curmudgeon's tags:
Who's reading curmudgeon (60):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html

The
"Cash for Clunkers" program will reportedly end two months early. Not only has the program run out of money twice already, but dealers are pulling out, fearing that they will not be paid the rebates promised.

One of the big problems is that the Federal Government needs more people to administer this program. Another is that the 13 page application, and the application process itself is confusing. The kicker for car dealers is simply non-payment:


"A dealers’ group in metropolitan New York said about half of its 425 members had stopped participating as of this week.

“I don’t know one dealership that’s gotten paid yet,” said Laura Sodano, a sales manager at Curry Chevrolet in Scarsdale, N.Y. “If they run out, we’re in trouble. It’s bringing us a lot of traffic, but it’s not a very good program.”

This story comes from the uber-liberal New York Times.

Now the Democrat-run Federal Government has proven itself to be utterly incapable of satisfactorily managing a tiny, 3 billion dollar auto exchange program involving just 457,000 vehicles. One can question the point of the whole program if car sales fall off a shelf in coming months. But what does this episode say about the government's ability to manage a 1 trillion dollar program affecting a hundred million Americans or more?

Can you just imagine doctors and hospitals pulling out of accepting government insurance and catering only to the privately insured because of the government's awful payment policies? Can you just imagine the doctors who will leave the field altogether simply because it's not worth the effort anymore? Government already accounts for some 45% of all healthcare spending. What happens to quality and access to care when Government controls 60-70% of spending? Can you just imagine the red tape you will have to go through simply to get a test or treatment or prescription approved by some government wonk? 

What makes anyone think that if this kind of bungling can happen with a minuscule program like cash for clunkers, it won't happen with the public "option?"

If this crummy legislation passes, I'll just pray that neither I nor anyone in my family ever gets sick.



del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • sheltercrow said on Aug 21, 2009....
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html

    You've got to stop that habit of including the first word in the post in your url.
  • curmudgeon said on Aug 21, 2009....
    This happens automatically to my links for some reason. Any tips?
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 21, 2009....
    Use 'edit HTML' and correct the contents of the href.

    The proper HTML link...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html

    <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html</a>

    Here hfer = "http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html"

    Your accidental form...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html

    The


    <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html%3Cbr%3E%3Cbr%3EThe" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html<br><br>The</a>

    Here href = "http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html%3Cbr%3E%3Cbr%3EThe"

    Using the 'edit HTML' you need to remove anything between the '.html' and the double quote which here is '%3Cbr%3E%3Cbr%3EThe'.

    Ignore the rel="nofollow" target="_blank"

    Also move the '</a>' to after the '.html' and before the line breaks '<br><br>'

    or

    from 'rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html<br><br>The</a>'

    to 'rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/business/21clunkers.html</a><br><br>The'
  • ALIENated said on Aug 21, 2009....

    Get into edit (click edit by the title of your post) and change the linkname (I am adding some spaces so my example will display) ...

    kers.html< br >< br >The< /a >

    to ...

    kers.html< /a >The

    I think Medicare is a perfect example of what would happen except even worse. The problem with government-run programs is political correctness. Programs like the VA have to hire anyone that shows up if they are even slightly qualified. What intelligent person would want to work is such a crappy place? Doctors would most like become private practice only, retained by those that can pay cash.

    Liberals / Democrats / Socialist have the best of intentions, but they do not think things through and do not look at the facts. They think more and bigger government is the cure for everything. Yet, they are the first to criticize the government if conservatives are running the show. Obama and his crew have to have people that have studied all this (one would hope) and they have to know that it will destroy our healthcare system by driving up costs and rationing healthcare. We have simply entered a "my party right or wrong" era. Democrats / Socialists think those who oppose the healthcare takeover just want Obama to fail. And they are partially right. I want his attempt to socialize such a large segment of our economy, which will destroy it, to fail. If he was advocating ways to fix Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, that would be fine, but he knows it cannot be fixed ... because it is run by the government. Studies are being done in states like Missouri, which I heard about last night, that show our fears are absolutely correct. They called it medical inflation, which is a good term for what I have been saying all along. When the government starts taking money from taxpayers and pumping it into programs, the cost of those programs skyrocket. Do you really think screws used by NASA cost $3 (or whatever)? Do you really think an aspirin costs $4 (or whatever)? They have to charge that to cover all that beaurocratic paperwork nonsense and to pay all those underqualified beaurocrats. Then at some point, all those beaurocrats are added to the Democrat / Socialist voting block to make sure they stay employed. It is a Catch 22 so simple that a caveman could understand it.

  • sheltercrow said on Aug 21, 2009....
    Anal-cyst: I know you eschew reality but lets discuss the subject of Medicare from a research perspective. In Medicare Versus Private Insurance: Rhetoric And Reality from Health Affairs the authors explain:

    "evidence from this 2001 survey demonstrates that Medicare beneficiaries are generally more satisfied with their health care than are persons under age sixty-five who are covered by private insurance. Medicare beneficiaries report fewer problems getting access to care, greater confidence about their access, and fewer instances of financial hardship as a result of medical bills. Making the program more like private insurance runs the risk of undermining a program that is working well from the perspective of beneficiaries."

    The Commonwealth Fund mentions the report and explains:

    "In their report, Davis and coauthors find that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely than enrollees in employer-sponsored plans to rate their health insurance as excellent (32% vs. 20%) and less likely to report negative experiences with their insurance plans (43% vs. 61%). Medicare beneficiaries are also less likely than those with private insurance to go without needed care owing to costs (18% vs. 22%). The survey also finds that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more likely to report being very satisfied with the care they received compared with those with private insurance (62% vs. 51%)."
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 21, 2009....
    Anal-cyst: Conservative opponents do not "think more and bigger government is the cure for everything." They understand that when "conservatives are running the show" the right-wing, reactionary faction, of our lone corporate party has taken control.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 21, 2009....
    Anal-cyst: Good example "that a caveman could understand" from Physicians for a National Health Program:

    Single payer study for Missouri: Same compelling result

    The study “A Universal Health Care Plan for Missouri” highlights a coverage plan that could be delivered in the state for less than the nearly $30 billion currently spent on health care this year.

    The savings that would allow expansion to cover all residents of the state would be largely derived from lower administrative costs associated with a single payer.

    http://www.mffh.org/press_releases/pr-11-25-03.pdf

    The report, A Universal Health Care Plan for Missouri
    http://www.mffh.org/ShowMe3.pdf
  • travelr712 said on Aug 21, 2009....
    one of the biggest problems of the cash for clunkers was created by the dealers themselves. they were told by the government not to start making deals before the program started, but the dealers did anyway, and then flooded the system on the first few days. another problem was caused by the auto industry analysts who predicted that there would be very little change in buying patterns as a result of this program. no one expected it to be this successful.
  • ALIENated said on Aug 21, 2009....

    Yes, Obama and the government can do no wrong. I assumed the blame could be placed somewhere else.

  • sheltercrow said on Aug 23, 2009....
    From The Consumerist

    Coming Soon - Cash For Clunkers: Home Appliance Edition

    Now that it's ending, you thought you were done hearing about the Cash for Clunkers program, didn't you? Not yet. Coming soon will be a state-administered, federally-funded program providing rebates to consumers who buy Energy Star appliances. Check out Consumer Reports for a preview.
  • ALIENated said on Aug 23, 2009....

    More nails in Democrat coffins for 2010 and 2012.

  • curmudgeon said on Aug 24, 2009....
    travlr - there is a difference between "popular" and "successful."

    A "successful" program would have been administered efficiently and not have ultimately leave car dealers cash-poor with no inventory! To wit:

    If only certain vehicles qualified for the program, the government should have issued circulars well in advance so that prospective buyers would not have wasted their time. This would have pretty much taken care of the entire backlog of paperwork.

    The program should have favored hybrids instead of cars that only get marginally better mileage. Many of the new cars sold do not get better mileage than my five year old Subaru. The point was to get greener cars on the road, not just more cars.

    All the program accomplished was to temporarily juice the auto market. If sales are not sustained, the workers called back to production lines will be taken off-line again. Big deal.

    The final kicker is 3 billion taxpayer dollars spent on just under a half a million vehicles sold. Seriously - what is so great about that?

    What analyst could possibly not think that folks will not line up for free money? Those folks need to find another line of work.

    Yeah - I really want to sink my money into a health care program created by these cash for clunkers geniuses.
  • ALIENated said on Aug 24, 2009....

    The point was to get greener cars on the road ...

    Was it, really? I think that is the problem with politicians in general. They do something supposedly for one reason when, in fact, they are doing it for a totally different reason. I think the reason behind Cash For Clunkers was to pay back the auto unions. The thing I do not understand is why it was not limited to buying American cars. As I understand it, Japanese cars built in America are not built by union workers. Maybe Obama just did not want to look so obvious. Are the non-American dealers the ones not being paid? Maybe that is the deal.

  • sheltercrow said on Aug 24, 2009....
    Did you know...

    The clunker has to be taken off the road, the engine must be disabled, then the car can then be parted out with the exception of the power train, and ultimately shredded. In most cased the cars appear to be going directly to be recycled. [Cash-for-Clunkers, EV World]

    The following is a list of the top-selling vehicles under the program and the most popular trade-ins, according to the Associated Press. [Cash for Clunkers, AutoTrader]

    TOP SELLERS
    1. Toyota Corolla
    2. Honda Civic
    3. Ford Focus front-wheel drive
    4. Toyota Camry
    5. Hyundai Elantra
    6. Toyota Prius
    7. Nissan Versa
    8. Ford Escape front-wheel drive
    9. Honda Fit
    10. Honda CR-V four-wheel drive

    TOP TRADE-INS
    1. Ford Explorer four-wheel drive
    2. Ford F-150 Pickup
    3. Jeep Grand Cherokee
    4. Jeep Cherokee
    5. Ford Explorer two-wheel drive
    6. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan two-wheel drive
    7. Chevrolet Blazer four-wheel drive
    8. Ford F-150 pickup four-wheel drive
    9. Chevrolet C15000 pickup two-wheel drive
    10. Ford Windstar front-wheel drive van


    The objectives for the program seem to have been threefold: "stimulating the economy, improving the environment and reducing income inequality all at the same time" as mentioned in this July 27, 2008 NYT article - A Modest Proposal: Eco-Friendly Stimulus, NYT, July 27, 2008.
  • ALIENated said on Aug 24, 2009....

    Looks like we stimulated the Japanese economy more than anything. I have see a few smoke bombs on the roads that should just be recycled, cash or not.

  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    I would assume that in due time there will be a thriving black market for clunkers that were not 'taken off the road' by the auto dealers.

    The other areas of economic stimulation that this program was to address were finance and credit.

    But there are other not so obvious manifestations. CNN [Commentary: Why 'Cash for Clunkers' works, August 10, 2009] claims:

    Cash for Clunkers is now working in more than 10 countries around the world. In Germany, consumers have junked more than 1.2 million guzzlers in the last five months and significantly boosted the economy there. So we know that Clunkers programs get the job done. How many other government programs can you say that about?

    Cash for Clunkers saves lives. When you bring in a clunker that has no airbags, anti-lock brakes or other modern safety features and get a new car that does, you are protecting your family. Forty thousand people die every year on American highways and many more get serious injuries.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    Via the Charleston Daily Mail [Editorial, Cash for clunkers means cash for W.Va., August 14, 2009]

    Toyota Corolla engines are made in Buffalo, W.Va. Plant managers announced this week that they will hire an unspecified number of temporary workers to help meet the increased demand.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    The UAW 'supports the concept' but with misgivings about a failure 'to include any link to domestic production.'

    A letter from the Alan Reuther of the UAW states their 'views on this important issue.'

    The UAW supports the concept of a fleet modernization (cash-for-clunkers) program, which would provide incentives to consumers to scraper older, lower mileage vehicles and purchase new, higher mileage vehicles. Properly constructed, this type of program could stimulate auto sales and boost production and jobs for American workers, while also helping to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

    Unfortunately, the Inslee-Israel bill fails to include any link to domestic production. Furthermore, the fuel economy requirement for new vehicles is structured in a manner that heavily favors vehicles built overseas by foreign automakers. Because of these two defects, a large portion of the incentives provided by the Inslee-Israel bill would wind up subsidizing the production of vehicles made in Japan and other foreign countries. This would exacerbate the competitive disadvantage that domestic auto production already faces due to unfair trade policies and the absence of any national health care program in our country. This in turn would inevitably lead to more plant closings and further job loss in this country.
  • ALIENated said on Aug 25, 2009....

    ... competitive disadvantage ... due to ... absence of any national health care program in our country ...

    What the heck does that have to do with anything? That shows us part of the crowd behind socialized medicine. Whatever happened to better American products because we do it better, not because government is in our corner? The UAW is a good example of how Socialism does not work. Companies need to work like the military (leaders say "jump" and workers say "how high"), not a social club. I have noticed the "what can the company do for me" attitude that is now prevalent in companies of the last couple of decades. And people are surpirsed when whole groups are laid off.

  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    Other not so obvious manifestations.

    From Reuters report "Clunkers" program slows car gifts to U.S. charities:

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The popular "cash-for-clunkers" program is boosting U.S. auto sales and manufacturing but is also slashing donations to charities that rely on gifts of cars to fund social programs, charity officials say.

    Volunteers of America [http://www.voa.org/] and other charities that receive tens of thousands of cars each year said such donations have quickly fallen up to 12 percent -- and fear a 25 percent drop eventually, or over $100 million -- as owners rush to trade gas guzzlers for new fuel-efficient models while federal rebates last.

    "We started seeing it right away in July" when the program began, said Jim Hartman, vice president of vehicle donations at Volunteers of America, a nationwide charity. "It varies by market, but there's been an 11 to 12 percent drop compared with last year."

    [...]

    Rick Frazier, director of the car donation program at The Military Order of the Purple Heart [http://www.purpleheart.org/Membership/default.aspx], which assists U.S. veterans, estimates the $3 billion will result in 700,000 clunker trades.

    Frazier said charities would normally receive 25 percent of those 700,000 cars and, at an average value of $600 each, they could be out $105 million over 24 months.

    "That will be devastating," he said. "A lot of services will have to be cut."
  • curmudgeon said on Aug 25, 2009....
    Again - three billion dollars for just half a million cars seems hardly worth it. There will be no measurable reduction in greenhouse gasses.

    As for safety, the reduction in car size even with these new safety features may contribute to a rise in injuries and deaths on the road. We went through this during the oil crisis in the 1970s, which is why we went to SUVs in later decades.

    We have such short memories.

    It's too bad the F-150 is being traded in and killed off. I love that truck.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    Even the Council on Foreign Relations addresses this issue.

    Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness

    Introduction

    Factoring in costs borne by the government, the private sector, and individuals, the United States spends over $1.9 trillion annually on healthcare expenses, more than any other industrialized country. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Medical School estimate the United States spends 44 percent more per capita than Switzerland, the country with the second highest expenditures, and 134 percent more than the median for member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These costs prompt fears that an increasing number of U.S. businesses will outsource jobs overseas or offshore business operations completely. U.S. economic woes have heightened the burden of healthcare costs both on individuals and businesses. The Obama administration's first budget includes billions to overhaul health care, and despite the economic downturn, experts see a consensus emerging that healthcare reform should move forward.

    Competitive Disadvantage

    The United States spent 16 percent of its GDP in 2007 on health care, higher than any other developed nation. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that number will rise to 25 percent by 2025 without changes to federal law (PDF). Employer-funded coverage is the structural mainstay of the U.S. health insurance system. According the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 71 percent of private employees in the United States had access to employer-sponsored health plans in 2006. A November 2008 Kaiser Foundation report notes that access to employer-sponsored health insurance has been on the decline (PDF)114 percent in the last decade. Small businesses are less likely than large employers to be able to provide health insurance as a benefit. At 12 percent, health care is the most expensive benefit paid by U.S. employers, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

    These ballooning dollar figures place a heavy burden on companies doing business in the United States and can put them at a substantial competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. For large multinational corporations, footing healthcare costs presents an enormous expense. General Motors, for instance, covers more than 1.1 million employees and former employees, and the company says it spent roughly $5.6 billion on healthcare expenses in 2006. GM says healthcare costs add between $1,500 and $2,000 to the sticker price of every automobile it makes. Health benefits for unionized auto workers became a central issue derailing the 2008 congressional push to provide a financial bailout to GM and its ailing Detroit rival, Chrysler.
    among low-income workers, and health premiums for workers have risen
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    To the right honorable anal-cyst:

    ConsumerReports.org | Cash for clunkers: The safety advantages with new cars

    Considering that the most common clunkers traded in have been mid-1990s pickups and SUVs, there are also big improvements in safety equipment and vehicle dynamics. (Read: "Cash for clunkers: Most popular clunkers, new cars.")

    [...]

    In the not-so-distant past, getting ESC [Electronic stability control] required buying a fairly expensive car, or hunting for it as an option. But as we march towards mandatory ESC by 2012, the feature is becoming increasingly common. Happily, “cash for clunkers” just happened to coincide with the addition of commonly-available ESC on some popular cars.

    Take the top five new cars bought under the auspices of the cash for clunkers program:

    Toyota Corolla – Got standard ESC for the 2010 model year, which went on sale late spring.

    Ford Focus – If you get the $745 anti-lock brake option, it is bundled with ESC on 2009 models. That option isn’t hard to find. For 2010, ABS and ESC are standard on Focus.

    Honda Civic – This is the outlier of the group. To get ESC, you need to buy a relatively expensive model: an EX-L with a leather interior, the Si sports edition, or the hybrid.

    Toyota Prius – ESC is standard on the redesigned 2010 Prius.

    Toyota Camry – Got standard ESC for the 2010 model year, which also went on sale late spring.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    The first paragraph under 'Competitive Disadvantage' in the 'Even the Council on Foreign Relations addresses this issue' comment should read...

    The United States spent 16 percent of its GDP in 2007 on health care, higher than any other developed nation. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that number will rise to 25 percent by 2025 without changes to federal law (PDF). Employer-funded coverage is the structural mainstay of the U.S. health insurance system. According the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 71 percent of private employees in the United States had access to employer-sponsored health plans in 2006. A November 2008 Kaiser Foundation report notes that access to employer-sponsored health insurance has been on the decline (PDF) among low-income workers, and health premiums for workers have risen 114 percent in the last decade. Small businesses are less likely than large employers to be able to provide health insurance as a benefit. At 12 percent, health care is the most expensive benefit paid by U.S. employers, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    Anal-cyst: You seem to be as mentally challenged as you are obscurely conservative.
  • curmudgeon said on Aug 25, 2009....
    Trying to figure out how taxing corporations and small businesses to pay for some national health care scheme will increase competitiveness.

    My guess is the multi-hationals will move on, domestic large businesses will relocate and small businesses will go out of business.

    Besides, who says that 17% or 18% or 20% of GDP is BAD if it means advances in medical technology, more effective drug therapies, increased longevity and so on? Were this any other sector, we would be calling it a growth industry.

    Instead of thinking about how we can spend less by cutting "unnecessary" services, maybe we should think about how we can add more doctors, create new sub-specialties, invest in new basic research for advances in treatment, and improve diagnostic, treatment and follow up protocols. We could make the US THE premiere destination for medical tourism.

    After all, we need something of use to invest in. Tech has grown and popped, real estate bubbled and burst, alternative energy is a pipe dream, what else is there, really? Health services could very well be a new growth industry in which the US could lead the world.

    Seriously - what percentage of your income do you want to spend on services that can save your life? I ask this question over and over again and no one answers, just that it costs too much.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    Re: "My guess is the multi-nationals will move on"

    lol. How does a multinational move on? They're already multinational. Do they go National?

    I think this is an adequate response. I paraphrase the PNHP here.

    Contrasting the missions of private versus public funding:

    Private insurance companies concentrate on growth, as should any other business concern. They expand their administrative entities to the maximum size that would continue to enhance their opportunities for profit. They are engaged in the business of selling their administrative services to the purchasers of their plans. Offering ever more administrative services enhances their revenues and their potential for profit. The insurance companies also attempt to maximize the funding of the risk pool by increasing premium revenue as much as is tolerated, and they attempt to reduce payments out of the risk pool by paying the least they have to in the form of health care benefits.

    Publicly funded systems of social insurance have a mission to allocate the health care resources as equitably and as efficiently as possible

    Thus the public model supports equity and efficient utilization of available health care resources, and the private model maximizes premium income, minimizes benefits, and expands its administrative business to the maximum size tolerated, while neglecting the task of equitably distributing our health care resources.

    These missions have almost nothing in common . Public insurance systems are designed to provide access to the best care possible for the patient, within the limits of the resources available. Administrative services are limited to the minimum required to accomplish this task while also ensuring, through oversight, that public funds are utilized for their intended purpose.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    Re: "what percentage of your income do you want to spend on services that can save your life?"

    The reform debate is not about saving your life. It's about equitable access to health care for everyone. There is a difference. A doctor or medical technician can save your life. But only if you have access to their services.
  • ALIENated said on Aug 25, 2009....

    You just cannot be civil, can you, you little asshole. But that is OK. I will not be commenting on any posts where you are not blocked anymore. I grow tired of skipping around all your cut and paste crapola anyway. I think we all know who is mentally challenged here and can do nothing but paste in reems of mindless liberal drivel.

    Sorry Curm.

  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    Re: about how we can add more doctors

    A post that addresses the monopoly that the AMA has.

    From Medical Monopoly to Medical Market Monopoly

    The AMA limits the number of licensed physicians in the U.S. to keep their fees as high as is acceptable. A single payer system is anathema to the AMA for many reasons.

    The AMA calls single payer “full government control” but the health care delivery system would remain private.

    The AMA says that single payer systems "cause long waiting periods" but tens of millions of people in the States are not even allowed a place in the line.

    The "lack of patient choice" excuse is bogus because "most private insurance plans have restricted lists that take away our choice of hospitals, physicians, and other health care professionals."

    A poll published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan. [The Doctors' Revolt]

    A total of 59% supported legislation to establish national health insurance (28% “strongly” and 31% “generally” supported)

    So what are the real reasons? Money as usual. For one, the AMA gets lots of money from Pharma. A very big conflict of interest.

    From 'Physicians for Sale: How Medical Professional Organizations Exploit Members: Follow the Money' medscape.com [registration required].

    Although specialty societies [MPO's - medical professionals organizations] appropriate the largest share of Pharma funding, the AMA is also in the market for Pharma funding. Even though their membership has fallen to a small percentage of US physicians, the AMA still has annual revenues of about $280 million a year. According to Dr. George Lundberg, "the AMA has too much money and too little purpose."

    To bolster its finances, the AMA has pioneered a new source of Pharma revenue. A review of the AMA's financial statement shows that the AMA's new funding source is licensing its AMA Physician Masterfile, which contains information about virtually all US physicians, to Pharma. This revenue is even larger than the revenue from Pharma ads in their journals that historically have been its major revenue source.

    This level of Pharma revenue would qualify an MPO [or the AMA] as a "physicians for sale" organization.

    Do you think Pharma wants anything in return? In colonial times Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Never make your physician your heir!" A contemporary Franklin might write, "Never let Pharma finance your physician!"

    A consequence of this massive conflict of interest that involves physicians and MPOs, leading to their dependency on Pharma funding, will be the destruction of the credibility of the medical profession.

    This exploitation by MPOs of their members is really just a variation of the AMA's initial policy in 1905 concerning Pharma communications with their members. However, rather than having the MPO be a conduit of authorized information from Pharma, the current program of selling physician contact information appears to have aspects of a conspiracy of MPOs with Pharma to allow them to unwittingly influence physicians -- including their own members. There are suggestions that other MPOs are now imitating AMA's creative funding program by selling their members' and former members' personal information to Pharma so that they can be more effectively detailed. Physicians in all specialties should be asking their MPOs whether they are selling their members' information.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 25, 2009....
    If you would like to declare a truce just say so.
  • bloc said on Aug 25, 2009....
    I find it odd that conservatives are harping on the cash for clunkers miscalculation yet said nothing when the Bush admin claimed that the war in Iraq would take "months not years" and that it would pay for itself. 

    If we can't trust the government for anything then why did conservatives expect the government to change the hearts and minds of hte middle east via a war in a country that didn't attack us? Why do conservatives regularly believe that the government can accomplish very ambitious goals with military force?

    To go even farther, why trust the government to spy without warrants and other crazy things. Why trust that the government has only detained guilty people at gitmo, and has only tortured guilty people?

    Just asking for some consistency here. 
  • curmudgeon said on Aug 25, 2009....
    bloc - whether or not we believe Iraq was a mistake, whether we trust any particular administration over another, the Federal Government is constitutionally obligated to see to the defense of this nation. The President is commander in chief.

    Moreover, a majority of Democratic representatives supported the invasion. Why do liberals keep fobbing this off on Bush as though he were the one funding the war?

    The cash for clunkers debacle is proof positive that THIS current administration cannot effectively manage a tiny, three billion dollar project. Why should we trust THIS administration to effectively administer a one trillion dollar plus foray into the health insurance business?

    Shelter - if socialized medicine is about equity, we need look no further than our public school systems to see that government resources are distributed in a most inequitable fashion, with the poorest people getting the worst of it all. The same will happen to public healthcare, and the rich will still get the best of everything.

    The only difference between private and socialized medicine is that more of us will have our living standards reduced. Not worth the trillion bucks.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 26, 2009....
    Re: "public school systems"

    Not a good example.

    "Federal funding accounts for little of the overall funding schools receive." The vast majority comes from the state government and local property taxes.

    From 'Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source of funds: Selected years, 1919–20 through 2005–06' National Center for Education Statistics

    2005–06 Percentage distribution: Federal 9.1%, State 46.5%, Local  44.4%
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 26, 2009....
    Re: "the rich will still get the best of everything."

    lol. reminds me of that scene in platoon.

  • curmudgeon said on Aug 26, 2009....
    Does not matter. Whatever the funding sources, the distribution of resources is still inequitable in a government-controlled institution. OK, if you want equity from government, I suppose we could go with President Obama's post office analogy, but I hardly think anyone in the US believes that the post office model is a desirable one for health care.

    Or we could go with Obama's financial services rescue plan in which favored banks got the most money.  Or Obama's use of taxpayer funds to aid two auto companies while competing companies dug themselves out of their own mess. Or Obama's pledge for a greener economy that got short-shrift in his budget. Or his denunciation of Bush-era deficit spending while he pushes our deficits even higher.

    Even if a public option is a good idea (I still don't think it is), there is no reason to believe that this administration will manage it competently. Neither is there any reason to believe that any successors will manage it competently. Obama and the Democrats are going to saddle us with another entitlement that future governments will constantly have to "reform," meaning tax increases, cuts in service and distribution of resources that favor the wealthy and those with political clout.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 26, 2009....
    Re: "post office analogy"

    As I have previously mentioned to SR.

    From Consumer Reports

    Overnight shipping: FedEx vs. UPS vs. the Postal Service

    Our ship-off puts deliverers to the test

    Bottom line

    All three delivered next-day mail as promised, but the good old U.S. Postal Service is often cheapest by far.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 26, 2009....
    Re: "Obama's financial services rescue plan"

    As I have mentioned, in a few dozen posts now deleted, I always assumed it to be what it was. A scam and political corruption. That was long before Obama continued the Bush program.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 26, 2009....
    Re: "Even if a public option is a good idea (I still don't think it is), there is no reason to believe that this administration will manage it competently."

    The public option is an idea to dissuade the public from their real need. A national health care system without the private insurance parasites.

    A national health care would not be managed by 'this administration.' Just like the Medicare program was not managed by the Johnson administration. Government programs are managed by government departments. Medicare is managed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 26, 2009....
    Re: "are going to saddle us with another entitlement that future governments will constantly have to "reform," meaning tax increases, ..."

    The program is to be run by the Medicare people. Presumably the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. A program that has been around since 1965 that is tweaked regularly.

    For the major changes see Medicare Secondary Payer Act of 1980; Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988; Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989; Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.

    Re: "cuts in service and distribution of resources that favor the wealthy and those with political clout."

    lol. Political corruption, as you know, is a problem that affects all governments. Maybe a few dangling effigies from lamp posts?
  • sheltercrow said on Aug 26, 2009....
    A little here, a little there.

    In fiscal year 2001, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported recoveries of more than $1.2 billion related to civil health care fraud. Identifying improper payments and ferreting out fraud in Medicare... [GAO-02-546 Report, Medicare Fraud And Abuse, April 2002]

    Federal crop insurance is part of the overall safety net of programs for American farmers. It provides protection for participating farmers against the financial losses caused by droughts, floods, or other natural disasters. Farmers’ participation is voluntary, but the federal government encourages it by subsidizing the insurance premiums. In 2004, the crop insurance program provided $47 billion in insurance coverage for over 200 million acres of farmland at a cost of $3.6 billion to the federal government, including an estimated $160 million resulting from fraud, waste, and abuse. [GAO-05-528 Report; Crop Insurance Actions Needed to Reduce Program’s Vulnerability to Fraud, Waste, and Abuse; September 2005]
  • bloc said on Aug 29, 2009....
    @curm

    nice dodge. Again The Bush admin claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat, that the war would last months, and that it would pay for itself. You didn't complain about this, but you complain about cash for clunkers. Have a sliver of fairness won't ya? 
  • ALIENated said on Sep 02, 2009....

    I suppose we could go with President Obama's post office analogy

    Comparing healthcare to the post office is like comparing apples to oranges. The post office deals with consistent "things". A package or letter comes in and the postal workers send it somewhere for a set price. It is a consistent business for the most part with very few, if any, matters of life and death for the user. (Worst case, someone might get yelled at because a package is late.) If the post office went out of business tomorrow, I could drive my bills to where they need to go, pay bills and correspond over the internet, or private outfits (like FedEx and UPS) could pull up the slack. Healthcare is a whole different business. (Maybe not to people like Obama who have very little regard for human life.) Each case can be different. Their is little or no consistency in how one person is dealt with as compared to the next person. The post office is impersonal and healthcare is very personal. Obama would like for them to run the same way, but that would be a disaster for us all.

  • curmudgeon said on Sep 02, 2009....
    bloc - I also heard President Bush saying repeatedly that he would commit our troops in Iraq for as long as it takes to stabilize the country. Fairness? You harp on one quote at the outset of the war and fail to see that his commitment to finishing the job lasted throughout his presidency. I didn't complain about this because once we committed troops we had to finish the damn job.

    BTW - since this thread was first created, dealers are still not getting paid for the car deals they cut.

    My question still stands: If the federal payment program for some 625,000 vehicles is so completely lame, how can we expect this administration and its appointees and managers to ably handle doctors, hospitals and patients nationwide? ObamaCare defenders keep talking about efficiencies in administration. Oh really - like the millions of illegals who get jobs by providing fake social security numbers that the Federal Government never catches? Please.

    And why do you keep dredging up Bush? I'm talking about what Obama is doing. He's the one in charge now - heck he finally claimed ownership of these problems in June. Of course then he went right back to blaming Bush, and will likely do so for the next three years.

    It seems like liberals are the ones who can't let go of the past.
  • sheltercrow said on Sep 02, 2009....
    I think what is missing here and what bloc alludes to is that Obama would not have an Iraq problem or a whole slew of other problems if they had not originated with his predecessor.
  • stopmediabias said on Sep 02, 2009....

    Bloc-these Democrats practically campaigned to take Saddam down, then campaigned they would yank the troops out as soon as they got power.  What has happened?  Iraq is barely a story in the news, we won, President Obama did not pull our troops out and sabatoge the victory so doesn't that say something about the importance of Iraq?

    Bush said taking Saddam down would take months and stabilizing the country would take years and excuse me have you ever figured out the cost of Saddam before GW?  The cost of containment starting with the Gulf war and through the age of Clinton what did it cost us to keep him in check?

    And I would certainly like to know what your definition of imminent threat is? 

    Curm-very good post and it highlights what everyone should all ready see. 

     

     

  • sheltercrow said on Sep 02, 2009....
    Re: "Bush said..."

    Hum... Really. How could you possibly get any reliable information out of Bush? Just to refresh your memory.

    The US House Committee on Government Reform March 16, 2004 Report found:

    The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false.

    CNN Reported on January 24, 2008 that:

    President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

    For the database for these false statements see http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

    With so many falsehoods it's no secret how Bush was able to snooker so many democrats.
  • sheltercrow said on Sep 03, 2009....
    Lets get real here.

    Only a republican still clinging to the illusion that George Bush was falsely maligned could make a imbecilic comparison, another red herring, of a onetime cash for clunkers stimulus program and a health care reform program. It's all quite interesting that you engage in the same distortions and misinformation that the selfsame George Bush did. You can carry that falsehood about Bush till he's reelected but the facts still remain. As the record clearly shows, he even lied about the current recession that so troubles his successor.

    What would you have done? Given the cash away without verification? The proff is in the pudding. The program was so successful that it needed extra funding to satisfy those that were qualified but too late in application.
  • sheltercrow said on Sep 03, 2009....
    Just to refresh you ever so selective memory.

    Imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law for when the need for action is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." In such a case the use of force in self-defense is justified.

    Imminent. Likely to occur at any moment; impending: Her death is imminent.

    I paraphrase SourceWatch here concerning 'Iraq as an imminent threat' and 'The secret Downing Street memo, July 23, 2002':

    However, the question was more or less settled May 1, 2005, by revelations found in The secret Downing Street memo [The Sunday Times, May 1, 2005], July 23, 2002 and June 12, 2005, in The leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper [The Sunday Times June 12, 2005], July 21, 2002: "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" that the illusion of threat was fabricated by the Bush regime as a justification for its forthcoming invasion of Iraq.

    On August 17, 2005, "the National Security Archives at George Washington University released some stunning documents, that seem to further corroborate the Downing Street Minutes, as well as buttress the argument that there was precious little post-war planning in the rush to topple Saddam," according to Richard Cranium, AllSpinZone.

  • stopmediabias said on Sep 03, 2009....

    You can waste your time with all of your lies and misrepresentations.  There was not ONE SINGLE misleading statement and if there was then these Democrats are idiots too because they fell for it.  The truth is the Democrats pushed and voted to go into Iraq when the politics favored them then cowered behind the corrupt media (like CNN) when surprisingly they discovered a war cost lives and is not fun. 

    To you candyass Liberals there is no threat that warrants military action and excuse me again the Democrats seemed to think Saddam was imminent threat.  The Nazis could have conquered all of Europe and Russia and technically could not be an imminent threat to us.  

    Thank God we had a President with the integrity of George Bush who saw the threat and saw the importance of Iraq. 

  • sheltercrow said on Sep 03, 2009....
    Ah SMB. I have yet to read anything that you have written that is remotely connected with reality. As can plainly be divined from your comment the truth hurts. lol.

    Actually the "Democrats pushed and voted to go into Iraq when the politics favored" Bush's "distortions and misinformation" not "them" you fool. Ditto on "the Democrats seemed to think it was imminent threat."

    Like I said, concerning you, an ardent, mindless, Bush supporter: "It's all quite interesting that you engage in the same distortions and misinformation that the selfsame George Bush did." In this case the pot and the kettle have the same hue.
  • sheltercrow said on Sep 03, 2009....
    Another inherited problem from GB



  • sheltercrow said on Sep 03, 2009....
    Speaking of Nazi's another inherited GB problem: CIA doctors face human experimentation claims
  • curmudgeon said on Sep 03, 2009....
    "I think what is missing here and what bloc alludes to is that Obama would not have an Iraq problem or a whole slew of other problems if they had not originated with his predecessor"

    Would Obama even be president without Bush the boogeyman to run against?

    Bush had some hard choices to make. He made them, and stuck with them, even when they earned him tremendous ire. Obama doesn't nearly have that kind of determination. Bush got some of his agenda done even when the Dems had the majority in Congress. Obama has overwhelming numbers and all he can do is pass some feminist gimme law and completely  mismanage a stupid auto exchange program

    As far as the economy goes, it is so completely obvious that Bush is not the only one to blame (how about holding the millions of people who defrauded mortgage lenders responsible - oh yeah, those are the lunkheads who vote Democratic) but such is the obsession of the manics on the left. If Bush "duped" the Dems by repeating lies, the Dems have completely brainwashed their moronic supporters by lying over and over and over again.

    Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it. And so did a majority of Democrats.

    If Bush is such a tool of the wealthy, what the heck is Obama, doling out plumb ambassadorships to his biggest fundraisers? If Bush did the nation a disservice by running high deficits, where are the liberal fiscal hawks criticizing Obama for running them even higher?

    This is getting so old, you lousy liberal hypocrites. Get over yourselves. Your President, your harbinger of "change", your Messiah is crashing and burning with just over eight months in office. Rarely has there been such a precipitous decline in popularity, and all you can do is blame Bush.

    Man, I'd do the one about the world's smallest violin playing the world's saddest song for you, but it's just too pathetic to watch you guys bitch and moan about Bush when the discussion has moved on to how horribly the doofus you elected is doing.

    It's like making fun of a Knicks fan. What's the point?
  • sheltercrow said on Sep 03, 2009....
    Re: "Bush had some hard choices to make. He made them, and stuck with them, even when they earned him tremendous ire."

    Hardly. A simple search brings us quite a few Bush flip flops. Yahoo has 3,210,000 hits for 'bush flip flops.' Examples:

    CBS 2004 | Bush's Top Ten Flip-Flops

    This list contains 58 Bush Flip-Flops.

    Here is the SourceWatch Flip-Flop list.

    The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has their Flip-Flop list.

    National Jewish Democratic Council

    League of Conservation Voters even has a gripe with his brother Jeb.

    The Weekly Standard has 'Stunningly Shameful' The Bush administration flip-flops on Iran.

    Even Laura gets in on the act. Laura Bush Sets All-Time Record, Flip-Flops in Just 25 Seconds.

    And there is another 175,000 hits for 'bush u-turns.' lol.

    I think I made my point here. lol.
  • sheltercrow said on Sep 03, 2009....
    Re: "As far as the economy goes, it is so completely obvious that Bush is not the only one to blame."

    A distinctly nebulous statement. Anyone involved in a joint effort "is not the only one to blame."

    Re: "millions of people who defrauded mortgage lenders"

    This is just misleading. The mortgage lenders and buyers both do the fraud part. If a mortgage lender does not do his job, intentionally or not, and gives out a bad mortgage, it's his fault. I've seen quite a few web sites, all managed by real-estate associations, touting the line that mortgage fraud is strictly the fault of the people getting the mortgage. The FBI has a different story.

    From FBI.gov Real Estate/Mortgage Fraud: Facts, Figures and Closed Cases

    Some of the common real estate fraud schemes include:

    Property Flipping — A buyer pays a low price for property, and then resells it quickly for a much higher price. While this may be legal, when it involves false statements to the lender, it is not.

    Two Sets of Settlement Statements — One settlement statement is prepared and provided to the seller accurately reflecting the true selling price of the property. A second fraudulent statement is given to the lender showing a highly inflated purported selling price. The lender provides a loan in excess of the property value, and after the loans are settled, the proceeds are divided among the conspirators.

    Fraudulent Qualifications — Real estate agents assist buyers who would not otherwise qualify by fabricating their employment history or credit record.

    If you look at the Case Summaries it's a two way street.

    Federal Mortgage Fraud Charges from HG.org

    The FBI has recently ramped up efforts to investigate mortgage fraud, and it does so in two distinct categories: "Fraud for Profit," (hereinafter, FFP) and "Fraud for Housing," (hereinafter FFH). Federal Bureau of Investigation, Financial Crimes Report to the Public, D1 available here (last visited March 7, 2008). According to the FBI, Fraud for Profit is sometimes referred to as "Industry Insider Fraud," and the motive here is to "revolve equity, falsely inflate the value of the property, or issue loans based on fictitious properties." Id. Apparently, nearly 80% of all reported fraud losses fall into the FFP category. FFH is different. It involves "illegal actions perpetrated solely by the borrower," and the motive in these types of cases "is to acquire and maintain ownership of a house under false pretenses," typically by a borrower "who makes misrepresentations regarding his income or employment history to qualify for a loan." Id. at D2.

    FBI investigating 14 companies for mortgage fraud

    7 mortgage companies closed in loan-fraud case
  • sheltercrow said on Sep 03, 2009....
    Funny if you change the words a little...

    This is getting so old, you lousy conservative hypocrites. Get over yourselves. Your President, your harbinger of "change", your Messiah is crashing and burning with just over eight months in office. Rarely has there been such a precipitous decline in popularity, and all you can do is blame Clinton.

    Actually neither Messiah, Bush or Obama, crashed and burned "with just over eight months in office." Bush seems to have lost it around July 2004. Obama remains to be seen. As of September 2009 he's a 55% approve and 39% disapprove.
  • ALIENated said on Sep 03, 2009....

    Bush had some hard choices to make. He made them, and stuck with them ...

    Yep, Bush was more like presidents of days gone by, presidents that made decisions and stuck to their guns even if a decision was not popular. Of course, he was not afraid to change his mind if the situation called for it. There were even Democrat presidents that fit that mold, but you would have to go back to Truman. Tha Age of Kennedys has given us nothing by goofballs, sex perverts, and Socialists. The Democrat / Socialist party is now a coilition of goofballs, sex perverts, women's libbers, abortionists, atheists, union workers, environmental nutjobs, and poor blacks, under-educated by government schools for 50 years. They all see the world through their own little weirdo filter and get their ideas from left-wing news networks and retards like Keith Olbermann and Chris Mathews. Is there any wonder they lose control so quickly?

  • sheltercrow said on Sep 03, 2009....
    Re alien: Speaking of sex perverts there is a website called www.republicansexoffenders.com. It has all kinds of deviates listed. Sexual exploitation, forcible sodomy and sexual assault are a few crimes listed. lol.
  • sheltercrow said on Sep 03, 2009....
    Re alien: "made decisions... stuck to their guns... change his mind." Ah the good old days!

  • curmudgeon said on Sep 04, 2009....
    funny - Bush loses his popularity in his SECOND TERM. Obama is at 55% in the first few months of his FIRST.

    More links, please.
  • sheltercrow said on Sep 04, 2009....
    Ya know curm you can bury your head in the ground till Reagan is resurrected but the facts will never go away. Being a mouthpiece for such ignoble gibberish is shameful.

    As for bush and his popularity it was all based on the 9/11 spike. Just before the attack his rating were pretty much the same as Obama. 9/01 55/41. When the public got wind about the Bush administration readiness, response and obfuscations, he tanked.

    Here is another link you can ignore. Powerfully revealing, carefully researched 9/11 video: 9/11 Press For Truth (84 min)
  • ALIENated said on Sep 04, 2009....

    Obama is at 55%? I thought I heard someone say he was below 50. Something like 46%. Well, he will be soon. People understand what is going on. Americans did not vote for Socialism and they are starting to pay attention to Obama's past and his associations. Birds of a feather flock together.

Comment on "What if the Public Option is Like Cash for Clunkers?"

politics hypocrisy healthcare saddam (Click to add tags below)

(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

Weak on foreign policy, sold out to the nutty left on domestic policy, now lets fuck with national security and have trials for terrorists in federal courts....
Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper....
He didn't even try to answer it. What would be your answer? Were we right in dropping the bombs on Japan?...
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses....

Sarah Palin would be a disaster for the Republicans,
in my humble opinion.

...