Hah I was surprised you hadn't made a post about this when i saw it a couple days ago.
I don't get why they think this is a good use of stimulus money.
It'll stimulate the economy.... until the program stops. Then there will be a drought of people buying cars... since everyone bought one earlier then they planned.
ManusJustus said:
When why do we let them run national security and the army? You said: Contracted security forces are better and cheeper then government ones (it's why the military contracts them). OMG, the last thing anybody wants is a privately controlled military. Why dont we let a private company or owner run the country? I believe this is referred to as a dictatorship, but no one would be burdened with having to vote on election day. Do you have any idea how much it costs to run an election? |
I don't want a privately controlled military, it's why I accept the governments inefficiencies as a trade off for them running the military.
But the only reason we are even looking to the government to run healthcare, is the cost. As far as services, we are the best in the world.
Again, if cost is your only issue, why look to the least efficient organization in the world to help you control costs?
TheRealMafoo said:
I don't want a privately controlled military, it's why I accept the governments inefficiencies as a trade off for them running the military. But the only reason we are even looking to the government to run healthcare, is the cost. As far as services, we are the best in the world. Again, if cost is your only issue, why look to the least efficient organization in the world to help you control costs? |
The UN has to at least be as inefficient.
| Kasz216 said: Hah I was surprised you hadn't made a post about this when i saw it a couple days ago. I don't get why they think this is a good use of stimulus money. It'll stimulate the economy.... until the program stops. Then there will be a drought of people buying cars... since everyone bought one earlier then they planned. |
Actually, I think it's a a great use of stimulus money.
I am not for this kind of thing, as in the end it will do nothing. But, being the choice has been made to try and borrow our way out of debt, this is a far better way to spend it then what we have done in the past.
Also, the end user never needs to work with the government. You trade your car in, and the dealer gives you the 3,500 to 4,500 in trade in. It's then the dealers responsibility to get reimbursed from the government.
It will be interesting to see how well that goes. So far, dealers getting paid has been less then stellar.
Oh, and while it is creating sales, it's not really saving the consumer any money. I just bought a Jeep, and being it gets poor gas mileage, it's not a car anyone cay buy on this program. I got it for $2500 less then invoice, with 72 month 0% interest. If you were to get a 60 month 5.9% loan, the deal I got is like getting $6000 below invoice.
The cars that people can buy under the cash for clunkers program, are now in high demand, meaning they are hard to find, and going for close to MSRP (for my Jeep, with a 5.9% loan, that would have been $10,000 more then I will end up paying).
So, good for moving cars. Not so great of a deal for consumers.
| Kasz216 said: Hah I was surprised you hadn't made a post about this when i saw it a couple days ago. I don't get why they think this is a good use of stimulus money. It'll stimulate the economy.... until the program stops. Then there will be a drought of people buying cars... since everyone bought one earlier then they planned. |
It's just another "extend and pretend" program (except it may actually benefit the environment). Making things look better now at the expense of the future.
My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957
| TheRealMafoo said:
The only reason we are even looking to the government to run healthcare, is the cost. As far as services, we are the best in the world. |
Quality comes at a price, and efficiency is determined by getting more quality for less cost. You can argue that America has better healthcare than the United Kingdom, but America pays three times as much for healthcare than the UK, and I have trouble envisioning the UK doubling their healthcare funding (twice as many doctors, nurces, hospitals, etc.) and not having better healthcare than America.
Healthcare Funding Per Capita (public and private):
| # 1 | United States: | $4,631.00 per capita | |
| # 2 | Switzerland: | $3,222.00 per capita | |
| # 3 | Germany: | $2,748.00 per capita | |
| # 4 | Iceland: | $2,608.00 per capita | |
| # 5 | Canada: | $2,535.00 per capita | |
| # 6 | Denmark: | $2,420.00 per capita | |
| # 7 | France: | $2,349.00 per capita | |
| = 8 | Belgium: | $2,268.00 per capita | |
| = 8 | Norway: | $2,268.00 per capita | |
| # 10 | Netherlands: | $2,246.00 per capita | |
| # 11 | Australia: | $2,211.00 per capita | |
| # 12 | Austria: | $2,162.00 per capita | |
| # 13 | Italy: | $2,032.00 per capita | |
| # 14 | Japan: | $2,011.00 per capita | |
| # 15 | Ireland: | $1,953.00 per capita | |
| # 16 | United Kingdom: | $1,764.00 per capita | |
| # 17 | Finland: | $1,664.00 per capita | |
| # 18 | New Zealand: | $1,623.00 per capita | |
| # 19 | Spain: | $1,556.00 per capita | |
| # 20 | Portugal: | $1,439.00 per capita |
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita
ManusJustus said:
Quality comes at a price, and efficiency is determined by getting more quality for less cost. You can argue that America has better healthcare than the United Kingdom, but America pays three times as much for healthcare than the UK, and I have trouble envisioning the UK doubling their healthcare funding (twice as many doctors, nurces, hospitals, etc.) and not having better healthcare than America. |
But the UK can't triple it, because they don't have enough money.
So what do you want to have happen in the US? If the government takes it over, one of two things will happen. It will cost more, or we will get a whole lot less care.
which one is better for the US?
Cash for Clunkers is evil personified.
THEY ARE DESTROYING CARS FOR NO GOOD REASON
they think they can save the environment by destroying it.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WILL DO TO PEOPLE
Repent or be destroyed
ManusJustus said:
Quality comes at a price, and efficiency is determined by getting more quality for less cost. You can argue that America has better healthcare than the United Kingdom, but America pays three times as much for healthcare than the UK, and I have trouble envisioning the UK doubling their healthcare funding (twice as many doctors, nurces, hospitals, etc.) and not having better healthcare than America. Healthcare Funding Per Capita (public and private):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita |
Consider (for a moment) that obese people cost the healthcare system (roughly) $1,500 more per year on average than people who are not obese, and then look at the following stastics:
Another question is are there benefits to the increased spending in the United States:
Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe, according to the most comprehensive analysis of the issue yet produced.
England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care.
Survival rates are based on the number of patients who are alive five years after diagnosis and researchers found that, for women, England was the fifth worst in a league of 22 countries. Scotland came bottom. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.
In total, 52.7pc of women survived for five years after being diagnosed between 2000 and 2002. Only Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Czech Republic and Poland did worse. Just 44.8pc of men survived, putting England in the bottom seven countries.
The team, writing in The Lancet Oncology, found that Britain's survival rates for the most common cancers - colorectal, lung, breast and prostate - were substantially behind those in Western Europe. In England, the proportion of women with breast cancer who were alive five years after diagnosis was 77.8pc. Scotland (77.3pc) and Ireland (76.2pc) had a lower rate.
Rates for lung cancer in England were poor, with only 8.4pc of patients surviving - half the rate for Iceland (16.8pc). Only Scotland (8.2pc) and Malta (4.6pc) did worse.
Fewer women in England lived for five years after being diagnosed with cervical cancer (58.6pc) despite a national screening programme. This compared to 70.6pc in Iceland. Dr Franco Berrino, who led the study at the National Cancer Institute in Milan, said cancer care was improving in countries that recorded low survival figures. He added: "If all countries attained the mean survival (57pc) of Norway, Sweden and Finland, about 12pc fewer deaths would occur in the five years after diagnosis."
His co-researcher, Prof Ian Kunkler from the Western General Hospital in Edinburgh, said waiting lists for radiotherapy were partly to blame.
"Although there has been a substantial investment in radiotherapy facilities, there is still a shortfall," he said.
"We have good evidence that survival for lung cancer has been compromised by long waiting lists for radiotherapy treatment."
A second article, which looked at 2.7 million patients diagnosed between 1995 and 1999, found that countries that spent the most on health per capita per year had better survival rates.
Britain was the exception. Despite spending up to £1,500 on health per person per year, it recorded similar survival rates for Hodgkin's disease and lung cancer as Poland, which spends a third of that amount.
An accompanying editorial said the figures showed that the NHS Cancer Plan, published in 2000, was not working.
"Survival in England has only increased at a similar rate to other European countries and has not caught up with the absolute values seen elsewhere," it said.
Prof Richard Sullivan at Cancer Research UK said: "Cancer is still not being diagnosed early enough in all cases."
@HS
Even accounting for the difference in obesity rates, the cancer survivability vs overall spend on health care in Finland is still 2:1 for similar results on this metric.
Tease.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
