Is the implementation of the Cash for Clunkers program indicative of how UHC might be handled in the US?
I don’t think anybody would disagree that C4C has been wildly popular. But on the other hand, I think it’s hard to argue that the implementation of it has been anything but a failure. Estimates for demand were way off, money ran out, computer systems were unprepared and unavailable, and only a small portion of the rebates have actually been issued, with lots of car deals in limbo. In essence, it’s almost a poster child for a government program: Wildly popular, but lacking in accurate planning and horribly inefficient.
On the other hand, one of the big ‘sell’ points of UHC at the moment, is that increased efficiencies in the system will lead to over all savings. This seems to me to be directly contrary to the latest government offering.
Private health insurance has been wildly popular, but everyone can agree that it has major problems. Thousands of doctors are awaiting payment from overdue claims and patients spend hours trying to wade their way through the morass of bureauocracy that is typical of private business. Is this indicative of how private enterprise works? Is it time to re-think this whole capitalism thing?
Lets see, a goverment program is started and it has more appeal than expected. Cars are flying off the lots. Yep, lets spin this to a negative. On the other hand, had the program had less than expected demand that would have been a failure too. If it met the forecast exactly then the administration would have been cooking the books.
Relax guys, this is a good thing. If you open a store and you have so many customers that you can’t keep the shelves stocked, that is a good thing. Now if you open a chain of stores and it keeps happening, that may be indicative of poor planning, but it is still better than having less than expected sales.
Use Social Security for your model. The cost of running the program is minuscule when compared to the cost of private corporations. Medicare is another government program that is very efficient.
Cash for clunkers was a rousing success. The governmental sites were buried because it was so popular. Car sales went up by a huge margin.
I’d rather see money go to new car buyers than directly to auto companies. I’m tired of programs where the money has to trickle down, because those execs always skim from the top.
Is there some relationship between the two other than that both are government programs? If so, wouldn’t the stronger relationship between Medicaid and UHC be a better guide to whether the latter will be efficiently run?
Oh, they will, bet on it! That’s the whole point of the exercise, providing health care to people who very likely do not deserve it, as testified by their inability to pay for it. And if it happens, many, many people will benefit and most likely give credit to the Dems. Which they will remember come voting day. This would lead to a disaster of epic proportions! Dogs and cats, living together, human-animal hybrids…
(Last nights *Daily Show *did a spot-on takedown of this ridiculous crap. Joe-Bob 'Luc says “Check it out!”)
Good point. Perhaps we should compare UHC to the liberation of Iraq. Things were kind of rough in the start, but all we need is a “health care surge” and everything will be solved.
Well, let’s see now. International catastrophe, reputation in the toilet, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives pissed away vs. healthy riff-raff. Tough call.