Renew Auto Industry? Start With Real Health Reform

posted by John Nichols on 02/20/2009 @ 10:28am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (72)

Subscribe Now

General Motors, and what is left of Chrysler, are back asking for another government bailout. And Americans who recognize that an auto industry is a good deal more vital to the country's future than those bankers who are using taxpayer billions to retrofit their executive washrooms will be inclined to sympathize with the plea.

But before another bailout check is inked, wouldn't it make sense to get the auto giants � even if they are not so giant anymore � involved in addressing what really ails their industry?

No, it is not autoworkers. Members of the United Autoworkers union have given concession after concession after concession in order to save an industry that their union leadership called for modernizing � with the development of smaller, fuel-efficient cars � more than three decades ago.

And, no, it is not entirely the visionless management of GM, Chrysler and Ford, although it frustrating to recall the opportunities missed by CEOs who rejected smart union advocacy on behalf of the industry's long-term future in favor of ever-bulkier SUVs, schemes to turn from manufacturing to financial services and, when it came time to balance the books, factory closures and layoffs.

The truth is that U.S. auto firms are being battered by a global economic collapse that has undermined car sales everywhere, leading to demands for government bailouts in every country where cars are made. But the even greater truth is that U.S. firms have been hit harder than many of their competitors by stalling car sales.

That's because it costs more to make cars in the United States. Even though U.S. autoworkers have accepted pay cuts and efficiency schemes that mean they make less than autoworkers in many other countries, the enormous expense imposed by this country's for-profit health care system places an extreme burden on firms that manufacture vehicles in the U.S. How extreme? It is estimated that health care costs add as much as $1,400 to the cost of a car made in an American plant.

So a new bailout, without a serious focus on health care reform, is at best a temporary fix, as three Democratic House members from the hard-hit manufacturing states of Ohio and Michigan explain in a new letter to GM CEO Richard Wagoner, Jr.

"You have convincingly articulated the effect of health care costs on GM's competitiveness for years. Though the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association agreement with the United Auto Workers (UAW) has provided some short-term relief of health care costs by relinquishing financial responsibility for retiree care, the health care costs of current employees remain. Unless those costs are controlled, financial relief will be temporary," write Ohio Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur and Michigan Representative John Conyers.

"As the nation's largest provider of health care in the U.S., GM is likely to have captured the majority of the efficiencies that can be gained under a system with multiple, competing insurers. If true, systemic health care reform is the remedy of choice," explain Kucinich, Kaptur and Conyers, who add that, "There is a model for health care finance that has proven in several countries to control costs, provide health care to all, and increase the quality of care: national health insurance, which is embodied in H.R. 676."

H.R. 676, the United States National Health Care Act, is a single-payer reform that would, the House members explain, provide "all American residents would receive a National Health Insurance card. The card would be good for health care services at all health care facilities across the country in the National Health Insurance system. Families would be able to choose any licensed doctor and any hospital. There would be no premium, deductible or co-payment. No one would receive a bill for any medically necessary health care services, and by eliminating inefficiencies, the plan would cost the same amount of money that is now spent on health care."

That's good for Americans.

And, in this case, what's good for Americans is good for General Motors.

So, the members of Congress suggest that, in order to show he is serious about renewing GM and the U.S. auto industry, Waggoner should get GM on record as an endorser of H.R. 676.

Such a move, placed in the context of a discussion about another bailout for auto firms, would get attention focused on the Conyers-sponsored bill, which has attracted more than 90 cosponsors in the current Congress. And it would turn a vague discussion about the need for health care reform, and the role such reform could play in stimulating the economy, into a serious debate about the sort of changes that really are needed but that are not always discussed in media reports or White House strategy sessions.

Here's the message Kucinich, Kaptur and Conyers sent Waggoner on Thursday:

As part of our ongoing efforts to ensure that the auto industry continues to be competitive, we write to engage you in a discussion about solutions. With a difficult economic outlook, plummeting auto sales, efforts already underway to cut costs relative to the competition, and health care costs rising faster than inflation, there has never been a more prudent time for GM to endorse H.R. 676, the United States National Health Care Act. We invite you to meet with us to discuss the matter in person.

You have convincingly articulated the effect of health care costs on GM's competitiveness for years. Though the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association agreement with the United Auto Workers (UAW) has provided some short-term relief of health care costs by relinquishing financial responsibility for retiree care, the health care costs of current employees remain. Unless those costs are controlled, financial relief will be temporary.

As the nation's largest provider of health care in the U.S., GM is likely to have captured the majority of the efficiencies that can be gained under a system with multiple, competing insurers. If true, systemic health care reform is the remedy of choice. There is a model for health care finance that has proven in several countries to control costs, provide health care to all, and increase the quality of care: national health insurance, which is embodied in H.R. 676.

One such success story can be found in Canada, where Canadian GM, Ford and Chrysler have publicly declared their support for Canada's health care system specifically because of the competitive advantage it gives them over their American counterparts.

If H.R. 676 was implemented, the benefits to GM would not be limited to cost control. H.R. 676 would reduce liability insurance & workers compensation costs; eliminate the cost and inconvenience of running a health benefits bureaucracy; eliminate employee concerns about rising premiums and co-pays and conflicts with labor unions over benefit cuts; free up money for consumer spending; reduce absenteeism; and produce a healthier, more productive work force.

Momentum behind H.R. 676 is increasing by the day. It garnered 93 cosponsors in the 110th Congress including multiple Chairs of committees and subcommittees of jurisdiction. Fifty-nine percent of all physicians and about 60% of the American public now support a national health insurance plan like H.R. 676. The California State Assembly has twice passed such a bill in the last three years. National health insurance is supported by the deans of prominent medical schools, a former New England Journal of Medicine editor, a Nobel Laureate, a former Surgeon General, the US Conference of Mayors, the US Presbyterian Church, the League of Women Voters, Consumer's Union, and the UAW.

To learn more about H.R. 676 and the campaign to enact it, check out the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care site and the continuing efforts of the group with which Conyers has worked closely on this issue, Progressive Democrats of America.

Comments (72)

Come on, Nichols!

Do you expect there is enough time to "debate" and a week later, impose UHC......all in time to save the doomed GM & Chrysler??????

Posted by Happy at 02/20/2009 @ 10:33am
Posted by Happy at 02/20/2009 @ 10:33am

Why wouldn't he expect that? He believes the stimulus package(more pork than at a pig roast) is a victory for America and the economy, when everyone who voted for it NEVER read it, and those who voted no after reading it are the problem..

Personaly, I can't wait for my ecocar...

American auto makers made SUVs because that is what the market and the customers(people wanted) and thats what the Big 3 made money on...

I want to know what will happen to all those batteries, that are as toxic as nuke waste, when they die? And the "green" light bulbs one can't dispose of without a HAZMAT team?

This is what you get when greeny govt hacks and lefty loons jumps into the market with mandated "new ideas"...

and why the rest of us shudder at the same people wanting to get into the health care business.

It won't be healthy and it will not care...

GM,Ford, et al., should be allowed to go bankrupt as any other inefficient or mis run business does and the auto companies that can run a business will buy the remains and revive it..look at the success of the companies in Indiana, S Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky...they will step in and buy what left and cost the tax payer...zero.

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/20/2009 @ 10:56am
look at the success of the companies in Indiana, S Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky...they will step in and buy what left and cost the tax payer...zero.

ah yes, those great southern states where the working poor thrive. Hmm. Those low tax states that attracted those non union shops sure are the economic engines of this country. No?

Posted by erazma at 02/20/2009 @ 11:04am
Seriously, however, I don't know if HR 676 is the answer. Yet, I do know that it is a serious look into the problem of health care and American competitiveness.

I have always thought that the nationalization of preventative care initiatives would go a long way to helping lower insurance costs and insure the uninsured.

Unfortunately, I find most on the right do not see the 46 million uninsured Americans as a problem. It's their fault they are poor, I guess.

Posted by erazma at 02/20/2009 @ 11:13am
We agree on one thing, take healthcare away from employers.

Let's start immediately with the 3 US automakers stipulating that they will no longer healthcare as an employee benefit.

Instead, employees will be given a raise of $300 per month for individuals and $600 for families to purchase their own healthcare.

Make the premiums tax deductible even for non-itemizing tax returns.

let the govt and business pay into a shared pool for unininsurable people to have catastrophic coverage with HSA type preventative care benefits (ie 3 visits per year for checkups)

That would be far more productive and cost effective rather than the socialist program that the left is trying to impose on all citizens.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/20/2009 @ 11:32am
Make the premiums tax deductible even for non-itemizing tax returns.

let the govt and business pay into a shared pool for unininsurable people to have catastrophic coverage with HSA type preventative care benefits (ie 3 visits per year for checkups)

I wouldn't be opposed to these ideas... for whatever that's worth :)

Of course, the devil would be in the details.

Would republicans actually support such a thing if it ....eee gad....raised taxes? Would democrats support such a measure if it means that the poorest among us were not fully insured?

At this point, if such proposals helped competitiveness and substantially lowered the number of uninsured, then half a loaf is better than nothing.

Posted by erazma at 02/20/2009 @ 11:48am
Nichols, it must be nice to work at a place like The Nation, where there is never a need to reduce the workforce, because the place has no intention of ever making a profit. I think this model is so good, that we should extend it to all industry that still makes a profit, if there are any of those left. Think of it, absolute job security, and even better, if unionized, they can strike for whatever wage increase they want at any time. And management, freed from the evils of profit, can quickly agree to new demands. This is such a goo0d idea, I can only wonder why it hasn't caught on yet!

Posted by sntauri at 02/20/2009 @ 11:54am
Would republicans actually support such a thing if it ....eee gad....raised taxes? Would democrats support such a measure if it means that the poorest among us were not fully insured?

At this point, if such proposals helped competitiveness and substantially lowered the number of uninsured, then half a loaf is better than nothing.

Posted by erazma at 02/20/2009 @ 11:48am

this idea was actually proposed last year by John McCain as part of his campaign.

I thought it a good idea then and it sounds better all the time to me as I look at our nation.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/20/2009 @ 11:57am
look at the success of the companies in Indiana, S Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky...they will step in and buy what left and cost the tax payer...zero.

ah yes, those great southern states where the working poor thrive. Hmm. Those low tax states that attracted those non union shops sure are the economic engines of this country. No?

Posted by erazma at 02/20/2009 @ 11:04am

Perhaps you think $60k a year is no money...but I am sure that is better than paying UAW guys $70k a year to sit around the union hall and build...nothing?

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/20/2009 @ 12:06pm
Again, though, the details and politics would be paramount. I'm sure that the idea that it may take raising taxes would be a non-starter for republicans. They may use it to try to abolish or sharply curtail social security, for instance.

At this, democrats (rightly) would balk. The democrats may reason that too many are still left without a complete insurance package. This would be their non-starter.

Yet, perhaps here is where Obama's push for bipartisanship could pay dividends.

My partisan hat, however, must mention that it seems that republicans see bipartisanship and compromise in this light..."give us everything we want; agree with everything we say, and we will vote for the bill." Otherwise, congressional republicans act like 3 year-olds.

Posted by erazma at 02/20/2009 @ 12:14pm
The real reason the "Big Three" have such high costs is the stupid 30 and out policy. Work 30 years and get full retirement with full health coverage. Since many workers started at 18, it has resulted in people retiring at age 48, almost 20 years before the normal retirement of 65. This must be flushed before anything can improve. You want to retire at 48? Go ahead, just do it on your own hook.

Posted by pyeatte at 02/20/2009 @ 12:23pm
GM, Ford, and Chrysler's problems predate the current credit problems and reduced global demand for cars.

GM has hemmoraged billions for a decade or more because the unions have struck one-sided deals where GM has to pay TOO MUCH money and benefits to its workers.

About 40 cents on the dollar GM makes goes to pay for retiree benefits.

Meanwhile Hyundai has come along and increased market share and quality while GM is crying about banks being the problem.

Govt needs to butt out, let them file for bankruptcy, and get out of their deals with the labor unions.

They make lousy cars, they pay their employees too much, and the world will survive without them.

Posted by Zamfeer at 02/20/2009 @ 12:49pm
Always have to hand it to some of our rightie friends who post here, that is, in recognition of their innate ability to somehow assign near-mythic powers to labor unions, which, last I looked, comprise about 14% (or so) of the workforce.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/20/2009 @ 2:50pm
<b> YES! HR 676 is the way to go ... </b>

Saves millions of jobs, helps states, cities and local government, the under and uninsured while giving the American public finally something to really cheer about.

Only through a public single payer system can the costs of management, profit, record keeping, best practice be lowered.

For example, Medicare delivers health care at 3-5% while health care companies need 25-30% to cover overhead (political contributions?) and profit.

<b>HR 676 Medicare for All is the way to go.</b>

Posted by mmckinl at 02/20/2009 @ 5:31pm
"And, no, it is not entirely the visionless management of GM, Chrysler and Ford"

Ford Mtr. Co. REJECTED the idea of the bailout and is rewarded by an INCREASING market share after negotiating with the UAW the same things GM and Chrysler are trying to obtain from the unions! How about a little TRUTH in your rambling push for socialized healthcare!

Some of the ridiculous arguements about the south and its workers are NOW 180 degrees turn around by leftist from what they argued even a month ago! How foolish.

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/20/2009 @ 6:16pm
I posted this the other day; perhaps you should listen to the former Comptroller General before praising Medicare as an answer

Few have listened to this interview by the Comptroller General on 60 Minutes 2 years ago where he states that even if we eliminated the military, Medicare costs will bankrupt the nation beginning in 2011.

http://tinyurl.com/d79du4

Senator Kent Conrad (D) remarks at hearing featuring the Comptroller General in 2007

"The growing costs of Medicare and Medicaid is simply staggering. By 2050, if nothing changes, more than 20 percent of gross domestic product will be spent on Medicare and Medicaid alone. That is about what all of government costs us now."

�GAO's simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as

�Cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or

�Raising federal taxes to two times today's level

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08604cg.pdf

So, how would we afford to expand a program that is going bankrupt to now include all Americans?

Posted by antisocialist at 02/20/2009 @ 6:17pm
More on the inability of considering using the Medicare angle for healthcare solutions.

Walker notes in this presentation given a few years ago that even if you remove the Bush taxcuts, the future Medicare costs will bankrupt the system.

He noted then that Medicare commitments current were 30 Trillion and last December that number was increased to 40 Trillion.

http://tinyurl.com/48kt66

Posted by antisocialist at 02/20/2009 @ 6:25pm
It is time to admit that providing health care is bankrupting American corporations. this is a terrific start by getting GM to support it.

Posted by tmvmpwv at 02/20/2009 @ 7:49pm
Those low tax states that attracted those non union shops sure are the economic engines of this country. No?

Posted by erazma at 02/20/2009 @ 11:04am

Well, BMW, Michelin, Hubble etc seem to be working great here in Greenville...which also happens to boast the highest number of engineers per capita in the country...

Posted by usc1 at 02/20/2009 @ 8:24pm
"The real reason the "Big Three" have such high costs is the stupid 30 and out policy..."

Posted by pyeatte at 02/20/2009 @ 12:23pm

Pyeatte, you DOLT, it's the health care and only the health care...not the extra $30/hr the UAW guys get paid...or the 50 year old retirees with full benefits...its the HEALTH CARE that's putting them out of business...

Posted by usc1 at 02/20/2009 @ 8:29pm
bribed demoblicans will never allow this. one has to fight the cleptomedical complex incrementally.

one should first put the autoworkers on medicaid for 1/3 of the current health-care bill of the auto industry, +1/3 to be "given back" to the industry as "bailout", with strings for public transportation, guaranteed 10% dividends, etc. (GM's 2007 healthcare bill, e.g., was $4.6 billion).

then one would accept the workers of any company for 2/3 of the healthcare bill of the company (or 1/3 fee + 1/3 "loan back" deals).

it's win win :

i) it would help usa competitiveness, e.g., vs. canadian manufacturers that enjoy "subsidized" health care.

ii) it would bring in "paying" users into the medicaid system, i.e., "expand" universal care (since medicaid already covers bad-risk types). medicaid would become less of a money sink and ultimately it would make money for the gov.

iii) through medicaid the obama gov. would showcase its capability to deliver "efficient government" and to mobilize the "public service spirit" and demonstrate that medical care can cost much less.

iv) it would draw the clepto-medical complex into a low-cost race it can neither win nor fend off through bribed demagogues.

conservatives would be dumbfounded if the program is sold using lines like

i) "letting the state do what the market cannot do" (the only acceptable role of the state for conservatives). ii) "fighting and preventing illness is like fighting and preventing crime". ii) "repealing the health-care tax on the profits of employers". iii) "restoring the competitiveness of usa entrepreneurs vs. foreigners" (by lowering their health care bill). iv) "no privileging of unionized, lobbyist-hiring companies" (small employers hate unions and bigger companies).

Posted by erplus at 02/20/2009 @ 9:44pm
I really can't deal with the stupidity here. And among readers of the Nation, no less. The workers at GM do not make $70 per hour. They make 22 to $28 per hour. The rest of the cost is health insurance costs for them, plus the big one, pensions and healthcare for the retirees. The $70/hr. is a calculation per employed worker and as there are only 50,000 workers and 340,000 FORMER workers (ok retirees) you simply add up total costs, of 390,000 employees and divide it by 50,000 employees. YOu arrive at $70/hr. Geesh.

Posted by Letty K at 02/20/2009 @ 11:15pm
"medicaid would become less of a money sink and ultimately it would make money for the gov." Posted by erplus at 02/20/2009 @ 9:44pm

And, how exactly would it do that?

Who, or what, is the "clepto-medical complex"?

Posted by twillie at 02/20/2009 @ 11:39pm
well,

the big three are hardly "american" companies.....

who cares where the rich owners live?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/20/2009 @ 11:46pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/20/2009 @ 11:32am

What a load of self-centered codswallop. How far do you think that $600/month on healthcare for a family is gonna go in an environment where comprehensive group health plans premiums are well in excess of $1200/month? Let's add in a diabetic spouse or an asthmatic child and see whether a group plan can be purchased at any price. I suppose if the employee could save enough months of premiums, he may be able to afford a modest funeral for the unfortunate family member.

No Mask, I do not consider that statement to be hyperbole anymore than your quotation of Dickens' immortal Ebeneezer. These user pays arguments always assume either no use or that the ill are ill as the result of of a weakness that the framers of the Constitution did not encompass when they spoke to promoting the common welfare of the people.

If hospitals should not accept non-payers because the rest of us plutocrats do not wish to subsidize them through our premiums or fees for service, then 'let'em die' is not an over the top interpretation of these yahoos' position.

A political philosophy founded on the inherent dignity of all people cannot sustain a response that these individuals should be forced to accept the charity of the more fortunate at the discretion of the more fortunate.

Posted by canaarak at 02/20/2009 @ 11:59pm
whether an individual plan (rather than a group plan) may be purchased at any price.

Posted by canaarak at 02/21/2009 @ 12:27am
Nationalized healthcare brought to you by the very bureaucracies that have so successfully run the U.S. Post Office ($3,000,000,000. loss 2008) and now DTV along with the shining successes of the SEC and Federal Reserve banking auditors showing healthy financial services and banking industries!

Yea, we are sure going to jump for joy over the next porkulus spending spree cost of socializing national health which will be inclusive of any illegal immigrants that crosses the now wide open borders! Trouble is where are all the Canadians seeking emergency medical care across the border going to go?

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/21/2009 @ 12:35am
1. A typical Canadian seeking surgery had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007 between referral from a general practitioner and treatment (averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed), reaching an all-time record high, up from 17.8 weeks in 2006.

2. Ontario recorded the shortest waiting time overall at 15 weeks and Nova Scotia recorded the longest waits in Canada at almost 25 weeks.

3. The waiting time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks) and the longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks).

4. The waiting time between specialist consultation and treatment--the second stage of waiting--increased to 9.1 weeks from 9 weeks in 2006. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits were found in Ontario (7.3 weeks), while the longest waits were in Manitoba (12.0 weeks).

5. Between 2006 and 2007, large increases occurred in the waits for internal medicine (additional 4.9 weeks), gynaecology (additional 2.1 weeks), urology (additional 1.9 weeks), and otolaryngology (additional 1.8 weeks).

6. The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia had the shortest wait for CT scans (4 weeks), while the longest wait occurred in Manitoba (8 weeks).

7. The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks (in other words, early 2008 if you call tomorrow). Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks - in other words March 5, 2008 if you schedule tomorrow).

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/21/2009 @ 01:03am
8. The median wait for ultrasound was 3.9 weeks across Canada. Alberta and Ontario displayed the shortest wait for ultrasound (2 weeks), while Prince Edward Island and Manitoba exhibited the longest ultrasound waiting time (10 weeks).

The Fraser Institute concludes that "The promise of the Canadian health care system is not being realized. The only way to solve the system's most curable disease � lengthy wait times that are consistently and significantly longer than physicians feel is clinically reasonable � is for substantial reform of the Canadian health care system."

Plan veeeerrrrryyyy far ahead if you think you might die waiting!!!

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/21/2009 @ 01:04am
Plan veeeerrrrryyyy far ahead if you think you might die waiting!!!

How long would you recommend I wait until Hell freezes over which appears to be the current counter recommendation to providing for the healthcare of all U.S citizens?

Posted by canaarak at 02/21/2009 @ 01:09am
The idea that the US healthcare system is completely privatized is a canard. Without Govt. programs, it is probable many hospitals and other healthcare providers would close. Without Medicaid etc...premiums of private insurers would skyrocket because costs would rise.

Posted by koroviev at 02/21/2009 @ 02:23am
Part 2 of the myth. Govt. Health coverage would mean poor services, long waits etc...

Does a patient on Medicare have to wait longer than a patient with Blue Cross / Shield? Do healthcare providers have any problems accepting medicare patients?

Do HMOs or otherwise private medical insurance companies ever refuse to cover proceedures or other medical costs? Yes. If anything, their drive to profit results in substandard care.

Posted by koroviev at 02/21/2009 @ 02:29am
"all American residents would receive a National Health Insurance card. The card would be good for health care services at all health care facilities across the country in the National Health Insurance system. Families would be able to choose any licensed doctor and any hospital. There would be no premium, deductible or co-payment. No one would receive a bill for any medically necessary health care services,"

G-------t!!! They're stealing my idea!!! Stealing it!!! And with nary a nod to my brilliance! This is the exact same payment plan that I proposed in my SPGWR and SPHSP systems and they're stealing it!

I suppose I should be flattered, but it would be nice to have a little recognition for an idea that is so brilliant, yet so simple and effective (as the truly earth-shattering ideas often are).

Posted by dailycomfort at 02/21/2009 @ 02:37am
Without Govt. programs, it is probable many hospitals and other healthcare providers would close. Without Medicaid etc...premiums of private insurers would skyrocket because costs would rise.

Posted by koroviev at 02/21/2009 @ 02:23am

Please explain why so many physicians refuse Medicaid/Medicare as payors.

Posted by dailycomfort at 02/21/2009 @ 03:28am
Does a patient on Medicare have to wait longer than a patient with Blue Cross / Shield? No.

Do healthcare providers have any problems accepting medicare patients? Yes.

Do HMOs or otherwise private medical insurance companies ever refuse to cover proceedures or other medical costs? Yes.

Does Medicare ever refuse to cover proceedures or other medical costs? Yes.

Posted by koroviev at 02/21/2009 @ 02:29am

Posted by dailycomfort at 02/21/2009 @ 03:34am
Unfortunately, I find most on the right do not see the 46 million uninsured Americans as a problem. It's their fault they are poor, I guess.

Posted by erazma at 02/20/2009 @ 11:13am | 46 million...a number grossly overinflated for political purposes.

Posted by fram at 02/21/2009 @ 11:34am
The $70/hr. is a calculation per employed worker and as there are only 50,000 workers and 340,000 FORMER workers (ok retirees) you simply add up total costs, of 390,000 employees and divide it by 50,000 employees. YOu arrive at $70/hr. Geesh.

Posted by Letty K at 02/20/2009 @ 11:15pm

Thank you Letty for telling us all what we already know. You have an amazing grasp of the obvious. It really doesn't matter now does it that $70/hr, whether paid as direct compensation or paid out as salary, benefits, and legacy costs, is still $70/hr.

Posted by fram at 02/21/2009 @ 11:54am
Does a patient on Medicare have to wait longer than a patient with Blue Cross / Shield? No.

Does Medicare ever refuse to cover proceedures or other medical costs? Yes.

Posted by koroviev at 02/21/2009 @ 02:29am

Is Medicare and Medicaid going broke? YES

Posted by fram at 02/21/2009 @ 12:06pm
What a load of self-centered codswallop. How far do you think that $600/month on healthcare for a family is gonna go in an environment where comprehensive group health plans premiums are well in excess of $1200/month? Let's add in a diabetic spouse or an asthmatic child and see whether a group plan can be purchased at any price. I suppose if the employee could save enough months of premiums, he may be able to afford a modest funeral for the unfortunate family member.

Posted by canaarak at 02/20/2009 @ 11:59pm

The high cost for group premiums is that the insurance companies adds in the risk cost for those employees and/or their family members with existing conditions-in other words, the group bears the added cost for those at higher risk to the insurer.

The 2nd factor is claims history. You can have 2 employers with the same size group and similar demographic, yet because of much higher claims with group A, they would be priced far higher than group B. that is the reason why there is no set premium for groups as there is in general for individuals and families.

Finally, there is no RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE. Healthcare is a privilige not a right.

About 50 years ago, most people did not have health insurance. I didn't have it for my family until they were almost teenagers. We paid cash for everything including their delivery.

And as I've said often, the greatest effect that America could have in lowering the costs of healthcare would be for Americans to eat a proper diet and exercise. We could virtually eliminate diabetes, kidney, and heart failure costs with simple preventative care of diet and exercise.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/21/2009 @ 2:34pm
Well, BMW, Michelin, Hubble etc seem to be working great here in Greenville...which also happens to boast the highest number of engineers per capita in the country...

Posted by usc1 at 02/20/2009 @ 8:24pm

In the present construct, the North subsidizes the hell out of the South. Overwhelmingly, Federal disaster $$$ flows your way, not ours.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/21/2009 @ 4:08pm
Federal disaster $$$ flows your way, not ours.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/21/2009 @ 4:08pm

How many hurricanes hit Toledo every year?

Posted by usc1 at 02/21/2009 @ 4:15pm
Precisely.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/21/2009 @ 4:24pm
Nationalized healthcare brought to you by the very bureaucracies that have so successfully run the U.S. Post Office ($3,000,000,000. loss 2008) and now DTV along with the shining successes of the SEC and Federal Reserve banking auditors showing healthy financial services and banking industries!

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/21/2009 @ 12:35am

don't they run the military, too?

oh, yeah......

��RAPTOR!!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 4:49pm
7. The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks (in other words, early 2008 if you call tomorrow). Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks - in other words March 5, 2008 if you schedule tomorrow).

etc.,

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/21/2009 @ 01:03am

Health Statistics > expenditure, total > % of GDP (most recent) by country

#1 United States: 15.4 %

#15 Canada: 9.8 %

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 4:52pm
7. The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks (in other words, early 2008 if you call tomorrow). Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks - in other words March 5, 2008 if you schedule tomorrow).

etc.,

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/21/2009 @ 01:03am

Health Statistics > Obesity (most recent) by country

#1 United States: 30.6%

#11 Canada: 14.3%

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 4:53pm
7. The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks (in other words, early 2008 if you call tomorrow). Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks - in other words March 5, 2008 if you schedule tomorrow).

etc.,

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/21/2009 @ 01:03am

Health Statistics > Life expectancy at birth, years > Total population (most recent) by country

#11 Canada: 80

#35 United States: 77

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 4:54pm
7. The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks (in other words, early 2008 if you call tomorrow). Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20 weeks - in other words March 5, 2008 if you schedule tomorrow).

etc.,

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/21/2009 @ 01:03am

c'mon, rio.

aren't you americans?

if you can throw humans to the moon, can't you run a hospital?

i mean, really,

don't you trust americans?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 4:56pm
How many hurricanes hit Toledo every year?

Posted by usc1 at 02/21/2009 @ 4:15pm

According to our media partner the Toledo Blade, there will be temporary but indefinite layoffs for a number of city employees. ...

GM Powertrain Toledo layoffs - 2/12/09 - Toledo News - 13abc.com This idles the plant's second and third shift and affects nearly 250 people.

toledoblade.com -- 31 Jan 2009 ... Toledo fire, police layoffs possible. Cuts in officers not planned, but aide notes need to erase $8.1M deficit. By IGNAZIO MESSINA ...

Toledo Machining - voluntary layoffs - Topix Toledo, OH. Reply �. |. Report Abuse. |. Judge it! |. #7. Friday Feb 13. You're welcome TNAPWife. There were 144 people in this layoff, with 12 being laid ...

Toledo Free Press � Blog Archive � Blade to lay off 23 workers FOX Toledo reported the layoff of five station personnel Dec. 11, including one on-air personality and four "behind the scenes" employees. ...

Holy Toledo! Layoffs at WNWO Open Line. ... WNWO-TV, Channel 24, announced layoffs yesterday of reporters, photographers, ...

Toledo: Roadway Express, which operates two truck terminals in Toledo, filed notice that it intends to lay off 160...

DispatchPolitics : University of Toledo to lay off 100 temporary ...

WILL CLOSE TOLEDO SHOPS.; New York Central to Lay Off 500 Men ... TOLEDO, Dec. 8.-The Campbell shops of the New York Central Rail: oad will be closed on Dec. 16, It was announced by :George F. Wilson, general shop foreman ...

More Toledo Jeep Layoffs Announced 21 Aug 2008 ... What is undeniable is the impact these layoffs have on the economy. Toledo stands to lose $250000 of income tax revenue from this summer's ...

WE NEED REAL MONEY.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:01pm
is still $70/hr.

Posted by fram at 02/21/2009 @ 11:54am

DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp (GM.N) Chief Executive Rick Wagoner's salary and other compensation rose 64 percent in 2007 to about $15.7 million, mainly due to option grants, according to a proxy filed on Friday.

o.k.,

let's say the dude works 90 hours per week.

he's got big bootstraps to hold up, you know.

so,

15,700,000 � 90 � 52 (no rest for the wicked!) =

$3,354.70/hour.

hmmmmmmm.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:07pm
so,

1 rick ≅ 100 uaw borg.

hmmmmmmm.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:09pm
Healthcare is a privilige not a right.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/21/2009 @ 2:34pm

"Even jackals offer their breasts to nurse their young,

but my people have become heartless like ostriches in the desert."

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:13pm
Health Statistics > Obesity (most recent) by country

#1 United States: 30.6%

#11 Canada: 14.3%

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 4:53

the obesity problem has zero to do with what kind of healthcare system we have and everything to do with poor choices by Americans.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/21/2009 @ 5:24pm
And as I've said often, the greatest effect that America could have in lowering the costs of healthcare would be for Americans to eat a proper diet and exercise.

We could virtually eliminate diabetes, kidney, and heart failure costs with simple preventative care of diet and exercise.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/21/2009 @ 2:34pm

mmmm,

soya.

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/

Crops_and_Plants/Field_Crops_Harvested/07-M195.asp

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:27pm
And as I've said often, the greatest effect that America could have in lowering the costs of healthcare would be for Americans to eat a proper diet and exercise.

We could virtually eliminate diabetes, kidney, and heart failure costs with simple preventative care of diet and exercise.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/21/2009 @ 2:34pm

mmmm,

corn.

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/

Crops_and_Plants/Field_Crops_Harvested/07-M165.asp

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:28pm
the obesity problem has zero to do with what kind of healthcare system we have and everything to do with poor choices by Americans.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/21/2009 @ 5:24pm

such as "choosing" a poor* health care system?

*well, on a cost basis, that is. c'mon larry, �16% of gdp?

i bet americans are smart enough to put hospitals on the moon.

why not des moines?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:31pm
such as "choosing" a poor* health care system?

*well, on a cost basis, that is. c'mon larry, �16% of gdp?

i bet americans are smart enough to put hospitals on the moon.

why not des moines?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:31pm

FZ, you're mr vegetarian (something I practice only part time), so you should be supportive of the notion that most Americans don't eat properly, preferring McDonalds to vegetables and soy, and that they need to change their dietary habits.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/21/2009 @ 5:37pm
In the 1960's & 1970's the US Health Care industry was very successful at providing good care and keeping costs low. It was run by individual physicians and small-community hospitals.

In the 70's & 80's middle-managers began to take over the systems and divert 50% of the costs to oversight, or paperwork-related costs, driving the quality down and costs up. As competition began to eat away at companies they offered lower services. Doctors worked for plans which had interns checking patients while the qualified wrote prescriptions and left the actual diagnosis to unqualified nurse-assistants & similar types.

Meanwhile costs soared in the 1990's and services declined further. I had major surgery in the 60's which would not have occurred today and I have led a life through that intervention which has allowed me to climb mountains and explore the sea. I provide medical researchers with resources which allow them to study genetic as well as environmental & physiological aspects of biology & medicine.

I no longer go to doctors, though, since they're no longer practicing. Doctors see only the rich or the lucky few who have strong enough representation by their unions to get to doctors, universities and such, and in my last position as an employee I had insurance but saw doctors only when I was injured by my employers. They were trying to coverup their mistakes and their health plan made my situation worse.

The scare-mongers would have you in the same position. Fixing our health care system is part of fixing our economy. Get rid of managed care and the middlemen and prices will come down. Stand up for your rights, the US taxpayer funded most of the research; it's ours, not theirs!

Posted by squidboy6 at 02/21/2009 @ 7:46pm
Posted by squidboy6 at 02/21/2009 @ 7:46pm

You do realize that Ted Kennedy authored the HMO bill, don't you?

On March 3, 1978, Senator Edward Kennedy bragged, 'As the author of the first HMO billever to pass the Senate, I find this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying. Just a few years ago, proponents of health maintenance organizations faced bitter opposition from organized medicine.' He added, 'HMOs have proven themselves again and again to be effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality. HMOs cut hospital utilization by an average of 20 to 25 percent compared to the fee-for-service sector.'

So now liberals are acting as staunch opponents of the very system that they set up...worse though, they are using their own wretched system to launch a new attack to get government even more involved in health care...instead of getting out of the way...once again government is "saving" us from their own handiwork...genius...

Posted by usc1 at 02/21/2009 @ 8:26pm
Healthcare is a privilige not a right.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/21/2009 @ 2:34pm

"Even jackals offer their breasts to nurse their young,

but my people have become heartless like ostriches in the desert."

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:13pm

It is one thing to offer assistance to those in need...quite another for others to assume they have a right to it...

Posted by dailycomfort at 02/21/2009 @ 8:31pm
Posted by squidboy6 at 02/21/2009 @ 7:46pm

Take a gander at this...

http://freedomkeys.com/medigraph3.jpg

Posted by usc1 at 02/21/2009 @ 8:33pm
Perhaps you think $60k a year is no money...but I am sure that is better than paying UAW guys $70k a year to sit around the union hall and build...nothing?

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/20/2009 @ 12:06pm

Therefore, such a 'fact' puts a bit of a damper on your belief that union pay is the reason for the troubles of the domestic auto companies?

Posted by erazma at 02/21/2009 @ 8:52pm
Healthcare is a privilege, not a right?

That must explain the Walter Reed fiasco. I'm sure that the dedicated corpsmen and medics will need some retraining for those occasions when hearing our wounded heros calling out for aid under fire in order to remember to respond, "sorry buddy, healthcare is a privilege, not a right."

Or then, maybe it's just a right for some but not others. I'm sure that as the mouthpiece of God, that you have the absolute answer to whom the right to healthcare has been annointed. How very egalitarian and democratic.

Posted by canaarak at 02/21/2009 @ 9:36pm
Posted by canaarak at 02/21/2009

That's a little backwards. First, the Walter Reed situation, and the VA for that matter, are great examples of what happens when government is in charge of health care. Second, the role of providing health care for our military personnel is no different than the benefit of health care provided by employers. The scope of care may be different, but the purpose and provision of it is not. Third, the question is not who has a right to health care because it ignores the rights of the very people who have the right to provide it. They are the only ones who should determine how and for whom they will exercise their right to practice medicine.

Speaking of egalitarian, do you believe that a person or group can claim a right to the services of others? Think about it.

Posted by dailycomfort at 02/21/2009 @ 10:25pm
It is one thing to offer assistance to those in need...quite another for others to assume they have a right to it...

Posted by dailycomfort at 02/21/2009 @ 8:31pm

i love when doctors talk this way....

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 10:33pm
Exema,

No damper only belief that unions are the main problem... $70,000 was just for the wages, the rest is retirees and health care.

The real damper is yet to come.

Posted by YourJomamma at 02/21/2009 @ 10:59pm
i love when doctors talk this way....

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 10:33pm

I thought you would.

;)

Posted by dailycomfort at 02/21/2009 @ 11:15pm
Posted by usc1 at 02/20/2009 @ 8:29pm: Of course healthcare costs are a problem - everyone knows that. But the retiree costs (which include healthcare) are the 800 pound elephant in the middle of the room. When this 30 and out policy was made, people said this was a huge timebomb. A few years later the union leadership saw this was an unsustainable monster. The only healthy people who should be able to retire and receive a pension before 65 are the military, due to their special circumstance.

Posted by pyeatte at 02/22/2009 @ 12:21am
the obesity problem has zero to do with what kind of healthcare system we have and everything to do with poor choices by Americans.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/21/2009 @ 5:24pm

Yea.

Tell me if you find it as funny as I do that the red stater conservatives are the fattest group of fatties to ever live.

The habits of Americans everywhere are downright disgusting.

Posted by TexasFlood at 02/22/2009 @ 12:52am
mmmmmmmmmm,

corn fed bacon!

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2009 @ 02:05am
Posted by pyeatte at 02/22/2009 @ 12:21am

To clarify, I was agreeing with you...sarcasm doesn't always translate in the written format...

Posted by usc1 at 02/22/2009 @ 02:32am
Posted by erazma at 02/20/2009 @ 11:04am | ignore this person | warn this person

the foreign car companies got HUGE tax breaks from those states. call it welfare for rich foreign companies.

but let ONE campesino get food stamps or a free hospital visit and the repugs go ballistic.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/22/2009 @ 5:01pm
THE MISSILES ARE COMING

I stare at the dust as it tries not to fall Swirling in the sun streams from the windows on the wall. Down in the valley ring lonely church bells Sounding their message as the devil's brood swells.

The missiles are coming though I can't tell you when As they drop down upon us our lifestyles shall end. You can hide underground or fly far away Their lingering fallout will find you someday.

No more small children shall toddle off to schools Because of mistakes of grownup mad fools. Believing in space men and the ships, which they fly You can bet as it happens, they'll watch it and cry

The generals are playing a death game of dare With missiles in the silos and bombs in the air. There'll be time for anger, there'll be time for greed But the time shall be lost for planting the seed.

All Poems By Conservative Poet Tom Zart Most Published Poet On The Web

TOM ZART'S RADIO POEMS

You can hear all of Tom Zart's 330 poems of love, war, faith and more 24-7 on web radio at

http://internetvoicesradio.com/Arch-TomZart.htm

Tom Zart ARCHIVES:

Global Special Operations 101

http://www.globalspecialoperations.com/tomzart2.html

Posted by TomZart at 02/23/2009 @ 6:14pm