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)
16701 messages, Last post on Nov 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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. |
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Jan 08, 2009 5:34 pm) All of which seems to be pretty far afield from . . . . . . . the UAW.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 08, 2009 4:55 am) Thats true to an extent. However, managed care is where rates are agreed to. I'm sure that GM/UAW and others use managed care? So an operation which is billed at $21,000 is paid at $7,000. I've seen this first hand as a benefits coordinator and dealing with the managed care folks. However, the anesthesiologist was paid the full amount and didn't move off his/her price. Who knows whats going on? Some indigents can also work out a payment plan which is less than half the original charge. As older folks go into nursing homes, some start transferring assets to their children/relatives. They have to do it 3 years prior to transfer assets, Bush was trying to make it 5 years. If not a lien can be put on their residences. There is some merit to the health spending account, whereby your spending your own money and or money that you don't spend will be yours to do with what you want in the end. Don't confuse this with a flexible spending account which must be spent in that year. Bottom line is that using the emergency room as a clinic is wasteful and are many other practices in this nations health care industry. |
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Jan 08, 2009 5:34 pm) I have never been through one or even seen one. I would guess it is a tool to discover certain ailments. And a way to cover the doctor's behind. hardly a day goes by that someone I know has had an MRI. I guess if you really need the test it would be nice to get it in a reasonable time. Many forms of the cancer and tumors are detected with an MRI. Those are ailments that need quick attention many times. Waiting 10 to 12 weeks could be the difference between life and death. I can just hear the UAW retiree scream when the doctor says I think you have cancer. I won't know until we get the results from your MRI. I think the waiting list in your area is 12 weeks. Then we can schedule a specialist to look at the results and that will be another 18 weeks. I hear people upset when they have to wait a week to get results from the lab. For those that really believe in government provided health care need to research Oregon and Hawaii's universal health care. Doug Farrago comments on the failure of universal children's coverage in Hawaii, where the program was discontinued after 7 months. It's a good example of what would happen if health care was "free": Families that had private coverage were dropping it so they could get the free care as well. I don't think this experiment should be ignored. It really needs to be examined to see what went wrong and how Americans think. As physicians, we all want people to have the appropriate healthcare but it can be abused and just giving it away will bankrupt us all. The people of Hawaii have spoken and they have said that even if they have the money to pay for their doctor's visit or medication, they still would rather get it for free. The UAW members need to be freed from their entitlement mentality. |
|
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
