Well I don't actually work for the city of Dallas, but the scoop is that you can ticket someone for not being able to speak english IF they are driving a commercial vehicle. Some of the officers I guess didn't understand that it was for COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ONLY... They were tards and now they stirred up a sh*t storm. I'm glad I don't work for Dallas PD! lol
The U.S. government is calling its Cash for Clunkers program a big success, with nearly 690,000 vehicles sold in July and August. But a report by automotive Web site Edmunds.com says the program actually cost taxpayers $24,000 per car sold.
Only 125,000, or 18%, of the sales were incremental, according to Edmunds.com -- the remaining 82% of sales would have happened regardless of the program.
The $24,000 is the price for the sales of vehicles that were a direct result of the program, Edmunds.com said.
The clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less-fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel-economy requirements. The government set aside $3 billion for those rebates.
Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and other models not included in program, and it applied the historic sales volumes of those vehicles and those in the program and estimated what the sales figures would have been without the program. The analysts then divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle.
The average transaction price for a new vehicle in August was only $26,915, minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.
"This analysis is valuable for two reasons," Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl said in a press release. "First, it can form the basis for a complete assessment of the program's impact and costs. Second -- and more important -- it can help us to understand the true state of auto sales and the economy. For example, October sales are up, but without Cash for Clunkers, sales would have been even better. This suggests that the industry's recovery is gaining momentum."
The government was not pleased with Edmunds.com's analysis.
"It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program that sold nearly 250,000 cars in its first four days alone," Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation, told CNNMoney.com. "There can be no doubt that (the clunkers program) drummed up more business for car dealers at a time when they needed help the most."
The economy grew at a 3.5% pace in the third quarter, thanks to a jump in auto sales as a result of the clunkers program. Auto sales contributed 1.7 percentage points to the GDP, the government said in a report this morning.
I'm sure the libera.., err, "progressives" can still find a way to defend this gem.
I just wondered about how accurate the numbers are. I am NOT defending the program but given that they used historical sales figures to extropolate the data it seems the numbers would be skewed. What I mean is... you mentioned in your post the following...
Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and other models not included in program, and it applied the historic sales volumes of those vehicles and those in the program and estimated what the sales figures would have been without the program. The analysts then divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle.
Given that the economy was / is in the tank and that people were NOT buying automobiles at least at the time of the report then using historical sales numbers and saying that they would have sold "this many" vehicles during that time is a real leap isn't it? That was the whole premise of the program was to stimulate the sales of vehicles.
I think the $24,000 per vehicle figure is a little high probably, but it is still TOO much considering the money that was also handed to the big car makers as well. That's a LOT of taxpayer money floating only one sector of the economy.
Given that the economy was / is in the tank and that people were NOT buying automobiles at least at the time of the report then using historical sales numbers and saying that they would have sold "this many" vehicles during that time is a real leap isn't it? That was the whole premise of the program was to stimulate the sales of vehicles.
it may be a leap but it is a leap in a direction that isnt all that productive.
this program took cars that had some value and demolished it. they destroyed value. sure the car may have been run down and beat up, but there is some poor guy out there that can only afford a car for a few thousand (hundred).
to me, this is the same thing as burning wheat to get rid of surplus.
another wasteful, inefficient government program.
laker1963:
That's a LOT of taxpayer money floating only one sector of the economy.
too much money. the government should not be in the business of selling cars.
Democratic pundit Bob Beckel has been under contract with Fox Newsfor six years. And in the midst of the White House war against thecable network, some of his liberal friends think that’s six years too many.
They invited him to lunch the other day for an intervention: Why is Beckel — a true-blue Democrat who worked for Robert F. Kennedy and ran Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign — giving comfort to the enemy?
Beckel’s response: “I talk to more persuadable voters in a month than anybody on MSNBC and CNN talks to in a year.”
In the eyes of some of their party brethren, Beckel and other Democratic strategists and pundits who appear regularly on Fox News are traitors to the cause. Or at least gluttons for punishment.
And some of them feel that way, too.
“It sucks,” says Democratic direct-mail consultant Liz Chadderdon, a regular on the network. “It is very, very tough to be a Democrat on Fox.”
During an October 2007 hit on “The Factor,” Chadderdon referred to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as “victims.” It was a verbal faux pas, and she knew it. But no sooner did she get off the air than she received a death threat — the first of a handful she says she’s received after appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox show.
More recently, Chadderdon has been invited to talk business with Fox’s Neil Cavuto — on the main network and on the two-year-old Fox Business Network — even though she readily admits that she has no background in economics.
“Speaking about those issues is not my forte,” said Chadderdon. “And I’m getting the tar kicked out of me.”
So why does she keep doing it? For pretty much the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks. Fox is where the viewers are — No. 1 in the prime-time news ratings and drawing more than twice as many viewers on weeknights as either MSNBC or CNN.
“You know how I know nobody watches CNBC?” said Chadderdon. “I compared the pope to my 11th-grade algebra teacher, and nobody sent me a letter.”
Lanny Davis, former White House counsel for Bill Clinton, says some of his fellow Democrats privately encourage him to keep appearing on Fox — even as they boycott the network themselves.
“I get very positive but whispered reinforcement,” he said.
Davis made news during last year’s Democratic presidential primaries when he said that Fox was the fairest of the cable networks in its treatment of Hillary Clinton.
And now, he insists, the claims of bias directed at Fox are overstated, at least insofar as they come from devotees of one of its competitors.
“Is there a difference between Fox and MSNBC?” he asked. “You count the number of guests on Rachel [Maddow] and Keith [Olbermann] who are conservative Republicans. If you get to double digits, I’ll buy you dinner for each one.”
Susan Estrich is perhaps the most identifiable Democratic pundit on the network. She’s been on the payroll for more than a decade, having first gotten to know Fox News President Roger Ailes when they were working on opposite sides of the 1988 presidential campaign.
Estrich says they’ve become good friends and that when she’s had beefs about the network’s coverage, management has been receptive.
“If there is something I think is not right, I pick up the phone and I call,” she said. “What I have been hopefully able to do is offer my thoughts both inside and outside.”
Estrich encouraged Democratic pollster Doug Schoen to join Fox Nation at the end of the 2004 election. Weary of the unpredictability of other networks’ schedules, he was happy to sign on — and says he’s encouraged his Democratic friends to do the same.
“They are the most professional network of any I have dealt with,” he said. “If you are a Democrat who wants to deliver mindless talking points on Fox, it’s probably best to go to MSBNC and hope you get a chance to recite them. I think Fox encourages critical views of all sides, asks different kinds of questions and wants to have diversity of view.”
Beckel believes Fox viewers are more open to the Democratic side of the story than stereotypes might suggest. And indeed, a 2008 Pew Research survey found that while almost half of viewers who regularly watchFox News identify as Republican or Republican leaning, 39 percent tip Democratic and 12 percent have no stated angle at all.
Chadderdon is skeptical that her Fox hits do much to advance the progressive cause. But she says they’re good for business.
“The clients I have dealt with will say to me that they are impressed I have gone on [Sean] Hannity and O’Reilly,” she says.
Nevertheless, Chadderdon has been dialing it back in recent months, making polite excuses when bookers call to inquire about her availability. Plus, she has adopted a personal policy of not going on Hannity’s show after he was condescending to her on the air last summer.
“When the hit was over, I ripped off the microphone and started screaming at the producers,” Chadderdon recalls. “They ignored me and said, ‘Thanks for coming’ and hung up.”
Fox News did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Peter Fenn knows what it’s like being the cable news version of Sisyphus — pushing the political boulder up the hill week after week. After regularly appearing on Fox for many years, Fenn says he started to pull away following the 2006 midterms. A few months prior to the elections, a “Hannity & Colmes” episode on which Fenn appeared alongside conservative pundit Ann Coulter was the mocked subject of a “Daily Show” feature called “Great Moments in Punditry as Read by Children.”
“After that, I thought this was getting ridiculous,” Fenn said. He continued to appear less frequently, until calling it quits after a show in May 2008 in which Michelle Obama’s patriotism was being served up for debate.
Beckel said he’ll persevere, even if it means taking blows from liberals who weren’t even born when he was fighting the good fight.
“There is a frustration when you are getting yelled at by people who weren’t even a gleam in their daddy’s eye when you were getting beat up by hard hats on Wall Street [while] protesting Vietnam,” he said.
He looks at the bright side.
“I get on Hannity every Monday night and say Obama is the greatest economic president since Franklin Roosevelt and watch Hannity’s jaw drop,” Beckel said. “And that is one of the great moments of my week.”
Still just thinking about this healthcare crap and I have to ask if anyone can remember in history where the government has FORCED everyone to buy a service or good? This is the biggest violation of our right that I have seen in my life. I honestly don't understand how any freedom loving person can be for this Bill...
Forced to buy Fire Dept, Police Dept, some hospitals----ect. If we have to pay for the service without question, we are forced.
That is from taxes which the government takes from up for force. We don't have to seek out and purchase these things like we will under the health bill. WE do not purchase those, they are purchased with our money. However you do have a choice there too, you can choose to not work and not have a job and NOT pay taxes... Under the healthcare bill that does not matter, you STILL must have health insurance.
Yea, you have just proved my point. Never in history... The first line of the new health care Bill should read "Grab your ankles and get ready America!"
I will agree with you Jason, I don't think a mandate is right, I do think that having a single payer system such as medicare for all or VA for all is the way to go. But the current climate of washington that just can't happen. Though America is already taking it in the A**, I know I am, well my wife is anyway since I try to use the VA whenever I can but I have to keep my insurance because she isn't a Veteran. And the only reason I am still working with my employer is because of them picking up most of the cost of Health coverage. I am actually limiting myself on making money from my own business since I have to work during the day but can't afford getting health insurance on my own. If it wasn't for my wife I wouldn't need to worry about it but she has asthma and needs to have coverage.
I will agree with you Jason, I don't think a mandate is right, I do think that having a single payer system such as medicare for all or VA for all is the way to go. But the current climate of washington that just can't happen. Though America is already taking it in the A**, I know I am, well my wife is anyway since I try to use the VA whenever I can but I have to keep my insurance because she isn't a Veteran. And the only reason I am still working with my employer is because of them picking up most of the cost of Health coverage. I am actually limiting myself on making money from my own business since I have to work during the day but can't afford getting health insurance on my own. If it wasn't for my wife I wouldn't need to worry about it but she has asthma and needs to have coverage.
I don't agree with the single payer system either for many reasons, but the main one is that I don't trust the government to run a damn swap meet, let alone the entire healthcare industry. I can't even imagine the BS and red tape it will cause.
Yea, you have just proved my point. Never in history... The first line of the new health care Bill should read "Grab your ankles and get ready America!"
Actually I was proving you didnt HAVE to have anything...but I suppose your right. Much better for uninsured to go to ER for an emergency and then the hospital or taxpayers to eat that cost (which raises their premiums) than it is to give them a simple plan in the first place which causes more taxes. Seems like even without "mandatory" insurance, we are still all effected by people getting sick in an emergency situation.....unless we just let them die outside the hospital-----Im willing to explore any ideas though.
Yea, you have just proved my point. Never in history... The first line of the new health care Bill should read "Grab your ankles and get ready America!"
Actually I was proving you didnt HAVE to have anything...but I suppose your right. Much better for uninsured to go to ER for an emergency and then the hospital or taxpayers to eat that cost (which raises their premiums) than it is to give them a simple plan in the first place which causes more taxes. Seems like even without "mandatory" insurance, we are still all effected by people getting sick in an emergency situation.....unless we just let them die outside the hospital-----Im willing to explore any ideas though.
You are wrong, you do HAVE to, or you will be fined, and if you don't pay the fine, possibly imprisoned... Now that makes a lot of fucking sense. And how is it going to be any better for the taxpayers to pay for EVERYONE'S healthcare and take away our freedom of choice when it comes to out own care? That makes a lot of sense too... If you think that is a good idea, then it's hard to take you seriously when you call yourself a "free thinker." Sounds more like you need the Nanny State to tell you every move to make...
Yes...I know.....Be afraid, big brother is coming....the republicans will protect me. Sounds just like 9/11 on the healthcare front. Spare me the fear mumbo jumbo Puro....we had it for 8 years.
Yes...I know.....Be afraid, big brother is coming....the republicans will protect me. Sounds just like 9/11 on the healthcare front. Spare me the fear mumbo jumbo Puro....we had it for 8 years.
Where in this entire Healthcare debate did you hear me say the Republicans have the right answer? That is always your argument and it just doesn't float because I don't agree with much they say these days either.
I will agree with you Jason, I don't think a mandate is right, I do think that having a single payer system such as medicare for all or VA for all is the way to go. But the current climate of washington that just can't happen. Though America is already taking it in the A**, I know I am, well my wife is anyway since I try to use the VA whenever I can but I have to keep my insurance because she isn't a Veteran. And the only reason I am still working with my employer is because of them picking up most of the cost of Health coverage. I am actually limiting myself on making money from my own business since I have to work during the day but can't afford getting health insurance on my own. If it wasn't for my wife I wouldn't need to worry about it but she has asthma and needs to have coverage.
I don't agree with the single payer system either for many reasons, but the main one is that I don't trust the government to run a damn swap meet, let alone the entire healthcare industry. I can't even imagine the BS and red tape it will cause.
So you like having these large insurance companies do it?
Yea, you have just proved my point. Never in history... The first line of the new health care Bill should read "Grab your ankles and get ready America!"
Actually I was proving you didnt HAVE to have anything...but I suppose your right. Much better for uninsured to go to ER for an emergency and then the hospital or taxpayers to eat that cost (which raises their premiums) than it is to give them a simple plan in the first place which causes more taxes. Seems like even without "mandatory" insurance, we are still all effected by people getting sick in an emergency situation.....unless we just let them die outside the hospital-----Im willing to explore any ideas though.
You are wrong, you do HAVE to, or you will be fined, and if you don't pay the fine, possibly imprisoned... Now that makes a lot of fucking sense. And how is it going to be any better for the taxpayers to pay for EVERYONE'S healthcare and take away our freedom of choice when it comes to out own care? That makes a lot of sense too... If you think that is a good idea, then it's hard to take you seriously when you call yourself a "free thinker." Sounds more like you need the Nanny State to tell you every move to make...
"choice" in healthcare? Sorry bud there is no choice right now. That is what the health bill is about, having choice whether it be private or public and having private insurer's not drop people, not allow them care do to pre-existing conditions, or continue to raise rates and also to do so while providing less benefits.
Yea, you have just proved my point. Never in history... The first line of the new health care Bill should read "Grab your ankles and get ready America!"
Actually I was proving you didnt HAVE to have anything...but I suppose your right. Much better for uninsured to go to ER for an emergency and then the hospital or taxpayers to eat that cost (which raises their premiums) than it is to give them a simple plan in the first place which causes more taxes. Seems like even without "mandatory" insurance, we are still all effected by people getting sick in an emergency situation.....unless we just let them die outside the hospital-----Im willing to explore any ideas though.
You are wrong, you do HAVE to, or you will be fined, and if you don't pay the fine, possibly imprisoned... Now that makes a lot of fucking sense. And how is it going to be any better for the taxpayers to pay for EVERYONE'S healthcare and take away our freedom of choice when it comes to out own care? That makes a lot of sense too... If you think that is a good idea, then it's hard to take you seriously when you call yourself a "free thinker." Sounds more like you need the Nanny State to tell you every move to make...
"choice" in healthcare? Sorry bud there is no choice right now. That is what the health bill is about, having choice whether it be private or public and having private insurer's not drop people, not allow them care do to pre-existing conditions, or continue to raise rates and also to do so while providing less benefits.
You are 100% absolutely wrong. I have MANY MANY MANY choices with my healthcare. I have a decent insurance plan and I have an HSA account which is an awesome way to save for your health expenses. You don't lose it no matter what. It's there no matter what job I go to, what changes my insurance company makes, or if I switch insurance companies even. Our company we were with raised rates big time last year and our HR dept went to work and found us better coverage and my HSA is still sitting there building.
Don't sit there and say we don't have choices, because I am taking steps to make sure I do and they are paying off. You have those choices too, you just choose not to pursue them. Thats your choice, I'd rather put forth the effort than just hand control over to the government.
Yea, you have just proved my point. Never in history... The first line of the new health care Bill should read "Grab your ankles and get ready America!"
Actually I was proving you didnt HAVE to have anything...but I suppose your right. Much better for uninsured to go to ER for an emergency and then the hospital or taxpayers to eat that cost (which raises their premiums) than it is to give them a simple plan in the first place which causes more taxes. Seems like even without "mandatory" insurance, we are still all effected by people getting sick in an emergency situation.....unless we just let them die outside the hospital-----Im willing to explore any ideas though.
You are wrong, you do HAVE to, or you will be fined, and if you don't pay the fine, possibly imprisoned... Now that makes a lot of fucking sense. And how is it going to be any better for the taxpayers to pay for EVERYONE'S healthcare and take away our freedom of choice when it comes to out own care? That makes a lot of sense too... If you think that is a good idea, then it's hard to take you seriously when you call yourself a "free thinker." Sounds more like you need the Nanny State to tell you every move to make...
"choice" in healthcare? Sorry bud there is no choice right now. That is what the health bill is about, having choice whether it be private or public and having private insurer's not drop people, not allow them care do to pre-existing conditions, or continue to raise rates and also to do so while providing less benefits.
You are 100% absolutely wrong. I have MANY MANY MANY choices with my healthcare. I have a decent insurance plan and I have an HSA account which is an awesome way to save for your health expenses. You don't lose it no matter what. It's there no matter what job I go to, what changes my insurance company makes, or if I switch insurance companies even. Our company we were with raised rates big time last year and our HR dept went to work and found us better coverage and my HSA is still sitting there building.
Don't sit there and say we don't have choices, because I am taking steps to make sure I do and they are paying off. You have those choices too, you just choose not to pursue them. Thats your choice, I'd rather put forth the effort than just hand control over to the government.
No puro I am not wrong, or should I say millions of Americans are wrong... Have you not read the *** I've gone through with insurance? I haven't been denied yet but have been screwed already. I'm very happy that you are so happy with your insurance, and I'm glad that you haven't been denied anything but many Americans have. So it's my fault I have no choices. Yeah I see, that's really the truth. I don't put the effort to do anything. That's a pretty Fing weak thing to say. In fact maybe you should have gone to a few town halls and told the people who stood in front of their officials and told story after story of the horrors they have gone through because of private insurance companies. Maybe you should step outside your own little world and see things as they are. Did you read the link I posted? Do you watch C-span and hear about the millions of Americans who die due to the health system in America. Well when you ever have a major injury or get cancer and while in treatment get denied and have to pay out of pocket thousands of dollars or go bankrupt or lose a loved one you can come back and tell me that you had the choice and that I was wrong in wanting a system in which that couldn't happen. That's what a lot of people in this country have, self centered, "it won't happen to me" syndrome. Them other people are lazy, or from what you said, I don't pursue choices, or they are free loaders. Yeah keep paying your money to an organization that makes money of denying others while taking their money. There is so much Irony in hearing a person who is Middle Class (or around that area) defending the people who control them.
Yea, you have just proved my point. Never in history... The first line of the new health care Bill should read "Grab your ankles and get ready America!"
Actually I was proving you didnt HAVE to have anything...but I suppose your right. Much better for uninsured to go to ER for an emergency and then the hospital or taxpayers to eat that cost (which raises their premiums) than it is to give them a simple plan in the first place which causes more taxes. Seems like even without "mandatory" insurance, we are still all effected by people getting sick in an emergency situation.....unless we just let them die outside the hospital-----Im willing to explore any ideas though.
You are wrong, you do HAVE to, or you will be fined, and if you don't pay the fine, possibly imprisoned... Now that makes a lot of fucking sense. And how is it going to be any better for the taxpayers to pay for EVERYONE'S healthcare and take away our freedom of choice when it comes to out own care? That makes a lot of sense too... If you think that is a good idea, then it's hard to take you seriously when you call yourself a "free thinker." Sounds more like you need the Nanny State to tell you every move to make...
"choice" in healthcare? Sorry bud there is no choice right now. That is what the health bill is about, having choice whether it be private or public and having private insurer's not drop people, not allow them care do to pre-existing conditions, or continue to raise rates and also to do so while providing less benefits.
You are 100% absolutely wrong. I have MANY MANY MANY choices with my healthcare. I have a decent insurance plan and I have an HSA account which is an awesome way to save for your health expenses. You don't lose it no matter what. It's there no matter what job I go to, what changes my insurance company makes, or if I switch insurance companies even. Our company we were with raised rates big time last year and our HR dept went to work and found us better coverage and my HSA is still sitting there building.
Don't sit there and say we don't have choices, because I am taking steps to make sure I do and they are paying off. You have those choices too, you just choose not to pursue them. Thats your choice, I'd rather put forth the effort than just hand control over to the government.
No puro I am not wrong, or should I say millions of Americans are wrong... Have you not read the *** I've gone through with insurance? I haven't been denied yet but have been screwed already. I'm very happy that you are so happy with your insurance, and I'm glad that you haven't been denied anything but many Americans have. So it's my fault I have no choices. Yeah I see, that's really the truth. I don't put the effort to do anything. That's a pretty Fing weak thing to say. In fact maybe you should have gone to a few town halls and told the people who stood in front of their officials and told story after story of the horrors they have gone through because of private insurance companies. Maybe you should step outside your own little world and see things as they are. Did you read the link I posted? Do you watch C-span and hear about the millions of Americans who die due to the health system in America. Well when you ever have a major injury or get cancer and while in treatment get denied and have to pay out of pocket thousands of dollars or go bankrupt or lose a loved one you can come back and tell me that you had the choice and that I was wrong in wanting a system in which that couldn't happen. That's what a lot of people in this country have, self centered, "it won't happen to me" syndrome. Them other people are lazy, or from what you said, I don't pursue choices, or they are free loaders. Yeah keep paying your money to an organization that makes money of denying others while taking their money. There is so much Irony in hearing a person who is Middle Class (or around that area) defending the people who control them.
Actually, a co-worker here who has the same insurance set up as I do DID get cancer. And guess what? The insurance DID pay for most of his treatment. Don't sit there on your fucking high horse and think for a second you know what I have been through or experienced or what I know. If we can get a decent deal here, than that means it is out there. It's not like we are special or we get something that the rest of the country can't get...
Yea, you have just proved my point. Never in history... The first line of the new health care Bill should read "Grab your ankles and get ready America!"
Actually I was proving you didnt HAVE to have anything...but I suppose your right. Much better for uninsured to go to ER for an emergency and then the hospital or taxpayers to eat that cost (which raises their premiums) than it is to give them a simple plan in the first place which causes more taxes. Seems like even without "mandatory" insurance, we are still all effected by people getting sick in an emergency situation.....unless we just let them die outside the hospital-----Im willing to explore any ideas though.
You are wrong, you do HAVE to, or you will be fined, and if you don't pay the fine, possibly imprisoned... Now that makes a lot of fucking sense. And how is it going to be any better for the taxpayers to pay for EVERYONE'S healthcare and take away our freedom of choice when it comes to out own care? That makes a lot of sense too... If you think that is a good idea, then it's hard to take you seriously when you call yourself a "free thinker." Sounds more like you need the Nanny State to tell you every move to make...
"choice" in healthcare? Sorry bud there is no choice right now. That is what the health bill is about, having choice whether it be private or public and having private insurer's not drop people, not allow them care do to pre-existing conditions, or continue to raise rates and also to do so while providing less benefits.
You are 100% absolutely wrong. I have MANY MANY MANY choices with my healthcare. I have a decent insurance plan and I have an HSA account which is an awesome way to save for your health expenses. You don't lose it no matter what. It's there no matter what job I go to, what changes my insurance company makes, or if I switch insurance companies even. Our company we were with raised rates big time last year and our HR dept went to work and found us better coverage and my HSA is still sitting there building.
Don't sit there and say we don't have choices, because I am taking steps to make sure I do and they are paying off. You have those choices too, you just choose not to pursue them. Thats your choice, I'd rather put forth the effort than just hand control over to the government.
No puro I am not wrong, or should I say millions of Americans are wrong... Have you not read the *** I've gone through with insurance? I haven't been denied yet but have been screwed already. I'm very happy that you are so happy with your insurance, and I'm glad that you haven't been denied anything but many Americans have. So it's my fault I have no choices. Yeah I see, that's really the truth. I don't put the effort to do anything. That's a pretty Fing weak thing to say. In fact maybe you should have gone to a few town halls and told the people who stood in front of their officials and told story after story of the horrors they have gone through because of private insurance companies. Maybe you should step outside your own little world and see things as they are. Did you read the link I posted? Do you watch C-span and hear about the millions of Americans who die due to the health system in America. Well when you ever have a major injury or get cancer and while in treatment get denied and have to pay out of pocket thousands of dollars or go bankrupt or lose a loved one you can come back and tell me that you had the choice and that I was wrong in wanting a system in which that couldn't happen. That's what a lot of people in this country have, self centered, "it won't happen to me" syndrome. Them other people are lazy, or from what you said, I don't pursue choices, or they are free loaders. Yeah keep paying your money to an organization that makes money of denying others while taking their money. There is so much Irony in hearing a person who is Middle Class (or around that area) defending the people who control them.
Actually, a co-worker here who has the same insurance set up as I do DID get cancer. And guess what? The insurance DID pay for most of his treatment. Don't sit there on your fucking high horse and think for a second you know what I have been through or experienced or what I know. If we can get a decent deal here, than that means it is out there. It's not like we are special or we get something that the rest of the country can't get...
Well great for him, but you know many didn't get that lucky. And I'm not on a high horse, just don't tell me that there are real choices out there and don't go telling me that I haven't done enough. My dad has so many medical problems through his entire life, well mostly in the last 15 years and hasn't been denied but that doesn't make me sit here and ignore the problems of millions of other Americans and say everyone else has a choice of getting covered. You can call me lazy all you want (which I am not and have served two combat tours overseas and have my own business and work full time), but I'm not the one who is so self centered and so out of touch of what really is going on. You say there are so many choices out there but if that were true than the problems that this country has with the medical system wouldn't be there.
I disagree, if insurance companies weren't mandated to pay for so much crap rates would be lower. Why do you think car insurance companies don't pay for oil changes and brake jobs? If Dr.s didn't have to spend 100's of thousands of dollars to protect themselves from getting sued for millions and millions of dollars because someone who didn't take care of themselves has a problem that the Dr can't fix, then the cost of healthcare would be MUCH lower... HSA accounts which are available to ANYONE out there are an awesome way to help cover out of pocket expenses. It takes some advanced planning and thinking ahead however...
Also, I guess I shouldn't have called you wrong a while ago. I need to use a term that will fit more with the socializing of our nation. How does, "Suffering from a bureaucratic absence of correctness," sound? LMAO
just don't tell me that there are real choices out there
There are five million (5,000,000) legitimately operating health professionals in the United States. Over two dozen categories of US health professions, representing over two million of the five million, are allowed by law, to bill directly for their services.
I think it's Germany that uses private insurance and it works rather well though they are heavily regulated, which I think could work here, though legislation would have to be done to do it.
just don't tell me that there are real choices out there
There are five million (5,000,000) legitimately operating health professionals in the United States. Over two dozen categories of US health professions, representing over two million of the five million, are allowed by law, to bill directly for their services.
Sure there a lot of them out there, though what good is it if someone got denied coverage, or lost their job, or had an illness or something that put them in the category of "pre-existing", their choice is to get something that is very expensive and offers little coverage. That's not really a choice. If strong regulations were put in place to make health insurance more like car insurance then there would be a world of difference. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_SUMMARY.pdf is a summery of the house bill. But premiums that keep going up year after year while offering less if no the same coverage isn't how it should be.
Comments
Cash for Clunkers cost $24,000 per car
Edmunds.com says only 125,000 vehicle sales were a result of the government's program.
Posted by Elizabeth Strott on Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:54 AM
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1341914&_blg=1,1341914
The U.S. government is calling its Cash for Clunkers program a big success, with nearly 690,000 vehicles sold in July and August. But a report by automotive Web site Edmunds.com says the program actually cost taxpayers $24,000 per car sold.
Only 125,000, or 18%, of the sales were incremental, according to Edmunds.com -- the remaining 82% of sales would have happened regardless of the program. The $24,000 is the price for the sales of vehicles that were a direct result of the program, Edmunds.com said.
The clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less-fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel-economy requirements. The government set aside $3 billion for those rebates.
Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and other models not included in program, and it applied the historic sales volumes of those vehicles and those in the program and estimated what the sales figures would have been without the program. The analysts then divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle.
The average transaction price for a new vehicle in August was only $26,915, minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.
"This analysis is valuable for two reasons," Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl said in a press release. "First, it can form the basis for a complete assessment of the program's impact and costs. Second -- and more important -- it can help us to understand the true state of auto sales and the economy. For example, October sales are up, but without Cash for Clunkers, sales would have been even better. This suggests that the industry's recovery is gaining momentum."
The government was not pleased with Edmunds.com's analysis.
"It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program that sold nearly 250,000 cars in its first four days alone," Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation, told CNNMoney.com. "There can be no doubt that (the clunkers program) drummed up more business for car dealers at a time when they needed help the most."
The economy grew at a 3.5% pace in the third quarter, thanks to a jump in auto sales as a result of the clunkers program. Auto sales contributed 1.7 percentage points to the GDP, the government said in a report this morning.
I'm sure the libera.., err, "progressives" can still find a way to defend this gem.
Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and other models not included in program, and it applied the historic sales volumes of those vehicles and those in the program and estimated what the sales figures would have been without the program. The analysts then divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle.
Given that the economy was / is in the tank and that people were NOT buying automobiles at least at the time of the report then using historical sales numbers and saying that they would have sold "this many" vehicles during that time is a real leap isn't it? That was the whole premise of the program was to stimulate the sales of vehicles.
I think the $24,000 per vehicle figure is a little high probably, but it is still TOO much considering the money that was also handed to the big car makers as well. That's a LOT of taxpayer money floating only one sector of the economy.
this program took cars that had some value and demolished it. they destroyed value. sure the car may have been run down and beat up, but there is some poor guy out there that can only afford a car for a few thousand (hundred).
to me, this is the same thing as burning wheat to get rid of surplus.
another wasteful, inefficient government program.
too much money. the government should not be in the business of selling cars.
$2.24 million per word
William Boyes, an economics professor at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, estimates that the government now owns or controls businesses that generate about one-third of U.S. economic activity. (the auto industry, the banking industry, student loans, etc...)
health care is currently 16% of GDP
so if the government takes over health care, the government will control/own about 46-49% of the GDP.
most of it was taken by force
Democratic pundit Bob Beckel has been under contract with Fox Newsfor six years. And in the midst of the White House war against thecable network, some of his liberal friends think that’s six years too many.
They invited him to lunch the other day for an intervention: Why is Beckel — a true-blue Democrat who worked for Robert F. Kennedy and ran Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign — giving comfort to the enemy?
Beckel’s response: “I talk to more persuadable voters in a month than anybody on MSNBC and CNN talks to in a year.”
In the eyes of some of their party brethren, Beckel and other Democratic strategists and pundits who appear regularly on Fox News are traitors to the cause. Or at least gluttons for punishment. And some of them feel that way, too.
“It sucks,” says Democratic direct-mail consultant Liz Chadderdon, a regular on the network. “It is very, very tough to be a Democrat on Fox.”
During an October 2007 hit on “The Factor,” Chadderdon referred to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as “victims.” It was a verbal faux pas, and she knew it. But no sooner did she get off the air than she received a death threat — the first of a handful she says she’s received after appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox show.
More recently, Chadderdon has been invited to talk business with Fox’s Neil Cavuto — on the main network and on the two-year-old Fox Business Network — even though she readily admits that she has no background in economics.
“Speaking about those issues is not my forte,” said Chadderdon. “And I’m getting the tar kicked out of me.”
So why does she keep doing it? For pretty much the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks. Fox is where the viewers are — No. 1 in the prime-time news ratings and drawing more than twice as many viewers on weeknights as either MSNBC or CNN.
“You know how I know nobody watches CNBC?” said Chadderdon. “I compared the pope to my 11th-grade algebra teacher, and nobody sent me a letter.”
Lanny Davis, former White House counsel for Bill Clinton, says some of his fellow Democrats privately encourage him to keep appearing on Fox — even as they boycott the network themselves.
“I get very positive but whispered reinforcement,” he said.
Davis made news during last year’s Democratic presidential primaries when he said that Fox was the fairest of the cable networks in its treatment of Hillary Clinton.
And now, he insists, the claims of bias directed at Fox are overstated, at least insofar as they come from devotees of one of its competitors.
“Is there a difference between Fox and MSNBC?” he asked. “You count the number of guests on Rachel [Maddow] and Keith [Olbermann] who are conservative Republicans. If you get to double digits, I’ll buy you dinner for each one.”
Susan Estrich is perhaps the most identifiable Democratic pundit on the network. She’s been on the payroll for more than a decade, having first gotten to know Fox News President Roger Ailes when they were working on opposite sides of the 1988 presidential campaign.
Estrich says they’ve become good friends and that when she’s had beefs about the network’s coverage, management has been receptive.
“If there is something I think is not right, I pick up the phone and I call,” she said. “What I have been hopefully able to do is offer my thoughts both inside and outside.”
Estrich encouraged Democratic pollster Doug Schoen to join Fox Nation at the end of the 2004 election. Weary of the unpredictability of other networks’ schedules, he was happy to sign on — and says he’s encouraged his Democratic friends to do the same.
“They are the most professional network of any I have dealt with,” he said. “If you are a Democrat who wants to deliver mindless talking points on Fox, it’s probably best to go to MSBNC and hope you get a chance to recite them. I think Fox encourages critical views of all sides, asks different kinds of questions and wants to have diversity of view.”
Beckel believes Fox viewers are more open to the Democratic side of the story than stereotypes might suggest. And indeed, a 2008 Pew Research survey found that while almost half of viewers who regularly watchFox News identify as Republican or Republican leaning, 39 percent tip Democratic and 12 percent have no stated angle at all.
Chadderdon is skeptical that her Fox hits do much to advance the progressive cause. But she says they’re good for business.
“The clients I have dealt with will say to me that they are impressed I have gone on [Sean] Hannity and O’Reilly,” she says.
Nevertheless, Chadderdon has been dialing it back in recent months, making polite excuses when bookers call to inquire about her availability. Plus, she has adopted a personal policy of not going on Hannity’s show after he was condescending to her on the air last summer.
“When the hit was over, I ripped off the microphone and started screaming at the producers,” Chadderdon recalls. “They ignored me and said, ‘Thanks for coming’ and hung up.” Fox News did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Peter Fenn knows what it’s like being the cable news version of Sisyphus — pushing the political boulder up the hill week after week. After regularly appearing on Fox for many years, Fenn says he started to pull away following the 2006 midterms. A few months prior to the elections, a “Hannity & Colmes” episode on which Fenn appeared alongside conservative pundit Ann Coulter was the mocked subject of a “Daily Show” feature called “Great Moments in Punditry as Read by Children.”
“After that, I thought this was getting ridiculous,” Fenn said. He continued to appear less frequently, until calling it quits after a show in May 2008 in which Michelle Obama’s patriotism was being served up for debate.
Beckel said he’ll persevere, even if it means taking blows from liberals who weren’t even born when he was fighting the good fight.
“There is a frustration when you are getting yelled at by people who weren’t even a gleam in their daddy’s eye when you were getting beat up by hard hats on Wall Street [while] protesting Vietnam,” he said.
He looks at the bright side.
“I get on Hannity every Monday night and say Obama is the greatest economic president since Franklin Roosevelt and watch Hannity’s jaw drop,” Beckel said. “And that is one of the great moments of my week.”
I will agree with you Jason, I don't think a mandate is right, I do think that having a single payer system such as medicare for all or VA for all is the way to go. But the current climate of washington that just can't happen. Though America is already taking it in the A**, I know I am, well my wife is anyway since I try to use the VA whenever I can but I have to keep my insurance because she isn't a Veteran. And the only reason I am still working with my employer is because of them picking up most of the cost of Health coverage. I am actually limiting myself on making money from my own business since I have to work during the day but can't afford getting health insurance on my own. If it wasn't for my wife I wouldn't need to worry about it but she has asthma and needs to have coverage.
Don't sit there and say we don't have choices, because I am taking steps to make sure I do and they are paying off. You have those choices too, you just choose not to pursue them. Thats your choice, I'd rather put forth the effort than just hand control over to the government.
Also, I guess I shouldn't have called you wrong a while ago. I need to use a term that will fit more with the socializing of our nation. How does, "Suffering from a bureaucratic absence of correctness," sound? LMAO
Link
Torte reform won't do much bud. http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republican-malpractice-myths.... http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/63642932.html.......http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+truth+about+medical+malpractice.(President's+Page)-a086391224
I think it's Germany that uses private insurance and it works rather well though they are heavily regulated, which I think could work here, though legislation would have to be done to do it.