Honda Car Forum

On Dec 21, 11:05*pm, "Mark A" <some...@someone.com> wrote:
> > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:00f16450-205e-4612-8e70-7798d2864a0a@r28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com....
> > BUT, how many people have good healthcare plans? *The number is
> > dwindling. *In addition, very few can afford the increasing costs of
> > medical treatments without an HMO. *Do you know the stats on how many
> > people use emergency rooms as their doctor? *All opponents of
> > universal healthcare say taxes will increase. *Well, I will lose my
> > excellent medical plan soon when I'm outsourced and layed off. *To
> > provide something similar will cost me $12,000 or more a year. *That
> >is going to be a stretch if I wind up making $25,000 a year in one of
> > the few service jobs still available.
>
> Maybe you are confusing "good" with "free" (or close to free). I am talking
> about quality, not cost.
>

I'm talking 'good' or 'free'. I'm talking some or none. You know, it
doesn't have to be government supplied, managed, etc. Just make the
providers switch to non-profit.

The outsourcing has several streams and centers, Central America,
Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and a large American corporation. The
goal is to outsource all services and operations. I don't want to get
too specific.

<edspyhill01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ac36b4f-e34b-413a-a3a8-288df7ebd030@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> I'm talking 'good' or 'free'. I'm talking some or none. You know, it
> doesn't have to be government supplied, managed, etc. Just make the
> providers switch to non-profit.

No one is forcing companies to deal with providers that are for proift. In
fact there are a number of health care systems that are non-profit, but they
are typically not as efficient as the for profit ones. Of course, since you
are a socialist, you will not ever admit that.

Most of the Blue-Cross Plans were non-profit until the last 10-15 years when
switched over to for profit organizations. Many hospitals are non-profit,
but they are usually the ones in the most financial trouble.

Most large companies such as IBM and GM are self-insured, and they only pay
a fee for an insurance company to do claims administration, so in that sense
they are non-profit because the companies are trying to reduce costs, but
not make a profit.

While we are making companies non-profit, I guess that apply to your company
also, which means that you will would have to take a pay cut (people who
work for non-profit rarely make as much as those in a for profit company).

Well said!


"Moses" <awelch4@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:76718d19-a702-43cc-bc38-48823934bfdc@n28g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 9:41 am, "Rock Hardson" <RH...@yahooo.com> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...08/12/19/AR200...
>
I'm sorry the workers may lose benefits but, the option is to shut
down American Auto companies. To understand, look at the history.
Unions organized in the 1930s and became very powerful by 1950. With
unsustainable profits and prosperity in the 1950s, the companies met
most union demands to keep the production lines rolling. Today, on
the other hand, the 3 remaining auto makers are on the brink of
banruptcy and most American consumers are unable to buy a 35,000
automobile.
I'd like to see all auto makers unionised but I'd also like to see the
price of cars reduced. Lets hope the OBama guys make significant
advances to level the plying field for all auto makers.
The Japanese companies have no retired pensioners to support but
companies like GM have thousands. Auto makers in foreign countries
can rely on the government to provide health care while here health
care costs knock your socks off. Hospital fees, like union benefits,
are based on a level of prosperity that hasn't existed in America for
40 years.
It's funny the administration demands auto makers to get rid of all
corporate jets. What about eliminating air force one? And what about
all those congressmen and Senators who are flown wherevever they want
to go by military aircraft?





> The article states that the southern japanese factory worker was offered
> to
> join the union bringing wages on par to its northern American worker but
> they opted to stay bare foot and po' for japanese pennies. How STUPID can
> people be! If they had simply joined the union they would be getting the
> same exact pay and benefits as the northern worker living a higher
> standard
> of life and there would have been an even playing field for all
> manufactures
> from the start. For years it has been said that the Japanese choose the
> southern worker simply to take advantage of there ignorance. I guess the
> article proves they were right about that one. Now the northern worker
> will
> be forced to be dragged down to the level of pay of the southern worker.
> Its
> a simple question of is everyone on board to make a lot of money or will a
> segment of the community just drag others down to make a lesser amount of
> money???

Moses,

Well said! I think you have captured the essence of the issue without the
union bashing fingerpointing that this thread now wallows in.

American labor unions grew at a time when manufacturing jobs were plentiful
to produce a multitude of products that were in great demand. US industrial
capacity won WWII and became an industrial powerhouse replacing factories
destroyed by the conflict in Europe and Asia. US unions became strong as
world demand for products grew. A US middle class was created. But,
automation has eliminated many of those manufacturing jobs and offshore
production capacity/low labor costs now drain the rest. This thread talks
about the auto industry jobs but ignores the fact that most US manufacturing
capacity (clothing, leather, electronics, etc.) is already long gone. Even
high tech jobs are now outsourced.

The world is a smaller place in these last 50~100 years. The internet has
made it smaller.

Detroit's problems ARE caused by managements' many failures including their
capitulation to union demands but let's not quibble about the demise of,
what is in essence, the buggy whip industry. Where to now?

I didn't vote for Obama but he will be our President and his team will
direct the next four, may be eight, years. Let's all pull in the same
direction.

This thread has determinate into a union bashing
"Moses" <awelch4@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:76718d19-a702-43cc-bc38-48823934bfdc@n28g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 9:41 am, "Rock Hardson" <RH...@yahooo.com> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...08/12/19/AR200...
>
I'm sorry the workers may lose benefits but, the option is to shut
down American Auto companies. To understand, look at the history.
Unions organized in the 1930s and became very powerful by 1950. With
unsustainable profits and prosperity in the 1950s, the companies met
most union demands to keep the production lines rolling. Today, on
the other hand, the 3 remaining auto makers are on the brink of
banruptcy and most American consumers are unable to buy a 35,000
automobile.
I'd like to see all auto makers unionised but I'd also like to see the
price of cars reduced. Lets hope the OBama guys make significant
advances to level the plying field for all auto makers.
The Japanese companies have no retired pensioners to support but
companies like GM have thousands. Auto makers in foreign countries
can rely on the government to provide health care while here health
care costs knock your socks off. Hospital fees, like union benefits,
are based on a level of prosperity that hasn't existed in America for
40 years.
It's funny the administration demands auto makers to get rid of all
corporate jets. What about eliminating air force one? And what about
all those congressmen and Senators who are flown wherevever they want
to go by military aircraft?





> The article states that the southern japanese factory worker was offered
> to
> join the union bringing wages on par to its northern American worker but
> they opted to stay bare foot and po' for japanese pennies. How STUPID can
> people be! If they had simply joined the union they would be getting the
> same exact pay and benefits as the northern worker living a higher
> standard
> of life and there would have been an even playing field for all
> manufactures
> from the start. For years it has been said that the Japanese choose the
> southern worker simply to take advantage of there ignorance. I guess the
> article proves they were right about that one. Now the northern worker
> will
> be forced to be dragged down to the level of pay of the southern worker.
> Its
> a simple question of is everyone on board to make a lot of money or will a
> segment of the community just drag others down to make a lesser amount of
> money???

In article <ginjlj$bjc$1@news.motzarella.org>,
"JimG" <newsgroups@abetterplacetobe.com> wrote:

> Detroit's problems ARE caused by managements' many failures including their
> capitulation to union demands but let's not quibble about the demise of,
> what is in essence, the buggy whip industry. Where to now?

Your lips to the RIAA's ears.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:58:35 -0500, Rock Hardson cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
> news:1x5psd1jx10hl.1gf2kia55xhu0.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:22:08 -0500, Rock Hardson cast forth these pearls
>> of
>> wisdom...:
>>
>>
>>> Wow...and what do you think the union was developed for? Why were people
>>> dying and getting there heads cracked open in the 20 and 30's? Maybe so
>>> people like you or your father could actually do a job no matter how
>>> menial
>>> or mind numbing with dignity and respect without being walked over and
>>> disrepected by corporate and for that matter people like you.
>>
>> Actually, my father who was in the workforce through those formative
>> years,
>> did not need a union to protect him any more than his son did throughout
>> his career. Maybe you have a romantic notion about what the unions are.
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>> mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
>
> I personally don't care what type of work daddy did, but the fact is the
> unions were formed by workers who needed protection in certain industries.
> If you were not part of that industry then you obviously did not need a
> union. I personally never worked in industry so I have no use for a union,
> but again the facts remain that some industries needed to be unionized.

.... and to go full circle - those days are long gone. Nice to see you
catch up, even if it is by circling around the rabbit trail a little bit.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

>
> In virtually all countries that provide government health care, they
> decide what doctor you go to, they decide what treatment will be done
> (unless you go to a private doctor and pay for it yourself). Even if you
> get the treatment you want, you might have wait months or years to get it,
> unless it is emergency surgery. If you are of a certain age, they will
> often not approve certain procedures because they cost too much for
> someone who doesn't have a lot of years to live (they decide what "a lot"
> means).

I'm in one of "those" countries...the gov't DOES NOT decide which doctor I
see...I have a family dr, and I see her whenever I need to.
I recently torn the hell out of my knee during sports...(I'm 53 and getting
too old for that kind of shit!!), anyways, I saw my family Dr with 2 days,
had an MRI within 2 weeks, saw an Ortho surgeon within 1 month and surgery
within 2 months. Since it was not a life -threatening injury, thats not too
bad, and acceptable.
Is the health care system here perfect ?? no...is the US one ?? absolutely
NOT. Millions do not get the care they need.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:24:38 -0500, Rock Hardson wrote:

>
> "Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> newsan.2008.12.22.01.35.22.122869@e86.GTS...
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:21:46 -0500, Rock Hardson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I make it a point to NEVER buy any car, new or used, assembled by UAW
>>> dumb-**** overpaid slob morons...
>>>
>>> There is not a single UAW leak in possession of a skill set worth
>>> their extortionistic wage and benefit package. Back in the sixties,
>>> 8th. grade dropouts all over the country would wind up getting $25/hr.
>>> to slap hubcaps on Fords and Chevys. **** the UAW and anyone who
>>> supports them.
>>>
>>> Yeh...and its just fine to that Japanese CEO get billions in return for
>>> paying workers $14 and hour to screw on a bolt over and over and over
>>> again
>>> 8 hours a day. You try doing that and see if you don't go crazy. If you
>>> have
>>> a job doing crazy mind draining activity at least make it worth your
>>> while
>>> and get paid for it. And I bet if your father was putting bread on your
>>> table for screwing on a bolt, you would have no problem at all buying
>>> American would you?
>>
>> At first I thought your original post was tongue-in-cheek and that you
>> were *FOR* UAW workers having their pay cut to match the pay of others
>> with similar jobs.
>>
>> This post proves you really *ARE* as ignorant as your original post belies
>> you to be.
>>
>
>
>> You don't really know anything about the car industry, do you?
>
> Probably just as much if not more as you.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

>
>>
>> Your last line in this post: if my father were putting bread on the table
>> screwing Toyotas together, why would I want to buy an American car?
>
> Learn to read english, because thats not what the last line says.


Gee. I thought it said this:

And I bet if your father was putting bread on your
table for screwing on a bolt, you would have no problem at all buying
American would you?

Could'a sworn that's what it said.

>
>>
>> Look through other posts I have made in other threads similar to this one.
>> I went and looked at an HHR. Two years ago. I am *STILL* waiting for the
>> car I asked for to show up: 171HP engine with a 5-speed. NO ONE HAS ONE!
>> It was listed as an option back in 2006.
>
>> I got fed up with waiting and bought yet another Toyota. The car I wanted
>> was sitting on the lot the second I drove in. It was the display piece.
>>
>>
>> Blame the workers? Maybe. Why should they get paid $25 an hour (~$68 with
>> benefits and pension figured in) when others do it for less?
>
> $25 and hour isnt that much in todays economy, how many people really add in
> the cost of benefits into there entire salary other than to exagerate a
> point.

$25 is a lot for people that have the skills necessary to wash dishes.
I know people that work at GM. Hey, good for them! They have a job that
pays well. Some of them even have high school diplomas.


> If I am making $100,000 per year should I say I really make $140,000
> a year with my health and other benefits? Is that the new way of now
> determining someones salary or is it just a new way to exagerate a point to
> make a point?

Benefits, Worker's Comp, Unemployment insurance and pensions cost the
employer money per employee. Most people don't figure it in the cost of a
salary. It's often calculated under Cost Of Goods Sold or some other such
accounting principle. But it is part of the compensation a worker
receives, and is figured into the cost of the car.

You don't consider your benefits part of your wage package? Must be a
union worker. They don't consider much of anything, on the whole.

And I was a union worker a couple times. Yeah, I was paid well. But I also
had highly skilled jobs that required a certain level of education,
training and experience. You want to to get on a plane that had parts
assembled by the lowest common denominator?

And I was still $6 less than the average Detroit UAW member. That is, what
I got in my paycheck. I didn't have quite as good benefits as they did,
either.

>>
>
>> Oh, and the workers for Japanese companies get rotated around the floor
>> and different lines so they don't get bored, and so they learn more. And
>> they also have the 'whistle' that will stop the entire factory when
>> defects are found.
>>
>
> And I thought all car manufacturers were now rotating around the floor.

Took them long enough...

>
>
>> Another Hammerhead post defending workers that shouldn't have jobs,
>> judging from the quality of the product they put out. If the Chinese sent
>> cars over here that were the same quality as US cars have been, you'd be
>> calling it "Cheap Chinese junk."
>>
>
> So now you are determining who should not have a job??

Yup. I spend my money where I want. I get the best I can for the dollars I
work for.

I had a Chrysler. Damn good car. It was given to me by a friend. I traded
it toward the Scion I bought instead of the HHR. One of the nicest cars I
ever owned, ran well, dependable, comfortable. It was also $30,000 in 1994.
Nice car, but no car is worth $30,000. For inflation, that car would now
be ~$40,000.

If Detroit can compete, they should. But they don't. They're too damn
arrogant to realize they don't make the best product. GM has been getting
cheaper and cheaper over the years. You know why? They want to keep the
Shareholders happy. So the customer suffers so the shareholders can have a
bigger return.

For 25 years I have been saying that keeping the shareholders happy was
not the way to do business, and if they don't start making the customers
happy, they're going to be in trouble. I even put that in a paper I wrote
about the car industry 17 years ago.

The only reson none of this happened earlier was because they were using
the financial divisions to hold up the failures of the manufacturing
divisions. Guess what? The financials collapsed, and now they're caught
with their pants down.

The bottom line? not only are the customers not happy, but the
shareholders aren't either. And they've proved it by voting with their
feet. Seen the price of GM stock lately?

So tell me, why should I buy a crummy car in order that someone should
have a job?

Welcome to the Real World.


> Where should they
> be... on welfare on your tax dollar? Another knucklehead post who crawled
> out from under a rock.

You chose to cross post this to the Nissan, Toyota and Honda groups. So
someone comes up and throws an egg at you and you go to pieces?

Next time try alt.kids.movies where it won't get pointed out what a
hammerhead you are.

Or are you just a Troll?


> And how would you know the quality of a US car, you drive a Toyota.

See above about the Chrysler. And I have also had a 2-year old Caravan,
and 2 15 year old Grand Voyagers. They were beaters (except for the
Caravan) but they ran well. Of course, all of them had the transmissions
replaced at some point in time. And one of the Voyagers had an egine
problem common to early 3.3 liter engine, sounded like it was going to
blow up any second, but it still ran.

> You are
> pissed because you couldn't find a HHR, at least that is your excuse. If the
> quality was so bad why were you looking for a HHR?? Whos posts are ignorant?

Because I was looking for something to haul band gear around in, that
looked good, and would be fun to drive if there wasn't any band equipment
anymore. And I liked the old Pie Wagons from the 50's.

The damn thing couldn't get out of it's own way with two people. I have to
admit the interior didn't look as cheap as GMs from the late 80's/early
90's, and the switches didn't feel like they were going to come off in my
hand.

But I waited 2 weeks before buying the Scion, and then 4 weeks after that
they called me and said they had a 171 HP model on the lot. Five-speed?
Nope?

Can't guy something they don't have, can I? The Scion I wanted wa right on
the corner of the lot waiting for me when I pulled in.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:43:16 -0400, "Jack"
<bigcletus123@yahoo.com.com> wrote:

>> In virtually all countries that provide government health care, they
>> decide what doctor you go to, they decide what treatment will be done
>> (unless you go to a private doctor and pay for it yourself). Even if you
>> get the treatment you want, you might have wait months or years to get it,
>> unless it is emergency surgery. If you are of a certain age, they will
>> often not approve certain procedures because they cost too much for
>> someone who doesn't have a lot of years to live (they decide what "a lot"
>> means).
>
>I'm in one of "those" countries...the gov't DOES NOT decide which doctor I
>see...I have a family dr, and I see her whenever I need to.
>I recently torn the hell out of my knee during sports...(I'm 53 and getting
>too old for that kind of shit!!), anyways, I saw my family Dr with 2 days,
>had an MRI within 2 weeks, saw an Ortho surgeon within 1 month and surgery
>within 2 months. Since it was not a life -threatening injury, thats not too
>bad, and acceptable.
>Is the health care system here perfect ?? no...is the US one ?? absolutely
>NOT. Millions do not get the care they need.

Jack, unfortunately, you are not arguing against facts. You are
arguing against a massive propaganda effort by the neo-cons and one of
their best buddies, the insurance industry. They have been
brainwashing the ignorant folks here in the USA for years with their
stories of doom and gloom.

The fact is that here in the USA the insurance companies are a totally
unnecessary profit layer between people paying for the health
"insurance" (really a service plan, not insurance) and the people they
are paying. The insurance companies are smart enough to keep that
issue from being discussed. Instead, they wave the red flag of "you
don't want the government deciding on your health care" - when the
alternative is an insurance company executive whose only goal is to
maximize profit by providing the minimum amount of care and coverage.

Unfortunately the neo-con machine is very sharp in their marketing aka
brainwashing.

"me" <noemail@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:fmbvk4dhp8jqi3ak6k84mouh04lqa4qi1r@4ax.com...
> Jack, unfortunately, you are not arguing against facts. You are
> arguing against a massive propaganda effort by the neo-cons and one of
> their best buddies, the insurance industry. They have been
> brainwashing the ignorant folks here in the USA for years with their
> stories of doom and gloom.
>
> The fact is that here in the USA the insurance companies are a totally
> unnecessary profit layer between people paying for the health
> "insurance" (really a service plan, not insurance) and the people they
> are paying. The insurance companies are smart enough to keep that
> issue from being discussed. Instead, they wave the red flag of "you
> don't want the government deciding on your health care" - when the
> alternative is an insurance company executive whose only goal is to
> maximize profit by providing the minimum amount of care and coverage.
>
> Unfortunately the neo-con machine is very sharp in their marketing aka
> brainwashing.

There is a lot of profit in the health care business, but not very much in
the insurance end. Most big companies are self-insured for health care and
that includes GM (also companies like IBM). They only pay a fee to the
insurance companies to do claims administration. There is nothing preventing
these companies from doing there own claims administration if they thought
they could do it cheaper.

If you are so convinced the problem is with insurance companies, then you
might want to invest them, because their stocks are very depressed.