"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

. ..







"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe



Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

Of the 10 or so UAW members that I know personally, about half intend to
retire at age 50 or younger. The others won't work beyond 55. That leaves
an average of 23 years during which those retired employees will be draining
the auto companies' profits with zero productivity.

So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez isn't
our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this socialist health
care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of course business will be
footing the bill (and probably the middle class, as usual). Hillary's plan
in the early 90s assumed that most business would be paying more in taxes to
cover "universal health care" than they were paying for covering their
employees under their current plans. Wow, that makes a lot of sense.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

. ..







"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe



Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

Of the 10 or so UAW members that I know personally, about half intend to
retire at age 50 or younger. The others won't work beyond 55. That
leaves an average of 23 years during which those retired employees will be
draining the auto companies' profits with zero productivity.

So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez isn't
our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this socialist
health care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of course business
will be footing the bill (and probably the middle class, as usual).
Hillary's plan in the early 90s assumed that most business would be paying
more in taxes to cover "universal health care" than they were paying for
covering their employees under their current plans. Wow, that makes a lot
of sense.

Max



We have plenty of money and creativity to find a way to insure the 47
million people. If we can't do that, we don't deserve our status at the top
of the heap.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

. ..







"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe



Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

Of the 10 or so UAW members that I know personally, about half intend to
retire at age 50 or younger. The others won't work beyond 55. That
leaves an average of 23 years during which those retired employees will
be draining the auto companies' profits with zero productivity.

So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez
isn't our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this
socialist health care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of course
business will be footing the bill (and probably the middle class, as
usual). Hillary's plan in the early 90s assumed that most business would
be paying more in taxes to cover "universal health care" than they were
paying for covering their employees under their current plans. Wow, that
makes a lot of sense.

Max



We have plenty of money and creativity to find a way to insure the 47
million people. If we can't do that, we don't deserve our status at the
top of the heap.

We could probably have insured the masses for decades with the money spent
on the Iraq war. That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

. ..







"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe



Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that
were reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at
the knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a
solution... universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto
industry can recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

Of the 10 or so UAW members that I know personally, about half intend to
retire at age 50 or younger. The others won't work beyond 55. That
leaves an average of 23 years during which those retired employees will
be draining the auto companies' profits with zero productivity.

So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez
isn't our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this
socialist health care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of
course business will be footing the bill (and probably the middle class,
as usual). Hillary's plan in the early 90s assumed that most business
would be paying more in taxes to cover "universal health care" than they
were paying for covering their employees under their current plans.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense.

Max



We have plenty of money and creativity to find a way to insure the 47
million people. If we can't do that, we don't deserve our status at the
top of the heap.

We could probably have insured the masses for decades with the money spent
on the Iraq war. That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max

I don't think there's anyone here who's in favor of that. Still, we should
be able to ensure that all are insured.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mon, 21 May 2007 04:28:33 +0000, Maxprop wrote:


So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez
isn't our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this
socialist health care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of
course business will be footing the bill (and probably the middle class,
as usual). Hillary's plan in the early 90s assumed that most business
would be paying more in taxes to cover "universal health care" than they
were paying for covering their employees under their current plans.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense.

Who do you think is financing our health care now? That's right
business. Our health care system is running upwards of 15% GDP. Other
countries with "universal health care" pay around 10% GDP, or less. It
seems to me, that 5% is quite a disadvantage in the global market place.
It's no wonder our car companies are expanding their operations in
Canada, where there is "universal health care", at the same time they are
closing plants here.

"Failing to address the health care crisis would be the worst kind of
procrastination, the kind that places our children and our grandchildren
at risk and threatens the health and global competitiveness of our
nation's economy." That wasn't Chavez speaking. That was the CEO of
General Motors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb10.html