20th Feb 2009, 16:35
"The biggest financial issue facing the U.S. auto industry is the huge cost of healthcare for workers and retirees."
That and paying their workers twice as much, a burdensome pension system, other "legacy" costs, union requirements that force manufacturers to use more workers than necessary to do any given job, and (lest we all forget) a major recession brought on by a collapse in the credit markets (credit people need to buy cars).
A long drawn out debate about "socialized" health care would be inappropriate to this blog. But, because it's been mentioned here and on other threads, I'd like to chime in.
All available figures related to the cost of such a system are mere estimates and not hard sums. The government doesn't know for sure how much this system would cost (or whether it would be more or less than the auto bailout). Some of the reasons (actually questions) for this are:
Will people overburden the new system every time the hypochondriac media says that a sniffle is a sign of cancer?
How efficient will the system be?
How efficient will the associated bureaucracy be?
Will inefficiency eat up benefits born of scale?
Will voters demand the Nth degree of care with the latest technology?
Will the government then need to regulate prices on medical supplies?
How high up the line will it go?
To keep costs down, will the government begin to regulate our choices (Do you exercise? Do you smoke? Do you drink alcohol? Do you drive a lot?)?
With each new area comes more regulation and more bureaucracy. Will that become unbearably expensive?
They don't know and neither do we. We just know that health care has gotten too expensive, so we're casting around for solutions. Because of Washington's pro/con culture, we can't be sure that those who compile figures are truly independent and covering all the angles.
My biggest concerns with this type of system are that:
#1 Over time it will almost certainly cost more than current estimates suggest (it IS the government after all).
#2 It will erode our freedom further as the government tries to keep costs under control by regulating risky behavior.
I'm not offering a solution, just a warning. Just because someone (even a sincere someone like Mr. Obama, for example) says that it will cost $XXXXXXXX, doesn't make it true. All such figures are little more than educated flights of fancy. Let's just hope and pray that they get it right.
20th Feb 2009, 09:52
"Yes, if making a decision that is 91% in favor of destroying our economy is your choice, go for it."
It takes the decisions of many, especially those leading these companies to destroy our economy.
"Of course neither fuel mileage nor reliability (which is NOT an issue with any domestic) is responsible for the near-bankrupt conditions in the U.S. auto industry."
Chrysler has serious issues with reliability in many of their vehicles in their lineup.
"Rather it is the insane idea that to provide health care to our poor and elderly (as every other civilized country does) makes us evil "socialists", like the UK and Canada. The biggest financial issue facing the U.S. auto industry is the huge cost of healthcare for workers and retirees."
Healthcare is far more important to me than having a vehicle.
"We are now spending MORE money to bail out these companies than it would have taken to provide universal health care for every man, woman and child in the U.S. Hopefully at some point our nation will grow up."
We also are wasting tons of money, pouring it into an industry that has obviously seen its best days. Let them fail and let them learn. And I will keep driving my Nissans.