[Quagmire]

I can't stand them. They see GM is struggling, but they keep health care costs sky high. Why don't they see past their greediness and realize when GM collapses( which probably won't happen any time soon) their out of a freaking job? But, they can sue what is left of the people from GM since they lost their jobs like when the lawsuits came pouring in when GM decided to kill Oldsmobile. They sued because GM was killing Oldsmobile and they were leaving all the people without a job. What GM can't decide what brands to shut down? The unions do? I wish Japan had unions. If similar costs were put on Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. You will see them losing some money too. If GM collapses soon, it would be a big blow to our economy. Maybe not as big as it could of been when GM had 56% marketshare, but it will be a blow.

[Maciej]

Its eerie just how obsessed with GM you are...

[_Ω_]

Maybe you should talk to Kilbey over at 'NN, as he is a big GM fan! Though he has just changed his nick to railhead (?).

I would also have to say that GM's problems run deeper than the unions.

[atomicbartbeans]

GM still has a lot going for them; I don't think that killing of Olds = GM death knell.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Omega Maybe you should talk to Kilbey over at 'NN, as he is a big GM fan! Though he has just changed his nick to railhead (?). I would also have to say that GM's problems run deeper than the unions.

I know the problems run deeper then the unions. But, the UAW won't allow GM to lower health care costs so they could address the problems further. They won't cut GM slack. I mean back in the gilded age unions were needed to get better wages. But, today unions are greedy. A person is getting $78,000 plus overtime a year just pressing a button in a assembly plant who is a part of the UAW.

GM still has a lot going for them; I don't think that killing of Olds = GM death knell.

I never said the killing of Olds was the death knell. I was saying the UAW could do the same thing to GM as they did when GM shut down Olds. Sue. Dealers and workers that were apart of the UAW that worked in the Olds department sued GM for just shutting them down and not giving them any new jobs.

[staph]

Originally Posted by Undertaker I know the problems run deeper then the unions. But, the UAW won't allow GM to lower health care costs so they could address the problems further. They won't cut GM slack.

I'm sorry, but for enormous TNCs like GM the cost of a health-care plan for US workers is peanuts. They owe it to their workers to give them something decent in the absence of a decent state health care system.

Why should the workers be forced to give up their entitlements when the executives get thoroughly obscene salaries? How much does the board earn again, hmm?

[Luca]

Yeah... in fact, how could you even consider lowering health care benefits given the constantly rising cost of health care? In reality, every year that goes by where they don't increase benefits at least as much as the cost of health care rose is effectively cutting said benefits.

[Kickaha]

Nevermind.

[Banana]

Health costs has next to nothing to do with unions.

Its skyrocketing because of the system itself, and both companies and unions get screwed in the process.

Until someone in DC get off their smoky, fatty ass and make a bill that'd introduce *real* solution, then good! So far, they're arguing over how the other guy screwed up.

[Amadeus]

I'm against Unions in general as they are currently constituted. They had there place, when founded to bring about the 40 hour work week.

[HOM]

Ok Quagmire you need to start thinking rationally. I get that you're like 12 years old and very impressionable. But let's think this one out, ok?

The general consensus is that GM spends$1500 from each car sold on health care costs.

Why is it that Japanese, Korean, and German car manufacturers have such an advantage? Hint: It's not the unions...















It's because they have UNIVERSAL FUCKING HEALTHCARE!

Now, reasonable people can disagree on the merits of universal healthcare. Hell, there tons of problems with it. But BWM, Toyota, and Honda don't have to pay that $1500. That's $1500 they can use to lower the cost of the car, invest in new technologies, or give back to their investors in the form of dividends.

[Kickaha]

Aaaaaaaand how much do they pay in taxes instead to pay for that health care? Or is it financed by the public, ala N. Europe?

Face it, *SOMEONE* has to pay it, period. If not the employer, then the employee. If not directly, then through taxes.

It's basic economics: if you separate who receives the goods (patient) from who pays for the goods and makes economic decisions ('insurer'), then there is no built in price control, and costs go up. Socializing it is just imposing an external control on the price, at which point the government becomes the pricing power, the executor, and the funding manager. Sorry, but I don't trust them to know what they're doing.

There's a reason Canadians come to the US for health care.

I don't believe that Universal Healthcare, fucking or otherwise, is long-term viable. We broke our system fundamentally when we tried to turn an *insurance* based system into a *care* based system. The providers don't want to pay for what actually constitutes 'care', diseases are left unchecked, preventive medicine is non-existent, and we all get fucked in the end. We're just hosed at this point, in my opinion.

[Quagmire]

Thanks guys for enlightening me on my mistake about the health care. I agree that there should be health care costs to the employer. I just think it is a bit high right now. Since the health care costs is one of the biggest reasons why GM had that 1.2 billion loss. Or at least from what I hear. I hang out at a GM site( ok it maybe biased) and the news I got saying the UAW willing to discuss health care made me think the unions and employers discuss the health care system and not the Gov't. Here are a few examples. And HOM I am 15. I only get impression after many reliable sites says similar things like this health care thing. Thanks again for correcting me. Also HOM, Japanese car makers have no unions in Japan.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=15846

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=16055

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=16121

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=16081

[HOM]

Originally Posted by Undertaker And HOM I am 15. I only get impression after many reliable sites says similar things like this health care thing. Thanks again for correcting me. Also HOM, Japanese car makers have no unions in Japan.

Listen, I would believe you if you posted more than a couple links to a site that has an obvious bias towards the UAW. While Japan may not have unions to the same capacity that we do over here, they have many of the laws and contracts that unions fought for as part of the baseline law. Oh, and just so you know German car companies have very strong unions and they seem to be doing just fine.

[torifile]

Haha. Whatever. I'm cashing in on the crazy deal they've got going on with their Saabs now. GM is failing because they didn't get their heads out of their asses and try to make innovative cars. Instead they gave us bigger SUVs. Gas prices have been rising for, what, 5 years now? What dumbass over there decided that it would be smart to build a Hummer? That's just a braindead decision, if you ask me.

GM will survive only because they're so big and they'll get around to making smarter cars. Their FIRST hybrid is scheduled to come out in 2007 (!). Maybe by then they'll be mainstream and they ill have a good seller.

But, who cares!?! I'm getting a Saab tomorrow.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by torifile Haha. Whatever. I'm cashing in on the crazy deal they've got going on with their Saabs now. GM is failing because they didn't get their heads out of their asses and try to make innovative cars. Instead they gave us bigger SUVs. Gas prices have been rising for, what, 5 years now? What dumbass over there decided that it would be smart to build a Hummer? That's just a braindead decision, if you ask me. GM will survive only because they're so big and they'll get around to making smarter cars. Their FIRST hybrid is scheduled to come out in 2007 (!). Maybe by then they'll be mainstream and they ill have a good seller. But, who cares!?! I'm getting a Saab tomorrow.

The new H3 gets 20 MPG now. Why waste money on hybrids when you are busy trying to get fuel cell cars out fast? The Silverado Hybrid is sort of a hybrid. And congrats on the new Saab. If only I was able to drive now. I would get my first truck that is in my sig with the employee discount.

[Moogs]

Most unions today are a crock of shit. Once upon a time it was a legitimate way for workers with few benefits to have some piece of mind if they got injured, etc. Now unions are nothing more than a way for workers to abuse their privileges.

How many union thugs are there in big cities like NY or Chicago where if you show up for work without a union card, you're paid a nice little visit with the threat of having your legs broken if you show up again without one? How many times does an entire work crew stop working - no matter how many people it affects - if one poor bastard who needs a job shows up without a card? How many unions gang up on employers and those hiring so if one union doesn't get the money they want, all the other unions involved hold out too for "solidarity"?

And how many union bosses and union reps have nice fancy homes and cars because 30% of every dollar their members make goes into the union pool to pay for all the common services (ya right)?

Most unions in this country ought to be banned. They're now the ultimate in "get something for nothing". Fuckers slack off, sleep on the job, bitch and moan if they don't get every raise they think they deserve, and all the while do half-assed work much of the time. Ever see the roadways where the construction crews are union-based?

[JohnnyTheA]

I seem to remember that the UAW represents employees in GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Why is GM doing the worst? Its not the health care. The other Domestic Car makers have to pay the same healt costs as GM. The reason GM is doing bad is because they make crappy cars.

As far as unions go, ALL of the Japanse auto-workers are covered by unions... The difference in Japan is that the Unions partner with the Companies much better than the UAW does. Toyota seems to be doing pretty well with Unions... But then again I don't know about the Toyota plants in the US...

As far as universal Care is concerned.... Japan can afford it party because WE PROTECT THEIR BUTTS from NKorea, China, and other countries... They are essentially a socialist system and if they had to have a large military they would go broke.

Rock On

Johnny

[staph]

Originally Posted by Kickaha It's basic economics: if you separate who receives the goods (patient) from who pays for the goods and makes economic decisions ('insurer'), then there is no built in price control, and costs go up. Socializing it is just imposing an external control on the price, at which point the government becomes the pricing power, the executor, and the funding manager. Sorry, but I don't trust them to know what they're doing.

Kickaha, Smithian economic theory is all well and good, but you need to have a clear conception of how it really applies to the health care market. Health care, and in particular pharmaceuticals are very far from being a perfect marketplace. Pharmaceutical firms have two critical advantages — they are granted artificial monopolies on their goods through the patent system, and the goods they sell often have such high marginal value that people will buy them at any price. In the absence of compensatory price controls, that means that pharmaceutical firms can get away with pricing murder.

Therefore, in terms of the best interests of health care consumers, the economic model you want is monopsony (if you want to control the market through economics rather than rigid price regulation). The aim of this model is to rebalance the marketplace. In the monopsonistic (?) model, the government becomes the only consumer because all purchases are mediated through their system, and subsidised at state expense. This actually drives down costs for consumers, because the government exercises absolutely enormous power over the vendors by having the ability to effectively threaten the sellers with not buying their product at all. Less drastically, but more commonly, the government can also strategically distort the market to punish firms which do not give reasonable prices by refusing the subsidy on their product (effectively pricing them out of the market). That's not a threat normal consumers can make, because they have boring things like prescriptions for immediate illnesses to fill.

A working example is the Australian Pharmaceuticals Benefit Scheme (PBS), which has kept the costs of pharmaceuticals to a substantially lower cost than in the US because the giant pharmaceutical conglomerates are presented with a negotiating partner in the Australian Federal government who can actually negotiate with them effectively.

One might think that insurance firms might be able to exercise a similar distorting effect on the market, but the reality is that they are either presented with the bill after the fact, or attempt "managed care", which has proven to be an unhelpful and extremely unpopular model, given the bare profit motive which drives most insurance companies.

Any real economists around who'd like to comment on my reasoning?

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA As far as universal Care is concerned.... Japan can afford it party because WE PROTECT THEIR BUTTS from NKorea, China, and other countries... They are essentially a socialist system and if they had to have a large military they would go broke.

Exactly. Imagine the kick ass public health care system we could have if we diverted all of our defense spending over to it.

I'm definitely not saying we should do that!

[staph]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA As far as universal Care is concerned.... Japan can afford it party because WE PROTECT THEIR BUTTS from NKorea, China, and other countries... They are essentially a socialist system and if they had to have a large military they would go broke.

Japan?

Socialist??

I'm sorry, that's got to be one of the most bizarre things I've read all day.

[naren]

Originally Posted by staph Japan? Socialist?? I'm sorry, that's got to be one of the most bizarre things I've read all day.

Wow, I almost sneezed wine through my nose there.

[darshu]

Originally Posted by staph Japan? Socialist?? I'm sorry, that's got to be one of the most bizarre things I've read all day.

Not only that they're in the top 5 militaries in the world! (In dollars). Germany is up there too. Both at least top 10.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/....html#Military
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/....html#Military

[Franz Josef]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA I seem to remember that the UAW represents employees in GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Why is GM doing the worst? Its not the health care. The other Domestic Car makers have to pay the same healt costs as GM. The reason GM is doing bad is because they make crappy cars. As far as unions go, ALL of the Japanse auto-workers are covered by unions... The difference in Japan is that the Unions partner with the Companies much better than the UAW does. Toyota seems to be doing pretty well with Unions... But then again I don't know about the Toyota plants in the US...

In the US, Toyota's workforce is NOT unionised. And as a relative newcomer to the US market (as a local manufacturer) Toyota does not have the huge legacy pension and healthcase costs suffered by GM. GM is in dire straits because it pays its workers much more (wages/ salaries and non-monetary benefits) than Toyota and it has a large number of ex-employees it needs to support.

[FFL]

Yes, it's the healthcare costs for retired workers that is putting the big drain on GM.

I read that GM actually has more retired workers than current workers, that they supply health care for, and I think it also costs more because those retirees are older.

[Koodari]

staph, good observation about the nature of the goods manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry.

However, the correct fix is to drastically reduce the duration of patents and reap the benefits of competition, not switch to a planned economy.

There is no natural connection between your place of employment and where you choose to buy your healthcare from. Laws that force such a connection are retarded. I can understand companies offering healthcare as a perk, or sponsoring preventive healthcare and fitness to have happier, more effective employees with less downtime.

OTOH as long as the employers know they will have to pay healthcare, they should plan ahead and set aside the healthcare funds from the first day the employee is on the job. How many retired employees there are should not have any effect on the business' current situation. If someone says they are bleeding because of all the retirees, it's just their own mismanagement.

[staph]

Originally Posted by Koodari staph, good observation about the nature of the goods manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry. However, the correct fix is to drastically reduce the duration of patents and reap the benefits of competition, not switch to a planned economy.

I certainly agree that the current patent system requires renovation, but I'm not actually talking about a "planned" or command economy in the traditional sense, despite my fairly extreme left wing views. There's nothing to stop people from buying medicines which aren't supplied under the PBS (except that they're vastly more expensive). The way such a system works in effect is to give companies a series of very strong incentives to price their products reasonably, in return for demand-boosting subsidies. Prices are still set by the companies, and they have the choice of not choosing to negotiate with the government. I don't think that's likely to produce the economic inefficiencies you think it will.

Renovation of the patent system has the potential for unpredictable and possibly deleterious effects. In particular, it radically strengthens the incentive for drugs manufacturers to price high whilst they have their patent in order to recoup their research investment, and make as much of a profit as they can. It'd be an interesting experiment, but I'm not sure that the effect would be as simply positive as you imagine. It also raises the very real question of whether drugs research is more appropriately conducted in the private or public sphere, and whether it should be heavily government subsidised as in the public interest.

I must admit that I'm a little lost by your third paragraph. Would you care to explain exactly what model you think would work best?

[JohnnyTheA]

Japan From other link:
Budget:
revenues: $1.401 trillion
expenditures: $1.748 trillion, including capital expenditures (public works only) of about $71 billion (2004 est.)
Public debt:
164.3% of GDP (2004 est.)

Holey Moley! They almost have OUR (US) Budget levels!!! And they have half our population!! I'd say they are more "social" than the US. Thats not bad, Japan is a democracy and they vote for that level of Go'Ment spending...

Now we know where they get the freebie health care...

Sorry

Johnny

[staph]

Jeez.

They've just had by far the biggest recession they've had since WWII over the last decade, and also embarked on one of the most ridiculous Keynesian expansionist crusades ever (they gave people cash to help stimulate the economy). I'm afraid that the technical term for that is "stupidity", not "socialism".

By any definition, Japan is not a socialist country. They have public debt problems, but hey, so do the US. So does Argentina for that matter. Does that make them socialist?

[Franz Josef]

I'm not sure I would call Japan a socialist country - not least because it has very little by way of "social welfare" safety net, this being provided by companies "cradle to grave" style.

Undertaker Don't let anyone dis you about your age. When I was 15 I wasn't even remotely thinking about the issues you've raised in this thread - all credit to you. On an entirely different note, saw your F-14 comment - great plane. Saw one in the flesh for the first time last week on USS Intrepid. Second most beautiful aircraft in the world (after the Spitfire )