The title summarizes the article. William McGurn this time, versus
Holman Jenkins.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122818153973071061.html

The Wall Street Journal, 2 December 2008.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
The title summarizes the article. William McGurn this time, versus
Holman Jenkins.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122818153973071061.html

The Wall Street Journal, 2 December 2008.

Joe Gwinn

"A worker who owned and controlled his own plan would not be at the mercy of
business managers and union leaders who agree to cut health benefits as part
of a corporate rescue. And a worker who was unfortunate enough to be laid
off wouldn't have to worry about his family losing their health coverage
along with his job."

Uh...any idea how this witchcraft is supposed to work? If the guy's laid
off, and he's paying for his own health care, how is he going to *pay* for
his health care?

This is quite a plan. "Used in combination with a catastrophic health plan,
they would also be protected from financial ruin." And who is supposed to
pay for this "catastrophic health plan"?

McGurn seems to have a few blind spots. He's saying that GM is not
competitive against car companies in countries that have single-payer health
care paid by taxes, and his solution is to have the workers pay for their
own health care...which is supposed to protect them if they're laid
off...with, one assumes, no income at the time...and they're covered by some
kind of unexplained catastrophic health care plan which makes up the bulk of
the high insurance rates now...hmmmm...

Can the rest of us buy some of whatever McGurn is smoking? Does it require a
prescription? g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

McGurn seems to have a few blind spots. He's saying that GM is not
competitive against car companies in countries that have single-payer health
care paid by taxes, and his solution is to have the workers pay for their
own health care...which is supposed to protect them if they're laid
off...with, one assumes, no income at the time...and they're covered by some
kind of unexplained catastrophic health care plan which makes up the bulk of
the high insurance rates now...hmmmm...

The high cost of medical, as well as retirement benefits is what I hear
most cited as reasons for Detroit's inability to compete. One thing I've
not heard cited is the relative top loading of white collar jobs and top
level management and associated salaries, compared to other car makers.
Not asking you to go do the research, but off hand do you have any ideas
how this might compare?


Jon

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

McGurn seems to have a few blind spots. He's saying that GM is not
competitive against car companies in countries that have single-payer
health care paid by taxes, and his solution is to have the workers pay
for their own health care...which is supposed to protect them if they're
laid off...with, one assumes, no income at the time...and they're covered
by some kind of unexplained catastrophic health care plan which makes up
the bulk of the high insurance rates now...hmmmm...

The high cost of medical, as well as retirement benefits is what I hear
most cited as reasons for Detroit's inability to compete.

That's what we keep hearing, all right. The costs are very high, but I'd
like to see a detailed accounting -- especially against German car makers.
Indications are that it's not really a competitive issue, against them, at
least. There's a lot of piling-on here by the press and I doubt if most of
them know what they're talking about, beyond GM and Chrysler's press
releases.

One thing I've not heard cited is the relative top loading of white collar
jobs and top level management and associated salaries, compared to other
car makers.
Not asking you to go do the research, but off hand do you have any ideas
how this might compare?

Only from a few anecdotes I've seen in the press. On first approximation it
looks more like the same situation we've faced since the '70s: not the level
of salaries so much as the number of them. Detroit apparently still has a
top-heavy management structure.

But it would take some digging. When I was covering car-industry issues in
the metalworking press, it took a lot of time to stay on top of it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"A worker who owned and controlled his own plan would not be at the mercy of
business managers and union leaders who agree to cut health benefits as part
of a corporate rescue. And a worker who was unfortunate enough to be laid
off wouldn't have to worry about his family losing their health coverage
along with his job."

Uh...any idea how this witchcraft is supposed to work? If the guy's laid
off, and he's paying for his own health care, how is he going to *pay* for
his health care?

Well for that matter, if you are permanent reduction in force, how do you pay for
continued health coverage under COBRA? Oh, you save money against a rainy day. Cobra
wasn't an option for me when my employer of 20+ years folded so I fell on the insurer of
last resort in my state that had to take me because I had a paper that said group
insurance wasn't available under Cobra (former employer was in bankruptcy and self
insured).

Currently we have a system consisting of Cobra and the fallback I paid into for 8 months
while I was out of work. Failing to maintain continuous group coverage scares the chit
out of me. That preexisting condition bravo sierra can kill you.

When you are working, don't spend everything you earn. I don't care what you make, I bet
I can find someone getting by on less because they have to. You may have to provide for
yourself and family.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"A worker who owned and controlled his own plan would not be at the mercy
of
business managers and union leaders who agree to cut health benefits as
part
of a corporate rescue. And a worker who was unfortunate enough to be laid
off wouldn't have to worry about his family losing their health coverage
along with his job."

Uh...any idea how this witchcraft is supposed to work? If the guy's laid
off, and he's paying for his own health care, how is he going to *pay* for
his health care?

Well for that matter, if you are permanent reduction in force, how do you
pay for
continued health coverage under COBRA?

By robbing all your piggy banks. I was paying a COBRA plan at the rate of
$12,500/year (family of three), a year ago last summer. I felt like I'd
opened a vein. And I'd be paying the same right now if not for my wife's
plan.

It's murder for people who are unemployed or self-employed at a moderate
rate of income.

Oh, you save money against a rainy day. Cobra
wasn't an option for me when my employer of 20+ years folded so I fell on
the insurer of
last resort in my state that had to take me because I had a paper that
said group
insurance wasn't available under Cobra (former employer was in bankruptcy
and self
insured).

Currently we have a system consisting of Cobra and the fallback I paid
into for 8 months
while I was out of work. Failing to maintain continuous group coverage
scares the chit
out of me. That preexisting condition bravo sierra can kill you.

For three years I couldn't get insurance at ANY price because of it. And I
was only 31 years old at the time. Now, even without COBRA, I'd be in a
statewide pool. But the rate would be higher than $12,500 for a family of
three.

When you are working, don't spend everything you earn. I don't care what
you make, I bet
I can find someone getting by on less because they have to. You may have
to provide for
yourself and family.

We may in the end. But I think we'll have universal coverage in this
country...about the time I kick the bucket. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:08:34 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Only from a few anecdotes I've seen in the press. On first approximation it
looks more like the same situation we've faced since the '70s: not the level
of salaries so much as the number of them. Detroit apparently still has a
top-heavy management structure.

Thanks, that's really what I suspected...


Jon

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well for that matter, if you are permanent reduction in force, how do you
pay for
continued health coverage under COBRA?

By robbing all your piggy banks. I was paying a COBRA plan at the rate of
$12,500/year (family of three), a year ago last summer. I felt like I'd
opened a vein. And I'd be paying the same right now if not for my wife's
plan.

It's murder for people who are unemployed or self-employed at a moderate
rate of income.

Yes it is but as badly as I need a home, car, and healthcare I pay for it myself and don't
ask you or others to do so. Even though I don't actually write the check for my health
care plan atm, it comes out of my compensation pool.

Health care costs real money. Some we can argue is wasted. I'll never try to tell you
our health care / litigation system is efficient. There are a lot of resources wasted.

When you get down to nothing the government steps in via Medicaid. For someone with
nothing, life as usual, someone that busted arse and is driven into the dirt that has to
hurt like hell.

So what is the balance? If government provides healthcare it will be at a level. It
likely won't be at a level that will pay for your heart transplant if you need it. It
will be average health care. Or will it be the two level system, peons and those with
resources?

I think some people that support national health care think they are going to get the gold
plated health care a CEO of a Fortune 100 or a Senator gets. No, I think it will be
closer to health care in a welfare state.


Oh, you save money against a rainy day. Cobra
wasn't an option for me when my employer of 20+ years folded so I fell on
the insurer of
last resort in my state that had to take me because I had a paper that
said group
insurance wasn't available under Cobra (former employer was in bankruptcy
and self
insured).

Currently we have a system consisting of Cobra and the fallback I paid
into for 8 months
while I was out of work. Failing to maintain continuous group coverage
scares the chit
out of me. That preexisting condition bravo sierra can kill you.

For three years I couldn't get insurance at ANY price because of it. And I
was only 31 years old at the time. Now, even without COBRA, I'd be in a
statewide pool. But the rate would be higher than $12,500 for a family of
three.

I know that sucks. That is where the idea of mandating coverage as in you got to buy it,
even if you don't want it at a young age comes in. I'm a free market type, if you haven't
noticed. Insurance companies want good risks or they want to price risk.

Most everyone needs a car to get to work. Convicted drunk drivers need insurance to be
able to drive a car. They can get it but the risk is priced in. By the standards of
current schemes that we all have to have insurance w/o any notice of risks that drunk
driver should get insurance at the same rates I have with a clean driving record.



When you are working, don't spend everything you earn. I don't care what
you make, I bet
I can find someone getting by on less because they have to. You may have
to provide for
yourself and family.

We may in the end. But I think we'll have universal coverage in this
country...about the time I kick the bucket. d8-)


I don't know how old you are but I have a feeling we will be on our way in some form in
the next 4 years. A mess created by government will now only be able to be solved by
government. Sounds like the financial crisis as I reflect on my previous sentence.

I'm planning to hang on until I get my money back from my SS payments. I just hope my
brain and body holds up for the next 15 years so I can retire. I hope you are not looking
the reaper in the face, I'd really miss you.


Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Only from a few anecdotes I've seen in the press. On first approximation it
looks more like the same situation we've faced since the '70s: not the level
of salaries so much as the number of them. Detroit apparently still has a
top-heavy management structure.

And bottom heavy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4645741.shtml

Wes

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:41:01 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Only from a few anecdotes I've seen in the press. On first approximation it
looks more like the same situation we've faced since the '70s: not the level
of salaries so much as the number of them. Detroit apparently still has a
top-heavy management structure.

And bottom heavy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4645741.shtml

Dayam, what a racket. Who said the unions weren't mob-run?

--
Smell is a potent wizard that transports you across
thousands of miles and all the years you have lived.
-- Helen Keller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well for that matter, if you are permanent reduction in force, how do
you
pay for
continued health coverage under COBRA?

By robbing all your piggy banks. I was paying a COBRA plan at the rate of
$12,500/year (family of three), a year ago last summer. I felt like I'd
opened a vein. And I'd be paying the same right now if not for my wife's
plan.

It's murder for people who are unemployed or self-employed at a moderate
rate of income.

Yes it is but as badly as I need a home, car, and healthcare I pay for it
myself and don't
ask you or others to do so. Even though I don't actually write the check
for my health
care plan atm, it comes out of my compensation pool.

Health care costs real money. Some we can argue is wasted. I'll never
try to tell you
our health care / litigation system is efficient. There are a lot of
resources wasted.

When you get down to nothing the government steps in via Medicaid. For
someone with
nothing, life as usual, someone that busted arse and is driven into the
dirt that has to
hurt like hell.

So what is the balance? If government provides healthcare it will be at a
level. It
likely won't be at a level that will pay for your heart transplant if you
need it. It
will be average health care. Or will it be the two level system, peons
and those with
resources?

Most of the models that have been considered by policymakers in the US leave
open the opportunity for private care and private insurance. We have a
medical center near here (Princeton Longevity Center) that's basically for
rich people. Insurance either covers none of it, or only a small portion. I
understand that they have a lot of business.

I doubt if the US would, at least in our lifetimes, impose a fixed level of
care on everyone, if they can pay for it themselves. So, yes, I expect a
two-tier system.


I think some people that support national health care think they are going
to get the gold
plated health care a CEO of a Fortune 100 or a Senator gets. No, I think
it will be
closer to health care in a welfare state.

But which welfare state? Some of them are very effective. Almost all of them
in the developed world produce much better outcomes than ours does. They're
weaker on certain kinds of extreme critical care, but vastly better on
preventive and early care.

This is a complex subject, and I have no desire to go around on it again. I
just did that a few months ago. d8-)



Oh, you save money against a rainy day. Cobra
wasn't an option for me when my employer of 20+ years folded so I fell
on
the insurer of
last resort in my state that had to take me because I had a paper that
said group
insurance wasn't available under Cobra (former employer was in
bankruptcy
and self
insured).

Currently we have a system consisting of Cobra and the fallback I paid
into for 8 months
while I was out of work. Failing to maintain continuous group coverage
scares the chit
out of me. That preexisting condition bravo sierra can kill you.

For three years I couldn't get insurance at ANY price because of it. And I
was only 31 years old at the time. Now, even without COBRA, I'd be in a
statewide pool. But the rate would be higher than $12,500 for a family of
three.

I know that sucks. That is where the idea of mandating coverage as in you
got to buy it,
even if you don't want it at a young age comes in. I'm a free market
type, if you haven't
noticed. Insurance companies want good risks or they want to price risk.

Most everyone needs a car to get to work. Convicted drunk drivers need
insurance to be
able to drive a car. They can get it but the risk is priced in. By the
standards of
current schemes that we all have to have insurance w/o any notice of risks
that drunk
driver should get insurance at the same rates I have with a clean driving
record.

This is a conversation that quickly cuts to the chase when you have it
face-to-face, but it's never-ending in Usenet postings. Here's where it
winds up: You would change your mind in a heartbeat if you or a family
member faced a big hospital bill and you found your insurance cancelled
after the hospital submitted (and was paid for) its first bill. If you treat
health insurance on a free-market basis, that's exactly what would happen.

Health care insurance is not like car insurance. Treating it on a
free-market basis, in the end, raises one key question: How barbaric do you
want your society to be?




When you are working, don't spend everything you earn. I don't care
what
you make, I bet
I can find someone getting by on less because they have to. You may
have
to provide for
yourself and family.

We may in the end. But I think we'll have universal coverage in this
country...about the time I kick the bucket. d8-)


I don't know how old you are...

60.

...but I have a feeling we will be on our way in some form in
the next 4 years. A mess created by government will now only be able to
be solved by
government. Sounds like the financial crisis as I reflect on my previous
sentence.

This mess wasn't created by government. You may recall that the insurance
industry was my audience for over four years; my employer's clients'
customers; the ones for whom I wrote marketing campaigns (I did more of that
at the end than editing). I know how they work, and I know that the idea one
can make private insurance produce the socially intended result while it
operates largely on market principles is completely insane. There are few
other examples in our economy of such cockeyed misplacement of market
forces. Nothing could make it worse except eliminating the government
controls on the industry.

The incentive for the insurance industry is to deny coverage as much as
possible, not to supply it. Its ideal customer is one who is always healthy
until, when the end comes, has the good manners to die on the spot, before
an ambulance can arrive. If you do get sick, their incentive is to raise
your rates as much as the law will allow and then to supply only enough care
that you're able to continue to pay your insurance bills.

Like most things regarding markets, you can see how the market forces work
in a particular business by analyzing the structure of incentives. I'm not
talking about how they actually have to operate; I'm talking about where the
incentives are that would make them more profitable. Those incentives are
the things that guide the direction in which they're alway pulling, the
underlying, usually unstated and often unrecognized goals that their
financial self-interest leads to. In a business suited to free markets, the
incentives align with multiple interests and everybody wins. In one that's
not, somebody loses. In the case of health care insurance, the loser is the
insured. If there were real competition at work and if an essential
ingredient in free-market competition -- perfect information available to
the customer -- wasn't so easy to hide and obscure, the industry would
hobble along, grudgingly producing a better result. But they're not.

There is nothing you or anyone can do to fix it. Its frame is broken, it
always has been, and it only became apparent as advancing medical technology
began to raise prices so much that insurance companies' margins were placed
under scrutiny and exposed, giving rise to "managed" care, which is a
metaphor for denying more coverage than regular fee-for-service insurance
did. The health care insurance industry is FUBAR.

I'm planning to hang on until I get my money back from my SS payments. I
just hope my
brain and body holds up for the next 15 years so I can retire. I hope you
are not looking
the reaper in the face, I'd really miss you.

Nah, I'm holding him at bay. By family averages I probably have another good
15 - 20 years left.

I'd miss you, too.

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote:

And bottom heavy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4645741.shtml

Dayam, what a racket. Who said the unions weren't mob-run?

Detroit's failing is going to be the lever that gets us into national health care. That
will let them unload the retired workers health care costs. I also have a feeling that
the pension plans are going to get unloaded on government and automatically trimmed. That
government program for failed pension plans does not pay out 100%.

After that, the next piece is using the transplants pay model for front office and plant
floor as the standard.

That is my opinion. Anyone think I might be right?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Larry Jaques wrote:

And bottom heavy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4645741.shtml

Dayam, what a racket. Who said the unions weren't mob-run?

Detroit's failing is going to be the lever that gets us into national
health care. That
will let them unload the retired workers health care costs.

They have already done that on their own Wes.
Retirees over the age of 65 are off GM's books as of Jaunary the second.

JC

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

So what is the balance? If government provides healthcare it will be at a
level. It
likely won't be at a level that will pay for your heart transplant if you
need it. It
will be average health care. Or will it be the two level system, peons
and those with
resources?

Most of the models that have been considered by policymakers in the US leave
open the opportunity for private care and private insurance. We have a
medical center near here (Princeton Longevity Center) that's basically for
rich people. Insurance either covers none of it, or only a small portion. I
understand that they have a lot of business.

Canada didn't leave that option open but if I have not been seduced by propaganda, they
turn the blind eye to private care and insurance.

I doubt if the US would, at least in our lifetimes, impose a fixed level of
care on everyone, if they can pay for it themselves. So, yes, I expect a
two-tier system.

I agree.



I think some people that support national health care think they are going
to get the gold
plated health care a CEO of a Fortune 100 or a Senator gets. No, I think
it will be
closer to health care in a welfare state.

But which welfare state? Some of them are very effective. Almost all of them
in the developed world produce much better outcomes than ours does. They're
weaker on certain kinds of extreme critical care, but vastly better on
preventive and early care.

This is where it gets thorny. I'm a Everyman for himself type of guy that recognizes that
if misfortune hits me I need help. How we strike the balance is the policy issue. Price
it right, make sure deadbeats are not in the pool and I'll pony up money against
misadventure or bad health.

I likely trimmed too much. Sorry.


This is a complex subject, and I have no desire to go around on it again. I
just did that a few months ago. d8-)

It is hideously complex. And since life is riding on it, it is very personal. I can be
pragmatic on the Detroit thing but screw that when it comes to me living another day.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

So what is the balance? If government provides healthcare it will be at
a
level. It
likely won't be at a level that will pay for your heart transplant if
you
need it. It
will be average health care. Or will it be the two level system, peons
and those with
resources?

Most of the models that have been considered by policymakers in the US
leave
open the opportunity for private care and private insurance. We have a
medical center near here (Princeton Longevity Center) that's basically for
rich people. Insurance either covers none of it, or only a small portion.
I
understand that they have a lot of business.

Canada didn't leave that option open but if I have not been seduced by
propaganda, they
turn the blind eye to private care and insurance.

I doubt if the US would, at least in our lifetimes, impose a fixed level
of
care on everyone, if they can pay for it themselves. So, yes, I expect a
two-tier system.

I agree.



I think some people that support national health care think they are
going
to get the gold
plated health care a CEO of a Fortune 100 or a Senator gets. No, I
think
it will be
closer to health care in a welfare state.

But which welfare state? Some of them are very effective. Almost all of
them
in the developed world produce much better outcomes than ours does.
They're
weaker on certain kinds of extreme critical care, but vastly better on
preventive and early care.

This is where it gets thorny. I'm a Everyman for himself type of guy that
recognizes that
if misfortune hits me I need help. How we strike the balance is the
policy issue. Price
it right, make sure deadbeats are not in the pool and I'll pony up money
against
misadventure or bad health.

I likely trimmed too much. Sorry.


This is a complex subject, and I have no desire to go around on it again.
I
just did that a few months ago. d8-)

It is hideously complex. And since life is riding on it, it is very
personal. I can be
pragmatic on the Detroit thing but screw that when it comes to me living
another day.

There ya' go. And that fact is the root of the dilemma. It's what makes it
something to which normal market forces just don't apply.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:06:21 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:

And bottom heavy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4645741.shtml

Dayam, what a racket. Who said the unions weren't mob-run?

Detroit's failing is going to be the lever that gets us into national health care. That
will let them unload the retired workers health care costs. I also have a feeling that
the pension plans are going to get unloaded on government and automatically trimmed. That
government program for failed pension plans does not pay out 100%.

After that, the next piece is using the transplants pay model for front office and plant
floor as the standard.

That is my opinion. Anyone think I might be right?

You can rest assured that the upcoming Secretary of State will push
for it with whatever leverage she can muster from afar.

--
Smell is a potent wizard that transports you across
thousands of miles and all the years you have lived.
-- Helen Keller

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Detroit's failing is going to be the lever that gets us into national
health care. That
will let them unload the retired workers health care costs.

They have already done that on their own Wes.
Retirees over the age of 65 are off GM's books as of Jaunary the second.

Are all the 30 and out types 65 yet?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Detroit's failing is going to be the lever that gets us into national
health care. That
will let them unload the retired workers health care costs.

They have already done that on their own Wes.
Retirees over the age of 65 are off GM's books as of Jaunary the second.

Are all the 30 and out types 65 yet?

I don't know Wes.

J

In article ,
Wes wrote:

This is where it gets thorny. I'm a Everyman for himself type of guy that
recognizes that
if misfortune hits me I need help. How we strike the balance is the policy
issue. Price
it right, make sure deadbeats are not in the pool and I'll pony up money
against
misadventure or bad health.

About the only way to keep deadbeats out of the pool is to have it
financed & operated locally, like a church charity.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **