i work at a auto supplier and we make 15$ a hour so i think the uaw better get their head out of their [non-permissible content removed]...delphi just took a pay cut too...big 3 management has good benefits too, they all need to cut back if they all want to keep their jobs,esp with all the cheap labor in world...hospitals, drugs are overpriced for healthcare
Very well said! I had the exact same thoughts when the Boeing 787 parties were splashed all over the news headlines. Cyclic industry and a mamoth monopoly/oligopoly that can not effectively evaluate the contribution of each individual workers are a deadly combination for anyone who wants to build a stable career. IMHO, workers need to think more in terms what am I being paid now and in the near future (promotion potentials), not in terms of promises that can not be cashed for decades to come. That will open workers' eyes to seek jobs where they get to know the real-decision makers at the company in person, and get evaluated/appreciated accordingly, not some big impersonally granite building facade that pays out in empty promises of "retirement" decades into the future.
The Dreamliner is just glued together by Boeing from parts and assemblages from 900 subcontractors. So most of the plane builders already are working for a little guy it seems. 70% of it was outsourced. (link)
Maybe that idea will trickle down to the auto makers.
I think that it would probably be a good time for automakers to think in those terms for carbuilding. They do have knockdown kits but still a carmaker in, for instance, China, gets a Kia kit of boxes and, employing the knowledge Kia has shared with them, they build the car using the same steps over and over again in similar factory fashion. This is not new thinking for carmakers.
Understand that I'm surmising some of this because carmakers will talk about "kits" being shipped to China or India but this fact or knowledge about these kits is not discussed on the web or car magazines much.
I'm simply thinking that an established carmaker can sell their cars to a company already building other types of cars if that carmaker shipping kits provides them with some blueprints to go by.
I do think that versatility will be very important for carmakers to survive, now and in the future.
It's easy to parlay talk like this in to combining automakers in to one big company, or, say several Japanese companies combining in to one huge carmaking company. It could conceivably move that way but it is not an easy thought for them even to peruse for very long, I'm sure. They've been taught to think so competitively for so very long. Imagine the possibilities, though!
The hammer, has came down already but the nail has only been barely inserted. The arm is raised again for another blow and yes it's notgoing to be pretty.
iluv, working for Boeing is like working for most any large or small private sector corporation heavily dependent on sales of their product. I do not know how you can just blame your union. The simple fact is Boeing, had a big down slump in recent times and laid-off and out sourced. Your union after talking to my new step grandfather who worked for the company as a union worker for 35 years said Boeing, handled the situation like all other large company's to cut cost and that was to cut jobs, push a bigger burden of company provided benefit costs back on to the individual employees, and out-sourced where they saw an oppertunity. The union did every thing within' reason giving the current political situation to getas much for it's membership while retaining jobs for it's aging veteran work force. Another thing also is iluv, a union is only as strong as the membership that belongs to it. Perhap's a jobs bank type program should of been negotiated to help cushion all the ups and down and force management to trim excess fat at the top, instead of always at the bottom. My step grand dad, worked at the Witicha, Kansas plant.
The bottom line is your job in the medical field can't be out sourced, but if some company's of large corporations some of which are in the medical field, can get their way then they will try to hire some guy/gal from India, here on a work visa to work for half as much as you. That is what will happen or should I say they will try to make happen to cut medical costs and or increase profit. I've seen this first hand in Michigan, and Texas.
I read today that GM has 432,000 retirees that they are providing benefits for and only 80,000 active UAW workers. I find those numbers staggering and I don't see how it's possible for a corporation to generate enough income out of 1 worker to take care of 5 retirees. Hopefully the UAW will see the reality of this situation and make some big concessions on how their health care is funded. I'm fairly confident that whatever GM can afford to offer the UAW today will be more than they can afford next year.
The idea is to pay money into a fund while the workers are employed. That money grows from investments over the years and is supposed to appreciate enough to fund those pensions. So the current workers should just be funding their own retirements.
Lots of companies want to follow the Social Security example and try to raid pension funds for current obligations.
So the current workers should just be funding their own retirements.
I'm sure that's the way it's supposed to be and maybe even the way GM intended. However I don't think that GM foresaw double digit annual increases in health care costs when they were funding these pensions 30 years ago. So past workers are being paid for with today's revenue. My understanding is that GM management wants to turn this headache over to the union and let them deal with trying to reign in these costs. That makes sense to me. GM is an auto manufacturer, not a health care provider. I also don't think that GM is trying to get out of any obligation. I believe they would pay the union a lump sum to take on this role. The union doesn't want to do this because it puts them in the position of potentially having to impose sacrifices on their membership should health care costs continue to rise at current rates.
If pension benefits are not funded then GM should be liable for punitive actions. Healthcare is an entirely different problem. The Union should have kept abreast of the rise in healthcare costs and phased out the retirees benefits as many Union operated healthcare plans have done. A retiree is entitled to Medicare that they have paid into. The supplement is not that expensive, about $100 per month. To pay for a full blown healthcare plan for retirees is crazy. Our Union phased retirees out of the lifetime plan in the 1980s. If they had not done this our pension plan would be broke today. If a retiree cannot afford healthcare, they should consider a job that pays healthcare. Does a WalMart greeter get healthcare benefits?
Makes sense to me too - in most of the Ford selling (Volvo/Jag/LR) stories, and many of the Delphi ones, part of the proposals usually include a big lump sum payment from the automaker to fund retiree benefits (pension benefits anyway - health care costs are a big problem, and I bet those benefits are separate from the pension itself).
I haven't kept up with the union contract news of late, but I suppose part of any new contract will include requiring the automakers to make up any missed payments to the pension funds. But the UAW pension plan is overfunded, at least the part connected with Chrysler employees (link).
I read today that GM has 432,000 retirees that they are providing benefits for and only 80,000 active UAW workers. I find those numbers staggering and I don't see how it's possible for a corporation to generate enough income out of 1 worker to take care of 5 retirees. Hopefully the UAW will see the reality of this situation and make some big concessions on how their health care is funded. I'm fairly confident that whatever GM can afford to offer the UAW today will be more than they can afford next year.
You forgot to understand that 4 of those worker's have been replaced by changes in work rules, robots, modern machinery tomake a car. The bottom line is GM, should of over-funded the pension fund way back then to have a surplus today. The UAW, putconstant pressureon GM, to take care of it's pension obligations ever since I could remember but giving multi-million dollar compensation packages to use less executives and buying broken company'swith no futureor vision became a unfortunate priority. :sick:
you would be correct but as I said in my last post I remember my family being very upset at GM, not paying their obligation and all said they see a future problem. I guess when you have Roger "Pol Pot" Smith, running the company into the ground your going to get a "do nothing" administration. Roger, raided any profit GM, had for compensation packages and investing in worth less business deals. :mad:
I'm sure that's the way it's supposed to be and maybe even the way GM intended. However I don't think that GM foresaw double digit annual increases in health care costs when they were funding these pensions 30 years ago. So past workers are being paid for with today's revenue. My understanding is that GM management wants to turn this headache over to the union and let them deal with trying to reign in these costs. That makes sense to me. GM is an auto manufacturer, not a health care provider. I also don't think that GM is trying to get out of any obligation. I believe they would pay the union a lump sum to take on this role. The union doesn't want to do this because it puts them in the position of potentially having to impose sacrifices on their membership should health care costs continue to rise at current rates.
That is why you see such a strong support of unity on national health care from both the company and union.
The bottom line is tpe, the company agreedtothe termsofthe contracts to provide good benefit packages to it's work force which is fair and now they don't want to pay for past administrations mistakes. I as I said before believe the Big 3 along with the UAW, can use it's clout to make sure a democrat get's elected in 2008 and solve this costly issue for all of us.
With the recent rise in the stock market the UAW-GM pension fund is over funded as well according to the Detroit News article I read about 2 or 3 months ago.
The pension fund and health care fund are indeed seperate.
National health care would be nice in principal but I don't see how that would solve the underlying problem of rising costs. In fact when the government starts footing the bill for things costs tend to rise even faster. People often times say that the government should pay for some program or service. I'm not sure what that means. Replace the word government with taxpayer and it starts making more sense. Since we like to run deficits replace taxpayer with future generations of taxpayers then it really starts to make sense.
rockylee: I as I said before believe the Big 3 along with the UAW, can use it's clout to make sure a democrat get's elected in 2008 and solve this costly issue for all of us.
The sentence needs to be rewritten to be accurate. Here is the accurate version:
"The Big Three, along with the UAW, keep hoping that they can use their clout to make sure their favorite candidate gets elected in 2008, so that all taxpayers can be on the hook for costly, unsustainable benefit packages and work rules demanded by the UAW and agreed to by management, both of whom want to pretend it's still 1965."
Or we can make another accurate statement from the other side of the coin:
We the rich and powerful pseudo-libertarian elites will use our great wealth to buy our elections (We had success in 2000 ) thus allowing us with out government intervention because we own them to make even more money by "exploiting" the citizens of the U.S. by reversing human rights and labor laws. Oh let's not forget exploiting the populous of other nations where we can buy off their government officials as well and commit legal slavery and abolish the right to collective bargaining because it's 2007.
as I said before believe the Big 3 along with the UAW, can use it's clout to make sure a democrat get's elected in 2008 and solve this costly issue for all of us.
Rocky, I know you are young. We elected a Democrat in 1992. The Congress was controlled by the Democrats in 1992. The President promptly appointed his wife to put together a National Healthcare program. What happened? NOTHING, the same that will happen again. In fact that same wife would like to try again.
You need to talk to a few Canadians about their National Health care system. Long waits and few services. I don't think the American people are ready to give up what we have for a plan like Canada has.
That's what I hear again and again but I've yet to find anything factual to back up teh claim.
We had my daughter in a Canadian ER a couple of years ago and it was no worse than its American counterpart. Other than the fact that the claim forms looked different you'd never know you were in another country.
I've got Canadian friends who have had both elective and no-elective surgery and they waited no longer than folks I know here in the US.
I also hear claims that Canada doesn't fun research like the US does. That's also not true.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
rockylee: We the rich and powerful pseudo-libertarian elites will use our great wealth...
So people who have exercised their freedom of choice to purchase Hondas, Toyotas and Hyundais instead of Fords and Chevys, have "great wealth"? Wow...I have to tell my friends - all of whom drive Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans, - that they apparently possess great wealth.
Who knew?
rockylee: thus allowing us with out government intervention because we own them to make even more money by "exploiting" the citizens of the U.S. by reversing human rights and labor laws.
I never realized that Honda and Toyota were working to reverse human rights and labor laws, let alone "exploit" Americans. Since when does successfully keeping the UAW at bay constitute reversing our country's labor laws? Does current law require employers to automatically recognize a union as the designated collective bargaining agent for employees just because the union wants that role?
That certainly isn't the way most people interpret our nation's labor laws.
Is giving people a better vehicle for the same money exploiting them? Is employing them at good wages exploiting them? Or does an employer have to give employees UAW-level benefits immediately to avoid the charge of exploitation?
If so, that is definitely a new, and very expansive, definition of the word.
rockylee: Oh let's not forget exploiting the populous of other nations where we can buy off their government officials as well and commit legal slavery and abolish the right to collective bargaining because it's 2007.
I have yet to see any serious proposal at the federal level to abolish the right to collective bargaining.
Also note that the Big Three are in trouble because of vehicles made either here in the USA (at the transplant operations, which don't use slaves, last time I checked), or vehicles imported from Germany, Japan and South Korea, all of which do not allow slavery.
What you are saying fits exactly with what people I know who live in Canada say. Just like the US though there are good and bad hospitals so in some areas services might not be as good as the US.
With all do respect gagrice, Michael Moore's movie "sicko" has a lot of factual statement's about national healthcare. Moore, admit's Canada has a little longer wait time but it's nothing of significance. However manyother National Healthcare country's have a lot shorter wait times.
The bottom line is we have to do something about this major issue. If we do nothing the rising costs will not decrease and before long it will not just be the union auto worker's faced with losing their health care.'
I work on occasion with engineers that are Canadian citizens. As a whole they seem to state that access to health care services is more convenient in this country. As far as quality they don't find much difference. It's all anectdotal and doesn't really prove anything. I do know that the average life expectancy in Canada is a couple years more than the US. I'm pretty sure we're fatter than Canadians, that might have something to do with it.
WOW, you were way off with where I was going with my post. The thought of making it a Union vs Non-union auto worker or aka foreign vs. domestic debate wasn't even in my mind. :confuse:
Talking about fat Americans. I find it amazing that Michael Moore, who seems to know everything, has somehow failed to make the connection between food and obesity.
You are indeed correct. From less than unbiased sources we are constantly bombarded with supposed complaints about socialized medicine being this gigantic deadly evil, but from personal experience and the acquaintances of many people who live in such systems, these complaints are not reality.
If it was so bad, there would be some kind of life expectancy impact or something of that sort. There isn't. I dare say, from my travels, the Canadians and Europeans I have seen and known appear to be healthier than most Americans.
No system is perfect. Socialized policy will have flaws, and the American system certainly has flaws.
This is closer to what my cousins that moved to the USA and became citizens found. They are NOT in favor of Canada style health care.
"Every day we're paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it's just not there," said Pelton.
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
The system is going broke, says the federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in health care.
Fintail, you being a person who has personal experience with both systems I must say your views are shared by many. My relatives in Larvik, Norway said they feel sympathetic for us poor americans with our awful system where profit gets in the way of good care.
Well most of us pay what 30% + in taxes. How much does individuals payout out of pocket on our health insurance plans ????? I'd be willing to bet it's more than the additional 18% tax the Canadians are paying. So yeah may be Michael Moore, knows more than some people give him credit for. Using just the Canadian, plan as a referencepoint is painting a pretty small picture within' the frame. :confuse:
We could fund a pretty good health care system with a $4/gallon gas tax. That would get our prices up to what they pay in Norway, which happens to be a big oil exporter. I'm all for higher gas taxes, which exist in all these other countries with socialized medicine. So let's do it, or would that be regressive? Maybe we could impose high gas taxes only on rich people.
As someone who has traveled to Europe, and has friends in Europe (Great Britain) and relatives there, too (Germany) here is what I've found:
1. It is useless to talk about "European" health care, as every country has its own system, with its own quirks and features.
2. Many people who can afford to do so supplement their nationalized health care coverage with private insurance. They do not want to rely completely on the nationalized system for their health care. And where private insurance is available, physicians prefer to treat patients who have it, because the reimbursement from private insurance companies for services is typically greater than that given by the government program.
3. Virtually every country is grappling with escalating health care costs, just like the in the U.S. They do this by rationing care, especially for older people. The U.S. is more generous in its spending on older people. Our expenditures for end-of-life care are one reason we spend more than other countries on health care. Not because Americans are more virtuous, but because senior citizens in America are one of the most reliable voting blocks.
I have two relatives who are widows of federal government workers, which means that they have insurance through their late husbands. They are 94 and 90 years old. The 94-year-old now needs a walker, and could have her knee replaced - at no cost to her - but doesn't want to, because she doesn't want to go through therapy at her age. The 90-year-old recently had a stroke, and, at no cost to her, had a pacemaker installed and is undergoing intensive therapy. (Both of these women are in othewise sound mind, and have not had any serious health problems prior to these latest incidents.) Having been to Germany and Great Britain, I can assure you that the nationalized plans in those countries would NOT be paying that much for those two women, because of their age. Germany and Great Britain, at least, are more likely to ration "end of life" care than Americans.
4. Citizens in other countries are satisifed with their health care plan because...most of them are relatively healthy. And when they do get sick, it is not with a major, life-threatening illness that requires intensive, expensive treatments. National health care is perfectly good at treating the flu, or a broken limb. The difference comes in with the more serious diseases. The best measurement of a health care system's effectiveness is how long a person lives after being diagnosed with a serious, often-fatal disease. In a comparison of the U.S. and Great Britain, for example, the U.S came out ahead for every disease except diabetes (which may have been affected by the greater incidence of obesity among our population).
American already does have socialized medicine - Medicare and Medicaid - and they cost lots of money.
Every year I watch my boss and his peers grapple with this rapidly escalating cost in the Pennsylvania state budget. It is becoming THE single biggest cost driver in the budget, and Pennsylvania does not cover everyone.
If people think that we can nationalize health care for everyone, and give everybody UAW-level benefits by taxing the "rich" and corporations (who will pass the tax increases on to customers), they are are kidding themselves. Want nationalized health care? Fine. Then prepare to make sacrifices in either what is covered, or the amount of copayments and fees.
"I do know that the average life expectancy in Canada is a couple years more than the US. I'm pretty sure we're fatter than Canadians, that might have something to do with it."
Yeah, you burn a lot of fat just trying to keep warm... :P
Even as one who appreciates where Michael Moore is coming from on the healthcare issue you have to wonder about his own weight...
The biggest case against American style healthcare is that while we spend more per capita than anyone on healthcare we don't lead, or even come close, in areas like life expectancy and infant mortality. There is no reason we shouldn't be leading in those categories.
I would expect there to be secondary insurance if we go to national healthcare. It seems to be all over and besides I don't see where the government should (or could) limit your ability to pay for better care.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I would expect there to be secondary insurance if we go to national healthcare.
Yes I think that would be likely. I also think that over time the gap would grow between the health care that people with this secondary, supplemental coverage received and everybody else. Eventually the government would have to step in and provide secondary coverage to deal with this inequity. At this point the people who could afford it would have to buy some sort of tertiary coverage.
IMO, insurance represents a necessary evil. It's necessary because it protects us from catastrophic losses but its evil because it adds a thick layer of inefficiency and overhead. When you start needing secondary policies that should be a big red flag that something is fundamentally wrong with the system.
Maybe we could impose high gas taxes only on rich people.
Now your taking what I said and spinning it to make me look like I only want to tax the rich, or did I read you wrong ? :surprise:
I'm actually for a flat-tax where everyone is taxed the same percentage and it's across the board for every one. If the IRS, finds out employers are paying illegal alien types straight cash to avoid this flat tax then severe consquences should be imposed on those individuals. Severe as in automatic prison time. I've read study's that we could get by with a 7% tax if everybody paid. I think Pat Buchanan's 17% across the board is more realistic so we can pay-off our debts, fund important R&D projects and take back ownership of our country.
Just a couple beliefs I have that I feel would work if EVERYONE including business paid.
While I usually am against a flat tax preferring a simple 5 or 6 step progressive tax with no deductions, if you could guarantee me something along the lines of a flat tax with absolutely no exceptions at 17% I think I'd sign up for that one.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Lou Dobbs, is one of the brilliant minds of our time. He is serving the public, by getting the facts out to the citizens of this great country with out no agenda from what I can see. Lou Dobbs, use to be a republican but from what I read he isa registered independent who isfed up with both major political party's.
Michael Moore, is a left winger who has a agenda and that is a devout support for the democrat party. I personally think Moore's contributions to the camera give people another side of the story to all the Rush Limbaugh's of the media and talk radio.
I would take Dobbs, more seriousas a know it all than Moore, even though Moore, does a good job at supporting his facts with articles and studies. Moore, is a fact finder but the critics will find other's that disagree with his research. Dobbs, get's challenged onhis "facts" but I'm yet to find any one who has presented enough evidence to show me Dobb's is just blowing smoke.
Hope this help's explain how I see the difference.
yeah they have shaken hands and sat down. Both sides came up with 25 key area's they both wanted to be resolved I read. I doubt we here anything of significance unless one side walks away frusterated.
I agree with Lou Dobbs far more often than Michael Moore. I find Moore's movies to be nothing more than a personal soap box disguised as a documentary to give it credibility. I must admit I only saw one of his movies in entirety, "Bowling at Columbine", but that was enough for me to draw the conclusion that he was an idiot. Let's see, he beat up on Charleston Heston, who already had Alzheimers. He implied that if welfare mothers didn't have to work they would be at home raising a generation of superkids. And finally he concluded that Canada had the same level of gun ownership as the US but did not have nearly our level of homicides. That really left me scratching my head. Didn't he just contradict his whole premise? Anyway he's really fat. If he was concerned about health care costs he should be doing his share by adopting a healthier lifestyle.
I'm with you on the flat tax, even if it was a little more than 17%. It would be a cash cow that would generate all sorts of revenue for social programs if that was your inclination. I don't see it happening. Neither political party is going to give up their power to manipulate the economy and dole out favors.
Sadly, way back in 86 the tax bill that we got, which is as convoluted a piece of gibberish as you'll ever find, started out from a proposal from Bill Bradley for an income tax so simple you could do it on a post card.
I hate to say it, but it looks like we'll be living all our lives with this insane tax code.
As for Michael Moore, you have to understand that the man is there to generate controversy. It's how he makes his living. Some of his points are valid and some are off the wall. He's certainly the sort that tempts you to shoot the messenger!
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The tax bill of 86 is a perfect illustration of how screwed up our system is. In order to get something passed you have to make all sorts of compromises and concessions. I don't think it is possible for a clean piece of legislation to make it through our Congress without becoming convoluted. However the tax code immediately following this "reform" was considerably simpler than what we've got today.
I don't believe that Michael Moore intentionally tries to be controversial or provocative. I think he sees himself as a crusader who has all the answers.
I disagree on Moore. I think underneath it all he knows exactly what he's doing and doesn't care about the image. It essentially allows him to be as outrageous as he wants without any real consequence.
Nice work if you can get it.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
You speak of socialism as if you think we live in real capitalism. I will guess you long for the days of McCarthy. In reality, a mix of both is most beneficial for all (not just the fat plutocrats some think society exists to benefit). Those who decry socialism usually support publicly funded kickbacks and subsidies that benefit crony capitalists. Reverse socialism.
Comments
Maybe that idea will trickle down to the auto makers.
Understand that I'm surmising some of this because carmakers will talk about "kits" being shipped to China or India but this fact or knowledge about these kits is not discussed on the web or car magazines much.
I'm simply thinking that an established carmaker can sell their cars to a company already building other types of cars if that carmaker shipping kits provides them with some blueprints to go by.
I do think that versatility will be very important for carmakers to survive, now and in the future.
It's easy to parlay talk like this in to combining automakers in to one big company, or, say several Japanese companies combining in to one huge carmaking company. It could conceivably move that way but it is not an easy thought for them even to peruse for very long, I'm sure. They've been taught to think so competitively for so very long. Imagine the possibilities, though!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The hammer, has came down already but the nail has only been barely inserted. The arm is raised again for another blow and yes it's notgoing to be pretty.
iluv, working for Boeing is like working for most any large or small private sector corporation heavily dependent on sales of their product. I do not know how you can just blame your union. The simple fact is Boeing, had a big down slump in recent times and laid-off and out sourced. Your union after talking to my new step grandfather who worked for the company as a union worker for 35 years said Boeing, handled the situation like all other large company's to cut cost and that was to cut jobs, push a bigger burden of company provided benefit costs back on to the individual employees, and out-sourced where they saw an oppertunity. The union did every thing within' reason giving the current political situation to getas much for it's membership while retaining jobs for it's aging veteran work force. Another thing also is iluv, a union is only as strong as the membership that belongs to it. Perhap's a jobs bank type program should of been negotiated to help cushion all the ups and down and force management to trim excess fat at the top, instead of always at the bottom. My step grand dad, worked at the Witicha, Kansas plant.
The bottom line is your job in the medical field can't be out sourced, but if some company's of large corporations some of which are in the medical field, can get their way then they will try to hire some guy/gal from India, here on a work visa to work for half as much as you. That is what will happen or should I say they will try to make happen to cut medical costs and or increase profit. I've seen this first hand in Michigan, and Texas.
-Rocky
Lots of companies want to follow the Social Security example and try to raid pension funds for current obligations.
I'm sure that's the way it's supposed to be and maybe even the way GM intended. However I don't think that GM foresaw double digit annual increases in health care costs when they were funding these pensions 30 years ago. So past workers are being paid for with today's revenue. My understanding is that GM management wants to turn this headache over to the union and let them deal with trying to reign in these costs. That makes sense to me. GM is an auto manufacturer, not a health care provider. I also don't think that GM is trying to get out of any obligation. I believe they would pay the union a lump sum to take on this role. The union doesn't want to do this because it puts them in the position of potentially having to impose sacrifices on their membership should health care costs continue to rise at current rates.
I haven't kept up with the union contract news of late, but I suppose part of any new contract will include requiring the automakers to make up any missed payments to the pension funds. But the UAW pension plan is overfunded, at least the part connected with Chrysler employees (link).
You forgot to understand that 4 of those worker's have been replaced by changes in work rules, robots, modern machinery tomake a car. The bottom line is GM, should of over-funded the pension fund way back then to have a surplus today. The UAW, putconstant pressureon GM, to take care of it's pension obligations ever since I could remember but giving multi-million dollar compensation packages to use less executives and buying broken company'swith no futureor vision became a unfortunate priority. :sick:
-Rocky
you would be correct but as I said in my last post I remember my family being very upset at GM, not paying their obligation and all said they see a future problem. I guess when you have Roger "Pol Pot" Smith, running the company into the ground your going to get a "do nothing" administration. Roger, raided any profit GM, had for compensation packages and investing in worth less business deals. :mad:
-Rocky
That is why you see such a strong support of unity on national health care from both the company and union.
The bottom line is tpe, the company agreedtothe termsofthe contracts to provide good benefit packages to it's work force which is fair and now they don't want to pay for past administrations mistakes. I as I said before believe the Big 3 along with the UAW, can use it's clout to make sure a democrat get's elected in 2008 and solve this costly issue for all of us.
-Rocky
-Rocky
The pension fund and health care fund are indeed seperate.
-Rocky
The sentence needs to be rewritten to be accurate. Here is the accurate version:
"The Big Three, along with the UAW, keep hoping that they can use their clout to make sure their favorite candidate gets elected in 2008, so that all taxpayers can be on the hook for costly, unsustainable benefit packages and work rules demanded by the UAW and agreed to by management, both of whom want to pretend it's still 1965."
There, now it's accurate.
We the rich and powerful pseudo-libertarian elites will use our great wealth to buy our elections
(We had success in 2000
-Rocky
Rocky, I know you are young. We elected a Democrat in 1992. The Congress was controlled by the Democrats in 1992. The President promptly appointed his wife to put together a National Healthcare program. What happened? NOTHING, the same that will happen again. In fact that same wife would like to try again.
You need to talk to a few Canadians about their National Health care system. Long waits and few services. I don't think the American people are ready to give up what we have for a plan like Canada has.
We had my daughter in a Canadian ER a couple of years ago and it was no worse than its American counterpart. Other than the fact that the claim forms looked different you'd never know you were in another country.
I've got Canadian friends who have had both elective and no-elective surgery and they waited no longer than folks I know here in the US.
I also hear claims that Canada doesn't fun research like the US does. That's also not true.
So people who have exercised their freedom of choice to purchase Hondas, Toyotas and Hyundais instead of Fords and Chevys, have "great wealth"? Wow...I have to tell my friends - all of whom drive Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans, - that they apparently possess great wealth.
Who knew?
rockylee: thus allowing us with out government intervention because we own them to make even more money by "exploiting" the citizens of the U.S. by reversing human rights and labor laws.
I never realized that Honda and Toyota were working to reverse human rights and labor laws, let alone "exploit" Americans. Since when does successfully keeping the UAW at bay constitute reversing our country's labor laws? Does current law require employers to automatically recognize a union as the designated collective bargaining agent for employees just because the union wants that role?
That certainly isn't the way most people interpret our nation's labor laws.
Is giving people a better vehicle for the same money exploiting them? Is employing them at good wages exploiting them? Or does an employer have to give employees UAW-level benefits immediately to avoid the charge of exploitation?
If so, that is definitely a new, and very expansive, definition of the word.
rockylee: Oh let's not forget exploiting the populous of other nations where we can buy off their government officials as well and commit legal slavery and abolish the right to collective bargaining because it's 2007.
I have yet to see any serious proposal at the federal level to abolish the right to collective bargaining.
Also note that the Big Three are in trouble because of vehicles made either here in the USA (at the transplant operations, which don't use slaves, last time I checked), or vehicles imported from Germany, Japan and South Korea, all of which do not allow slavery.
With all do respect gagrice, Michael Moore's movie "sicko" has a lot of factual statement's about national healthcare. Moore, admit's Canada has a little longer wait time but it's nothing of significance. However manyother National Healthcare country's have a lot shorter wait times.
The bottom line is we have to do something about this major issue. If we do nothing the rising costs will not decrease and before long it will not just be the union auto worker's faced with losing their health care.'
-Rocky
-Rocky
If it was so bad, there would be some kind of life expectancy impact or something of that sort. There isn't. I dare say, from my travels, the Canadians and Europeans I have seen and known appear to be healthier than most Americans.
No system is perfect. Socialized policy will have flaws, and the American system certainly has flaws.
"Every day we're paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it's just not there," said Pelton.
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
The system is going broke, says the federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in health care.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705
-Rocky
-Rocky
(yeah, a little topic drift did occur there, didn't it?)
1. It is useless to talk about "European" health care, as every country has its own system, with its own quirks and features.
2. Many people who can afford to do so supplement their nationalized health care coverage with private insurance. They do not want to rely completely on the nationalized system for their health care. And where private insurance is available, physicians prefer to treat patients who have it, because the reimbursement from private insurance companies for services is typically greater than that given by the government program.
3. Virtually every country is grappling with escalating health care costs, just like the in the U.S. They do this by rationing care, especially for older people. The U.S. is more generous in its spending on older people. Our expenditures for end-of-life care are one reason we spend more than other countries on health care. Not because Americans are more virtuous, but because senior citizens in America are one of the most reliable voting blocks.
I have two relatives who are widows of federal government workers, which means that they have insurance through their late husbands. They are 94 and 90 years old. The 94-year-old now needs a walker, and could have her knee replaced - at no cost to her - but doesn't want to, because she doesn't want to go through therapy at her age. The 90-year-old recently had a stroke, and, at no cost to her, had a pacemaker installed and is undergoing intensive therapy. (Both of these women are in othewise sound mind, and have not had any serious health problems prior to these latest incidents.) Having been to Germany and Great Britain, I can assure you that the nationalized plans in those countries would NOT be paying that much for those two women, because of their age. Germany and Great Britain, at least, are more likely to ration "end of life" care than Americans.
4. Citizens in other countries are satisifed with their health care plan because...most of them are relatively healthy. And when they do get sick, it is not with a major, life-threatening illness that requires intensive, expensive treatments. National health care is perfectly good at treating the flu, or a broken limb. The difference comes in with the more serious diseases. The best measurement of a health care system's effectiveness is how long a person lives after being diagnosed with a serious, often-fatal disease. In a comparison of the U.S. and Great Britain, for example, the U.S came out ahead for every disease except diabetes (which may have been affected by the greater incidence of obesity among our population).
American already does have socialized medicine - Medicare and Medicaid - and they cost lots of money.
Every year I watch my boss and his peers grapple with this rapidly escalating cost in the Pennsylvania state budget. It is becoming THE single biggest cost driver in the budget, and Pennsylvania does not cover everyone.
If people think that we can nationalize health care for everyone, and give everybody UAW-level benefits by taxing the "rich" and corporations (who will pass the tax increases on to customers), they are are kidding themselves. Want nationalized health care? Fine. Then prepare to make sacrifices in either what is covered, or the amount of copayments and fees.
Yeah, you burn a lot of fat just trying to keep warm... :P
Even as one who appreciates where Michael Moore is coming from on the healthcare issue you have to wonder about his own weight...
The biggest case against American style healthcare is that while we spend more per capita than anyone on healthcare we don't lead, or even come close, in areas like life expectancy and infant mortality. There is no reason we shouldn't be leading in those categories.
I would expect there to be secondary insurance if we go to national healthcare. It seems to be all over and besides I don't see where the government should (or could) limit your ability to pay for better care.
Yes I think that would be likely. I also think that over time the gap would grow between the health care that people with this secondary, supplemental coverage received and everybody else. Eventually the government would have to step in and provide secondary coverage to deal with this inequity. At this point the people who could afford it would have to buy some sort of tertiary coverage.
IMO, insurance represents a necessary evil. It's necessary because it protects us from catastrophic losses but its evil because it adds a thick layer of inefficiency and overhead. When you start needing secondary policies that should be a big red flag that something is fundamentally wrong with the system.
Now your taking what I said and spinning it to make me look like I only want to tax the rich, or did I read you wrong ? :surprise:
I'm actually for a flat-tax where everyone is taxed the same percentage and it's across the board for every one. If the IRS, finds out employers are paying illegal alien types straight cash to avoid this flat tax then severe consquences should be imposed on those individuals. Severe as in automatic prison time. I've read study's that we could get by with a 7% tax if everybody paid. I think Pat Buchanan's 17% across the board is more realistic so we can pay-off our debts, fund important R&D projects and take back ownership of our country.
Just a couple beliefs I have that I feel would work if EVERYONE including business paid.
-Rocky
Michael Moore, is a left winger who has a agenda and that is a devout support for the democrat party. I personally think Moore's contributions to the camera give people another side of the story to all the Rush Limbaugh's of the media and talk radio.
I would take Dobbs, more seriousas a know it all than Moore, even though Moore, does a good job at supporting his facts with articles and studies. Moore, is a fact finder but the critics will find other's that disagree with his research. Dobbs, get's challenged onhis "facts" but I'm yet to find any one who has presented enough evidence to show me Dobb's is just blowing smoke.
Hope this help's explain how I see the difference.
-Rocky
yeah they have shaken hands and sat down. Both sides came up with 25 key area's they both wanted to be resolved I read. I doubt we here anything of significance unless one side walks away frusterated.
-Rocky
I hate to say it, but it looks like we'll be living all our lives with this insane tax code.
As for Michael Moore, you have to understand that the man is there to generate controversy. It's how he makes his living. Some of his points are valid and some are off the wall. He's certainly the sort that tempts you to shoot the messenger!
I don't believe that Michael Moore intentionally tries to be controversial or provocative. I think he sees himself as a crusader who has all the answers.
-Rocky
Nice work if you can get it.
Thank you Rocky. Anyone else like to address the topic of discussion? :shades:
Maybe we need a fat tax... dang, now y'all have me doing it.
We do have an Off Topic Chatter discussion btw.
When you can't afford health care for you and yours, you buy health insurance. The idea of national health is pure Socialism.
If you liked the way the national government handled the Speaker TB scare a few weeks ago, you will love Socialized Health Care. :P