GM Loses Another $16 Billion -- Bankrupt?

[Sandman]

It's about twenty years too late to avoid a Thatcherite revolution in the USA. Sure, the car makers have held on for a long time, but that's more a measure of their sheer size and home market.

Thatcher's revolution wasn't just economic, it was cultural as well. I'm not American, so I can't say for sure, but in Britain at least, manufacturing is seen as loser's work. The real money is in money.

How often does American fiction (be it TV, films or books) portray manufacturing as a positive career choice? If it's anything like Britain, your average child will equate 'work' with 'office', and that will be that. The best and brightest will never think for a minute of working in a factory.

[EPW]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Won't happen. They're to big to fail just like the dozens of other bailouts we've seen in recent years.

It's a dangerous precedent to bail out companies that are about to fail.

[Ben Kenobi]

if the US suddenly became sane and had a national system like every other country then that problem would go away and profits would instantly return to most of the old line heavy industry companies.

You want our system? Yes, health care would be free, but you get what you pay for. Everyone who can goes to the US in order to get timely medical care, rather then be number 2001 on the waitlist.

The first thing that would happen is your supply of doctors and nurses would start to dry up because the money is in private care. The ones you have left will be the ones who are less capable, because they would be guaranteed a salary by the state, and wouldn't have to compete against others.

The second thing that would happen, is because demand always exceeds the supply since the price is nothing, is that the medical equipment and investment will deteriorate over time. You won't be able to afford the top quality stuff, so you will get by with whatever you've got available. GPs can't spend a half hour with you, because they've got to care for the other 15 people who showed up, and that's only if you are lucky enough to have a GP.

That it just costs less and provides better care is a bonus.

Costs less? Hardly. It just means that rather then you paying for your own health care, you pay for everyone.

Insurance has always worked best given with widest possible pool to share costs over and nothing is a wider pool then every person in a country

If there is only one customer there is no competition, and suppliers can charge whatever they want. Think about that for a moment. Yes, costs go down, but they also go up because there is no longer any check on the price.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

blind in the face of the obvious... I guess that the rest of the developed world who have nationalized healthcare, every single country spends less on healthcare per capita, and has better services... and you still imagine such scenarios...

btw noone in UK is stopping me from paying for private healthcare insurance if I want to get faster service than what NHS provides...

[Kidlicious]

BK couldn't afford health care in the US, but that doesn't stop him fomr holding such opinions.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
btw noone in UK is stopping me from paying for private healthcare insurance if I want to get faster service than what NHS provides...

He's from a country that does do just that.

[Guynemer]

As a physician, I'm already double and triple booked every 15 minutes under the current system, with long long wait times for new patients and routine check-ups. It simply wouldn't be possible for it to get any worse under national healthcare.

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You want our system? Yes, health care would be free, but you get what you pay for. Everyone who can goes to the US in order to get timely medical care, rather then be number 2001 on the waitlist.

Never been to an emergency room, I see.

But simply as a question of logic, you say below that the price will go up, since "there is no longer any check on price." Since you "get what you pay for," shouldn't that mean that we will get more medical care?

Not that you are right about the price going up of course(see below). But it is a logical inconsistency.

The first thing that would happen is your supply of doctors and nurses would start to dry up because the money is in private care. The ones you have left will be the ones who are less capable, because they would be guaranteed a salary by the state, and wouldn't have to compete against others.

This doesn't seem to happen. Countries with national health care tend to produce so many doctors that they end up exporting them to other countries.

The second thing that would happen, is because demand always exceeds the supply since the price is nothing, is that the medical equipment and investment will deteriorate over time. You won't be able to afford the top quality stuff, so you will get by with whatever you've got available. GPs can't spend a half hour with you, because they've got to care for the other 15 people who showed up, and that's only if you are lucky enough to have a GP.

How would insuring more people decrease the amount of money available for equipment to treat them? All it will do is allow hospitals to use their equipment more efficiently, since it can be used on more people.

Costs less? Hardly. It just means that rather then you paying for your own health care, you pay for everyone.

Well, yeah. On the other hand, everyone else also pays for you.

If there is only one customer there is no competition, and suppliers can charge whatever they want. Think about that for a moment. Yes, costs go down, but they also go up because there is no longer any check on the price.

No. If there is only one customer, then that customer can buy for whatever price he wants.

[Ben Kenobi]

btw noone in UK is stopping me from paying for private healthcare insurance if I want to get faster service than what NHS provides...

That may be the case in the UK. It isn't the case here in Canada, where you cannot jump the queue. The only option is to go south to the US which many do.

[DanS]

As stated earlier, this discussion about health care is too remote from reality. Why would the union car workers settle for universal health care?

[Ben Kenobi]

BK couldn't afford health care in the US, but that doesn't stop him fomr holding such opinions.

Better to not be able to afford care, then to be denied care. You can earn more and buy yourself insurance in the US, whereas if I'm stuck on a list up here, there's nothing I can do.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Better to not be able to afford care, then to be denied care. You can earn more and buy yourself insurance in the US, whereas if I'm stuck on a list up here, there's nothing I can do.

BK fantasy alert! In reality, if you lived in the US you would not be able to afford health care. In reality, everyone in Canada recieves health care.

[Ben Kenobi]

Never been to an emergency room, I see.

Have I? Waited 5 hours I did yes. Left sicker then before came I.

But simply as a question of logic, you say below that the price will go up, since "there is no longer any check on price." Since you "get what you pay for," shouldn't that mean that we will get more medical care?

I am right about the prices since it's more expensive to buy medical equipment up here in Canada then it is for the exact same equipment in the US. Again, single payer means that there is no incentive for the manufacturers to drop prices, because the government will always pay. In a private system, if they as a supplier charge too much, the demand will drop.

This doesn't seem to happen. Countries with national health care tend to produce so many doctors that they end up exporting them to other countries.

We have a severe doctor and nurse shortage up here, because doctors and nurses flee to the US so they can actually make money. You ever hear of brain drain?

How would insuring more people decrease the amount of money available for equipment to treat them?

First, because it's single payer, the suppliers can charge through the nose for medical equipment.

Secondly, if the service is free, the more people who are covered, means that scarce health care resources are spread thinner. If they were paying into it, and paying more then they were taking out I would agree with you, but since they don't pay anything, then the more people you have the worse service you get.

All it will do is allow hospitals to use their equipment more efficiently, since it can be used on more people.

To a certain extent, but it means the prices they pay for each of the equipment will be higher because the supplier can soak the hospitals.

Well, yeah. On the other hand, everyone else also pays for you.

Thank you, but I'd rather pay for myself. Why shouldn't I have that option to opt out if I choose to do so?

No. If there is only one customer, then that customer can buy for whatever price he wants.

Then the suppliers go out of business, which is the other problem. If the government fixes the prices, then the suppliers dry up.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK fantasy alert! In reality, if you lived in the US you would not be able to afford health care. In reality, everyone in Canada recieves health care.

Sure. If you are willing to wait 6 months. I hardly call that timely health care.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sure. If you are willing to wait 6 months. I hardly call that timely health care.

You don't think we have to wait in the US? You don't know what you are talking about. You aren't going to get health care on demand unless you go to an emergency room, and then, believe it or not, you will be seen according to your needs. I've also waited in the emergency room all night.