RoyalOrleans
New member
Unfortunately for Barack Obama and the Democrats, it has left a pretty bad taste in people's mouths. This coincides with a debate over government running our healthcare system. Maybe the administration should have thought about the implications of this program not being a boondoggle, considering its push to run healthcare. Here are just a few of the problems with the cash for clunkers:
--Congress--relying on auto industry forecasts that the program wouldn't have a major effect on moribund sales--deeply underestimated how many people would be lured to dealerships by rebates of up to $4,500. Initially, lawmakers committed just $1 billion, an amount that was burned through in just a few weeks.
--Transportation Department officials, presented with just 30 days to get the program up and running, didn't set aside enough staff or resources and were overwhelmed by the heavy response from consumers. Systems set up to handle and reimburse dealer claims were swamped.
--Government rules to prevent fraud created paperwork requirements that many dealers didn't fully understand.
--Hungry for sales, dealers made Cash for Clunkers deals weeks in advance even though they were advised against it. This created a big backlog the moment the program officially began. And many are still filing bad paperwork that is holding up their claims, despite repeated government attempts to clear up the confusion.
Long story short? The government was ill-prepared and it has little incentive to achieve anything in a timely manner. Take New Mexico, for example. The federal government owes dealers around the state more than $3.6 million. Guess how much it has actually paid? The federal government has only sent three checks totally $14,000. Who knows when or if those dealers will get the money.
Yeah ... and you trust these people to manage your health care
--Congress--relying on auto industry forecasts that the program wouldn't have a major effect on moribund sales--deeply underestimated how many people would be lured to dealerships by rebates of up to $4,500. Initially, lawmakers committed just $1 billion, an amount that was burned through in just a few weeks.
--Transportation Department officials, presented with just 30 days to get the program up and running, didn't set aside enough staff or resources and were overwhelmed by the heavy response from consumers. Systems set up to handle and reimburse dealer claims were swamped.
--Government rules to prevent fraud created paperwork requirements that many dealers didn't fully understand.
--Hungry for sales, dealers made Cash for Clunkers deals weeks in advance even though they were advised against it. This created a big backlog the moment the program officially began. And many are still filing bad paperwork that is holding up their claims, despite repeated government attempts to clear up the confusion.
Long story short? The government was ill-prepared and it has little incentive to achieve anything in a timely manner. Take New Mexico, for example. The federal government owes dealers around the state more than $3.6 million. Guess how much it has actually paid? The federal government has only sent three checks totally $14,000. Who knows when or if those dealers will get the money.
Yeah ... and you trust these people to manage your health care
timesjoke
Active Members
Well said RO, if these much smaller programs are beyond the skills of the Obama administration, what makes anyone believe they can design a good healthcare program?
I would not trust either party to do this, the Government does not possess the skilled workers to run anything like this.
I would not trust either party to do this, the Government does not possess the skilled workers to run anything like this.
RoyalOrleans
New member
As I have said, to ad nauseum, cash for clunkers is the latest example of the inability of the government to run anything effieciently.
Do any of you remember a couple years back when the government decided that everyone leaving the country would need a passport? The group of people that this hit was mostly people going on cruises, where before your driver's license was good enough to get on and off of the cruise ship.
Well the government steps in with this new requirement for a passport, but neglects to add any new workers to handle the increase in passport requests. This of course created a huge back log! People, in haste to get their passport due to impending vacation plans, had to start calling their representative to hurry things along. So they, the government, decided to extend the date another year so they could catch up.
That was during Bush; cash for clunkers during Obama, so it should be quite obvious that it doesn't matter which group is in charge the government is just not good at managing much of anything.
Do any of you remember a couple years back when the government decided that everyone leaving the country would need a passport? The group of people that this hit was mostly people going on cruises, where before your driver's license was good enough to get on and off of the cruise ship.
Well the government steps in with this new requirement for a passport, but neglects to add any new workers to handle the increase in passport requests. This of course created a huge back log! People, in haste to get their passport due to impending vacation plans, had to start calling their representative to hurry things along. So they, the government, decided to extend the date another year so they could catch up.
That was during Bush; cash for clunkers during Obama, so it should be quite obvious that it doesn't matter which group is in charge the government is just not good at managing much of anything.
timesjoke
Active Members
Exactly, I have been 'preaching' the same thing for over ten years. At best the Federal Government can only set guidelines and rules for certain things, the second they try to actively "RUN" something, they fail miserably.
What highly skilled manager would work for the Government when he can make ten times the money in the private sector? Anyone who the Government can get to run things would be an idiot.
So even if our elected officials could design a 'perfect' system (never going to happen) they still could not put it into action because there is nobody who works for the Government with the ability to put it in action without ******** it up.
hugo
New member
Too add a bit to what RO has said. C4C is also a perfect example of how when government subsidizes a program they always underestimate the cost of the program. We can no longer initiate unfunded programs. The healthcare crisis is the result of government intervention. The solution to the crisis is less government, not more.
RoyalOrleans
New member
Those who drive the clunkers, for the most part, are those who cannot afford to drive a newer car. Who is going to take the loss when the payments on these new cars are not made in the coming months?
Dealers or taxpayers?
Folks, the party hasn't even started yet.
Dealers or taxpayers?
Folks, the party hasn't even started yet.
RoyalOrleans
New member
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LcYZxGdY8U]YouTube - I WANT YOUR CLUNK - THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS EXTRAVAGANZA!!![/ame]
phreakwars
New member
So let me get this straight... Cash for clunkers is a failure because it's too successful? So what are you gonna ***** about after all the dealers have been payed? It's been what, a MONTH? Oh poor babies have to wait for paperwork to be processed before getting paid... kinda sounds like the same **** you go threw waiting for a $5 mail in rebate check.
The people buying the cars can't afford the payments anyway?
Jesus, just keep up the stupidity. I can actually feel the stupid flowing through this topic
And for another thing the government ISN'T trying to run healthcare, they are trying to reform it. Where does one get: "KEEP YOUR INSURANCE IF YOU LIKE IT" = GOV RUN?
Fukking DUH!!
.
.
The people buying the cars can't afford the payments anyway?
Jesus, just keep up the stupidity. I can actually feel the stupid flowing through this topic
And for another thing the government ISN'T trying to run healthcare, they are trying to reform it. Where does one get: "KEEP YOUR INSURANCE IF YOU LIKE IT" = GOV RUN?
Fukking DUH!!
.
.
timesjoke
Active Members
I guess it all depends on what you call success Bender.So let me get this straight... Cash for clunkers is a failure because it's too successful? So what are you gonna ***** about after all the dealers have been payed? It's been what, a MONTH? Oh poor babies have to wait for paperwork to be processed before getting paid... kinda sounds like the same **** you go threw waiting for a $5 mail in rebate check.
The people buying the cars can't afford the payments anyway?
Jesus, just keep up the stupidity. I can actually feel the stupid flowing through this topic
To me the failure to account for the proper funding, the failure to prepare dealers and processors "before" the program went into effect, the failure to process the applications in a timely way, all in a short term program proves to me that if they can't get something this very simple right, what makes anyone believe they can run healthcare?
We already ocvered this Bender, page 16 says you cannot have healthcare of your choosing once this legislation goes into effect. The Government will be offering healthcare without having to make a profit.And for another thing the government ISN'T trying to run healthcare, they are trying to reform it. Where does one get: "KEEP YOUR INSURANCE IF YOU LIKE IT" = GOV RUN?
Fukking DUH!!
.
.
Let me describe it to you in a way even a Liberal should be able to undersatand it:
Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart does not own all the other businesses but they drive small businesses out of business because they cannot compete. Many States have worked very hard to keep Wal-Mart out because they kill all other smaller businesses. Here in Florida they have been fighting a State law that does not allow anyone to sell gassoline below what they pay for it. Wal-Mart wants to sell below cost so they can run other gas stations out of business.
Obamacare is designed using Wal-Mart tactics.
timesjoke
Active Members
If anyone is a socialist it is you Hugo, not me.
I do not hate Wal-Mart, just becuase I point out their business model that does not mean I do not support their right to do what they do.
Consider it like describing how a leopard hunts and kills, it may 'sound' grusome but it is just part of nature.
If I were to say there is anything wrong with how Wal-Mart operates it is their manipulation of the politics to their favor. That is not a normal part of free enterprise and adds a lot of dishonesty to their actions but they are just swimming in the waters that the Government has made.
phreakwars
New member
So TJ your saying your dumb enough to believe that if the government has a public option, you have no choice but participate. BTW Page 16 says NO SUCH THING. Nice try, but YOU FAIL.
It says:
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AAHCA09_001.XML
f:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2)
17
1 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
2 The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in
3 the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
4 grandfathered health insurance coverage without
5 changing the premium for all enrollees in the same
6 risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
7 Commissioner.
8 (b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT9
BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe14
riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require17
ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.
20 (B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS
21 PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
22 an employment-based health plan in which the
23 coverage consists only of one or more of the fol24
lowing:
.
.
It says:
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AAHCA09_001.XML
f:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2)
17
1 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
2 The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in
3 the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
4 grandfathered health insurance coverage without
5 changing the premium for all enrollees in the same
6 risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
7 Commissioner.
8 (b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT9
BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe14
riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require17
ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.
20 (B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS
21 PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
22 an employment-based health plan in which the
23 coverage consists only of one or more of the fol24
lowing:
.
.
timesjoke
Active Members
Nice try back at you, that is exactly what it says, too bad your going through life with your Obama *** glasses on and cannot let yourself to see reality.
I like your need to call me dumb though, when it clearly common sense that if the Government offers insurance at severely lower rates (remember they do not have to make a profit) that it will drive out the competition.
Also, you said it yourself that the private insurance companies would be screwed, why are you now trying to change what you said?
Well Bender, all polling data shows that the people do not want Obama care.........do you want what the people want or are you an elitist socialist and say the people do not count?
.
.
phreakwars
New member
I never said private insurance would be screwed, your putting words in my mouth, in fact, I have said AGAIN AND AGAIN the main thing I don't like about HR3200 is it mandates insurance. This can only be to the benefit of insurance companies. And again page 16 does NOT say that you ******, read it, READ IT IN CONTEXT with the rest of the section, it's a grandfather clause so that insurance companies don't try pulling off a rate hike. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with a public option, which BTW, isn't even in the bill.
Jesus how many of these stupid outright LIES do people have to keep debunking until you idiots get it through your heads the **** you think is in there, really isn't.
.
.
Jesus how many of these stupid outright LIES do people have to keep debunking until you idiots get it through your heads the **** you think is in there, really isn't.
.
.
phreakwars
New member
That would be a personal opinion, a far cry from what the actual plans are. Don't try making my opinion out to be something that was presented in the bill.
.
.
phreakwars
New member
That's only if you wanna believe RASMUSSEN.
Nope, the push for the public option is strong. Just because you can yell louder and freep a bunch of online polls doesn't make you a majority. A sad fact the Republicans learned this last election, and a sad fact they just can't get over.
.
.