« If I were a bankrupt Neoconservative | Connecticut Man1's Blog | Christianity as a Lifestyle Choice »
Single Payer Health Care Would Help Save Auto Industry
Single Payer Health Care Would Help Auto Industry
While I originally wrote this in January of 2007, concerning the
cost of health care to consumers and service provided, it is equally
applicable to the savings for the auto industry and every other industry, as well. And that is not my
opinion, that is the opinion of the successful auto industry
management. The ones that aren't asking for a bailout. At the time
I wrote this in 2007, each vehicle assembled in the United States cost
GM $1,525 for health care; those made in Canada cost GM $197. Probably more savings now since this was written nearly two years ago:
In U.S., it's pay more, get less - Universal Health Care
Why is this man smiling?

"A RELATIVE BARGAIN: George Mercieca, a worker at a GM assembly plant in Oshawa, Ontario, shows off his Canadian health care card. GM spends an average of $1,385 a year on medical bills for hourly workers in Canada. An American autoworker costs the company about $5,000, but studies show Americans are no healthier than their foreign counterparts."
He is smiling because he has a great job with better medical benefits than most Americans could ever hope for under our failed healthcare for profit system. The kind of job that Connecticut , and the USA as a whole, can never hope to attract under our current system. If you do not believe me than ask youself "what does the manufacturing industry have to say about this?"
While training issues are less of a problem here in Connecticut, because we have a decent educational system, healthcare is cited as a major issue for Toyota's decision to chose Ontario as the location of a new factory for their Rav-4s slated to open in 2008:
"The level of the workforce in general is so high that the training program you need for people, even for people who have not worked in a Toyota plant before, is minimal compared to what you have to go through in the southeastern United States," said Gerry Fedchun, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, whose members will see increased business with the new plant.
Acknowledging it was the "worst-kept secret" throughout Ontario's automotive industry, Toyota confirmed months of speculation Thursday by announcing plans to build a 1,300-worker factory in the southwestern Ontario city.
"Welcome to Woodstock - that's something I've been waiting a long time to say," Ray Tanguay, president of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada, told hundreds gathered at a high school gymnasium.
The plant will produce the RAV-4, dubbed by some as a "mini sport-utility vehicle" that Toyota currently makes only in Japan. It plans to build 100,000 vehicles annually.
The factory will cost $800 million to build, with the federal and provincial governments kicking in $125 million of that to help cover research, training and infrastructure costs.
Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that amount of subsidy. But Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock project.
He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.
"The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.
In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.
"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive advantage," he said.
It is clearly an advantage for any company that wants to open up a business in any industry... A 4 to 5 dollar per hour advantage. An advantage so great that any state that passes true-single-payer Universal Healthcare first will be positioned to become a mecca for any company considering opening any kind of business.
We already have an educatinal advantage over the most of the USA, having a highly rated school system and a high rate of college graduates. Why the hold up on giving these businesses the real money savings that Universal Healthcare would provide and the other best reason to set up shop in Connecticut?
Because of lobbying from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. We need to take them out of the loop in the decision making process for this issue since we know they will fight it tooth-and-nail. We need to look at what is best for the people of Connecticut and for all industries, not just those two lobbying behemoths.
And just how much more is health care costing us?
Medical bills soar
Divide the nation's medical bill evenly across the population, and each of us paid $6,102 in 2004, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That's 50 percent more than the residents of the country with the next-highest health care bill, Switzerland ($4,077), and more than double the average for industrialized nations ($2,546).
...snip...
Those countries provide health care for all their residents for less money than the United State spends while it leaves an estimated 46 million without insurance.
That's contradicted by studies conducted by Gerard Anderson, director of the Center for Hospital Finance and Management at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. "We have about the same number of MRIs and CT scanners as Canada, the U.K. and France, and far fewer than Japan," Anderson said. "We have the same number of doctors, doctor visits, hospitals and inpatient days at hospitals.
"The difference is we pay two to 2 1/2 times more for virtually identical services."
The average U.S. physician earned $180,000 in 2004, Anderson said; in Canada, it was $100,000 (in U.S. dollars).
Even after adjusting for the higher income of U.S. residents, Americans pay on average $2,000 more per year for health care than the residents of the next-highest paying country, Anderson said.
One out of every seven dollars spent today in the United States goes for health care -- a record 15.3 percent of the gross domestic product in 2004, the latest year for which statistics are available. By comparison, Canada spends 9.9 percent of its GDP; Japan spends 8.0 percent.
By 2015, one out of every five dollars spent in the United States will go for health care, according to projections by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. If those projections hold, the average American's share for medical needs alone will be a staggering $12,320.
For all that money, you would expect Americans to be healthier than their foreign friends. The opposite is true.
Whoa! They are healthier than us, and they pay less? It is not just a monetary cost:
# If you're born in the United States, chances are that you'll die younger than people born in other industrialized nations. The United States has the lowest life expectancy of 14 nations measured by the World Health Organization. U.S. life expectancy in 2001 was 77.1; Canada, 79.7; Italy, 79.8; Japan, 81.5
# The infant mortality rate is higher in the United States than in other industrialized nations. In 2003, seven infants died for every 1,000 live births in the United States -- the worst rate of 19 countries measured by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
I am thinking that anyone that is really PRO-LIFE, and not just talking about it for political reasons, would have to be shocked by those infant mortality rates. Why aren't they screaming about this issue? If they are really honest about being pro-life than they should be our allies on true Universal Heathcare.
A s for manufacurers, just how much profit margin can healthcare open up for them?
Those vehicles, often parked on the same dealer lot as identical vehicles produced in U.S. plants, have one notable difference: Each vehicle assembled in the United States cost GM $1,525 for health care; those made in Canada cost GM $197.
The higher salaries of Canadian autoworkers offset much of the health care savings for the company, said Jim Cameron, labor relations director for GM Canada. But at the cash-strapped automaker, such a huge health care cost differential is hard to ignore. The difference is primarily a result of Canada's national health care system, in which most medical bills are paid by the government. Most countries have similar systems.
WHAT THE FUCK!!! The GM employees get higher wages up there too? And GM still racks up more profits from production up north in Canada then they can down here? How much more of this are you Nutmeggers willing to take?
Can you imagine the shockwave across the nation if a car manufacturer or some other large industry chose to locate in Connecticut over other states or countries... And it could happen.
Do you want to continue to pay more just to get less? Less healthy workers, less money, less jobs, less profit for industry as a whole.
Why not get more? More people that actually have coverage? More healthy workers that are more productive? More savings in healthcare for us and for industry? More manufacturers picking Connecticut as their destination of choice? More smiles on Nutmeggers' faces.
Universal Health Care is the answer to everyone getting more.
_________________
It might be the answer to save US industry.
There is an off the shelf answer sitting there getting dusty. Ask Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and the other cosigners about H.R. 676. It would be a huge step towards helping every industry in this nation become competitive.
If you need to know about a health care plan that can fix many of the problems with our privatized ripoff:
The United States National Health Insurance Act
H.R. 676
"Expanded & Improved Medicare For All"
*introduced by Reps. John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jim McDermott and Donna Christensen
If you live in CT-05 you may want to know that Rep. Chris Murphy has yet to sign up as a co-sponsor to this bill. Ya think it is time to remind him how important H.R. 676 is to all Americans?
Rep. Chris Murphy's contact info
Chris Murphy
(202) 225-4476,
1 Grove Street, New Britain CT 06053
If you live elsewhere... Please consider contacting your Congress critters, as well.
Advertisement





Plenty of peope buy GM, just not enough, or, put another way, there isn't enough profit right now. Surely health care will help, but a constant and increasing issue is the perception that quality among American manufacturers doesn't compete.
Even if one is buying the low end there is some satisfaction and confidence that goes with the Toyota name. I finally ditched GM after 20 years for Ford, to buy the Focus. Interestingly, that is a European-market design, and drives like an import. Unfortunately the parts are crap, but the design is good.
If GM could sell for less it wouldn't be enough. They need to regain the confidence of buyers so that price is enough; right now they have to pretty much give cars away. I have no idea how GM can overcome their somewhat deserved reputation. It doesn't help that things that make their cars a much better deal than in the past aren't easy to emphasize. This mainly because all makers do them, but we don;t realize how much better all cars are, with much less rust risk, essentially perfect engine response in all weather, superb suspension designs, and all manner of conveniences.
What miught help would be much more aggressive development of market leaders, that aren't bottom-line designs but might be dramatic ideas that would attract attention. The Volt is a joke, offering 40 miles while the Tesla offers 240 miles range.
And the emphasis on big SUVs is patently silly, even if it meant short-term sales. It is too variable a market, too dependent on buyers being irrational. It is not only the abysmal efficiency, but the fact that nobody buying those will ever go off road ro need four-wheel drive. So they are sold because of unexamined feelings like personal safety, even though the monsters handle like shit, and won't help if the driver runs into a bridge, or another Escalade.
Sure, Toyota is making big consumer trucks and/or SUVs; so is every maker, including Saab. But GM is failing. It's the quality, stupid.
November 20, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't just about cars. It has to do with every single job in this country. Without being saddled with the private insurance boondoggle US companies in every industry would be more competitive, and workers would be healthier and produce more because of that.
If this were only about cars it would be easier to say fuhgetaboutit. I still think the auto industry should get bailed out, but single payer universal health care is needed for every company and every individual out there.
November 20, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, (The best way to 'rescue' General Motors is single payer health care
) great minds think alike.
This is from a letter that the Big Three executives SENT to the Canadian govt:
November 20, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I wish I had seen that letter before? It confirms that they are thinking along the same lines of Toyota and, I suspect, other foreign manufacturers.
As for the great minds comment:
1) tell my wife that... Sometimes she jokes that I have lost mine.
2) I am not positive, but I think I may have said something similar in one of your diaries at dkos eons ago? (Could be some other thoughtful tigger at some other spot?)
November 20, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the crux of the matter, and it is what republicans want people not to realize:
Why? Is it just because they truly don't want EVERYONE to get more? I think that is the main thing. So how do they bamboozle all their poor, uninsured, or inadequately insured voting base? They get idiots like Joe the Plumber to come out and say a few scary phrases about how bad government is, and how their taxes will go way up.
The only people who actually won't get MORE with Universal Health Care are those who already have gold-plated insurance coverage right now--> federal employees, like Congress; and the very wealthy whose businesses cover them very well. There are some other industries that have always provided good coverage because their unions made them, but those industries are collapsing under the weight of this burden, and will soon leave those employees in the lurch.
It is time to do it. The horrific financial situation only makes it more imperative and more possible. To those who say we can't afford it, they need to understand that we can't afford NOT to.
November 20, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Everyone getting more"
That's socialism! So is the military, eh.
I had to laugh when I heard the republicans talking about gold plated health care. The politicians have what comes the closest to that... The rest of us have the crappy leftovers. Even with the better private insurance with most companies you can easily be financially ruined if you have to have a major operation or other serious health issues.
November 20, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
CTMan -
This is a solid post, and I'd agree on the primary argument that single payer health care, implemented properly, would help all industries.
I just don't buy the title - health care isn't the bigges issue automakers are facing. That's quality and innovation. Then it's probably their pension obligations, fuel efficiency, and culture, which is antagonistic with labor and management, and not customer focused (which leads to poorer quality and less innovation compared to competitors).
November 20, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is why it would, very likely, save the auto industry.
There are reportedly 3,000,000 million jobs supported by the auto industry directly. Multiply that by a conservative $3 per hour - per employee savings on wages per worker across the entire industry. Add to that the savings on legacy costs for retirees. This is a massive amount of savings for them and allows them to produce a car that we might be able to afford.
Give them the universal health care for the immediate relief of their entire industry (Heck! All industries - manufacturing, financial, service - in the US) then give them a bailout tied directly to R&D for production of serious contenders in the electric and other alternative fuel vehicles.
Force the BIG 3 to participate (even have the foreign automakers participate) in a fast track program to alternative solutions in a shared effort with a large chunk of that money. Bring the best and brightest from alternative producers in, as well. Really, the entire transportation industry should be working together, now more than ever, to improve things.
They need to make some major changes to the auto industry and seriously reduce our dependence on oil. I believe that the demand for their junk must have made them realize this by now.
Everyone here has a vested interested in keeping these companies going. But we also have a duty to make them improve.
That is, of course, just my opinion.
November 21, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Toyota and Honda are also having problems regardless of their innovations and popularity. Not nearly the problems of the Big Three, and I agree that American automakers have been abysmally blind to reality and that adds to their woes.
But another very big reason that Japanese companies are better off is because they are relatively new to the US in terms of having factories here, so they don't have the hundreds of thousands of workers and retirees who have pensions and health care provisions built into their contracts and therefore, weighing them down.
November 21, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 2006 Toyota had a total of about 250 retired employees in all of the USA. The legacy costs for health care and other benefits are huge for the BIG 3 in comparison.
Decoupling health care from industry takes it out of their legacy issues. That would be some massive relief for all industries.
November 23, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I read somewhere that the Big Three provide health insurance coverage to 2 million people.
November 23, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink