Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (79310)	9/14/2006 6:35:47 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 81568

Who pays for healthcare? I found this paragraph on Kevin Drum's blog, but I'd wager something similar could be found on half the liberal blogs out there with a little bit of searching: GM's management faces higher costs than its competitors in other countries because it has to pay its employees' healthcare costs and Toyota and Volkswagen don't. GM's workers are no better off: their pension benefits are at risk because their continued existence depends on the health of one company, rather than the health of an entire country. So who benefits from this lopsided system? No one except the insurance and financial services industries that administer these plans. This is a persistent meme on liberal sites, and with good reason: the logic is compelling. The only problem--and it is a slight one--is that this meme is not true. In both Japan and Germany, workers at large corporations get their health insurance via joint contributions from employeer and employee, just as they do in the United States. Big corporations in both countries also have pension schemes, just as in the United States, and higher social security contributions. To be sure, their health care costs are lower, in large part because they are administered by the government, which rations it more strictly than GE can. But their pension fund deficits are often worse than ours. Where does this idea come from that the Japanese and German corporations don't have to pay any costs to cover their employees' health and retirement? And why hasn't anyone bothered to check it? Posted by Jane Galt at August 22, 2006 2:05 PM \| TrackBack \| Technorati inbound links"); ?> Comments "To be sure, their health care costs are lower, in large part because they are administered by the government, which rations it more strictly than GE can." Wouldn't someone who wanted national healthcare want it because it would give people more stuff? Posted by: Brian Moore on August 22, 2006 3:16 PM The claim doesn't make sense. In other countries, GM's workers will receive the same government benefits that its competitors in that country will receive, and GM will pay the same taxes. If he means to say, as would make sense, that in America, GM has to pay health care, while competitors don't, that's true, and painfully so. New entrants to car manufacturing in America don't have huge pension obligations. Yes, that makes the workers worse off, but that just underscores a) why it was a stupid union demand, and b) why it's so important to de-couple investment, health care purchases, etc. from employment. Like I said in the other thread, what good is the pension/HC offer compared to cash? Your employer faces exponentially growing costs, while new entrants don't, yet you expect it to survive? Drum's point about Google was even worse -- Google isn't committing to long term obligations, so even if they didn't "grow profitable forever", they wouldn't have these payments shackling them. But luckily those on his blog already disposed of that point. Posted by: Person on August 22, 2006 3:17 PM janegalt.net

To: TimF who wrote (79310)	9/14/2006 6:39:36 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Bush-Cheney actively promoted the over-consumption of gasoline, poo-pooed conservation and condoned the massive price spikes in energy led by close corporate crony Enron in 2000-2001. They called it "our way of life". They are bought and paid for by the energy crooks and have been for a long-long time. Don't forget both Bush and Cheney are former oil executives, and both have been involved in cheating and lying, plus going to bat for big oil throughout their careers.