UAW forced to be paid as a Southern Foreign factory worker.

"E. Meyer" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/20/08 9:41 AM, in article
> , "Rock Hardson"
> > wrote:
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...AR200812190385
>> 6.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
>>
>> The article states that the southern japanese factory worker was offered
>> to
>> join the union bringing wages on par to its northern American worker but
>> they opted to stay bare foot and po' for japanese pennies. How STUPID can
>> people be! If they had simply joined the union they would be getting the
>> same exact pay and benefits as the northern worker living a higher
>> standard
>> of life and there would have been an even playing field for all
>> manufactures
>> from the start. For years it has been said that the Japanese choose the
>> southern worker simply to take advantage of there ignorance. I guess the
>> article proves they were right about that one. Now the northern worker
>> will
>> be forced to be dragged down to the level of pay of the southern worker.
>> Its
>> a simple question of is everyone on board to make a lot of money or will
>> a
>> segment of the community just drag others down to make a lesser amount of
>> money???
>>
>
> If the Southern workers had joined the union and tried to force Detroit
> style pay and benefit packages, then the Japanese plants would all be in
> Mexico (just like many GM and Mercedes plants already are).
>

By the way, after you take into consideration the yearly UAW dues, those po'
sutthen boys clear just as much money as them northenn GM and Ford
employees, and without the hassle.

Is it OK that Japan to support its auto industry? I am far from a liberal
nor a neo-con, rather a true Reagan Democrat conservative that believes in
self reliance, but there is no way we can allow one of our last reaming
AMERICAN defense industry to go out of business, like we did with our steel
companies. If we get into another big war, ALL of the foreign owned
manufactures would need to be taken over by the government, as well.

Bantam developed the Jeep but never built one, they only made trailers for
Jeeps. The Jeep was given to Willys by the War Office. When it was shown
Willys could not build then fast enough the job went to Henry Ford, who made
80% of the Jeeps in WWII and sold them to the Government at cost.

When the steel companies could not make enough steel, the Navy build blast
furnaces, open hearth furnaces and ship yards. However they ALL had the
basics in place. Today that is no longer the case, and any future war will
not be overseas, to give us time to gear up, it will be here on American
soil. You import supporters who always complain about President Bush, who
has kept the country safe for eight years, will be the first to complain
when your city is attacked.

"me" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:40:59 -0600, Gordon McGrew
> > wrote:
>
>>This is the biggest horse **** excuse for bailing out the car
>>companies. Honda, Toyota, et al have US plants that could build tanks
>>just as well (better) than the domestic companies.
>>
>>Mike, you are caught in the middle. The liberals (or at least a lot
>>of them) want to save the American companies to preserve American jobs
>>and the union.
>
> Part of their voter base, and the rest due to their bleeding hearts.
>
>>The (so called) conservative leaders don't give a crap
>>about those jobs and they positively despise the unions. So Mike,
>>which side are you on?
>
> The neo-cons want all the government money they can get. Witness the
> last 8 years. There are no real conservatives in the RNP anymore (at
> least none with power).
>

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:14:55 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:

>Is it OK that Japan to support its auto industry?

How do they do that? Be specific. Provide documentation. Failure to
do so means you are lying out your ass, which we already know to be
the case.

> I am far from a liberal
>nor a neo-con, rather a true Reagan Democrat conservative that believes in
>self reliance, but there is no way we can allow one of our last reaming
>AMERICAN

That's just it. AMERICAN car buyers got tired of the reaming.

>defense industry to go out of business, like we did with our steel
>companies.

Funny, I never bought foreign steel. Must have been all those
domestic companies trying to buy better quality steel at a lower
price.

[snip prattle about WWII]

>Today that is no longer the case, and any future war will
>not be overseas, to give us time to gear up, it will be here on American
>soil.

This is just goofy talk. What scenario are you envisioning where we
would need to rush more tanks into production?

> You import supporters who always complain about President Bush, who
>has kept the country safe for eight years,

Will, except for ignoring that memo about Bin Laden being determined
to strike US.

> will be the first to complain
>when your city is attacked.

Did the New Yorkers complain that there weren't enough tanks to
prevent 9/11?

>"me" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:40:59 -0600, Gordon McGrew
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>This is the biggest horse **** excuse for bailing out the car
>>>companies. Honda, Toyota, et al have US plants that could build tanks
>>>just as well (better) than the domestic companies.
>>>
>>>Mike, you are caught in the middle. The liberals (or at least a lot
>>>of them) want to save the American companies to preserve American jobs
>>>and the union.
>>
>> Part of their voter base, and the rest due to their bleeding hearts.
>>
>>>The (so called) conservative leaders don't give a crap
>>>about those jobs and they positively despise the unions. So Mike,
>>>which side are you on?
>>
>> The neo-cons want all the government money they can get. Witness the
>> last 8 years. There are no real conservatives in the RNP anymore (at
>> least none with power).
>>
>

We know, that person is you LOL

"me" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:20:32 -0600, Gordon McGrew
> > wrote:
>
>>>Today that is no longer the case, and any future war will
>>>not be overseas, to give us time to gear up, it will be here on American
>>>soil.
>>
>>This is just goofy talk. What scenario are you envisioning where we
>>would need to rush more tanks into production?
>
> Not only is he envisioning tanks, but he's expecting an invasion. US
> based terrorism is a very real possibility - but it doesn't come on
> landing crafts and troop carriers.
>
>>> You import supporters who always complain about President Bush, who
>>>has kept the country safe for eight years,
>>
>>Will, except for ignoring that memo about Bin Laden being determined
>>to strike US.
>
> Yeah, Bush has done one heck of a job, what with invading a sovereign
> country under a web of known lies. That's really made the world a much
> safer place. ****ing off the North Koreans so that they kicked out all
> the inspectors and followed through on their nuke plans was another
> key point in making us safer. Failing to complete the mission in
> Afghanistan has also been great stabilizer.
>
>>> will be the first to complain
>>>when your city is attacked.
>>
> Somebody needs a dose of reality.

On Jan 2, 4:19*pm, me > wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:20:32 -0600, Gordon McGrew
>
> > wrote:
> >>Today that is no longer the case, and any future war will
> >>not be overseas, to give us time to gear up, it will be here on American
> >>soil.
>
> >This is just goofy talk. *What scenario are you envisioning where we
> >would need to rush more tanks into production? *
>
> Not only is he envisioning tanks, but he's expecting an invasion. US
> based terrorism is a very real possibility - but it doesn't come on
> landing crafts and troop carriers.
>
> >> * You import supporters who always complain about President Bush, who
> >>has kept the country safe for eight years,
>
> >Will, except for ignoring that memo about Bin Laden being determined
> >to strike US.
>
> Yeah, Bush has done one heck of a job, what with invading a sovereign
> country under a web of known lies. That's really made the world a much
> safer place. ****ing off the North Koreans so that they kicked out all
> the inspectors and followed through on their nuke plans was another
> key point in making us safer. Failing to complete the mission in
> Afghanistan has also been great stabilizer.
>
> >> will be the first to complain
> >>when your city is attacked.
>
> *Somebody needs a dose of reality.

Mike is immune to reality, as is deebs, hatching roachie, and the rest
of the rightwingnuts here.

On Jan 2, 10:38*pm, me > wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:32:55 -0500, "Mike Hunter" a lame top poster
> wrote:
>
> >"me" > wrote in message
>
> >>>> you will be the first to complain
> >>>>when your city is attacked.
>
> >> Somebody needs a dose of reality.
>
> >We know, that person is you * *LOL
>
> Enjoy hanging with your friends in the militia. Be sure to hide some
> guns in the walls of your house so the gov't doesn't get 'em all when
> they send "them" after you. Don't forget to keep your tinfoil hat on
> tight.

Here's the fallacy of owning guns to protect yourself from your
government - the same awesome fire power we exhibit on any battlefield
will be turned on you guys with peashooters. Mike fires his AR15 once
or twice and a helicopter gunship levels his whole neighborhood.

Mike Hunter wrote:
> wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>Mike Hunter wrote:
>>>:
>>>Besides the shark lawyers, one of the primary reason healthcare costs are
>>>so high in the US is BECAUSE of the government! It SETS the Medicare
>>>reimbursement rates very high. Any doctor or hospital that accepts
>>>Medicare patients MUST charge the SET Medicare reimbursement rates TO
>>>EVERYBODY or they can be charged with Medicare fraud!
>>>
>>You could be correct if the year was still 1968, but Medicare has
>>operated under cost controls since the mid-1970s, and currently no
>>health payment system, public or private, sets lower reimbursements
>>for hospitals and doctors than Medicare, except possibly some Medicaid
>>programs or Tricare.
>
>That may be your opinion but you are not correct I was recently
>hospitalized for six days. The Medicare set rate was over $13,000, my HMO
>settled it for about one third that amount and I paid a $50 co-pay. The
>doctor(s) bills were also settled for less than half the Medicare rate
>
From what I know of Aetna, Cigna, and Humana reimbursement practices,
that's highly unlikely, especially for the doctor bills. You're
probably confusing the billings with the payments, which often differ
by as much as 4:1.

I'm not confusing anything. The doctors bill was nearly $6,000 and my HMO
settled at $2,800.

In addition our VOLUNTEER community ambulance corps, of which I am a member,
MUST submit a bill to my HMO for transporting me the five miles to the
hospital, BECAUSE I am over 65. The Medicare reimbursement rate is $850
for that five miles . My HMO settled for $420 plus a co-pay of $25. Since
I pay $40 a year, to be a member, I do not need to pay the co-pay.

The stupidity of the high Medicare rates is, if I were a member of the corps
under 65, the corps would NOT charge me or my HMO a dine. Since I am of 65
and they did NOT bill the HMO they would be charged with Medicare fraud.
Medicare IS DEFINITELY one of the primary reasons for our high medical care
cost in the US and for the reasons stated previously

> wrote in message
...
>
>
>>>Mike Hunter wrote:
>>>>:
>>>>Besides the shark lawyers, one of the primary reason healthcare costs
>>>>are
>>>>so high in the US is BECAUSE of the government! It SETS the Medicare
>>>>reimbursement rates very high. Any doctor or hospital that accepts
>>>>Medicare patients MUST charge the SET Medicare reimbursement rates TO
>>>>EVERYBODY or they can be charged with Medicare fraud!
>>>>
>>>You could be correct if the year was still 1968, but Medicare has
>>>operated under cost controls since the mid-1970s, and currently no
>>>health payment system, public or private, sets lower reimbursements
>>>for hospitals and doctors than Medicare, except possibly some Medicaid
>>>programs or Tricare.
>>
>>That may be your opinion but you are not correct I was recently
>>hospitalized for six days. The Medicare set rate was over $13,000, my
>>HMO
>>settled it for about one third that amount and I paid a $50 co-pay. The
>>doctor(s) bills were also settled for less than half the Medicare rate
>>
> From what I know of Aetna, Cigna, and Humana reimbursement practices,
> that's highly unlikely, especially for the doctor bills. You're
> probably confusing the billings with the payments, which often differ
> by as much as 4:1.

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
...
> I'm not confusing anything. The doctors bill was nearly $6,000 and my
> HMO settled at $2,800.
>
> In addition our VOLUNTEER community ambulance corps, of which I am a
> member, MUST submit a bill to my HMO for transporting me the five miles to
> the hospital, BECAUSE I am over 65. The Medicare reimbursement rate is
> $850 for that five miles . My HMO settled for $420 plus a co-pay of $25.
> Since I pay $40 a year, to be a member, I do not need to pay the co-pay.
>
> The stupidity of the high Medicare rates is, if I were a member of the
> corps under 65, the corps would NOT charge me or my HMO a dine. Since I
> am of 65 and they did NOT bill the HMO they would be charged with Medicare
> fraud. Medicare IS DEFINITELY one of the primary reasons for our high
> medical care cost in the US and for the reasons stated previously
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>>>Mike Hunter wrote:
>>>>>:
>>>>>Besides the shark lawyers, one of the primary reason healthcare costs
>>>>>are
>>>>>so high in the US is BECAUSE of the government! It SETS the Medicare
>>>>>reimbursement rates very high. Any doctor or hospital that accepts
>>>>>Medicare patients MUST charge the SET Medicare reimbursement rates TO
>>>>>EVERYBODY or they can be charged with Medicare fraud!
>>>>>
>>>>You could be correct if the year was still 1968, but Medicare has
>>>>operated under cost controls since the mid-1970s, and currently no
>>>>health payment system, public or private, sets lower reimbursements
>>>>for hospitals and doctors than Medicare, except possibly some Medicaid
>>>>programs or Tricare.
>>>
>>>That may be your opinion but you are not correct I was recently
>>>hospitalized for six days. The Medicare set rate was over $13,000, my
>>>HMO
>>>settled it for about one third that amount and I paid a $50 co-pay. The
>>>doctor(s) bills were also settled for less than half the Medicare rate
>>>
>> From what I know of Aetna, Cigna, and Humana reimbursement practices,
>> that's highly unlikely, especially for the doctor bills. You're
>> probably confusing the billings with the payments, which often differ
>> by as much as 4:1.
>
>

And unfortunately the way the rules are written, all dialysis patients have
to go on Medicare after 33 months, no matter how old they are. God, I hate
that rule, I feel like I'm stealing from the old folks.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

Mike Hunter wrote:
> wrote in message
>
...
>>
>>
>>>>Mike Hunter wrote:
>>>>>:
>>>>>Besides the shark lawyers, one of the primary reason healthcare costs
>>>>>are so high in the US is BECAUSE of the government! It SETS the Medicare
>>>>>reimbursement rates very high. Any doctor or hospital that accepts
>>>>>Medicare patients MUST charge the SET Medicare reimbursement rates TO
>>>>>EVERYBODY or they can be charged with Medicare fraud!
>>>>>
>>>>You could be correct if the year was still 1968, but Medicare has
>>>>operated under cost controls since the mid-1970s, and currently no
>>>>health payment system, public or private, sets lower reimbursements
>>>>for hospitals and doctors than Medicare, except possibly some Medicaid
>>>>programs or Tricare.
>>>
>>>That may be your opinion but you are not correct I was recently
>>>hospitalized for six days. The Medicare set rate was over $13,000, my
>>>HMO settled it for about one third that amount and I paid a $50 co-pay. The
>>>doctor(s) bills were also settled for less than half the Medicare rate
>>
>>From what I know of Aetna, Cigna, and Humana reimbursement practices,
>>that's highly unlikely, especially for the doctor bills. You're
>>probably confusing the billings with the payments, which often differ
>>by as much as 4:1.
>
>I'm not confusing anything. The doctors bill was nearly $6,000 and my HMO
>settled at $2,800.
>
It's common, nearly universal, for reimbursement to be far less than
the bill, and your example doesn't say anything about Medicare.
>
>In addition our VOLUNTEER community ambulance corps, of which I am a member,
>MUST submit a bill to my HMO for transporting me the five miles to the
>hospital, BECAUSE I am over 65. The Medicare reimbursement rate is $850
>for that five miles . My HMO settled for $420 plus a co-pay of $25. Since
>I pay $40 a year, to be a member, I do not need to pay the co-pay.
>
>The stupidity of the high Medicare rates is, if I were a member of the corps
>under 65, the corps would NOT charge me or my HMO a dime. Since I am of 65
> and they did NOT bill the HMO they would be charged with Medicare fraud.
> Medicare IS DEFINITELY one of the primary reasons for our high medical care
> cost in the US and for the reasons stated previously
>
Medicare WAS definitely one of the primary reasons for high medical
costs - that was how President Johnson got the AMA to support its
passage, but since the 1970s it's been the leader in cost cutting, so
much that HMOs and the rest of the private insurance business have
copied its practices. Doctors will tell you the 2 things they hate
most are the low rates of Medicaid reimbursement and the hours they
waste daily talking with HMOs and private insurers.