Last week, the United Auto Workers staged its first national strike against the world's largest auto maker, General Motors, since 1970. The UAW walkout lasted just two days. But the troubles for the auto maker -- and the auto workers -- remain. As does the health care crisis in this country, where the largest number of bankruptcy claims have been made by sick people who have weak, or non-existent medical insurance.
The once healthy American auto industry, claims to be unfairly burdened by health care costs. Part of the compromise settlement that GM and the UAW met was pushing a good portion of health care costs for employees and retirees off to the union, in exchange for a promise to protect American jobs -- although GM has over the last 20 years moved much of production to foreign countries like Mexico.
In 2005, in an OP-ED column written for the Wall Street Journal, GM CEO Rick Wagoner, said that GM planned to: "Trim $1 billion in net material costs in 2006; and, in cooperation with the United Automobile Workers, reduce GM's retiree health-care liabilities by $15 billion, or about 25%, for an annualized expense reduction of $3 billion. "
The chaiman went on to say health care costs were a fundamental problem cutting into GM's profits:
"So what are the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing? One is the spiraling cost of health care in the United States. Last year, GM spent $5.2 billion on health care for its U.S. employees, retirees and dependents--a staggering $1,525 for every car and truck we produced. And the figure is going up again this year. Foreign auto makers have just a fraction of these costs, because they have few, if any, U.S. retirees, and in their home countries their governments fund a much greater portion of employee and retiree health-care costs. "
Meanwhile our government, with millions of uninsured Americans -- including children -- is being pushed by many on the left to finally do something to avoid this healthcare crisis. A bill to provide coverage to children who get caught in the middle has passed Congress but is likely to be vetoed by President Bush. Here's why according to Stephen Colbert:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/28/the-wørd-on-health-care/
House bill H.R. 676, sponsored by Rep. John Coyners (D-MI) , "To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, and for other purposes," has been sitting in committee since Feburary.
Documentary filmaker Michael Moore, in his film SICKo, calls for a socialized medical coverage for all Americans. His proposal is linked here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/health-care-proposal/. It is obviously politically controversial. While Moore will not feel sorry for GM -- see Roger & Me -- he might have a supporter in Wagoner, who would like to shift the burden to the government.
http://slate.com/id/2169131/
The GM CEO, and the liberal activist who once took the company's chairman to task. A health care crisis can make strange bedfellows.
What does all this mean? Simply put, we all are facing a social security crisis in this country. And millions are facing a health care train wreck. For years, if it cared to look, our government has seen it coming. What should they do? What should We the People demand?
Share your thoughts. Have you seen SICKo? If you have, tell us what you think.
3 comments:
The AP is reporting this morning:
"The tentative contract between General Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers would allow GM to close a plant each in Michigan and Indiana and possibly shut down several other facilities, according to a detailed copy of the agreement."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21072085/
With advances in modern medicine, life expectancies have increases dramatically in the last few decades. Combined with a steady population increase, when health care was first used in corporations, I don't think anyone could have seen the costs and consequences that we currently have now.
Although it is unfortunate for corporation and worker alike, the problem does not belong to one group, but the system it was created on. There needs to be major
changes for any hope of success. I'm not sure how that can be done, short of an universal health care plan. Despite opposition to the idea, it would probably be the best step in insuring that retirees and workers will have secure health care.
As for the announcements of closing more facilities, its sad to find these days that strikes can not be as effective as they were in past decades.
Universal healthcare provided by the government sounds great, but actually is worse than our current system. Instead of going through the corporate red tape of an insurance company, you have to go through the red tape of another bloated government bureaucracy, especially at a time when our GNP can barely outpace our debt. Social Security alone will be unsupportable after 2043. Sure, universal healthcare would work for a few years, but then what? Our economic relevance, which is already in jeopardy, will be ruined. European countries already have such programs in place. The result? Outrageous taxes and economic irrelevance. And when you can't support a potent economy, you do not have the cash flow with which to support social programs.
A privatized plan would work better because the government would not have to bleed the economy to support it, at least not to the extent of a government-run program. A government-run universal healthcare plan will be unsustainable within a decade or two, and then no one will have quality healthcare.
As for Jack's comment on strikes, if every strike worked completely in the workers' favor, the United States would be a socialist country. Do workers need employer support? Absolutely, and strikes are certainly justified if the workers are being taken advantage of, as the were in the late 19th Century. The problem is, now the workers have too many concessions. Ford, GM, and Chrysler are in deep trouble in large part because of their massive expenditures on behalf of their labor force. Toyota does not spend nearly as much on employee support programs, and so they are able to turn a larger profit. I do not dispute the need to provide employee support, but I think unions should think before they strike over the smallest detail.
Post a Comment