Would you buy a New Car from this man

Against my conservative conscience I succumbed to "cash for clunkers." It became obvious to my wife and me that it was time to trade our 2000 Chevrolet Blazer, and since the deal was out there we took advantage of it. We purchased a 2009 Nissan Versa, and here we sit 10 days after the paper work was signed-- no, Versa, no Blazer. My 18-year-old son is taking me to work everyday and picking me up. The government seems unable to get the promised $4500 rebate to my Nissan dealer. So what am I to do? Can I complain to my dealer? They are just making sure they have money before they release a product. If I complain to my local Democratic Congressman I will probably be called a Nazi or something else for expressing my frustration passionately. Wasn't it the government creating a venue for people to "get a deal" on mortgages that got us into this economic fix in the first place? Now are we doing the same things with cars?

In the 1964 California gubernatorial campaign some one ran an add featuring candidate Richard Nixon in a car lot. The caption read, "Would you buy a used car from this man?" It was a slight to his integrity. My experience with "Cash for Clunkers" gives me an idea for an anti government run Health Care add: " Would you buy your health care from this man?" The more I see of Obama and the more I hear of his health care plan I think both he and his programs are clunkers? Bold on promises, but short on delivery. He is the ultimate car salesman. The problems with the "cash for clunkers" makes evident why government control will never improve anything be it car sales or health care.

First, government involvement always delays the expedient. Before the "cash for clunkers" program I would have gone to a dealer, negotiated a trade-in value for my vehicle, paid for it or arranged financing in just a few hours. It would probably have been within 24 hours of verifying insurance, and signing the papers that I would have driven away with my new Versa. With "cash for clunkers," the trade in has to be qualified, insurance verified and then we have to wait for the government to approve the deal and release funds. Who knows how long all this will take? Recently my son had an MRI, our doctor, referred him, they called us with an appointment date. The process of approving him took literally minutes. We only waited a couple of weeks. Does anyone really think that if government had been an intermediary in the process it would have gone smoother?

Second, government involvement always obfuscates the transparent. Before cash for clunkers I drove my old vehicle to the lot, they had their mechanics look at it, the sales manager checked with Kelly Blue Book, and then made me a trade in offer. Sometimes after some negotiation we would come to terms, approve financing, if needed, turn over my vehicle the deal would be done. The problem with any government programs is that they all ways have secondary objectives. The program is not just about stimulating the auto industry, there is always a hidden agenda. In the case of cash for clunkers it is supposedly energy independence. The car we trade in is supposed to be gas guzzler the one we buy is supposed to be energy efficient. Because of the secondary goal in the program is to assure they are getting those big gas hogs off the highway. A government run health care system will be a tool for special interest to accomplish all kinds of things, without having to go through a legislative or judicial process. In the name of managing health care they will regulate what we eat, where and how we sleep, what kind of building materials we use, where we go to school, what career we choose. Political causes like gay rights and pro-choice advocates will use health care policy to advance their agenda. Instead of going to a doctor and making a decision about what is in your interest, our choices will have to be qualified bya plethora of government sanctioned social standards. You think its is difficult now to get an approval for your 6-year-old's tonsillectomy through your insurance company, just wait until Obama is in charge. The President has all ready said pediatricians do too may. There will be a motivation to limit care. How does that improve anything? The goal has never been to make the maximum amount of care available to everybody. The goal has been to decide who gets the limited care available based on social criterion.

Third, government control always complicates the simple. I am in a unique position in the "cash-for-clunkers" deal. As an insurance company Customer Service Rep I see the additional procedures that have been added to the process of removing a traded vehicle from a policy, and how far behind it puts the company. I talk several times a day to frustrated dealers who are trying to move inventory and find the process of working with the government and the insurance company overly cumbersome. And I am a consumer going on day 10 waiting for my new vehicle. The problem is that the insurance company has to certify that the clunker had one year previous coverage from the date of trade in. Sounds simple enough. Insurance policy are sold for a period of time, usually six month or one year. You pay for a term of coverage. Most insurance company's systems are set up to notify dealers electronically that either a vehicle deleted from the policy has been covered from the beginning of the policy term until it is traded, or the new vehicle will be covered from date of purchase until the term expires. Requiring coverage be certified for a full calendar year from the date a vehicle was traded means that the period of time required for certification does not usually fall within a policy term. This means new documents have to be created so that the term of coverage can meet government qualifications. Insurance company clerical departments get back logged. Also instead of reselling the trade-ins they are destroyed. This requires the assignment of mechanics to destroy engines and takes them away from the schedule repairs and makes them less productive. It causes dealer lots to be full of cars waiting to be approved for destruction, and leaves them with no room for new inventory in their stores. Lastly it hurts the used car industry, not only are customer who might have bought a lesser expensive pre-owned vehicle drawn to the new car because they think they are getting a deal, but one of the used car dealers sources of supply is restricted. Pre-owned car salesman sell fewer cars, because supply and demand both decrease the cost of pre-owned cars increase. Industry profit is diminissed. It is yet to be seen whether the increase in new car sales is going to off set the nearly destructive decrease in pre-owned car sales. But you see the government had to complicate the simple process because the gas guzlling cars are destructive to the environment and their salesman are purveyors of an evil trade? Do you think government run health care is going to simplify the process? Do you think its going to increase the supply of money for health care to the uninsured without taking it from the elderly or infirmed? Isn't it obvious that if we extend care to between 15 and 45 million uninsured (depending on how they are counted) without increasing the supply of doctors, and without a burdensome tax increase, that either medical care, service or coverage is going to have to shift from some who have it now to some who do not. The government is only going to make it simpler for health care to be provided for those special interest groups that are currying favor from whichever party is in power? Private providers will not be able to compete with the public providers. Demand for health care will increase, the only way for cost to come down under government care is for the supply of services or providers to decrease.

Fourth, the problem with government control of anything is it always adds to the cost but diminishes the value. On a traditional trade in the old vehicle is resold in some form (even when it is junked, parts are resold). Under the cash for clunkers program the old vehicle is destroyed, so the dealer losses the added value of the resale. Additionally every day the old vehicles sit in the dealer lot awaiting government approval and their destruction, the dealer is unable to replace the inventory with new vehicles to sell, and not only are the cars depreciating, but so is the dealers business capital. Additionally the new car waiting to be taken off the lot losses value. If the deal is disapproved, the the vehicle has sat there all those days while a new deal could have been negotiated, the vehicle sold to somebody else or another vehicle sold in its place. Costs to the consumer and the seller increase while the value of the new and preowned vehicle decrease. If measure the cost of lost sales of inventory depreciation of capital, loss of value of the used car in addition to additional time and money completing the approval process and destroying the vehicle, it actually adds cost the dealers effort to market the vehicle? Do we really believe that government regulation and rationing of health care will bring costs down, and improve service? Do government run hospital such as VA hospital or Public Health Service hospital provide better service at lower costs. We all know they add cost while diminishing the value of the care. What makes us think a government plan will do any different?

The fifth problem with government control is the most menacing. Government control always invades privacy and diminishes freedom. Cash for clunker is a perfect example. I understand the dealer has an interest in assuring that the vehicle I drive out of the show room is legally registered; therefore in most state it must be insured. There is also often a lender or leas or involved who wants to protect their investment. So the dealer usually requires the supply of insurance information from the consumer to release the vehicle. But tell me why is it in the dealer's interest or the government's to know that I was insured one year ago? They say to make sure the rebates being handed out are not being given for a vehicle that is worthless and hasn't been driven. But a traded vehicle would have to be registered. Registration is state certification and approval of road worthiness. The redneck neighbor with six junked cars in his backyard will not register them, because to do so he will have to pay taxes and insurance on them. As soon as the dealer get the registration on the preowned vehicle he knows how long it has been road worthy. If it was road worthy with minimal use, that merely adds to the value the vehicle and the trade. The only reason the government gathers that information is too document the kinds of vehicles we have and how we use them, so they can continue on their quest to force Americans into cars they do not like or need. It is part of the attempt by the government to control the kind of vehicles we drive by controlling our freedom to decide what to drive. When the government gathers all of our private health care information and begins organizing it what do you think it is going to be used for? In my home state the government is requiring that "body mass index" of children in elementary schools be collected. The only purpose this can serve is so the state of New York can begin managing how our children are fed. What do we think a national health care database will be used for? It is totally inconceivable that this information would help us be free to make decision about how we eat, work, play and sleep. It is an issue of basis civil liberty. Cash for clunker is a minor encroachment on civil liberties, but government health care makes us all wards of the state. Social Security and medicare is proof.

Look at the reaction of many senior citizens to any attempt to reform Social Security. They think that they are going to be left living in Hooverville's and uncared for if the government doesn't help. When Social Security and Medicare has merely produced two generations of people who are totally dependent on the government for their latter years. I remember my mother who grew up in the depression who use to say she was thankful for Social Security because it kept her from having to be dependent on her children in her old age. This is the lie of Medicare and Social Security. If I as an older person am unable to afford to live independently, I would much rather be dependent on my children, than on Washington. Because I think my children would be compassionate. They would not pull the plug just for convenience, nor would they leave me homeless.

Cash for clunker is an omen of what we can expect from a government run health care system. If Obama's healthcare is passed it will be a sad day for America. It will make us all wards of the states, slaves. After so much blood has been spilled on our soil and abroad so that liberty and government of for and by the be the people can be our continuing legacy, do we all want to become indentured servants of the state. All the American blood spilled for liberty teaches me that no cost is too high to pay for freedom. If cheap health care means I loose my freedom, then I stand with Patrick Henry, "give me liberty or give me death."