General Motors on Life Support???

[TG57Roadmaster]

Okay, I'm game; I'm 51 too, and single. To follow the logic that only the folks who use programs should pay for them, how about public school taxes? It's the largest chunk of property taxes here in SC; I don't have children, so why should I have to pay for other's kids' educations. That I attended public schools shouldn't come into the equation, right?

I liked Reagan and all, even voted for him once, but the whole less is more better gubment approach and trickle-down economics has proven disastrous. And as is always the case in politics, the cyclical tide has turned against it. Does anyone truly believe that the rich are going to happily share their wealth, showering it on the peasants like so many sprinkles on an ice cream cone?

Let's take CEO pay, which in the rest of the developed world is no higher than 45-50 times the average worker's salary. But here in the land of the deregulated and the brave, it can top 400-500 times employee pay. Fair? I guess it's fair to CEO's who live and slash workforces by the sword of Reaganomics.

As for being safe on our shores, when the plants are shuttered, who'll build the Arsenal of Democracy, the kids flipping burgers at Wendy's or the greeters at Walmart? "Would you like fries with that grenade?" or, "You'll <span style="font-style: italic">love</span> our low, low prices on private protective body-armor!" Until

we muster up the cojones to start fixing what's wrong here, on these shores, we're in a real pickle.

I love it when people say, "I don't believe in Social Security or other such programs." But when the time comes, they're ready to cash the check in a New York minute. Can't blame 'em, they worked for it, paid for it. If all was fair, why shouldn't every American have the same health care that's available to say, Congress. Granted, we all want to throw the bums out, but it's deeper than that; and I have no answer. I'd like to think that in this age of instant information, we can hold them all

a bit more accountable, and make swifter course corrections.

We have the system that we deserve because, at least until a couple of weeks ago, only a fraction of the population even bothered to vote. We've been redistributing the wealth since the Teens with the first income tax laws, and we've been socialistic since the WPA, CCC and a host of other Depression-Era programs. The next time you take a ride down the Blue Ridge Parkway or visit a favorite State Park, remember to look for the historical markers to read who built them.

What's so wrong with looking inward to confront and correct this society's ills?

When we buck up, as we surely must, and realize the fact that we've been borrowing our "standard of living" for decades, maybe that's when we can make some progress. For the first time in our history, we're involved in global conflicts that we're not being taxed for, unitedly sacrificing for. Except, of course, the ones who are actually doing the fighting and dying. When that supply is exhausted, it's a relief to know we can count on our brown-shirted buddies at Blackwater,

with an able assist from happy Halliburton.

It'll take every ounce of courage from everyone of us to realize that we're in a different world now, that we don't <span style="font-style: italic">deserve</span> this profligate way of life, that we're going to have to earn it all over again; so much of America's luster has been tarnished in the world view. And yet people still aspire to live here. A large part of regaining that shining beacon will be the recognition that as the rest of the world's circumstances improves, so will ours.

I don't want to live in the <span style="font-style: italic">Ozzie & Harriet</span> '50's or the <span style="font-style: italic">Dynasty</span> '80's, just this time and the days ahead. No one loves the past more than I, but it's gone forever, like a nickel phone call or the ten cent soda. I'm not going to give up my old cars, drivers all, 'cause I live within my means and realized long ago I don't have the will or the stamina to try to keep up with the Joneses. A favorite commercial around here is for a huge rug warehouse; a pretty, petite blonde with a voice too shrill entreats us all to check out the mansion-sized rugs they purvey. Prosperity for pennies is promised if you purchase this Persian rug. Perfectly practical for a passel of palaces, revivifies any villa.

It sends me straight to the Vomitorium every time...

TG

[DAVES89]

Congress is an island all to itself. They have a $0 premium insurance plan and virtually $0 out of pocket for medical expenses. Coupled with that all the other benefits they have built for themselves including a retirement plan that is not part of social security or medicare. The urgency for them to fix social security and medicare is not there as they don't participate.

You confuse medicare and social security. Social security is income paid based on income earned during ones working career. Medicare is the health insurance available to people who attain the age of 65. I never once said that social security was wrong, just that medicare should pay their way to help the working stiffs like you and me see a moderation in our health premiums.

I am not sure if you are aware but when Clinton came into the presidency he changed very little from what Reagen had done. Other then shrink the military which is how he shrunk the budget. Sr G. Bush blinked on the no new taxes issue, which also benefited Clinton.

You live in S. Carolina. In Wisconsin we pay $3500.00 a year in property taxes on a house worth $160000. That is obscene. You don't want to pay school taxes yet I get from the tone of your letter you want other social programs. Our future is our children. If we don't invest in them we don't stand a chance.

This country's back is against the wall and the sooner we relize we can't spend our way out the better off we will be.

The pill will be bitter, but it is a whole lot better then the amputations that will happen if we don't stop thinking me first, or what can I get.

Once again I apoligize and won't come back on this topic, however I will read what others say.

[TG57Roadmaster]

We're really on the same page here; in SC I pay $2,000 on a modest $70K manse that suits me perfectly. I've never complained about school taxes, just making a point that it's a program that <span style="font-style: italic">directly</span> holds no benefit to me, other than the perceived cumulative effect on society.

Still waiting for that effect, BTW, test scores and dropout rates being what they are.

If I had kids, I'd probably home-school them, but they'd likely be

too brilliant for their own good.

The rest is just my drivel and, like so much hot air, I'm happy to share it;

not a rant, merely a series of observations.

Let Freedom Ring!*

TG

* Unless a Moderator pulls the proverbial plug

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ronald Reagen said it best "The government isn't the solution to the problem. <span style="text-decoration: underline">The government is the problem" The government is a parasite living off us, sucking us dry and becoming bigger and bigger. And yet it still can't help everyone.</span></div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">A car in every garage, a chicken in every pot, a heroin dealer on every corner, a molester in every day care center, and a radioactive isotope in every McNugget! God Bless America!</span>

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawja</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you like going to the DMV, spending time at the Social Security Administration, or dealing with the IRS, you're going to LOVE nationalized healthcare. Be careful what you wish for...</div></div>

Nonsense. </div></div>

Roger, you can't meaningfully contradict someone once they've drunk the <span style="font-style: italic">Fox News</span> Kool-Aid. (See above.) People have been told what and who to believe under the guise of straightforward information. It was just too easy.

Thought is a lost art in much of America.

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawja</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The government didn't hand the Japanese their market share...They simply make decent product that appeals to consumers. Not necessarily the most beautiful, best performance or "best" in any category, but by the evidence (sales and customer retention), they clearly know what they're doing.</div></div>

Rawja, you're correct... and they learned the basics on how to do this from us, more specifically, Dr. W. Edwards Deming's philosophy of quality processes. The Japanese then beat us soundly about the head and shoulders with his book. This was after 'Detroit' basically laughed him out of town.

Cheers,

JMC

[Starfire61]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawja</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you like going to the DMV, spending time at the Social Security Administration, or dealing with the IRS, you're going to LOVE nationalized healthcare. Be careful what you wish for...</div></div>

Nonsense. </div></div>

Roger, you can't meaningfully contradict someone once they've drunk the <span style="font-style: italic">Fox News</span> Kool-Aid. (See above.) People have been told what and who to believe under the guise of straightforward information. It was just too easy.

Thought is a lost art in much of America. </div></div>

Gentlemen, I'm rather taken aback at your rude & callous dismissals of someone who dares to express an opinion contrary to your own.

Let's see: I'm full of "nonsense," & I'm apparently a knuckle-dragging dolt who subsists on spoon-fed information provided by the media.

I have been in practice for 10 years as an anesthesiologist. My wife is an operating room nurse. Rather than sitting around scratching our behinds & drinking "the Fox News Kool-Aid," we work every day in the health care trenches trying to do our best for our patients.

My opinions regarding nationalized health care are based on a career's worth of experience, not that that should alter my right to voice them without being dismissed as a fool.

I respect your right to disagree with me, but you can do a lot better than flinging insults..... or can't you?

Chuck

[LINC400]

The J.D. Power chart is exactly the kind of flawed statistics I am talking about. If you look at the chart, Mercury is number 4 in quality. Yet Ford is way down below average. How is this possible? The Mercurys are nothing more than rebadged Fords with a verticle grille bars. So do they slow down the assembly line and say "Put this one together slowly and carefully, it is a Mercury. The next 3 will be Fords so you can just slap them together any old way."? Or do verticle grille bars magically improve quality?

I would guess that the only explanation could be that some Ford only vehicles, such as Mustang and trucks, might be lowering the average if their quality is not as good. If that is the case, then this is still a flawed apples to oranges chart because then one or 2 problem vehicles makes it look as though the entire product line is no good. Which is not true.

[Guest Skyking]

Chuck, get used to it, that's the norm here. There are certain posters that seem to know the right from wrong, no matter what the case may be............

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LINC400</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The J.D. Power chart is exactly the kind of flawed statistics I am talking about. </div></div>

Linc, the charts sooooooo accurate, it even list the 2007 Oldsmobile. And to think, I was going to go and buy one.

[Guest Reatta1]

[quote

Thought is a lost art in much of America.

Which is exactly why we will now have a very liberal president and congress. Pray for deliverance.

[LINC400]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skyking</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LINC400</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The J.D. Power chart is exactly the kind of flawed statistics I am talking about. </div></div>

Linc, the charts sooooooo accurate, it even list the 2007 Oldsmobile. And to think, I was going to go and buy one. </div></div>

It has been a long time since I have been in math class, but I thought to get an average you added all the items then divided by the number of items. That would be an industry average of 226, not 216.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My opinions regarding nationalized health care are based on a career's worth of experience, not that that should alter my right to voice them without being dismissed as a fool.

</div></div>

This country spends 15.2% of it's Gross Domestic Product on health care, second only to the Marshall Islands among all the nations on earth. The quality of our health care is now ranked 37th among all the nations on earth, and is sinking fast, by the World Health Organization. Parse and partial those two facts all you want, it's still going to stink the same.

My wife (50) has a very problematic digestive system. 2 years ago she had a perforated ulcer, which caused a 3 day hospital stay. I had to <span style="text-decoration: underline">refinance the house</span> to cover our "copays". (<span style="font-style: italic">Quotes are there to deliberately call attention to the euphamisms involved in the process</span>).

Tomorrow I pick her up at the hospital again. She went in exactly one week ago with what turned out to be a blocked colon from developing scar tissue from this and 2 other surgeries. With a 7 day stay, I will be <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">very</span></span> lucky if I can keep my Triumph after paying the numerous bills coming our way. (Refinancing the house again is not an option, trust me.) Most likely I'm going to have to take a second job to cover them.

Oh, and our insurance...it's through her employer. She manages the processing of catastrophic workers compensation claims (mainly medical) in a 7 state region for one of the 3 largest insurance companies on earth, making an income well above the median in the U.S. <span style="text-decoration: underline">This is the coverage they give themselves.</span>

You can have a decade long career doing whatever you want in the hospital. Our careers amount to giving your career more (in about 1/2 the cases in the U.S.) than we give the Federal government.

Who's really being insulted here?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Chuck, get used to it, that's the norm here. There are certain posters that seem to know the right from wrong, no matter what the case may be............ </div></div>

It's easy to dismiss people when ignorring "<span style="font-style: italic">what the case may be</span>". Isn't it?

[Dave@Moon]

I'm no fan of J.D. Powers either, but....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LINC400</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

It has been a long time since I have been in math class, but I thought to get an average you added all the items then divided by the number of items. That would be an industry average of 226, not 216. </div></div>

It's a weighted average (of course). There were unequal numbers of each car brand in the survey, both in models tested and respondants for each model.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Linc, the charts sooooooo accurate, it even list the 2007 Oldsmobile. And to think, I was going to go and buy one.</div></div>

The study was of 2004 model year cars after 3 years. The Bravada did pretty well in it's last year in their results.

[Starfire61]

I am genuinely sorry to hear of your wife's recent difficulties & wish her a speedy recovery. I hope that she had excellent, prompt care by decent & well-trained professionals.

Your financial issues related to her care are unfortunately all-too common across the land & are no doubt emblematic of bigger problems within the system overall. It's no consolation to note that the actual providers of your wife's care likely received only a fraction of whatever amount you paid. Depite the rising costs, providers are making less & less money all the time. I have partners in my group who earned more 15 years ago than today- that's real dollars, not inflation-adjusted. I agree with you completely that the system has serious problems. I don't profess to have the answers, but I think the notion of turning things over to a single-payer, federalized entity is simplistic & fraught with problems that have not been adequately considered.

From my own perspective, such a system would almost certainly result in a further decrease in income for providers, as we are among the least-organized of all the players in the game & thus unable to lobby very well. This has already been playing out in slow-motion for years as the Feds & insurance companies have steadily ratcheted down their reimbursements to physicians. Granted, most folks could care less, as they already think that greedy docs are printing money in their basements, but for everyone there comes a tipping point at which the reward no longer justifies the effort.

Put docs on salary, or force them to take universal Medicare-type rates, & there will be a slow stampede of physicians from the high-stress/high-risk/high-reward specialties. Count on it. Eventually people will start waiting 6 months or more for a coronary bypass or a hip replacement. If it happens slowly enough, perhaps the public won't care, as long as it's "free" & they can still sue the doc in the event of a bad outcome.

The path to a career in medicine is an arduous one. By the time most young physicians complete eight years of college & medical school, plus three to seven (or more) difficult years of residency or other post-graduate training, most are deeply in debt & already in their thirties. The surgical-related specialties are particularly tough- the hours can be extremely long & unpredictable, & long periods of tedium are occasionally punctuated by moments of sheer terror. Oftentimes the worst cases are the freebies (well, SOMEBODY pays): the 2 AM emergency C-section on the cocaine-positive patient with no prenatal care, or the HIV-positive gangbanger with a gunshot wound through his liver who's bleeding so much that he's used up all his platelets. The icing on the cake is the lawsuit that awaits if these adventures don't end well. Even simple & straightforward procedures have the potential to go sour in a hurry. It's always in the back of your mind. The hours & the stress take their toll on your body, your marriage, & your relationship with your kids.

Hold the violins, as I'm not seeking sympathy. I worked very hard pursuing my career hoping to provide a nice lifestyle for my family & knowing full-well what to expect. What I did not expect was the euphoric emergence of a socialist nanny state which celebrates pulling the rug out from under my feet in the name of fairness.

My personal situation aside, consider the implications of legions of government bureaucrats & protocols dictating which tests to run, or which drugs or equipment to use. "Sure, the patient might have more pain if you open him up, but those laparoscopic instruments are too darned expensive..." Consider the ethical & moral questions of rationing & limiting the scope of care for specific patient types in the interest of the greater good. Too Orwellian? Think it can't happen here? Consider tort reform, or the lack thereof & its impact on healthcare costs. Will Obama the lawyer take steps to reduce lawsuits? The aging baby boomers are going to put a heck of a strain on healthcare. I fear things will get much worse.

I'm done here. This post has gone on long enough. Barring flaming or something egregious, I don't intend to comment further on this thread. It has already taken too much of my time.

I sincerely wish the best for you & your wife & hope that things start looking up for you both very soon.

Meanwhile, I'll be in the Olds forum waiting to talk about cars!

Chuck

[Rawja]

I'm sorry I brought up healthcare, but truly those costs are strangling the what are we calling them now, the "Big 2-1/2"?, and the competitive disadvantage those costs represent for our domestic automakers is nonetheless on-point IMO.

The assertion that universal healthcare, which seems to work for EVERY other first-world nation is somehow automatically a bad thing for America is simplistic in the extreme. Are we to automatically assume that there isn't a single successful healthcare system on this earth that we could model, or perhaps a pastiche of the best features of a number of different systems that we could incorporate into a uniquely American universal healthcare plan?

We simply aren't getting our money's worth out of what we have now. #1 in spending, # 37 in outcome? Really, is this the best we can do?

Our health insurance industry consumes approximately 30% of every healthcare dollar that passes through it. Is that a reasonable take-out for their administration costs? As a contrast Medicare consumes 3% in administrative costs, complaints about low-payouts aside, seems the government system is more efficient, no?

I wholeheartedly agree that doctors should make a very comfortable living, I don't think I've heard anyone contradict that ANYWHERE other than as strawman arguments.

That the malpractice insurance industry with similarly spectacular margins and overhead are squeezing practitioners as well is not an valid argument against universal healthcare either, rather it's distraction. Medical malpractice awards represent (the highest figure I could find) 2% of healthcare costs, so while tort reform might be a good thing it is no solution to anything.

50% of personal bankruptcies in the US are caused by the burden of medical bills. Forgetting the morality of it (if you can), is it a sound economic policy to have these financial implosions randomly taking place in our communities with all the ancillary losses and economic uncertainty that it creates?

How is worker productivity affected by people avoiding treatment and medications that they can't afford?

Public health in general is being negatively affected by people avoiding healthcare 'till they end up in the emergency room, by communicable disease being left untreated and by the cumulative stress our broken system is placing on our people and the financial burden it is placing on our businesses.

Throwing around Nanny State and Socialism buzzwords while perhaps emotionally satisfying, fails to address the very real problem.

Observing that the Sultan of Brunei came here for cancer treatment is an equally lightweight argument, 'cause for the majority of Americans that level of care is hopelessly out of reach, and frankly the wealthy will ALWAYS be able to obtain "the best" of whatever they are seeking and there's nothing wrong with that, but it has no bearing on "Joe Average" seeking cancer care in Omaha.

But getting back to the domestic industry, I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that there is a sad day of reckoning coming.

I think we'll lose Pontiac, Saturn,Chrysler, Saab, Mercury, Hummer and Buick (barring a Chinese-market backed stay of execution for the brand).

Change is never easy, but I don't see how GM can support 8 brands divvying up a 20% share. I say this as a "GM guy".... an owner and fan of their products and brands (and a former stockholder). It pains me to say this, but they should probably act sooner than later.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Linc, the charts sooooooo accurate, it even list the 2007 Oldsmobile. And to think, I was going to go and buy one.</div></div>

The study was of 2004 model year cars after 3 years. The Bravada did pretty well in it's last year in their results.

</div></div>

I don't know what chart you looked at but Roger's chart was for <span style="font-weight: bold"> 2007</span> vechicles.......

[Guest Skyking]

I guess brain-washing does have an effect on people....................

What an <span style="font-weight: bold">awful greedy </span> car company...........

[Rawja]

Perhaps just posting the chart by itself was unintentionally misleading. Here:

<span style="font-style: italic">Buick ties with Lexus to rank highest among nameplates in

vehicle dependability—marking the first time in 12 years that another brand ties with Lexus for the highest-rank

position, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2007 Vehicle Dependability StudySM (VDS) released today.

The study, which measures problems experienced by original owners of 3-year-old (2004 model year) vehicles, finds

that Buick and Lexus tie for the top rank position with a score of 145 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100). Following

in the top five rankings are Cadillac, Mercury and Honda, respectively.

“With three non-premium nameplates—Buick, Honda and Mercury—ranking within the top five, and particularly

with Buick tying with Lexus for the top rank, consumers seeking a vehicle with strong dependability have good

choices at various price levels,” said Neal Oddes, director of product research and analysis for J.D. Power and

Associates. “Consumers don’t necessarily need to pay premium prices to obtain high quality and dependability.”

Lexus garners five segment awards—the most of any nameplate in 2007—for the GS 300/GS430, GX 470, LS 430,

LX 470 and SC 430. Toyota follows with four segment awards for the RAV 4, Sequoia, Tacoma and Tundra. Ford,

Honda and Oldsmobile each capture two awards. Ford models receiving awards are the Crown Victoria and Mustang

(in a tie), while Honda earns awards for the Civic and S2000. Oldsmobile models receiving awards are the Bravada

and Silhouette. Models by Buick, Chevrolet, Infiniti, Mazda and Scion each rank highest in one segment.

HUMMER is the most improved brand in the study, although it continues to rank below the industry average. HUMMER improves by 65 PP100 since 2006.

</span>

Report in its entirety can be found (edit: just found the 2008 report HERE)

[TG57Roadmaster]

Bob,

That "Zero" ad appeals to me greatly, in that I would have exactly that amount

of interest in buying <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">any</span></span> of their products.

Except maybe a cute little '70 Corona 1900 Deluxe Sedan.

Or a '65 Corona Coupe...

TG

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skyking</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Linc, the charts sooooooo accurate, it even list the 2007 Oldsmobile. And to think, I was going to go and buy one.</div></div>

The study was of 2004 model year cars after 3 years. The Bravada did pretty well in it's last year in their results.

</div></div>

I don't know what chart you looked at but Roger's chart was for <span style="font-weight: bold"> 2007</span> vechicles....... </div></div>

I didn't look at the chart. I read the study. You can use this link to do either. 2007 J.D. Powers Dependability Survey

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The study, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">which measures problems experienced by original owners of 3-year-old (2004 model year) vehicles</span></span>, finds that Buick and Lexus tie for the top rank position with a score of 145 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100). Following in the top five rankings are Cadillac, Mercury and Honda, respectively.

“With three non-premium nameplates—Buick, Honda and Mercury—ranking within the top five, and particularly with Buick tying with Lexus for the top rank, consumers seeking a vehicle with strong dependability have good choices at various price levels,” said Neal Oddes, director of product research and analysis for J.D. Power and Associates. “Consumers don’t necessarily need to pay premium prices to obtain high quality and dependability.”

Lexus garners five segment awards—the most of any nameplate in 2007—for the GS 300/GS430, GX 470, LS 430, LX 470 and SC 430. Toyota follows with four segment awards for the RAV 4, Sequoia, Tacoma and Tundra. Ford, Honda and Oldsmobile each capture two awards. Ford models receiving awards are the Crown Victoria and Mustang (in a tie), while Honda earns awards for the Civic and S2000. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Oldsmobile models receiving awards are the Bravada and Silhouette.</span></span> Models by Buick, Chevrolet, Infiniti, Mazda and Scion each rank highest in one segment.</div></div>

I see Roger already quoted the study. His link is for the 2008 Dependability Study pdf 2005 models. My link (and quote) is for J.D. Power's press release on the 2007 study. It seems to work better than Roger's link.

Bear in mind that J.D. Powers derives their income from selling rights to the use of their results to the manufacturers (in their advertising). I don't place a lot of faith in them for that reason.

[Guest imported_Thriller]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Starfire61</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My personal situation aside, consider the implications of legions of government bureaucrats & protocols dictating which tests to run, or which drugs or equipment to use. "Sure, the patient might have more pain if you open him up, but those laparoscopic instruments are too darned expensive..." Consider the ethical & moral questions of rationing & limiting the scope of care for specific patient types in the interest of the greater good. Too Orwellian? Think it can't happen here? Consider tort reform, or the lack thereof & its impact on healthcare costs. Will Obama the lawyer take steps to reduce lawsuits? The aging baby boomers are going to put a heck of a strain on healthcare. I fear things will get much worse. </div></div>

I'm not sure how the socialist country of Canuckistan north of the 49th parallel fares, but I do understand that our per capita health care costs are lower than those of the USA. I seem to remember reading better outcomes, but that was likely in the newspaper and tucked away in my failing memory bank.

My wife is a geriatrician. She does not have bureaucrats involved with telling her what to do or how to do things at all. Drug costs are the fastest growing cost in our health care system. The other thing is the tests that never used to be done. Twenty years ago, MRI machines were pretty rare (granted I've not spent much of that time in our really large population centers, but I do remember Saskatchewan getting its first MRI machine). Now, any soft tissue is a candidate for an MRI, when it used to be ice, wrap, and rest.

As for physicians being organized, up here, each province is responsible for delivering health care (with some exceptions for First Nations, which the federal Health Canada deals with). Each province also has a provincial college of physicians to bargain. Perhaps the reason American physicians aren't very organized is that there isn't a single payer to be able to contract with. Additionally, there is a national organization - the CMPA (Canadian Medical Protection Association or something very similar) that handles litigation on behalf of physicians. Of course, we also aren't as litigious a society as in the USA, although that has been changing over the years.

I'm not saying the Canadian model is the best or necessarily even better...certainly we are always looking to improve. I just wanted to refute some of your statements and provide additional information. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just stating that some of your assertions may not be the way things would turn out if health care was more socialized in the USA.

All that being said, what sort of shape would the domestic manufacturers be in if the state covered the health care costs of employees and pensioners as compared to the current situation? Is it truly a night and day thing, or is it a drop in the bucket (or several drops in a small bucket)?

Ultimately, a manufacturer still needs to build product that will sell. If they can't figure that out or can't develop new products quickly enough that will sell, there is genuine trouble. I think it may simply be a piece of seeing that there is a large pie out there and wanting a piece, as greed seems to rule North American society. Increasing revenue is still the alternative to cutting costs, but it costs money to make money.

I guess we'll see.

[Guest Dans 77 Limited]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 'Reatta1'</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote

Thought is a lost art in much of America. </div></div>

Which is exactly why we will now have a very liberal president and congress. Pray for deliverance.

What happened to the "regulation" of political comments. Im damn proud to be a life long liberal especially after seeing how well the country has been served by "conservatism" in the last 8 years.... Look around you we are rapidly heading to the seventh level of hell thanks to conservatives. We dont have to pray for deliverance its already scheduled to arrive on January 20th when this country is "delivered" from the hands of conservatives.

The funny part is <span style="font-weight: bold"> My Post</span> will probably get edited for being too political. But what needs to be explained is that too political translates into "It disagrees with the right " which is common on the net . If your conservative you can say whatever you want and not be too political, but if you disagree with the conservatives opinion all of the sudden "things are getting political and we dont allow that.

The above quote hasnt been edited .... How much you wanna bet this will ?

[BUICK RACER]

No going to edit, but none of you csn fix it, go spend some $$$ if you got it on stuff made in the USA or mostly.

[Reatta Man]

Well, well, well.....

This discussion has taken on the same tone as many others have when anyone suggests Dave is insulting or putting others down.

Out come the slides, articles, clipart, pasted items from other web sites that support his point of view.

Dave, others may (do) differ from you, but insults, names and labels don't help. All they do is infuriate, and ultimately, get the message shut down or eliminated or both.

Thanks, again, Dave. You are consistently being soooooo predictable.

On a pe;rsonal note, I hope your wife gains her health back and makes a full recovery and the medical bills do not overcome you financially.

Roberta and the other moderators, time to shut down another one......

[Dave@Moon]

Dan,

People trying to lean the discussions here towards the political are like those who are insulted and frightened by facts and authoritative references, or who stretch the implications and meaning of what's said here by people they disagree with to the breaking point in order to mask their own pride and/or inadequacies. They're best ignorred and allowed to be what they are, and have their contributions to this and other discussions weighed accordingly.

There are going to be a lot of people around the country and around here who will be revelling in fear for a while (economic, political, cultural, professional, etc.). They have already been for some time, and the fact that it isn't working any more will only make it harder for them to stop. They've forgotten the lessons of FDR (i.e. <span style="font-style: italic">"The only thing we have to fear..."</span>), and the idea that community isn't just who they pick to be in it.

Let the dogmatic be, and listen to the pragmatic. The rest will take care of itself.

[Guest Reatta1]

Well Dave, I don't care if this discussion leans to the political or not. I simply made an appropriate comment to a statement that has more truth to it than most realize. No 'pride' or 'inadeqaucies' here to deal with. Facts are facts are facts and some twist them around to their own purposes and I will not mention the twisters as the twisting gets vehemently denied. Bottom line, we shall se what we shall see. Socialism hasn't worked in other countries and won't work here. And just to keep this car related, the huge proposed auto industry bailout will do more harm to the taxpaying citizen than good.

The following quote from Nikita Khrushchev in 1959 comes to mind. "We cannot expect Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism untill they suddenly awake to find they have Communism".

Looks to me like we are well on our way.

[Matt Harwood]

If one thinks it'll cost taxpayers a lot to bail out GM, wait 'till we see what it costs to let them fail. Whine about the bailout all you want, but I'll wager those same people are the ones who whine about welfare, unemployment benefits, healthcare costs by the indigent, inflation, crashing home prices, and crime rates. All those will skyrocket when we suddenly add <span style="font-style: italic">millions</span> of unemployed people to the economy.

Which way to you want your poison?

Besides, we'll just do what we've always done--borrow it, then tell our creditors to screw off. Jeez, guys, what's another $25 billion in the $11 <span style="font-style: italic">trillion</span> bucket we've made for ourselves in the past decade? What, that first $10,975,000,000,000.00 was OK, but this is just unacceptable? Oh, <span style="font-style: italic">please.</span> Get some perspective.

Write the check. Call it socialism (which is another idiotic, yet completely empty, talk show-induced buzzword) if you want. But if we like our quality of life as it is and don't want it to get exponentially worse, we better hope that 1 out of 9 people in the US don't suddenly become unemployed.

The proposed automaker bailout costs less than 3 months in Iraq--same taxpayer pie, different slice. Money well spent? Can you be against one and in favor of the other? Which one is more important to the survival of the United States? You decide.

PS: Dave, Joe & Jim: Put each other on your ignore lists--your cardiologist will thank you for it.

[R W Burgess]

I like your points, Matt.

Wayne

[Guest John Chapman]

The link here is a discussion on allowing the demise of GM. It contains a number of interesting points and insights on topics discussed here...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688631448632421.html

Cheers,

JMC

[Matt Harwood]

Good Op-Ed, John. All good points.

I've been thinking for years that GM should reorganize and get a federal judge to nullify some of their onerous legacy obligations. Not that I want retirees who expected pensions (and therefore didn't save for retirement) to be out in the cold, but the legends of UAW benefits aren't there because they don't hold kernels of truth. Paying guys not to work and buying your own cars just to keep the factories open because of your contract with the UAW is insane.

It's time to wise up and see that the gravy train has reached the end of the line. Everybody off.

However, I can see the problems with outright bankruptcy. It would severely undermine consumer confidence in the product. Airlines going bankrupt aren't the same--you don't buy a $25,000 airplane ticket and use it for 5+ years. Warranty concerns are legitimate and a real carrot for buyers thinking about buying your car. Would I feel comfortable buying a car from a company that may not be around to support it the way, say, the competitor across the street will? Regardless of what bankruptcy <span style="font-style: italic">technically</span> means, that's what <span style="font-style: italic">reality</span> is.

I have no doubt that GM can compete with the world's best (they already do). But they can't be their best saddled with legacy costs and policies that date to the 1960s (or earlier).

I think I said this before: the UAW didn't sink this ship by themselves. But now that the ship is going down, they really should pitch in and start bailing.

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawja</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...#1 in spending, # 37 in outcome? Really, is this the best we can do?</div></div>

As a footnote to the issue of 'outcome'... I'll take a leap and guess that you are using the WHO numbers. By the way the US is ranked number one (#1) in responsiveness, as well.

I would take WHO numbers with a grain of salt.

Why?

Because a while back, I had the opportunity to investigate the WHO standings on infant mortality rates (IMR). It seems the US is the <span style="font-style: italic">only </span>respondent to report IMR in <span style="text-decoration: underline">full compliance </span>with WHO guidelines. The WHO guideline is very simple: Does the infant show <span style="font-style: italic">any </span> sign of life (e.g.: heartbeat, body movement, eye movement, breathing)? If so, by WHO definition, it is considered a live birth irrespective of how delivered.

Based on cultural differences, political initiative, and 'face saving', other respondents report using vastly different definitions of live birth, measures of viability, and period of accounting. It's really a comparison of apples to oranges. I suspect much the same in the overall quality numbers.

Critical thinkers want to know...

Best regards,

JMC

[Guest Skyking]

I often wonder, more so now than then, how much better off GM would have been if they let the EV-1 play it's part. It was their biggest mistake scrapping, <span style="font-style: italic">for what-ever reason </span> that project. It sure was a foothold to where Toyota is now.

[Guest John Chapman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Matt Harwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...Not that I want retirees who expected pensions (and therefore didn't save for retirement) to be out in the cold, but the legends of UAW benefits aren't there because they don't hold kernels of truth...</div></div>

While market conditions have changed, the GM pension pool in the Dec 07 10K filing was $119,000,000 against defined benefit pension obligations of $85,000,000. I don't think retirees will be indegent following a BK.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Matt Harwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I think I said this before: the UAW didn't sink this ship by themselves. But now that the ship is going down, they really should pitch in and start bailing. </div></div>

Agree, but at some point, you have to patch the holes in the hull, lest you sink anyway, but sweaty and with blisters on your bucket hand.

Cheers,

JMC

[Guest Reatta1]

Right. What's another 25 billion for the auto industry. Then it will be billions for some other industry and on down the line. The 700 billion for the lenders should never have been done either. Private businesses either succeed or they fail. If they fail, another one will take their place. Why is it the taxpayers fault for the failure or the responsibility for preventing the failure. We don't get any tax break from their successes so why should we kick in for their failure? But then that wouldn't be the 'liberal' way, would it.

Really don't want this to get political, but, it's just this old farmboys answer to the question.

[MarkV]

The consequences to our country= double digit unemployment, shut down of even more smaller support business who make everything from a bolt to a radio for GM (AC DELCO). And an entire generation of middle aged people w/o a college education now out of a job with no where to go and bills to pay. Oh and did I mention that the UAW will attempt to make the taxpayers pay the pensions for the UAW members?

"Am I bashing GM? I am more than convinced that they don't get what it takes to build a reliable car. I would like nothing more than to own a GM car (besides my old Buicks). I just don't trust them anymore and haven't for a long long time. I guess

that the sales of GM cars reflect that many others feel that way too. "

All of your thoughts are just a reflection of the propaganda which foreign auto makers have been able to propagate to the lame American masses. Most of the foreign cars are less reliable than GM or Ford- Daewoo, Hyundai, Suzuki,Nissan, etc. Toyota and Honda are on par with GM. The U.S. has been building reliable cars I see more older American cars (1989-2002) than any other, as for MPG all of the foreign vehicles with the exception of the Prius get the same MPG as their counterparts.GM is falling apart for 5 reasons:

UAW and the other unions demanding more and more

Group- cattle mantality of the increasingly lame American masses buying Toyota, etc. because their friends are and they dont realise that everytime they buy one a U.S. job is lost.

Lack of differing designs from those of the foreign makers.

GM ending production on popular models- Lesabre and the 3800 engine.

Inability with keeping up with the times, like making the SUVS which were popular and then not being able to transfer over to smaller vehicles quickly enough

Here is the big problem with all of the automakers:

NEW CARS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE!

[Reatta Man]

<span style="font-size: 11pt">You guys are raising some very valid points. I, too, think GM, Ford and Chrysler need the help of a BK judge, acting on the advice of the staff analyzing the numbers, to cut some of these ridiculous UAW contracts. And yes, I know that every time someone mentions UAW contracts, a union worker grips about a senior exec getting a million-dollar bonus or stock option, but they are not even close to being apples-and-oranges.

As John pointed out, the retiree pay pool is sound, and I will add, should have a 50' wall of razor wire around it (figuratively) to keep the car companies AND the Washington Congressional pigs out of it. And, yes, I do see Washington somehow trying to get their hands on some of that money. Those retirees worked for that, the money should be treated as if it doesn't even exist when looking at resources vs. obligations in a court proceedure.

But, do UAW members really need totally free-for-life healthcare when the overwhelming majority of the working American public makes some payroll and out-of-pocket contributions to paying for their healthcare? On the surface, to an outsider like myself, free-for-life healthcare for all of its workers seems pretty obscene from a company looking either looking for a taxpayer loan or facing bankruptcy.

I want GM (and Ford and Chrysler) to survive. But going to Washington out the front door for cash while the UAW is loading up the cash by the truckload out the back door doesn't make ANY sense.

While I also don't like for our car discussions to become political, make no mistake; the rush this week to bail out GM by this lame-duck Congress is a move to preserve UAW contracts, NOT GM, Ford or Chrysler. The UAW management feels as if they own the Dems, and now they are demanding payback. Why? Because a BK judge could also cut THEIR source of bonuses and ridiculous compensation, and possibly free up some or all factories to not have to force new or existing workers to join the union. Just the thought of breaking those contracts or opening up factories to non-union workers sends shivers up the spines of the UAW execs.

The real tragedy is if the companies don't get some relief, hopefully from a court and not Congress, most people don't have any idea how far-reaching their fall could shake the American public.

Imagine a worker in a bank or insurance company 500 or even 1,000 miles from the nearest GM factory loosing his or her job. The reason? The 5, 6 or even 20 GM dealers in that county have all had to close down or consolidate all because their former supplier (GM) had to stop making cars for 5-9 months, and they can't get any products to sell. The fact is, GM, Ford and Chrysler probably indirectly affect a significant percentage of ALL jobs in the U.S. </span>

[d2_willys]

GM (General Mopar) is doing fine with the new G8 Pontiac.

LOL!!!!

They could (if they really wanted to) take the lead if they would develop alternate fuel vehicles. Alcohol, hydrogen, electric. Big mistake if the car companies and the government does not continue to fund alternate fuel research and development. But those who are producing the alternate fuels must find ways of cutting costs to drive the prices down below a buck a gallon. I just hope we don't have another poor excuse of a president, and one that goes along with my opinions.

Our dependency on crude from overseas has got to slow down and eventually stop.

[R W Burgess]

I've got one comment to add.

These employees that may lose their jobs? If these employees are building cars that are bought each day of the week, doesn't another company have to take up the slack and make cars, assuming GM goes down the drain?????

So, if the market is in the US to sell cars, another company will start producing automobiles to take up the slack, hence new jobs at these other companies?????

OK, two comments....

If you say that no, these other stable companies will not hire new employees, then I'd say that the stable companies are doing a better job of building cars with less overhead (didn't need extra employees!). Stable companies are the ones that should stay in business, not the unstable ones that continuously need to be "propped" up, by the government, no less. Additionally, these small parts suppliers? They will still have business with the stable companies, although new business with a different name on the box!

Wayne

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But then that wouldn't be the 'liberal' way, would it.

Really don't want this to get political, but, it's just this old farmboys answer to the question.</div></div>

You don't want it to be political, but you dangle bait like that first sentence. Why not leave volatile stuff like that out completely? The discussion will probably stay on topic and not get too overheated. It adds <span style="font-style: italic">absolutely nothing</span> salient to the discussion except flame bait.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReattaMan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While I also don't like for our car discussions to become political, make no mistake; the rush this week to bail out GM by this lame-duck Congress is a move to preserve UAW contracts, NOT GM, Ford or Chrysler. The UAW management feels as if they own the Dems, and now they are demanding payback.</div></div>

Ditto.

Please, I'm not singling just you two guys out, these are just the two most convenient examples I grabbed when I had an ephiphany this morning. There are many others and we all know the names, mine being one of them.

I'm so weary of getting sucked into political diatribes (and I'm as guilty as anyone of throwing a punch, don't get me wrong). I'm backing off because it solves nothing and only divides us--a group of guys who enjoy the same hobby. Just re-read your words before you hit "Submit" and remove the eyepokes. It won't make your opinion less valid, just less polarizing. You have no idea how many posts I delete entirely for just that reason. Starting immediately, I'm turning over a new leaf--please join me. Let's see what happens, eh?

Only time will tell if I'm a hypocrite.