UAW objects to health care reform proposals, hopes to make it a national issue

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by Renegen, Feb 14, 2009.


    So what does this mean? It means that all of a sudden the union was to be charged with running the health care fund themselves and that GM would contribute only half the funds necessary in cash. That was part of the rescue plan by Washington. It was obvious where this would lead, the union would lose its ability to fund health care benefits.

    Anyway, now that the UAW and GM have come to an impasse, THIS IS IT. GM will again come into the limelight and crippling health care costs will become the #1 issue discussed. This is THE chance for american business and public to take the health care crisis by the horns and to correct it.
    This is a golden opportunity to fix one small part of America that desperately needs fixing. Get your phones ready and start talking about the alternatives to anyone interested.
    Props to UAW for trying to make this a national issue instead of quietly dying away.
  2. clacy


    Fuck the UAW. They are a large part of the US Auto's failure and now the are cutting off their nose to spite their face (once again).

    Fuck socialized health care as we already have the best health care system on the planet.
  3. burn8


    What clacy said.

  4. It's also the most expensive, I think you'd have trouble finding people agreeing with you that the US system is the best. :p

    And the $$ costs means that unions or not, american competitiveness is affected. Either health care insurance costs are too high for employers and cripples them , or normal consumers spend too much of their incomes on health care and cripples their budget.
    Remember, health care is a COST, it's not a driver of economic growth.

    Make this a national issue, every election health care manages to sneak by unnoticed. Not anymore. The survival of GM & Chrysler will depend on the health care question and therefore we can have progress on the issue.
  5. The UAW needs to be taught a lesson.

    For the last 30 years, they bled the U.S auto industry into the ground. Outrageous salaries and ridiculous retirement benefits. For decades they held the Big 3 over the fire until management caved into their demands, and now look where it has gotten them.

    I'm all for unions, but the UAW and many other greedy unions are finally going to be punished for years of abusing the system.
  6. How does that make you "for unions".
  7. clacy


    I don't believe Obama is stupid enough to try to put another $500+/yr liability on the American tax payer at this point. If he does, he's one and done. Same goes for congress. The Republicans will be back in control by 2010 or 2012 at the latest if this happens.
  8. What are you talking about, giving GM a second bailout? Yeah. everyone agrees that will look terrible. That's why it won't happen, that's why reform will have to be pushed. Because the CURRENT loans depend on the health care issue. Is the new secretary of health care even announced?
    Anyway, I won't repeat the same thing, read the last post. This is bigger than the union. Leave them behind.
  9. I should have clarified my statement.

    I think unions do serve a purpose. The olds days when people worked for a pittance in filthy conditions with no benefits are gone thanks in part to unionization.

    That is good.

    What the UAW and other powerful unions have done over the last 40 years has been nothing short of blackmailing the companies they worked for.

    There has to be an equal balance between unions and the companies. Too much power in either hand causes disaster.
  10. clacy


    No, I'm talking about health care. The Autos are going to hit chapter 11 regardless. But the free health care stuff has taken a hit with the economy. Try working the math on this one, with lowering tax revenues. The only way to make this thing work is to pass it when the economy is smoking and tax payers are totally confident, so they start to think more emotionally/emathetically about health care. Now is not the time for the Dems to stick the tax payer with a $500b/yr liability and expect to be re-elected.
    #10     Feb 14, 2009