|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 23, 2009 14:45:45 GMT -5
Okay, I'll admit that FDR may have taken it a little bit too far when granting power to unions. However, the good FDR did certainly outweighs the bad.
It is not statist to demand that an industrialized superpower nation provide health care to all it's people.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jul 23, 2009 15:05:17 GMT -5
Okay, I'll admit that FDR may have taken it a little bit too far when granting power to unions. However, the good FDR did certainly outweighs the bad. It is not statist to demand that an industrialized superpower nation provide health care to all it's people. Then what would you call it, ella? Please show us in the Constitution just where the federal government is granted the power to do it? Article and section, please. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jul 23, 2009 17:07:34 GMT -5
Okay, I'll admit that FDR may have taken it a little bit too far when granting power to unions. However, the good FDR did certainly outweighs the bad. It is not statist to demand that an industrialized superpower nation provide health care to all it's people. Dear statist. It DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!! Not in ANY country that is currently using SOCIALIZED Health Care. I HAVE DUAL CITIZENSHIP to the UK I can tell you FIRST HAND my family in UK comes here for care, due to the bureacreacy in UK "Deathcare". You're an "idealist" of the VERY WORST ilk, not one single iota of common sense in your under educated body. It doesn't work....it just doesn't.....and until you have READ ALL 1400 pages you DON'T have ANY F*CKING CLUE of what it will ACTUALLY entail. As EVERY SINGLE WORD FROM BO is a 110% LIE since he has ADMITTED he has no F*CKING CLUE What's in the bill either!!!!!!!!!! So for you to buy into this bullshit is what I would expect from someone who couldn't graduate High School. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 23, 2009 18:08:05 GMT -5
Actually, it does work. People can get treatment for horrible conditions (like cancer) that they could not get here without expensive health insurance. Most countries have a government health care option and then a better care option if they can afford it. What is wrong with that? You can always get basic care and if you want you can pay for better care.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jul 23, 2009 18:39:42 GMT -5
saunterelle (& subdjoe), I agree the American auto companies didn't keep up with foreign auto makers, but isn't that because they are paying though the nose to pay the workers more per hour, and paying for inflated insurance benefits? The unions fight to keep the employees in their cozy little plans while the quality of product is compromised and the auto companies are going broke. Auto makers couldn't afford to bump up the quality of their vehicles...
I'm sorry, but if a company is struggling to survive the workers should one, give up a little of their perks to keep the company healthy, and two, if they strike they should be fired. In this economic environment many other companies all over have had to cut back and require employees to pay more for health insurance etc. to survive while the UAW's threaten to strike.
I have worked many a job on my own time willingly to help keep that job, so to think it ridiculous that big, fat, spoiled people shouldn't have to sacrifice in hard times doesn't faze me a bit. If one wants to keep a job in tough times, get busy and work your ass off, or be unemployed, take your pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Jul 23, 2009 18:47:17 GMT -5
Actually, it does work. People can get treatment for horrible conditions (like cancer) that they could not get here without expensive health insurance. Most countries have a government health care option and then a better care option if they can afford it. What is wrong with that? You can always get basic care and if you want you can pay for better care. Then please explain why in 2007 a study was released that shows that the death rate for prostate cancer was more then 25 in 100 in Europe but only 3 in 1,000 in the United States. In fact, we have a higher cancer cure rate for all cancers then in any country in the world that uses socialized medicine. Why do you suppose that is? Because we simply have the best health care in the world, no exceptions. Socialized medicine will increase our death rates from these cancers just for cost savings alone. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 23, 2009 18:51:09 GMT -5
Actually, it does work. People can get treatment for horrible conditions (like cancer) that they could not get here without expensive health insurance. Most countries have a government health care option and then a better care option if they can afford it. What is wrong with that? You can always get basic care and if you want you can pay for better care. Then please explain why in 2007 a study was released that shows that the death rate for prostate cancer was more then 25 in 100 in Europe but only 3 in 1,000 in the United States. In fact, we have a higher cancer cure rate for all cancers then in any country in the world that uses socialized medicine. Why do you suppose that is? Because we simply have the best health care in the world, no exceptions. Socialized medicine will increase our death rates from these cancers just for cost savings alone. Straw man argument. There are endless variable that could possibly account for this. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 23, 2009 18:58:14 GMT -5
saunterelle (& subdjoe), I agree the American auto companies didn't keep up with foreign auto makers, but isn't that because they are paying though the nose to pay the workers more per hour, and paying for inflated insurance benefits? The unions fight to keep the employees in their cozy little plans while the quality of product is compromised and the auto companies are going broke. Auto makers couldn't afford to bump up the quality of their vehicles... I'm sorry, but if a company is struggling to survive the workers should one, give up a little of their perks to keep the company healthy, and two, if they strike they should be fired. In this economic environment many other companies all over have had to cut back and require employees to pay more for health insurance etc. to survive while the UAW's threaten to strike. I have worked many a job on my own time willingly to help keep that job, so to think it ridiculous that big, fat, spoiled people shouldn't have to sacrifice in hard times doesn't faze me a bit. If one wants to keep a job in tough times, get busy and work your ass off, or be unemployed, take your pick. JMO, I agree with you to an extent but the cost of employees is not the sole reason for the US auto companies' failure. It has been well documented that the additional cost of employees adds about $2,000 to the price of a new car. This is a small sum, especially considering the margins US auto companies made on SUV sales. Fact is, they put all their eggs in the SUV basket and that helped screw them in the end. They should have found ways to at least match what the foreign competition was offering. A $2,000 per car deficit is not that much when you consider it. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jul 23, 2009 18:59:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jul 23, 2009 19:10:14 GMT -5
saunterelle, I agree that the UAW isn't the ONLY reason the US auto companies failed. You couldn't pay ME to own a car made by one of the big 3.
I can't remember where I saw it, heard it, but if memory serves me Honda was paying their workers $18/hour (in the US), while the US car companies were paying $28/hour. The unions don't budge on many issues demanding higher wages, health insurance etc. and we can no longer run businesses as if the US is the leader in the auto industry. The other point made was that Honda had invested in higher technology and was able to assemble cars more efficiently. I'll try to find that source again, it's been quite a few months.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jul 23, 2009 19:24:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 23, 2009 19:45:01 GMT -5
That's quite a disparity! No wonder the big 3 were failling.
|
|
