home

Is Health Care Reform The Key To Saving The Auto Industry?

In 2006, Malcolm Gladwell wrote:

Under the circumstances, one of the great mysteries of contemporary American politics is why [GM CEO Rick] Wagoner isn't the nation's leading proponent of universal health care and expanded social welfare. That's the only way out of G.M.'s dilemma. But, from Wagoner's reticence on the issue, you'd think that it was still 1950, or that Wagoner believes he's the Prime Minister of Ireland. "One thing I've learned is that corporate America has got much more class solidarity than we do—meaning union people," the U.S.W.'s Ron Bloom says. "They really are afraid of getting thrown out of their country clubs, even though their objective ought to be maximizing value for their shareholders."

Gladwell's point has truly become obvious now as GM's fate today now seems to completely depend on dealing with its health care costs:

With its access to a government lifeline possibly at risk, General Motors executives were locked in intense negotiations Monday with leaders of the United Automobile Workers over ways to cut its vast bills for retiree health care.

. . . On Monday, G.M. pressed union leaders in a meeting in Detroit for a deal on financing what was the centerpiece of the 2007 U.A.W. contract — a perpetual, G.M.-financed trust to cover health care costs of hundreds of thousands of retired hourly workers and their surviving spouses.

. . . G.M. has the most at stake with the U.A.W. Its future obligations for retiree health care are estimated at $47 billion, and by next year it is required by its contract to contribute more than $10 billion to the trust set up in 2007.

The company, which nearly ran out of money before receiving the first $9.4 billion of its $13.4 billion in late December, is pressing the U.A.W. to accept stock for as much as 50 percent of its next contribution to the trust, according to two people knowledgeable about the discussions.

Mr. Gettelfinger, for his part, is trying to protect one of the jewels of the U.A.W. contract, which is essentially health care for life for anyone who worked on the assembly line and their surviving spouses. G.M. has already canceled health care for more than 100,000 of its salaried retirees. . . . U.A.W. members are bracing for bad news, and worrying that their health care plan will be sacrificed to keep G.M. from going bankrupt. “Where does it all stop?” said Mike Green, president of U.A.W. Local No. 652, which represents workers in Lansing, Mich. “It would be devastating. Our typical person works between 30 and 40 years. They did their part. Why should they have it taken away with the sweep of a pen?”

If thousands of folks would not suffer severely (and damage the prospect for all of us in an economic recovery) one could say that the auto companies are getting what they deserved. After all, they were leading opponents of health care reform during the Clinton Presidency. But now is not the time for petty satisfactions.

As part of the government intervention in the domestic auto industry, a good hard look should be taken at having the federal government take over the health care responsibilities of GM, Chrysler and Ford - in exchange for the stock that GM (and other car companies) are offering to worker pension funds.

Nationalization you say? Well, we can always sell it back when and if things get better. Another added benefit is that this would be a big step towards putting the health care issue out of the hands of reactionaries who will always oppose health care reform. In short, get the executive dolts out of the way of a rational and imperative discussion of our health care crisis.

Let me put it this way, if the government can issue guarantees in the trillions of dollars to prop up the financial industry, issuing a 100 billion dollars in guarantees for health care for auto workers seems a small price to pay to forward the objectives of saving our auto industry AND forwarding health care reform.

In my view, this possibility should be seriously explored.

Speaking for me only

< Revisiting Bill Clinton | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sounds good to me n/t (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:47:58 AM EST


    I should point out (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:57:21 AM EST
    that if we were to enact single-payer health care today - not that I would be opposed - much of the money salted away in the trust funds of the Big Three and other companies that provide health care to retirees would no longer have a purpose.  All of a sudden, the only thing they would need to pay for would be the "gold-plated" benefits that go beyond what Medicare-for-all would offer.  I'm not sure where the leftover money would end up, but someone would certainly get a windfall.

    In a perfect world the windfall would inure to the benefit of us, the taxpayers, the ones who finance the single-payer health care program.  On a smaller scale, this is exactly what BTD's proposal accomplishes, in the sense that we move these retirees onto the public dole but we at least get paid in company stock in exchange.

    For that reason, if the concept could possibly fly with respect to the Big Three, it's worth exploring the idea of having the same deal on the table for other businesses and industry that finance long-term health care for their retirees.

    A wrinkle I'm curious about is how exactly the intersection functions between Medicare and the program offered by the Big Three.  If you're a GM retiree and you're eligible for Medicare, my assumption would be that you're expected to look to Medicare for reimbursement first, and the health care trust only exists to pick up whatever portion of the bill (the "gold-plated" portion) that Medicare doesn't pay for.  In that case, if the government is proposing to take on responsibility for health care costs that go beyond what would be paid for under Medicare or even a theoretical single-payer model, the endgame where we unwind that arrangement gets a little tricky.  But maybe I'm making the wrong assumptions about how health care works right now for the Big Three.

    Good comment (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:59:44 AM EST
    If you have some expertise to add on this, please write a diary and I will copy and paste it into a post.

    Parent
    Yep, yep, yep. (none / 0) (#9)
    by atdleft on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:04:48 AM EST
    In a perfect world the windfall would inure to the benefit of us, the taxpayers, the ones who finance the single-payer health care program.  On a smaller scale, this is exactly what BTD's proposal accomplishes, in the sense that we move these retirees onto the public dole but we at least get paid in company stock in exchange.

    So we the taxpayers are being compensated while the auto workers are spared from losing their health care. Win win? I'm thinking so. And as I said earlier, it helps immensely in showing other Average Joes & Janes that we Democrats care about them, not just the big Wall Street Titans. In this era of bailouts, all I hear is "when can I have mine"? Well, now we can answer that.

    Parent

    If these benefits are similar to those the UAW (none / 0) (#15)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:14:22 AM EST
    has negotiated in other bargaining unit sectors, like those subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA),the benefits pay for whatever medicare doesn't, assuming one is entitled to medicare.

    The massive expense here is that this retiree health plan combined with the lucrative pension plans, encourages retirement long before an individual would be entitled for medicare. I know of one CBA that permitted employees to "retire" under the union sponsored pension plan (with contributions made by the company) at 55 years of age, so long as one had 30 years of service. Under those conditions, the company is obligated to pay full retiree health insurance benefits for ten years, until such time that medicare kicks-in. After that the premium drops, but still not by much.  

    Parent

    Do you think maybe there are jobs (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:16:02 AM EST
    where retiring at 55 still makes sense? I think I wouldn't ask a 60-year-old to continue working construction full time.

    Parent
    SOCIALIST :) (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    (I hate this "new" response).  Can we just gut one journalist to quiz one of these talking heads about what socialism is just once?  My guess is that everything they know about socialism they learned from watching "Red Dawn".

    Parent
    Federally mandated retirement (none / 0) (#17)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:24:26 AM EST
    applies to only several occupations (airline first officer, for example). An automobile assembly line worker has no mandatory retirement age, federally mandated other otherwise.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:27:12 AM EST
    That wasn't his question.  It doesn't need to be federally mandated - but working on the line does take a physical toll on these people's bodies.  Maybe 30 years in and then out isn't such a bad idea.

    Parent
    the $12,000.00 annually for this person's health care (at an escalation rate of approximately 20%) for ten years.  Remember, these benefits are much more lucrative than medicare. These plans are self-insured, meaning they are not run of the mill plans that you'll find at your local Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

    Parent
    Don't "we" already pay for 30 year (none / 0) (#37)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:58:16 AM EST
    plans for police, fireman and military?

    Parent
    Unresponsive (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    Makes sense (none / 0) (#19)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:26:37 AM EST
    Conceptually, then, we can whack up GM's health care expenses into 3 categories:

    (1) "Gold-plated" benefits for Medicare-eligible retirees;

    (2) "Gold-plated" benefits for non-eligible retirees;

    (3) Standard benefits for non-eligible retirees (the sort of stuff that Medicare would pay for if they were eligible).

    The question I have, then - and I don't know if the data are available to answer it - is whether category #3 accounts for the lion's-share of the costs incurred by the Big Three's health care trust.  If so, then it's conceptually very easy for the government to buy out that category, as BTD proposes.

    If not, then government can still buy out the whole thing in theory, but it gets trickier for the reasons I mentioned above.  I'd love to find out that buying out category #3 would be sufficient to stabilize the balance sheets of the Big Three.

    By the way, I really hate using the term "gold-plated" because it's such a right-wing talking point, but I don't know of any other shorthand way to describe the category of benefits that goes beyond what Medicare-for-all would pay for.

    Parent

    What also makes it trickier is that these plans (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    are the products of years of collective bargaining. They are self-insured plans with a multitude of features and benefits that you'll not find offered by BCBS. So, if you're going to propose something different that what they currently enjoy, you would have to get the union to buy-off on it.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    The two options I was considering are either (1) government buys out the standard component and leaves the Big Three to continue paying for the "gold-plated" component, or (2) government buys out the whole thing.  I hadn't really considered the idea that the "gold-plated" benefits would just cease to exist, I think that kind of negates the point of the exercise.

    Parent
    Hmm. I would venture to guess that option (none / 0) (#35)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:45:04 AM EST
    three might well work in that respect.

    Parent
    I was just about to (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:08:09 AM EST
    complain about your use of the term "gold-plated."   "Medigap" is the term used for insurance that takes care of the difference between actual cost and Medicare.

    Medicare pays something like 80 percent, which is fine if you're basically healthy, but that 20 percent can impoverish an elderly person on a fixed income very quickly with the kinds of health/medical complications that can increasingly happen with old age-- think about the cost of, say, even just a hip replacement.

    Parent

    Not in any way being an economist (none / 0) (#57)
    by sj on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:09:49 PM EST
    or even an accountant, my question may be foolish, but couldn't that money be used to fund the pensions that are now in danger?  I know (or think I know) that health coverage/care was part of the retirement package, but a pension is more than just medical.

    Parent
    Almost everything about the way (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    the big 3 have behaved since the 60s makes this true:

    If thousands of folks would not suffer severely (and damage the prospect for all of us in an economic recovery) one could say that the auto companies are getting what they deserved.

    I am all for enacting national healthcare, but I think that there's a strong chance that at least 2/3 of the big three (GM and Chrysler) are unsalvageable.

    As a political argument for getting everyone universal healthcare, I like the concept of this post. But I would strongly object to the coverage just going to automaker employees.


    Shouldn't we start somewhere? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by atdleft on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:26:02 AM EST
    That's what I'm wondering. While I understand your concerns about the viability of GM & Chrysler, I do think a health care intervention for the Big 3 would go a long way to breathe some new life into them while also introducing a public health care solution on a large scale. Perhaps if we show folks how it's done they'll feel more comfortable about it?

    Parent
    Especially (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:29:00 AM EST
    If GM and Chrysler put their money where their mouth is - the car companies have long since argued that health care costs add about $1500-$2000 to the price of every car.  If their burden goes away, let's see if they lower the price of cars or just pocket the extra cash.

    Parent
    Honestly, my guy instinct (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:32:19 AM EST
    is to put Chrysler and GM out of their misery in the least disruptive way possible. One start is to make sure that if they do collapse, nobody loses health coverage.

    Another point I would make is that in order to become profitable again, they're going to go back to selling SUVs if they can. I just won't stand for that.

    Parent

    How many workers are you putting in misery (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:33:58 AM EST
    with such a policy?

    At the very least, NOW is not the time for that approach. We are facing a depression for crissakes.

    Parent

    Let me ask you a question (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:38:26 AM EST
    What do you think needs to be done to keep the big 3 from collapsing? I think the British nationalization plan's failure should give us pause.

    Parent
    I do not know (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:41:05 AM EST
    I do know that health care costs is a big part of their problem.

    To wit, they would not be teetering on complete failure IF health care reform had occurred in 1994.

    Parent

    That's an interesting counterfactual (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:46:41 AM EST
    I don't know if it's true. For myself I can't only admit that my judgement on this question is necessarily clouded by the fact that I really, really, hate American car companies. Everything about them.

    Healthcare costs or not, I think there's a strong argument to be made that they ran themselves into the ground.

    Parent

    A very strong argument (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    But the idea is to help them keep going until the economy is back in some kind of decent shape and they can, if they need to then, go through an orderly bankruptcy process.  That will be tough to absorb even in a good economy, IMO catastrophic in the situation we have now.

    And while you're hating on the auto companies, remember that they were pretty much pioneers in the idea that blue-collar workers should be paid well enough to be middle class.  (Not that today's auto execs would see the sense in that idea if they had it to do from scratch.)

    Parent

    I think we need to restructure not just (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    the companies, but the way cars are regulated and taxed in America. We drive too many trucks and vans, and I think forcing a change in that has to be part of any deal.

    Parent
    One way (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:30:45 AM EST
    would be to stop allowing different emission standards for cars/suv's.

    Although that would probably mean banning a lot of SUVs...

    Parent

    yup (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:37:29 AM EST
    Maybe (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    But it's been their sales of trucks and vans that has kept them afloat this long.

    And, I will admit, I miss my Chevy Trailblazer something fierce. I hated that when the lease was up, I had to get a smaller car (because I was buying and couldn't afford the SUV I wanted).  I hate the feeling of practically sitting on the ground, and I hate not being able to see through the window of the car ahead of me - it's very dangerous.  At least in my Trailbalzer, I could see traffic ahead of me and if there were any problems, I could react in time.  Now I just look at the trunks of cars.

    Parent

    but the people behind you (none / 0) (#92)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 04:37:53 PM EST
    were in much more danger, not being able to see ahead of them b/c of the SUV...

    but that is the american way...

    Parent

    No argument from me (none / 0) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:30:32 PM EST
    except that I really don't think the way to go about it is for the U.S. government to tell these companies what kinds of products they should and shouldn't produce.  Lefty though I am, I cringe at that idea.

    As you say, though, it's the regulatory structure that needs to be changed, starting with putting SUVs back in the category of automobiles where they belong, instead of trucks, thereby requiring them to follow the auto CAFE standards.  Then raise the CAFE standards even higher.

    I actually wouldn't mind if people were required to apply for a permit to buy anything larger than a mid-size sedan.  Rural folks and people with lots of children would be permitted, everybody else not except for very limited special circumstances.

    I realize that isn't either practical or politically possible or probably even constitutional, but it makes me crazy to see so many people who have no earthly need for big vehicles driving around in them all by themselves because they look cool.

    I say that as somebody who's currently driving a 15-year-old Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo (the names of these things just kill me) because I frequently need the cargo hauling capacity and the 4-wheel-drive to get around here in winter and mud season, but I'd far rather be back in my zippy little Honda Accord, which currently sits unregistered and uninsured (but not unloved) next to my barn.

    Parent

    You don't have to be a lefty (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:34:36 PM EST
    to acknowledge that pollution is an externality.  I mean, who are we to tell people what kind of factories and power plants they can build, who are we to tell people what kind of crap they can pump into the air and water, yadda yadda.  If we think it serves the common good to have cars that are environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient, we're perfectly entitled to take collective action to ensure they get built.

    Parent
    You're not reading me right (none / 0) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:42:10 PM EST
    I'm saying the way to do it is by hemming them in with that kind of (IMHO quite necessary) regulation of auto emissions, fuel-efficiency and the like, and then let them make their own decisions about what it makes sense for them to produce.

    You don't do it by offering them a loan on the condition they stop making SUVs.

    Please.  Do I ordinarily post like Sean Hannity or something?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:21:52 PM EST
    It's worth considering whether there's even a substantive difference between the two approaches you identify.  As John Marshall said, the power to tax is the power to destroy.  If we impose taxes and regulations to the point where a given enterprise becomes economically infeasible, but we say "hey, we're still giving you the choice to do it if you want to!" we're kinda kidding ourselves.

    Maybe it's more politically acceptable for us to control their product lines through the back door, but we should at least be honest about what we're doing.

    Parent

    I think you do it by taxing (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:51:46 PM EST
    the big vehicles, and offering tax breaks for those who actually have large families or can establish necessity. The way we make that change part of the package is by informing the automakers that it's going to happen at the same time as any bailout.

    Parent
    Sounds fine to me (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:45:03 PM EST
    but better be darn sure you've got the 60 votes in the Senate for it locked up tight first.  Not helpful to threaten what you can't deliver.  I very much doubt the Obama admin is in any position to say unequivocally that that kind of tax "is going to happen."

    But I'd be real happy with the idea of taxing passenger vehicles, say, by the pound.

    Parent

    I think that's naive (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:08:25 AM EST
    "Let 'em fail" - while sounding good on paper, is a statement that shows that you may not really have an appreciation for the devastation that would cause.  You're in law school - how do you think putting almost a million people out of work affects legal services (here's a hint:  except for maybe bankruptcy work, legal services suffer.  You wanna job after you graduate? Good luck, competing with all the lawyers currently being thrown out of work [over 800 last week alone]).  It also depresses wages across the board in entire regions - including legal salaries.

    Then, on the other end, you and I, and folks on this board, and across the country are going to be paying more in the long run for all these folks - through unemployment, Medicaid / Medicare, other social services, any re-training we can give them, welfare / food stamps, and oh yeah, with a tax base that has been eliminated or greatly reduced by about a million workers.

    Parent

    I'm not saying "let them fail" (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:13:42 AM EST
    I'm just saying that I don't know a good way of keeping them from failing.

    Parent
    And that doesn't include (none / 0) (#48)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:36:07 AM EST
    the loss of local taxes on manufacturers.  Taxes that are needed for local schools, etc.

    Too many people fail to consider what loss of manufacturing base does to whole communities and ultimately to the entire nation.

    Do not imagine for one minute that the loss of manufacturing base doesn't effect absolutely everyone. No one is immune.

    Do not ask for whom the bell tolls ...


    Parent

    Since you bring that up (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:41:13 AM EST
    One of the crown jewels of the UAW agreement with the Big Three is the free legal services plan.  I think they estimate that 3 out of every 4 autoworkers take advantage of that provision at some point.  So one has to wonder how many lawyers are employed by virtue of the DIRECT benefits of the UAW agreement - to say nothing of the many, many people who would be indirectly affected by the ripple effects that you reference in your comment.

    Parent
    You won't stand for that eh (none / 0) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:45:56 AM EST
    Have you ever stopped to think why a profit strapped industry might want to promote high profit product.

    I didn't think so.

    Parent

    I know full well why they build and sell them (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:48:19 AM EST
    If global warming weren't a real problem, I'd be less concerned. But the point is that they need to be gotten off the road as much as possible.

    Parent
    i don't get that (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:51:36 AM EST
    I mean, Toyota seems to make it work a lot better.

    I know they don't have the same labor costs, but that would be a good argument for saying if you can help on some of the fixed costs (like healthcare), it is possible for a car company to make money selling something besides SUVs (obviously not TODAY, but in the long run).

    Parent

    Frankly (none / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:53:06 AM EST
    SUVs aren't the way out of this crisis if no one buys SUVs anymore.

    Gas costs are taking care of that for us, even lower gas prices hurt when no one has any money...

    Parent

    We have to make SUVs unattractive (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    even when gas prices go down.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:59:11 AM EST
    I guess my point was, SUVs are unattractive right now, even with low gas prices, because people are pinching every penny.

    But in the long run, you are right.  It is not enough.  They have to be more unattractive.

    I do think demographic and lifestyle shifts are on our side though.

    In order for car companies to remain profitable in the long run, I don't think an SUV strategy would work for them.

    Parent

    CST (none / 0) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    that's exactly the point I'm making.

    Among the problems the auto industry has had is a lack of R&D funds (thanks in part to the finance industry).

    They've really been in a situation where they've had to make a profit somehow.

    Putting finance into its proper role as servant to instead of master of manufacturing, health care relief, R&D assistance leading to the development of new platforms will bring back the auto industry.

    Parent

    in company history. And it's a biggie.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    That's why I said not today.

    I don't think you can expect any car company to be doing well right now.  Not many other industries are either...

    But GM, Ford and Chrystler have had problems since 2005 - well before the whole economy crashed around them compounding things

    Parent

    True. (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 04:37:33 PM EST
    And you (none / 0) (#58)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:14:02 PM EST
    completely missed the point.

    Parent
    That solving the healthcare expense (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:17:42 PM EST
    would prompt them to build less profitable cars? Heh, I have a bridge to sell you.

    Parent
    And again (none / 0) (#61)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:37:06 PM EST
    you don't get it.

    You'll have to put aside the hate and put your thinking cap on.

    Parent

    Actually, you're going to have to explain (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:43:03 PM EST
    exactly what would change. The magic pixie dust of government healthcare might, we hope, help the big three to not go bankrupt, but how is it going to repair their 30 year reputation for being purveyors of $h*t cars and SUVs?

    Parent
    You do realize, of course (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    That, for the most part, American cars equal if not exceed (in some cases) the quality of Japanese cars, don't you? And have been for a while - it's just very hard to lose a reputation once you get one.

    Here are a few:

    from 2006, from 2007 and this.

    Parent

    Actually, I do know that American cars (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:07:31 PM EST
    have improved substantially in reliability and, to some degree, quality. I also know that, since about 1993, the Japanese imports have gotten somewhat worse in build quality (a few redesigns ago, Toyota reduced the quality of the door seals on the Camry, for example).

    But the Japanese imports have a reliability reputation that they can fall back on, even if their cars feel a little bit cheaper. Whereas when I and other consumers get into a Chrysler, I notice every fit and finish issue (and there are many) and walk away with serious reservations about the quality of the product.

    Parent

    You find what you look for in life. (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    My 2000 Dodge Durango has 146K+ miles on it and runs like a top.

    Previous to that I had three Dodge Intrepid company cars. They ran flawlessly.

    Rented a GMC Acacia last summer. Loved every minute of it.

    No argument that many foreign-owned automakers make good cars, just that US automaker's cars are essentially just as good or better.

    At least, that's what the reasearch generally concludes.

    Parent

    Has the "research" (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:20:15 PM EST
    ever examined the molding around the glovebox or seatbelt in a domestic car?

    There's so much cheap plastic that it seems like you're riding around in a McDonald's play place.

    Parent

    Dunno. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    More plastic has broken off my wife's 1 Benz than all 4 of my Dodges.

    In fact, since you brought it up, my Sunday afternoon just two days ago included a couple hours of work on her car using a paperclip to hold the plastic panel on under the glovebox because the MB clip broke, drilling holes into and then screwing the rear hatch-mounted 3rd brake light onto it's broken plastic bracket, and, for about the dozenth time, re-attaching the plastic pos piece that covers the the passenger side shoulder belt retractor mechanism.

    Your bias against domestic autos is clear, I don't expect you to let it go just because I say your bias is misplaced.

    Parent

    IMO, all cars su¢k (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    but domestics more than others. Consumer Reports isn't making this stuff up.

    Parent
    Well, that wraps that up. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:52:13 PM EST
    Seatbelts (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:31:28 PM EST
    Have been the subject of several recent Toyota recalls, including the Yaris just as recently as January 29, 2009.

    We've all had cars that had a problem or two. But speaking personally, the best cars my whole family has had were GM (including my father who had 3 Chevy vans that had over 200,000 miles each).  The worst car we ever had?  A Toyota Corolla.

    Parent

    I detect (none / 0) (#77)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:48:26 PM EST
    your hatred as the principle controlling force in the quality of your observations.

    Parent
    My hatred, such as it is, doesn't (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:09:53 PM EST
    count for much. I'd STILL like to try and save these companies, I'm just skeptical that it's possible. And I especially don't want to reinforce the mistakes of the past.

    Parent
    As a nation (none / 0) (#85)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:28:16 PM EST
    we're going to have to change some of our culture.

    Over the years foreign governments have  subsidized, granted, loaned, created, etc. various industries recognizing the value of developing technology and providing good worthwhile jobs for their citizens.

    Although failures can be cited so can successes.

    American manufacturing faces a financial industry that demands maximum profit that discourages R&D, competition against not just foreign competitors but also governments and sometimes not so subtle foreign protectionism.

    Losing manufacturing over the past few decades has allowed others to catch up with and now exceed our technological capabilities.

    Losing manufacturing has also diminished local tax bases diminishing needful public goods and devastated whole communities.

    Superior educational facilities, affordable to most citizens, healthcare, investments in energy independence, mass transit, modern infrastructure etc. simply won't happen without a revitalized manufacturing sector. A retail nation simply can't afford those goals.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:14:59 PM EST
    here it is. In part.

    Devoting facilities and promotional efforts to the higher profit product is an act of desperation.

    The auto industry knows that diversification, broadening the market is the key to permanent strength and viability.

    A bit more here

    *By the way American cars are not sh!t.  We put well over 100,000 miles on our cars and have yet to trade-in a car that was not good for many, many more miles.

    So far as Consumer Reports is concerned, last year I bought a CR highly recommended walk behind mower and can report that my old mower (dissed by CR) was vastly superior. I gave the old mower away and am now stuck with one of CR's faves.

    Your arguments are tainted by your hatred.  Is it just American manufacturers or are workers included.

     

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    I do not believe that incrementalism in politics is very effective. You want to get 60 votes in the Senate for universal healthcare? You've got to find a crisis to force Arlen Specter to vote for it.

    Parent
    It's not clear to me (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:30:33 AM EST
    from your last paragraph whether you object to using the automakers as a "foot in the door" towards universal healthcare or not.

    If we buy out the healthcare plans of the Big Three, and those companies soon afterwards become healthy and competitive again in the world marketplace, the argument for extending government healthcare to cover other businesses and industries is going to become indisputably compelling.  It's hard to see how we wouldn't get universal healthcare at that point.  I'm not sure whether you object to that sort of incremental strategy, even if it means in the short term the autoworkers are the only ones who get to participate.

    Parent

    Precisely (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:32:58 AM EST
    We are agreeing a lot today Steve.

    Parent
    There are a number of problems (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:35:09 AM EST
    First, I think this premise:

    those companies soon afterwards become healthy and competitive again in the world marketplace

    is probably false.

    Second, this:

    It's hard to see how we wouldn't get universal healthcare at that point.

    seems rather naive to me. You think the Republicans won't still fight it then? After 60 years, they're still trying to dismantle Social Security!

    Parent

    Jeez (none / 0) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    First, I think this premise:

    those companies soon afterwards become healthy and competitive again in the world marketplace

    is probably false.

    Probably false?

    On what theory?  You're hatred of the auto industry?

    Parent

    I think the idea (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:22:14 AM EST
    that the American auto industry can be fixed by reducing the healthcare burden is not right. That alone would not be sufficient.

    Parent
    I like this... (none / 0) (#1)
    by atdleft on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:40:11 AM EST
    I'm really liking this. Thanks, BTD.

    And btw... (none / 0) (#2)
    by atdleft on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:43:38 AM EST
    This is a great answer to Sirota's diary at Open Left on the GOP flirting around with "economic populism"...

    http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11659

    They'll look ridiculous if we cut through their hot air by offering real solutions like health care for these workers in limbo.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 09:55:54 AM EST
    I can't afford my own health care insurance. Don't ask me to pay for theirs.  

    Either make health insurance affordable for all, or let some of these corpos die.

    I know, I know, the US economy will collapse if even one of these corps go down.  Show me.

    Indeed (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:01:59 AM EST
    Your losses in an economic depression will dwarf the money you think is being stolen from you now.

    See the forest, not the trees.

    Parent

    GM and Chrysler (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:03:16 AM EST
    can blame healthcare all they want.  It's one of their problems, along with the unions and too many dealers.

    Takle only one of the issues and you solve nothing.

    Don't use the automakers as an excuse to push government helthcare.  Yes it would help save these terrible companies but at what cost?  Nothing is for free.

    You would simply be passing the costs on to therest of the economy through hihg taxes etc... a government system would be more expensive or rationed.

    Don't forget.. it's godless too! (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:06:04 AM EST
    anything except for the horrendous health care system we have now would be positively satanic.

    Parent
    It is their biggest problem (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:06:40 AM EST
    Now if you believe that they should be allowed to fail, then just say so.

    Parent
    It's like this: imagine Jack Welch (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:08:45 AM EST
    has 12 chickens, and he wants to go into business selling fried eggs. How the heck would a good health plan help?


    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:57:32 PM EST
    That could be the opening statement on the white paper, LOL

    Parent
    Not exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by atdleft on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    You would simply be passing the costs on to therest of the economy through hihg taxes etc... a government system would be more expensive or rationed.

    This sounds an awful lot like the Chamber of Commerce attacks on "Hillarycare" in 1993. First off, Medicare & the VA (both government run health care systems) are far more efficiently run than private HMOs & PPOs. And secondly, don't you realize that health care is being rationed out now? The difference is that, unlike single-payer societies where everyone accesses the same level of care, in the US the wealthy have access to better and faster care while the poor have nothing and the middle-class are "lucky" to have anything.

    Parent

    Btd (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    Please ban slado. Not only is he a Tory talking point spewer he almost has my handle. Too easily confused ...

    Parent
    Suggestion: please include the (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:22:00 AM EST
    20,000 soon-to-be unemployed California state employees in this proposed plan.  They'll need it.

    This is what happens (none / 0) (#63)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:49:09 PM EST
    When unions forget their socialist roots. If they had pushed hard for single payer and got their execs to see sense in 1950s there would be no problem
    .

    Health insurance for life, (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    is one of, if not the, main difference between union and non-union auto workers.

    If that's not a viable union benefit anymore...

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:06:59 PM EST
    That is why some people believe the unions quietly opposed Clinton's health care plan in 1993.  Because if the unions were no longer in a position to deliver health insurance as a perk, there would be less reason for anyone to join a union.  Dunno if it's true, but it certainly makes sense in a very cynical way.

    Parent
    Makes sense in a very practical way. (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:23:35 PM EST
    makes a hell of a lot of sense... (none / 0) (#93)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 04:50:24 PM EST
    reminds me of the Gibran story about a priest who meets the devil...

    the devil is severely wounded and the priest has the opportunity to totally eradicate the devil...to end the devil...
    but then the devil pretty much says that if I'm gone then what will you do as a priest...your whole livelihood is dependent upon me...

    so the priest helps the devil back to full health...to ensure his own self, without regard to others...

    this pretty much reflects the current American way...
    how can I vote for something if it will hurt me, even if it helps the community as a whole...

    it takes quite a person to do that...and I'm not sure that humans in general are capable of that...

    at least not in Westernized civilizations

    Parent

    We can't afford to not have single payer national (none / 0) (#68)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    healthcare.

    It would help the automakers; it would help every business and every person. It would help the economy. Entrpreneurs would be freed from the fear of losing health insurance by going out on their own.

    Correntwire.com has a center column with healthcare topic posts listed. Some good bloggers over there on the issue of single payer and reform.

    House 676 from Conyers -- sign the petition!

    For those who don't like this (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:19:36 PM EST
    More bad news from GM

    General Motors Corp. will need at least $2 billion by March to stave off bankruptcy, telling the Obama administration it may take up to a total of $30 billion in federal aid to keep the company afloat.
    Advertisement
    Quantcast

    GM's submission brings the total request for aid from itself and Chrysler LLC to $39 billion, after Chrysler asked today for an additional $5 billion on top of the $4 billion its already received. Without at least $7 billion from the Obama administration to the two automakers by the end of March, both face collapse.

    SNIP

    The automaker plans to shed 47,000 jobs worldwide this year, close 14 U.S. plants over the next three years, kill four brands and plot a course to become profitable by 2012. Those plans depend on cuts from bondholders, UAW workers and retirees, some of which have yet to be agreed to.

    If it doesn't get help, GM lays out the horrors of bankruptcy, saying it would cost as much as $100 billion to pull the company out of a court restructuring once it fell in.



    the writing is on the wall... (none / 0) (#94)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 04:52:07 PM EST