The most expensive part of a GM manufactured car is the health car paid to the employees who work on it. Beyond that all nations we compete against these cars made in nations where there is a single payer system and thus their employers need not purchase insurance for their workers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15828-2005Feb10.html
It would definitely help General Motors and Ford. Both of these companies are doomed. They blew it years ago. The union contracts are way too generous. (Instead of being grateful, the union members are all angry and bitter.) It’s over for them. Every year GM and Ford are going to continue to lose market share. I wouldn’t buy a car from either of them. These companies are no longer relevant. Someone should do a study to find out exactly how these companies screwed up as bad as they did. It is truly amazing. Their cars are inferior to the cars made by the Japanese. (I’m an American and I have to buy Japanese cars because I need a car that is reliable.)
It’s also amazing that many union auto workers retire in non-union states, such as Florida.
Toyota and Honda manufacture a lot of cars in the US and they are doing fantastic.
Good question.
Two things will save the United States Auto Industry
-disband the unions
-start making some quality cars Americans want to buy.References :
The only thing that will save the auto industry is clean technology and hybrid vehicles. With gas so high, who can afford a new car? We can make cars that use less or no gas today, why aren’t we doing it?References :
More left wing nonsense. It’s the auto unions that are killing Detroit. All other plants in the U.S. are doing great.References :
Making cars which compete with foreign cars would save the US auto industry. I would love to buy American cars, but I put 45K miles on a car annually. In an American car, I am lucky to get 5 years out of it. My last Honda Accord, I sold with just over 400,000 miles on it and it still ran well.
So, with American cars, I can pay more, get lower gas mileage, and have them last 1/2 as long, or I can buy foreign. If Detroit cannot design and build better cars (which I would pay SOME difference to buy American) then they need a new industry anyway.
Oh, and universal health care would destroy America – INCLUDING the Auto industry. It has never worked well in any country that has it, and it would not work well here. As for the auto industry, gas prices and taxes would go so high we would all be driving Priuses.
sdn90036…everything you said is true, except that universal health care would help. Until they make quality cars which get good mileage they will not be competitive. We have the technology, but they seem to want to build cars which need replaced in 1/2 the miles so people have to buy cars faster or something. People are not fooled and they buy foreign cars for their longevity.References :
It would definitely help General Motors and Ford. Both of these companies are doomed. They blew it years ago. The union contracts are way too generous. (Instead of being grateful, the union members are all angry and bitter.) It’s over for them. Every year GM and Ford are going to continue to lose market share. I wouldn’t buy a car from either of them. These companies are no longer relevant. Someone should do a study to find out exactly how these companies screwed up as bad as they did. It is truly amazing. Their cars are inferior to the cars made by the Japanese. (I’m an American and I have to buy Japanese cars because I need a car that is reliable.)
It’s also amazing that many union auto workers retire in non-union states, such as Florida.
Toyota and Honda manufacture a lot of cars in the US and they are doing fantastic.
Good question.References :
gosh, i was all prepared to bite my tongue, then i read the other answers… , and i agree. this guy is just jumping on the bandwagon, probably maneuvering for federal money.
what american auto companies need to do is produce a reliable, economical machine. car lot down the street, and i was looking at mileage sicker, 16-21 mpg! crap, my fifty chevy got 23 and 32+mpg, and was tough as a truck. over twenty years old when i bought it, and in great shape.
that bottom line he was talking about? that was first raped by the company years ago, handing out multi-million dollar bonuses to guys directly responsible for losing millions of dollars. maybe the unions are a bit out of hand, as mentioned above. where did they learn that? they learned that from the president and ceo of these companies. if they didn’t care about a good product why would the guys on the line?
actually, personally i don’t care. the auto industry is out dated, we need mass transit. put all these auto workers to work on developing a new system entirely. imagine, eliminating 50,000 deaths a year on the highway, i don’t even want to think of how many crippled for life. or how many suffer from respiratory illness from all the carbon and other garbage in our air. or the fact that cars are a major contributor to the now popular global warming issue.References :
not really. the thing that could do more to help the auto industry is convincing unions that we are not living in the 1950′s anymore. there is certainly nothing wrong with unions as a concept. but they refuse to accept that we are living in a competitive global economy. sadly, theyd often rather see their plants close than work with management on modernization and trimming jobs that are not profitable.
as for healthcare, we need to put more emphasis on prevention and better lifestyle management before illness and injury catch us. the government has provided items that help such as medical savings accounts that allows individuals that are healthy to have high deductibles and low premiums and enjoy tax free savings when the money isnt used.
id be willing to see the feds create a program for catastrohic cases that could alleviate some costs of consumers and employers as well as make all insurance portable in case you change jobs.References :
No UHC would not save the auto industry. They have problems that go beyond the pension and health benefits issues.
In addition, the idea that with UHC there is no need for private insurance is false. Look at the French system, for example, that we’re told is so great: 80% of the French have PRIVATE INSURANCE through their employers.
The much lauded French system raises some questions as well. From their Embassy site (ambafrance-us.org) they state that 96 percent of the population receives free or 100 percent reimbursed health care. They state the system is part of their Social Security and is funded from worker’s salaries (60 percent), “indirect taxes on alcohol and tobacco and by direct contribution paid by all revenue proportional to income, including retirement pensions and capital revenues.” They state that it appears that health insurance pays less to its doctors in France than in other European countries, but that 80 percent of the public have supplemental health insurance, typically from their employers. If they’re providing so well for the needs of the public, why is there a need for “supplemental” health insurance for the majority of the public and what about the additional cost that imposes? The site states that the poorest have free universal health care, funded by taxes. Long-term illness sufferers are to be reimbursed for their treatments. They do have private clinics, as well as public hospitals, and not-for-profit healthcare. In fact, “private medical care in France is particularly active in treating more than 50% of surgeries and more than 60% of cancer cases.”
Private insurance, which the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) site said in a 2004 report, was held by 92 percent of the French, helps to cover both vision and dental care which are not well covered under the government system. “The public system is facing chronic deficits and recent cost containment policies have not proved very successful.” The government is interested in having more of the tab picked up by private insurance (Buchmueller & Couffinhall, “Private Health Insurance in France,” 2004, oecd.org).
UHC ALWAYS results in RATIONED care and the systems ALL go bankrupt.
Fortunately, we don’t need UHC, nor do we need employers to pay for insurance.
There IS a sensible plan that does NOT force patients on it with fear of fines; does NOT impose the costs on employers; does NOT raise our taxes; and DOES resolve another abuse of the taxpayer in its funding, provides for preventative care (moral and economical), and would prevent bankruptcies (more than half are caused by medical bills and most of those folks have insurance). Check it out:
:
I don’t understand your question. Toyota is doing just fine. And they ARE part of the US auto industry.References :