This is a tough call. But first, let’s play connect the dots . . . Twice upon a time, I touched upon the fact that the expression “The Cadillac of . . .” had all but disappeared from the popular lexicon. Joe Blow was no longer associating otherwise unrelated product excellence with GM’s luxury brand. A few weeks later, one of our Best and Brightest sent us a screen cap of a Google ad for the new Cadillac SRX, which claimed the vehicle was the “Cadillac of Crossovers.”(Someone at RenCen was paying attention.) And now, suddenly, Cadillac as metaphor has re-entered the mainstream. The debate over a proposed federal tax on health care premiums above $8k (private) or $21k (families) refers to said policies as “Cadillac health care plans.” Here’s the lede from today’s New York Times: “A proposed tax on high-cost, or ‘Cadillac,’ health insurance plans has touched off a fierce clash between the Senate and the House as they wrestle over how to pay for legislation that would provide health benefits to millions of uninsured Americans.” The Times, which never met a tax it didn’t like, feels obliged to put the GM brand in quotes. Why’s that then?
Correct me if I’m wrong (perish the thought), but I reckon the Times understands that people who actually pay big-ass health care premiums are not comfortable with Democrats trying to paint those protection plans as a “luxury.” And yet there it is: class warfare.
The traditional Cadillac meme—quality—isn’t really the point here. In this application, the tax’s supporters are deploying the term to imply that high-priced health care plans are somehow excess to requirements. In a word, selfish. Bought by people who can easily afford to pay taxes on it to help those who can’t afford to buy the Aveo of health care plans (perish the thought II). Oh wait; not Aveo. Minivan.
Critics, including House members and labor unions, say the tax would quickly spiral out of control and hit middle-class workers, people more closely associated with minivans than Cadillacs.
So minivans are the new PC “people’s” transportation—not the high-mileage eco-friendly small cars that Congress is ramming down consumers’ throats encouraging through EPA tailpipe and mpg regulations, and subsidizing through tens of billions of tax dollars. Who knew?
Anyway, automotively speaking, this new political shorthand should serve as a Red Alert for Cadillac’s brand masters. There’s life in the old brand yet! Warning! Danger! As we’ve said countless times, any attempt to take/keep Cadillac downmarket is doomed to failure. You can’t fight City Hall. Or Congress.
Meanwhile, here’s a perfect opportunity for Cadillac to capitalize on the debate with tens of millions of dollars in free publicity. Something clever, like “Luxury is a necessity.” GM’s ex-ad agency Modernista would have grasped that nettle in a heartbeat. The new/old guys, led by failed Car Czar Bob Lutz, not so much.
If anyone here saw ‘Get Shorty’ w/John Travolta and Danny DeVito, Travolta’s character drove an Oldsmobile Silhouette and often referred to it as “the Cadillac of minivans.”
That was bad enough.
eeeeesh.
Yikes.
Good analysis. The NY Times basic philosophy is take from the Cadillac owners and give to the Aveo owners.
I met a socialist cab driver in Liverpool England who insisted that everyone deserved a Cadillac car, not just the rich. I asked him simply if everyone had a Cadillac car then what would be the status of owning a Cadillac any more? He froze up like a PC.
I hear the phrase Lexus Of … occasionally, while The Rolls Royce Of …. still gets play.
The Cimmarron destroyed Cadillac’s image badly in the 80’s and badging SUVs with Caddy emblems didn’t do much for the brand either.
Heck, I’m Canadian, and even I’ve heard of “Cadillac health plans” (my wife had one when she worked in biotech in SFO in the 90’s). In this context, it means a plan with “all the bells and whistles”. (Say what you want about Caddys, but they’ve never lacked for feature content.) My point is that the term is in the vernacular now, like Kleenex or scotch tape. Abetted by the NYT’s clumsy extension of the metaphor, you’re waayyyyy overinterpreting this.
I’m with Boff on this one. No one thought that hard about naming it “Cadillac”. Politicians are by and large old, so they remember when the term meant what they’re trying to convey – that it’s the best, most expensive, etc.
As for the class warfare shtick, isn’t it the inverse sort of class warfare to let a working class guy bleed out for lack of insurance?
Just sayin’.
I’m not sure that a “Cadillac health plan” is the same as, say, “the Cadillac of dishwashers.”
A Cadillac health plan says nothing about the quality of the plan or whether it is worth the cost. Only that it costs a lot of money, and has (as pointed out by Boff) all the toys.
Well, everybody knows that Cadillacs cost a lot of money. But this usage zeros in on extravagance, not on quality. This is not good for GM. GM does not need Cadillac to be about flash and bling. In used car circles, this is what it is known for now – maximum flash for minimum cash. Instead, GM needs Cadillac to be about quiet quality.
Back when the marketing and ad people were working on the campaign for the new Imperial, the 91 version that was a stretched K car, one of the slogans suggested was “the Cadillac of Chryslers”. Unfortunately it was shot down.
sean362880
Clever man. But reframing the debate as class warfare doesn’t reframe the debate as something other than class warfare, if you catch my drift.
The Cadillac meme has never been about quality per se. It’s always referred to the top of the line, most expensive product available. Quality is implied in that, but it’s really about exclusivity.
I am not much into lowriders, but that Caddy is beautiful…especially that purple paint. Is that a Corvette grill?
The last time I heard someone refer to something luxurious as a Cadillac was when our former Prime Minister, the execrable John Chretien, referred to some helicopters the previous government ordered as ‘Cadillacs’. Of course, he cancelled the deal (costing us $500 million in cancellation fees and then spent the next 8 years trying to find a way NOT to come to the conclusion they were the best option after all). To save face, they ended up ordering substantially decontented ones at a lower price.
here’s a perfect opportunity for Cadillac to capitalize on the debate with tens of millions of dollars in free publicity
Really? By allowing the brand to be connected with the indefensible. That being rich people’s exclusive access to health care, or the immoral debate about health care?
I would run out a statement just the opposite; “Cadillac has requested members not associate expensive, co-pay riddled, inefficient health care with our good name”.
“Cadillac” health insurance coverage isn’t limited to plutocrats. Also enjoying deluxe benefits are the people who build Cadillacs, at least those still working under old-style UAW contracts.
I know the new GM isn’t as generous, but my wife recalls that on one visit to her OB-GYN she heard a pregnant lady say “Well, we decided to have another baby because my husband works for GM [at the then-existing OKC assembly plant] and it would be free.”
@ PeteMoran:
Good point, except a Cadillac health plan would NOT be “co-pay riddled,” that is, everything is covered by the insurer. Therefore, the insured has every incentive to see the doc (or ER) for all manner of minor maladies, as he/she doesn’t have to pay a thing (as in 50merc’s example). Of course, this is inefficient.
The American system is the Cadillac of Health Care Plans. No, wait, it’s the Mercedes of Plans:
* Unreliable
* Expensive compared to other, more stable plans
* Works great for people who can afford it, or are loyal to it.
* People who like it largely do so because they’re misinformed about it’s actual standing versus how they perceive it.
The rest of the developed world has, probably, the Honda or Toyota of healthcare. Reliable, affordable and universal, but the detractors complain about how good Benzes are, despite that Mercedes aren’t available to most people, and are still more expensive.
The best part of this analogy is how far I can stretch it: that instead of implementing what other countries do, the current administration is acquiescing to people who want the Mercedes plan, by making everyone buy a shitty Mercedes.
I know the new GM isn’t as generous, but my wife recalls that on one visit to her OB-GYN she heard a pregnant lady say “Well, we decided to have another baby because my husband works for GM [at the then-existing OKC assembly plant] and it would be free.”
And this is why the American system sucks. In no other country in the developed world do you have to worry about the expense of getting sick, pregnant, involved in an accident, starting your own business (and then getting sick), etc, etc.
A good universal system should be like what those UAW members enjoy. How about complaining about how you’re getting screwed by the powers that be (eg, six weeks mat leave, which fucks kids and parents; no health care for small business, etc) about why you don’t have good coverage, instead of complaining about what GM workers get.
It’s class warfare, certainly, but what actually happens is that the upper classes have managed to play the lower and middle classes off against themselves and each other.
@sean362880:
As for the class warfare shtick, isn’t it the inverse sort of class warfare to let a working class guy bleed out for lack of insurance?
That is absolutely ridiculous. We would never allow anyone to bleed out and do nothing about it. That’s unconscionable to allow such a thing to occur.
Now, if they’re dying of cancer, Alzheimer’s or some other short term disease without blood spurting out, well that’s a different story.
The peasant rebellions in the 1300s, where landowners were taken out of their manors and trampled to death by angry mobs, was class warfare. The French Revolution, where nobles either had to flee the country or literally lose their heads in summary executions was class warfare.
Arguing about the top marginal tax rate, or the role of government in health care, is not class warfare.
It’s class warfare, certainly, but what actually happens is that the upper classes have managed to play the lower and middle classes off against themselves and each other.
No, even more insidiously, they’ve managed to convince families who make $70,000/year and live in insta-mansions that they’re “rich” just like millionaires, and therefore have the same interests as them. When in reality, their interests are closer to those of the janitor that makes $20,000/year. Because the millionaires on Wall St. really don’t care that you have an insta-mansion and a Lexus ES, you’re pretty much still a peon to them, useful only when you can be convinced to defend their interests.
When I hear “government Cadillac health care plan” I just picture a Hearse.
And not an ambulance Hearse.
More of the “Sorry, we don’t like you, you’re the (color, ethnicity, age, class, race, risk pool, gender, political party, and or other differentiators that) we don’t like, why don’t you just die” kind of Hearse.
BDB: “The peasant rebellions in the 1300s, where landowners were taken out of their manors and trampled to death by angry mobs, was class warfare.”
Are you implying that killing peasants for hunting deer was not a form of class warfare, or that keeping generation after generation of people tied to their land is not a form of class warfare? Did those silly peasants not appreciate all that Feudalism had done for them? Class warfare is much more effectively waged from the top down.
But it is interesting that you only mention those rare cases when the underclasses rise up.
Ruckover, way to miss my point. No, I’m saying that raising the top marginal tax rate from 33 to 39% and having a public option insurance plan is not class warfare. I’m comparing that to real class warfare for the glibertarian useful idiots of Wall St. on here.
In fact, if they want to do away with things like a progressive income tax, public health care, etc., they’ll sooner or later end up with that kind of violent class warfare. Smart capitalists like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt realized this.
And that, of course, is why I like Fords.
More of the “Sorry, we don’t like you, you’re the (color, ethnicity, age, class, race, risk pool, gender, political party, and or other differentiators that) we don’t like, why don’t you just die” kind of Hearse.
And of course, this never happens with private insurance. No sir!
Please give me one example of, say, a French conservative (or hell even French Nationalist/Fascist, a la LePen) being denied care under their system for their political beliefs, please.
When I hear “government Cadillac health care plan” I just picture a Hearse.
And not an ambulance Hearse.
More of the “Sorry, we don’t like you, you’re the (color, ethnicity, age, class, race, risk pool, gender, political party, and or other differentiators that) we don’t like, why don’t you just die” kind of Hearse.
Funny, that’s the same thing I picture when I hear “health insurance corporation”.
I’d prefer the BMW of health plans, but then again I’m not sure people know how to respect a good accomplishment.
The public I think is slow to adapt to the complexity and evil of the Government. Hell the Government is slow to adapt to itself and life, hence the control issues. The American Fantasy is both coming under pressure and looking like the greener side of the fence. Just like the Cadillac fantasy, and GM fantasy, and the health care fantasy, and the equality fantasy. I’ve always been one to day dream, but I could not have made this story up. Life is becoming quite interesting.
Enlightening the world is the best pass time imo. Perhaps someone will even let go of “classifying” others. Then I’d be really enjoyable to be around people again.
BDB,
you are correct: I missed your point. Mea culpa, as our 14th century friends would have said.
psarhjinian: “the American system sucks.”
As I recall, you are Canadian. Why are you so offended by what goes on south of the border? Seems to me it works well for you. Canadians can cross over to use American facilities to get treated quickly. And like an airline passenger who gets a bargain ticket instead of paying regular fare, they free-ride on American pharmaceutical R&D. My idea of reform is to prohibit our drug manufacturers from selling pills elsewhere for less than US prices.
Is the Edsel of anything still applicable or am I showing my Baby Boomer roots? http://www.mystarcollectorcar.com/
I can’t get into this political argument because this thread has given me an earworm I can’t get rid of. Maybe you’re old enough to remember it too: “Red Wigglers — the Cadillac of worms! The Cadillac of worms!”
It’s from “WKRP in Cincinatti” Google it if you’re a damn kid, and then get off my lawn.
ey free-ride on American pharmaceutical R&D
Right, because there are no pharmaceutical companies that do R&D in countries with single payer, or based in them. I mean, certainly not Merck (Germany), Bayer (Germany), Novartis (Switzerland), Astra Zeneca (UK/Sweden), or Aventis (France). No single payer systems there! No sir.
Wait, what?
Abetted by the NYT’s clumsy extension of the metaphor, you’re waayyyyy overinterpreting this.
Yes.
BDB, the point isn’t that there’s no R&D in other countries. The point is that high(er) US prices allow drug manufacturers to recover most or all of their R&D expense and make a profit, thereby permitting sales in countries that dictate lower prices that barely cover manufacturing costs. If airlines sold all tickets at the cheapest rate, they’d go broke even faster.
The Anglo-Swedish company Astra Zeneca makes one of my medications. The list price, according to my pharmacy, is $497.99 for a month’s supply. (Thanks to private insurance and Medicare, I pay $79.40.) Best I can tell, I can buy it (without insurance, of course) in Canada for about $100 or so. A-Z does make a handsome profit — in 2008 about 20% of gross revenue — but they’d lose interest in developing new drugs if copying generics became more profitable.
Now, what we really need in this country is single-payer Universal Food Supply. Eating is a basic human right, so everyone should be able to get their food at no cost. The government would reimburse grocery stores with revenue from a payroll tax, like FICA. Thankfully, I’m retired.
Now, what we really need in this country is single-payer Universal Food Supply. Eating is a basic human right, so everyone should be able to get their food at no cost.
You’re telling me you’ve never heard of food stamps? Or the WIC program? Or, for the middle class, agriculture subsidies? Really?
Yes, having enough to eat is a basic human right, which is why we have that covered with the two things I just mentioned.
So is retirement at an old age (with a minimum standard of living) which is why we created that horrible, communist monster that destroyed our freedoms forever (snark) known as Social Security.
Canada does not “dictate” its lower drug prices. The lower prices are the result of the single payer buying in bulk. As if A-Z sells their drugs in Canada and elsewhere at a loss!!!
BTW I’d pay $0 (Canadian) for the drug thanks to my employer-provided supplemental health benefits.
Sad to say, Americans are getting ripped off thanks to the current system.
Canada does not “dictate” its lower drug prices. The lower prices are the result of the single payer buying in bulk. As if A-Z sells their drugs in Canada and elsewhere at a loss!!!
You think people who love Wal-Mart would understand that concept, wouldn’t you?
Yup, it isn’t price controls, it is buying in bulk which gets you great discounts be it groceries or drugs. If the USA had a single payer system, we would be buying in bulk for 300 million people, the largest block of drug consumers in the world, and would get extremely low prices. And the drug companies would still make a profit. Who would lose? The middleman insurance companies who don’t produce anything except paperwork and denials of coverage. That is all.
Unlike a lot of other people on the left I don’t really see the drug companies as bad guys. They actually make something worthwhile, they’re just operating in a broken system.
Boff: “Canada does not “dictate” its lower drug prices. The lower prices are the result of the single payer buying in bulk.”
Nope. They use a formula for a “blended” price.
Many countries set prices through negotiation, which can provide a reasonable return to suppliers although the meaning of “reasonable” is always at risk of being politicized. Like “fair.”
50merc I have worked for the pharmaceutical industry in Canada and the US. You are painfully misinformed.
In any event, the fact that the expression does still have some currency shows how great a brand they were and could be again with the right repairs. I think they are on the right track but they need one nice big sedan.