If You Thought The Big 3 Were Bad Before ...

The New York Times brings us up to date on a potential bailout for the Big Three. In a word ... frightening. For political cover, Congress is talking like they actually know how to run a business. How's that Social Security Trust Fund doing under their control? And don't forget the underfunded pension plans. In fact, if our Federal and many state governments were in front of Congress as businesses looking for a bailout, no debate would be required. They'd never qualify for help and only their ability to extract dollars from people's pockets by decree is keeping them afloat as it is. But suddenly they know something about good management? Please!

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats were drafting legislation Sunday for tight government control of the crippled American auto industry, including the possible creation of an oversight board made up of five cabinet secretaries and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and led by an independent chairman or “car czar.”

We don't need the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and any number of other government bureaucrats who want to stick their nose in running the American auto industry. Some of the pondered proposals are simply insane.

Democrats were weighing counterproposals calling for the creation of a full oversight board, made up of the secretaries of commerce, energy, labor, transportation and of the Treasury, and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

And that doesn't even begin to touch on the complexity of such bad ideas. What about foreign car makers? They would have to compete with a government run entity? The incentive for the government to pass legislation mandating them to change their vehicles for American markets to equal what they would be mandating for the Big 3 American manufacturers would be great. And we wouldn't have anything resembling a free market when it came to buying a car in America.

They are taking a bad idea - the bailout - and making it worse. The American people really need to stand up against this nonsense. If Congress wants to help the car makers - they should do it and answer to the voters for it next election. But a de facto nationalizing of the industry is just flat out wrong.

We need less, not more government interference in our personal and professional lives.

Comments

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Screw 'em. I've bought my last "big 3" vehicle.

[Fred Beloit]

This accounts for the term "moonbats" used to describe so-called liberal Democratics.

[jharp]

"We need less, not more government interference"

Yeah, right that less government worked out so well in the mortgage and banking industries.

We need better government. Period.

[anon]

Don't you ever get tired of spouting off cliches?

Sure we need better government and have needed better government for probably 20 or 30 years.

The economy has been headed for this disaster for 10 or 15 years, blaming it on Bush is just as stupid as the GOP having blamed everything under the sun on Bill Clinton.

Where were Paul Volker and Robert Ruden the last 8 years? I didn't hear them screaming about how over blown the stock market was or a peep out of them about the dangers of cheap money and sub prime mortgage securities?

In fact I didn't hear anything from the Democrats AT ALL about the problems w/the SEC, hedge funds, derivatives or securitizing loans. Not a peep.

The reason is that other than a few hot button issues and a general tendency to either favor government programs or not, the Democrats and the Republicans are both equally bad, they both saw the gravy train running and so, nobody said booh, nobody wanted to be the one who said 'hey, this is unsustainable and crazy'.

Bush is responsible for a lot of terrible things that have harmed the country and will continue to do so, a lot of bad policies, but he is NOT responsible for the collapse of the financial system.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Yeah, right that less government worked out so well in the mortgage and banking industries."

You're absolutely right, can you imagine what might have happened had the government not pushed these industries to make loans to people who couldn't pay them? I bet we'd be in an even bigger mess.......no wait, maybe not.

[jharp]

Willie,

Just what do you mean by "pushed" these industries to make loans?

Never have understood that.

Did they also "push" the ratings agencies to lie about rating the loans and "push" them to sell the worthless securities to unwitting investors?

[jharp]

"Bush is responsible for a lot of terrible things that have harmed the country and will continue to do so, a lot of bad policies, but he is NOT responsible for the collapse of the financial system."

Bush is not 100% responsible but it happened on his watch and he did nothing about it. Other than encourage American's to go shopping. That was some sound advice.

Kinda like 911. Do nothing then throw up your hands and say "no one could have anticipated".

[anon]

So far, Obama's response isn't much better, he wants to put everyone to work fixing highways and retrofitting schools. That actually does NOTHING to address any of the fundamental problems with the US economy, which have been building for almost 20 years and are a bi partisan problem.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Clinton signed the bill that ended post-Depression regs on banks. The Democrats were 100% behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, arguing in fact that questioning their poor performance was tantamount to racism. The Dems also pushed through NAFTA, another huge failure. The Republicans have never met a banking regulation that they didn't think could be weakened and everyone resisted regulating hedge funds because they were making tons of money. Greenspan continued to keep the cost of credit artificially low. Anyone who sounded the alarm was called an alarmist and marginalized, and that goes for both parties.

Blaming Bush for the economic collapse is no different than blaming Clinton for failing to catch Bin Laden.

Which party are you going to blame for the auto industry collapse? The entire Michigan delegation is Democratic and they have been in lock step behind the big three in opposing any kind of rule or regulation that would improve performance. The UAW, another Democratic bastion has been opposed to all of these provisions as well, all the time continuing to demand a package of benefits that any first year econ student could have told them was simply unsustainable. The Republicans, again, never met an enviromental regulation that they thought was a good idea. So, there is plenty of blame to go around.

This is an American problem, not a Republican or a Democratic problem. So far, Obama's plan is going to fall very short of fixing the structural issues but it might get him re elected.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Never have understood that."

That's because you don't WANT to understand it among everything else you see through BDS blinded eyes. The mess goes back to Carter and everyone has a "right" to own a home. Just like everyone now has a "right" to belong to my credit union. Lending institutions were coerced to give loans to people who should not have had them....oh yeah, some did get preditory but the same government turned it's back on it..... Now Uncle Barney says "we did it, but the repugnicans let us" The reps were/are scared to be called heartless or worse...racist so they lacked the guts to say "enough". As far as "unwitting" investors go, and people who buy houses they can't afford goes: Caveat Emptor!!

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"This is an American problem, not a Republican or a Democratic problem."

Anon; Our friend Harpie and his pals will NEVER, EVER see it that way. They are the reason we have cliches like "can't see the forest through the trees". Partisans and Partisan bullshit is exactly why we are in this situation. One side says the government should control almost everything and the other says business should be left alone. Arguing about how to drain the swamp when we're up to our ass in alligators........idiots.

[jharp]

anon,

It's been my position that America's health care system is a huge cause of our economic woes.

And for that I put the blame on republicans.

We spend twice. Twice what the rest of the world does. It is a huge burden on business, making us uncompetitive in key industries.

And the burden it places on small business (the backbone of our economy) is crippling.

Seriously, study it and opine. Obama has promised to do something about it. And I figure things are so fucked up that there is a good chance something gets done.

[anon]

That's true as far as it goes, and I have no sympathy for people who bought houses they couldn't afford and intended to just keep on refinancing to get cheap intro rates.

However, if that was all that happened...even millions of people defaulting on their mortgages...we would not have seen the entire financial system collapse. We would have seen a select few cities where these loans were congregated, a select set of developers whose developments catered to these buyers and a select set of mortgage companies who made the bulk of these loans go broke. That would have been a ripple.

The reason the subprime fiasco has destroyed the economy is because of the securitization of those mortgages, which were sold and resold and then all the default credit swaps that were out there...and that is the fault of the dirtbag bankers, not the dirtbag homeowners or dirtbag mortgage brokers.

I hate to say it but jharp is also right that the ratings agencies that were giving these bonds triple A ratings have a lot of splaining to do. That too, is a Wall Street issue, nothing to do with the home buyers.

It's funny how discredited John Mccain was to say that the head of the SEC should be fired when he was 100% correct about that.

[anon]

jharp,

Health care is the least of our economic problems, and you are simply being delusional to believe that Obama's plan--read it--is going to do all the things you hope it will. Do you have any idea how powerful the lobbies of all the physician groups, hospitals and insurance companies are? I worked in DC, and I can tell you that not one of these groups is going to lay down and let their members payments be cut. What you forsee is not realistic, it is not going to happen. Obama may succeed in getting millions of people expensive, inefficient health insurance, but that is a bandaid on the problem.

Also, health care is a huge, huge part of the economy that generates millions of jobs. The doctors and the hospitals and all of their employees as well as the employees of all of the insurance companies. Health care makes Detroit look like pocket change.

This is the problem with America, we want to see change and efficiency, but we are no longer willing to see anyone get hurt by it. We aren't willing to see anyone lose jobs over policy, so policy never gets any significant results.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

anon: I didn't mean to say that harpie was totally wrong in his conclusions. The point was/is that he lay it at Bush's feet when the people who were supposed to be watching go back at least to Carter....yes, both parties and us consumers.

[jharp]

"Lending institutions were coerced to give loans"

Willie,

That is the part I have a problem with.

"Coerced"? How so?

[Anon]

Well, we starting really dismantling the country in the late 1970's after everyone freaked out over inflation, and have pretty much in terms of the economy made the wrong choices on macro policies every time...every time for 30 years.

I've been waiting for this crash since the dot. com bubble burst and I realized that market cap and stock price were a perception game that had nothing much to do with a company's long term prosects or business plan. But, what can you do? I guess I should have put my investments in Euros or something, but all I can do now is wait it out and hope it doesn't take 20 years for the market to rebound in the short term. I can't tell you how many people..both liberals and conservatives...laughed at me for saying 2/3/4 years ago that the underpinnings of the economy were crap. I was like Cassandra.

Part of the reason why the country is disintegrating is this polarization "Carter did it, Clinton did it, Bush did it, Reagan did it" where the object of the discussion is to simply blame the 'opposition' and discredit whatever they support, and when all else fails conservatives will start in on the 'unborn' and liberals will start in on 'war mongering'. Nothing gets done, everyone throws around straw man arguments, blames the other guy and pats himself on the back.

I expected Obama to come up with a government heavy package, but this package is so stupid, so short term, so basically useless that now I am less worried about Obama the socialist and worried more about Obama the total incompetant who, true to his slogans, is going to pick whatever sounds most promising in the short term.

In other words, he's just like Bush, but from a liberal vantage point.

[Worst President Ever]

You might want to wait until Obama actually gets into office before proclaiming him an incompetent. Gee, didn't someone just decry the polarization of our politics?

[Anon]

He has already announced his plan for reviving the economy, and it is total bullshit. It is nothing more than a short term shot of taxpayer steriods to pump up job numbers in the next 4 years in a handful of sectors. The centerpiece if his economic stimulus package is rebuilding the infrastructure, ie. construction jobs, and making government buildings energy efficient, ie. more construction jobs and putting computers in schools. It does not get much lamer than that.

[Worst President Ever]

Really? And what would you propose?

[Anon]

Yeah, really.

Well, let's see. I would let GM and Chrysler declare bankruptcy as thousands of other companies including huge American companies have before so their debt can be restructured and they can emerge better able to complete.

I would never have structured the financial bailout the way it was structured, as we see, it has done nothing to help the economy but has enabled bankers to keep getting millions in salary and bonus and to buy out their rivals.

I would hope I could create a STRATEGY that would address the fundamental problems with the economy including how to recreate the U.S. manufacturing sector to some degree, invest in industries that are likely to create jobs, here I agreew/Obama on the green industries, develop a system of tax incentives that would protect manufacturing jobs. I would differentiate between homeowners who get help and those who don't..if you didn't put any money down on your mortgage then you are going to lose your house because you're really a glorified renter anway as you have no equity stake in the home. I would put health care reform on a back burner and focus on the economy. I would put government money in STRATEGIC infrastructure investments such as high speed rail and some projects around major trade routes and harbors that actually could result in increasing organic economic activity, not some willy nilly 50 state free for all of highway projects on the table.

And I sure as hell would not be listening to people like Paul Volker and Ruden who didn't foresee this disaster, instead I would be listening to those few voices in the wilderness who have been predicting this outcome for the past few years.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

That is the part I have a problem with.

"Coerced"? How so?

Harpie, I gave you my pov...go do your own research.

[jharp]

"The centerpiece if his economic stimulus package is rebuilding the infrastructure, ie. construction jobs, and making government buildings energy efficient, ie. more construction jobs and putting computers in schools."

Why do you choose to ignore his health care reform?

[Anon]

jharp,

I have repeated over and over to you the reasons why his health care reform is not going to save money and is not going to "reform" the inefficiencies in the current system. I read his proposal and made point by point comments.

I have also repeatedly pointed out that the health care sector is a huge part of the economy and accounts for MILLIONS of jobs, and that the only way to create 'efficiencies' and improve costs is going to be to cut jobs or cut pay, otherwise, how are you going to save money? It is impossible to have the same number of people working in the health care sector and still reduce the cost of health care unless these people take a pay cut. That is basic economics.

[jharp]

Anon,

The facts are the rest of the world covers everyone for about half the cost and delivers equal care.

Not saying I'm a huge fan of Obama's proposals and since his plan isn't even on the table yet I will wait to pass judgment.

Canada: $3678
France: $3449
Germany: $3371
UK: $2760
USA: $6714

Are you saying the union health care costs don't play any role in the auto companies demise?

[jharp]

Harpie, I gave you my pov...go do your own research.

Posted by: WAHOO WILLIE | Monday, December 08, 2008 at 12:52 PM

I have Willie.

No one "coerced" anyone into making any loans.

[Worst President Ever]

Letting the Big Three lapse into bankruptcy risks tipping the rest of the economy from recession to depression - it would literally kill the whole chain of smaller suppliers and put millions of jobs at risk. In normal times, I'd agree with you but with the mess the economy is already in, it's a huge gamble. I'd take some of the $700 billion Paulson has and give it to the auto companies, with some major strings attached.

It's Bush's / Paulson's finanical bailout not Obama's.

I'd agree about Rubin - he planted a few of the seeds. Volcker less so. Some of the stuff he says is pretty much the same as what you're written. And he's actually been there to deal with an economy in recession. I'd be all for putting Greenspan in jail, though.

Obama has to do something short-term to get the economy somewhat back on its feet. Buidling / fixing stuff seems the most obvious place - I'm not sure where else he'd get the bang for the buck.

[anon]

jharp, you keep setting up a false parallel.

Yes, the U.S. healthcare system is inefficient and the most expensive on the planet. To keep repeating this fact is pointless. No one disagrees that the U.S. healthcare system is expensive and inefficient.

His plan is on the table, it may not be written as legislation, but the plan itself is out there.

You seem to think that OBama's proposal is going to bring down US healthcare costs more in line with those of Europe, and I am telling you this is not going to happen, it is impossible for this to happen based on Obama's own proposal. The idea that he's going to find enough "efficiencies" via technology fixes to offset the cost of 40 million uninsured or find enough savings in the rest of his proposal is crazy. It won't happen.

Yes, union health care costs are a part of the problem w/the auto industry, but that doesn't really translate to the rest of the economy since most jobs aren't unionized and very few employees have that kind of guaranteed health care. So, its off point, has nothing to do with the bigger picture.

Rosy, unrealistic projections and smoke and mirrors accounting is just as bad when the Democrats do it as when the Republicans do it.

[Anon]

Letting the Big Three lapse into bankruptcy risks tipping the rest of the economy from recession to depression.
-----------------------------------------------
Why? Because they say so? Same group of numbskulls that have said fuel efficient cars would cost jobs?! This idea that a company that goes bankrupt closes its doors forever is not true. A couple of airlines declared bankruptcy and they're still around. All it does is put things before a judge and everyone loses something. Why is that so bad? And WHY in the WORLD should I believe anything that the auto industry has to say? Of course they're going to claim that millions would be put out of work, but that is not true, its fear mongering hysterics to get what they want. All a bailout does is throw good money after bad and of course sets more precedents for business that actually the best way to ensure your survivival is to mismanage your company into total insolvency and to hopefully grow it to the point that its too big to fail. WTF kind of lesson is this for business? Big risk and big failure get rewarded, but if you only sort of half assed failed then you're on your own?!

Obama supported the bailout. So did the Democrats. This is his bailout as much as Paulson and Bush, he didn't make any criticisms other than he wants more money to go to deadbeat homeowners instead of all to deadbeat bankers. Everyone panicked and so surprise, surprise, a hastily crafted solution done in a haze of hysteria turned out to be a failure. Will wonders never cease.

Maybe you're right about Volker, I do know that Paul O'Neil also raised some alarms early on in the Bush administration, just because he's a Republican doesn't mean he's automatically stupid or corrupt.

I wish I believed in hell, then I would be assured that Greenspan would spend eternity paying for his mismanagement of the US economy.

I don't disagree that the infrastructure needs to be repaired or that government buildings need to be retrofitted to be energy efficient. I agree, this needs to be done. But it's not a strategy, its nothing but a short term boost to a couple of sectors, and 'use it or lose it' is an invitation to getting stupid,unnecessary projects greenlighted...like the Bridge to Nowhere...it will ensure that worthless projects are funded, that they are poorly managed and that down the road the economic benefits won't materialize.

He didn't even mention high speed rail, which is actually something that could benefit the economy in the long term. But, see, that is too difficult and too expensive...much easier to focus on highways that already exist because that's easy to get going. Short term thinking. No strategy. Same old same old.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Obama has to do something short-term to get the economy somewhat back on its feet. Buidling / fixing stuff seems the most obvious place - I'm not sure where else he'd get the bang for the buck."

I agree it's a start for the short term and definately necessary. One of the few, actually useful ideas Carter had was the CETA program. The gov paid 1/2 of wages for new employees and some people found themselves in careers when the program died off. As a stop-gap and with some tweaking, it could be viable. Incentives and investment in technologies isn't a bad idea either. Someone has to convince us that over-sight doesn't mean socialization though. The best long term solution is going to have to be converting schools from lettuce picker factories to education mills.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"'use it or lose it' is an invitation to getting stupid,unnecessary projects greenlighted."

Even DoD was smart enough to drop that budgeting plan years ago.

[Worst President Ever]

The economy's in the worst condition since the 30's. It's impossible to predict what letting GM / Ford / Chrysler go bankrupt might do but it's hard to see that dropping a few million more unemployed and pushing a bunch of manufactures out of business onto it probably wouldn't be a good thing. Again, if the economy were stable, I'd say let 'em die. But things aren't stable.

Comparing airlines to car companies is apples and oranges. You going to buy $20,000 car from a company that may be out of business next week?

I'm all for more high-speed rail but it takes years to build - you've got to get funding, acquire-right-of-way, etc.

It's Bush's / Paulson's plan. They're the guys running the country, not Obama, who wasn't even President-Elect at the time the bailout was passed.

[Anon]

Obama didn't criticize the plan, he supported it. He offered no alternative and he and the Democrats fell all over themselves to support it and get it passed. He had his chance to make a statement and he passed. He owns it.

Why should high speed rail take longer than any other infrastructure renewal? The train tracks are already there, it wouldn't be up and running for a few years but it could create jobs just as quickly and the payoff for real high speed rail...that is trains that go 200 mgh would be huge. It would increase train travel, increase tourism, decrease highway congestion, save tons of energy. High speed rail has significant long term benefits and could have a real long term impact on increasing jobs...so of course, its not on the list.

My point is that bankruptcy doesn't put you 'out of business', why would anyone buy a car from GM anyway at this point when they say they don't have money to keep the company open for 2 months w/out a bailout? All bankruptcy is is a legal option that deals with restructuring debt. Plus, jobs are going to be lost anyway, bail out or no bailout. How could the car companies continue to run their businesses as they have been doing, including number of plants, employees, etc. and have any hope of a turnaround? Again, this is all PR bullshit. They're going to get their money and thousands will lose their jobs anyway, the debts they owe will be restructured and no one will get 100%,just like if they declared bankruptcy officially instead of doing it unofficially.

Ugh, everyone wants a quick fix, we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

[jharp]

"You seem to think that OBama's proposal is going to bring down US healthcare costs more in line with those of Europe, and I am telling you this is not going to happen, it is impossible for this to happen based on Obama's own proposal. The idea that he's going to find enough "efficiencies" via technology fixes to offset the cost of 40 million uninsured or find enough savings in the rest of his proposal is crazy. It won't happen."

I think Obama's plan is a start. Let's see what and see what the proposal ends up being. I have seen one part that offers 55 year olds the opportunity to buy into Medicare. I like the idea. I also like the idea of Medicare for all. Let's see. I believe in a single payer but a certain neanderthal portion of our population, though a minority, would most likely not allow it to happen.

"Yes, union health care costs are a part of the problem w/the auto industry, but that doesn't really translate to the rest of the economy since most jobs aren't unionized and very few employees have that kind of guaranteed health care. So, its off point, has nothing to do with the bigger picture."

You are wrong. Health care costs have everything to do with a huge burden on business, union or not. Even sole proprietors like myself.

[jharp]

"My point is that bankruptcy doesn't put you 'out of business'"

It might or might not. Without DIP financing you are toast.

[Worst President Ever]

He owns it? What of Paulson, the plan's architect, or Bush, who was - you know - PRESIDENT AT THE TIME and supported it. Or McCain, who suspended his campaign to save the country and also voted for it.

"Why should high speed rail take longer than any other infrastructure renewal? The train tracks are already there,"

The vast majority of those tracks won't support high-speed rail and are shared with slow freight traffic.

I don't think people are expecting a quick fix - they do want the government to at least try to keep the economy from tipping farther. Your plan seems to be to simply throw up your hands, let everything fail, and then, if there's anything left, pick up the pieces.

[Anon]

Yeah, he owns it, he supported it, he spoke in favor of it, the Democrats voted for it. If they didn't like it they should have offered an alternative. They didn't. McCain voted for too, so what? His plans were as bad or worse than Obama's. Disavowing the bailout isn't going to be as easy as disavowing the votes for the Iraq war since nobody was deceived.

[mark l.]

"Canada: $3678
France: $3449
Germany: $3371
UK: $2760
USA: $6714..."

what component of this cost is attributable to malpractice insurance?

[jharp]

what component of this cost is attributable to malpractice insurance?

Less than one percent.

And thanks for asking but it blows me away how little people know about health care costs.

[mark l.]

you got to give your source...

it would help my little mind.

The dollar has depreciated v. the euro by about 40% since 2000.

[jharp]

http://www.centerjd.org/air/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

There are literally hundreds of publications confirming this.

Though Rush, Hannity, and Fox lie about it continually.

[mark l.]

"Overuse of medical services also occurs because of the high risk of medical liability lawsuits. A March 2003 report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that defensive medicine cost the nation between $70 and $126 billion in 2001."

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/18295.html

The most commom element that I keep coming across is that we spend to much on unneccesary medical testing.

but then malpractice has nothing to do with excessive testing, right? (cue john edwards suing for doctors causing cerebral palsy.)

[mark l.]

"The practice of “defensive medicine” forced the state’s health-care costs to rise by at least $1.4 billion last year, the survey found." (for 2007)

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view/2008_11_17_Survey:_%E2%80%98Defensive_medicine__cost_Bay_State__1_4B_last_year/

If the number holds, it would project to an increase of 65 billion across the US, in one year.

If I were a doctor and given the choice of pursuing a 1 in 100 circumstance, versus choosing not to have the test done, I would err on the side of precaution.

I've seen multiple critiques of our current system, and they universally complain about redundant/unneccessary tests. another critique is administrative costs-personally I think the whole creation of 'human resources' dept is an absolute waste, but then the classic response I get from other hr depts is that they 'prevent' costly law suits.

[templar knight]

Thank you, mark, for clarifying this issue. My mother worked in the health care profession for 30 years, and she told me basically the same thing you did. Unnessesary tests, redundency, fear of a lawsuit, malpractice insurance, costs of lawsuits not considered in some of these studies, and actual settlements and lawsuit payouts are much more than 1%.

[Miklo]

They wouldn't need a "bail out" if they'd compete with Toyota/Lexus!

Are you trying to tell me that with all of the American ingenuity, imagination, and grit -
we can't compete with Japanese and German technology?

PLEASE somebody wake me when this is O-V-E-R!

[jharp]

mark l and templar,

Medical malpractice cost as a percentage of health care costs is minimal.

Why don't we at least try a few ideas from the 29 other countries that cover everyone for about half of what we pay?

Seriously, why not?

[SacTownMan]

Brother Knight I have worked in health care treating cancer patients for 20 years.

I am recognised by my peers in America and Europe as an expert in my area and I can tell you hands down there is no finer health care available in the world...period!

Quality is not the issue!

It gets old hearing Harpo and others bad mouth America's healthcare system.

Try getting an MRI, CT or PET scan scheduled in Canada or England. Just be ready to wait a few MONTHS!

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html

How about the words of Canadian's themselves:

"It's becoming clearer that Canada's current health-care system cannot meet the needs of Canadians in a timely and efficient manner, unless you consider access to a waiting list timely and efficient," Esmail added.

http://www.timelymedical.ca/private-CT-CAT-scans.html

"Although CT scanners are more common in Canada than some other non-invasive diagnostic tools, there are still not nearly enough to meet demand. Per capita, Canada has fewer of these machines than most other countries in the developed world. As a result of rationing of care by the Canadian public health system you may be required to wait weeks or even months for your scan."

In those countries that have govt. controled healthcare these stories are told over and over!

http://www.vimo.com/reports/uninsured.pdf

Now think about adding the 47 million uninsured in this country to the mix.

"In theory ... about 32 million people, or 68 percent of the uninsured, could easily obtain coverage but have chosen to forgo insurance."

"In a study earlier this year, Kaiser reported that 74 percent of uninsured children estimated are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. "These 6 million eligible but unenrolled children are the target population for Medicaid and SCHIP outreach and enrollment activities. Because most live in working families, awareness of and experience with government programs may be limited."

26% of the 47 million are not citizens or are here illegally. Who pays for them?

These are the facts Harpo!

Rather than continue to speak in generalities and use statistics without any links why don't you take the time to LEARN something about healthcare instead of constantly bashing it!

You love to hijack these threads and start bitching about American health care but you really don't know crap about what you're talking about!

It's hard to have a battle of wits when your opponent is unarmed!

[anon]

Those other countries have a single payer system.

This is not what Obama proposes.

Why can't you get that through your head?

[jharp]

anon,

I got it through my head.

So you're saying you favor a single payer as I do?

Call your Senator and Congressperson and let them know.

And even if Obama doesn't get it done all at once I believe he is headed in the right direction.

[jharp]

Posted by: SacTownMan | Monday, December 08, 2008 at 07:42 PM

So I guess we should just ignore the fact that we pay double what the rest of world pays.

And the 47 million uninsured? Tough luck guys. You either shouldn't have gotten sick or need to work harder. And tough luck to their children too. Bad break being born into the wrong family.

You SacTown are a fool. And it is morons like you who are the demise of the competitiveness of American business. And the health of Americans.

[jharp]

This is what makes our health care cost so goddam much. Just imagine this you friggin birdbrains. Ms. Darling rests at home and let's her pregnancy take it's natural course. Then goes in delivers for less than half the costs.

Is everyone that goddam stupid to not see this.

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20081123/NEWS01/811230315

The 26-year-old says she went on maternity leave Oct. 1, two days before the plant closed. All of her short-term disability and Family Medical Leave Act papers were completed, she said.

On Oct. 4, she received a certified letter stating that, as of two days from then, she would no longer have a job or health insurance.

Darling says she asked and doctors agreed induce labor the next day, before the insurance expired Oct. 6.

After seven hours, with doctors about to send her home because the effort to induce was not taking, she began hemorrhaging.

"My placenta tore away from the wall and both the baby and I were literally inches away from death," she said. "We were rushed into emergency C-section, with both of us hanging tight to our lives."

Darling said doctors had to cut her open with no time to administer pain medications. Afterward, she learned her health insurance had already expired, despite the certified letter. Archway had stop- ped paying its part for employee health insurance months prior.