[Rob Hood]

http://www.autoextremist.com/current/2008/7/8/rants-453.html

Was listening to some newsradio today - many analysts are painting a bleak picture. Heard that Hummer and Saab were going to be let go, maybe more. I've already seen where Chevy is not sponsoring several NASCAR races next year.

Rick Wagoner is supposed to deliver an announcement tomorrow morning at 0830 EST. Should be worth listening to.

This post has been edited by Rob Hood: Jul 15 2008, 05:59 AM

[trackbird]

This was interesting in GM's thing that Kevin quoted:

"As part of its cost-cutting, GM plans to eliminate health care coverage for U.S. salaried retirees older than 65, effective Jan. 1. Wagoner said the company will increase pensions for affected retirees and their surviving spouses to "defray the impact." "

Can they do that? Presumably they've got a contract with those folks, right?

Salaried usually means "management" and not union. I don't think they have much of anything approaching a "contract" with retired management. They have a requirement to provide pension and probably "some" health care. I'm betting that the terms of the healthcare are not spelled out specifically. So, as long as you have some type of insurance (it may have a $10k a year deductible before they pay anything, but it's insurance), you're probably getting what you're owed.

I could be wrong.

And I do agree that we need to have the government stop pushing the crash standards that are creating 4,200 lb cars. Some years ago, a 4,200 lb vehicle was a truck, not a GTO (they may be a touch lighter than that, but still). I think they have been pushing much of the increases to help cars stand up to impacts with the large quantity of SUV's on our roads. However, now that the SUV craze has come to an end, it seems reasonable to relax some of those rules and allow manufacturers to lighten their cars a bit. You can always run into something larger than you on the road (tractor trailers, commercial trucks, pick up trucks), but now that we are seeing the "great SUV revolt", we should see less of them on the road over time. So, relaxing the crash standards seems logical to me.

Besides, you can't save everyone... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/nutkick.gif)

[marka]

Howdy,

Salaried usually means "management" and not union. I don't think they have much of anything approaching a "contract" with retired management. They have a requirement to provide pension and probably "some" health care. I'm betting that the terms of the healthcare are not spelled out specifically. So, as long as you have some type of insurance (it may have a $10k a year deductible before they pay anything, but it's insurance), you're probably getting what you're owed.

Wow, that sucks.

Can we move to universal health care yet please? You know, like all the other civilized countries where it seems to work pretty well, particularly in comparison to "no health care for you, sorry about your bad luck"?

Mark

[00 Trans Ram]

Can we move to universal health care yet please? You know, like all the other civilized countries where it seems to work pretty well, particularly in comparison to "no health care for you, sorry about your bad luck"?

Mark

Whoa, Mark. I mentioned above that I work in politics. Specificall, I specialize in government relations for a health system. Be careful for what you wish, you just might get it.

A universal health care system in our country would be wildly expensive. Medicare is already the single largst grant program of the US government. However, Medicare doesn't even pay a hospital 100% of COST when taking care of a paitent. It pays about 85% of cost. So, that means for every patient that comes in with Medicare, the hospital is losing 15% of it's money. Medicaid is the same way - we lose money on every patient. Then you have the uninsured, from whom we get about $0.

So, who pays? Responsible people with health insurance. You and me. We end up footing the bill for everyone who does not have private insurance. That's why our rates are so jacked up.

Now, let's say that government starts paying for all health care. That means that, again, you and me will be paying. Except this time, the government will be paying on our behalf. Same result (money goes out of your wallet, through a middle man, and into a hospital), just a different middle man.

Now, if you're thinking that the hospitals can afford to make a little less profit, think again. Our hosptial makes about a 3% profit. And, we have the 2nd highest profit margin in southeast Louisiana. Most hospitals nationwide would KILL to make 3% profit, as the average profit margins for hospitals hover around 2%. So, if you want to keep a hospital's doors open, you're going to have to pay them roughly what they're making now.

But, the universal healthcare system is not usually touted as saving money. Its big arguement is that everyone will have access to care. Well, here is where a cold dose of reality sets in. Right now, these people are not receiving the care they need. They can get emergency care, but preventative care is non-existant for most. Plus, the culture of America is to not take care of a problem until it the last possible minute (in health care, this means you have a heart attack instead of not eating fried foods).

So, under a universal system, we've got more people to care for. This will increase the costs of the system - costs that you and I are paying in taxes.

How do countries with this system in place pay for it, you ask? They refuse services to people. Let's say there is this drug that will reduce the risk of strokes by 50%, but it costs $500 per pill. With universal healthcare, the government can't afford to pay for everyone in the country to start taking this pill, so no one gets it. But, with the current system, most people still don't get it - but some (those who can afford it) do get it.

Ultimately, it's a system that would either a) bankrupt the American government, or (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) force Americans to accept that they can no longer expect the level of service to which they have become accustomed.

BTW, it's interesting that most people in the healthcare industry who understand the situation oppose universal healthcare. These are hosptial executives who would benefit because they'd get paid for every patient that shows up for services. But, most in the healthcare industry are against it. Why? Because they realize that it would be too expensive and would regulate a part of American life that should not be regulated.

[roadracetransam]

Can we move to universal health care yet please? You know, like all the other civilized countries where it seems to work pretty well, particularly in comparison to "no health care for you, sorry about your bad luck"?

Mark

Whoa, Mark. I mentioned above that I work in politics. Specificall, I specialize in government relations for a health system. Be careful for what you wish, you just might get it.

A universal health care system in our country would be wildly expensive. Medicare is already the single largst grant program of the US government. However, Medicare doesn't even pay a hospital 100% of COST when taking care of a paitent. It pays about 85% of cost. So, that means for every patient that comes in with Medicare, the hospital is losing 15% of it's money. Medicaid is the same way - we lose money on every patient. Then you have the uninsured, from whom we get about $0.

So, who pays? Responsible people with health insurance. You and me. We end up footing the bill for everyone who does not have private insurance. That's why our rates are so jacked up.

Now, let's say that government starts paying for all health care. That means that, again, you and me will be paying. Except this time, the government will be paying on our behalf. Same result (money goes out of your wallet, through a middle man, and into a hospital), just a different middle man.

Now, if you're thinking that the hospitals can afford to make a little less profit, think again. Our hosptial makes about a 3% profit. And, we have the 2nd highest profit margin in southeast Louisiana. Most hospitals nationwide would KILL to make 3% profit, as the average profit margins for hospitals hover around 2%. So, if you want to keep a hospital's doors open, you're going to have to pay them roughly what they're making now.

But, the universal healthcare system is not usually touted as saving money. Its big arguement is that everyone will have access to care. Well, here is where a cold dose of reality sets in. Right now, these people are not receiving the care they need. They can get emergency care, but preventative care is non-existant for most. Plus, the culture of America is to not take care of a problem until it the last possible minute (in health care, this means you have a heart attack instead of not eating fried foods).

So, under a universal system, we've got more people to care for. This will increase the costs of the system - costs that you and I are paying in taxes.

How do countries with this system in place pay for it, you ask? They refuse services to people. Let's say there is this drug that will reduce the risk of strokes by 50%, but it costs $500 per pill. With universal healthcare, the government can't afford to pay for everyone in the country to start taking this pill, so no one gets it. But, with the current system, most people still don't get it - but some (those who can afford it) do get it.

Ultimately, it's a system that would either a) bankrupt the American government, or (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) force Americans to accept that they can no longer expect the level of service to which they have become accustomed.

BTW, it's interesting that most people in the healthcare industry who understand the situation oppose universal healthcare. These are hosptial executives who would benefit because they'd get paid for every patient that shows up for services. But, most in the healthcare industry are against it. Why? Because they realize that it would be too expensive and would regulate a part of American life that should not be regulated.

Couldn't agree more!
I used to live in a country with universal healthcare. The quality of care goes straight down the drain, and the cost to taxpayer goes sky high. Remember someone has to pay for the crappy service, and it will not be the person whom is reciving the care. It will be the 20 to 65 year old "working" taxpayer. How would you like to see an additional 35% taken from your pay. Regardless if you live a healthy lifestyle or not.

[CMC #37]

Couldn't agree more!
I used to live in a country with universal healthcare. The quality of care goes straight down the drain, and the cost to taxpayer goes sky high. Remember someone has to pay for the crappy service, and it will not be the person whom is reciving the care. It will be the 20 to 65 year old "working" taxpayer. How would you like to see an additional 35% taken from your pay. Regardless if you live a healthy lifestyle or not.

At this point 35% of my income would be a deal.