Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16663 messages, Last post on Nov 08, 2009 at 9:32 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 08, 2009 4:55 am) How can it be any worse than Federally Mandated Health Care? Either way those that pay taxes are paying the bills for those not contributing. San Diego is trying to get the Feds to cough up over a billion for treating illegals in the county hospital system last year. They come across the border to have their babies born as US citizens and we pay for the delivery and some times prenatal. I posted about the engineer that felt he was screwed over by GM when the UAW got more in a contract. It looks to me like he was right if they have dropped health care for the white collar retirees and are still paying it for the UAW retirees. Why are the UAW retirees treated like they are more important than the white collar workers? I don't know what you pay in Michigan for Health care. If you buy a plan that allows you free or 80% office visits here in CA will be at least $600 per month for an individual. Emergency medical care for 300,000 illegal babies per year has to cost the tax payers more than half a million UAW retirees. If we do not already pay for universal health care, I would sure like to know what you call it. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/07/eveningnews/main4000401.shtml?source=m- ostpo%20p_story
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 07, 2009 4:30 pm) While our system of health care coverage isn't perfect, nationalized health care isn't the panacea that its supporters make it out to be. The UAW certainly agrees with me - it won't shift retired UAW members to Medicare, which would save the companies billions and allow it to support a government-run health care system. The UAW's inaction speaks louder than its words... lumoy: [ i wish i saw the same reactions against the trillion dollars we have spent on our immoral destruction of iraq. ( check a site called national priorities where you will learn that your household is spending about $120 a month on iraq and that 42% of your federal tax dollars are going to the pentagon)] That site is incorrect. Defense and security spending account for 29.2 percent of total discretionary federal spending. By far the largest portion of federal spending goes to Social Security and Medicare, which together account for 43.5 percent of total discretionary federal spending. If you are upset about federal spending, then you will need to address spending on Social Security and Medicare. Defense spending is the responsibility of the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. We can certainly debate over how MUCH it should be spending on defense, but that is its job. Bailing out failing companies and their coddled union is not its job. lumoy: but what i have been trying to do is point out the distinction of how only the auto industry loans are conditioned on the backs of hourly workers whose costs are but 10% of the product. In an industry where costs for parts are measured in PENNIES, a cost that accounts for 10 percent of the total costs needed to produce that product is a significant amount. lumoy: if you know a little bit about the uaw, you will find the the chrysler loan guarantee act of 1980 marked an era of concession bargaining that has really never stopped. Really? Are you going to tell us that UAW members receive LESS pay and enjoy FEWER benefits than they did in 1979, before Chrysler demanded and received concessions? Do you have the figures to support this contention? lumoy: i think the chrysler loan history can and will be repeated and i think that history proves this loan is worth the risk. It was a different world in 1980. The Japanese and German manufacturers sold vehicles in far smaller volumes, and the Koreans weren't even in the American market yet. Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans and Hyundais were largely economy cars, and not real substitutes for American family sedans. Plus, not as many people had been burned by the Big Three, so more people were willing to give Chrysler a chance. The simple fact is that GM needs to file for bankruptcy, or have the government allow it to file for quasi-bankrutpcy protection. It owes so much money now that it would take over 20 years of record profits to completely pay off its debts. GM is simply not sustainable in its present configuration, even with this infusion of government money. It was not profitable when auto sales were much higher, and given that it is unlikely that auto sales will return to their former levels for a few years, it is unlikely to be profitable in the future, unless it completely restructures. Chrysler is toast. Daimler and Cerberus have basically gutted the company; there are very few new models on the horizon, and it needs more than a few billion from the federal government to keep going, let alone give its car lineup the complete top-to-bottom overhaul that it needs. lumoy: the uaw has been very responsible in negotiating concessions in this latest round beginning in 2006 and is re-opening its agreements now. (taking on the huge legacy liability for big3 retirees (VEBAS) and two tier wages and benefits in the auto plants is something i never ever contemplated during my 30 years on the uaw staff. They needed to change their method of operating in the early 1980s. It's obvious that by 2006, it was too late. But neither management nor the union was interested in making the necessary changes at that time.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 7:32 am) and when national health care is mentioned, the right wing reponds with --but that would be "socialized medicine" medicare is "socialized medicine". taxpayer funded, single payer system with an age 65 requirement--just get rid of the age 65 condtion. by the way. health care workers, clinics, hospitals, drug companies etc. are not nationalized (gov't owned) under medicare just so we know the phrase is really nothing more that boogie man political pandering. the per citizen health care costs (canada/usa) are based upon insurance costs, and all taxpayer generated costs (i.e medicare, medicaid , emergency room care for indigents, etc.) : the per citizen cost for usa is double that of canada. canada has a wait problem and US still has the highest caliber of health care anywhere (if you can afford it) and thus canadians with the money will come here. that's the rub not all of us can afford it. thus the true yardstick is what is the level of health care for the masses. let's assume for the sake of argument that the world heath organization is wrong about canada's system having superior outcomes in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, hospital infection rates, etc and the systems are substantially equivalent. but even if they are equal, does common sense tell you that annual insurance premium increases of 15-20 % for that last 20 or so years cannot be sustained? this hard fact alone is going to force the issue. if that isn't enough then how about the fact that there are 46 million without insurance and probably an equal or even greater number with very minimal coverage? i realize that to many the uninsured and underinsured (majority of them are children) are invisible or nearly so, but to some of us, they human beings--indeed, we are paying for national health care now for every human being in iraq. . but back to the debate: i can assure you that health care has been the major issue on the table at every set of collective bargaining negotiations (public and private sector) that has occurred in the usa for the last 20-25 years. think about that a minute--make that 5 minutes what does that tell you?. is that really the best place to resolve the health care mess or is it really simple a place to discuss shifting the costs of a failed system?, why should such a fundamental issue (which about 70% of consider to be a basic right) be subject to the whims of the bargaining table or worse the whims of an employer whose is structurally and understandably committed to capitalism--not providing health care. again case closed
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 11:24 am) Here is what President elect Obama says about your idea. President-elect Barack Obama pledged Wednesday to tackle out-of-control Social Security and Medicare spending and named a special watchdog to clamp down on other federal programs If Medicare is out of control and going broke, how would it work with 200 million more Americans on the plan? If GM and the UAW were to get special treatment and allow under aged retirees to get on Medicare, every company in the country would want to dump their expensive health care plans. If it is going to happen, why did it fail the last time there was a Democrat majority in Congress with a very liberal Bill Clinton as President and his wife pushing the plan? My guess is they looked at the cost and said OH S__T this will bankrupt America. The reason Canada spends less is they have a lot less facilities and fancy equipment to maintain. One MRI machine is over a million dollars. Doctors send you through the MRI for the smallest of ailments just to cover their rear ends from John Edwards type lawsuits. Most major cities in America have more and better equipped hospitals than all of Canada. If you are banking on this 111th Congress to get you out of the mess that the UAW has helped to create. You are dreaming.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 08, 2009 6:23 am) where do i start? in free countries people like some levels of democracy and some even go far as to think they should have a small voice in the place where they spend most of their working lives. they join unions and while unions do not have veto power they can require that the employer listen and can serve as a check on management excesses. when profits are good, unions can demand that the workers get a fair share. when times are bad like now--then it can go the other way--concessions. but more important is the issue of contract. unions try to exact promises for better wages, health and safety and working conditions and then have those promises enforceable under labor agreements. if you are not covered by a contract you legal state is that of an "at- will" employee--your terms and conditions of employment are --at the will or fiat of the employer on a day to day basis. you are subject to dismissal for any reason or no reason and the promises made to you can be changed at any time. thus the uaw secured contract language in the 50's (when it was cheap) providing that hourly retirees would get health care in their retirement. this language was renewed in every contract. ( once achieved, the uaw decided it wasn't real excited about giving it back) the uaw tried to organize salaried employers telling them that while uaw benefits were generally being passed onto them after ever contract negotiations ( until the late 90's), these promises were not backed by a written contract. the white collar workers apparently hoped GM would never take away benefits from retirees and that it was beneath them to join a union or pay dues. so the white collar workers banked their "hopes" and saved their dues. their choice of course. this doesn't make either group less or more important - or for that matter less or more deserving. (it may say something about their relative intelligence but i won't go there) the bigger question is my earlier one wondering why such fundamental issues as the health care of your family should be left to the abilities or power of the union at the bargaining table or for that matter the whim of an "at will" employer to bestow or retract such benefits at its whim--particularly after you have already retired.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm) my medicare point was only used to illustrate that we already have "socialized medicine" now if it would only turn all those old people like me into real socialists we might get somewhere. seriously there are many single payer system alternatives available if we can overcome the oppostion of the insurance companies who take 1/3 of every health care dollar and return 0 in terms of health care. some claim that drug companies and doctors may be ripping off the health care system too--but being critical of them would be unfairly attacking the rich and powerful and obvious benefits of trickle down economics. again as i recall, when hillary was pushing national health care in the 80's, i seem to recall some republicans, insurance and drug companies were telling us that saving money on health care costs would make us socialists, like all those other countries were delivering better health care at half the cost per citizen. so the forces of the status quo beat it back and health care costs have more than doubled since then.. as i recall you are also a big fan of the current health system which has health care premiums costs rising at 15-20% a year with 46 million without coverage. the same system that caused your teamster health and pension fund trustees to cancel your health care because it was getting a little pricey - a decision which you applaud as i recall. so the fact that a better or at least equivalent national health care system in canada costs them about 50% of the per citizen cost of the usa system is due to the fact we have more expensive equipment here. haven't heard that stretch before--you wouldn't happens to have any documentation for that would you?
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 3:22 pm) The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007, an all-time high, according to new research published Monday by independent research organization the Fraser Institute. "Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf The report, released yesterday by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), revealed Canada's supply of the machines per capita ranks below many OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries and is even below the median ranking. A broad range of other countries -- from Spain to Korea to Finland -- has more MRI and CT scanners per million people than does Canada. The report also reveals that despite promises from federal and provincial governments to solve the problem, waiting times for MRIs appear to have increased nationwide. It found that Canada had 151 MRI scanners at the beginning of 2004, more than four times the number it had a decade ago According to OECD the USA in 2004 had an MRI count of 9704 machines in use. http://www.ecosante.fr/index2.php?base=OCDE&langh=ENG&langs=ENG Canada = 151 MRI machines for 33,212,696 (July 2008 est.) people United States = 9704 MRI machines for 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.) people That means for every 31,309 people in the USA there is a MRI machine if needed. In Canada there is one MRI machine for every 219,951 people. That my friend is a reason that Canada spends so much less than we do on health care. By the way the price of an MRI has gone up since my union friend was installing them in 1997. They are now over $3 million each. Can you see why the health care is substandard in Canada. We would not tolerate the waiting times they are forced by law to live or die with. You can bash the United States as much as you like. I happen to be proud of this countries accomplishments under our FREEDOM of Choice, that you would like taken away. |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 3:04 pm) You are correct it should not be. It should be left to the individual to make his or her own choice of what level of health care they feel they need. This is still sort of the Land of the Free. Just as many states have incorporated "Right to Work" laws to protect the INDIVIDUAL from Union thugs. We should have the right to choose our own health care provider. If the government had not gotten involved we would not have such an over priced boondoggle to deal with. We should have competitive insurance the same as we do for our cars. We are forced in some states to carry car insurance to protect others from our reckless driving. The person that does not carry health care is costing all of US more money. The problem is Unions and corporations have just bowed to the HMOs and did not fight back when a hospital charges the insurance carrier $15k for one nights stay. There is plenty of blame to spread around. The Government will not and cannot fix all the problems. People have to fix their own problems. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 08, 2009 4:21 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Jan 08, 2009 5:34 pm) My main guess would be for the doctor to cover his a__ from a malpractice lawsuit, if they don't diagnose correctly. The suing lawyer would ask if an MRI was done and if it COULD have jelped, and if the doctor says no, then the doctor is in trouble. So if there is any doubt, the doctor is forced to do extra testing to protect himself. So costs increase the more we expect of doctors to be infallible. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
