Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
F-Body Road Racing and Autocross Forums _ General Discussion _ the future of GM...
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 15 2008, 03:06 AM
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.
Posted by: poSSum Jul 15 2008, 09:31 AM
Tough times for sure.
Posted by: sgarnett Jul 15 2008, 11:56 AM
I hate to say this, but it seems like a terrible time to be on the verge of reintroducing the Camaro. Keeping an existing production line going is one thing, but introducing a heavy, powerful pony car at this time seems like dooming it to an early death. They might be better off holding it back for now.
Sure, WE know the highway gas mileage of the 4th gens is actually better than many cars perceived as more economical, but nobody else knows that, and the city mileage is nothing to get excited about. Dunno how the new one will fare, but heavier, more powerful, more drag (at least it looks that way, but I might be wrong), and giant rims certainly stack the deck against it. Regardless, the perception will be that it's a gas hog, and that's going to make it a tough sell.
On a related note, I was in the customer service center of my local UPS hub yesterday. All three employees were sitting around bored with nothing to do. The air conditioning was working great. It's the first time I've ever been in there in the middle of a Summer day and not sweated in a long line as the AC struggled to keep up with the sliding door traffic.
Posted by: trackbird Jul 15 2008, 02:32 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/news/companies/GM/index.htm?cnn=yes
Beleaguered automaker also plans asset sales, aiming for $10 billion in 'cash improvements' by 2009. CEO Wagoner says 'difficult decisions' necessary for survival.
By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: July 15, 2008: 9:42 AM EDT
High gas costs stall GM
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors Corp. said Tuesday it will suspend its dividend, sell off $4 billion to $7 billion worth of assets and cut 20% worth of salaried cash costs in an overall plan to save billions of dollars.
"We need to take some very tough actions to ensure our survival and success," said Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, in a press conference, referring to the current market conditions as an "unprecedently difficult time."
In an earlier broadcast to employees, Wagoner said that these were "difficult decisions," but necessary for the company to prevail in the weak economy beset by high oil prices, which he called GM's "greatest concern."
Wagoner said the cost-cutting actions should help GM generate $10 billion in "cash improvements" by the end of 2009. Overall, the company plans to beef up liquidity by $15 billion through 2009.
At the end of the first quarter, GM said it had $23.9 billion in liquidity and access to $7 billion worth of U.S. credit, which is enough funding to get through 2008. But the company said it is gathering more liquidity to protect itself from a "prolonged U.S. downturn."
"Our plan is not just a plan to survive; it's a plan to win," said Wagoner, noting that raised cash could aid the company in shifting from trucks and SUVs to more fuel efficient cars.
"Our stated goal is to become the fuel economy leader in every sector in which we participate," said Robert Lutz, GM's vice chairman of global product development.
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."
GM (GM, Fortune 500) has lost about one third of its 107,000 U.S. hourly workers since 2004. GM offered buyouts to its entire remaining U.S. hourly workforce of 74,000 in February, in a bid to unload its more experienced, higher-paid employees.
The Detroit-based automaker has been hard-hit by record-high gas prices, economic weakness, and a waning consumer interest in trucks and sport utility vehicles. The company has not made a profit since 2005.
Truck sales were down 21% in the first six months of 2008, while car sales were down 9% and Hummer sales plunged 40%. Overall, GM's vehicle sales were down 16%: worse than the industrywide vehicle sales decline of 10%.
In June, GM said it would shut four SUV and truck plants, would shift to more fuel efficient vehicles and discontinue its Hummer brand.
The stock price for GM, the world's largest automaker, has plunged 62% this year, to 50-year lows. GM shares were up 3 cents to $9.41 in premarket trading.
Despite the doom and gloom in America, GM's sales edged up in Europe by 3% in the first six months of 2008, including a 58% increase in Eastern Europe and a 60% surge in Russia. This includes a 21% increase in Russian Hummer sales.
"Frankly, we're very well positioned outside the U.S. now, and will be in [the U.S.] too, when this cycle concludes," said Wagoner.
GM is the fourth-largest American company in terms of annual sales, competing with Toyota Motor ™ and Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500).
First Published: July 15, 2008: 8:41 AM EDT
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 15 2008, 02:39 PM
I think what surprises me is that the price of oil even caught the manufacturers off-guard. I would have thought that they would have been in some type of communication with the oil companies and attempted to avert or slow down the price increase. (That's just my conspiracy hat...) That only leads me to believe that either speculators or OPEC are controlling the cost of oil now.
Posted by: trackbird Jul 15 2008, 03:03 PM
Fixed that for you.
I was originally trying to believe it was supply and demand, but I've spoken to my friends in investment banking and I've been reading anything I can about the current situation. From what I'm seeing, we don't have a shortage. We have supply that may be barely keeping up with demand, but we have no rationing and there are not lines around the block. However, as the value of the dollar slides, crude gets more expensive. As the value of the dollar slides, hedge fund managers buy commodities because they tend to resist the losses associated with a sliding dollar. So, they buy oil to fight the slide of the dollar which runs the price up, which helps promote inflation which causes the dollar to slide. This is turning into a vicious cycle that may take something "signifigant" to climb out of. And, no, I surely don't know what that event will be...
Of course, I've been wrong before.
On the other hand, if I'd realized that we were going to wind up here, I'd have kept my 2002 Z28 as a driver and skipped buying a truck and a dedicated track car. Guess they weren't the only ones caught off guard.
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 15 2008, 03:23 PM
So drilling our way out of this really isn't going to fix the problem, which is a weak dollar. And with China and India buying more and more oil, there is now a line at the counter, so to speak, which also drives up the cost. And what about all the manufacturing and other services that have gone overseas....including GM.
Posted by: marka Jul 15 2008, 03:48 PM
Howdy,
Not to mention, "drilling our way out of this" won't do a freaking thing for the next seven years or whatever it is before the oil comes on line from the new wells.
Though it might help whack the speculators I guess.
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?
Unrelated... I'm being pretty "glass is half full" here with this but... this could end up helping peformance minded folks as much as it hurts them... I'm really hoping that we see more emphasis on saving weight, plus more dedication on the part of the domestics toward smaller / funner cars (as a small segment of the "smaller / more fuel efficient" car market they're being forced to go into).
I think I've said it before, but in 2006 we were looking for a car with very good fuel economy that we'd like to drive. The only domestics that got good fuel economy were shitty econoboxes. Rode like crap, felt like crap, etc. It was worth it to us to pay more for a Civic, which felt _way_ more refined (and got better mileage to boot). Perhaps now the domestics will see that there's a market for people like us... Wanting a car that gets good fuel economy but is also sporty and/or nice to drive and/or whatever.
The new Mustang SVO I've heard some folks talk about seems like a great idea as a performance car for this transistion period we seem to be coming into (transistioning from gas powered cars to something else). Put some controls in the driver's hands and let them dial up the boost / decrease fuel economy when they want it, and otherwise sip the dino juice.
But the big potential win to me would seem to be that weight is going to matter more and more and more. Perhaps we can get away from 4k lb performance cars? :-)
Mark
Posted by: sgarnett Jul 15 2008, 03:53 PM
If you think about it though, gas(oline) prices have not even kept up with oil prices, and we've had much cheaper gas than much of the world for a long time. I'm afraid I view this as an inevitable correction that is long overdue and all the more violent for it.
I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist. I've never encountered a large organization that was remotely efficient, organized, or coordinated enough to pull off a good conspiracy, not matter how badly they may want to.
Posted by: CamaroFS34 Jul 15 2008, 03:55 PM
I don't buy the "gas costs" argument either. The unfortunate truth is that this has been a long time coming. How many of us have had to defend our cars from the pony-car haters who automatically class them as "crap boxes" (due to GM's less-than-stellar build quality) and/or gas guzzlers (because of the V8, when they get as good of mileage as many of the Accords/Mazdas/etc out there)? GM did this to themselves years ago, through crappy cars -- build and design -- and poor marketing, and now it's all building to a head.
My mom owns a new Saturn Aura XR. This is the same platform as the Chevy Malibu, and is actually an Opel. When I drove the car, the only thing that told me it was a GM was the Saturn emblem. Seriously, the fit/finish and overall interior is not the stereotypical GM that we've all tolerated in our F-bodies. It is very much BMWish, and considering the car is actually an Opel, that really isn't a surprise. The GTO is the same way -- but, hey! it's a Holden. Why is it that GM is going to it's European and Australian branches for cars to sell in America? I think it's because they are finally realizing that their reputation for crappy cars is a major part of the reason that sales are down. The unfortunate thing is that even though they have started to make a turnaround with the cars, that legacy is still keeping people out of the sales room.
When I was looking at the Mazdaspeed 3 earlier this year, I was appalled by the gas mileage the car was rated at. While I know the EPA ratings are an average, it was still literally no better than the EPA ratings on my 1996 Camaro. That's really sad. My 2006 WRX gets pretty much the same mileage as my Camaro, especially on the highway (it's marginally better in city driving). Plenty of people have smirked to me about the gas prices, "Guess you're not driving the Camaro very much now!" and when I ask them what their mileage is, and then I tell them mine, unless they are in a hybrid or a sub-compact like an Aveo, they aren't doing phenomenally better than me (for the record, even with the A/C on, the green car was getting 27-29mpg on the trip to/from Atlanta last weekend, and it did 30mpg with the A/C off).
Of course, GM's union workers don't help the situation any either.
Posted by: trackbird Jul 15 2008, 04:04 PM
"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...
Posted by: marka Jul 15 2008, 04:11 PM
Howdy,
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
Posted by: 00 Trans Ram Jul 15 2008, 04:22 PM
One problem (certainly not the only, and maybe not the main) is in Washington. Now, I work in politics, so I'm not saying "Washington" as a bad thing. But, the culture in Washington is that my side is right, and your side is wrong. Republicans want to drill more - Democrats want alternative sources. The problem is that both sides label the other as wrong.
Each side is right. Oil prices are driven by speculators. Yes, the weak dollar plays a role, but look at the volatility of the price of a barrel of oil during a single 8-hour trading session - it can vary by over $20! These are human beings who hear some good news (OPEC is producing more!) and start selling, thereby lowering prices. Then, they hear some bad news (Israel invades Iran), so they start buying, thereby raising prices. This all happens in a single day. It's not like either the supply of demand changes that rapidly. So, they're humans who make human decisions and react with some emotions.
Now, we get back to my point of both sides being right. If Congress were to lift the moratorium on OCS (Outer Coastal Shelf) drilling, then that would signify that there will be an increase in supply in the future. Because the speculators are trading on futures, then they will be inclined to start selling (before the price drops). Thsi selloff will lower prices on its own - long before supply hits. Will it be over night? Nope - but it will happen in the next few years, long before the physical oil hits markets.
However, we all know that oil will become scarce, no matter where we drill. So, we must invest in alternative sources. Again, Congress must mandate these investments, as a capitalistic market will not do so if they see oil prices going down. This is the long-term (25+ year) solution.
So, when you combine the Democrat and Republican answers, you get a solution that both works in the short and long term! Unfortunately, the two sides cannot hardly agree on anything. And, this being an election year, they won't agree until 2009.
Posted by: 00 Trans Ram Jul 15 2008, 04:54 PM
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
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.
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 15 2008, 05:11 PM
Universal health care will bankrupt the country faster than the oil crisis. Medicare is the biggest joke on the planet. My Mom cannot afford all of her required medicines with her fixed income because she is currently experiencing the "donut hole," a situation where you have exceeded a set amount of prescription drug costs through your copay and the government's payment for the drugs, and now you must pay the drug's full cost until you reach another predetermined cost level, at which time the co-pay returns. This is MEDICARE folks - and oh BTW, CONGRESS voted in their OWN health care plan, so they wouldn't have to deal with this.
I was surprised to read that GM actually had a funded health care plan for its retirees. Blame the Union on that one...(IMO) No wonder the cars cost so much. GM has stated that their health care costs are costing them approximately $1500 PER CAR.
The cars would weigh alot less if they didn't have to have all the safety equipment installed. Imagine a more comprehensive driver's ed program, instead of the currently irresponsible government-sponsored ones. I learned more from my parents than the six weeks' driver's ed class I took in high school. I would actually be in favor of mandatory annnual driver's training - no pass, no license. Might get rid of some of the highway congestion....
Posted by: trackbird Jul 15 2008, 05:11 PM
Oddly, I think we are finding our answer.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/markets/oil/index.htm?cnn=yes
Bernanke indicates inflation and high fuel prices will cut in to U.S. demand for oil.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices plummeted Tuesday, down as much as $9.26 a barrel, as investors feared a further decline in U.S. demand after hearing comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Light, sweet crude fell $7.37 to $137.81 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier, prices dipped as low as $135.92, nearly $11 below the day's high.
"There's more demand destruction than people first perceived," said Neal Dingman, senior energy analyst at Dahlman Rose & Co.
Prices began to fall after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that high energy prices, coupled with serious problems in the financial sector, have sapped the purchasing power of U.S. households.
The mortgage crisis and high energy costs will remain a drag on the U.S. economy for the rest of the year, Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday.
Businesses may start pushing a greater percentage of their high fuel and commodity costs through to consumers, warned Bernanke.
Gasoline prices in the U.S. maintained record highs at $4.109 a gallon Tuesday, according to a daily survey from motorist group AAA.
Inflation: The weakened dollar, which Bernanke named as one of the reasons Americans can't spend as much, has been blamed for much of crude's runup.
Investors have been buying oil and other commodities to hedge against inflation, but that behavior may be changing as many begin to see it weighing on demand.
There's "definitely a reverse of what the rationale was even 2 to 3 weeks ago," said Peter Beutel, oil analyst with Cameron Hanover.
Federal Reserve: The Federal Reserve, which has the power to quell runaway inflation by raising a key interbank lending rate, has its hands tied, since the banks and other institutions that prop up the U.S. economy need the liquidity, according to Tom Orr, head of research at Weeden & Co.
In recent days, the government has unveiled a plan to bolster mortgage financing companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and has taken control of mortgage lender IndyMac Bank.
"They've got to keep rates as low as they can, though they really should be tightening... They know they need to tighten, but they just can't," said Orr.
"This is starting to feel like Jimmy Carter and the 1970s all over again," he added, describing a time when inflation was high due in large part to soaring energy prices.
OPEC demand: Internationally, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries mirrored Bernanke's concerns. The oil cartel lowered its demand forecast for 2008 to an increase of 1.2% from 1.28%, blaming economic strife and high fuel prices.
Concerns about lower demand even overshadowed the tight supply picture, which has been at the forefront of oil's price surge.
Brazil: The five-day strike by Brazilian oil workers in the Campos basin at 33 offshore rigs operated by state-run oil company Petrobras entered its second day, cutting into supply.
Petrobras stated that only two rigs had been totally shut down, but that production had been reduced by 4%, according to the Associated Press.
Iran: Investors also remained concerned about tensions between Iran, the second-largest exporter in OPEC, and the United States and Israel over its nuclear program.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blamed high oil prices on threats from the West in an interview with state television, according to reports. However, he said that talks with the United States were possible.
First Published: July 15, 2008: 9:22 AM EDT
So, they are finally getting smart enough to know that they can't keep pushing oil prices up (and impacting the dollar and inflation) indefinately. And, they are starting to see the end where they are about to wind up owning a bunch of oil they paid too much for and they can't easily sell (thus decreasing its value). Once the cycle collapses, it will have to eventually break. The bubble may be starting to pop based on this report and with any luck a slide will ensue. If that were the case, inflation should begin to ease (though I think much of the cost has yet to be passed on and we're still going to be on the hook for that much inflation already). Once the prices slide and inflation eases, the fed can begin to raise interest rates which will start to push the value of the dollar higher, which will ease prices, etc. We will wind up with higher interest rates, but a dollar that's back to being worth something. Getting the cycle to turn around is going to be key and this might be the first round of change.
Of course I'm not an economist and this information is worth just what you paid for it (even with the value of the dollar today).
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 15 2008, 05:16 PM
Oil price fell about 9 bucks last week too, then spiked right back up.
I really thought this was going to cycle like the housing industry, but so far haven't seen anything to support that. Of course, the housing industry really wasn't a cycle, but a combination of greedy banks loaning money to people who shouldn't have qualified in the first place.
Posted by: CMC #37 Jul 15 2008, 05:20 PM
Eugenio, what can you tell us about Canadian health care? So far every Canadian I have spoken to has no complaints and no big Dr. bills. I am sick, sick of our health care system! I am self-employed and it looks like I'll have to get a second job just to pay for health insurance. That's not right.
Posted by: roadracetransam Jul 15 2008, 05:27 PM
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
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.
Posted by: firehawkclone Jul 15 2008, 05:41 PM
Not to mention, "drilling our way out of this" won't do a freaking thing for the next seven years or whatever it is before the oil comes on line from the new wells.
Most new land base wells in my area come "online" within 2 to 5 days after casing is set in place. Sometimes sooner! I'm drilling as I type
on a lease that been around for 100+ years 
Oddly, I think we are finding our answer.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/markets/oil/index.htm?cnn=yes
Bernanke indicates inflation and high fuel prices will cut in to U.S. demand for oil.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices plummeted Tuesday, down as much as $9.26 a barrel, as investors feared a further decline in U.S. demand after hearing comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Light, sweet crude fell $7.37 to $137.81 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier, prices dipped as low as $135.92, nearly $11 below the day's high.
"There's more demand destruction than people first perceived," said Neal Dingman, senior energy analyst at Dahlman Rose & Co.
Prices began to fall after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that high energy prices, coupled with serious problems in the financial sector, have sapped the purchasing power of U.S. households.
The mortgage crisis and high energy costs will remain a drag on the U.S. economy for the rest of the year, Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday.
Businesses may start pushing a greater percentage of their high fuel and commodity costs through to consumers, warned Bernanke.
Gasoline prices in the U.S. maintained record highs at $4.109 a gallon Tuesday, according to a daily survey from motorist group AAA.
Inflation: The weakened dollar, which Bernanke named as one of the reasons Americans can't spend as much, has been blamed for much of crude's runup.
Investors have been buying oil and other commodities to hedge against inflation, but that behavior may be changing as many begin to see it weighing on demand.
There's "definitely a reverse of what the rationale was even 2 to 3 weeks ago," said Peter Beutel, oil analyst with Cameron Hanover.
Federal Reserve: The Federal Reserve, which has the power to quell runaway inflation by raising a key interbank lending rate, has its hands tied, since the banks and other institutions that prop up the U.S. economy need the liquidity, according to Tom Orr, head of research at Weeden & Co.
In recent days, the government has unveiled a plan to bolster mortgage financing companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and has taken control of mortgage lender IndyMac Bank.
"They've got to keep rates as low as they can, though they really should be tightening... They know they need to tighten, but they just can't," said Orr.
"This is starting to feel like Jimmy Carter and the 1970s all over again," he added, describing a time when inflation was high due in large part to soaring energy prices.
OPEC demand: Internationally, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries mirrored Bernanke's concerns. The oil cartel lowered its demand forecast for 2008 to an increase of 1.2% from 1.28%, blaming economic strife and high fuel prices.
Concerns about lower demand even overshadowed the tight supply picture, which has been at the forefront of oil's price surge.
Brazil: The five-day strike by Brazilian oil workers in the Campos basin at 33 offshore rigs operated by state-run oil company Petrobras entered its second day, cutting into supply.
Petrobras stated that only two rigs had been totally shut down, but that production had been reduced by 4%, according to the Associated Press.
Iran: Investors also remained concerned about tensions between Iran, the second-largest exporter in OPEC, and the United States and Israel over its nuclear program.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blamed high oil prices on threats from the West in an interview with state television, according to reports. However, he said that talks with the United States were possible.
First Published: July 15, 2008: 9:22 AM EDT
So, they are finally getting smart enough to know that they can't keep pushing oil prices up (and impacting the dollar and inflation) indefinately. And, they are starting to see the end where they are about to wind up owning a bunch of oil they paid too much for and they can't easily sell (thus decreasing its value). Once the cycle collapses, it will have to eventually break. The bubble may be starting to pop based on this report and with any luck a slide will ensue. If that were the case, inflation should begin to ease (though I think much of the cost has yet to be passed on and we're still going to be on the hook for that much inflation already). Once the prices slide and inflation eases, the fed can begin to raise interest rates which will start to push the value of the dollar higher, which will ease prices, etc. We will wind up with higher interest rates, but a dollar that's back to being worth something. Getting the cycle to turn around is going to be key and this might be the first round of change.
Of course I'm not an economist and this information is worth just what you paid for it (even with the value of the dollar today).
Damm! I should have sold my Halliburton stock last week
Posted by: CMC #37 Jul 15 2008, 05:44 PM
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.
Posted by: trackbird Jul 15 2008, 05:56 PM
I didn't say that this was the big one. Just that it seems that they are finally starting to get the message that they are in a cycle that can't last forever. It may go up another $25 a barrel before they start to truly believe it, but just that they recognize that they are headed for a bubble is a good start.
Julie,
I'm not Canadian, but I remember reading about the emerging "secondary" healthcare system in Canada. Those who can afford to pay, do. Otherwise, you wait extended periods of time to get to a Dr. So, if you don't want to waith 6 months to find out why your toe hurts, you pay a private Dr. to see you (if you can afford it). This isn't the norm, but it was starting to show up in Canada in the last few years. Eugenio can clarify if it's still going on and to what extend as well as how long wait times are for care. I can only share what I've read, but it could have been "spun" by an "anti-national healthcare" news agency for US consumption. Sadly the self employed take a beating in this country. If you don't run a business with 1,000 employees (thus making money and having enough clout to get some kind of healthcare setup through the business for the employees), you're pretty well stuck. And that's a pretty bad situation to be in.
Maybe Eugenio can correct me if I'm wrong (and as usual, I very well could be). I don't think we want to go to a national healthcare system. And, the lucrative jobs in medicine will likely get less lucrative. That will likely reduce the quality and quantity of those who are going into healthcare. Less available and less skilled Dr's could be a result. I think it will upset the apple cart in this country, but I won't claim to be smart enough to predict the extent of the fallout.
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 15 2008, 06:36 PM
I think Julie (and others here who are self-employed) are going to bear the brunt of this, if they can afford it. Personnel is typically the number one overhead item in any company, and small companies typically get caught (and go under) in "raise the tax" mantra.
Posted by: marka Jul 15 2008, 06:48 PM
Howdy,
Last I checked, universal health care won't replace air travel. If you've got money, you can still go get whatever (overpriced) care you want.
I work at a healthcare company. I think something needs to be done to provide healthcare for everyone as well.
"Too expensive" is a cop out. Figure out a way.
You think its really surprising that everyone you know in the healthcare industry doesn't want to change anything? Really? Gee, I wonder why that might be... I don't think its because they're raking in the dough (there's been enough of a crunch that that's slowing down), but there sure as heck is a ton of "fear of change" going on.
The "system" we have right now forces folks without healthcare to wait until they can't stand it anymore, then go to an emergency room. No preventive care. No scheduling of care. Instead, they rely on a system where any type of care can be provided at any moment... Even if its not needed that way, and worse even if much cheaper care a little earlier would have prevented the visit altogether. And you're right, we all pay for it.
Since we're going to pay for it either way, how about we all pay a lower price, by getting people care appropriate for their needs and in time to prevent big claims later?
Mark
Posted by: marka Jul 15 2008, 06:56 PM
Howdy,
Julie, the only people that bitch about universal health care are people in the US that either don't want to change because it'll hurt them personally or sheep who do whatever the conservatives spout off about next.
Mark
(A friend of mine in Switzerland has no issues with their universal health care... Reports that the whole system is much smoother than the US)
Posted by: CMC #37 Jul 15 2008, 06:57 PM
Agreed. I don't care who figures it out as long as someone does!
Posted by: marka Jul 15 2008, 07:02 PM
Howdy,
Self employed, retired, unemployed, work for a small company, can't afford the premium even if the health care is offered, the health care offered is a "mini-med" type product that still leaves you bankrupt if you actually get sick, etc. etc. etc.
The system is f*cked up, people.
Mark
Posted by: CMC #37 Jul 15 2008, 07:07 PM
Self employed, retired, unemployed, work for a small company, can't afford the premium even if the health care is offered, the health care offered is a "mini-med" type product that still leaves you bankrupt if you actually get sick, etc. etc. etc.
The system is f*cked up, people.
Mark
Indeed, hubby is retired, 55 and has major depression, he does not qualify for regular plans. I am self-employed with one part time employee, at one time Costco had a business plan for me then recently changed that to having a full-time employee which I cannot afford. I'm as healthy as a horse and not near the 55 age cutoff, I'd hate to think what it would be if I was and I was also a persona-non-grata like hubby is.
Posted by: marka Jul 15 2008, 07:19 PM
Howdy,
To be fair... My level of knowledge about universal health care is probably similar to Kevin's... I.e. I've seen a few tv shows (there was one on PBS I think it was a month or two back during the democratic primary race that examined various universal health care systems in other countries) and thought some about it, but I'm far from an expert.
That said... I don't see any way our system can be anything but one of the most expensive ways possible for folks to get healthcare.
Look, I want healthcare for me & my family for all our lives. I'm not an idiot, I know there are costs involved with that, but also that those costs are going to exist (hopefully, if I make it that far) after I stop working. A system that only provides reasonable health care to folks that are currently employed by companies that can afford to provide healthcare seems completely broken to me.
Currently my parents, both retired teachers in Maine, pay _significantly_ more than I do for health care (our cost per month for healthcare for our family is on the order of $300/month, my parents is well over double that), despite our income being about three to four times their income.
These are people that "did all the right things"... They worked their entire lives. They had retirement plans. They planned for retirement. They haven't had abnormal medical histories or issues. All the right stuff. And they're still struggling to pay for healthcare costs.
Now I realize that nobody gives a shit about anyone other than themselves, but here's the issue... That's going to be you and me, and sooner than you think.
Why don't we at least _try_ to fix the problem?
Mark
Posted by: 00 Trans Ram Jul 15 2008, 07:38 PM
Mark - you've hit the nail on the head in a few posts. First, the healthcare industry IS resistant to change. From top-to-bottom, any change is viewed with skepticism. Look at our health care records - most are still on a paper system, with little or no computer backups.
Also, the current system is geared towards caring for people having catastrophic events, rather than preventing them in the first place. However, I'm not so sure that the system is to blame here. As a community-based health system, it is in our charter that we must provide healthcare to the citizens of our county (actually, they're parishes down here). Therefore, we must take Medicaid and Medicare when a patient comes to see us at a clinic for a checkup. The problem is that, as a percentage, those with health insurance make up the vast majority of those that receieve preventative care. This is despite the fact that they make up a smaller percentage of the population.
The conclusion is that those who pay for health coverage are more apt to take advantage of preventative medicine and are more involved. Conversely, those to whom coverage is given do not appreciate it, don't worry about the costs of it, and therefore don't use it wisely.
The answer is not universal healthcare - the answer is mandatory healthcare insurance!
We know that the minority of people with health insurance pay such high premiums because they are paying some of the costs of the majority of people with Medicare, Medicaid, or nothing. But, if everyone were forced to have health insurance, then the prices for that insurance would go down. Basically, instead of you paying for your share plus some, you'd just pay for your share.
At that point, private business people, those that fall in the gaps - everyone - would be able to afford it. As for thsoe who absolutely would not be able to afford it (unemployed, disabled, etc.), the premiums would be paid by the government, which is where their monthly checks come from anyway. But, this pool of people would be vastly reduced than it is today.
Here's another scenario about univeral government healthcare. We all know that preventative care is cheaper than reactive care. So, now that the government is controlling your healthcare, they can tell you when and where to go for a checkup. Not only that, but once the doctor prescribes a drug or course of action, they can require you to do that. And, if you don't, they may inforce criminal penalties.
I'm not being melodramatic, either. Look at Japan. Every year all men and women must participate in a physical exam. If the men's waists measure more than 36 inches, they must follow a diet and exercise program. During a follow-up visit later that year, they get re-measured. If they fail again, they are fined!
I don't think that kind of system is what America is all about. If people want to eat fast-food, not exercise and die young, that's their American right. I'm not saying I won't try to encourage them not to do so. But, I don't think that forcing people, by law, to adhere to a 2000 calorie-per-day diet is what America stands for.
BTW - for Julie, Mark and whoever else. If you have to go to the hospital for some reason, and you don't have insurance, these things can help you out. First of all, review the bill meticulously - there are often errors. Secondly, talk with the billing dept about getting the rates discounted. You'll read stories about how insurance companies don't pay the same rates for services that individuals are charged. Well, that's true - they buy in bulk, so they get discounts. But, you can ask for some discounts too. All they can say is no. Thirdly, ask what kind of "forgiveness" program they have. Hosptials often provide free care as part of their tax-exempt or charity status. Ask them if you qualify for any of that. Finally, they will set you up on some payment system to pay the bill over time.
The simple fact that you are willing to work with them to pay tells them that they may expect some money from you. And, they'd rather have some than none - which is what they usually get.
Posted by: 00 Trans Ram Jul 15 2008, 07:52 PM
Right now, the problem is that there is not enough care and what is there is too expensive. Ultimately, government run care has one of two solutions to this. Each of those solutions has a problem, based on the fact that it costs money to provide healthcare. So, let's analyse the two problems:
1) MORE HEALTHCARE - to provide more care will cost more money. More people will be covered, and more people will be getting services. The problem is that the government gets its money from taxpayers. So, taxpayers will be paying more, which is part of the same problem we have now.
2) LOWER COST - to lower costs, less care will be provided. Providing the "right" kind of care (preventative medicine) will help, but no more Viagara, Prevacid, hip replacements (it's an elective surgery) or heart transplants for 70 year olds. The problem here is that people are not going to accept being told that there is a remedy, but the government will not provide it.
As a side note, someone mentioned that things the government refuses to pay for will still be available if you pay yourself. This is true, to a degree. Currently, every single bill introduced at the Federal or State level that would have set up a universal government coverage has also made it illegal to provide parallel services in the private sector. In English, this means that it's illegal to sell health insurance. Therefore, people would have to pay out-of-pocket the entire costs of these things. Instead of pills costing a co-pay of $70, they'd be $400. This would mean that the uber-rich (not you or me!) could afford these things, while everyone from the upper-middle class downward would have to do without.
Posted by: marka Jul 15 2008, 07:54 PM
Howdy,
Also, the current system is geared towards caring for people having catastrophic events, rather than preventing them in the first place. However, I'm not so sure that the system is to blame here. As a community-based health system, it is in our charter that we must provide healthcare to the citizens of our county (actually, they're parishes down here). Therefore, we must take Medicaid and Medicare when a patient comes to see us at a clinic for a checkup. The problem is that, as a percentage, those with health insurance make up the vast majority of those that receieve preventative care. This is despite the fact that they make up a smaller percentage of the population.
The conclusion is that those who pay for health coverage are more apt to take advantage of preventative medicine and are more involved. Conversely, those to whom coverage is given do not appreciate it, don't worry about the costs of it, and therefore don't use it wisely.
The answer is not universal healthcare - the answer is mandatory healthcare insurance!
Ok, stop.
:-) I'm probably using some stupid political buzzword without meaning to. I don't see any difference between "universal healthcare" and "mandatory healthcare", if the government is going to pickup the tab for those that can't afford the premiums anyway. Call it a tax, call it a premium, may paycheck doesn't care.
I don't think that kind of system is what America is all about. If people want to eat fast-food, not exercise and die young, that's their American right. I'm not saying I won't try to encourage them not to do so. But, I don't think that forcing people, by law, to adhere to a 2000 calorie-per-day diet is what America stands for.
This reminds me of something Obama said during a debate with Clinton (I support Obama, btw, despite this)... Talking about healthcare reform, he pointed out that one big difference between clinton's plan and his was that clinton's plan would require people to pay for insurance and his plan wouldn't. Which I was all for at first, until he went on to say that if someone that had opted out came to the emergency room, they could pay up their premiums and receive care... That's not insurance then, is it?
Anyway... If you and I are paying some of the freight for some fast-food eating non-exercising dying young person when they need healthcare, then I _do_ think the government has a right to say that they need to shape up.
The simple fact that you are willing to work with them to pay tells them that they may expect some money from you. And, they'd rather have some than none - which is what they usually get.
The simple fact that the above stuff should be useful advice (and I agree it is) should tell you just how badly the system is currently broken.
Mark
Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 15 2008, 08:02 PM
Big business runs the country, it has for a long time and will for a long time. We'll never get universal health care because those that get rich off of the insane costs won't allow it.
Let me enlighten those of you that think private health insurance is the answer than that those of us who have our own businesses relating to what we enjoy (cars in my case) live a dream. My health insurance costs were... $1453 *a month* for 3 people, on a business plan. There are cheaper plans, but none that would have covered the costs involved in my Mom's troubles. We didn't get the cheapest plan, we got the best plan we could afford. That's right, I pay $17k+ a year in just health insurance costs. Since Mom passed away that's dropped to a cheap(?) $1000 a month, so only $12k a year for 3 folks who have no record of health issues, serious ones at least.
Do you know how many parts I have to sell just to cover those costs, let alone the cost of parts (going up as most are made of metal and need shipped), fuel, natural gas, electricity?
We need universal health care, we need a lot of things fixed. I'm lucky I can keep my head above water. I don't have a second job or a spouse with insurance. This business is my life (which is why I get annoyed when folks just buy whatever from whoever when I could have helped them out) and it pays my bills.
The whole system is F*cked up. Business rules, and Bush only made it worse. I'm not saying a Democrat can fix it, I don't think anyone can fix it, or will try, until it's too late. But I know how we got in this mess, and when it's all been since 2000. Somehow that'll be everyone's fault but the "Decider" who lives in the White House is is supposed to watch over this country. But nay, that's not as much fun as killing thousands of kids, wasting billions of dollars, leaving "no child behind" by making education so poor any moron can pass, the fact it costs of hundreds of dollars to fill up our cars, which need to get from A to B--like work.
Gas costs? Sure not as much as Europe, but then we also don't carry nearly the taxes on fuel they do. And last I checked they don't have to cover nearly as much ground (it's not nearly as large as the US). And while they are higher in costs there are places that are cheaper too. It's a nice thought the oil companies have that "we have it good" and they can't do anything. They make BILLIONS of dollars in profits, record profits in fact and then say they feel for those who can't barely get by. Give me a break. And oil is being helped by speculators because it's a safe investment to defend the weak-ass dollar that our supposedly "fiscially responsible" Republican President has gotten us. Yeah, right. Last I checked the the "spend it all and more" Democratic President had a surplus and balance budgets. But let's ignore that little fact because less taxes sound good to everyone. Hell I'm paying more of those too, on top of everthing else.
Posted by: roadracetransam Jul 15 2008, 09:09 PM
I am working on this one! It's my day job.
Here's another scenario about univeral government healthcare. We all know that preventative care is cheaper than reactive care. So, now that the government is controlling your healthcare, they can tell you when and where to go for a checkup. Not only that, but once the doctor prescribes a drug or course of action, they can require you to do that. And, if you don't, they may inforce criminal penalties.
I'm not being melodramatic, either. Look at Japan. Every year all men and women must participate in a physical exam. If the men's waists measure more than 36 inches, they must follow a diet and exercise program. During a follow-up visit later that year, they get re-measured. If they fail again, they are fined!
Hold on now!!! You can't be serious! The government making sure you are taking your medicine! This does not describe a free state. That is stepping way over the line and infriging on my presonal liberty, freedom.
Posted by: poSSum Jul 15 2008, 09:41 PM
Not Eugenio but anyway .... our system kind of works, except we all get the same mostly lousy service unless it's serious ...
Example ... I had torn cartilage in my knee. The initial schedule was 3 months to get the MRI and then another 3 for surgery. Luckily, I told the doctor I'd pay myself to get the MRI in the U.S. if necessary, which prompted him to get an appointment for me at a hospital 3 hours from home and the surgeon turned out to be a fellow autocrosser that plugged me in to a cancellation. That shortened the whole process to about 2 months. My understanding is if you have good coverage you'd get the whole deal done within a couple of days.
Essentially, costs are controlled by rationing services. We also still need private coverage for dental, optometry, drugs, etc as it's not covered by our "universal" health care.
The lobbying here is to allow "private" for profit clinics and hospitals to allow those who can afford it to jump the queue, so far with little success. Desperate rich folks go out of the country for quicker service.
Posted by: 00 Trans Ram Jul 15 2008, 09:58 PM
Sorry - I may have muddied the waters. There's a huge difference between the government requiring that everyone HAVE insurance, and the government BEING that insurance. If the government IS that insurance, then they get to tell you what to do (because the government has the force of law). If the government is just telling you that you have to have insurance, they it's no different than the choices we have now (if I go to the doctor, I pay $10 co-pay, if I go to the ER, its more expensive).
Sam - you pay so much in health insurance because you're paying for yourself and your dependents, PLUS a few people who don't have insurance. If they had insurance, you wouldn't have to pay for them.
Let me put it into #s. I'm going to use my hospital payer mix (the mix of patients based on who pays their bills). 
I made it easy by assuming that, for each patient we saw it cost us $1000 to provide care. This assumes a lot of things (people with different payers are equally as healthy, they receive equal care, etc.) that aren't quite true. But, for an example, it's a valid method. Those are the actual Payer Mix and Patient counts from our facility. You'll also note that Medicare and Medicaid pay us 85% of our costs (not our charges, but what it costs us to provide care). That's like you buying shocks from Bilstein for $200 apiece and selling it to everyone here on the board for $170 apiece. If you do that, which you may do, then you're going to have to sell the corresponding springs at a much inflated price.
That's where you see the 208% figure. To make up for all the money we lose on Medicare, Medicaid, and Uninsured patients, and to make a paltry 3% profit, we have to charge insurance companies 208% of our costs. If we don't we'd lose money and close our doors. BTW, the break-even-point for us is somewhere between 191% and 192%.
So, now let's assume that everyone has insurance. Instead of us having to charge 208% to make a 3% profit, we only have to charge 103% of our costs. That is a 49.5% reduction in charges to the insurance company. So, now the insurance company paying us 50% of what they used to, so (assuming they keep the same profit margin that they are now) they will pass those savings on to you.
Now your payments are $500 per month for health insurance. Is that too much? I don't know. One thing that I do know is that I pay about $150 per month in auto insurance. For our family of 2, it's about $250 per month. So, I'm paying $250 per month to replace my car if it gets damaged, and twice that to replace my body if that gets damaged. Knowing the relative importance of my car vs my body, $500 doesn't seem like too much. (and, that's my car insurance for 2 people and 2 cheap cars - 02 Santa Fe and 06 Saturn)
Posted by: 00 Trans Ram Jul 15 2008, 10:00 PM
Not Eugenio but anyway .... our system kind of works, except we all get the same mostly lousy service unless it's serious ...
Example ... I had torn cartilage in my knee. The initial schedule was 3 months to get the MRI and then another 3 for surgery. Luckily, I told the doctor I'd pay myself to get the MRI in the U.S. if necessary, which prompted him to get an appointment for me at a hospital 3 hours from home and the surgeon turned out to be a fellow autocrosser that plugged me in to a cancellation. That shortened the whole process to about 2 months. My understanding is if you have good coverage you'd get the whole deal done within a couple of days.
Essentially, costs are controlled by rationing services. We also still need private coverage for dental, optometry, drugs, etc as it's not covered by our "universal" health care.
The lobbying here is to allow "private" for profit clinics and hospitals to allow those who can afford it to jump the queue, so far with little success. Desperate rich folks go out of the country for quicker service.
Art - I may PM you one day for more details. Would that be OK? This issue will likely come up either in the fall or next spring, and it'd be good to have some first-hand testimonials.
Posted by: T.O.Dillinder Jul 15 2008, 10:00 PM
Hold on now!!! You can't be serious! The government making sure you are taking your medicine! This does not describe a free state. That is stepping way over the line and infriging on my presonal liberty, freedom.
We lost that a long time ago.
I am going to piss some people off now.
I was raised in Janesville, WI. Home to Tahoes and Suburbans, besides Texas and Mexico.
This plant which started as a tractor plant in 1909, will be closing by 2010.
Janesville's economy is based on the GM plant and other manufacturing and supply lines in and around Janesville.
This closing affects my brother who works for Lear Seating Corp on the assembly line making $ 18.00 p/hr., and his wife who works on the assembly line at GM who makes $ 22.00 p/hr. The economy here is going to implode like a blackhole.
My Grandfather was one of the original "Sit-Downers" in the late 1940's, and he and my father both retired from GM.
I have a couple of Uncles that have worked and retired. Even my Uncle Harold " Vernel" (he developed the rigging to install the windshields for the 55 Chevy Belairs and became Plant Manager for the Cadillac Plant in Michigan- he retired in the late 70's)
Especially in my Grandfather's time and even during my Fathers time (he retired in 1996 after 31 years) Unions were needed.
Now days, the Unions are bad as the "FatCats". The are not about protection of GOOD employess, but lining their pockets. The Bigger the pay, the Bigger the Union Dues.
I use to be a Union Steward at Alcoa, so I know, I have been there and seen it, and been in Union Negotiations. What a Nightmare.
The Salaried Paycuts are going to be at the expense of the Middle Management and on down employees. Supervisors, Engineers, Customer Service Reps, etc.
Do you think Wagoneer or Lutz are going to take a pay cut, or give away their "Golden Parachutes"? I think not.
There are so many things that can be fixed and changed overall, it is mind boggling, but as a culture I do not see any of us taking a paycut, can't afford to.
Small Business owners pay taxes for earnings for their business, and pay taxes for their personal earnings. Isn't that a load of bull.
Free Trade agreements have killed us. Thanks Clinton.
Very few people take pride in American things, or even being American. Just look at all of the Political Correctness bull pucky.
African American, Mexican American, Irish American, etc. etc..
Last I knew, if you were born here, you are an American.Period.
I am probably preaching to the choir, but damn, we need Reganomics again.
The Economy was great during Regans second term, Bush Sr.'s term and Clinton's first term. Then the Democrats had to screw it up. And I come from a traditionally Democratic Party Family.
Now the Dems want to tax the Oil Companies more, who is going to pay for it in the end? Us, John and Jane Q. Public.
It just seems as of late it has been spiraling deeper and deeper into an economic abyss.
I am just thankful I have a new 40 hr job in Madison in the Medical Industry, and able to still have this small business of mine to let it grow and nurture. I am thankful to be able to provide for my family, and be able to do some of the things we like. We do not own nice shiny new vehicles, but the are mine lock, stock and barrel. I am glad I can say I am debt free so I can weather this economic turn.
I wish my younger brother's family could say the same.
Sorry for letting some frustrations out on here.
Posted by: marka Jul 15 2008, 10:18 PM
Howdy,
So, now let's assume that everyone has insurance. Instead of us having to charge 208% to make a 3% profit, we only have to charge 103% of our costs. That is a 49.5% reduction in charges to the insurance company. So, now the insurance company paying us 50% of what they used to, so (assuming they keep the same profit margin that they are now) they will pass those savings on to you.
Who's paying for your current uninsured and Medicare/caid folks with this new "everyone has insurance" system? You can't ignore that, and keep it apples to apples.
Mark
Posted by: Eugenio_SS Jul 15 2008, 10:34 PM
Well... the thing with our health care system, it's far from the best...
Yeah it's free... If I get a heart attack, get into an accident and end up in a coma for 9 months, and need several surgeries... it all costs 0$.
kinda...
our taxes are higher than yours, though.
Nonetheless, we have too many idiots going to hospitals, emergencies for light headaches that minor rest or a tylenol will take care of.
Instead, the engorge the system.
Lineups are long, although it's free.
To speed up or get a bit of better service, ie a private room @ the hopital... that is charged to you or insurance... but nothing compared to your prices.
Now, given the lack of professionalism of the entire health community, since the end-user ain't paying, service sucks, and waiting lists are long for any intervention... unless you are a celebrity, and you bump my friend from getting its Chimio (damm @#$%^er Saku Koivu bumped my friends appointment so he could get treatment when he was diagnosed)
Anyways... private sector is developing, and i'm a believer that Canada is getting into a good path of getting away from too much socialistic programs.
The health care needs a good kick in the ass, employees need to realize no matter if the client, insurance, government is paying the bill... they should offer A1 service... something that would never happen in the US, where ppl are very service oriented and making sure customers are treated well.
Anyway, that's my rant of the day... but at least, it's good to know that no matter my financial situation, my health will always be dealt with.
I dunno how you guys can live knowing that from one day, a health bad luck can ruin your whole life, not only physically, but financially as well.
Also, In some case where critical, and ppl can't get care in fast enough time, the government allows ppl to get the care in the US and they fork the bill... but needs to be approved before hand.
Note that the following isn't included in the freebies:
medication (unless you part of a gov program, elderly, etc)
dental care
eye care (prescription glasses, laser surgery) ... but if you need an eye surgery for medical reasons, it's free
For these 3 items, there are insurances.
Just to finish the argument,
here is what one pays when buying a product for sale.
5% federal tax (used to be 7% 2 years ago, 6% 1 year ago)
7.5% state tax (compounded over the federal one)
ie. 1.05 x1.075 = 1.12875 = 12.875% on purchase of service/goods.
Income tax... well, what about 55% of your income being held and gone... you keeping 45% of your income.
Yet, high % of population with low salaries pay 0 income tax... government doesn't encourage success much there.
Unemployment last ~1yr
Welfare is a joke and abused.
interest paid on mortgage is NOT tax-refundable
property/school taxes are outrageous
car/bikes yearly registrations are outrageous.
ex. me having a perfect driving record (points/accidents), just for the plates, I pay ~$260 / car / yr... ~$420 / yr for camaro because they passed a law on extra $ for cars with more than 4.0l of displacement.
motorcycles are over 1k$ on registrations alone.
This does not include insurance, gas, etc, where you are always charged the famous 13%
You do the math on what is needed to live in a place where it's safe, good freedom, good healthcare, no guns, etc... there is no perfect place.
Canadians dream of the States, Americans dream of Canada... lol
And FWIW, 87 octane regular gasoline is ~$6/gallon here... so gas is cheap in the US.
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 15 2008, 11:22 PM
"Universal healthcare" (as proposed by Hillary) would be government-run. See my previous statement about Medicare and how crappy it is. "Mandatory Healthcare Insurance" only requires that you have some type of insurance plan, which is already used in some states for their automobile insurance (I think Maryland is one state that does this). I'm not sure that is great either, but it is certainly the lesser of the two evils in this scenario.
One thing for everyone to look into is "flexible spending accounts." If your company offers them, you should take advantage of it. Here's a great read on it (and a really decent financial website too) - http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/news/20001129a.asp?caret=6a
In a nutshell, you can lower your taxable income, and have money set aside for medical bills that arise during the calendar year (typically covers co-pays, other med bills not covered by insurance). You do have to "use it or lose it", so plan your expenses accordingly. There is also a "dependent care account" which many people with young children use to cover the cost of child daycare.
These accounts won't apply once you start using Medicare though, and you'll have to flip a coin as to wich supplemental insurance will be best for you by then. However, as long as you are still working past 65 you don't have to use Medicare so just consider that as well.
We are still a free state, so anyone can go out and eat Big Macs until they puke, end up with clogged arteries, and have multiple medical problems caused by such overeating. I do have a big problem with paying for someone's ignorance though. I didn't force him/her to eat irresponsibly, so why should I have to pay for their healthcare? This type of thought process has been brought about by those who do not want to be held accountable for their actions, who do not believe in personal responsibility, and who do not care about the consequences of their actions on either themselves or others. THIS is what we are paying higher costs for (well that and the illegals who get med coverage as well - why aren't we billing the home country for them!?!??!?!)
There are circumstances beyond our control, such as family medical history, accidents, etc. But the bottom line is it's cheaper to be healthy, and the more you do to enable that the better off you will stand to be in the long run. That's why I jog 3 - 4 miles 3x/week, and play golf approximately 2x month. (I would prefer to play golf more, but I spent this past spring playing nearly every weekend and some during the week, so I'm catching up on house projects now and assembling parts for an oil cooler setup.)
To (sort of) get back on topic, I really hope GM survives. I was actually planning on buying something in the next couple of years and after hearing about the proposed Z28 option (either late 2010 or early 2011) I was going to look at it once it came out.
Posted by: roadracetransam Jul 15 2008, 11:29 PM
what was this topic about again?
Posted by: marka Jul 16 2008, 12:05 AM
Howdy,
I think it was about how nobody would be able to afford to buy a new GM car because they're paying for healthcare.
:-)
Mark
Posted by: slowTA Jul 16 2008, 12:47 AM
Can't afford a new GM... screw that I'm looking for a house! After reading all this I just want to live at home and bank my money in fear of getting sick.
This is one of the few times this board has made me depressed.
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 16 2008, 01:06 AM
Actually it was about how a leviathan like GM has let itself go to the point that it is almost unrecoverable. The health care cost aspect was part of the overall pricing problem GM faces when competing in the now global automobile market.
I wonder what type of health care system GM's Chinese workers have...
Posted by: cccbock Jul 16 2008, 01:08 AM
I think it was about the Government taking over General Motors and turning it into a freebie hospital...or something.
Bock (just trying to elevate the prevailing mood) Folken
Posted by: poSSum Jul 16 2008, 03:37 AM
I'd be happy to help.
Actually, if I read the press release correctly they're taking a pretty good hit as well.
Posted by: nape Jul 16 2008, 04:10 AM
This is one of the few times this board has made me depressed.
That sounds like a plan. I think I'll join you. Live at home until I'm 30 and keep the money in the mattress...
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 16 2008, 04:26 AM
This is one of the few times this board has made me depressed.
That sounds like a plan. I think I'll join you. Live at home until I'm 30 and keep the money in the mattress...
Nah....now is the time to buy (buy low, sell high). Get a good financial investor/planner though - the market is fixing to go on an E-ticket ride... The two words my guy said to me was "buy silver"....and it's starting to creep up now.
Posted by: Eugenio_SS Jul 16 2008, 04:38 AM
wow... the most political thread ever in this forum.
Posted by: nape Jul 16 2008, 05:06 AM
The BLSH mantra is contingent on being able to do the "sell high" portion. Any of the houses I can afford to buy low, I don't know if they'll ever sell high. We'll see what another 5+ months of a bad economy brings though...
I've been half ass watching GM stock. They're either going to fall into oblivion or make a crapload of cash. Now, is the glass half full or half empty?
Posted by: trackbird Jul 16 2008, 05:18 AM
Don't start down that path....
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 16 2008, 06:20 AM
I've been half ass watching GM stock. They're either going to fall into oblivion or make a crapload of cash. Now, is the glass half full or half empty?
Well, that's the risk to take. Have also heard they may require government assistance if things don't turn around soon. This reminds me of Chrysler in the early 80's (K-car anyone?)...They turned around and made a decent profit after a few years, but there were several crutches placed then that I doubt would happen today (but who knows). A free-market perspective would let them fall on their sword. A government bailout would (probably IMO) be the right thing for a speculative investor. More than likely the bailout would occur, as you could not not bailout GM after bailing out Chrysler, politically speaking. Michigan (and Detroit in particular) has much worse unemployment than the rest of the country. I'm just curious who would carry that debt, since the dollar is so weak right now.
Posted by: pknowles Jul 16 2008, 01:36 PM
I honestly think GM is doing OK and people buy more magazine headlines that spell doom and gloom for GM then something the says they are shifting to adjusting market trends. Honestly, the media is a business too. I believe Wagner when he says GM has enough cash to go 1-1.5 years without selling anything, THAT'S A LOT OF CASH! I'll believe Wagner way before I believe wall street or the mass market media. I'm actually excited about cars like the Chevy Volt. Series Hybrids seem like a much better idea then parallel hybrids and the return of the electric car is exciting. Please GM make it slightly sporty and I'll buy it.
I really don't want Universal Health Care. The biggest problem with the Government providing ANYTHING is that the Government doesn't have any real competition. The rules for the Government aren't the same as for the private sector. Free market and competition at least keep prices somewhat in check. My fear is similar to what Eugenio_SS said, basically if someone else is footing the bill everyone with a stubbed toe will go to the ER for care, which will drive the cost for care way up. If you think big business health care profits are big, I think the Government will take a lot more off the top of a Universal Health Care system. Basically treating Universal Health Care as a cash cow like the borrowing they have done from Social Security. They really don't have anyone to regulate them.
As someone who lives about 8 miles from the White House, I can say that this town is sick with selfishness. The American dream of working hard is dead here. There is so much competition for everything here (housing, parking, traffic, service of any kind) that the new American dream is how can I undercut this person to take their spot. There is no more unmarked claims for anything around here, you have to take from someone else to get what you want. I'm so sick and tired of it that I'm moving and taking a job 2 hours south of DC. I just can't stand it anymore. I seriously think this mentality has penetrated into the Government (since the Government is here) and everyone is looking out for self interest. If your not in the 6 figure salary club, then you have no representation in the federal government. I know it's a dark picture, but it's the reality of living in and around DC. Competition for everything has corrupted peoples sense of "love your neighbor". If we continue down this path I think we are going to hear the word "revolution" a lot more.
edit: can't spell
Posted by: sgarnett Jul 16 2008, 02:21 PM
Well, you're right about that. My wife has cancer, and her treatment expenses exceed my gross, pretax salery. My only pension is my savings, and I would have to burn through most of it before Medicaid would kick in. I have no expectation of getting to choose my "retirement" date in my industry. My Healthcare Flexible Spending Account is maxed to the Federal limit, and my wife burns through it by July (and that's just for the expenses that are unpaid by the best and most expensive health insurance plan my employer offers). Living in the Western Hemisphere has become a huge disadvantage in my career field.
To put it very bluntly, if I get laid off before my wife dies, I'm in deep trouble. Obviously we hope to postpone both events as long as possible, but both are probably inevitable.
Oh, and my daughter is four.
No, I don't sleep all that well.
Posted by: trackbird Jul 16 2008, 04:05 PM
Seems that this is a second report to back up the one I posted earlier about prices hitting a wall. Suddenly "extra stock". Hmm...
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/16/markets/oil/index.htm?cnn=yes
Futures plummet after surprise growth in crude, gasoline stockpiles hints at impact of high prices on usage.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices plummeted Wednesday, bringing a two-day selloff to more than $11 a barrel, after the government's weekly inventory report suggested record high gasoline prices may be reducing the nation's energy consumption.
At 11:19 a.m. ET, light, sweet crude for August delivery was down $5.09 to $133.65 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Oil was down $1.17 before the report's release. Wednesday's drop followed a $6.44 plunge Tuesday that was the second largest decline ever on a dollar basis.
The government's weekly stockpile report showed that crude supplies rose by 3 million barrels in the week ended July 11. Analysts were looking for a drop of 3 million barrels according to a poll by energy research firm Platts.
Gasoline supplies rose by 2.4 million barrels, rather than the 1.1 million decline analysts expected.
Distillates, used to make diesel fuel, jet fuel and heating oil, rose by 3.2 million barrels. Analysts were looking for an increase of only 1.7 million barrels.
Bernanke: The two-day oil selloff also reflected the gloomy economic picture being painted by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in his Congressional testimony.
On Tuesday, Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee that high energy prices and slower economic growth have limited ability of U.S. households to purchase fuel and other necessities. Bernanke appeared Wednesday before the House Financial Services Committee.
The price of gasoline and diesel fuel in the U.S. touched new records Wednesday, according to a daily survey from motorist group AAA. Gasoline is more than 35% more expensive than last year.
"The weaker economic outlook, the inventory build all contribute," said Amanda Kurzendoerfer, commodities analyst with Summit Energy. However she warned that long-term investors may see the price decline as a buying opportunity.
"The one thing we can be sure of is that we're looking at a lot of volatility going forward," she said.
OPEC, Brazil: The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which supplies about 40% of the world's oil, cut its demand forecast for 2009 Tuesday to an increase of 900,000 barrels a day, 100,000 barrels less than 2008.
There were also reports that production in Brazil had not been hurt as much as originally feared by a labor strike in the Campos Basin, which supplies about 80% of the country's oil, and tensions eased with Iran, the second largest producing member of OPEC.
State-owned oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA said production had not been affected by the ongoing strike at 33 offshore platforms that began on Monday.
Posted by: 00 Trans Ram Jul 16 2008, 04:31 PM
See - this is how a political discussion SHOULD happen. We all kept it civilized, we presented info in a logical manner, and we all agree to disagree. Thanks!!
Oh, Mark - to answer your question about who is paying for those who don't have insurance right now (Mcare, Mcaid and uninsured), they would pay their own premiums, just as the rest of us do. Everyone gets money from somewhere - the unemployed and underemployed get it from the government, we get it from our jobs. If those people who don't have insurance now refuse to take their money (that the government is giving them) nd buy health insurance, the government would withhold the amount of the premiums and pay an insurance company directly.
As for people who have jobs, don't receive government benefits, and still don't make enough money to pay the premiums, they'd have to make some tough decisions.
OK, back to GM!!
Posted by: rpoz-29 Jul 16 2008, 04:45 PM
Hey Phil, where are you locating to 2 hours south of DC?
Posted by: Eugenio_SS Jul 16 2008, 07:32 PM
Don't start down that path....
i'm staying on-topic... GM survival making us sick.. lol
Posted by: nape Jul 17 2008, 01:13 AM
I wish I had an online stock trading account last night. GM went up over a point and a half.
"Are you guys denting cans?" "Yeah, Microsofts down 3 points!"...
Posted by: mitchntx Jul 17 2008, 02:01 AM
I have a cat.
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 17 2008, 02:02 AM
No cats allowed...
Posted by: rpoz-29 Jul 17 2008, 02:41 AM
I have 2 ferrets. Elvis and Jerry Lee.
Posted by: Eugenio_SS Jul 17 2008, 04:44 AM
I have a cat.
you adopted midnight ?
Posted by: sgarnett Jul 17 2008, 11:14 AM
I see the Camaro press release mentioned "excellent fuel economy".
Posted by: pknowles Jul 17 2008, 01:27 PM
I have a word of mouth job offer at the Naval air base in St Mary's county, MD. I have to make a decision this month which of the 3 offers I'm going to take. I forwarded my high offer to the others, so we will see what happens.
Posted by: Todd Jul 17 2008, 01:42 PM
I have a word of mouth job offer at the Naval air base in St Mary's county, MD. I have to make a decision this month which of the 3 offers I'm going to take. I forwarded my high offer to the others, so we will see what happens.
congrats on escaping the hell that is DC metro!!! I did it 5 years ago and they couldn't PAY me enough to go back and deal with it again. Best of luck!!
Posted by: trackbird Jul 17 2008, 01:57 PM
I have a cat.
you adopted midnight ?
Nope, he lives with my ex wife as of last weekend. Mitch is safe.
Posted by: T.O.Dillinder Jul 17 2008, 02:30 PM
That sucks!
I have the following:
Lady, tan and black German Shepard
Phoebe, Rat Terrier
Tank, a large black Lab-Retriever mix
Snowball, an albino cat
Angel, black and white rabbit.
Jordon, 15 year old son
Dustin, 13 year old son
Trevor, 12 year old son
Ohh, the kids are not included as pets?!
Posted by: trackbird Jul 17 2008, 02:35 PM
I still have 4 cats, but the hellion is now in the custody of my ex wife. That leaves me with 4 of the fuzzballs (which is 3 more than I have time to deal with these days). I'm not cat free, just less one problem child.
Posted by: prockbp Jul 18 2008, 03:13 AM
I'm not worried about GM. If they can't adapt, then it's time for them to die. But I suspect that they will adapt and find success again.
If the US Government helps GM out, I will be pissed if there isn't a ~3200 pound, 350+ horsepower Z28 by 2010. If my tax dollars help that company out, then they should be providing me with products that I want.
Posted by: Mean Green Z28 Jul 18 2008, 03:32 AM
I'm not surprised that they are in this situation right now. I just rode in a Trailblazer the other day and I was looking around and it just sucked! The interior was plain ugly with crappy designed dash and huge panel gaps and to finish it off, crappy materials ... and this was an important market segment where it's up against the Ford Explorer (which I have) and although I would like to own a GM, I would not waste my money on that hunka shit!
Don't even get me started about the crappy ass Chevy Cavalier that ruined GM's reputation and sealed it off ... I own a Focus 'cos that's built better and arguably, looks better.
Ofcourse, I wouldn't own anything else but a GM muscle car (I hope I can stick to that, what say you GM?) ... had a '94 Camaro (did the LS1 conversion) and recently upgraded to a '98 T/A
Posted by: Rob Hood Jul 18 2008, 03:58 AM
If the US Government helps GM out, I will be pissed if there isn't a ~3200 pound, 350+ horsepower Z28 by 2010. If my tax dollars help that company out, then they should be providing me with products that I want.
Not so sure about the weight, but the power should be over 400 (supercharged) for the Z. IIRC the Z should come back in 2011.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)