I’ve been reading lots of threads and posts here from those that support U.S. government paid health care so, apparently so that GM and the rest don’t have to shoulder that costs. Yet, in the video newscast (link below), it’s talking about Chrysler’s and GM’s “health care costs” for Canadian workers!!!

Isn’t Canada’s system held up as an example of government funded health care and if so, what costs would GM or Chrysler or any other company in Canada have?

Here is the link to the AutomotiveNews story:http://www.autonews.com/article/20090312/VIDEO/303129869

If anyone can explain what health care costs GM or Chrysler has in Canada and why that’s a concern I’d certainly appreciate it.

 

Our government health care coverage is more or less basic. If you break a leg or have a heart attack, you're covered. Companies like GM provide plans that pay for the things the government doesn't, like elective surgery, semi-private rooms, dental services, optomotrists, glasses, prescriptions, etc.

 

Think of it as the "Benefits" package that comes with most full-time permanent positions in most companies.

It costs the company money to buy it for the employee's sake.

 

That makes sense then.

Although it does seem to me that any benefit to Detroit by the U.S. moving toward socialized medcine would probably be as ineffective in reducing health-care costs for GM and Chrysler as it has been in Canada; assuming of course that the U.S. didn't dictate that no one could seek medical care apart from what the government offered (in which case they couldn't be pressuerd into offering more than the government provided).

 

IMO there's a big difference between covering, dental, optometry, and prescriptions vs. covering the big stuff like surgery, cancer care, hospital stays, etc.

As an example, the last place I worked had a decent extended benefits plan (no optometry) that cost the company about $140 a month for a family.

 

But what's the real benefit to GM or Chrysler or Ford if we have socialized medcine for the "big stuff" but workers still demand their gold-plated coverage?

I'm sure it would save the automakers some money compared to the coverage they've been paying for but if it hasn't helped in Canada I can't think it would be of any more help here.

 

Great Britian has "Socialized Medicine". If I'm not mistakened, so does Germany & France. Certainly the Netherlands. You get sick, you go to the clinic, it's covered.

Canada's system (and to an extent, Australia's as well) is geared towards more serious and costly coverage, like the example of a heart attack, or serious injuries. The type of stuff that is by far the leading cause of personal bankruptcies here in the US. Most all "first world" nations have some type of government medical coverage for retirees, the US included.

The thing is that the cost for medical coverage at a GM plant in Canada tends to be substantially less than what it would cost here in the US because there is more government retiree and catastrophic coverage.

Here in the US, you can get the government to cover a sizable portion of any catostrophic illness or recovery from a serious accident. However, you must 1st use all of your resources and then declare bankruptcy. That means your entire family, because all members of your immediate family have to exhaust all their assets.

Canada's system is set up to avoid people wiping out their life savings, assets, credit rating, and that of their spouses. In most of Europe, you catch the flu, and everything is either covered or heavily subsidized.

I don't think I'd call Canada's system "Socialized Medicine", unless (like here in the US) you are elderly or poor.

 

We call in "Universal Healthcare" ... Wikipedia describes it pretty well.

 

I don't think guionM's description leaves the correct impression of Canada's healthcare. It's not just for the "big stuff". Every time I go to the doctor, whether it's for a routine physical, or because I caught a cold I can't shake, or because I have some terminal disease, it's covered. I don't have to pay for anything at a doctor's office or hospital, not even co-pays, except for prescription drugs. If that's not socialized medicine, I'm not sure what is.

 

"Universal" is just a less objectionable term; whether you call it universal healthcare or socilized medcine; if the government is paying/controlling it then it's the same thing.

 

So I guess it must be tha case, if I understand both of your posts correctly, that GM and Chrysler aren't seeing any significant cost benefits, or at least not enough benefit given the original story, from Canada's supplied health care because GM and Chrysler are offering a lot more coverage than what the government supplies.That's what I've been trying to understand since I thought government supplied health care or health care insurance would be a significant financial benefit to a business and that doesn't seem to be the case in Canada.

If that's the case then I still don't see how businesses in the U.S. will ultimatley save much costs if Uncle Sam provides a plan similar to Canada's unless unless the workforce is going to be satisfied with whatever system the government provides.

Of course, I'm saying that as if the government paying for it somehow makes it free which is certainly not the case but that's another discussion and probably not one that should be held here.