Canada Might Outpace Detroit...

[melon]

...when it comes to auto production.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050716/ap_on_bi_ge/chasing_canada

Even in Canada, the Big Three face issues with their unionized workers that their nonunionzed foreign competitors largely sidestep. GM, Ford and Chrysler hope during talks beginning next week that they'll be able to negotiate new contracts with the
Canadian Auto Workers that will help them trim costs.

But CAW President Buzz Hargrove already has told his members the CAW won't accept calls to cut growth in wages, benefits and pensions during negotiations. There's increasing tension and widening perspectives on whether cutbacks are necessary at Big Three operations in Ontario.

No such problems plague Toyota, which two weeks ago announced it will open a $650 million assembly plant by 2007 in Woodstock, Ontario to build up to 100,000 small sport utility vehicles a year, saying it chose Ontario in part because of growing demand for SUVs in that region.

Skyrocketing U.S. health care bills, which the Big Three cite as one of their biggest obstacles for competing with foreign automakers, are another factor.

Canada is attractive because it subsidizes much of workers' health care tabs, said Jim Donaldson, vice president for business development at the Michigan Economic Development Corp. He noted health care expenses for GM's current and retired U.S. workers add about $1,400 to every vehicle it makes.

"If all other costs are similar, that would be one of the things that would favor building in Canada," Donaldson said.

Funny. Nationalized health care actually makes Canada more attractive, because the Big Three don't have to worry about massive health care costs. And to think...we've been fed a bunch of crap about how bad national health care is all along, and how it would make things more expensive...blah blah blah.

And now our zeal for bloated, expensive health care might, in the long run, cost us our competitiveness.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Detroit has been going downhill for many years.

 

[melon]

Detroit has been going downhill for many years.

Yes, but we're not talking salaries here. Health care insurance costs for GM top over $1 billion a year alone, and that includes GM's operations across the U.S., not just Detroit. Canadian automakers are unionized and make just as much as U.S. automakers would. And the Canadian dollar is relatively strong against the dollar right now.

While Detroit is a shithole, it's automotive capabilities are as good as ever. But what's good for automotive usually makes for an ugly city.

Melon

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Great, an even better reason to hate my hometown. And another reason I may be losing my job come the end of summer.

 

[zoney!]

Skyrocketing U.S. health care bills, which the Big Three cite as one of their biggest obstacles for competing with foreign automakers, are another factor.

Canada is attractive because it subsidizes much of workers' health care tabs, said Jim Donaldson, vice president for business development at the Michigan Economic Development Corp. He noted health care expenses for GM's current and retired U.S. workers add about $1,400 to every vehicle it makes.

"If all other costs are similar, that would be one of the things that would favor building in Canada," Donaldson said

OK....This is where the bullcrap HAS to stop. If U.S. CEO's would get off their asses and go to Congress and talk about nationalized healthcare, it would help the WHOLE US economy...buit instead, I feel that the CEO's are protecting their richest buddies (anyone know how much the CE of UnitedHealthCare Group makes?) by NOT asking Congress to do anything.

Why would you rather protect a few individuals, than help the greater good?

Unbelievable.

 

[nbcrusader]

Nationalized healthcare only shifts the same problem to a bigger bureaucracy.

We want front row seat healthcare, but are only willing to pay general admission prices. The idea that "someone else pays" is an illusion.

 

[melon]

Nationalized healthcare only shifts the same problem to a bigger bureaucracy.

We want front row seat healthcare, but are only willing to pay general admission prices. The idea that "someone else pays" is an illusion.

We have first class heathcare in a plane that is mostly coach. So while the few get to enjoy the privileges of first class, the rest of us sit in the back.

It's funny how HIV patients would probably be better off in Thailand these days. They'd get free drugs, whereas here, if you were dropped from your insurance, you'll just either go bankrupt or die. Now how is that "first class healthcare" when the third world has more access to drugs than we do?

And speaking of personal bankruptcies, out of all the bankruptcies that involve medical reasons, about half involve people *with* health insurance.

Melon

 

[zoney!]

something like "you commie librul"

Nationalized healthcare only shifts the same problem to a bigger bureaucracy.

We want front row seat healthcare, but are only willing to pay general admission prices. The idea that "someone else pays" is an illusion.

This is NOT a valid argument when some of the most profitable corporations in our country right now are healtcare related. If lawmakers were able to control costs of services given (AND also put some controls against our "sue me society"), then maybe everyone could have "business economy class" rather than "sothwest airlines."


*waits to get blasted for a Socialist view.

 

[TheQuiet1]

I'm not about to suggest that I know anything about the various healthcare systems of the world (heck, I only just about get how the UK's NHS is funded) but are you really happy with the way your healthcare system works?

Actually, before I go on perhaps i'd better ask would one of mind explaining to me how the US healthcare system actually works? I know that it has something to do with buying healthcare insurance but a lot of don't because it can be very expensive but what happpens if you don't have the insurance?

 

[TheQuiet1]

I'm not about to suggest that I know anything about the various healthcare systems of the world (heck, I only just about get how the UK's NHS is funded) but are you really happy with the way your healthcare system works?

Actually, before I go on perhaps I'd better ask, would one of you mind explaining to me how the US healthcare system actually works? I know that it has something to do with buying healthcare insurance but a lot of people don't because it can be very expensive but what happpens if you don't have the insurance?

(please excuse my ignorance here but if you don't ask, you don't know, right?)

 

[TheQuiet1]

And sorry about the double-post... I'd not proof-read the first and didn't realise that I'd actually posted it.

 

[nbcrusader]

Re: something like "you commie librul"

This is NOT a valid argument when some of the most profitable corporations in our country right now are healtcare related. If lawmakers were able to control costs of services given (AND also put some controls against our "sue me society"), then maybe everyone could have "business economy class" rather than "sothwest airlines."

Should doctors be government employees?

I agree the cost structure is out of whack (real price vs. insurance price). The cost incentives give to doctors is unreleated to quality of service.

 

[zoney!]

ummm....haven'tthought about that yet to really answer. Of the top of my mind...health care companies could be not-for-profits...

Again...thats with very little thought put into it.