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)
16738 messages, Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 10:07 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 9:29 pm) They would have to add over 900 MRI machines to have the same coverage we have in the USA. That would cost them less than $3 billion. Should be a slam dunk for a country as rich in oil and other natural resources as Canada. Of course each of those is in a hospital or large clinic so add a few more billion to the price tag. You should be able to see the dilemma they face with their LONNNNG waiting lists for just about every procedure. which according to the last survey shows 87% of canadians as satisfied or very satisfied with their health care. You managed to spin that little tidbit also. It said 87% satisfied or SOMEWHAT satisfied. In other words it will have to do because we got no other choice and I don't want to pay any more taxes to those schmucks running the health care. such things as life expectancy and other favorable health care You keep repeating the same things over and over. Life expectancy has little to do with health care and a lot to do with life style. They do not live in the fast lane and suffer from obesity from eating too much processed food. That also brings up an issue that has gotten a lot of press with the UK and their health care. They are refusing treatment to smokers and people that are obese. Do you know any UAW retirees that fit those parameters? They are OUT in the cold. Sorry no can treat you till you lose 100 lbs of Ugly fat. still have not explained how we can continue to handle both a 15-20% annual increase in health care premiums coupled with a 1-2 million annual increase in the number of those (mostly children) without any insurance coverage (estimated to be 45, 999,998 at the end of 2008.. Well if our new President does what he says it may go a long way to fixing the waste in Medicare. The 1000s of Medicare patients receiving treatments that are not needed and getting kick backs. I posted a very recent article on just how it is done. We are wasting billions every year on Medicare, medicaid, section 8 and SS fraud. We get those holes plugged up it should be enough to offer a low cost plan for all those children. I am totally against any free plan. That breeds corruption. Medicare Fraud I have never blamed the housing bubble on the UAW or GM or Ford. They are victims of the financial mess that was a combination of greed and stupidity. Mostly by our Congress and past Presidents. There are Congress men in the banking committee that should go to jail. Same with any financial executive that pushed sub prime loans. They have destroyed our economy for probably another decade or more. Left our grandchildren to pay the price. That is where the low wages will come about. If we go into a depression, guys like Wagoner will be lucky to get $28 per hour. Many more fat cats will be jumping in front of trains or out or windows. It is going to get ugly. Most Americans do not know how to live way below their income. It is something not taught in school. |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 9:54 pm) You really know nothing about human nature. We had a guy working in our bargaining unit for a Long time that did absolutely nothing. He was at top pay. New guys would see that and think they could get away with the same crap. He is making as much as I am. Why should I bust my butt? He finally got transferred as we had no management with the brains to document his incompetence and fire him. You cannot have two people doing the same thing for different wage scales. Now if the new guy can work up to $28 an hour after 2-3 years they have some incentive to do a good job. If they will never achieve the same wage and benefits of the older workers. You are in trouble. If GM thinks they can buy out all the old guys with a package the UAW may survive. We had a 6 years progression and that caused a lot of dissension in the ranks. The primary goal of a Union is to treat all members equally. The UAW is failing miserably. |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 9:54 pm) I do understand your frustration as I went through it 20 years ago. I was prepared to take over my own health care when I retired for the two years until Medicare kicked in. I was not expecting Uncle Sam to take $96 per month for Medicare I had paid for. But I get by quite well. The real key is shopping all the HMO options. CA has a lot. I would rather live in another state because of the high taxes here on income even pensions. However I found Kaiser to be the most bang for the buck. My wife has had it for 30 years and is pleased. It is quite reasonable compared to all the others I looked into. Unfortunately it is only offered in a few states. Same Kaiser that built cars through the 1950s. I am sure they were UAW built. |
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 7:32 am) 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. I agree with the 29.2% number, but I believe the spending for the Iraqi war is off-the -books, so to speak. It does not count as part of the defense appropriations. |
|
|
People keep coming back to the Chrysler loan guarantees of 1980(?). But, there are significant differences, in my mind, between then and now. According to an old Time article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947356,00.html) Chrysler was given a $1.2 bil loan guarantee. It had 1978 sales of $13.6 bil, lost $204 mil that same year, and had a book value of around $800 mil. So, theoretically at least, if Chrysler had defaulted on the loan guarantees, the govt could have liquidated Chrysler and come out with most of the money it had guaranteed. The current bailouts to GM and Chrysler are nowhere near as good for the loan guarantor (the taxpayers). GM is receiving several (many?) times it's book value, as is Chrysler. Should the companies fail to make it and are liquidated, the taxpayers will be lucky to get back 10 cents on the dollar. That's just one of the things that makes this such a bad deal compared to 1980. |
|
|
Reports: GM, Chrysler bailout deals bar strikes Friday January 9, 7:13 am ET Reports: General Motors, Chrysler federal bailout loans in default if union strikes The Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News report Friday that the default is part of the deal GM signed with the Bush administration last month to get $13.4 billion in loans. The Detroit News reports Chrysler's loan deal has a similar provision. The United Auto Workers isn't a party to the deal and hasn't threatened a strike. The Free Press says if GM defaults on its loans, the U.S. Treasury Department could demand remand repayment and force GM into bankruptcy. The UAW and the automakers have a Feb. 17 deadline for concessions to lower labor costs. Better stay on the line boys and girls! Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Jan 09, 2009 4:47 am) If the UAW is not a party to the bailout, we should not give the money to GM. They cannot avoid bankruptcy unless all parties work together. It would not surprise me to see the UAW strike if they thought they could hold Congress and the taxpayers hostage. They went on strike earlier this year against the plants building lambda and Malibu vehicles. Just happened to be the only vehicles GM was having much success with. The UAW is not interested in the health of GM, the economy or the Domestic auto industry. They have proven that time and again. It is time someone held the UAW's feet to the fire. I can see a NO strike clause as imperative to getting GM back on stable ground. |
|
I believe the Nays have it.. 
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 08, 2009 6:10 pm) The simplest and least expensive way to pay for health-care is for the customer to pay the service provider directly. As soon as you involve filling out forms, submitting bills, negotiating charges, justifying, and processing checks, you run up costs. Figure out how much work it is for a single visit. Now multiply that by the billions of medical charges the 300 million in the U.S. submit each year. That's all waste. It is waste because the pushing of bills (papers) is of no value to the patient, and the hospital or doctor does not benefit. The only people who benefit are the workers at the insurance companies, and the clerks in the government who have a job pushing papers. If my company had the option, I'd say give me the $ you're paying for my healthcare in my paycheck, and I'll take care of it from there.
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 11:24 am) medicare is "socialized medicine". taxpayer funded, single payer system with an age 65 requirement--just get rid of the age 65 condtion. And I still haven't received a response to my question as to why, if nationalized care is the answer, the UAW hasn't agreed to move retired blue-collar workers to Medicare, and save the companies money. I'll tell you why - the benefits aren't as generous as those provided under the current UAW plan. That is why GM is paying so much for health care. The benefits enjoyed by both current workers and retirees are far more lavish than those enjoyed by Medicare recipients, as well as those enjoyed by the people who rely on the Canadian national plan. lumoy: 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. You keep repeating that the majority of uninsured or underinsured are children, and this is false. Here are the facts, straight from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: The uninsured are more likely to be young...21% of the uninsured are below age 18 and 63% are under age 34. Young adults age 18-34 are disproportionately uninsured relative to their representation in the overall population, while older adults are slightly under-represented relative to the overall population. Here's more: Although children and the elderly have the highest likelihood of being below 200% of poverty, government programs like Medicaid and SCHIP for children and Medicare for the elderly result in those groups having the lowest uninsured rates. (emphasis added) As I said before, the uninsured are more likely to be young, relatively healthy adults. lumoy: 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 Except that, in the early 1990s, UAW and other unions were lukewarm to Hillary Clinton's proposal to nationalized health care coverage...they knew that it would result in a reduction in benefits. So, once again, the UAW's call for nationalized health care is more than a little disingenuous, in view of their behavior on this very subject. |
|
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
