Seriously, there are plenty of logical reasons to oppose a bailout. For one, bankruptcy will have a higher chance of helping the automakers trim the fat more than a bailout.

Not to mention plain ol' capitalism.

Labor unions are a free-market entity. In the UAW's case, they've overplayed their hand and, like any other free-market entity, will probably fail because of it. Why make the bailout deal about attacking organized labor? It just makes you look petty.

Cubist Robot Party: Why make the bailout deal about attacking organized labor? It just makes you look petty.

Because these people are too stupid to figure it out otherwise. "the market correcting itself" isn't a good enough reason anymore. Now we need a demon to do the right thing.

Cubist Robot Party: Why make the bailout deal about attacking organized labor? It just makes you look petty.

Unions are morally wrong. So there's that.

DocsInOKC: Because these people are too stupid to figure it out otherwise. "the market correcting itself" isn't a good enough reason anymore. Now we need a demon to do the right thing.

Correct. The local GM Stamping plant is being shut down. The workers were stunned by the annoucement. They keep talking about how highly rated they were in terms of quality and productivity. They never seem to mention that they either went on stike or threatened to every year.

Grew up in Texas in the shadow of a GM assembly plant. It was a pretty poor part of town. Lots of crime, poverty. Lots of red-light like areas. I just can't see how Unions make people's lives better. To me, it seems like they make them worse.

I think we need to let the Auto industry fail. Some of these companies (not confined to the auto industry) have become so "untouchable" that they aren't even on the same plane of existence as the rest of us. A nice bankruptcy would bring them down to earth and keep them from becoming just another branch of the government. The bailout is more like an aquisition than a helping hand.

TheReij: Grew up in Texas in the shadow of a GM assembly plant. It was a pretty poor part of town. Lots of crime, poverty. Lots of red-light like areas. I just can't see how Unions make people's lives better. To me, it seems like they make them worse.

It seems to me that tying the conditions in your town to the local union might be a little bit of a stretch. Maybe your city government had more responsibility for such things.

Unions were once relevant and necessary.

Link (new window)

One domino in the line of falling dominoes.

hillbillypharmacist: TheReij: Grew up in Texas in the shadow of a GM assembly plant. It was a pretty poor part of town. Lots of crime, poverty. Lots of red-light like areas. I just can't see how Unions make people's lives better. To me, it seems like they make them worse.

It seems to me that tying the conditions in your town to the local union might be a little bit of a stretch. Maybe your city government had more responsibility for such things.

Touché on that one sir, a very valid point. I failed to mention that a large portion of the population that resided in that particular area were employed by the plant, but either way your point is a valid one.

Still, I stand by my personal observation that I can't see where a Union has helped improve the quality of life for a member. Unfortunately, the only reinforcement I've recieved has to do with what I saw growing up.

When you make ZERO attempt to play both sides in politics....you have one side as an enemy. What does not make sense about that?

Most industries try to walk the tightrope, donating and schmoozing with both sides.....Unions are in the tank for one side only. No surprise that this is a poor strategy.

arkansas: Unions are in the tank for one side only. No surprise that this is a poor strategy.

Yea..the Union. Do you really believe they are in the tank for the workers?

DOWN WITH THE UAW!!!1!

I would love to see the UAW castrated, but not at the expense of millions of jobs and the US economy.

hillbillypharmacist: Unions are morally wrong. So there's that.

I'm guessing you've never read about American unions, how they evolved over the last century and why. If you want to talk morality, you need to get the facts and I'm not talking the standard propaganda spewed forth by the neo-cons broken brain machine. If you're employed and judging from your comment I'd say you aren't in a high paying job, you benefit every single day by the presence of US labor unions.

Do you regularly work a 7 day work week? I'm guessing not, well thank the unions for that.

Do you work an 18 hour day? No?, Thank the unions for that.

Do you work along side children ages 7 and up? No?, Thank the unions for that.

Is your workplace heavily contaminated with toxic chemicals and carcinogenic compounds? No? Thank the unions.

If you do work in a contaminated environment, are you issed proper safety gear? Thank the unions for that.

Do you get vacation and sick time? Yes? Thank a union for that.

There are dozens and dozens of fair labor practices which the unions have brought about.

Now, having said all that, I think the UAW has gone too far, but lets be honest, they only went too far because the US automaker management has been so bad for so long. So, they're both to blame.

Do you guys really believe that GM's 50 billion dollar debt is because of the unions? Or because of bad management?

US industry and investment companies have all thrown basic risk management tools out the window hoping to bump up profits in the short term. They all got caught by their risky business behaviors. Now they want your children to bail them out.

Any discussion that some how these bailouts are going to profit the American public in the long term is nothing but a god damn lie!

The money is already being spent buying up companies at 30% more than their actual value. Result? Folks at the top are getting stinking rich by selling their previously near worthless stocks.

arkansas: When you make ZERO attempt to play both sides in politics....you have one side as an enemy. What does not make sense about that?

There are more than two sides to politics

Con_Authority: Now, having said all that, I think the UAW has gone too far...

Nah. It's only fair that they demand that non-union workers pony up to preserve their sweetie-pie wages and benefits, considering all the wonderful things they've done for their well-being. We're all 'brother workers' after all.

hillbillypharmacist: Unions are morally wrong. So there's that.

38/57

Not good, not bad, but decent enough that it warranted an odd rating.

Reactron: Con_Authority: Now, having said all that, I think the UAW has gone too far...

Nah. It's only fair that they demand that non-union workers pony up to preserve their sweetie-pie wages and benefits, considering all the wonderful things they've done for their well-being. We're all 'brother workers' after all.

And they must pay brother workers even if they haven't worked there for decades. And we must have a job bank so we can get paid without even working. It's all so clear.

GaryPDX: Reactron: Con_Authority: Now, having said all that, I think the UAW has gone too far...

Nah. It's only fair that they demand that non-union workers pony up to preserve their sweetie-pie wages and benefits, considering all the wonderful things they've done for their well-being. We're all 'brother workers' after all.

And they must pay brother workers even if they haven't worked there for decades. And we must have a job bank so we can get paid without even working. It's all so clear.

Don't forget puppies. Unions also eat puppies.

GaryPDX: And we must have a job bank so we can get paid without even working. It's all so clear.

Well, naturally. I always get paid when my employer doesn't have any work for me to do. The last time that happened I got paid in pink munny. Odd that no one seemed to want to take that as payment for anything though. Thank God my 'brothers' were there to help me find another job that paid green debt-notes, not.

hillbillypharmacist: Cubist Robot Party: Why make the bailout deal about attacking organized labor? It just makes you look petty.

Unions are morally wrong. So there's that.

Yup. Organizing, discussing, and acting in the interests of the workers, as opposed to the bottom line for your employers is terribly immoral. How dare people look to their own interests instead of the profit margin?

Labor unions are a product of the capitalist system--and represent the interests of the workers, as opposed to those who provide the capital. Management and labor need each other, and in an ideal world, they would look out for one anothers' interests, but this is far from a perfect world, so the tug and pull of labor and management continues--it isn't moral or immoral, but an outgrowth of the markets.

So long as management provides an organized front, and business leaders meet to discuss the challenges faced by their particular markets and industries, then the argument that labor organizations are somehow NOT a part of the market is specious, at best.

In ideal world, there would be no need for labor to organize--but we are hardly there yet. If folks oppose the concept of labor organizations, then perhaps giving labor no reason to exist would be in order. Labor organizations exist to look out for the interests of the workers, while management looks out for the interests of the owners--and somewhere in the middle the two meet, and figure out what is acceptable.

Without labor, we wouldn't have the protections we see today--your work week, your compensation, your insurance, your holidays, the safety requirements, age restrictions, all are thanks to unions. That companies now provide such things even in non-union shops is an outgrowth of that. Unions raise the bar across industries, even in those that they are not in.

You're welcome.

Unions are not moral or immoral, but a part of the market system, and trying to paint them as a moral or immoral choice is a rejection of that very free market. Protected and skewed markets are inherently unfair, and that is exactly the sort of thing that we need to be watching for. Especially considering how badly we're soaking in the effects of skewed and unfair markets right now.

jonasborg: There are more than two sides to politics

In reality, there is only one. Money. The Unions, unlike many other favor seekers, only party with one group of moneysuckers. Now they are upset that the people they don't pay, don't play.

I think I may be a bad person for enjoying the idea that Republicans ran on the small-town values/real Americans platform, and after they lost the election are now trying to do whatever they can by sticking it to the unions. On some level the very few people that voted for them will be directly impacted by their anti-union actions.

I do not agree with many unions, and find 95% of them to be totally unnecessary. On the other hand I find it incredibly funny that Republicans are salting the earth that grows their constituency. If they destroy unions, many "regular Joes" will lose their jobs or at the very least lose pay... money that will then be given to the executives, and then given to the Republicans that helped crush the unions.

Why wasn't Joe "The Plumber" worried about this redistribution of his "wealth".

GOP Memo about Automaker bailout: We can make this a "first shot against organized labor." Way to keep yourselves relevant, Republicans

God its about time someone highlights the politicized nature of all this UAW focus in a world where the banking industry have been the scene of grotesque excesses, where our shiatty US healthcare system is a shared major problem for Banks, Auto, and more importantly, 'We The People.' And instead of focusing on an unlevel playingfield that American auto companies have to work against, people want to attack a union - a group thats one of the last strong labor organizations (still a shadow of its former strength). Americans are more productive, work longer hours, but we havent seen our wages rise accordingly. Instead of looking at the imbalance there, all I see is the defense of the rich like I'm overhearing a conversation at a country club polo game.

Time for the reposts



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.ht ml?part ner=rss& emc=rss

For years now, we've heard General Motors complain that it's being lapped in the United States by Toyota because it's got five retirees in the back seat for every two people actively building its vehicles, while Toyota's U.S. operations are virtually retiree-free. GM is weighed down by heavy "legacy costs" for pensions and health care, while Toyota has no pension plan, and its health care costs per vehicle are barely a tenth of GM's.

But it's not quite that simple, race fans. GM has another serious performance drag that has nothing to do with legacies. It has to do with price. Because GM vehicles aren't as attractive to buyers as comparable Toyotas, you can generally buy them cheaper.

And as we'll soon see, the revenue difference, which almost no one talks about, may soon be larger than GM's cost difference, which everyone talks about. The reason: GM has managed to reduce legacy costs by pressuring workers and retirees. But it can't simply muscle buyers into paying up for its vehicles. It has to persuade them, which is lots harder.

Now, let's go crunching. Because Toyota sells more smaller vehicles than GM does, and fewer big ones, you need a "mix-adjusted" number to be able to compare apples with apples. Ron Tadross, Banc of America Securities' chief auto analyst, puts the Toyota premium (or GM discount, if you prefer) at $1,500 a vehicle in the United States. GM won't confirm that number -- but doesn't dispute it, either.

Tadross also says that despite being $1,500 cheaper, GM vehicles generally are higher-cost than Toyotas, because GM's resale values are far lower. Lower resale values, of course, are one reason that GM can't charge as much as Toyota does.

The disparity in the small and mid-size car prices has become so great that Mark LaNeve, GM's sales and marketing chief, is seizing on it as a virtue. He said he hopes I write about the GM discount. Why? Because, LaNeve says, "many consumers think Japanese cars are cheaper than our cars. And they aren't."

LaNeve says GM is trying to close the pricing gap by improving its vehicles, marketing them more effectively and reducing the used-car disparity. He says that three-year-old GM vehicles used to sell at 40 to 45 percent of original cost, compared with 50 percent for a Toyota. Now, he says, GM has moved up to the 42 to 46 percent range. "Unfortunately for us, we're trying to turn the tables in a very competitive marketplace," he said.

This isn't the place to talk about how GM came to have a price disadvantage. What matters is that it's here and it's big. And unlike the legacy disadvantage, it's not scheduled to shrink.

Here's the math. In 2004, GM says, its health care costs were $1,528 a vehicle and pension costs were $695 a vehicle. Total: $2,223. Toyota's comparable costs: $201 for health care (according to A.T. Kearney) and perhaps $50 for matching workers' 401(k) contributions (my estimate). GM refuses to provide legacy costs for its 2005 vehicles. But by my estimate, they were $1,850 for health care, $700 for pensions. Total: $2,550. (I'm using GM pension and health care numbers and WardsAuto.com's vehicle-production stats.) Numbers Toyota gave me indicate its U.S. health care costs stayed at about $200 a vehicle. And let's use the same, probably-too-high $50 for 401(k) costs.

This produces a horrendous $2,300 gap. But watch. If GM's deal with the United Auto Workers goes through as expected, it will save $3 billion a year on health care costs. GM has also imposed $900 million of cuts on its nonunionized workers. Had those savings been in effect last year, they would have totaled $1,200 a vehicle. That would have shrunk GM's cost disadvantage to about $1,100 -- less than its price disadvantage.

The bottom line: Shedding costs isn't enough. To prevail in its home market, GM also has to close the price gap. Otherwise, it might as well forget about ever taking the checkered flag.

repost
UAW offers concessions to Big Three automakers.
Two weeks after insisting his union had already done enough to help the car makers, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said the union would allow the companies to delay billions of dollars in payments into funds that will cover health-care costs for retired workers.

to

"As Washington clashes over a Big Three bailout, it's ignoring the best cure to the automakers' ills: Universal healthcare."
GM spends an average $72 an hour on labor, including wages, health benefits and pensions. Non-union Toyota plants spend $42 an hour. Toyota hasn't been building cars here long enough to be stuck with the hospital bills of nonagenarian retirees. The company has plenty of elderly veterans back home -- the Japanese are the longest-lived people in the world -- but guess who pays for healthcare in Japan? The Japanese government. As a result of providing its workers with health benefits that everyone in this country should be getting, American automakers pay over $2,000 more in labor costs on every car they make. The best way to overcome a nut like that is to build big vehicles that you can sell for a big profit.

Were Detroit automakers shortsighted? Absolutely. As shortsighted as a 21-year-old who drops out of engineering school and takes a job in a warehouse to support his ailing parents. American automakers sacrificed innovation to keep building SUVs and trucks that would pay their legacy costs right away.

The strongest opposition to an auto industry bailout isn't coming from environmentalists. It's coming from free-market conservatives who see burying Detroit as an opportunity to bury the United Auto Workers and the entire union movement. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama called the auto industry a "dinosaur" and suggested government aid would only delay its well-deserved demise. "Companies fail every day and others take their place," Shelby said. "I think this is a road we should not go down."
---------------------

(2006) Detroit's big three seek White House help
· Bosses of Chrysler, GM and Ford get long-delayed talks
· Demands for tax breaks and level playing field

America's top three carmakers met George Bush yesterday to demand more help from a seemingly unsympathetic administration in fending off Japanese competition and in shifting vehicles towards environmentally friendly forms of fuel.
...
Topics on the table included ways to tackle the burden of employee healthcare costs which typically add between $900 (£475) and $1,400 to the price of every American car.

The companies say this is one reason why they are slashing thousands of jobs and closing factories. American manufacturers are facing vigorous foreign competition including inroads by Japanese auto companies who benefit from the relatively low value of the yen. The trio insisted they were not in Washington to seek a bailout from their chronic financial difficulties.

Ford's chief executive, Alan Mulally, said: "The question was asked [by reporters] were we interested in a bailout. Absolutely not; we really believe the action starts with us. We're taking action to restructure the industry."

But they said there were ways in which the administration could help, including, they suggested, pressing the Japanese to allow the value of the yen to rise. General Motors' chief executive, Rick Wagoner, said: "It's our strong conviction that the Japanese yen is systematically undervalued, which helps them maintain significant trade balance surpluses in our industry."

Between them, GM and Ford lost $4.1bn in the first half of the year. The Detroit-based manufacturers have struggled to cope with a slump in the popularity of sports utility vehicles and pickup trucks, partly caused by the high price of petrol.

To ram home the point that they intend to shift away from petrol, Mr Mulally and Mr Wagoner arrived for the meeting in hybrid fuel vehicles. But they complained that alternative energy remains awkward for consumers because few filling stations provide fill-ups - for example, only 1,000 of America's 176,000 service stations offers ethanol fuel. The trio told the president that if they get practical and policy support from the government, they could reach a point by 2012 where 50% of new cars are ethanol-enabled.
===

yes, 2 years later, they are asking for a bailout. Here's some sorely needed context in threads with calls for the heads of one of the last unions with any real clout. Every group has flaws, its just sad to see the free pass from the Banks, who got large amounts of money, not get as railed on by congress, when...

recall 2005, when congress bailed-out credit card companies by making it harder for the regular guy to declare bankruptcy- most of whom were put there by crushing medical bills. Worse yet, those bankruptcy laws helped drive foreclosures as homeowners defaulted on mortgages.

The passage of this bill had unintended consequences that are particularly apropos for our current situation.

(2005) Washington Mutual Inc. got what it wanted in 2005: A revised bankruptcy code that no longer lets people walk away from credit card bills.

The largest U.S. savings and loan didn't count on a housing recession. The new bankruptcy laws are helping drive foreclosures to a record as homeowners default on mortgages and struggle to pay credit card debts that might have been wiped out under the old code, said Jay Westbrook, a professor of business law at the University of Texas Law School in Austin and a former adviser to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

"Be careful what you wish for," Westbrook said. "They wanted to make sure that people kept paying their credit cards, and what they're getting is more foreclosures."

Washington Mutual, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. spent $25 million in 2004 and 2005 lobbying for a legislative agenda that included changes in bankruptcy laws to protect credit card profits, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan Washington group that tracks political donations.

The banks are still paying for that decision. The surge in foreclosures has cut the value of securities backed by mortgages and led to more than $40 billion of writedowns for U.S. financial institutions. It also reached to the top echelons of the financial services industry.

....

"[Congress is] to have to figure out some way to address the problem," Westbrook said. "I don't think our economy or our consciences can handle the number of foreclosures we'll see if they do nothing." (also see Prisoners of Debt, Economist 2005)

----
Additional links


Bankruptcy Reform and Foreclosures

US Senate Banking Hearings

"Examining the Billing, Marketing, and Disclosure Practices of the Credit Card Industry, and Their Impact on Consumers."

• Elizabeth Warren

Bankruptcy Bill Said to Hit Poorest Americans Hardest

Credit Cards, Bankruptcy Laws and the Mortgage Meltdown

Banks get a pass, and we're (U.S. citizens) sharing a common burden, an unbalanced and unfair global playingfield from healthcare issues. Its the elephant in the room.

Unions = Communism

Right?

Healthcare crisis
• Connected to the Mortgage meltdown
• Connected to the auto industry meltdown

I've been having discussions with friends and family since the automaker bailout idea had started to be kicked around. I've said the Republicans see this as a perfect opportunity to crush the unions.

Turns out that's exactly what they planned to do.

It's the domestic equivalent for invading Iraq for 9/11.

DamnYankees: Unions = Communism

Right?

Those terrible Unions. God theyre so powerful





Since 1975, practically all the gains in US household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

(2007) Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary

(Video)

(2003) Buffett slams dividend tax cut

One of world's richest calls plan 'voodoo economics,' says it puts burden on low-income families.
======

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?_r=1&em&ex= 1175313600&en=3 11ab7d3df477c4e&ei=5087%0A%E2%80%9C&oref=slogin

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

(2007) Gap between rich, poor seen growing
Income disparity reaches highest since 1920s, paper reports, with recent Wall Street boom partly to blame.

(2007) US Income Gap Is Widening Significantly, Data Shows

(2007) US Income Gap Widens, Richest Share Hits Record

In a nutshell: If it's the GOP's rich, banker friends in trouble, they get a blank check. If it's Joe 6-pack, they get an unemployment check.

Party Boy: Those terrible Unions. God theyre so powerful

Dude. We get it. We don't need a thesis every time you post. Try this... think of an idea, then state it clearly and concisely.

/kthxbye

Cubansaltyballs: We don't need a thesis every time you post.

my MA thesis is about 148 pages long. Thats about 2. I'd have to lengthen that considerably for a publication. Yes, for fark, its long - but don't try to confuse it with a thesis.

Party Boy: my MA thesis is about 148 pages long. Thats about 2. I'd have to lengthen that considerably for a publication. Yes, for fark, its long - but don't try to confuse it with a thesis.

Wow! Until you clarified it, I thought a thesis was merely someone collecting URLs and posting a description of them. Thanks for pointing it out to me that a thesis is a very long piece of research work.

Lighten up. Try getting laid. Or better yet, next time you decide to post just go with the premise that you are not the smartest person on the planet. I know it is a hard idea to wrap your head around... just give it a whirl.

Party Boy: Healthcare crisis

You've gone and made me do it.

If you deserve healthcare, then you'll work hard enough to afford it.
That's why our healthcare is the best- because it gives out justice as well as medicine.

That was sarcasm.

The rising cost of healthcare is directly attributable to the sheer number of middlemen, their increasing profit margins, and the byzantine system by which we pay them. This is all fine if you buy into the theory that this is what the market will bear, people will find a way to pay if they want to, and that there is no tangible benefit to society as a whole to have a larger percentage of the populace healthy. I don't buy into it. However, I don't think healthcare is a right, either. It is simply more beneficial for our society and nation for healthcare to have significant regulation and public funds. It is the government's duty to provide a conducive atmosphere for business to flourish, and one of the best ways to do this is to supply it with a larger pool of healthy workers. In order to do this, the corporations providing healthcare now may cease to exist in their present states. It is simply fundamentally different from, say, plasma screen TVs. Emergency rooms do not have the option to not treat, and those with health problems will seek treatment whether or not they have money.

But, there is a middle ground between for-profit corporate healthcare and fully socialized government healthcare. It upsets me when any encroachment or regulation on insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations is referred to as the beginning step towards communism. It isn't. And it may be that the most efficient way to handle healthcare is to have a fully socialized system- but I don't think Americans are ready for that yet.

So I've got some ideas about how to proceed:

We should create non-profit entities to replace certain aspects of pharmaceutical corporations. The research and development facet of pharmaceutical companies needs to be separate from the manufacturing facet. These corporations are heavily funded by the NIH to do research and development, which essentially becomes a windfall for companies who can make a profit on drugs they didn't pay to discover. This costs the taxpayers twice, and it should not ever happen. Either public funding of R&D for for-profit corporations must be abolished and diverted to non-profit drug research, or the for-profit corporations must sell those drugs at cost to the consumers. The research and development end of pharmaceuticals and technology needs to be handled solely by independent non-profit labs, and universities. Drug manufacturing should still remain a for-profit venture, and operate by renting the intellectual property of the labs. These changes can be done in a stepwise fashion by eliminating public funding for for-profit pharmaceutical companies, and allowing non-profit labs to coexist with the existing corporations- the existing corporations can still do R&D, but not on the public's dime.

In much the same way, insurance companies (including, and maybe especially, malpractice insurance) must become non-profit. These companies can compete among themselves for their patients and doctor clients, but the money they save by being efficient will be used how it should: lowering the price of the services provided and increasing the number of patients treated, instead of being pocketed by shareholders and executives. By doing this, our healthcare system will be able to provide the same care for a cheaper price, while still allowing the consumer to choose between plans (or none at all) without the overt government control that most Americans aren't willing to accept. Having a government option, by opening up the insurance enjoyed by government workers to the public, is a wonderful idea, and I'm sure is already well in the works.

Medical Malpractice isn't the issue that it's made out to be. The cost of settlements, attorney/court fees, etc is factored into the costs of malpractice insurance premiums. Malpractice insurance premiums in 2002 accounted for 0.58% of our total health care spending. Payout settlements accounted for 0.38% of our total health care spending. These numbers are from Americans for Insurance Reform. It is important to notice the disparity between the costs of insurance premiums versus settlements. By making the insurance companies covering malpractice move to a non-profit status, we can alleviate the burden on physicians and lower their overhead.

This sort of thing has happened before in US history. In 1938, the government created Fannie Mae in order to make it easier for Americans to purchase homes. The US Postal Service gives the fastest, cheapest post in the world (despite its customer service issues). Considering the amount of taxpayer money that goes to subsidize various healthcare corporations, and research that is funded by NIH, plus Medicare and Medicaid, creating government-sponsored independent insurance corporations and laboratories whose entire goal is to treat as many people as possible as cheaply as possible instead of making a profit will actually lessen government's involvement in healthcare, not increase it.

Insurance must be disconnected from business, with the result of simplifying the running of business, large and small, and reducing an unfair burden on small businesses. Simply removing the responsibilities to insure their employees is far better than any tax cut for small businesses. I'm not sure what mechanism exactly a large-scale open enrollment should take place, but it needs to happen.

One criticism of a more socialized system is the supposedly huge bureaucratic costs of implementation. However, the US pays 31% of its healthcare dollar to pay for administration, as compared to Canada's 16% [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768], due to the hundreds of tiny bureaucracies in each corporation providing healthcare, and physicians having to hire on extra help just to deal with them. The harder it is to cut through the red tape, the more profit is made by the corporation. This is simply the way things are with businesses who provide their services at a later date- any reason to deny service results in profit. Which leads to the next item, portability.

Portability must become a reality in a new healthcare system. Taiwan is an excellent example of thorough portability. They each have a card which allows access for healthcare workers to their complete medical files from a central database- no separate files for providers. How much money and time could be saved by such a system? And how much misuse of our medical system to fuel addiction and drug trade could be squelched? Just this idea, just this one facet of reform, could improve things tremendously.

And then there's insurance reform at the consumer level. Simply put, health insurance must be mandatory. Health insurance, if ubiquitous, cuts the cost of premiums by introducing millions of healthy people into the system, and increases efficiency by eliminating the higher cost of ER visits instead of regular doctor visits. I don't think that America is ready for such a mandate, however necessary. I do think that a good first step is mandatory coverage for children. And a tax credit for those who can prove they have insurance might be a good way to encourage being insured, especially for the poor.

Another problem is drug advertising, which is harmful and expensive. Advertising costs pharmaceutical corporations as much as double R&D [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm]. The consumers simply don't have enough information or education to make informed decisions about prescription drugs.

The medical community as a whole should practice evidence-based medicine, and allowing drugs to be peddled with pretty pictures and appeals to authority, instead of performance in clinical trials, is unprofessional and unhelpful. Moreover, the FDA is fraught with corporate interests, and those that run the FDA have a fundamental conflict of interest, because they can own stock in the companies whose products they approve or disapprove. Moreover, approximately half the FDA's budget for regulating the drug industry comes from the drug industry itself as fees to speed up the approval process. As a community, medical professionals should demand objectivity and squelch conflicts of interest. All advertising, even to healthcare professionals, has to stop.

Here [dx.doi.org/10.1787/834782733231] is an Excel spreadsheet of healthcare expenditures, per capita, by country. Notice how we spend more per capita on public healthcare than most countries with fully social systems. Plus the insane amount spent privately. Even our token gestures toward treating the poorest of our population are woefully inefficient.

Cubansaltyballs: We don't need a thesis every time you post.

Apparently we do, because there are still droves of "Independents" that think this mess is the fault of Joe the Assembly Worker.

damageddude hit the nail on the head. If you're a banker, it's no problem to dish out 700B that goes to "retention payments", but if it's $15B going to help stabilize the last bastion of American manufacturing, you can go f*ck yourselves.

I've voted for my last Republican.

hillbillypharmacist: You've gone and made me do it.

I should make you do this more often. I'm enjoying this post.

Party Boy

We've had our disputes in the past, but I love when you post all the links like that. Thank you for that!!!!

sloppy shoes: Thank you for that!!!!

No problem. I should go outside and take a walk. This is gettimg me mad.

hillbillypharmacist: Plus the insane amount spent privately.

Thank you for that excellent post. I'm going outside for a little. Links will be read. Post up supplemental reading if you care to. I'll get to it later.

Party Boy: Thank you for that excellent post.

You're welcome!

No. More. Bailouts. Let them fail.

blood for the blood god.

Cubist Robot Party: Why make the bailout deal about attacking organized labor?

They do it out of reflex more than anything. My father worked for the railroad for most of his life and got to see how the Republican's petty anti-labor reflex first hand.

In 2001 all of the railroads and the railway labor unions came to an agreement on investing a portion of the railroad pension fund in the stock market to get better returns. This is something that they were unable to do because the pension fund which was mandated by the government during the Great Depression did not allow for investment in anything other than government bonds. It saw broad support because it would reduce the cost to the railroads, while increasing the benefits to railroad retirees.

The bill made it through the House and was expected to pass through the Senate. But Phil Graham and a number of Southern Republican Senators did their best to kill the bill through procedural road blocks. Their justification was a thin veneer to cover their desire to harm the transportation union (not as powerful as the UAW, but reliably Democratic). They said that taking any of the $15 Billion out of the fund would mess up the 2001 Federal budget (this was false because the House already had language which addressed this). They said that government would have to bail out the railroad pension fund if it lost money in a crash (in actuality the judicious management of the fund has kept it from having to reduce benefits to any of it retirees in the most recent crash).

The fact of it is that the Republicans are thinking strategically. Organized labor has been a cornerstone of Democratic electoral power since the New Deal. The Republicans view labor busting as a strategic means to an end. If they can weaken the power of organized labor in the country they can weaken the ability for Democrats to get elected at all levels. It doesn't matter that their policies to weaken labor have also eroded the middle class and weakened the economy... what matters is that they are able to get people elected in the future.

Look - we can't afford any more bailouts. Unions aren't even remotely connected to this discussion. we're flat broke. The US Treasury spent (or is spending) 2 trillion dollars and not telling us where the money is going. 5000 people showed up to apply for 100 jobs at a rolls-royce plant in Indianapolis. 40,000 people showed up to pick clean a farmer's fields after his harvest last month. we've nationalized the banking industry, insurance, housing and now we're going to nationalized car manufacturing. We can't afford social security, the war on drugs AND the war on terror. We can't afford universal health care either.

where is all this money supposed to come from!? Because I'd really like to know! And why in the HELL are we bailing out bankers and CEOs of major corporations!? For decades these 'smart people' have told me that they have a Plan. that They Know What They Are Doing. They make the big bucks 'cause they take the big risks. well alrightie then. they took a risk and it didn't pay off. now THEY pay the price, not me! Where's MY bailout!?

Weaver95: Where's MY bailout!?

It would appear that the Free Market is good enough for us, but those on the top are irresponsible and need welfare and subsidies. So get rich, then you'll get a bailout.