Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 19, 2019

General Motors is no longer paying the health care costs for the tens of thousands of auto workers who went on strike on Monday, shifting the costs instead to a union fund.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Comment from the link ...

Eric S
7 hours ago

One of the dirtiest tricks that the Neoliberals and Republicans ever successfully pulled in this country was to convince working people that OTHER working people were their enemies.

Blaming teachers Unions for busted state budgets, Demonizing all labor unions for the corrupt practices of a few bad players, Walking back union organizing protections,

Convincing consumers that high prices are the fault of unions, and many more,

But the final insult to labor is actually demonizing immigrant workers as the architects of all that is wrong in America.


QFT

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-19 08:22 AM | Reply

GM using health care to bludgeon workers in contract negotiations is just another reason for medicare for all.

#2 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-19 09:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

One of the dirtiest tricks that the Neoliberals and Republicans ever successfully pulled in this country was to convince working people that OTHER working people were their enemies.

While the middle class blames the poor for their problems I am going to park my boat in my boat.

- Thurston Howell IV.

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-19 09:12 AM | Reply

One of the best benefits for union workers is excellent healthcare. If you think for one minute the unions will support medicare for all in private (the voting booth) you are dead wrong.

#4 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-09-19 09:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Headline is false. GM doesn't provide health-care, they can't deny health-care.
Perhaps change the headline to 'GM stops paying their part of the health insurance costs of non-working strikers'? You know...something honest.

#5 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-19 09:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

One of the best benefits for union workers is excellent healthcare. If you think for one minute the unions will support medicare for all in private (the voting booth) you are dead wrong.

#4 | POSTED BYGRACIEAMAZED

You're not understanding what you're saying.

Ordinary people like GM workers are getting squeezed beyond belief, as are all working and middle-class Americans.

Employer based health care insurance is NOT great because of the continued rising costs of healthcare, and those costs are being passed on to everyone (like GM workers) thru higher premiums.

Medicare-for-all is popular because ordinary Americans understand that not having to worry about healthcare is most important than anything else -- even Fox News viewers overwhelming support Bernie Sanders Medicare-for-all plan EVEN after being told it'll cost the nation ~ $30 trillion.

#6 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-19 10:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Headline is false. GM doesn't provide health-care, they can't deny health-care.

Perhaps change the headline to 'GM stops paying their part of the health insurance costs of non-working strikers'? You know...something honest.

#5 | POSTED BYAVIGDORE

Perhaps you're trolling like trolls do.

Stop arguing over the singular meaning of individual words.

#7 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-19 11:03 AM | Reply

It's not arguing over singular meaning of individual words. The concept stated in the title is wrong. If one of those strikers has a heart attack today, GM does not -and can not- deny them the life-saving health-care that they would need to keep them alive. The false title claims otherwise. Whoever wrote the title made a conscious effort to try to sway the opinions of people against GM by lying about the reality of the situation.

Personally I don't like people intentionally misrepresnting facts here on the Retort, so I point out falsehoods when I have the chance.

#8 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-19 12:36 PM | Reply

"If one of those strikers has a heart attack today, GM does not -and can not- deny them the life-saving health-care that they would need to keep them alive."

You think people don't know that?

You must think we are stupid.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-19 12:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The concept stated in the title is wrong. If one of those strikers has a heart attack today, GM does not -and can not- deny them the life-saving health-care that they would need to keep them alive.

Personally I don't like people intentionally misrepresnting facts here on the Retort, so I point out falsehoods when I have the chance.

#8 | POSTED BYAVIGDORE

What Snoofy said, Troll.

Personally I don't like Trolls trolling a bunch of BS.

GM is denying the striking workers healthcare -- clutching your chest with a possible Myocardial Infarction and driving to the ER where you can't be denied care is COMPLETELY TAKING OUT OF CONTEXT OF WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

And if you don't believe me, try watching the 18-minute video before posting your trolling BS, Troll.

#10 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-19 03:01 PM | Reply

"GM is denying the striking workers healthcare"

Are you willing to step and pay for it?

If not, you're no different than GM.

#11 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-19 03:10 PM | Reply

"Are you willing to step and pay for it?"

Sounds like you're unclear on what we're asking for, when we ask for single payer.

Yes, we're willing to pay for it.

Do you need to repeat Econ 101?

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-19 03:12 PM | Reply

GM is denying the striking workers healthcare -- clutching your chest with a possible Myocardial Infarction and driving to the ER where you can't be denied care is COMPLETELY TAKING OUT OF CONTEXT OF WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.
And if you don't believe me, try watching the 18-minute video before posting your trolling BS, Troll.
#10 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-19 03:01 PM

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.
Helathcare: NOUN the organized provision of medical care to individuals or a community.

GM does not provide healthcare. They assist workers in covering the cost of their health insurance.

The title that GM is denying their healthcare is false. Don't blame me that someone posted a false and misleading headline.

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-19 03:32 PM | Reply

"GM does not provide healthcare. They assist workers in covering the cost of their health insurance."

Why do you think we're so stupid that we don't know how health care and health insurance works?

Weird cross to bear.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-19 03:34 PM | Reply

"Sounds like you're unclear on what we're asking for, when we ask for single payer."

Who is we?

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

"Yes, we're willing to pay for it."

When you say "Yes, we're willing to pay for it," Do you mean slap that additional tax on me? Maybe a 20% western European style VAT? Or by "we" do you mean that your intent is not really to burden yourself with additional costs...but rather to pass them on to someone else, while you're still able to reap the benefits...

...just curious.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-19 03:48 PM | Reply

"Why do you think we're so stupid that we don't know how health care and health insurance works?"

Because you demonstrate your ignorance on a daily, if not hourly basis.

Odd you should mention ECON 101? Did you ever take that course? I mean, take it, show up, and get a "C" or better?

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-19 03:50 PM | Reply

#15 "We" means myself and everyone else who supports single payer... and everyone who doesn't. It means all Americans. The payment mechanism is beside the point. As are most of your comments.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-19 03:53 PM | Reply

"#15 "We" means myself and everyone else who supports single payer... and everyone who doesn't. It means all Americans. The payment mechanism is beside the point. As are most of your comments."

In other --------- no I'm not going to pay for it."

Be honest. If MFA came with a 20% VAT to fund it, would you still support it?

It's easy to support something when it's not going to cost you any time, effort, or money. But things change once you have some skin in the game.

Honestly, if Bernie (or someone else) proposed some form of VAT funded public option, I'd likely support it.

Would you?

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-19 04:00 PM | Reply

"Be honest. If MFA came with a 20% VAT to fund it, would you still support it?"

You're moving the goalposts, just to be a weasel.

I said I support single payer, and I'm willing to fund whatever payment mechanism sustains it.

If you can't get the answer to your question from what I've already said, then I can't help you with that.

Horse.
Water.
Drink.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-19 04:04 PM | Reply

"If you can't get the answer to your question from what I've already said, then I can't help you with that."

Except that you didn't say it...until just now. The payment mechanism is not beside the point. It is the lynchpin that will determine failure or success. Right now, Bernie is setting MFA up for failure by promoting the unrealistic idea that "the rich" will fund MFA, to everyone else's benefit.

What do you think Snoofy? Will the average supporter of MFA continue to support if it means paying 20% more for most of the stuff you buy?

You're in a better position than me to answer...but I would guess no.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-19 04:52 PM | Reply

The way pensions (and 401ks) work is that you put money in and after 25 years of work it has grown into a nice sum that you can then use to pay a generous pension. The Wisconsin fund which is protected from raids by the state constitution is an example of how they work. The Wisconsin state pension fund has enough funds to pay 75 years of pensions ASSUMING NO GROWTH OR FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS.

#21 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-19 09:51 PM | Reply

Be honest. If MFA came with a 20% VAT to fund it, would you still support it?

#18 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2019-09-19 04:00 PM | REPLY

Nobody with any intention of getting universal healthcare is proposing that because it is complete overkill.

People who talk about the cost always leave out what we are paying now. In 2018 We spent $3.5 Trillion, the equivalent of $12,478 for every insured man, woman and child in the USA and failed to provide ANY insurance for 13.7% of Americans.

M4A will cost $32 Trillion over 10 years!! Horror!! Evil!!

That is $3 Trillion less than what we are spending now and covers everyone, at $9,846 per insured

#22 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-19 10:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What do you think Snoofy? Will the average supporter of MFA continue to support if it means paying 20% more for most of the stuff you buy?"

They will if their employers give them a raise equal to what the employer pays for their health insurance. For me that's an extra $775 am month. Since my VAT eligible spending isn't $3,875 a month, I come out waaaay ahead.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 12:02 AM | Reply

"Nobody with any intention of getting universal healthcare is proposing that because it is complete overkill."

So then what would the correct amount for a VAT be?

"People who talk about the cost always leave out what we are paying now. In 2018 We spent $3.5 Trillion, the equivalent of $12,478 for every insured man, woman and child in the USA and failed to provide ANY insurance for 13.7% of Americans."

When you say "we." who do you mean? All Americans collectively? Because some Americans are paying a lot...some are paying a lot less.

Currently, a little more that 50% of families have healthcare plans provided by their employers. 14% are direct purchase, 14% are uninsured, and the rest are covered by Medicare/Medicaid.

You can make the argument that the 14% who are direct purchase consumers might pay less. But for those with insurance (including employer provided), the average family spends $714 per year out of pocket. How are they going to benefit? What about the intentionally uninsured?

I think you're presupposing that proponents of MFA would have access to the money currently spent on healthcare. It's a mistake to make that assumption.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 05:25 AM | Reply

"They will if their employers give them a raise equal to what the employer pays for their health insurance. For me that's an extra $775 am month. Since my VAT eligible spending isn't $3,875 a month, I come out waaaay ahead."

I Agree completely. I have a sneaking suspicion your employer wouldn't give you the full $775, but as a single dude I have a feeling you would be in as better financial position.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 05:31 AM | Reply

The smart money would be to provide a public option as a test run. If it turns out to provide the quality of care that taxpayers are looking for at a lower cost, it's naturally going to attract new customers.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 05:32 AM | Reply

GM does not -and can not- deny them the life-saving health-care that they would need to keep them alive."

I didn't know GM provided health care. I thought they built cars.

#27 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-20 06:53 AM | Reply

The smart money would be to provide a public option as a test run.

That will never happen. Health Insurance Incorporated is too afraid of honest competition.

Medicare operates at a 3% overhead rate. Big Insurance cannot compete with that AND pay the C-suite billions in compensation.

#28 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-20 06:56 AM | Reply

"One of the best benefits for union workers is excellent healthcare."

Obviously not Gracie. If your employer holds the keys to your healthcare then he can turn it off if you ask for a raise. With Medicare for all the employer would lose that power. I'll go with MforAll.
Take away the threat of eliminating your healthcare from your employer's bag of tactics.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 07:20 AM | Reply

"The smart money would be to provide a public option as a test run."

Horse crap. Do it right the first time. MforAll, fix the problems as they arise but keep the real goal in sight at all times. Diversionary tactics should not be tolerated.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 07:22 AM | Reply

""What do you think Snoofy? Will the average supporter of MFA continue to support if it means paying 20% more for most of the stuff you buy?""

I am so tired of this talking point. Of course we'd be ok with it but we'd have to demand that our employers pay us the money they previously paid to insurance companies. In my case I can tell you honestly, I'd come out way ahead. And it should be part of the law that puts MforAll into place. No free gifts to employers.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-20 07:25 AM | Reply

"That will never happen. Health Insurance Incorporated is too afraid of honest competition."

Yet it's Bernie who is seeking to ban competition with a government plan. As far as I know, no health insurance companies are trying to ban a public option.

"Diversionary tactics should not be tolerated."

Danni...once more proving you would have been an ideal candidate for the Cheka.

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 09:30 AM | Reply

"Of course we'd be ok with it but we'd have to demand that our employers pay us the money they previously paid to insurance companies. In my case I can tell you honestly, I'd come out way ahead. And it should be part of the law that puts MforAll into place. No free gifts to employers."

"Demand" our employers pay you more?

If I were your employer, I'd fire you if I demanded anything. Probably like you would quite if your employer "demanded" anything of you.

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 09:32 AM | Reply

"If it turns out to provide the quality of care that taxpayers are looking for at a lower cost, it's naturally going to attract new customers."

If?

This has already been shown, in every other modern country.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-20 12:33 PM | Reply

"This has already been shown, in every other modern country."

Not really.

Socialized care results in longer wait times. In a different thread, I mentioned how a dude who works for me is headed back to the US for a doctor's appointment. Wait time for a GP, for him, would have been six weeks. So he's going to go back to OKC and see a doc there.

That's not to say that you're going to wait six months. I have no doubt that he could have written a check and gotten in quicker. And I'm sure part of the thrash is due to the fact that he has a US-based health plan.

if you're young and healthy, wait times aren't going to bother you. If you need a new hip and MFA is going to take eight months, that may be a different story.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-20 12:49 PM | Reply

Let the union pay for the health care while on a union sanctioned strike.

#36 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-09-21 09:39 AM | Reply

Who pays the 20% copay on Mforall?

#37 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-09-21 09:45 AM | Reply

Let the union pay for the health care while on a union sanctioned strike.

#36 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Did you work this past Labor Day? Answer is no.

If it weren't for unions, you'd be selling apples on a corner.

GM made $6 billion in profit, they could continue paying healthcare premiums which would be a gesture of good faith, but GM is obviously lacking in good faith.

You siding with millionaires and billionaires, people you have zero in common with, shows exactly what a pathetic Quisling you are for rich douchebags.

#38 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-21 11:03 AM | Reply

Who pays the 20% copay on Mforall?

#37 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Your answer is below ...

Jimmy Dore Show: Libertarians Admit Medicare-For-All Saves TRILLION$!
www.youtube.com
[16:04]

Not hard to understand.

#39 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-21 11:06 AM | Reply

#40

#40 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-21 11:07 AM | Reply

Does nobody here understand that the origin of employer-provided health insurance was as a perk to compete for employees at the end of WWII? Employers had to offer it to get the best talent. Not to mention that unions provided real bargaining power on the part of employees that they don't have today. We need both single-payer healthcare (whatever flavor you want) and a revival of unions to re-balance the toxic maldistribution of income and wealth in the country today. It's ridiculous to fight over how payment for healthcare is administered as long as the out-of-pocket costs for the patient are not ruinous, as they potentially are today. This is not rocket science for any industrialized country except The "Greatest Country on Earth".

The alternative is eventual civil unrest. It's happened before. Pick up a history book.

#41 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-09-21 11:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Not hard to understand.
#39 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF"

I'm stuck for the 20% that medicare does not pay, so we buy AARP supplemental insurance.
Tell me how the masses avoid that 20% cost.
Short answer.

#42 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-09-21 04:07 PM | Reply

"If you need a new hip and MFA is going to take eight months, that may be a different story."

You don't need a new hip overnight.
It takes like 60 years of wear and tear.
You can wait 8 months; heck, you can plan it.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-21 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm stuck for the 20% that medicare does not pay, so we buy AARP supplemental insurance.
Tell me how the masses avoid that 20% cost.
Short answer.

#42 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Medicare-for-All eliminates all premiums and co-pays ...

nymag.com

Both Bernie Sanders's Senate proposal and Representative Pramila Jayapal's House bill would make health care "free at the point of service," meaning that Americans would no longer have to deal with medical bills or cost-sharing payments of any kind.

Premiums, co-pays, and deductibles would become abominable anachronisms, joining the iron maiden, manacles, and other misbegotten instruments of torture in the ash heap of history.

Instead, all health-care financing would be done through the tax code.

Meanwhile, Sanders and Jayapal would also outlaw all private insurance, except for supplemental plans that cover the few services (such as cosmetic plastic surgery) that their national public plan wouldn't.

This is a critical component of their vision, as they expect the abolition of private insurance to eliminate redundant administrative costs, and thus make universal, free, point-of-service health care more fiscally sustainable.


So instead of paying high premiums of say $28,000 annually, you won't have to pay premiums at all and the rise in your taxes will be small compared to the money saved from not paying premiums and co-pays.

Bernie explains how Medicare-for-All is paid for below ...

Fox News Town Hall with Bernie Sanders
www.youtube.com
[25:20 thru 28:13]

By the way, Bernie got applause after applause explaining Medicare-for-All from the Fox News crowd.

#44 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-21 07:21 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort