'Cash for clunkers' -or- 'Dumbest name for a government program ever'

[Nique]

Well not wait times persay, I meant more all the stops along the way, not taking the highway, bus drivers staying like 5-10 mph under the speed limit pretty much a lot of the time.

I'm all for everyone using public transit though. Wait time and, I dunno what to call it, delays I guess, would surely be cut down with better funding. I just felt like there had to be some downside with our taxes going mostly to the lightrail mini-bar. Er, wait...

[Fifthfiend]

Inasmuch as light rail systems do have minibars (do they??) I suspect they would be a net earner for the system.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

Name one large scale entitlement program the federal government has ever run that has worked right?

Have fun. SCHIP rules.

Not only is it an entitlement program, it is specifically a healthcare entitlement program that not only worked, it saved money by starting it off with proper funding. This is what correctly run government healthcare does. It prevents cases of uninsured people being unable to get regular treatment who then rely on the ER, because hospital faring ailments do not simply go away the majority of the time. ER costs are asininely expensive and overused due to, you guessed right, uninsured people being unable to receive typical treatment.

And do you know why it's one of the few of its kind? Because those lousy democrats could sob story republicans into voting for it because it's healthcare that's exclusively for children who are uninsured. Sadly, I believe the continuation of SCHIP was veto'd under President Bush because it was public healthcare and therefore terrible and Marxist and evil.

There are quite possibly more examples to efficiently run government entitlement systems than SCHIP, but that's my favorite because A)it saves money, B) It's healthcare (That shuts up a lot of people) and C)Have fun convincing someone that a program responsible for saving thousands of kids from painful ER trips is a bad thing.

It's kind of sad it has to come down to risking childrens' lives before something like this passes, and even then it'll still get turned down.

[MasterOfMagic]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Of course they see it this way, because driving receives massive public subsidies in the form of road construction and maintenance, whereas public transportation is chronically underfunded.

Well, yes. But my point was that they see it that way, and thus it'll be harder than it should be to drum up support for it. And thus our representatives aren't going to worry about it anytime soon.

And, actually, driving in my city is pretty alright. Occasionally someone wrecks and mucks it up, and going to certain places during rush hour requires a bit of sitting, but its normally okay.

[01d55]

Also a well run entitlement program: Medicare.

No seriously, the growth of Medicare costs is measurably less than that of private insurance, while covering every member of the demographic that needs more health care than anyone else.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Just to say about public transport speed, where I come from public transport is mcuh faster than driving, simply because we have dedicated roads/lanes for buses and trains run on their own lines thus allowing you to avoid traffic which is a killer of speed for most commuters. Being spread out helps because that gives you longer on motorways.

[Possum Knight]

Originally Posted by 01d55

Also a well run entitlement program: Medicare.

No seriously, the growth of Medicare costs is measurably less than that of private insurance, while covering every member of the demographic that needs more health care than anyone else.

Yes, but isn't the wait for help for each of those people lengthened to get treatment, and said treatment not of as good quality?

That's a reason why it costs less isn't it?

EDIT: also the rise is what, a percent difference between the two annually? Also if it's going to cover more people, then won't the cost rise? So everyone is paying more for everyone for less than stellar quality to go along with those who want to pay for their own private insurance. Sounds like a drainer.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Possum Knight

Yes, but isn't the wait for help for each of those people lengthened to get treatment, and said treatment not of as good quality?

That's a reason why it costs less isn't it?

EDIT: also the rise is what, a percent difference between the two annually? Also if it's going to cover more people, then won't the cost rise? So everyone is paying more for everyone for less than stellar quality to go along with those who want to pay for their own private insurance. Sounds like a drainer.

These arguments ahve been addressed in numerous threads here, most recentely this one: http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=35433

Basically yeah you'll get slightly worse treatment but in exchange you don't murder of your poorer compatriots for a slight increase in service quality.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Possum Knight

Yes, but isn't the wait for help for each of those people lengthened to get treatment, and said treatment not of as good quality?

That's a reason why it costs less isn't it?

EDIT: also the rise is what, a percent difference between the two annually? Also if it's going to cover more people, then won't the cost rise? So everyone is paying more for everyone for less than stellar quality to go along with those who want to pay for their own private insurance. Sounds like a drainer.

derp, totally brain farted on the posters because of similar sounding talking points.

Edit: sadly, I've come to notice this is hilariously off topic. Cash for Clunkers underestimated the amount of people that would take it up on its offer, and is planned to receive more money that should foot the bill by most reasonable projections. It's nice because it has somehow turned around a bunch of the Car Company apocalypse worries and saved plenty of jobs indirectly because of that. So, basically, government underestimation followed up by solving the problem of the underestimation. Sounds like it isn't some world ending debacle to me.

[TheSparrow]

Originally Posted by Mesden

Have fun. SCHIP rules.

Not only is it an entitlement program, it is specifically a healthcare entitlement program that not only worked, it saved money by starting it off with proper funding. This is what correctly run government healthcare does. It prevents cases of uninsured people being unable to get regular treatment who then rely on the ER, because hospital faring ailments do not simply go away the majority of the time. ER costs are asininely expensive and overused due to, you guessed right, uninsured people being unable to receive typical treatment.

And do you know why it's one of the few of its kind? Because those lousy democrats could sob story republicans into voting for it because it's healthcare that's exclusively for children who are uninsured. Sadly, I believe the continuation of SCHIP was veto'd under President Bush because it was public healthcare and therefore terrible and Marxist and evil.

There are quite possibly more examples to efficiently run government entitlement systems than SCHIP, but that's my favorite because A)it saves money, B) It's healthcare (That shuts up a lot of people) and C)Have fun convincing someone that a program responsible for saving thousands of kids from painful ER trips is a bad thing.

It's kind of sad it has to come down to risking childrens' lives before something like this passes, and even then it'll still get turned down.

While that may be a great program that works, unfortunately that paper is meaningless. They didnt actually STUDY the affects. If you actually read it, they studied the overall trends for the SCHIP medical expenses in ONE metro area, and then estimated the expenses if 10% of those kids were removed, and that all of them would be uninsured. Also it uses the Oaxaca Decomposition, which specifically "does not permit such a distinction between the contributions of differences in the magnitudes and the effects of determinants." (I.E. "poor children may be less healthy not only because they have less access to piped water but also because their parents are less knowledgeable about how to obtain the maximum health benefits from piped water" It disallows that kind of distinction)

This does point out that SCHIP was definately a much better solution than being uninsured.

Originally Posted by 01d55

Also a well run entitlement program: Medicare.

No seriously, the growth of Medicare costs is measurably less than that of private insurance, while covering every member of the demographic that needs more health care than anyone else.

Thats just silly...talk about apples to oranges...comparing the the per patient costs against insurance premiums, rather than insurance per patient costs? why doesnt he show per patient cost compared to per patient cost? Well that wouldnt be fair either since the average Medicare user is much older and Medicare sees far elderly, disabled or end stage patients than private insurance as a percentage of the whole.

The fact is Medicare's Administrative costs range from 5 to 48% higher than private insurance despite the fact that 4% state taxes (which Medicare are exempt from) and the cost of non-claim health care expenses, such as disease management and on-call nurse consultation services are included in the private heathcare numbers and not Medicare.