"Boater" wrote in message
...


What if he didn't have a pension through the union?

What if the pension he had through his union was very small?

What if the employer with whom his union negotiated a pension
completely or partially welched on the pension and he's only getting part
of what was agreed to, and only because of the pension guarantee agency?
That happens frequently.

Or are you saying retired union members without pensions should be able to
have their health care paid through the general fund of the union?

Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent
medical bills in his family.

Most middle income retirees are not that "Fixed" well enough to be able to
handle the costs of serious surgery or an extended hospital stay.

In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired
has very little to do with "personal responsibility."


Harry, being in my last year as an older, young man (59), I've started
looking into health care plans, etc. for Mrs.E. and I for our future as
younger, old people. As a start, I looked at my parents to see how they
dealt with it.

My parents were far from being wealthy. When my father died back in 1999
at age 74, he had a very modest pension from the company he had worked for,
plus social security. They had a small amount of money (about 22k) invested
in a money market account and a house with an outstanding mortgage of about
40K. My mother, who is still alive, has progressive MS and requires
regular health care.
When he died, the house was sold and she lived in one of the investment
houses that we had purchased until her condition required more care than we
could provide. She recently moved into a brand new, very nice assisted
living facility in Plymouth. She loves it there and has all kinds of new
friends with common interests.

She is doing very well under Medicare and an affordable supplimental plan
that my father had set up before he died. Her total income is about 2k per
month now, but her total health care premium is only about 200 bucks.

We help out once in a while to assist with items that insurance won't cover
(we recently bought her a new powered wheelchair) BTW ... she pays for the
assisted living as well. There is a little known veterans benefit program
for vets or surviving spouses that provides an additional $1k per month to
help with assisted living or nursing home costs.

My point is .... I think they are very representative of lower middle class
citizens, but with proper planning and assuming responsibility for your
future, it's not impossible to survive, be secure and happy.
She is in no danger of her health problems "wiping her out".

I suspect a retired UAW employee is probably in much better financial shape
than my parents.

Eisboch

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:42:01 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php

I'd also point out, that in the last contract, the UAW made
considerable concessions, including assuming health care costs via a
trust, setting up a two-tiered wage scale, and a freeze on wages.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-uaw-wed_N.htm


I read the first link several times, but could not determine if the 10%
"labor cost" figure includes funding retired members health plans.

The second link gives a clue. I don't think it does. The negotiated
trust fund at GM requires GM to put up an initial 20 something billion
dollars in the trust, plus make up to 20 additional payments of 160
million each to keep it solvent.

Also, look at the distribution of people getting benefits. Retired
employees make up the bulk of the costs, by far.

The auto industry has identified retired health plan benefits payments
as a major, singular reason for the current financial problems.

I have a little bit of a problem understanding the concept that
"everyone is entitled to free healthcare". Please note the word "free"
in that statement. I believe everyone should be entitled and have
access to health care at a cost that is affordable for them. Health
care is a basic human need, just like food and housing, but it's not a
freebie that one gets simply because they exist. I have no problem
paying more for my health plan if I can afford to in order to give
access to health care for someone else who can't afford it, but I don't
think making it "free" for everybody will work. There is no such thing
as "free".

Of course, health care will never be "free", but it's a question of who
will bear the costs. As we have it set up now, it's business. That puts
us at quite a competitive disadvantage in the global market place. I'd
also point out, many who think they are insured, are, only as long as
they are working. Have a long term illness, that puts you out of work,
and it's bye, bye, health insurance. 1/2 of personal bankruptcies, are
illness/medical bill related.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...tcy_study.html


If the costs are placed on the individual, few could survive the economic
catastrophe of a major illness. Personally, I look at universal health
care as one giant health insurance pool, without the 1/3 waste present in
for profit health insurance industry. Of course, it isn't free, but it
is cheaper. We spend over 15% GDP on health care. Most countries with
universal health care spend @10%. Again, that 5% is a competitive
disadvantage on our businesses.

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

What if he didn't have a pension through the union?

What if the pension he had through his union was very small?

What if the employer with whom his union negotiated a pension
completely or partially welched on the pension and he's only getting part
of what was agreed to, and only because of the pension guarantee agency?
That happens frequently.

Or are you saying retired union members without pensions should be able to
have their health care paid through the general fund of the union?

Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent
medical bills in his family.

Most middle income retirees are not that "Fixed" well enough to be able to
handle the costs of serious surgery or an extended hospital stay.

In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired
has very little to do with "personal responsibility."


Harry, being in my last year as an older, young man (59), I've started
looking into health care plans, etc. for Mrs.E. and I for our future as
younger, old people. As a start, I looked at my parents to see how they
dealt with it.

My parents were far from being wealthy. When my father died back in 1999
at age 74, he had a very modest pension from the company he had worked for,
plus social security. They had a small amount of money (about 22k) invested
in a money market account and a house with an outstanding mortgage of about
40K. My mother, who is still alive, has progressive MS and requires
regular health care.
When he died, the house was sold and she lived in one of the investment
houses that we had purchased until her condition required more care than we
could provide. She recently moved into a brand new, very nice assisted
living facility in Plymouth. She loves it there and has all kinds of new
friends with common interests.

She is doing very well under Medicare and an affordable supplimental plan
that my father had set up before he died. Her total income is about 2k per
month now, but her total health care premium is only about 200 bucks.

We help out once in a while to assist with items that insurance won't cover
(we recently bought her a new powered wheelchair) BTW ... she pays for the
assisted living as well. There is a little known veterans benefit program
for vets or surviving spouses that provides an additional $1k per month to
help with assisted living or nursing home costs.

My point is .... I think they are very representative of lower middle class
citizens, but with proper planning and assuming responsibility for your
future, it's not impossible to survive, be secure and happy.
She is in no danger of her health problems "wiping her out".

I suspect a retired UAW employee is probably in much better financial shape
than my parents.

Eisboch



I suspect that GM and Ford and Chrysler are going to wiggle out of their
pension obligations. If I recall, they have huge unfunded liabilities.

Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:38:41 -0500, Boater
wrote:

One more time: most retirees on fixed incomes cannot afford to lay
out $2300 for necessary surgery. You're a rich retiree. Your
perspective is not relevant to retirees who are trying to decide
whether to buy food or medicine because they cannot afford both.

It's called personal responsibility - something that is sorely lacking
in post-modern society.

However, let's take your posit and extend it a little bit. Why should
the working union man who retires have to rely on the public dole for
health care? Why can't he rely on his Union to help him - he was a
Union man his entire life, made a good living, maybe lived to his
economic ability without saving for future rainy days - he lived the
good life with the Union, why not rely on the Union to help him
continue that life?


What if he didn't have a pension through the union?

Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the
union looking out for its members?

What if the pension he had through his union was very small?

Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable
him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired? Why
wasn't the union looking out for its members?

What if the employer with whom his union negotiated a pension
completely or partially welched on the pension and he's only getting
part of what was agreed to, and only because of the pension guarantee
agency? That happens frequently.

The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the guys
pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon the
union management to look out for him and union management failed him.

Or are you saying retired union members without pensions should be able
to have their health care paid through the general fund of the union?

Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not going
to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their working
life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from having them
as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep tossing money
into the union coffers the retired union members get kicked to the curb.

Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent
medical bills in his family.

Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have
insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is
purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member aware
of this situation and how the union member could protect themselves. Or,
why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy, they could get great
rates for their members.

Most middle income retirees are not that "Fixed" well enough to be able
to handle the costs of serious surgery or an extended hospital stay.

See response above.

In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired
has very little to do with "personal responsibility."

It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:38:41 -0500, Boater
wrote:

One more time: most retirees on fixed incomes cannot afford to lay
out $2300 for necessary surgery. You're a rich retiree. Your
perspective is not relevant to retirees who are trying to decide
whether to buy food or medicine because they cannot afford both.

It's called personal responsibility - something that is sorely lacking
in post-modern society.

However, let's take your posit and extend it a little bit. Why should
the working union man who retires have to rely on the public dole for
health care? Why can't he rely on his Union to help him - he was a
Union man his entire life, made a good living, maybe lived to his
economic ability without saving for future rainy days - he lived the
good life with the Union, why not rely on the Union to help him
continue that life?


What if he didn't have a pension through the union?

Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the
union looking out for its members?

What if the pension he had through his union was very small?

Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable
him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired? Why
wasn't the union looking out for its members?

What if the employer with whom his union negotiated a pension
completely or partially welched on the pension and he's only getting
part of what was agreed to, and only because of the pension guarantee
agency? That happens frequently.

The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the guys
pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon the
union management to look out for him and union management failed him.

Or are you saying retired union members without pensions should be
able to have their health care paid through the general fund of the
union?

Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not going
to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their working
life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from having them
as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep tossing money
into the union coffers the retired union members get kicked to the curb.

Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent
medical bills in his family.

Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have
insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is
purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member aware
of this situation and how the union member could protect themselves. Or,
why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy, they could get great
rates for their members.

Most middle income retirees are not that "Fixed" well enough to be
able to handle the costs of serious surgery or an extended hospital stay.

See response above.

In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are
retired has very little to do with "personal responsibility."

It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility.




You obviously are not someone to be taken seriously.

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:38:41 -0500, Boater
wrote:

One more time: most retirees on fixed incomes cannot afford to lay
out $2300 for necessary surgery. You're a rich retiree. Your
perspective is not relevant to retirees who are trying to decide
whether to buy food or medicine because they cannot afford both.

It's called personal responsibility - something that is sorely lacking
in post-modern society.

However, let's take your posit and extend it a little bit. Why should
the working union man who retires have to rely on the public dole for
health care? Why can't he rely on his Union to help him - he was a
Union man his entire life, made a good living, maybe lived to his
economic ability without saving for future rainy days - he lived the
good life with the Union, why not rely on the Union to help him
continue that life?


What if he didn't have a pension through the union?

Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the
union looking out for its members?

What if the pension he had through his union was very small?

Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable
him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired?
Why wasn't the union looking out for its members?

What if the employer with whom his union negotiated a pension
completely or partially welched on the pension and he's only getting
part of what was agreed to, and only because of the pension guarantee
agency? That happens frequently.

The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the
guys pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon
the union management to look out for him and union management failed him.

Or are you saying retired union members without pensions should be
able to have their health care paid through the general fund of the
union?

Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not
going to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their
working life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from
having them as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep
tossing money into the union coffers the retired union members get
kicked to the curb.

Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent
medical bills in his family.

Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have
insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is
purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member
aware of this situation and how the union member could protect
themselves. Or, why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy,
they could get great rates for their members.

Most middle income retirees are not that "Fixed" well enough to be
able to handle the costs of serious surgery or an extended hospital
stay.

See response above.

In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are
retired has very little to do with "personal responsibility."

It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility.




You obviously are not someone to be taken seriously.

Why?

What does the union do for the dues that the union collects from its
members? It seems that the only thing the union is good at doing is
collecting dues and make threats about going on strike.

"BAR" wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:38:41 -0500, Boater
wrote:

One more time: most retirees on fixed incomes cannot afford to lay
out $2300 for necessary surgery. You're a rich retiree. Your
perspective is not relevant to retirees who are trying to decide
whether to buy food or medicine because they cannot afford both.

It's called personal responsibility - something that is sorely lacking
in post-modern society.

However, let's take your posit and extend it a little bit. Why should
the working union man who retires have to rely on the public dole for
health care? Why can't he rely on his Union to help him - he was a
Union man his entire life, made a good living, maybe lived to his
economic ability without saving for future rainy days - he lived the
good life with the Union, why not rely on the Union to help him
continue that life?


What if he didn't have a pension through the union?

Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the
union looking out for its members?

What if the pension he had through his union was very small?

Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable
him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired? Why
wasn't the union looking out for its members?

What if the employer with whom his union negotiated a pension
completely or partially welched on the pension and he's only getting
part of what was agreed to, and only because of the pension guarantee
agency? That happens frequently.

The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the guys
pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon the
union management to look out for him and union management failed him.

Or are you saying retired union members without pensions should be able
to have their health care paid through the general fund of the union?

Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not going
to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their working
life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from having them
as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep tossing money
into the union coffers the retired union members get kicked to the curb.

Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent
medical bills in his family.

Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have
insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is
purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member aware
of this situation and how the union member could protect themselves. Or,
why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy, they could get great
rates for their members.

Most middle income retirees are not that "Fixed" well enough to be able
to handle the costs of serious surgery or an extended hospital stay.

See response above.

In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired
has very little to do with "personal responsibility."

It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility.




You obviously are not someone to be taken seriously.

Why?

What does the union do for the dues that the union collects from its
members? It seems that the only thing the union is good at doing is
collecting dues and make threats about going on strike.

Amazes me that someone who knows so little can talk so much about a given
subject.

Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:38:41 -0500, Boater
wrote:

One more time: most retirees on fixed incomes cannot afford to lay
out $2300 for necessary surgery. You're a rich retiree. Your
perspective is not relevant to retirees who are trying to decide
whether to buy food or medicine because they cannot afford both.
It's called personal responsibility - something that is sorely lacking
in post-modern society.

However, let's take your posit and extend it a little bit. Why should
the working union man who retires have to rely on the public dole for
health care? Why can't he rely on his Union to help him - he was a
Union man his entire life, made a good living, maybe lived to his
economic ability without saving for future rainy days - he lived the
good life with the Union, why not rely on the Union to help him
continue that life?

What if he didn't have a pension through the union?
Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the
union looking out for its members?

What if the pension he had through his union was very small?
Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable
him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired? Why
wasn't the union looking out for its members?

What if the employer with whom his union negotiated a pension
completely or partially welched on the pension and he's only getting
part of what was agreed to, and only because of the pension guarantee
agency? That happens frequently.
The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the guys
pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon the
union management to look out for him and union management failed him.

Or are you saying retired union members without pensions should be able
to have their health care paid through the general fund of the union?
Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not going
to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their working
life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from having them
as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep tossing money
into the union coffers the retired union members get kicked to the curb.

Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent
medical bills in his family.
Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have
insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is
purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member aware
of this situation and how the union member could protect themselves. Or,
why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy, they could get great
rates for their members.

Most middle income retirees are not that "Fixed" well enough to be able
to handle the costs of serious surgery or an extended hospital stay.
See response above.

In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are retired
has very little to do with "personal responsibility."
It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility.



You obviously are not someone to be taken seriously.
Why?

What does the union do for the dues that the union collects from its
members? It seems that the only thing the union is good at doing is
collecting dues and make threats about going on strike.

Amazes me that someone who knows so little can talk so much about a given
subject.

It amazes me that someone who worked for a union all his life can't say
what the union actually did for him for all of the union dues the union
pulled out of his paycheck for all of those years?

"BAR" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:38:41 -0500, Boater
wrote:

One more time: most retirees on fixed incomes cannot afford to lay
out $2300 for necessary surgery. You're a rich retiree. Your
perspective is not relevant to retirees who are trying to decide
whether to buy food or medicine because they cannot afford both.
It's called personal responsibility - something that is sorely
lacking
in post-modern society.

However, let's take your posit and extend it a little bit. Why
should
the working union man who retires have to rely on the public dole
for
health care? Why can't he rely on his Union to help him - he was a
Union man his entire life, made a good living, maybe lived to his
economic ability without saving for future rainy days - he lived the
good life with the Union, why not rely on the Union to help him
continue that life?

What if he didn't have a pension through the union?
Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension? Why wasn't the
union looking out for its members?

What if the pension he had through his union was very small?
Why didn't the union see to it that he had a pension that would enable
him to continue to live at the same quality of life when he retired?
Why wasn't the union looking out for its members?

What if the employer with whom his union negotiated a pension
completely or partially welched on the pension and he's only getting
part of what was agreed to, and only because of the pension guarantee
agency? That happens frequently.
The union screwed up and should take it on the chin and pay for the
guys pension out of the unions treasury. The union member relied upon
the union management to look out for him and union management failed
him.

Or are you saying retired union members without pensions should be
able to have their health care paid through the general fund of the
union?
Yes. What other purpose is there in being in a union if it is not
going to lookout for the general welfare of its members through their
working life and into retirement. The union derived a benefit from
having them as a member. But, it appears that when they can't keep
tossing money into the union coffers the retired union members get
kicked to the curb.

Or maybe he did save enough, but he's been nearly wiped out by recent
medical bills in his family.
Happens to union and non union people all of the time. They have
insurance that will cover situations like this. All you have to do is
purchase it. I am surprised that the union did not make the member
aware of this situation and how the union member could protect
themselves. Or, why doesn't the union negotiate for a group policy,
they could get great rates for their members.

Most middle income retirees are not that "Fixed" well enough to be
able to handle the costs of serious surgery or an extended hospital
stay.
See response above.

In many cases, being flatlined by medical expenses when you are
retired has very little to do with "personal responsibility."
It has a whole lot to do with personal responsibility.



You obviously are not someone to be taken seriously.
Why?

What does the union do for the dues that the union collects from its
members? It seems that the only thing the union is good at doing is
collecting dues and make threats about going on strike.

Amazes me that someone who knows so little can talk so much about a given
subject.

It amazes me that someone who worked for a union all his life can't say
what the union actually did for him for all of the union dues the union
pulled out of his paycheck for all of those years?

You talkin' to me? I've never worked for a union.
I've belonged to one pretty well all my working life and served on the local
executive.

Boater wrote:
DK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
I am going to keep my F150 thank you. Nice ride and pulls a boat
and has 4x4 for the winter. Try that with a pint sized electric
car up a long hill.

Harry had a F-150 not too long ago and often reported in this NG
what a great truck it was.

That's before he sharpened his political correctness.

Now a US made truck is crap because he owns a Japanese model.


Eisboch
I haven't owned an F150 for nearly 10 years. It was a good truck.
The Toyota truck that replaced it was better. I doubt I ever stated
the US-made truck was "crap." I have heard those sorts of
allegations, however, from SW Tom and I believe from you.


Speaking of F-150s...saw an ad in the local paper saying 2008 base
trucks could be had for a few pennies under $14K CDN.
Man...I brought it up but the wife squashed that right away. She's
rather pay twice as much for a Forester or RAV4.


"She's rather"? You really should proofread your posts before you
attack others for their typos.

Do you wear *any* pants in your family, Donnie?


What a stench you make, Krueger. Can't you stay in that casket?

Another lame post as expected. Was the question directed to you or do
you speak for all three stooges?