GM, UAW to Shift Health Care Costs

[steinravnik]

GM, UAW to Shift Health Care Costs

UAW Seeks OK to Shift Retiree Health Care Costs to Trust Fund

DETROIT (AP) -- The United Auto Workers and General Motors Corp. are taking a big legal step toward shifting billions in retiree health care costs from the automaker to an independent trust fund.

The union and attorneys representing several retirees sued GM on Thursday to get a federal judge in Detroit to approve the change. It will cover about 500,000 retirees and spouses, plus current UAW workers when they retire.

GM will not oppose the major points of the lawsuit.
If the court approves, the trust gets responsibility for $46.7 billion in health costs in 2010.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080222/uaw_h...care.html?.v=1

[vandy0419]

IIRC...this was decided MONTHS ago. This resolved the last strike.

[mgescuro]

Why sue GM to get a Federal judge to approve??


Thye think GM won't want to off load $46B in costs?? It's just a waste of money to sue.

[cincygoblue]

Hopefully someone else can enlighten us, but my guess is that since the health care agreements of the past were contracts unto themselves, that GM can't just terminate the terms of those agreements. To shift the funds/responsibility over they may need a judge to approve it (provide remedy) OR to prevent other retirees from suing GM or the UAW in the future, they go to court now and get an official legal standing to make the change. If there is no appeal or if the UAW guys win the appeal, then no one can ever say that this was GM shifting over a problem. It was settled in court.

Any legal experts know?

[Gm_Tooler]

Originally Posted by cincygoblue

Hopefully someone else can enlighten us, but my guess is that since the health care agreements of the past were contracts unto themselves, that GM can't just terminate the terms of those agreements. To shift the funds/responsibility over they may need a judge to approve it (provide remedy) OR to prevent other retirees from suing GM or the UAW in the future, they go to court now and get an official legal standing to make the change. If there is no appeal or if the UAW guys win the appeal, then no one can ever say that this was GM shifting over a problem. It was settled in court.

Any legal experts know?

I'm no legal authority, but I'd say your explanation is spot on. Just another step towards dotting i's and crossing t's.
.

[tgagneguam]

It's unfortunate that something truly revolutionary has not come out of these developments. The fact remains that although the UAW will now see negotiating leverage shift decidely toward it and away from commercial health insurance companies, the forces that add considerable cost to the system without considerable gain from their oversight, we will continue to see a draconian system operate in which the power of patients and the power of providers interferred with by Marxist-Stalinist-Central-control commercial insurers. And those who propose national healthcare need only to look at the VA system of care to gain a glimmer of what nationalized healthcare in this country would look like.

As a proponent of truly free market systems-be that autos, be that financial markets, be that healthcare-the time for such a system to take place in American healthcare is long overdue. Interestingly, you see the development of such systems in pockets in your local communities. There are providers who have eschewed the heavily bureacratic, useless intervention between the doctor and patient and have decided to go to a cash-service system that serves anyone. Doctors have generated menus of very reasonable costs based on what ails patients: pharyngitis $45; cough $35... You get the idea. Patient's pay directly to physicians, whose pay scales haven't changed in as much as they earn about the same revenue-wise, but who have to pay less staff to chase the money they're owed for the services they provided. Patient's are able to see their physicians unfettered and without regard to heavily burdensome rules dictated by MBA's who have not a single clue how to manage the doctor-patient relationship... and there are no preauthorizations!

One only needs to look at recent C.B.O. reports to understand the root of healthcare costs in the country, and it aint the providers but the bureacracies created to manage the relationship between patients and their providers. Really kinda sad, actually, that both sides have relinquished control to parties who give a rat's ass about patients or providers.

Of course, this forum doesn't allow a more complete discussion, but novel approaches to linking up patients to their providers to get good healthcare should be entertained beyond transferring responsibility of cost from GM to the UAW. The gains will be dubious, I'm sure.

[jcgable]

Originally Posted by tgagneguam

It's unfortunate that something truly revolutionary has not come out of these developments. The fact remains that although the UAW will now see negotiating leverage shift decidely toward it and away from commercial health insurance companies, the forces that add considerable cost to the system without considerable gain from their oversight, we will continue to see a draconian system operate in which the power of patients and the power of providers interferred with by Marxist-Stalinist-Central-control commercial insurers. And those who propose national healthcare need only to look at the VA system of care to gain a glimmer of what nationalized healthcare in this country would look like.

You're points are valid, however I would argue that the VA system is a better example of a poorly funded and poorly regulated public healthcare system-not public healthcare in general. A better example would be the UK, which is having problems, but overall is doing okay...

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by jcgable

You're points are valid, however I would argue that the VA system is a better example of a poorly funded and poorly regulated public healthcare system-not public healthcare in general. A better example would be the UK, which is having problems, but overall is doing okay...

The point, though, remains valid: a free market system, which hasn't existed in the United States since... forever, would solve a lot of the problems created by bureacracy, be it in the form of commercial insurance companies whose mission it is to deny healthcare to its members so shareholders can profit (take a look at United's share price from $0.30 in 1991 to $60 more recently!; that's absolutely, galactically incredible, and that wasn't done by helping people get access to healthcare; it has been quite the contrary) or from the government, who creates enormous bureacratic boundaries that ultimately cause providers to flee in droves and leave patients with limited (Medicare) or next to no (Medicaid) healthcare options. Ultimately, that care is received in the most expensive place in the system: our nation's ER's.

When you want to control costs, when you want to push quality of care, when you want to keep inflation in control, Friedman and Hayek called it absolutely correctly: free markets, free of bureacratic interference that creates unnecesary suffering, unnecessary waste, and sharp inflation. Think about that this year when you see your healthcare premiums rise very much higher than inflation while reimbursement rates to providers are frozen at zero for yet another year in a row. Tell me, who's seeing the cash from those increased fees? Tell me, when you see Blue Cross building a hugely expensive new buliding on the most expensive real estate in one of the states in which it operates where healthcare premiums are going? Quality care? My ass! Tell me, when United's CEO gets his retirement package that orginally totaled $2.5 billion with a "B" how the UAW is supposed to fund healthcare, even if GM gives them $30 billion minimum.