dbu. wrote:
> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> first.

I agree completely. Even if, by some miracle, GM and Ford were able
to suddenly start making desirable cars, the current union contracts
(salary, healthcare and retirement costs) would kill any profitability.

Unions and their stupid contracts have gotta go.

 

dbu. wrote:
> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> first.

I agree completely. Even if, by some miracle, GM and Ford were able
to suddenly start making desirable cars, the current union contracts
(salary, healthcare and retirement costs) would kill any profitability.

Unions and their stupid contracts have gotta go.

 

dbu. wrote:
> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> first.

I agree completely. Even if, by some miracle, GM and Ford were able
to suddenly start making desirable cars, the current union contracts
(salary, healthcare and retirement costs) would kill any profitability.

Unions and their stupid contracts have gotta go.

 

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including
> healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that
> national health coverage will be free, do you? Why do you think gas cost
> $6 or more in Europe and they have a VAT tax? LOL

Mike. I gotta tell you, this is one of the few times I agree with
you. Anything run by the government is always more expensive -- and
usually poorly run too.

 

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including
> healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that
> national health coverage will be free, do you? Why do you think gas cost
> $6 or more in Europe and they have a VAT tax? LOL

Mike. I gotta tell you, this is one of the few times I agree with
you. Anything run by the government is always more expensive -- and
usually poorly run too.

 

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including
> healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that
> national health coverage will be free, do you? Why do you think gas cost
> $6 or more in Europe and they have a VAT tax? LOL

Mike. I gotta tell you, this is one of the few times I agree with
you. Anything run by the government is always more expensive -- and
usually poorly run too.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world.
> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government
> could make it worse.

What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind, NOTHING
could be worse than having the government run anything so important.
Everything I've ever seen the government try to take over is
always poorly run and more costly. Can you think of anything
they've run better and more cheaply? Let's even make that easier.
Can you think of anything they've run well?

Personally, I want the government in my life much less than it
already is. Not more.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world.
> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government
> could make it worse.

What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind, NOTHING
could be worse than having the government run anything so important.
Everything I've ever seen the government try to take over is
always poorly run and more costly. Can you think of anything
they've run better and more cheaply? Let's even make that easier.
Can you think of anything they've run well?

Personally, I want the government in my life much less than it
already is. Not more.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world.
> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government
> could make it worse.

What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind, NOTHING
could be worse than having the government run anything so important.
Everything I've ever seen the government try to take over is
always poorly run and more costly. Can you think of anything
they've run better and more cheaply? Let's even make that easier.
Can you think of anything they've run well?

Personally, I want the government in my life much less than it
already is. Not more.

 

Spam Begone wrote:
> I base my above comments on Canada, which has had Gov. basic medical
> care for many years at a nominal quarterly cost per individual.
> Medical costs in Canada are much less and even those who don't have a
> good medical plan or lots of money get the same care.
> A big cost saving in Canada is the approx. 30% cost in the USA of
> insurer overhead cost.

But for the Canadians I've spoken to, they think the Canadian
Healthcare system is horrible. One of the main reasons is that it's
hard to obtain.

 

Spam Begone wrote:
> I base my above comments on Canada, which has had Gov. basic medical
> care for many years at a nominal quarterly cost per individual.
> Medical costs in Canada are much less and even those who don't have a
> good medical plan or lots of money get the same care.
> A big cost saving in Canada is the approx. 30% cost in the USA of
> insurer overhead cost.

But for the Canadians I've spoken to, they think the Canadian
Healthcare system is horrible. One of the main reasons is that it's
hard to obtain.

 

Spam Begone wrote:
> I base my above comments on Canada, which has had Gov. basic medical
> care for many years at a nominal quarterly cost per individual.
> Medical costs in Canada are much less and even those who don't have a
> good medical plan or lots of money get the same care.
> A big cost saving in Canada is the approx. 30% cost in the USA of
> insurer overhead cost.

But for the Canadians I've spoken to, they think the Canadian
Healthcare system is horrible. One of the main reasons is that it's
hard to obtain.

 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Compensation should reflect services rendered.

What a novel concept! ;-)

 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Compensation should reflect services rendered.

What a novel concept! ;-)

 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Compensation should reflect services rendered.

What a novel concept! ;-)