CarSPIN Editorial: UAW Has Kept American Cars Down

[850CSi]

I hate politics so much.

I think politics and government are a necessary evil. So I hate them too.

[dazzleman]

Maybe rather than pissing and moaning about how well UAW workers have it, we should take a look at our society and discover why it is popularly considered to be a PRIVELEGE to have basic things like comprehensive health care as opposed to a basic, inherent right.

If these things were adequately provided for by (gasp) a central government, private companies would not need to.

Let the floodgates open...

Central governments pay for nothing.  Taxpayers do.  That's the major fallacy in your thinking, and the thinking of like-minded people.  They think that what comes from 'the government' is free.  It isn't, and it often ends up being far more costly than providing for for yourself somehow.  And inferior.

[Raza]

Central governments pay for nothing.  Taxpayers do.  That's the major fallacy in your thinking, and the thinking of like-minded people.  They think that what comes from 'the government' is free.  It isn't, and it often ends up being far more costly than providing for for yourself somehow.  And inferior.

That's one point for your side.

[J86]

Central governments pay for nothing.? Taxpayers do.? That's the major fallacy in your thinking, and the thinking of like-minded people.? They think that what comes from 'the government' is free.? It isn't, and it often ends up being far more costly than providing for for yourself somehow.? And inferior.

I understand that taxpayers pay for it, but I think that that's OK.  I think people have an overall duty to the rest of their kind to help raise the minimum standard of living.  I understand that one school of thought advocates sole personal survival, and a less extreme model calls for private charity, but I think that we have more of an obligation.  While I cannot argue that typically, government programs in this country have been run inefficiently and somewhat ineffectively, I do remain optimistic that those problems could eventually be worked through.  Now, whether or not this is a realistic assumption (at least in the short term) is another store entirely.

[dazzleman]

I understand that taxpayers pay for it, but I think that that's OK.? I think people have an overall duty to the rest of their kind to help raise the minimum standard of living.? I understand that one school of thought advocates sole personal survival, and a less extreme model calls for private charity, but I think that we have more of an obligation.? While I cannot argue that typically, government programs in this country have been run inefficiently and somewhat ineffectively, I do remain optimistic that those problems could eventually be worked through.? Now, whether or not this is a realistic assumption (at least in the short term) is another store entirely.

I simply don't trust the government to be in charge of health care.  I've seen how the promises of people advocating expanded government programs are never met, and what invariably happens is that we end up with an expensive and destructive boondoggle that makes the problem worse.  Welfare is a perfect example.  It was set up to address the problem of poverty, and ended up not only contributing to the problem, but in some ways becoming in its own right a bigger problem that the one it was set up to address.  Ditto for public housing, originally set up to get people out of privately-owned tenements.  I'd live in a private owned tenement any day over most public housing projects.

So the government carries a heavy burden of past failure when it comes to the health care issue.  Ditto for idealistic liberals, who have not met success in most of their initiatives because they have generally been unwilling to look realistically at issues.

One thing is for sure -- the further you divorce people from the direct cost of what they are consuming, the more expensive it will become.  This is our current problem in that we are overinsured, and people have no personal incentive to control their own health care costs.  That's why we have to do it in a clumsy top-down way through HMOs.  Our legal system is also a travesty, and that is driving up health care costs.

If we make health care "free," we will greatly increase the cost, and drive down the quality.  Why is it that from countries that have universal health care, people with enough money come here for care?  That has to tell us something.

Our system has its strengths and weakness, as do the universal care systems.  I firmly believe that under government health care, I would pay more than I am paying now, and get inferior care to what I am getting now.

I favor an multi-pronged approach of legal reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits and reduce the cost of malpractice insurance, removal of minor medical issues from the insurance system, setting up tax-deductible health savings accounts, with perhaps some subsidies for poor people, to cover those minor illnesses, and some type of catastrophic health insurance coverage for major illnesses.

I'll be interested to see how the Massachusetts approach works out.  It attempts to address one major problem of the system -- that young and healthy people often choose to forego health insurance, and only come into the system when they get sick.  It's kind of like only buying homeowner's insurance the day before the big hurricane or fire.  For insurance to work, the costs have to spread over a good number of people who are not using the coverage at any point in time.

[The Pirate]

I simply don't trust the government to be in charge of health care.  I've seen how the promises of people advocating expanded government programs are never met, and what invariably happens is that we end up with an expensive and destructive boondoggle that makes the problem worse.  Welfare is a perfect example.  It was set up to address the problem of poverty, and ended up not only contributing to the problem, but in some ways becoming in its own right a bigger problem that the one it was set up to address.  Ditto for public housing, originally set up to get people out of privately-owned tenements.  I'd live in a private owned tenement any day over most public housing projects.

So the government carries a heavy burden of past failure when it comes to the health care issue.  Ditto for idealistic liberals, who have not met success in most of their initiatives because they have generally been unwilling to look realistically at issues.

One thing is for sure -- the further you divorce people from the direct cost of what they are consuming, the more expensive it will become.  This is our current problem in that we are overinsured, and people have no personal incentive to control their own health care costs.  That's why we have to do it in a clumsy top-down way through HMOs.  Our legal system is also a travesty, and that is driving up health care costs.

If we make health care "free," we will greatly increase the cost, and drive down the quality.  Why is it that from countries that have universal health care, people with enough money come here for care?  That has to tell us something.

Our system has its strengths and weakness, as do the universal care systems.  I firmly believe that under government health care, I would pay more than I am paying now, and get inferior care to what I am getting now.

I favor an multi-pronged approach of legal reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits and reduce the cost of malpractice insurance, removal of minor medical issues from the insurance system, setting up tax-deductible health savings accounts, with perhaps some subsidies for poor people, to cover those minor illnesses, and some type of catastrophic health insurance coverage for major illnesses.

I'll be interested to see how the Massachusetts approach works out.  It attempts to address one major problem of the system -- that young and healthy people often choose to forego health insurance, and only come into the system when they get sick.  It's kind of like only buying homeowner's insurance the day before the big hurricane or fire.  For insurance to work, the costs have to spread over a good number of people who are not using the coverage at any point in time.

Damn, I've always considered myself a bit of a liberal on social issues, and on the fence as far as nationalized health care, but you make some very profound points which I not only can't argue with, but for the most part agree with. 

Thanks for a very informative post.

[Catman]

Dave's good like that. :P

[AutobahnSHO]

One thing is for sure -- the further you divorce people from the direct cost of what they are consuming, the more expensive it will become.? .

We have a winner!!!!

Germany has national healthcare (as long as you hold down a job,) and everyone there complained about it.

The Army has it's own healthcare system, and the regular Soldiers stay away as much as possible, others try to ride the system..

[850CSi]

I understand that taxpayers pay for it, but I think that that's OK.? I think people have an overall duty to the rest of their kind to help raise the minimum standard of living.? I understand that one school of thought advocates sole personal survival, and a less extreme model calls for private charity, but I think that we have more of an obligation.? While I cannot argue that typically, government programs in this country have been run inefficiently and somewhat ineffectively, I do remain optimistic that those problems could eventually be worked through.? Now, whether or not this is a realistic assumption (at least in the short term) is another store entirely.

I like to think the same way you do.

My heart's an economically conservative libertarian, but my head convinces me that it's a system that would only work in an ideal world, and so my head becomes very socialist. Then I realize that while detached small-government libertarian beliefs would only truly work in an ideal world, socialism attempts the impossible: to force that ideal world into existence.

I believe in private charity - but I can't trust the rich to participate. I believe in very conservative economic policies, but you just can't trust corporations.

At the same time, we've been studying some Sociological perspectives in class, and I have to say that Marx's conflict theory, while it has a lot of good points, is almost like a series of conspiracy theories.



Bottom line... Like I said above, I believe that government is a necessary evil, because injustice is going to occur whenever you give anyone who hasn't truly earned it the power over other humans - especially when the rich and powerful are those that are always the ones on top.

To me, conservatism is a luxury I can't allow myself to succumb to. It's probably just my skeptical nature, but I can't always hold the belief that everything is fine and dandy.

[J86]

Dazzle- the Mass. plan is very interesting for sure, it would be nice to see that succeed.

[SaltyDog]

Maybe rather than pissing and moaning about how well UAW workers have it, we should take a look at our society and discover why it is popularly considered to be a PRIVELEGE to have basic things like comprehensive health care as opposed to a basic, inherent right.

If these things were adequately provided for by (gasp) a central government, private companies would not need to.

Let the floodgates open...

It's unfair for a government to take an individuals money and give it away.  Private charity is the only fair way.  Sure, much of the rich will keep their money.  This is too bad, but no organization of imperfect people who usually serve the wrong agenda and do things inefficiently(government) has the right to take it.

[gasoline]

It's unfair for a government to take an individuals money and give it away.  Private charity is the only fair way.  Sure, much of the rich will keep their money.  This is too bad, but no organization of imperfect people who usually serve the wrong agenda and do things inefficiently(government) has the right to take it.

The question is, how much do you trust the government?
People say they cannot "trust" large companies--but why should one trust the government intstead?
We already know where companies (large or small) stand, so they're much easier to deal with than the government.
When companies screw up, some people might get hurt; when governments screw up--large numbers of people invariably die.

[SaltyDog]

The question is, how much do you trust the government?
People say they cannot "trust" large companies--but why should one trust the government intstead?
We already know where companies (large or small) stand, so they're much easier to deal with than the government.
When companies screw up, some people might get hurt; when governments screw up--large numbers of people invariably die.

The way I see it, people are imperfect.  And when it comes down to it, the government is run by people.  I'd much rather rely on myself than a governing body of imperfect people who are already too controlling, intrusive, and unfair.

The only situation I see socialism possibly working is in a small community where all citizens are willing participants. 

Even if it was a good idea for the gov to fund public services with collected taxes, it would run like an automatic transmission.  Much of the torque put in never makes it out.

[Rupert]

[...]
The only situation I see socialism possibly working is in a small community where all citizens are willing participants. 
[...]

In the '70s, a lot of hippies decided they didn't like society, so they moved onto communes. Some of the communes were basically communist, some of them cults, some of them just sort of communist. The cults, of course, sucked (by virtue of being a cult). The others worked very well, or at least exactly how they were designed to work, because everyone there wanted to live that way. In the end, though, it turned out that either people didn't really want to live like that and they became too competitive, or they got bored and went home. The whole thing didn't last more than a few years.

There are, however, a few remaining communes, usually now called intentional living communities. (There's some technical difference, but the two are basically the same... Just don't tell someone on an intentional community they live on a commune ).

[omicron]

I'm getting the feeling that the American public hospital system is fundamentally useless. Of couse, I could be totally wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting.

[SaltyDog]

In the '70s, a lot of hippies decided they didn't like society, so they moved onto communes. Some of the communes were basically communist, some of them cults, some of them just sort of communist. The cults, of course, sucked (by virtue of being a cult). The others worked very well, or at least exactly how they were designed to work, because everyone there wanted to live that way. In the end, though, it turned out that either people didn't really want to live like that and they became too competitive, or they got bored and went home. The whole thing didn't last more than a few years.

There are, however, a few remaining communes, usually now called intentional living communities. (There's some technical difference, but the two are basically the same... Just don't tell someone on an intentional community they live on a commune ).

I read about one in National Geographic called East Wind.  http://www.eastwind.org/

[Rupert]

Ah, hippies.

Good times...

[dazzleman]

I realize that bumping old topics can be frowned upon, but this topic and some of the comments in it seem pretty timely.  Some of the predictions made 4 years ago have come true with a vengeance.

[Vinsanity]

Wow, I didn't even realize that the article was so old until it cited a dated reference in the 4th paragraph. It totally could have been written today with a few minor changes with regard to current car designs.

[YO]

unions aren't bad... poor managment is bad

[Raza]

I think politics and government are a necessary evil. So I hate them too.

Governments are only necessary when the people fail to govern themselves.

[Morris Minor]

Wow, I didn't even realize that the article was so old until it cited a dated reference in the 4th paragraph. It totally could have been written today with a few minor changes with regard to current car designs.

It's interesting that most of us have seen this coming for many years; if you are at all interested in cars, hang out in any of the fora, or subscribe to any magazine or trade publication, this is not news.  What's different now is that the recession has brought things to a head, coincidental  with a government willing to try to plug the failed dam that is the Big Three's massive experimental healthcare & retirement system, with a sideline in mediocre vehicle manufacturing.

[Submariner]

unions aren't bad... poor managment is bad

No, unions aren't bad bad in general...just the UAW  Poor management of unions is even worse.  Idiots at the helm of the big three...?