Cash for Clunkers Success

Riot · #1 08-24-2009, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I don't think he is illegal but do think it's suspicious he's spent millions in legal fees to fight the release of it. If a little leaguer has to produce his (not someone who says he saw it) why not a President? Race? Father Name? America wants to know or at least I do.

And you were all in when Obama was going to use wasted medicaid money to finance a chunk of BS Health Care and now he plans to expand it?

Did you know that a poll last week showed that 75% of FoxNews viewers really believe there will be government death panels killing grandma?

PS - and you might read up on what that "expansion" thing really involves.

PPS - "millions in legal fees" ??? LOL!

dellinger63 · #2 08-24-2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

PS - and you might read up on what that "expansion" thing really involves.

!

Did that 4 days ago unless we're back to plan A or is it B or ????

PS I know the Wall Street Journal (Neocon, racist, biggoted, heartless, biased rag)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html

and to think part of the logic why we're supposed to accept this is because the Post Office doesn't suck that bad!

Get served slow at the post office you may get a late charge, get served slow by government health care and you may be dead. Get that logic?

Riot · #3 08-25-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Did that 4 days ago unless we're back to plan A or is it B or ????

PS I know the Wall Street Journal (Neocon, racist, biggoted, heartless, biased rag)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html

and to think part of the logic why we're supposed to accept this is because the Post Office doesn't suck that bad!

Get served slow at the post office you may get a late charge, get served slow by government health care and you may be dead. Get that logic?

The above makes perfect sense

Try again: you said Obama was expanding the healthcare plan. I asked you what you meant. You posted the above as response. The article you quote from WSJ has nothing about expanding the healthcare plan in it, it discusses the various aspects of the various bills, how they might split it to get it through, etc.

So what do you mean by "expanding the healthcare plan" ?

dellinger63 · #4 08-25-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

The above makes perfect sense

Try again: you said Obama was expanding the healthcare plan. I asked you what you meant. You posted the above as response. The article you quote from WSJ has nothing about expanding the healthcare plan in it, it discusses the various aspects of the various bills, how they might split it to get it through, etc.

So what do you mean by "expanding the healthcare plan" ?

I said "In step 1 we are now going to 'expand' Medicaid? Is this the same Medicaid we were going to take 2/3 of 'waste money' from?

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31304

Riot · #5 08-25-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I said "In step 1 we are now going to 'expand' Medicaid? Is this the same Medicaid we were going to take 2/3 of 'waste money' from?

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31304

Ah, now I see, I think you are confusing two entirely different topics regarding healthcare reform.

One proposal made (but not strongly supported, and I think it's off the table) is to expand Medicaid to be more inclusive, and pick up more people (lessening the number of uninsured that will have to be covered by other parts of healthcare reform).

The second is how the healthcare reform bill overall costs will be paid for, which involves savings from waste in Medicare.

dellinger63 · #6 08-25-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

The above makes perfect sense

Try again: you said Obama was expanding the healthcare plan. I asked you what you meant. You posted the above as response. The article you quote from WSJ has nothing about expanding the healthcare plan in it, it discusses the various aspects of the various bills, how they might split it to get it through, etc.

So what do you mean by "expanding the healthcare plan" ?

You seemed under the impression we were going to use wasted money from Medicaid and apply it to a streamlined system that would cover far more people at a cheaper cost. That was the fodder for my reponse.

And how does a Presdent who uses the post office as a government agency that competes with the private sector admitting it's crappy as an example of gov./private sector competition make sense when applied to a gov. health insurance company?

Riot · #7 08-25-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You seemed under the impression we were going to use wasted money from Medicaid and apply it to a streamlined system that would cover far more people at a cheaper cost. That was the fodder for my reponse.

And how does a Presdent who uses the post office as a government agency that competes with the private sector admitting it's crappy as an example of gov./private sector competition make sense when applied to a gov. health insurance company?

I'ts not my "impression", Dell. Obama has clearly said that the majority of funding for the healthcare reform package (the parts that need funding) will come from collection of wasted money from Medicare (not Medicaid). I want to see that to believe it.

BTW, the President never said the PO was crappy

(Try giving the PO, UPS and Fed Ex a regular business letter with an address on it, and see what each charges you for delivery)

The current government health insurance companies apparently do well enough, that you can't find anybody covered by them that wants to give up their coverage

Answer this for me, Dell: do you buy your own health insurance, or is your health insurance paid for by your employer, or do you have no health insurance?

Cannon Shell · #8 08-25-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

I'ts not my "impression", Dell. Obama has clearly said that the majority of funding for the healthcare reform package (the parts that need funding) will come from collection of wasted money from Medicare (not Medicaid). I want to see that to believe it.

BTW, the President never said the PO was crappy

(Try giving the PO, UPS and Fed Ex a regular business letter with an address on it, and see what each charges you for delivery)

The current government health insurance companies apparently do well enough, that you can't find anybody covered by them that wants to give up their coverage

Answer this for me, Dell: do you buy your own health insurance, or is your health insurance paid for by your employer, or do you have no health insurance?

Sometimes I wonder if you understand what you are fighting for?
If you have doubts that the majority of funding for healthcare reform will come from the collection of wasted more from Medicare then how can you possibly support these measures? The only way to find out if it can happen is to do it! What if your suspicions are correct? Too late.

The Post office loses billions of dollars a year. They have farmed out much of their overnight business (which is lucrative) to UPS and FedEX because they are not nearly as good as the private companies.

The current govt health insurance companies are free. Who gives up free stuff?

Riot · #9 08-25-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Sometimes I wonder if you understand what you are fighting for?

Because I don't automatically and unthinkingly segregate complex social issues into political black and white, for and against, based upon political affiliation?

dellinger63 · #10 08-25-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Answer this for me, Dell: do you buy your own health insurance, or is your health insurance paid for by your employer, or do you have no health insurance?

I pay for my own. Had a heart check and lung (MRI) independant of the insurance kind of a home inspection. I do have a large deductable that keeps the policy very reasonable for what it covers if things go bad. And yes I'm happy w/it.

Riot · #11 08-25-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I pay for my own. Had a heart check and lung (MRI) independant of the insurance kind of a home inspection. I do have a large deductable that keeps the policy very reasonable for what it covers if things go bad. And yes I'm happy w/it.

Everybody is happy with their insurance coverage until they are not

Especially the younger one is, and the less pre-existing conditions one has.

Wouldn't you like your insurance company to be willing to cover more preventative care, rather than repairative care, like that MRI?

If that MRI you paid for because you wanted good preventative care had found something (let's say something minor you need to keep an eye on in the future), do you realize that your insurance company can choose to arbitrarily and immediately drop you for any future coverage stemming from those findings, or put limits on how much they will pay for any problem during your lifetime.

Don't you find that a little scary?

dellinger63 · #12 08-24-2009, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Did you know that a poll last week showed that 75% of FoxNews viewers really believe there will be government death panels killing grandma?!

Really? Do you just arbitrarily make up numbers or add numbers together to get to a number you like?

dalakhani · #13 08-24-2009, 10:27 PM

Interesting article on cash for clunkers. A decided libertarian bent to the column but still interesting reading and I thought it was pretty fair:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08...y5262084.shtml

dellinger63 · #14 08-24-2009, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Interesting article on cash for clunkers. A decided libertarian bent to the column but still interesting reading and I thought it was pretty fair:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08...y5262084.shtml

It was a good article and when numbers are broken down so is Riot & Co.'s euphoria.

For 3 Billion Dollars we save a little under a half's day fuel allotment and a little more than 2hrs out of a year in greenhouse gases? And the saving of the 2hrs per YEAR in greenhouse gas reduction will start 2 1/2 years after delivery of the auto to compensate for gases created in its production?

Heck it would have been to stupid to fall for the con of buying air but would have cost only $32 million to buy the carbon credits or $320 million for 10yrs the average life of the cars of this programme. We could have put the almost 90% of the $3 billon back in the bank to offset the $29.4 million we lose per year in gasoline tax revenue presuming it remains at 18.4 cents/gallon.

dalakhani · #15 08-25-2009, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

It was a good article and when numbers are broken down so is Riot & Co.'s euphoria.

For 3 Billion Dollars we save a little under a half's day fuel allotment and a little more than 2hrs out of a year in greenhouse gases? And the saving of the 2hrs per YEAR in greenhouse gas reduction will start 2 1/2 years after delivery of the auto to compensate for gases created in its production?

Heck it would have been to stupid to fall for the con of buying air but would have cost only $32 million to buy the carbon credits or $320 million for 10yrs the average life of the cars of this programme. We could have put the almost 90% of the $3 billon back in the bank to offset the $29.4 million we lose per year in gasoline tax revenue presuming it remains at 18.4 cents/gallon.

The article does concede that it is a successful program on some levels. I don't think that can be argued. The degree of that success obviously can.

My take? Its stimulus. It helped get some people off of the sideline at a time when the auto industry needed a jump start (no pun intended). I could post another article with a greener bent to it and it would provide stats that show the ecological benefits of the program ad nauseum. Any way you look at it, its something.

There is no silver bullet. This is one of many programs that will be thrown out there to help the economy recover. I applaud the efforts of the government.

Cannon Shell · #16 08-25-2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

There is no silver bullet. This is one of many programs that will be thrown out there to help the economy recover. I applaud the efforts of the government.

The success is modest at best and the amount of economic recovery is that is created by similar (right now imaginary) programs will also be modest at best. This program is the Eugenio Velez of govt programs. Looks great briefly but in the end doesnt really do much.

Hooray Beer!