Barack Obama wants to use our tax dollars to help fund the us automakers

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priussoris @ May 8 2007, 06:33 PM) [snapback]437871[/snapback]</div>

More corporate welfare. Big surprise. I wonder where his campaign contributions come from.

If the rest of us are lucky this guy just flushed his presidential aspirations down the toilet.

 

Well I must admit, just as I was warming up the idea of a fresh NEW type of politics, he comes up with this STUPID idea....Now what, back to Hillary I guess.
Of course in the end I will back the Dem in 08 even if God himself becomes the Rep candidate....

TIME FOR A CHANGE -----BIG TIME-----

 

OK, so it's a DUMB idea. However, don't blame the Auto Makers - blame the Unions for forcing the Auto Makers to promise health care for retirees.

And this won't stop me from voting for him (if he gets nominated) - he's still better than any Republican out there (since I'm not registered as a Democrat, I can't vote in the primary).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priussoris @ May 8 2007, 06:33 PM) [snapback]437871[/snapback]</div>

Will they still have the insurance after GM goes bankrupt?

 

Barak Obama supports affordable health care for everyone, and says he considers that his presidency will be judged on whether he can provide this by the end of his first term.

Details here.

 

It is dumb of him to make this particular promise. And the website that Daniel linked to is rather sketchy on plan details. Maybe he's playing it safe by not rolling out a HC plan until later in the process.

Who would you vote for instead? At least O represents change.

 

Horace Greely said " Not all horse thieves are Democrats, but all Democrats are horse thieves."

All politicians are the same, they just want to remain in power and suck the life blood from everyone.

 

Barack Obama is not the only Presidential Candidate touting the need for Universal healthcare. Even non-presidential candidates are speaking of the need for Universal healthcare. The concept of Universal healthcare is not driven by the mis-management of the U.S. Auto industry.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Papa @ May 8 2007, 10:43 PM) [snapback]438050[/snapback]</div>

I believe the quote you're looking for is by John Stewart Mill, and it actually goes, ""While it is true that not all conservatives are stupid, it is also true that most stupid people are conservative."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 8 2007, 11:59 PM) [snapback]438082[/snapback]</div>

Agreed, although I don't mind so much his point to the automakers. They're always whining that they can't compete with Japan because of their legacy healthcare costs. Tying alleviation of those costs to fuel-efficient technology might encourage them to move in the right direction.

And frankly, Universal Health Care is starting to get play from the right as well.
What’s the One Thing Big Business and the Left Have in Common?
“The refrain from business was, ‘We can’t afford to do universal health care,’ †says Wyden, whose plan calls for shifting responsibility for buying insurance from employers to individuals. “Now the refrain is, ‘We can’t afford not to do it.’ †The Business Roundtable, one of Washington’s most influential business lobbies, now endorses universal coverage, at least in broad principle. And probably no spectacle captured the spirit of the times more than a joint conference held in February by Andy Stern and a man he has spent much of the last few years attacking, Lee Scott, the C.E.O. of Wal-Mart. Together the two pronounced the need for universal coverage by 2012."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine...867&ei=5070

 

The concept of bailing out the US automakers is pretty darned stupid... but at the same time, there are a lot of Americans that depend on the health care, and while i don't know what the effect would be if the automakers stopped supplying health care or went bankrupt, I'm sure it would be pretty bad, at least for those individuals.

The plan outlined in the article posted by the OP does have some pretty big benefits to it... mostly, it would allow the US auto industry to throw a lot of money at the "catch up" game in fuel efficiency. Before i could think of backing such a plan, however, i would want to see some strict requirements placed on the auto companies - something like improve the fleet mileage by 10% year over year in order to keep getting the benefits.

With the idea of universal health care being so huge right now, i'm not sure it's possible for a candidate to be running for office without mentioning health care and presenting some sort of plan to solve the problem... The article daniel posted looks promising, and i hope it turns into a good plan in the coming year.

 

Everyone blabs on about "universal health care", but there are many different plans. I want to see a Canadian style single payer system. I do not want to see laws requiring everyone to purchase insurance from a private company, or requiring everyone to have "health savings accounts". The federal govenment must guarantee access to health care for all Americans, regardless of employment status or health status. This may sound radical here, but Europeans and Canadians have taken this for granted for about 50 years. The government is responsible for the health of its citizens, pure and simple.

 

All this stuff about "legacy health care costs" is bunk, and comes down to automakers' greed pure and simple:

They were supposed to be putting money aside for pensions and heal care. That money should have been invested where it would earn interest, and then get paid out for the benefit of the workers.

Instead, the stinking greedy auto executives took obscene salaries and bonuses, and never invested that money, assuming the next generation of executives would pay those costs out of present cash flow.

I say, confiscate the auto companies and sell the stock to pay the pensions and health-care costs, with the warning to the new owners that if they try to pull the same stunt as the previous owners, they'll get confiscated too.

As for a universal health-care plan, I'm with jared.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 9 2007, 12:05 PM) [snapback]438279[/snapback]</div>

There's something missing here:

QUALITY, MEANINGFUL healthcare... I've heard nothing but horror stories coming from Canada regarding healthcare.

The problem is horribly inflated Dr. salaries, tied in with frivolous malpractice lawsuits. As far as I know, a medical doctor is one of the few humanitarian careers that actually pays well. MD's should be in it for the humanitarian component, and NOT pecuniary aspects. They should get paid no more than Priests, social workers, drug rehab folks, etc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 9 2007, 01:46 PM) [snapback]438418[/snapback]</div>

Word!

 

What I do not understand is why poor business decisions on long term benefits should be rewarded by government (taxpayer debt funded) subsidies? If my business makes bad decisions we go out of business? Free enterprise is different than a free lunch.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ May 9 2007, 10:50 AM) [snapback]438269[/snapback]</div>

They're hardly going to whine that they can't compete because the public doesn't want what they're building and the quality of their product can't compete.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ May 9 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]438565[/snapback]</div>

It's because big business can afford to bribe legislators. Small business can't. Pretty simple really. Basic free-market capitalism. You can buy pretty much anything if you have enough money. Legislators are just another commodity, though being few in number, they are expensive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ May 9 2007, 04:45 PM) [snapback]438565[/snapback]</div>

What is the total of your annual political contributions to your chosen party? There's your answer.

Apparently a free lunch is only bad when it's eaten by children and the poor.