That's because it was originally designed as a way to improve the environment. I'm sure he was looking for much stricter economy standards. As far as helping the environment, the program was a disaster. We took working cars off the road to replace them with new cars. Destroying a working machine is in itself wasteful. Subsidizing the building new cars, and creating artificial demand leads to more emissions. Perhaps you can make up a bit with higher fuel standards, but you can't even come close to offsetting the damage already done.

However, anyone who believes that cash for clunkers was not an unqualified economic success has their head up their ass. The Congress passed the program mainly as a way to boost the auto industry and the economy as a whole, not to save trees. Economists believe the program was very stimulative to the economy. Why would people be disgusted by this except for the Ayn Rand crazies?

Re: America is unique because it is founded on an ideal

Here I agree, though I think that America is unique to other countries in that rather than being centered on a nationalistic/ethnic identity, (ie, Germany, France, Israel) the US is centered upon a commitment to a particular system of government enumerated in the US constitution. Our common ideal is not necessarily equality or freedom, though those values are expressed in our constitution. Nothing would stop sufficient majorities from radically changing the constitution. Nonetheless, the commitment to the constitution as an American ideal would remain.

The oath of office is to "Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States." Not "Preserve, Protect and Defend, Liberty, Freedom, Equality.'

Because it failed to achieve many of its stated objectives. It didn't succeed in getting people to buy more fuel efficient cars. It didn't succeed in getting people to buy more American cars. It may have succeeded in providing a temporary spike in overall auto sales, though. And if you say that's all it was intended for, well okay. But in that case it was Bad PR to say they wanted all this other stuff and then not get it. But would it have hurt to at least require it to be used on American makes?






Re: America is unique because it is founded on an ideal

Here I agree, though I think that America is unique to other countries in that rather than being centered on a nationalistic/ethnic identity, (ie, Germany, France, Israel) the US is centered upon a commitment to a particular system of government enumerated in the US constitution. Our common ideal is not necessarily equality or freedom, though those values are expressed in our constitution. Nothing would stop sufficient majorities from radically changing the constitution. Nonetheless, the commitment to the constitution as an American ideal would remain.

The oath of office is to "Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States." Not "Preserve, Protect and Defend, Liberty, Freedom, Equality.' [/quote]

Me either. They can't even run a credit for first time home buyers without screwing it up and cutting cheques to 4-year olds, or multiple times to adults, but they never recognize their limitations and just keep asking for more. They admit the numbers are wrong for Recovery.gov, showing false job numbers for non-existent Congressional districts, and openly refuse to fix the problems. Then wonder why we don't trust them. The public may be dumb but I don't think they're quite as dumb as the government thinks they are. (And the government itself is much dumber than it thinks it is).

Here's an amusing article on the plastic surgery tax proposal, or "Botax."

http://www.slate.com/id/2236447/

We talk of "workable" systems, taxes on a million things, public option. Here, once and for all, is the deal folks, and we need a leader to articulate this.

1. Insuring the the sick is not profitable. Since we find it unacceptable as a society that these people go without care, some entity has to cover them. Since the gov't is the only entity that call run a at loss (it has the power to tax) the gov't is the only entity that can insure the sick.

2. We need to finance this through tax dollars. Not strange esoteric taxes, like taxes on "cadillac" plans, or botox, or tobacco. We need to tax income. This is the most efficient and easiest thing to tax. If the American electorate does not want to pay for healthcare reform, they don't deserve it.

3. The next problem comes with people who simply can't afford insurance. Because again, we find it unacceptable as a society to let these people die. (not to mention that it causes tons of social side effects) the have decided that some entity must insure them. There is no money in this either. Only an entity with the power to tax could do this though... Am I sounding like a broken record.

4. Next, people who are insured, but will get screwed by there insurance companies when they get sick. Institute strict insurance reforms, crack down on abuse, and allow anybody to buy into the public option. Though these people would presumable not cost the gov't more money since they would pay a premium.

5. Address the issues of cost with tradition things that have worked around the world. Digitization of medical records (Taiwan),tort reform, and gov't negotiated prices that are fair to is fair to providers. (The patient lacks the expertise and the ability to negotiate. People have to go to the doctor. If it weren't for subsidies, food prices would be sky high as well)

That's it, simple, and not that difficult to articulate in sound bite form. WHy are they so clueless at the White House. Obama needs to say what he is for. He needs to lead.

Hi MrF, a few comments:

1. No insures the sick, everyone wants to insure the healthy. Issuing such insurance is a gamble, and the more I've thought about this the more I realize that health insurance companies can get reallys screwed by medical breakthroughs. Say a company offers insurance against cancer. I see a guy on the ABC news who, thanks to sci-fi treatment, has lived eight years with stage 4 melanoma. Eight years! The acutary tables would have him dying in six months. Add up enough patients like this and any company would go bankrupt.

Some kind of reform is needed.

2. I more or less agree, but a single tax on income would be counterproductive. Income taxes are essentially taxes on labor, so people would at some point choose to work less, or, more likely simply dodge the tax. A broader spread is needed. I for one would like to see a gasoline tax. We buy 150 billion gallons of gasoline every year in this country, so even a ten cent tax would bring in 15 billion. It would also motivate people to drive less, pushing down gasoline consumption and improving our balance of trade.

e. We are talking about catastrophic health insurance, no? I have thought of a scheme. Instead of levying a tax, offer people a chance to buy catastrophic insurance through Social Security. The figure could be pegged at 150 percent of annual income. I think everyone would sign up for this voluntarily.

4. I'm opposed to public options that involve coercion. We do need stronger laws against recission.

5. I doubt tort reform will make any difference. The big settlements you hear about on the news are drops in the bucket compared to the size of the medical insurance industry.

That said, I think Obama's plan is doomed to fail.

The first problem is to distinguish between insurance and payment plans. We have confounded those when it comes to health care.

Insurance covers us against risks that have some background frequency in the population but cannot be predicted at an individual level. Insurance must be purchased prior to onset of the risk for which it pays.

At age 20 your purchase price for life insurance is pretty reasonable because there are very few deaths among 20 year olds, although some do die.

Once you are dead you cannot buy life insurance. It would make no sense. The insurance company knows that the only way that they can afford to sell you $100k in life insurance if you are deceased is to charge the purchaser a premium over the payout. It is equally irrational for the consumer to purchase $100k in life insurance for the deceased if they know that they have to pay $105k?

If you do not have insurance for a chronic condition prior to developing the condition you cannot buy "insurance" in any rational sense. What you can purchase is a payment system that charges you a premium for making your payments for you.

The same thing applies to basic care. We don't have "hair cut" insurance or "oil change" insurance but we have "insurance" for an annual check-up with our GP or dentist? And the cost of those "insured" annual check-ups carry a cost premium since both the provider and payer have people that need to be paid to process the claims.

The only reason I carry vision "insurance" is because my benefits exceed the premium by ~$20/year. If it cost $20/year extra, why would I pay for the "insurance?"

I wouldn't, but this is exactly what we do with health care.

Want to provide payment services for the poor? Fine, just don't call it "insurance."

Want to pay for chronic illnesses from taxes after they are diagnosed? Fine, just don't call it "insurance."

Want to lower the cost of health care? Fine, cut down on third party payment systems.

Want to have everything paid for by a third party? Fine, just don't pretend you are going to reduce costs.

Without knowing the cost or coverage of a public option I don't see how anyone with employer based coverage can be in favor of the public option.

True, it could be good. It could be cheaper than my employer provided plan with equal or better benefits. Let's assume that's true. Let's further assume that the public option will have an annual cost of $3000 and my current plan has a cost of $4000.

The $4000 is part of my salary package. It is my money. It is being paid on my behalf to a payment provider.

My employer won't see it that way. To my employer the $3000 public option plan will save them $1000/employee. They will, without hesitation, add $3000 to everyone's paycheck, put them on the public option, and pocket the $1000 as a cost savings.

That is they will cut everyone's pay by $1000/year.

If the health care is of equal or better quality this is largely an abstract pay cut. I am no worse off than I was before, even though my salary package has been cut by $1000/year.

This annoys me because if I save money when I purchase milk or gas my employer doesn't get to cut my pay--I keep the savings and spend it somewhere else. But if money is saved on my health care, it is my employer who benefits.

More worrisome is that for $1000/employee my employer is going to switch us over to the public option even if it is considerably worse than our current coverage. (I've fairly certain my employer would switch us for $50/employee in savings.) This is no longer an abstract pay cut, it is very real. I will be harmed.

But what if my employer doesn't even give me part of the money I am earning now to cover health care? What if they decide that the public option removes their obligation to fund my health care and they shift the entire expense to me without adding any of their savings to my paycheck. Suddenly my annual salary is cut by $7000 ($4000 in lost coverage plus paying out $3000 for replacement coverage)--an amount I will notice and that will significantly impact my life-style.

This appears to be a common fear among those with employer based health care. Before congress enacts any other changes, before they put a public option in place, they need to make sure that legislation is in place to avoid this sort of shenanigan by employers.

That's exactly right. The cost of your benefits is a part of your employer's cost of hiring you. If employers stop giving benefits (since people can just use the public option instead), they aren't going to refund that money into your paycheck (where you could use it to pay for the public plan) they'll just keep it. Meanwhile, the government plan is going to require you to get health care, promising fines and jail time if you don't. So, you're right. In effect it's a pay cut for most people.

Exactly right, that's why these people need the choice of a public option, because the government can cover its losses through taxes. I think your agreeing with me, though I can't really tell.



I think that taxes would have to be round 95 percent before this started to happen. People need to work, they pay taxes, they don't like it, but working less also means getting payed less too. Sure, you "dodge" the income taxes by not working, you also "dodge" your paycheck. Ed, this is just conservative nonsense.