By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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