[added a couple more articles, needed to reformat...]

With socialized medicine in the news these days, I'd like to draw your attention to these articles which present some important reasons why it's a bad thing. The authors all accomplished individuals with significant experience in and around the fields of medicine and health care.

Dr. Scott Atlas:
10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

A fascinating, concise, well written and well referenced article explaining why American health care doesn't actually suck like the Obama administration claims it does. Dr. Atlas is a Professor of Radiology at Stanford University Medical Center, and the author of over 100 scientific papers.

Popular Mechanics:
Inventor Dean Kamen Says Healthcare Debate "Backward Looking"

Dean Kamen is the inventor of the Segway, and the guy personally responsible for an awful lot of medical innovations.

Charles Krauthammer:
Health Care Reform: A Better Plan

Dr. Charles Krauthammer's take on health care is simplified down to two points.

John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare,
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit

John Mackey, the co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, offers some, uh, tasty and nourishing ideas.

"Read it all", as they say. These are exceptionally well thought out articles.

An addendum to my Cash for Clunkers Post...

There are a lot of recent articles about the "success" of the Cash for Clunkers program, as indicated by the number of applicants and the money being dispersed. But the goal of the program was not to disperse money, but rather to reduce pollution. (Remember? Saving the Earth?) We've seen absolutely no evidence of that. So no, it's not successful.

In the New York Times, Aug 7, 2009, Mathew L. Wald's article Doing the Clunker Calculus, seriously questions the success of the Cash for Clunkers program:

In the Associated Press, Seth Borenstein writes in Cash for Clunkers Effect on Pollution? A Blip how the potential environmental advantages of the Cash for Clunkers program are negligible:

For CNN, August 7, 2009, Peter Valdes-Dapena's article Trucks Win in Cash for Clunkers Game describes how the government's "arcane measurement method" makes the results of the Cash for Clunkers program look better than it actually is:

Of course the New York Times, the Associated Press and CNN are all heavily biased toward Obama, so it's especially surprising that they would let this out.

Always looking for the silver lining, in the Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2009, Kevin Helliker writes The Killer App for Clunkers Breathes Fresh Life Into 'Liquid Glass' and describes how sodium silicate, the chemical used to kill clunker engines, is selling like hotcakes.

More Orwellian Doublespeak

The proper title of the law is the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009. Now I understand how difficult it can be to make a clever acronym work out work ("CARS", get it?), but the words recycle and save in the title simply do not apply as absolutely nothing is being recycled or saved. It's exactly the opposite; good cars are being destroyed and rendered incapable of being recycled.

Before this legislation, the automobile was the most recycled consumer product in America -- it got repaired when it broke, it got replacement parts when they wore out, it got sold to new owners, several times, and when it was finally junked as a vehicle, the old parts are used to repair other cars, and then the metal is melted down and reused. But this law is, in practice, an anti-recycling law. The car cannot be repaired, it cannot be resold, and the major components (engine, transmission, and related parts) are legally and physically kept from being recycled.

Isn't anybody just a little concerned when the title of a piece of legislation is the exact opposite of what it does?

Also, in a similarly crazy Orwellian twist, did you know that the Hummer H3 is on the Cash for Clunkers Eligible New Cars List? I'm not kidding.

And as I mentioned previously, real clunkers, cars manufactured before 1984 are not accepted in the program, while recently manufactured cars are.

This is really sad.

The Obama administration's "Cash for Clunkers" program has been dominating the news lately. This program has some serious problems.

One is that it's easily scammed. Sell your old car, buy a Prius, get $4500, sell the Prius on CraigsList for $1000.00 off list, buy an Escalade for, effectively, $3500.00 off.

Secondly, through some weirdness in the mileage ratings, cars older than 1984 vintage are not actually included in the program. That's right, in typical Orwellian Obama doublespeak, real clunkers are not clunkers, but late model cars are. I was especially disheartened to learn that my very own 2000 Audi A6 Avant is officially considered a "clunker" by the Obama administration.

Third, the program rewards as little as a 1 or 2 mpg improvement in mileage. Given manufacturing variations and individual driving style variations, that is deep in the noise.

Fourth, part of the program involves actually destroying the target vehicle. Yes, that's right, destroying the vehicle. The process is very specific: replace the oil with sodium silicate (aka liquid glass) and run the engine until it overheats and seizes up. Here is how it's done on a late model Volvo S80 in great condition:

YouTube: Volvo Cash for Clunkers Engine Disabling

Unbelievable that a stunningly beautiful work of engineering is destroyed for no reason whatsoever. I mean, you can't help but compare this to burning books, smashing rock'n'roll records, or the Taliban dynamiting the Buddha statues. Does anybody think for a moment this is a good thing?

Here's more:

YouTube: Cash for Clunkers: How to destroy an engine

YouTube: Cash for Clunker Engine Stop, Lynch GM Superstore

Just a reminder: Cash for Clunkers Requires Destroying Perfectly Usable Cars

For some more details, check this out:

Jalopnik's Guild To The Cash For Clunkers Bill

The original idea seems to have come from an article by economist Alan S. Blinder in the New York Times, July 27, 2008, called "A Modest Proposal: Eco-Friendly Stimulus". In it he claims that the program "holds the promise of performing a remarkable public policy trifecta -- stimulating the economy, improving the environment and reducing income inequality all at the same time".

I'm calling bullshit on economist Blinder. Yeah, I know he's got credentials up the yingyang, but this is ridiculous.

First off, the MPG rating on a car has far less environmental impact than how the owner uses the car. A driver employing a high mileage car for a lengthy daily commute will contribute far more pollutants than the driver occasionally hopping around town, even they're using a Hummer. The type of driving, smooth vs. stop-and-go, also has more of an impact. As does the driver's personal habits and the route chosen.

Secondly, the "reducing income inequality" claim (we all know that's code for socialism, but glossing over that for a moment...) is simply untrue. Lower income people, if they own a car at all, generally can't afford a new car, even with a rebate. Also, let's face it, because of a little thing called supply and demand (Could someone explain this to Dr. Blinder?) the retail price of new high mileage cars will likely increase following their demand, making lower mileage cars more affordable to first time buyers.

Thirdly, the stimulation will mostly boost the economy of Toyota and Honda, and not GM, Ford or Chrysler. (I forget, are they still made in this country?)

While I don't have Dr. Blinder's credentials, my own proposal A Modest Proposal to Improve the National Energy Policy is far superior, as it will seriously reduce gasoline pollutants, it costs nothing, and it doesn't involving trashing perfectly good Volvos.

[later addition:]

CNN reports some intersting things here [August 4, 2009, As Buyers Pull Up, 'Clunkers' Program Goes Into Overdrive]:

Got that? "Parked for ages" means that the clunkers were not polluting at all. So in these cases, the Cash for Clunkers program actually increases pollution. I hadn't considered that situation before.

And...

Which runs exactly counter to Dr. Blinder's "income inequality" claim.