http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/...Automakers.php

Pretty good read, corresponds to the China thread. Hopefully, a level playing field will be set and we'll see less imported crap from China, and fairer pricing on imported cars.

 

Good article, definitely something that needs to be addressed with the presidency.

 

I agree.

 

It's about frigging time!

He's been refusing to meet with with US car makers for 6 years.

Shame it took an election blowout for him to actually meet with them.

 

I think the Big 2.5 have struck at the right time. A new Democratic congress and some changes in the American public views. The Bush administration has rejected all these proposals several times already. But now after being humbled last week I think Mr. Bush is now ready to listen. The American car companies have some legitimate gripes on health care and trade issues like tariffs that allow the foreign car companies an unfair advantage. The old adage of go build a better car is hard when the playing field isn't even.
The American economy would be adversely effected for a long time if GM, Ford and Chrysler collapsed. So the govenment is wise to listen becuase if things go real bad the tax payers will have to foot the bill.
The airlines are getting some breaks why not the automakers. If this was Japan the the car makers wouldn't even need to ask.....

 

If only 1 thing comes of this meeting I hope it is some sort of guidelines come down on healthcare. Because right now Healthcare is a HUGE factor for ever business in the country. They are making money hand over fist and it is getting bad for providers now. You know it is bad when MDs and Chiropractors are working together against managed healthcare. I don't know what needs to be done but something is going to change or something is going to break. Hopefullya lot of this healthcare stuff gets fixed before I graduate and go into practice.

 

We do not have a healthcare problem in this country; we have a health insurance problem.

Likewise, the automakers and other large businesses in this country don’t have a “healthcare” issue; they have a problem because of the model they’ve used for decades of providing health care insurance to workers and retirees - the model we use of individual companies offering health care insurance to employees/retirees that insulates the receivers of the healthcare from the costs of that healthcare.

The very last thing needed to address the problem is more government control. On the contrary, we need to keep the government as far away from the healthcare and health insurance systems in this country as possible.

What is needed is an entirely new model of providing health insurance coverage to people which gives them control and responsibility for their healthcare and its true cost.

 

I believe this meeting date (11/14/06) was set before the elections took place. I won't swear to it, but I seem to remember hearing about it before 11/7.

 

That is totally and completely FALSE! Let me ask you a simple question and you will see it for yourself: what do we offer more of in this country healthcare or sick care?

Does your insurance company and most healthcare providers have preventative stuff done so that you don't get sick or do they just treat your symptoms when you get a problem? How much money goes into curing things and preventing them rather than treating the symptoms?

And Robert I am not attacking you but making sure the point stands.

 

Yeah, they're called Consumer-Directed Health Plans and I write software that manages them for a living. Basically the way it works is you have a special account into which you make pre-tax contributions from your paycheck. Depending on the type of plan, the employer may have a system to match member contributions (401(k)-style). The account can then be used to pay for all sorts of medical expenses, from professional care to over-the-counter drugs. It's usually paired with a high-deductible health plan that'll cover expenses, while leaving most minor stuff to be covered by the consumer-directed plan. You can also use it to cover co-pay costs for doctor's visits and all. It's really a great system if you take advantage of it and you have total control over how much or how little you set aside for it.

 

I’m not sure what specific “preventative” things you are referring to???

Part of the equation is to seek out doctors who take a "preventative" approach to their practice (something I just did somewhat revently when I changed physicians for the first time is several years).

My insurance company does cover a lot of preventative tests/screening procedures, etc as well as covering actual treatment. I agree most insurance companies keep a tight reign on what it will pay for but I think most also recognize that it’s cheaper, overall, to keep people healthy than to treat them only after they are sick.

I’m suggesting, however, that if people were truly involved in the cost of their healthcare and THEY were deciding what they were going to have done and actually write the check, so to speak, they would make different choices and perhaps decide that maintaining a healthy lifestyle is a good idea! Also, if true free market pressure was brought to bear on the healthcare provider side (because healthcare recipients weren’t so totally insulated from the cost as they are now) we’d see at least a slowing of the almost out of control cost increases we’ve been seeing for many years now.

 

The meeting date was set well before Election Day. You can't just set a date for a meeting involving the leader of the free world, his cabinet, and the heads of 3 monsterous corporations in 6 days.

 

The meeting date was pushed back several times and then was finally held right after the elections.

Since everything in politics has to do with election day, it's reasonable to assume that the white house didn't want prominent business leaders bitching about health care right before people were going to vote.

 

Pretty much any non allopathic provider maintainance. Be it Chiropractic, Homeopathic, or any other non MD provider they aren't covered under the current healthcare model. If they are covered it is only for complaint related care and even then it is more tightly managed than a major and costly surgery.

There is no such thing as a 'preventative' MD. The philosophy of the allopathic practitioners is that the body is what it is until it is impacted by some foreign or outside interference like a bacterium or until something breaks down. Go to your MD and ask them what you should do for your <insert minor complaint here>, when I say minor I mean something like occasional leg pain. They will do 1 of 3 things they will either ask you to come in as it is hurting, wait for it to get worse, or give you some pain killers to take on the spot when it is hurting. They are not taught to seek out the cause of a minor musculo-skeletal complaint. I am not faulting them it is just that their education doesn't teach them about what other providers are taught.

Here is likely what your INS company pays for with no problems as far as preventative maintaininance: yearly physical, 6 month or 1 year OBGYN exam, chloresterol screening if a previous problem has been noted, and a mamogram every few years. They don't cover maintainance on the body like they should because they haven't been shown how it will work in the typical 'scientific' double blind models that you can do with meds that you can't with other forms of treatment, like acupuncture for instance. Basically they are being controlled by things like the AMA and old out dated procedures.

Peopel do get involved. How many people do you know who don't have healthcare insurance? How many people do you know that get regular maintainance or preventative care despite the fact that they have to pay for it out of their own pocket? If you don't know any then I am suprised because a HUGE number of people are in this boat and they take 100% responsibility for their own healthcare. Moreso than I can say for people with cushy insurance that never have more than a $20 copay.

 

I doubt anybody here wants to turn this into a discussion of the relative benefits of non-mainstream (I’m not trying to disparage such treatments or their practitioners – I just can’t think of a better word for them off hand) healthcare such as chiropractic manipulation, homeopathic therapy, acupuncture, etc.

Those areas may well have their benefits but even so, that does not mean we need to expand what traditional health care insurance will cover thereby making the healthcare insurance industry even larger, more intrusive and even more costly.

What I’m suggesting is not an expansion of the broken model western society (primarily the US) has been using for the past 100 years or so but a completely new model where for the most part, “insurance” only steps in for catastrophic/big ticket $ items but everything else is left to the individual recipient…the recipient can decide between a “pill” from a traditional MD to mask the pain or he can go get an adjustment; it will be up to the various practitioners of the various kinds of treatments to convince the customers which treatment they should spend their money on (but it will be their money and not just a middle-man insurance company stepping in and footing the bill.

Now, do I think such a new model will come to pass?

Not likely, especially with “universal healthcare Hillary” back in the driver’s seat come next January…I’m also sure the big 2.5 and the unions will cry to Washington and look for some sort of government bailout (a pain pill perhaps to mask the symptoms) to patch their broken model rather than look for a real “cure” for the ailing patient.

I just happen to think that government involvement is the wrong direction - I don't want Washington to dictate to me how I purchase healthcare or what healthcare I can seek.