Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Might be true but probably more of a split. What is funny is Bill Swerski arguing against employers having to provide health insurance when he regularly supports a system that is totally based on employer-provided health insurance, to avoid "socialized medicine". This is the same Bill that complains about people freeloading on the ER and driving up health insurance rates. What else are they supposed to do? I'm one of the most conservative people on this board, and I believe we should go to socialized medicine. Everyone should have basic health care. I'm not talking about sex changes or plastic surgery, but basic preventative medicine and emergency care. As it is those of us that are responsible, and aren't spending all our money on the latest hot CD, the next great game console, gold grilles etc... are already paying for the care of those that are buying all of these things and not responsible enough to buy health insurance. I honestly believe that there are people out there that can not afford basic health insurance, but I also believe that number is significantly lower than the number of uninsured in this country. The vast majority of uninsured could get insurance if they made it a priority to do so, instead of spending their money on crap they don't need, but want. As a result, these people get free health care through the ER. In order to make up for the loses of the ER as primary physician, the hospitals are artificially jacking up their prices to those of us with insurance. So those of us that pay insurance are already paying for those that don't. It would be my suggestion that we go to socialized / private medicine hybrid. Raise taxes (I can't believe I just typed that) on everyone equally as a percent of their income to help pay for socialized medicine. Then allow those that opt out of the socialized program to deduct from their taxes what ever they pay in premiums to private insurance for private medical care. If you don't like the idea of raising the income tax, then make a sales tax on all luxury items, and all items are considered luxury items with the exception of housing, utilities, and un-prepared food. Double the amount of the health care sales tax on fast food, tobacco, and alcohol. Sense we believe that everyone deserves health care in this country, we should also believe that those that insist on doing that which is detrimental to their health to pay more. Personally l prefer the sales to income tax, because I like the idea of being punitive to those that abuse their bodies (and I use tobacco, of course I pay for my insurance and that of my employees as well), and it doesn't tax necessities, but does tax stuff that is not required so it is forcing everyone to at least in part be responsible for their health care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Things have changed. OSHA does spot inspections all the time. They actually patrol similar to police. They will drive by projects, and if they see anything that appears questionable they will stop and do a full inspection, without ever having been called with a complaint, or having lost time paper work being filed. OK, but I was referring to the manufacturing industry. Drive-bys don't work there and I don't believe they just pop in w/o cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I'm one of the most conservative people on this board, and I believe we should go to socialized medicine. Everyone should have basic health care. I'm not talking about sex changes or plastic surgery, but basic preventative medicine and emergency care. As it is those of us that are responsible, and aren't spending all our money on the latest hot CD, the next great game console, gold grilles etc... are already paying for the care of those that are buying all of these things and not responsible enough to buy health insurance. I honestly believe that there are people out there that can not afford basic health insurance, but I also believe that number is significantly lower than the number of uninsured in this country. The vast majority of uninsured could get insurance if they made it a priority to do so, instead of spending their money on crap they don't need, but want. As a result, these people get free health care through the ER. In order to make up for the loses of the ER as primary physician, the hospitals are artificially jacking up their prices to those of us with insurance. So those of us that pay insurance are already paying for those that don't. It would be my suggestion that we go to socialized / private medicine hybrid. Raise taxes (I can't believe I just typed that) on everyone equally as a percent of their income to help pay for socialized medicine. Then allow those that opt out of the socialized program to deduct from their taxes what ever they pay in premiums to private insurance for private medical care. If you don't like the idea of raising the income tax, then make a sales tax on all luxury items, and all items are considered luxury items with the exception of housing, utilities, and un-prepared food. Double the amount of the health care sales tax on fast food, tobacco, and alcohol. Sense we believe that everyone deserves health care in this country, we should also believe that those that insist on doing that which is detrimental to their health to pay more. Personally l prefer the sales to income tax, because I like the idea of being punitive to those that abuse their bodies (and I use tobacco, of course I pay for my insurance and that of my employees as well), and it doesn't tax necessities, but does tax stuff that is not required so it is forcing everyone to at least in part be responsible for their health care. wurd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 OK, but I was referring to the manufacturing industry. Drive-bys don't work there and I don't believe they just pop in w/o cause. Even so, when are the workers going to take responsibility for their own safety? All they have to do is call a 800 number if they feel they are in an unsafe work place, and the place will be inspected. The call is confidential, so they don't have to worry about any recourse from the employer. The 800 number should be posted in the foreman's office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 (edited) If you don't like the idea of raising the income tax, then make a sales tax on all luxury items, and all items are considered luxury items with the exception of housing, utilities, and un-prepared food. Double the amount of the health care sales tax on fast food, tobacco, and alcohol. Sense we believe that everyone deserves health care in this country, we should also believe that those that insist on doing that which is detrimental to their health to pay more. Personally l prefer the sales to income tax, because I like the idea of being punitive to those that abuse their bodies (and I use tobacco, of course I pay for my insurance and that of my employees as well), and it doesn't tax necessities, but does tax stuff that is not required so it is forcing everyone to at least in part be responsible for their health care. +1 I'm all for sin taxes and would gladly pay a couple dollars more for a six-pack and a pack of cigarettes (if I still smoked). Taxing fast food would also be a good idea. And luxury taxes on, say, vehicles $35,000 and up and houses $750,000 and up for starters. I'd also support taxing state lottery systems, raising taxes back to pre-Bush levels, and paying out less in foreign aid. Pretty much anything short of the economically-crippling system that they use in Europe. This strategy probably wouldn't cover the $600 billion or so that it would cost to fully-insure these people annually, but there has to be some way of giving people basic coverage. If I can get by with paying $350 a year in bottom-of-the-barrel car insurance, I don't see why there can't be some sort of equivalent low-tier health insurance that would cover basic checkups, minimal procedures, and generic drugs (which are cheap as hell anyway). Even if it doesn't have the perks of most standard plans, it would be a good place to start. I'd also implement a "use it or lose it" clause which would Josh Gordon out the people who don't care enough to take advantage of it. Edited September 28, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 A lot of the arguments seem to imply that if an employer does not provide health insurance then a person can't get it. Where I work now does not provide medical benefits. I have private insurance for me and my family. I know there are relatively inexpensive options out there. I did not opt for that, so I pay more so that my kids can go to the pediatrician we like, my wife can go to the doctor's she has been with for a long time, and well... I haven't bee nto a doctor in a long time, but, if something happened I am covered. So, IMO, the boohooing about employers not providing health insurance is silly. If an employer doesn't provide it, you can get it on your own. I don't want ot see you rolling up on the emergency room when you have the flu and no insurance in your tricked out escalade. Hospital should be allowed to seize the Escalade and auction it off to cover your bills. Now, my dad has previously told me that one thing he thinks that might help is for the state to set up a group that residents can opt in for medical coverage from say Blue Shield or whichever provider the state goes for. Much like a large employer, the more people in the group, the lower the rates available. Say you get 1 million residents to opt in to this plan. Essentially a voluntary additional tax to cover the premiums for coverage. Residents then would have an affordable option for medical coverage, and it should be mandatory to have some form of medical coverage, be it through an employer program or through private insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Even so, when are the workers going to take responsibility for their own safety? All they have to do is call a 800 number if they feel they are in an unsafe work place, and the place will be inspected. The call is confidential, so they don't have to worry about any recourse from the employer. The 800 number should be posted in the foreman's office. Perch - please hear what I am saying right here. In 19 years with my company I have never not one single time seen an OSHA person on any of my sites. I have never seen an OSHA person on any of the sites that were awarded to other contractors both union and non union. I work for local goverment. We are not covered by OSHA. That 800 number is no where to be seen in my 102 work locations. People like myself very much need a safety program that is not OSHA. In fact we do have it and it is a great program because the it is supported by the trades council of the Greater Pittsburgh area. We won the Governers award for the last three years becuase I standards and process of educating our trades is top notch. Now I'm not going to argue this any longer. It is apples and oranges. Now for your other post about socialized / private medicine... I am right there with you. If we could get the health care aspect of our wages under control things would be a lot better for everyone. There is lots of abuse going on with this current system and one that I found out about just the other day was a father that took guardianship of his 7 grand children just so that they had health insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Good luck finding ANY job today with job security and a retirement package. They no longer exist. Military. Has a decent retirement package (dead or alive). As for job security, we've been in Iraq 17 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I'm one of the most conservative people on this board, and I believe we should go to socialized medicine. Everyone should have basic health care. I'm not talking about sex changes or plastic surgery, but basic preventative medicine and emergency care. As it is those of us that are responsible, and aren't spending all our money on the latest hot CD, the next great game console, gold grilles etc... are already paying for the care of those that are buying all of these things and not responsible enough to buy health insurance. I honestly believe that there are people out there that can not afford basic health insurance, but I also believe that number is significantly lower than the number of uninsured in this country. The vast majority of uninsured could get insurance if they made it a priority to do so, instead of spending their money on crap they don't need, but want. As a result, these people get free health care through the ER. In order to make up for the loses of the ER as primary physician, the hospitals are artificially jacking up their prices to those of us with insurance. So those of us that pay insurance are already paying for those that don't. It would be my suggestion that we go to socialized / private medicine hybrid. Raise taxes (I can't believe I just typed that) on everyone equally as a percent of their income to help pay for socialized medicine. Then allow those that opt out of the socialized program to deduct from their taxes what ever they pay in premiums to private insurance for private medical care. If you don't like the idea of raising the income tax, then make a sales tax on all luxury items, and all items are considered luxury items with the exception of housing, utilities, and un-prepared food. Double the amount of the health care sales tax on fast food, tobacco, and alcohol. Sense we believe that everyone deserves health care in this country, we should also believe that those that insist on doing that which is detrimental to their health to pay more. Personally l prefer the sales to income tax, because I like the idea of being punitive to those that abuse their bodies (and I use tobacco, of course I pay for my insurance and that of my employees as well), and it doesn't tax necessities, but does tax stuff that is not required so it is forcing everyone to at least in part be responsible for their health care. I could go for this lock, stock and barrel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Military. Has a decent retirement package (dead or alive). As for job security, we've been in Iraq 17 years. Most state employees also have excellent benefits and job security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Most state employees also have excellent benefits and job security. Indeed. Every employee I've ever had who has been married to a gubment employee has opted to use the gubment bennies rather than ours and ours are actually better than several well known very large corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 A lot of the arguments seem to imply that if an employer does not provide health insurance then a person can't get it. Where I work now does not provide medical benefits. I have private insurance for me and my family. I know there are relatively inexpensive options out there. I did not opt for that, so I pay more so that my kids can go to the pediatrician we like, my wife can go to the doctor's she has been with for a long time, and well... I haven't bee nto a doctor in a long time, but, if something happened I am covered. So, IMO, the boohooing about employers not providing health insurance is silly. If an employer doesn't provide it, you can get it on your own. I don't want ot see you rolling up on the emergency room when you have the flu and no insurance in your tricked out escalade. Hospital should be allowed to seize the Escalade and auction it off to cover your bills. Now, my dad has previously told me that one thing he thinks that might help is for the state to set up a group that residents can opt in for medical coverage from say Blue Shield or whichever provider the state goes for. Much like a large employer, the more people in the group, the lower the rates available. Say you get 1 million residents to opt in to this plan. Essentially a voluntary additional tax to cover the premiums for coverage. Residents then would have an affordable option for medical coverage, and it should be mandatory to have some form of medical coverage, be it through an employer program or through private insurance. That's easy to say when you're under 50. Individual insurance costs go up logarithmically as that age 50 is passed. If the coverage doesn't change, OoP and deducts go way up. I have friends paying in excess of $800 for themselves. Non-smokers, fairly healthy. And that's an HMO/POS. Pre-existing conditions excluded. That other point is very interesting and I'd like to see it happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 That's easy to say when you're under 50. Individual insurance costs go up logarithmically as that age 50 is passed. If the coverage doesn't change, OoP and deducts go way up. I have friends paying in excess of $800 for themselves. Non-smokers, fairly healthy. And that's an HMO/POS. Pre-existing conditions excluded. That other point is very interesting and I'd like to see it happen. One of Bush's campaign promises was to make it where small businesses in the same field could group together for insurance purposes to make larger groups. I don't know why it didn't gain more traction, but I haven't heard anything about it in quite some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 One of Bush's campaign promises was to make it where small businesses in the same field could group together for insurance purposes to make larger groups. I don't know why it didn't gain more traction, but I haven't heard anything about it in quite some time. Probably for the same reason that his personal retirement account program didn't gain traction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 You really don't have a clue how it works. If a union previously won an election in a workplace and was certified as the bargaining representative, the employer can't just hire "non-union high school kids." Well, not without committing an unfair labor practice and getting dragged before the NLRB. Wow those were some seriously organized high school kids in temporary jobs to get that going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 As with any other aspect of a free market economy, if unions are so terrible, people won't hire union workers. There is no use debating it as if you could wish them away. I am very pro-union, but Atomic I dont think your comment accurately reflects labor law ... Unions are forced on employers through organization and a complex system of governmental involvement ... free market has little to do with labor laws ... I am probably one of the few on the board who has been in the middle of an election to determine whether a plant will unionize ... its pretty intense stuff, and is highly regulated under the law ... the employer's hammer is to threaten to close down, not to hire only non-union workers (this is not allowed) ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 You really don't have a clue how it works. If a union previously won an election in a workplace and was certified as the bargaining representative, the employer can't just hire "non-union high school kids." Well, not without committing an unfair labor practice and getting dragged before the NLRB. When the union becomes the certified bargaining representative in a workplace, they represent a designated group of employees called the bargaining unit. The unit is described in the election petition and in the collective bargaining agreement. In the grocery store context, it might read, "XYZ union is the exclusive bargaining representative for all hourly employees performing checkout, stockroom and general maintenance, excluding supervisory, managerial and confidential employees." If the store hires any employees to perform any of the jobs listed, those employees have to be in the union. So, the store can't simply hire high school kids to do these same jobs on a non-union basis. Look...my theory is that if a company gets a union, they usually deserve it. If a company treats its employees right and offers decent wages and benefits, the employees won't have a desire to fork over their hard earned money in dues for a union they don't need. One last point, and it is a politcal one. Health care is a huge (sorry, hugh on this board) problem. I might be stereo-typing, but my sense is that a large portion of the so-called blue collar, unionized workforce also tend to be republicans. Yet, the republicans are the same folks who argue against a universal health care program. Makes no sense to me. This is spot on ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 I am very pro-union, but Atomic I dont think your comment accurately reflects labor law ... Unions are forced on employers through organization and a complex system of governmental involvement ... free market has little to do with labor laws ... I am probably one of the few on the board who has been in the middle of an election to determine whether a plant will unionize ... its pretty intense stuff, and is highly regulated under the law ... the employer's hammer is to threaten to close down, not to hire only non-union workers (this is not allowed) ... I am also one of those few. I worked in a non union shop about 23 years ago. The owner did not want the shop to go union and to tell the truth he was great to work for. He paid union scale and sometimes even more. He pretty much followed union bylaws to the T so really I don't understand why he was so worried about his shop going union. At that time when we were taking a vote to go union there were all sorts of lawyers involved. The vote came up three short if I remember correct. In the long run he started hireing from the union hall and right now all but two of a 22 man shop is union. Kinda weird the way it all happened if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh B Tool Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 Military. Has a decent retirement package (dead or alive). As for job security, we've been in Iraq 17 years. you are delusioned at best. Have known three of our finest get medically discharged in the last year. 2 of the 3 have recieved nothing in compensation or proper medical. The other one albeit deserved got full benefits for lesser injuries and admits the current situation is a crap shoot at best and is going through depression because his as/or more deserving brethen are getting nada and probably will get zilch. Friggin' A Dude get a finger on the Vetrteran button would ya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 Anyone that owns a business is going to love to have that cheap employee that he can pay $10 and hour with no benefits but how loyal is that guy going to be? That guy is going to always be looking for something better. Pay him $17 an hour and give him some reasonable benefits and you can probably train him to be a lifelong employee. AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is some funny schit right there!!!! Bravo!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 Most don't dream of it, but due to many circumstances are forced to live w/ it. Wow! Very nice BOLD FACED LIE there komrad! I can't even begin to touch this one, lets just say two words: personal responsibility Reading all you northern union tit sucking socialists makes me weep... not one person I know in my family is unionized, and all are successful, long term employed or self employed happy people... polar opposite of you miserable sounding "sky is falling, a wrench is gonna kill me, babysitting kids is hard' whiners. you are delusioned at best. ... Vetrteran button would ya? I am pretty sure he is active duty, but WHINE at him anyway ya fat couch potato woman who never served a day in your life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 I am very pro-union, but Atomic I dont think your comment accurately reflects labor law ... Unions are forced on employers through organization and a complex system of governmental involvement ... free market has little to do with labor laws ... I am probably one of the few on the board who has been in the middle of an election to determine whether a plant will unionize ... its pretty intense stuff, and is highly regulated under the law ... the employer's hammer is to threaten to close down, not to hire only non-union workers (this is not allowed) ... Mgt side labor lawyer here...I run those campaigns for employers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 you are delusioned at best. Have known three of our finest get medically discharged in the last year. 2 of the 3 have recieved nothing in compensation or proper medical. The other one albeit deserved got full benefits for lesser injuries and admits the current situation is a crap shoot at best and is going through depression because his as/or more deserving brethen are getting nada and probably will get zilch. Friggin' A Dude get a finger on the Vetrteran button would ya? You got emotionally involved and didn't read what I wrote. Medically discharged = little to no benefits. Medically retired = full or partial benefits. Big difference between discharged, currently serving, and retired. 2 of the 3 gets the individual decent care (depending upon location and injury). You mentioned the 1 that does not. I stand by my statement that the military has a decent retirement package and job security. Obviously, most get out before retirement and give up the package and the security. My source: Big military population in this area (1 Army, 1 Air Force, 1 Navy, 1 National Guard, 1 VA hospital, and Coast Guard installations within driving distance). I know individuals associated with any of the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyc Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I am a union employee of Ford Motor, and have been for going on 14 yrs., I have read this entire thread and agree that the two sides will never ever see eye to eye. But while I agree the health care issues are a killer for the big 3, and they complain how bad they have it and how many billions of dollars they lose each year, but yet they turn around and give their CEO's and other upper management 10's of millions of dollars in performance bonuses. Why should we take pay cuts so they can line their pockets?? How about some originality in the design dept also?? Why keep building a bigger SUV when it costs more to buy and even more to fuel?? Who is making these decisions?? These so called "engineers" who don't know a goddamn thing? And they get rewarded for this?? Believe me, there are MANY, MANY more problems in these companies, than just the unions. They are flawed from the top down. And it is a shame because these are what used to be part of the backbone of this country and who knows how much longer they will really last. I don't want to get bashed for these insights, but it's just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I am a union employee of Ford Motor, and have been for going on 14 yrs., I have read this entire thread and agree that the two sides will never ever see eye to eye. But while I agree the health care issues are a killer for the big 3, and they complain how bad they have it and how many billions of dollars they lose each year, but yet they turn around and give their CEO's and other upper management 10's of millions of dollars in performance bonuses. Why should we take pay cuts so they can line their pockets?? How about some originality in the design dept also?? Why keep building a bigger SUV when it costs more to buy and even more to fuel?? Who is making these decisions?? These so called "engineers" who don't know a goddamn thing? And they get rewarded for this?? Believe me, there are MANY, MANY more problems in these companies, than just the unions. They are flawed from the top down. And it is a shame because these are what used to be part of the backbone of this country and who knows how much longer they will really last. I don't want to get bashed for these insights, but it's just my opinion. why don't you quit ford and go work for a company that makes sense to you and that you can be proud of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.