"Some union officials and industry analysts take the silence to mean that Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. are making progress in talks that could be critical to the survival of the domestic auto industry.
Historically, both sides have aired grievances publicly when things weren't going well, said Aaron Bragman, an auto industry analyst with the consulting firm Global Insight."
As an independant contractor, you are withholding your services from the ins. co. when your contract runs up, just as union employees withhold their services from their employer when their contract runs out.
Historically, both sides have aired grievances publicly when things weren't going well,
I don't think that airing your dirty laundry in public serves either side well, unless there is nothing to lose, so I would concur. Let's keep our fingers crossed for a settlement that works for both sides.
We had that here in NJ back four years ago. Every doctor I knew of closed their doors for three days. The ones in the hospitals worked but that led to packed ERs for the duration. All this because they didn't like their malpractice premiums.
I had the great fortune to end up in the ER the night before the strike. You never saw so many people! Lucky (?) for me they did triage and moved me right to the front of the line. I was in the hospital for the whole strike so at least I had health care.
Watching the TV you could see doctors rallying and screaming about how they couldn't make it with these high premiums. They naturally turned the cameras on the parking lot full of Jaguars, high end BMWs, etc with MD plates.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
It's not just car insurance and house insurance companies that will try everybody's patience and underinsure covered people and overcharge covered people, is it? No, these are legitimate complaints from doctors who can't afford to practice with the overly-high malpractice premiums.
Don't tell me insurance companies have to "turn a huge profit" too and have to answer to their uptight shareholders?
Here we go again with the Boeing problem...sales stall and if profits aren't enough to satisfy greedy shareholders then...you know...cut their throats. Insurance companies have to hold to these same high standards, don't they?
Don't they? Aren't they admirable individuals as well as admirable companies? Let's sing them a song while we're feeling so good about insurance companies! :sick:
Don't tell me insurance companies have to "turn a huge profit" too and have to answer to their uptight shareholders?
sure they do. in fact, I'd be willing to bet the government requires them to. not make huge profits exactly, but they have to maintain certain reserves. that way, like in the case of Katrina, the insurance companies don't become insolvent and incapable of paying damages. Its impossible to gouge people in a competitive market, unless you fortunate enough to find stupid customers. there are dozens, if not hundreds of insurers to choose from and rate shop. But it does require a little effort on your part. The only way insurance companies could artificially raise the cost of insurance would be to conspire together to do so, thereby eliminating competition. The government, and state regulators watch for that though, making it highly unlikely.
The best example is auto insurance. If you just pick a company in the yellow pages, and stick with them forever....... your going to get ripped off. But, if you shop around, and do so every year, you'll significantly reduce your cost.
But anyway, whats wrong with profit? Why do you think companies exist? To provide jobs for people? To give bennifits? No, they exist to make money. Its as simple as that. In order to make money, they have to offer a service or product. In order to do that, they have to have people. In order to recruit people (especially in the era of sub 5% unemployment) they have to offer a pay and bennifits package necessary to acquire the type of people they need. There is no need for a union.
but, and it's a big butt, why do companies like !@##$%#@ have to reneg on their agreement to insure people through catastrophe's like Hurricane Katrina?
Surely you've heard of a certain insurance company who pulled the "I gotta go" thing when Katrina survivors wanted to be reimbursed for their losses after Katrina in NO?
I honestly never read the details but if that isn't an example of a need for house insurance to kick in to help you I don't know what is. And then to have your good-old insurance company leave you high and...umm...wet, well, that's not cool. It seems there's constant stories like this. I know, it's all in the fine print.
These Katrina survivors left high and dry by !@#$%^&* insurance company should have hired a lawyer so that they could've purchased more and different types of house insurance before the Big One occurred. Maybe those left high and wet failed to get just the right kind of mega-amount of flood insurance or something. Don't know...didn't read the article.
While insurance companies, drug companies, oil companies, you name the friendly Megola empire, continue to get richer and richer people like Katrina survivors just get flushed out with the baby bathwater.
All in the name of "preserving" profit for the good guys.
Not buying that brand of insurance.
That jumps from "stealthy" investment strategies to cruel humanity shrugging. I'll keep my brand of house insurance, thank you very much.
It's certainly true that no one ever went broke investing in an insurance company.
On my earlier point with the doctors I should have mentioned that their target wasn't the insurance companies (where it should have been) - it was the state. They wanted the state to limit damages that a patient could collect if they screwed up. To me this is barking up the wrong tree.
Any time I hear tort reform I check my wallet. It is invariably the large corporations or wealthy individuals who wish to make sure that if they are negligent that they won't have to pay much.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I find it kind of suspicious that the folks voting against Tort reform bills in the states and Congress are all Attorneys. I don't see a problem with limits. Starting with limits on the percentage the attorney gets of any award. You would not see the frivolous lawsuits if there was not a BIG reward for the attorney. John Edwards did not become a millionaire attorney because his clients got a big portion of the settlements he won. I think it is the lawsuit horse that is causing the insurance cart to be overloaded.
You know the sad part is most people that are harmed and seek justice only get the crumbs left by the attorneys. We all pay for higher insurance premiums charged to the doctors. It is the very reason we are having this conversation about the UAW. You can get health care in many foreign countries for a fraction of the cost charged here in the USA. I would like to see just how much of our health care dollar ends up in the pockets of attorneys. More than it should, I'd say.
**.. You can get health care in many foreign countries for a fraction of the cost charged here in the USA ..**
That only counts for face fixers and breast balloons ... the difference is, you don't get the type of quality when it comes to the "real important" stuff in other countries.
You make a very good point as far as the crazy lawsuits, they should be limited because they cost "us" ... they also need to cut the attorneys percentages, this will "trim" the herd, so to speak.
You also need to keep another very serious point in mind - the cost of illegals ... they're using our hospitals as their Primary care facility, in another 4/5 years health care will go up another 25/30% at this pace - and in 7/8 years, it will double and it will be out of control ... attorneys we can reign in, the illegal situation should have started a long time ago.
I don't have a problem with capping the attorney's take. My problem is with the ones that want to cap an award amount at either a hard number or limit pain and suffering to no more than a fixed percentage of actual damages.
To me if a doctor operates on me and leaves the scissors in me causing me no end of pain and a second operation he owes me more than the cost of the second operation.
So far I've been fortunate enough to not be operated on (knocking on particleboard).
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
One idea I've seen floating around is to have the option of having your tort claim adjudicated by a special tribunal; sort of like worker's comp works in many places. The gross amount of the award will likely be less, but the victim will likely leave with more dough.
What this all has to do with the UAW is beyond me though. :confuse:
Hey Terry, didn't know you were back. Good to see ya!
but, and it's a big butt, why do companies like !##$%# have to reneg on their agreement to insure people through catastrophe's like Hurricane Katrina?
insurance companies don't offer insurance in flood zones. for the more inland areas that were damaged, they payed out billions. And there lies a large part of the problem. more and more people are crowding into places that very prone to natural disaters and flooding. the entire east coast and gulf coast are the best examples, but it also occurs along large rivers like the missippi. people move to these areas knowing full well they can't purchase flood insurance, but do so anyway figuring someone will bail them out if something happens. and if not, will just blame and scapegoat those evil insurance companies. And far to many people are happy to jump in that wagon.
Health care has everything to do with the UAW and the automakers. It is a much bigger cost than retirement or pay for non workers. When I retired the company was paying over $7 per hour for our medical benefit. It was a poor plan compared to the plan we started out with in 1971. We went from 100% medical, dental & eyecare to 70% medical, 50% dental and $200 every two years on eyecare.
My feeling is we have people like John Edwards to thank for this high cost of medical insurance. Unless someone comes up with some other good reason I will continue to believe that.
I do realize we have every medical gadget known to mankind ready to check us out. The good old family doctor still seems to have a better batting average.
You can get health care in many foreign countries for a fraction of the cost charged here in the USA.
Yes and no. you do realize, that in those parts of the world with "free" healthcare they pay about 50% payroll taxes, and usually 15-20% sales taxes on everything they buy don't you? that's what causes the 10-15% unemployment that many european nations enjoy. but that wonderful "free" healthcare is only for the plebes. the wealthier people, and of course members of the government, participate in private programs like here in the states.
The other big problem with the so called "free" healthcare is the problem that whenever you give something away for "free", no matter what it is, people will form lines waiting for it. the massive surge in demand that the concept of "free" healthcare creates cause the state to control how much doctors and staff get paid, how many of them there will be, priorities for treatment, and waiting lists of up to months for non life threatening ailments. You might also be interested to know that many foreigners come to the US for the latest and most difficult procedures; and several countries (such as england) are trying to get away from managed state run care.
But if you want the best example of how much of a failure state run healthcare is, look no farther than medicare. Its bankrupt, most of the participants are unhappy with it, doctors don't like it and limit the number of medicare patients they will see (because of government fee caps, and refusal to cover certain thing), and the government refuses to do anything about it other than continue to cut back doctor payments.
Yes, lets implement a system like that for everybody.
Oh, the tort tax argument. Haven't heard that one for a while. I think it's a crock, and doubt that malpractice premiums for docs would go down any if we get more tort "reform."
Instead of the wrongdoers paying the victims, the union (or the taxpayer) will get stuck with more of the tab if the victim goes broke because the surgeon operated on the wrong side of the brain.
tort reform would help some, but the biggest problems with health care are:
1. we as americans are over-insured. medical insurance should be more of a catastrophic thing. too many people run off to the doctor simply because they have a cough because they know the insurance will pick up the bill. Minor treatments should be paid out of pocket. the insurance should be reserved for more serious things 2. To many people can voluntarily opt out, at the insured's expense. health insurance should be mandatory. heck, you cant drive without auto insurance, you should likewise be made to get health insurance. this would have two bennifits. with everybody paying, the price of health care would drasticly come down as the 60% with insurance wound no longer be subsidising the 40% (if you believe those numbers) without. and secondly, with everybody paying, competition between insurance companies for all the new paying customers would also pull prices down. the money now being spent by the government on the poor would easily cover the cost of subsidising policies for them, as opposed to just paying their doctor bills.
When I said foreign countries I was not referring to Canada or any of the EU countries. Canada has a horrible system that costs the people way more than it is worth. I was thinking about Costa Rica. There for under $25 per month you get decent health care. Not quite up to US standards. But caring physicians and nurses. You can also get some pretty sophisticated procedures in Thailand and India for pennies on the dollar to what it costs here. In the USA I think Kaiser is the best run health care provider. Sadly they are only available in a few states.
Whatever laws we have that require a hospital to provide service without payment needs to be repealed. That would stop our providing prenatal and emergency care for illegals instantly. If they die in the parking lot who is to blame? Not the US citizen that pays taxes and has health care. If we all decided to stop paying our $500 to $1000 premium every month who would pay for our care if we went to emergency? That's right no one as hospitals would all be boarded up and closed.
many times, thats only in the wealthier parts of the countries. but also, those are very very poor countries where the people simply couldn't pay anymore, and what they do pay still makes doctors very highly paid
but your right about the illegals. in states like california they are litteraly destroying the system. I read somewhere that in 2007 about 10 hospitals in cali were forced to close for just that reason. But I don't know that allowing them to refuse service is the answer. I don't think the idea of letting people die at the doors of a hospital is a good idea.
I have to disagree. The guy in Florida that got the wrong leg cut off was in bad shape when he went in. So you have to decide how much he would have made with the correct leg cut off for the rest of his life. I imagine the insurance would have paid a decent sum to settle that. You throw in some sleazy ambulance chaser and they ask for enough to support a small town for the next hundred years. It is crazy is my position. Give the guy enough to live comfortable and fine the doctor for negligence. Maybe take his license if it is gross negligence. Nobody is perfect and we sue for every imperfection in this country.
I hate to sound like I do not care for people. It is our system that is screwed up. If I take my wife or child into emergency, I have to sign a dozen papers before they are admitted. If they are helping some illegal that was shot bringing drugs into the country and cannot take care of my wife. I am going to be upset. We have lost all sense of what is and is not important.
Now back to tort reform. The hospital says we cannot take you because you have no insurance with us. The guy loses his arm due to being shot. He gets a high powered attorney and sues the hospital. Our screwed up courts award a big amount which the sleazy attorney gets 70%+. The illegal drug runner goes back to Mexico and buys a bigger plot of land to grow more Pot and we paid for all of it.
Until we get a handle on health care the UAW will be fighting an uphill battle with the automakers.
Until we get a handle on health care the UAW will be fighting an uphill battle with the automakers
and why is that? toyota, nissan and honda all provide HC to their US employes. and north america is very profitable for them. The unions are a bussiness. They will never willingly go. There's really no way out for them. If the union strikes, they can effectively shut down the big 3. because of state laws in the notheast/rust belt, those striking workers cann't be replaced, and workers can be jailed for crossing picket lines. It's much different than a right to work state where the employe can be fired or replacled, or some can just continue to work. In the end, the big three's only real option is to continue moving plants and opperations out of the country. they really have no choice. The unions arn't going to budge much, and they have a lot of political power and influecen in that part of the country.
The only other option would be to let things get so bad that they could file for bankruptcy, and through the courts, bypass the unions entirely. It's what the airline's did.
>toyota, nissan and honda all provide HC to their US employes
The union factor is a bug in the bonnet here because the unionized companies have a lot of older employees. Those have hgher healthcare costs. The newer transplants who built here to avoid tariffs by building part of their product here have younger employees. Those have lower healthcare costs. Those same plants can prune the older or less healthy workers because those same plants, in general, have no unions to stop discriminatory firings and are in Right-to-Work states who almost encourage it.
insurance policies cost the same regardless of age, unless the person is very old. the bigger factor is the retirement. the UAW forces the big three to provide a full funded retirement plan, the foreign companies typically offer a 401 type plan where the employee has to contribute also. the only detrimental effect of the uaw gained health care is that the big three have to continue to provide it after the employee has retired. a non union company typically will force you to rely on medicare. But, thats not whats killing the big three. The fact remains that the unions have too much control over the big three. they set pay, not market forces. They have inflated wages (and to a lesser extent beniffits) well above what the jobs are worth. The bottom line is, repetitive, assembly line jobs that require very little skill simply aren't worth $70 per hour with bennifits. The big three can't competitively make a product at those rates. Not to mention, the union often gets a say over operations. They (for the job security of their employees) sit down with the big three to decide things like plant closing and such. that kind of arrangement simply won't work in a competitive environment.
And thats not to say the asian plants are sweat shops. the highly skilled positions make over $40 per hour, and the average is probably $20. very good money for the states they operate in. And that $20 per hour is not just an arbitrary number. It's the amount it takes to get the right people in the door.
and no, they can't prune the employees. even in right to work states, employees can't be discrimanted against. the biggest difference with the right to work staes is the union has less power. its harder for them to organize, and they can't really enforce strikes. if the company goes on strike, they employees can still go to work if they want. in non right to work states, they can be jailed for it. On top of that, a striking worker can be replaced in a right to work state, as where in non RTW states, the company can't do that, or hire temps, or scabbs or anything else. they best they can do is bring in management from other locations to get the work done
I must say this: I live in the SE Arizona desert and I live in a 100-year flood plain. I had to purchase flood insurance in order to get the loan for my wife and I's house. Had to. It was not expensive. Will it flood here? Shoosh...there are huge puddles that pool up when the monsoons run through in July, August and September. But actual flooding and devastation and loss of housing? Could but I really doubt it would happen. And we had to purchase flood insurance.
Question: why were not those people living in NO proper in obvious flood zones required by law to get flood insurance. If insurance companies won't pay out for floods, why am I required to buy it in order to get my loan. Required by law. I am not complaining, but, if my house were destroyed by flood I'd want sound reimbursement to repair my house.
Somethings rotten in NO. And I would love to hear the easy to understand explanation for those people in NO so readily reamed as they were. To me, it's just to edumacate myself further. To Bubba the sheriff who lost his house in the NO Katrina disaster it's a lot more of a personal aggravating thing.
Ya know, disassembling the UAW and their throngs sounds like it is just what the Big 3(hey, we can say the Big Three once again, whoo-hoo!!)need to do to restore some sanity and fluidity to their R & D departments. And their general accounts receivable/accounts payable department. Their hands are tied by the greed of the UAW and their members. Eh? Bankruptcy and then start over afresh.
I work at a hospital about 75 miles north of the USA-Mexico border in SE Arizona. Some of our "business" is illegals that have the U.S. taxpayers foot their bills for births and emergency care. A Bisbee, AZ, hospital is close to closing down because of this practice and having trouble collecting on Medicare and state-sponsored claims. This medical insurance coverage issue needs to be tackled. What's Hillary claiming to want to do about this after attempting in 1993? No real details to report on after debates. It's a huge item to solve but it needs solving. Forcing everyone to have medical insurance is an interesting angle to take on it. Need more info.
It's reminding me of that Dylan song "Everything is Broken." :sick: Funny, this silly picture has a red cross for medical care hanging outside the driver's side door.
A lot of armchair experts say the unions have killed the golden goose by making excessive wage demands. So I was wondering, how much does the adverage UAW worker make per hour? How much additional is the benefit package worth?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
and how is your Eclipse hunt going? Has Mrs.Oldfarmer agreed to getting a Red Eclipse instead of the Sunburst Orange? All these questions are needing answers.
No, good question. Where's rockford when we need him? He's a union-proponent if Edmunds ever saw one. Who knows? Probably depends on the job but just what is the latest astronomical GM, Ford and Chrysler UAW worker's wages these days?
Question: why were not those people living in NO proper in obvious flood zones required by law to get flood insurance.
thats a good question. but in NO, I doubt insurance companies will sell flood insurance. You probably have to go through the Feds to get it. But NO is a perfect example of what I was talking about. we're going to spend the equivalent of about 200k per person to rebuild it. To rebuild a city that does not sit on solid ground, is prone to hurricanes, Is actually sinking at a rate of 1 inch per year, and will one day (no matter what we do) be lost.
Does that really make much sense? And can you really blame an insurance company for not wanting to insure people who are guaranteed to suffer catastrophic loss at some time?
imidazol97: They are on strike against that insurance company.
The insurance company is not their employer, so they cannot "strike" against it.
And the physicians are still seeing patients - even the patients covered by that particular insurance company. They just will not accept the payment offered by the insurance company. If the patient either pays the difference between the insurance company payment and the billed amount, or pays the entire amount, the physician will still treat him or her.
In our case they were on strike against their patients. They simply closed their doors. They sought relief from malpractice insurance premiums but were not out after the insurance companies. They wanted legislative relief from the state. A pox on them!
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
You'll have to ask me that on the other forum...the hosts may be listening.
I ask the wage question because I too am a union man. I belong to a civil service (gov't) union that as part of New York state law is not allowed to strike. I was wondering how the ability to strike effects union wages in the private sector.
BTW, last year on the farm I worked an average of 50 hours/week for 10 months and after taxes cleared $3000. I get no medical insurance, no vacation, no retirement no sick pay and no disability. Where do I go to join a union so I can go out on strike against myself? :confuse:
Being both a business person who has to watch the bottom line and a union member for my second job gives me an interesting perspective.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
**.. Question: why were not those people living in NO proper in obvious flood zones required by law to get flood insurance. If insurance companies won't pay out for floods, why am I required to buy it in order to get my loan. Required by law ..**
Like you, they were only required to have flood insurance if there was a lein or a mortgage holder involved.
You also have to keep in mind, most of the residents (71%) in NO were renters, not owners .. and the rental property owners, only needed to get flood insurance if there was a mortgage lender involved in their "primary residence" ..... and the rest, just canceled it because they never thought they would need it.
---- it's called cutting your nose off to spite your face.
steve_: Oh, the tort tax argument. Haven't heard that one for a while. I think it's a crock, and doubt that malpractice premiums for docs would go down any if we get more tort "reform."
In Pennsylvania the Supreme Court enacted new rules that were designed to eliminate the tactics used by plaintiff's attorneys to ensure a favorable verdict.
For example, attorneys would file the case in Philadelphia County, even if the alleged injured happened in suburban Philadelphia, because Philadelphia juries are far more likely to award damages in even the shakiest of cases. (The attorneys would obtain the change of venue by noting that the defendant had facilities in both suburban Philadelphia and Philadelphia County.)
The Supreme Court required the plaintiff to file the case in the county where the injury allegedly occurred, which has cut down on the number of cases filed. And, from what I've heard, insurance companies have reduced their premiums in response.
Forum shopping is a bit like setting up a speed trap (to grope for an auto analogy) - follow the money. The corporations get similarly criticized for flipping state cases to the federal courts, where it can be more expensive for an individual to get heard. All it ultimately does is shift some of the loss from the business to the individual, and if he can't pay (for medical care or has to go on unemployment), then to the taxpayer.
Now, groping for a way to tie this to the topic ... er, the UAW has prepaid legal plans don't they? Doesn't that encourage filing of frivolous lawsuits? Bit of a stretch.... we do have an Off Topic Chatter board now for solving these issues that veer off automotive stuff. :shades:
Steve, your original point was that tort reform is basically a red herring that would not result in lower insurance premiums. The experience of Pennsylvania in limiting venue shopping, and the resulting lower insurance premiums, tends to prove that incorrect.
I'm sure that both sides engage in venue shopping. But under the new Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules, a defendant hospital or doctor can't get the case transferred OUT of Philadelphia County because there is an office in suburban Philadelphia. It works both ways.
I read discussions so frequently my page view is usually just a couple of posts. That usually works good for my short attention span, but I forget what we were focusing on yesterday sometimes. I notice you haven't posted a link comparing rates before and after btw. [edit - yikes! the tort links are worse than the GW ones; don't bother, it could take hours digging through that mess]. :shades:
Anyone up for a Tort Reform and the Auto Industry discussion? If so, please suggest a catchier title.
steve: notice you haven't posted a link comparing rates before and after btw.
The Pennsylvania Insurance Department notes that payouts by the MCARE Fund (the state-run insurance fund that serves as the primary malpractice insurer for all licensed health care providers within the state) paid $233 million in claims for 2005, down more than 27 percent from $320 million in 2004. This continued a decrease from $379 million in 2003.
Not only are payouts declining, but so are the number of lawsuits filed: from 2,000 filed in 1999, the number has declined to 373 cases in 2005.
The amount that physicians pay into MCARE (which are basically the same as insurance premiums) dropped by 25 percent in 2006.
Pennsylvania's second largest commercial carrier of malpractice insurance, Medical Protective, is expecting its average base premium rate to be flat, or increase at most by single digits, for July 2006, after four years of double-digit increases. The company has seen a flattening of loss payout increases, and a decrease in frequency of claims over the past 18 months.
Bottom line - I wouldn't discount tort reform entirely, as tort reform, if done properly, encompasses much more than mere caps on damages or awards. If anything, focusing exclusively on damage or award caps is a waste of time, much like saying that cutting UAW worker wages will solve the Big Three's cost disadvantage with the transplant operations. The problem goes MUCH deeper than that.
A minor quibble but it sounds like MCARE is secondary to the MD's first $500k of coverage, and if claims are capped, that would help explain why premiums would go down against that pool of money. Companies also seem more assertive (smarter) in educating their insureds about best practices to lessen claims (and maybe they are turning away more docs, and docs can't get licensed in PA without the insurance).
Over in the union world, Chrysler LLC is telling the UAW that Mopar may be on the block or ripe for closing. Those quiet negotiations may start to get a bit louder now.
It's not just MCARE. Please note that PMSLIC filed for an overall 11 percent rate reduction for 2008. If this filing is approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance, the rates will be effective January 1, 2008.
The filing decision was reached by the company board of directors following a thorough review of the company's loss experience.
Sounds as though SOMETHING is working, and it appears that the something is the rule changes approved by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that make it harder to file frivolous cases (although these rule changes do not cap either awards or damages - but, as I said, the tort reform is much more comprehensive than mere award or damages caps).
Steve: Companies also seem more assertive (smarter) in educating their insureds about best practices to lessen claims (and maybe they are turning away more docs, and docs can't get licensed in PA without the insurance).
Some companies are starting to write policies in Pennsylvania again, after leaving the state a few years ago.
Labor Day State of the Unions In 1983, the first year for which the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics filed comparable union data, 20.1 percent of employed wage and salary workers were union members. In 1950, that number was estimated at 35 percent. According to the most recent data from the BLS, fewer than 12 percent of employed wage and salary workers are union members, down from 12.5 percent in 2005.
Government-worker (oxymoron?) unions are, of course, the fastest growing, because there is little fiscal accountability in government. Per capita, government unionization is five times that of the private sector, because the government is not subject to free-market accountability. Worse yet, the highest rate of government unionization is among those in education, training and library occupations. These are the folks entrusted to educate the next generation of voters.
Today, some 15.4 million Americans belong to labor unions—and many would rather not.
Comments
Historically, both sides have aired grievances publicly when things weren't going well, said Aaron Bragman, an auto industry analyst with the consulting firm Global Insight."
Analysts Say Silence Could Signal Progress in Auto Industry Talks (Yahoo)
I don't think that airing your dirty laundry in public serves either side well, unless there is nothing to lose, so I would concur. Let's keep our fingers crossed for a settlement that works for both sides.
I had the great fortune to end up in the ER the night before the strike. You never saw so many people! Lucky (?) for me they did triage and moved me right to the front of the line. I was in the hospital for the whole strike so at least I had health care.
Watching the TV you could see doctors rallying and screaming about how they couldn't make it with these high premiums. They naturally turned the cameras on the parking lot full of Jaguars, high end BMWs, etc with MD plates.
It's not just car insurance and house insurance companies that will try everybody's patience and underinsure covered people and overcharge covered people, is it? No, these are legitimate complaints from doctors who can't afford to practice with the overly-high malpractice premiums.
Don't tell me insurance companies have to "turn a huge profit" too and have to answer to their uptight shareholders?
Here we go again with the Boeing problem...sales stall and if profits aren't enough to satisfy greedy shareholders then...you know...cut their throats. Insurance companies have to hold to these same high standards, don't they?
Don't they? Aren't they admirable individuals as well as admirable companies? Let's sing them a song while we're feeling so good about insurance companies! :sick:
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
sure they do. in fact, I'd be willing to bet the government requires them to. not make huge profits exactly, but they have to maintain certain reserves. that way, like in the case of Katrina, the insurance companies don't become insolvent and incapable of paying damages. Its impossible to gouge people in a competitive market, unless you fortunate enough to find stupid customers. there are dozens, if not hundreds of insurers to choose from and rate shop. But it does require a little effort on your part. The only way insurance companies could artificially raise the cost of insurance would be to conspire together to do so, thereby eliminating competition. The government, and state regulators watch for that though, making it highly unlikely.
The best example is auto insurance. If you just pick a company in the yellow pages, and stick with them forever....... your going to get ripped off. But, if you shop around, and do so every year, you'll significantly reduce your cost.
But anyway, whats wrong with profit? Why do you think companies exist? To provide jobs for people? To give bennifits? No, they exist to make money. Its as simple as that. In order to make money, they have to offer a service or product. In order to do that, they have to have people. In order to recruit people (especially in the era of sub 5% unemployment) they have to offer a pay and bennifits package necessary to acquire the type of people they need. There is no need for a union.
Surely you've heard of a certain insurance company who pulled the "I gotta go" thing when Katrina survivors wanted to be reimbursed for their losses after Katrina in NO?
I honestly never read the details but if that isn't an example of a need for house insurance to kick in to help you I don't know what is. And then to have your good-old insurance company leave you high and...umm...wet, well, that's not cool. It seems there's constant stories like this. I know, it's all in the fine print.
These Katrina survivors left high and dry by !@#$%^&* insurance company should have hired a lawyer so that they could've purchased more and different types of house insurance before the Big One occurred. Maybe those left high and wet failed to get just the right kind of mega-amount of flood insurance or something. Don't know...didn't read the article.
While insurance companies, drug companies, oil companies, you name the friendly Megola empire, continue to get richer and richer people like Katrina survivors just get flushed out with the baby bathwater.
All in the name of "preserving" profit for the good guys.
Not buying that brand of insurance.
That jumps from "stealthy" investment strategies to cruel humanity shrugging. I'll keep my brand of house insurance, thank you very much.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
On my earlier point with the doctors I should have mentioned that their target wasn't the insurance companies (where it should have been) - it was the state. They wanted the state to limit damages that a patient could collect if they screwed up. To me this is barking up the wrong tree.
Any time I hear tort reform I check my wallet. It is invariably the large corporations or wealthy individuals who wish to make sure that if they are negligent that they won't have to pay much.
Terry :shades:
That only counts for face fixers and breast balloons ... the difference is, you don't get the type of quality when it comes to the "real important" stuff in other countries.
You make a very good point as far as the crazy lawsuits, they should be limited because they cost "us" ... they also need to cut the attorneys percentages, this will "trim" the herd, so to speak.
You also need to keep another very serious point in mind - the cost of illegals ... they're using our hospitals as their Primary care facility, in another 4/5 years health care will go up another 25/30% at this pace - and in 7/8 years, it will double and it will be out of control ... attorneys we can reign in, the illegal situation should have started a long time ago.
Terry
To me if a doctor operates on me and leaves the scissors in me causing me no end of pain and a second operation he owes me more than the cost of the second operation.
So far I've been fortunate enough to not be operated on (knocking on particleboard).
What this all has to do with the UAW is beyond me though. :confuse:
Hey Terry, didn't know you were back. Good to see ya!
insurance companies don't offer insurance in flood zones. for the more inland areas that were damaged, they payed out billions. And there lies a large part of the problem. more and more people are crowding into places that very prone to natural disaters and flooding. the entire east coast and gulf coast are the best examples, but it also occurs along large rivers like the missippi. people move to these areas knowing full well they can't purchase flood insurance, but do so anyway figuring someone will bail them out if something happens. and if not, will just blame and scapegoat those evil insurance companies. And far to many people are happy to jump in that wagon.
My feeling is we have people like John Edwards to thank for this high cost of medical insurance. Unless someone comes up with some other good reason I will continue to believe that.
I do realize we have every medical gadget known to mankind ready to check us out. The good old family doctor still seems to have a better batting average.
Yes and no. you do realize, that in those parts of the world with "free" healthcare they pay about 50% payroll taxes, and usually 15-20% sales taxes on everything they buy don't you? that's what causes the 10-15% unemployment that many european nations enjoy. but that wonderful "free" healthcare is only for the plebes. the wealthier people, and of course members of the government, participate in private programs like here in the states.
The other big problem with the so called "free" healthcare is the problem that whenever you give something away for "free", no matter what it is, people will form lines waiting for it. the massive surge in demand that the concept of "free" healthcare creates cause the state to control how much doctors and staff get paid, how many of them there will be, priorities for treatment, and waiting lists of up to months for non life threatening ailments. You might also be interested to know that many foreigners come to the US for the latest and most difficult procedures; and several countries (such as england) are trying to get away from managed state run care.
But if you want the best example of how much of a failure state run healthcare is, look no farther than medicare. Its bankrupt, most of the participants are unhappy with it, doctors don't like it and limit the number of medicare patients they will see (because of government fee caps, and refusal to cover certain thing), and the government refuses to do anything about it other than continue to cut back doctor payments.
Yes, lets implement a system like that for everybody.
Instead of the wrongdoers paying the victims, the union (or the taxpayer) will get stuck with more of the tab if the victim goes broke because the surgeon operated on the wrong side of the brain.
1. we as americans are over-insured. medical insurance should be more of a catastrophic thing. too many people run off to the doctor simply because they have a cough because they know the insurance will pick up the bill. Minor treatments should be paid out of pocket. the insurance should be reserved for more serious things
2. To many people can voluntarily opt out, at the insured's expense. health insurance should be mandatory. heck, you cant drive without auto insurance, you should likewise be made to get health insurance. this would have two bennifits. with everybody paying, the price of health care would drasticly come down as the 60% with insurance wound no longer be subsidising the 40% (if you believe those numbers) without. and secondly, with everybody paying, competition between insurance companies for all the new paying customers would also pull prices down. the money now being spent by the government on the poor would easily cover the cost of subsidising policies for them, as opposed to just paying their doctor bills.
Whatever laws we have that require a hospital to provide service without payment needs to be repealed. That would stop our providing prenatal and emergency care for illegals instantly. If they die in the parking lot who is to blame? Not the US citizen that pays taxes and has health care. If we all decided to stop paying our $500 to $1000 premium every month who would pay for our care if we went to emergency? That's right no one as hospitals would all be boarded up and closed.
but your right about the illegals. in states like california they are litteraly destroying the system. I read somewhere that in 2007 about 10 hospitals in cali were forced to close for just that reason. But I don't know that allowing them to refuse service is the answer. I don't think the idea of letting people die at the doors of a hospital is a good idea.
Better count on driving yourself to the hospital unless you're a medical tourist there. (link).
I'm still having trouble reconciling many of these posts with the UAW topic.
Now back to tort reform. The hospital says we cannot take you because you have no insurance with us. The guy loses his arm due to being shot. He gets a high powered attorney and sues the hospital. Our screwed up courts award a big amount which the sleazy attorney gets 70%+. The illegal drug runner goes back to Mexico and buys a bigger plot of land to grow more Pot and we paid for all of it.
Until we get a handle on health care the UAW will be fighting an uphill battle with the automakers.
Terry. :shades:
and why is that? toyota, nissan and honda all provide HC to their US employes. and north america is very profitable for them. The unions are a bussiness. They will never willingly go. There's really no way out for them. If the union strikes, they can effectively shut down the big 3. because of state laws in the notheast/rust belt, those striking workers cann't be replaced, and workers can be jailed for crossing picket lines. It's much different than a right to work state where the employe can be fired or replacled, or some can just continue to work. In the end, the big three's only real option is to continue moving plants and opperations out of the country. they really have no choice. The unions arn't going to budge much, and they have a lot of political power and influecen in that part of the country.
The only other option would be to let things get so bad that they could file for bankruptcy, and through the courts, bypass the unions entirely. It's what the airline's did.
The union factor is a bug in the bonnet here because the unionized companies have a lot of older employees. Those have hgher healthcare costs. The newer transplants who built here to avoid tariffs by building part of their product here have younger employees. Those have lower healthcare costs. Those same plants can prune the older or less healthy workers because those same plants, in general, have no unions to stop discriminatory firings and are in Right-to-Work states who almost encourage it.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And thats not to say the asian plants are sweat shops. the highly skilled positions make over $40 per hour, and the average is probably $20. very good money for the states they operate in. And that $20 per hour is not just an arbitrary number. It's the amount it takes to get the right people in the door.
and no, they can't prune the employees. even in right to work states, employees can't be discrimanted against. the biggest difference with the right to work staes is the union has less power. its harder for them to organize, and they can't really enforce strikes. if the company goes on strike, they employees can still go to work if they want. in non right to work states, they can be jailed for it. On top of that, a striking worker can be replaced in a right to work state, as where in non RTW states, the company can't do that, or hire temps, or scabbs or anything else. they best they can do is bring in management from other locations to get the work done
Question: why were not those people living in NO proper in obvious flood zones required by law to get flood insurance. If insurance companies won't pay out for floods, why am I required to buy it in order to get my loan. Required by law. I am not complaining, but, if my house were destroyed by flood I'd want sound reimbursement to repair my house.
Somethings rotten in NO. And I would love to hear the easy to understand explanation for those people in NO so readily reamed as they were. To me, it's just to edumacate myself further. To Bubba the sheriff who lost his house in the NO Katrina disaster it's a lot more of a personal aggravating thing.
Ya know, disassembling the UAW and their throngs sounds like it is just what the Big 3(hey, we can say the Big Three once again, whoo-hoo!!)need to do to restore some sanity and fluidity to their R & D departments. And their general accounts receivable/accounts payable department. Their hands are tied by the greed of the UAW and their members. Eh? Bankruptcy and then start over afresh.
I work at a hospital about 75 miles north of the USA-Mexico border in SE Arizona. Some of our "business" is illegals that have the U.S. taxpayers foot their bills for births and emergency care. A Bisbee, AZ, hospital is close to closing down because of this practice and having trouble collecting on Medicare and state-sponsored claims. This medical insurance coverage issue needs to be tackled. What's Hillary claiming to want to do about this after attempting in 1993? No real details to report on after debates. It's a huge item to solve but it needs solving. Forcing everyone to have medical insurance is an interesting angle to take on it. Need more info.
It's reminding me of that Dylan song "Everything is Broken." :sick: Funny, this silly picture has a red cross for medical care hanging outside the driver's side door.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
No, good question. Where's rockford when we need him? He's a union-proponent if Edmunds ever saw one. Who knows? Probably depends on the job but just what is the latest astronomical GM, Ford and Chrysler UAW worker's wages these days?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
thats a good question. but in NO, I doubt insurance companies will sell flood insurance. You probably have to go through the Feds to get it. But NO is a perfect example of what I was talking about. we're going to spend the equivalent of about 200k per person to rebuild it. To rebuild a city that does not sit on solid ground, is prone to hurricanes, Is actually sinking at a rate of 1 inch per year, and will one day (no matter what we do) be lost.
Does that really make much sense? And can you really blame an insurance company for not wanting to insure people who are guaranteed to suffer catastrophic loss at some time?
The insurance company is not their employer, so they cannot "strike" against it.
And the physicians are still seeing patients - even the patients covered by that particular insurance company. They just will not accept the payment offered by the insurance company. If the patient either pays the difference between the insurance company payment and the billed amount, or pays the entire amount, the physician will still treat him or her.
You'll have to ask me that on the other forum...the hosts may be listening.
I ask the wage question because I too am a union man. I belong to a civil service (gov't) union that as part of New York state law is not allowed to strike. I was wondering how the ability to strike effects union wages in the private sector.
BTW, last year on the farm I worked an average of 50 hours/week for 10 months and after taxes cleared $3000. I get no medical insurance, no vacation, no retirement no sick pay and no disability. Where do I go to join a union so I can go out on strike against myself? :confuse:
Being both a business person who has to watch the bottom line and a union member for my second job gives me an interesting perspective.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Like you, they were only required to have flood insurance if there was a lein or a mortgage holder involved.
You also have to keep in mind, most of the residents (71%) in NO were renters, not owners .. and the rental property owners, only needed to get flood insurance if there was a mortgage lender involved in their "primary residence" ..... and the rest, just canceled it because they never thought they would need it.
---- it's called cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Terry
In Pennsylvania the Supreme Court enacted new rules that were designed to eliminate the tactics used by plaintiff's attorneys to ensure a favorable verdict.
For example, attorneys would file the case in Philadelphia County, even if the alleged injured happened in suburban Philadelphia, because Philadelphia juries are far more likely to award damages in even the shakiest of cases. (The attorneys would obtain the change of venue by noting that the defendant had facilities in both suburban Philadelphia and Philadelphia County.)
The Supreme Court required the plaintiff to file the case in the county where the injury allegedly occurred, which has cut down on the number of cases filed. And, from what I've heard, insurance companies have reduced their premiums in response.
Now, groping for a way to tie this to the topic ... er, the UAW has prepaid legal plans don't they? Doesn't that encourage filing of frivolous lawsuits? Bit of a stretch.... we do have an Off Topic Chatter board now for solving these issues that veer off automotive stuff. :shades:
I'm sure that both sides engage in venue shopping. But under the new Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules, a defendant hospital or doctor can't get the case transferred OUT of Philadelphia County because there is an office in suburban Philadelphia. It works both ways.
Anyone up for a Tort Reform and the Auto Industry discussion? If so, please suggest a catchier title.
The Pennsylvania Insurance Department notes that payouts by the MCARE Fund (the state-run insurance fund that serves as the primary malpractice insurer for all licensed health care providers within the state) paid $233 million in claims for 2005, down more than 27 percent from $320 million in 2004. This continued a decrease from $379 million in 2003.
Not only are payouts declining, but so are the number of lawsuits filed: from 2,000 filed in 1999, the number has declined to 373 cases in 2005.
The amount that physicians pay into MCARE (which are basically the same as insurance premiums) dropped by 25 percent in 2006.
Pennsylvania's second largest commercial carrier of malpractice insurance, Medical Protective, is expecting its average base premium rate to be flat, or increase at most by single digits, for July 2006, after four years of double-digit increases. The company has seen a flattening of loss payout increases, and a decrease in frequency of claims over the past 18 months.
Bottom line - I wouldn't discount tort reform entirely, as tort reform, if done properly, encompasses much more than mere caps on damages or awards. If anything, focusing exclusively on damage or award caps is a waste of time, much like saying that cutting UAW worker wages will solve the Big Three's cost disadvantage with the transplant operations. The problem goes MUCH deeper than that.
Over in the union world, Chrysler LLC is telling the UAW that Mopar may be on the block or ripe for closing. Those quiet negotiations may start to get a bit louder now.
The filing decision was reached by the company board of directors following a thorough review of the company's loss experience.
Sounds as though SOMETHING is working, and it appears that the something is the rule changes approved by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that make it harder to file frivolous cases (although these rule changes do not cap either awards or damages - but, as I said, the tort reform is much more comprehensive than mere award or damages caps).
Steve: Companies also seem more assertive (smarter) in educating their insureds about best practices to lessen claims (and maybe they are turning away more docs, and docs can't get licensed in PA without the insurance).
Some companies are starting to write policies in Pennsylvania again, after leaving the state a few years ago.
In 1983, the first year for which the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics filed comparable union data, 20.1 percent of employed wage and salary workers were union members. In 1950, that number was estimated at 35 percent. According to the most recent data from the BLS, fewer than 12 percent of employed wage and salary workers are union members, down from 12.5 percent in 2005.
Government-worker (oxymoron?) unions are, of course, the fastest growing, because there is little fiscal accountability in government. Per capita, government unionization is five times that of the private sector, because the government is not subject to free-market accountability. Worse yet, the highest rate of government unionization is among those in education, training and library occupations. These are the folks entrusted to educate the next generation of voters.
Today, some 15.4 million Americans belong to labor unions—and many would rather not.
-Rocky
Like a Whole other Country...
I am from Texas I can make that joke you can't.