Skip to main content

View Diary: GM's posts record loss (250 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wow! (9+ / 0-)

    Someone who actually has a clue.

    If we don't solve the healthcare issues in this country, as in go to single payer, say bye-bye to US manufacturing.

    Liberals and conservatives are two gangs who have intimidated rational, normal thinking beings into not having a voice on television or in the culture.

    by Dave B on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:38:29 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why won't GM or Ford lobby for healthcare? (6+ / 0-)

      If the fat cats started lobbying for single-payer, DC would jump in a flash.

      •  Because they would be .... (0+ / 0-)

        turncoats . The government lobbies them not to with subsidies and promises . You gotta know who's buttering the bread here .

        •  GM and Ford DID support health care ... (4+ / 0-)

          ...when Clinton was working on it:

          Arguing that the White House had ignored their pleas to amend President Clinton's health care proposals, the directors of the National Association of Manufacturers voted 56 to 20 today not to support the Administration's package "in its present form." ...

          The manufacturers are divided over health care, with the largest companies like the General Motors Corporation, Caterpillar and the General Electric Company, leaning toward the Clinton plan. Manufacturers with fewer than 1,000 employees tend to prefer the Cooper plan, which has emerged as the major competition to the Administration's proposal.

          The companies have financial reasons for their preferences. The big companies, for example, provide company-paid health insurance for thousands of retirees under age 65 who are too young for Medicare. The Clinton plan would have the Government absorb 80 percent of the cost of the premiums for these retirees, while the Cooper plan would pay none of that.

          The big companies also provide, in most cases, benefits packages that are richer than the packages likely to be required by either the Clinton or Cooper proposals. Under the Clinton proposal, big companies could continue to offer this extra coverage with no penalty, because they would be allowed to continue deducting the cost of premiums from their taxable income. But under the Cooper plan, only premiums for the required basic coverage could be deducted.

          I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 11:58:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry but (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Clinton's plan wasn't healthcare reform.

            It was an attempt to nibble around the edges of the problem, and guarantee a way for insurance corporations to keep sucking billions out of the system.  That's window-dressing, not healthcare reform, and with their units in Canada and Europe (and Taiwan?), GM and Ford should know it.

            So why don't they support the kind of genuine healthcare reform, single-payer, that would give them predictable health care costs?  Blinkers?  I dunno.

            Join the California Nurses Association and National Nurses Organizing Committee at

            by California Nurses Shum on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:18:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agreed that what Clinton offered was ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ...true health-care reform. Agreed that we should be pressing for single-payer, a stance I've held since before Jesse Jackson first raised the idea among the Democrats in 1988. Of course, this was too radical for the mainstream Dems, including Al Gore. So it never gained traction.

              But, in 1992, the problematic Clinton plan was what was on the table, and, contrary to what many say, GM and Ford were not opposed to it.

              I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

              by Meteor Blades on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:30:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What they probably wanted (0+ / 0-)

              ...was what a lot of American companies would like to have:  a system in which all costs are borne by the consumer.  They don't want to pay benefit costs or the taxation that would fund a public health care system.

              Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

              by Linnaeus on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:22:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Not to be cynical or anything (0+ / 0-)

              but even if they were dead serious I doubt their support would've amounted to much. Manufacturing has been relegated to the back seat of a 2-seater behind the FIRE (Finance, insurance, real estate) sector.

              About the only good thing about the current crisis is that FIRE was clearly to blame, and maybe, just maybe we'll get our senses back so we can start making real wealth instead of just money.

              Still and all, industry lack of support for single payer is mystifying.

    •  I don't think (0+ / 0-)

      most manufacturers pay the entie cost of healthcare like GM does per it's union agreement.  Most places, the employees have to kick in for coverage.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site