finally see what has to be done. The employer community no longer wants to be the primary health care payers for the country with the responsibility for trying to control costs and/or shift those costs to their employees . this switch finally will bring us much needed national health care-for you to see or at least experience. someday soon..
So if Ford Motor Company knew that its Pinto would catch on fire at a relatively slow rear impact. Knowledge of this, and doing a cost benefit calculation, they saw that the recall would cost more than lawsuits. So they sat on their hands and never ever imagined that a grossly hideous plaintiff would show up for trial. A jury of our peers, sane and rational folks like you and I, decided to teach them a lesson. Ford had ample opportunity and a highly paid legal team to defend them. I think that criminal charges should also have been filed for the reckless behavior. They wanton and willingly had malice of forethought and acted in a reprehensible manner.
Tort reform is a double edge sword. California set caps on awards. An OBGYN made a mistake. $250,000 is what the malpractice insurance paid out. Unfortunately the taxpayers will have to fork out the $2,000,000 to take care of this child for the rest of his/her life. Gee, thats progress???
I recall the insurance industry, drug makers, and all those special interest groups airing commercials and propaganda. The very folks who claim to be concern for our well being/health came out loud and clear. They are more concern about money. Greed is the reason that rural America is under served and poor folks are not getting medical attention. Its a disgrace that the real reason for going into medicine is greed. Few if any go into medicine for the right reasons and the same could be said about politics.
Of course they could have. What was to stop them? It was just a bunch of worthless Democrats that would do whatever Bill wanted. He was more interested in passing NAFTA and buying friends in foreign Countries. I would say he has succeeded even beyond his wildest dreams. The sad part is you believed he would push for Universal Health Care. You know who else got sucked into that idea, Stephanopoulos? He believed that Clinton was a socialist and found out different. The Clinton's are as much globalist as any one in Government. They pander to the UAW to get VOTES. That is it. Obama pandered to the UAW and got votes. I think Bush gave GM & the UAW more than Obama will give. He really does not like the direction of the domestics. Do some research. The only reason he drives a 300C is to go incognito in the hood.
I started at the UAW in 1970
Same year I was part of the RCA Global bargaining unit that voted in the Teamsters. I do not remember hearing any talk of government sponsored health care. The Teamsters had just bought an old hospital and were providing 100% medical, dental and eyecare to all employees working and retired. They then built a state of the art hospital and both my children were born there. It did not cost me a penny. Then as fate would have it the economy in oil took a nose dive and the Teamsters with it. We could no longer offer 100% care. It has gone down to 90%, then 80% now it is 70% for those that are employed. You keep acting like I should be able to do something about the out of control health care. I found Kaiser to be the best bang for the buck. If you lose your deal I would start doing some research. There is not going to be universal health care EVER. It would bankrupt the country faster than any other socialist program. And Obama knows it. You cannot give anything for free without abuse.
The employer community no longer wants to be the primary health care payers for the country
Most of the smart business owners have already shuffled some of the cost onto the employee.
I will ask you again. Who do you propose will pay for this grand health care plan? You can forget cutting back on military. Obama already has plans to expand. He will shift from Iraq to Afghanistan. Already said that was his plan. Pragmatism is a word you need to look at. Nothing you stand for or promote is practical.
Either that or we're calling a strike vote.
So do I.
I got dealt a weird hand on the health front. I may not like that part but one learns to live with it. Loads of folks have worse.
On the kid front I started late and kept going. It's like having grandkids except they don't go home....
How 'bout that UAW....
So you are saying that Bill and Hillary Clinton and the entire Democratic Congress fell for the propaganda. Bill Clinton ran on Universal health care. In fact just about every Democrat since JFK has used it to get votes. Works every time why not use it over and over again. The sheep have short memories and will forget in 4 years.
What the UAW should have done is set up their own Health care system and policed those providers that over charge. I got so mad at a local doctor that took out my sons tonsils. It was of course an outpatient procedure. 4 doctors sent bills to my Teamster's insurance. They had paid $5000 before I had a chance to stop them. How do 4 doctor's get their hand into a boy's mouth at the same time. A month later a friend in Anchorage had her son's tonsils removed and the total bill was $1200. We don't need the government involved we need to police the providers. We should question every bill they send to our insurance company. We are surrounded by crooks and the Congress is the worst of the lot.
The latest approach of the Big Three has been to demand cost reductions and minimum quality standards from hospitals and doctors in communities where auto workers make up a large proportion of the working population.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E5DE1339F937A35757C0A96095826- 0&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
I would agree if the supply and demand of markets wasn't tampered with. Special interests and lobby's are a fact of life. Thats real money they spend to get special treatment. Millions for billions are what Washington is all about. Evidently they have plenty of money to spend on "educating/bribing" and their plans are working. This is a far cry from the capitalist system in which the market forces determine supply and demand. Fact is that this is not capitalism and or some type of capitalism which lacks moral turpitude.
Its ok for these folks to defy economic law and not the UAW???
Thats going to happen, sure as Obama was elected. Its called progress and out with the old, in with the new. Then too we can look forward to the rebirth of the UAW and strong labor to offset big corporate multinational and big govt. Each keeping each other in check. If you think this up coming generation is going to stand for silly notions of their standard of living declining, your in for a surprise. There is a whole new breed of wildcat out there.
I agree with whom ever posted that paying a lug nut assembler $400,000 per year is fine as long as the company is making money and agrees to the contract. Where the rub comes in is when GM and the UAW come begging those that are lucky to be lower middle class to subsidize the UAW's opulent life style. And making $100k plus per year IS upper middle class. Top 2-3% in the nation.
I also think it's a bit of brinkmanship.
And he's got politics on his side:
"Key changes proposed by Frank would ensure oversight of the auto rescue under a trustee or "car czar" and would eliminate language on steps the United Auto Workers union must take in coming weeks to try and reduce industry costs."
Proposal would drop labor targets in auto bailout (Reuters)
Can't buy it. All I see is a bunch of young hoodlums with pants hanging down to their knees, tattoos all over their body and pierced like a pin cushion. They walk around clueless as to the debt they are going to have. I see mass suicide when reality sets in. You can put your hope in Obama. I think he has already seen the light and it is not the UAW he will pander to. If the UAW and GM cannot build cars to compete with China, Japan and Korea. They will no longer exist. Obama wants to see practical solutions to the energy and fossil fuel usage. GM & the UAW offer nothing but vaporware. The odds on the Volt ever ending up for sale are about the same as the EV-1.
but assume you are right and this was a grand show which somehow made the clintons look good, effective, and powerful 15 years ago.
as you know, since then health care costs have more than doubled and you lost your health care because the teamsters defined contributions trust fund could no longer keep up with the out of sight premium increases. (that was the first time you were hoisted on your own petard!)
but what is your point? are you suggesting the next round of the national health care campaign will be just be another alleged show?
if that is your point the sleep easy -don't waste your time calling your congress persons to express an opinion since its all just a show - however i think you are going to be in for a surprise by this time next year when you awake--
let's see- how do we pay for national health insurance?
usa is paying more than double the cost per citizen for health care of just about every country with national health care 16-18% of GDP versus 7-10% the rest of the sane industrialized world has universal coverage and we currently have lost 46 million in the canyon of no coverage. countries paying half our cost per citizens also have better overall health care as determined by the world health organization.
i say that the 50% of present costs that we save under national health care be used to set up lavish golf resorts for union big shots! by gum garice you finally lead us to a great solution to everyone's problem. ( i may have to start taking lessons though and what do i do with 5 months of snow up here!)
those that don't want to become socialists under national health care can move to mexico or turkey - i believe these two would be the only counties withour national health care in the semi civilized world .
It sounds like those are all UAW jobs.
Another link says Freightliner workers typically earn in the low to mid-40s, plus health and retirement benefits. (KFAE)
Yup, because it will never work. I never had health care as a child. My mom and grandma paid to have my tonsils out when I was 6. I am sure it was more than they wanted to pay, but did not lose the house or car. They both worked in the sewing factory in LA during and after the war. Someone will have to pay for this health care you are touting. The UAW worker is at the top of the food chain in America. We shall see how they like paying for those 46 million uninsured you keep bringing up. Heck they are driving GM into bankruptcy paying for 500k retirees. How are they going to cover 46,000,000 more people? What a joke...
Mexico mandates healthcare for all employers. I hire a fellow to work for me. His wife works for Sony in TJ. She has health care for the family. Nothing like the cost that it is here due to your buddy John Edwards and $50,000 malpractice premiums for every doctor.
usa is paying more than double the cost per citizen for health care of just about every country with national health care 16-18% of GDP versus 7-10% the rest of the sane industrialized world
So how will that be less with US covering 46 million more people?
those that don't want to become socialists under national health care can move to mexico or turkey
I was thinking the same thing. Only we should send all whiners and the UAW retirees to Canada. Utopia is Just across the border.
Unfortunately, that is what the younger generation will have to live with. It has to start from the US (since it is spending way beyond its means), and will arrive in Japan / Germany as the US consumption goes down (since their economies feed it). Perhaps not in China, since the average living standards there are so low that their younger generation can look forward to an improvement in their lifetime, even with a global "readjustment" going on.
We are in for hard times, but I look at it this way - the last 10 years were an aberration, and some restraint on "the more you consume the better the economy gets" model is required. So we are simply going to go back to a more sustainable lifestyle. The sooner we start practicing for it, the easier the transition will be.
I read the link as $40k a year plus bennies, but it's not all that clear, is it?
It would be nice for Audi to be different and build a plant in the north or midwest part of the U.S.,like around NYC ,Cleveland,Chicago,Kansas City,etc.
GM,Ford and Chrysler have plants around these areas.
I'll bet Audi will not do it,who cares about the U.S. big cities ,who cares about the U.S. in the north and midwest areas.
Nah . . . go down south where the states give big tax breaks to get these companies there,you got a right to work state ( don't want that bad UAW ) , a young work force ( don't want employees with health issues ) ,away from big city problems and lower labor cost.
The sad fact is some Americans keep buying cars from the transplants,be it built here or overseas when it is obvious what the transplants are doing.
These Americans don't think about what is really going on.
Well, it's North Carolina and outside the research corridor, you have empty textile mills, chicken processing plants and maybe some folks are still cutting tobacco.
Thanks for the heads up Okal - hadn't heard about Audi's plans before. Here's a link:
Audi U.S. plant decision coming by mid-2009 (Detroit News)
One thing Chattanooga has going for it is the location. Like the folks promoting the Smokies are always saying, it's within a day's drive of half the country. There's some community colleges there, and it's on the Tennessee River for freight with rail and a couple of Interstates crossing there.
Plus VW is building a plant there and already is having excess capacity concerns.
And yeah, that whole union thing.
That all makes perfect sense to me. Though I do believe the South has a bit more obesity health issues than the NE or the West. The West is not worth looking at. The labor market would be ok. Environmental regulations would keep any industry from considering CA, OR or WA. Maybe AZ as they are right to work, (no nasty UAW to bankrupt the company).
As far as tax breaks. Michigan is offering $335 million in tax breaks for manufacturing companies to come up into god's country. Probably not enough to offset the cost of labor. You know they would be mobbed by UAW organizers before the first week of production. I think Michigan is at a crossroads. Ohio also. They need to pass a right to work law. That will make them more attractive. Not every worker in the UAW is happy to be paying dues to buy plush golf courses they cannot use or afford. I would imagine most of the new hires are pretty upset with the lopsided contract they work under.
It is amazing how the UAW parallels the US government. The older people are selling out the next several generations to keep their own life style intact.
These Americans don't think about what is really going on.
Building their product for the lowest possible cost is what American capitalism is all about. You can't blame companies from moving jobs to states with the most "business friendly" laws like the ones you mentioned. Two states I've lived in, NY and Florida, are good examples. When I was in NY every corporate merger or buyout resulted in a loss of jobs for the NY plant. Here in Florida I love reading about mergers and buyouts because the Florida plants see a net increase in jobs.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see which states have healthy economies and which do not. If you live in a right to work state you are less likely to be unemployed than in the states where there is NO FREEDOM of CHOICE for the worker. With the push for EFCA by the Unions and the Democrats you can look for an even wider margin of industry moving to states that are business friendly. I am fully aware that Unions have played a big part in giving the working class a higher standard of living. The UAW pushed it over the top when unskilled line workers make more than professionals with college degrees. Proof is the fact that UAW companies are NOT able to compete with other companies in the USA let alone other countries. Like it or not we are competing globally. Until the rest of the world reaches a higher standard of living we will be dragged down. My kids are not doing as well as I did without a college education. My advice to all new hires in UAW and other unskilled trade Unions. Go back to school while you can still mooch off of mom and dad.
Regards,
OW
Costs will need to be razor thin for some time to come.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Regrds,
OW
Word is it that unionization is starting to spread in to hospitals in southern Arizona. Yikes, the worker telling me this had to see my jaw drop down, but our "right to work state" of AZ is changing a bit.
Seems the lowly hospital worker is tired of being pushed around and wants "representation" with worker-employer issues and wants unionization.
News about dues...and well-represented hospital workers. Now that's progressive!
Great news. :sick:
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Great stuff!
Regards,
OW
Can't buy it. All I see is a bunch of dirty hippies with their ripped and faded blue jeans, long hair, love beads, peace signs, tie-dye shirts, and granny glasses! They drive around in their VW buses and smoking pot and listening to their Beatles albums! I see mass suicide when reality sets in. :P
I guess you are right. That is where we got those hippies Bill and Hillary Clinton. Oh, and Obama's buddy Ayers was big during that time. I worked through the period, and did not know about Woodstock for months after it happened. The UAW was at their peek membership. Most of them are now retired wondering how much longer GM will carry them.
I think It is worse now. I walk into a place and see someone covered with tattoos, spiked hair and piercings and I turn around and walk out. I still have not gotten over men with ear rings.
It seems the rock-n-rap stars would participate no matter what the temperature, but when MJ and all the significant athletes had to chime in I knew we were in for a long barf-bag ride with that idea.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Talk like a pirate day isn't until September. :P
State of the auto industry from a union perspective (taxes, trade policy, health care and energy) :
Did the Four Horsemen destroy the auto industry? (Delaware County Daily Times)
Yep, keep them perky high-quality cars off our soil. Force everyone here to buy higher priced/less desireable US made cars.
The best is force the transplants to use domestic parts(the same junk used in my Yukon Denali that keep failing) instead of the good parts produced elsewhere. :sick:
When all cars/parts are made through robotics to get the highest quality and the US has not been at the forefront to get this achieved first, good-bye industry. You can tax and manipulate all you want but if the product is not competitive and does not sell, oh well....
HIT THE ROAD, JACK!
Regards,
OW
Is he trying to explain why many wealthy car buyers would rather spend $55K or more on a 5-series BMW or E-class Mercedes than $45K on a Cadillac? I don't get it.
Every so often, someone will suggest that the U.S. adopt its own VAT - either to raise more revenue or to reduce reliance on the income tax. But anyone who pays attention to tax policy here knows that the states are fiercely protective of their power to levy sales taxes & will never willingly share that with the Federal government.
I'd also like to see Mr. Galley cite a source for his assertion that the Japanese manipulate the yen to give their auto exports a big cost advantage.
By Ben Furnas | January 8, 2009
Introduction
2009 presents a rare opportunity for health care reformers to achieve their goals of affordable, accessible, and effective health care for all. American families and businesses are ready for sweeping changes after years of skyrocketing costs, increasing numbers of uninsured, and inconsistent quality of care. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to make health care a top priority, and congressional majorities are eager to pass reform.
Fifteen years ago, the United States had a similar opportunity to reform health care. But conservatives and insurance industry lobbyists defeated Bill Clinton's efforts by claiming the plan would "socialize medicine," and arguing that there was "no health care crisis." Today, their successors are making the very same arguments against Barack Obama's plan.
If opponents of reform succeed, the next 15 years are likely to resemble the last 15. The result is predictable: higher and higher costs for a health care system that leaves out more and more people. Like today, businesses will be burdened with spiraling costs, states will spend more for safety nets for high-risk populations and the uninsured, and the whole system will encourage excessive and unnecessary spending while leaving millions behind.
Looking back at the last 15 years, we can assess the quality of the American health care system and how we got here. Examining the consequences of the 1994 failure to reform health care should be a stark warning for those who would once again choose to continue our deeply flawed health care system.
Rising costs
Since 1994, the cost per person of American health care has more than doubled, with an annual growth rate regularly more than twice that of inflation. Fueled by rising costs of prescription drugs, inefficient outpatient care, expensive and unnecessary medical procedures, and ballooning insurance premiums, these costs are a burden on state and federal governments, businesses, and families.
Per-person health care expenditures in the United States have risen 6.5 percent per year since 2000, and 5.5 percent per year on average since 1994. In contrast, consumer inflation has averaged just 2.6 percent per year.
Health care costs burden American employers, who are forced to cut back on providing coverage and benefits or suffer a competitive disadvantage against international companies who don't bear health costs. Premiums for employer-provided health care have doubled since 2000 (the earliest year the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey has on record). That year the average family premium was $6,800. By 2008, it had risen to $12,700. This premium growth eats away at wages and pressures firms to reduce coverage.
The share of American firms offering health benefits shrank to 60 percent today, from 66 percent in 1999. And the percentage of Americans covered through their employers, where coverage is of a much higher quality than in the individual market, was 59 percent in 2007, down from 64 percent in 1999. Without workplace health insurance, Americans must struggle to find coverage in the unregulated private market (where people with pre-existing conditions find it difficult or impossible to secure coverage), go on public assistance, or become uninsured.
Our productive capacity is suffering, too. The United States spent approximately 16 percent of its 2006 gross domestic product on health care, up from 8 percent in 1975. Without reform, the Congressional Budget Office projects that health expenditures will rise to 25 percent of GDP by 2025. Health care spending among other rich, developed countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development averaged just 9 percent of GDP in 2006.
These costs are increasingly painful for American families, who face higher premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer expenditure data, the share of household income spent on medical expenses has crept up since 1994. A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund found that, "accelerated growth in health care spending has translated into increased burdens on family budgets." According to the most recent data, an average of 13 million families (11 percent of American families) spent 10 percent or more on out-of-pocket health care expenses in 2000-01. That's up from 8 percent in 1996-97.
American spending on health care is wildly out of sync with other large developed economies. A recent McKinsey study found that the United States spent $650 billion more on health care than peer OECD countries even after adjusting for wealth.
Americans spend well over twice as much as the OECD median in annual per-person health care expenditures, and around 150 percent of the next highest-spending country. In 2006 (the most recent data available), the United States spent $6,700 per capita on health care, over double the OECD median expenditure of $3,100. Norway, the second biggest spender, spent $4,500 per person.
Higher medical costs are also taking a toll on America's fiscal health. As the CBO has warned, "the rate at which health care spending grows relative to the economy is the most important determinant of the country's long-term fiscal balance." Federal health care expenditures, including Medicare and Medicaid, have risen to over $800 billion, or $2,650 per person, in 2008, from $300 billion, or $1,600 per person, in 1994 (in constant 2008 dollars). The burden on states has increased as well, to $300 billion in health care costs in 2008, from $190 billion in 1994 (including each state's share of the Medicaid program). These trends are projected to speed up, with per-person federal expenditure nearing $6,000 by 2017 and state and local expenditures projected to increase to $2,000 per-person (in 2008 dollars) over the same period.
While some of this increase is attributable to population growth, an aging population, and changes to the policy structures of Medicare and Medicaid (including an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program), much of it comes from the underlying inefficiencies and excess costs of the American health care system.
Vanishing coverage
Despite surging expenditures, the number of Americans going without insurance has risen to 46 million, or 15 percent of the population in 2007, up from 38 million, or 14 percent, in 1999. Among people aged 18-65, the uninsurance rate increased to almost 20 percent in 2007, up from 17 percent in 1999. If the 1999 rate had stayed constant, 4.5 million more American adults would have health insurance today.
In 36 states, the percentage of adults aged 18-65 going without health insurance has increased since 1999. Millions more are living with subpar or insufficient coverage. The Commonwealth Fund found that in 2007 there we
All he is doing is pointing out what we all know. He gives no practical solutions to rising health care cost. There is no way that a government run health care will cut costs. A close examination of the rampant fraud in Medicare/Medicaid should make that clear. So how would you bring those costs down? How would you cut the malpractice insurance premiums down to a reasonable level? I have heard of certain specialties like OBGYN that pay more in Malpractice than the doctor nets per year. Drugs could be cut way back by people using generics. My wife's prescriptions from Kaiser are all generic. Costs her $5 copay for as much as 90 days of prescription. Every time tort reform is mentioned the Congress quickly shut that door as they are all attorneys and may end up back out on the road chasing ambulances. As I gave you data we have over 10 times the facilities per person that Canada has. For just twice the price. That makes me wonder where all the money is going in Canada. Do you think we should get rid of 8000 MRI machines so we have the same coverage as Canada.
Give us some solutions. If you do not want to pay your own health care. That means you expect the government to pay the premiums without raising your taxes. How do you suppose that will work? The money has to come from somewhere. We are running out of ink with all the funny money being printed.
PS
If you are holding your breath until they squeeze the money out of the fat cats like Bill Gates, Buffett or Oprah. You are going to die from lack of oxygen. The rich have never given up their money in the history of the country. They are not going to start now.
Since the Democrats control the executive and legislative branches, then the Democrats and could pass national health care without a single Rep.vote. Aren't you then blaming the Dem. for selling out to the insurance lobbyists?
Could you also explain if all the uninsured do get insurance, the total cost of healthcare goes up. Or does the total system cost stay the same, and everyone gets less healthcare per person? I can see how GM would be happy not having to pay for the UAW and its white collar employees health insurance anymore. But how would this help the UAW worker who will either pay more taxes to fund the 45 million to be covered, OR receive less care?
Our research indicates that the United States spends $650 billion more on health care than might be expected given the country’s wealth and the experience of comparable members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Why_Americans_pay_more_for_health_care_2275
The US health care payment system, which processes $1.9 trillion a year, is ripe for transformation. The system is inefficient, consuming 15 percent or more of each dollar spent on health care, compared with about 2 percent for the payment system in retailing. Expenditures on the processing of bills, claims, and payments; bad debt; and other transactions total more than $300 billion a year.
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Health_Care/Hospitals/Overhauling_the_US_health- _care_payment_system_2012
Last time Bank of Japan intervened in the currency market was March 2004. And that was to counter a very sharp appreciation of the Yen (breaching 100Yen/USD). Today it is more like 90 Yen / USD - So it has been appreciating in the last four years, with no intervention by BOJ.
And if we go back further, in 1985 Yen was 240/USD. Thus in the last 23 years, it has appreciated against the USD by 266%. So if Japan is manipulating its currency, then it is not doing a very good job of it.
The Auto industry blogs repeatedly bring up this issue (without any specific data to back it up....), however one has to consider a) If companies like Toyota keep on moving production outside Japan, how relevant is Yen manipulation?; b) If Japanese manufacturing is benefiting from currency manipulation, how is it that Mazda or Isuzu (domestic production only) are not "benefiting" (in terms of improving profitability), but Toyota and Honda (moving production overseas) are?
A criminal's perspective on easy fraud
In a recent interview with NBC News, a man who made millions of dollars by defrauding Medicare before his arrest explained how easy it was to steal from the government.
"First of all, you create a corporation," he said. "There are some people who are like facilitators, who tell you what it is that Medicare requires." One requirement is to buy some props -- medical equipment and office furniture -- that can help make the corporation appear legitimate during rare inspections by Medicare officials. "A lot of times an inspector doesn't visit a corporation more than once a year," he claimed.
One thing he found shocking was how agreeable Medicare was in paying his phony claims, even after patients whose names were used without permission filed complaints. "Why is Medicare paying" he asked. "Medicare keeps on paying, so who's at fault? I think the government is at fault, the government doesn't have any control of this."
The man said stealing from Medicare can be a very lucrative endeavor. "If in a year you want $6 million or $8 million you can do it."
One Medicare fraud suspect, who is now a fugitive, used to drive a $200,000 Phantom Rolls Royce. "Everyone should be outraged by it," said Ogrosky, "and should be concerned about their taxpayer dollars going to fund this personal wealth that we're seeing in these people who are a really just thieves."
Federal law enforcement official said they've seen other Medicare criminals also living extravagantly from their ill-gotten gains.
"We've seized luxury homes on waterfront properties. We've seized boats, we've seized bank accounts, jewelry worth thousands of dollars," said Delaney. "They're just killing the Medicare program and living the high-life off of it."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921/page/2/
The Federal government needs to fix their broken Medicare program, before they expand further. I don't think they are capable of doing that with so many levels of incompetence in our government. They have managed to hose up the banking system, now we want them to totally destroy our health care system.
You have to consider that article was written by a UAW leader with an agenda. He would like to dump the blame for the mess in the Auto industry, he and his colleagues have created, onto anyone or any country. The UAW would say anything to deflect from their own part in the collapse. The 4 Horsemen was a very lame attempt, with little or no truth in fact, mostly fiction. Just one example:
In the late 1990s a barrel of oil sold for $10. The Big 3 enjoyed strong sales and consistent profits
GM did not make a decent profit throughout the 1990s when they were selling SUVs and PU trucks as fast as their little fingers could go. Of course it did not help that the UAW decided to strike right in the middle of a chance at making a decent profit. Wagoner is to blame. When the UAW went on strike in 1998 he could have gotten rid of the UAW millstone around his neck for good. He could have just shut down and moved every plant out of the country. It would have cost a few billion, while they still had a few billion in the bank. Now they are so broke they will have to borrow money just to pay the bankruptcy attorneys.
Sorry, a typo - it is 166%
This system, while great for the below median income group, suffers from two major disadvantages (and this is not just my opinion, but a debate going on in Japan) :
1. It encourages inefficiencies. Hospitals have an incentive to keep people in hospitals for as long as possible (to increase occupancy rate - like a hotel...), since they can then charge National insurance for that. When my daughter was born, my wife was ready to go back home after two days (she was in the hospital because a C-section was required), but the Doctor told me "What is the hurry? She can stay here for another five days (the Insurance cover is for a maximum of seven days), so why go home and wash dishes? Here every thing is take care of, ha ha!". You get the point.
2. It is (like the US SS system) a sort of a ponzi scheme, in the sense that the insurance payments are based on the assumption that the population will keep on growing. Now that it is actually declining, the system is in a crisis, and they are starting to reduce the coverage (so the Government is now implementing a "cap" - where costs above a certain amount will require a larger percentage payment by the patient). Obviously for those who are healthier than average, the benefits of this scheme will continue to decline.
There is a third (longer term) disadvantage too - Because this system can encourage the Hospitals and Pharmaceutical companies to gang up and gouge the insurance, Japan mandates a reduction in pricing for prescription drugs (e.g "7% lower this year than last year"). While this may solve the problem of over pricing, this reduces the returns Japanese pharmaceutical companies can get on their investments (since the price will always go down), and thus cannot compete with the likes of Glaxo Smith Kline (who are not mandated to reduce drug prices - and thus can charge whatever the market can bear).
I am not sure which system is better, but just thought that since I live in a socialized system, this perspective might be helpful.