It might just be me but I find it hard to believe that goharley has ever felt humbled.

It's not just you, Jerry. The inability to understand what others may feel or experience--empathy--is a well known RW character trait, or flaw, depending on how you look at it. That's why it's hard for you to believe I've ever felt humbleness.

And simply marrying a service member should grant a person more benefits than someone that works 10-hour days at minimum wage with no health coverage? Is that what you mean by earning?

Aunty,

Now tell us how you really feel....

Keith

I dont usually get into these kinds of discussions but I have a wife that stays home raising two boys under 6 and manages to keep a pretty damn happy home... don't even begin to tell me that she isn't earning a share of my benifits...

And to the minimum wage earners with no benefits... time to get a real job

"If yer gonna drive that slow Jerry, please stay off the freeway."

It's ok....his left blinker is always on.

"I have a wife that stays home raising two boys under 6"

Piper, personal choices you make shouldn't enter the equation.

so are you saying that both aunty and my wife should get a job so that they can earn their own benefits?

Nope. However, some do choose to both work so their argument, versus yours, could be they "earned" it a lot more.

yes and no...

When my wife last held a job with health insurance she was not able to take the coverage from her company as long as I was paying for the family plan that covered the kids.

Basically it makes no difference if she is working or not. As long as I am buying the family plan she has to take that insurance. She cannot be covered twice.

That guy with no benefits working 10 to 12-hour days making minimum wage to put food on your table might think she needs to get a "real" job.

Telling that guy to get a "real" job is the kind of elitism I'm talking about. You don't know these guys' stories. You probably know some people that barely made it out of high school, and perhaps some that actually didn't. They may work their ass off, but reality is: that's the best they'll ever do job-wise. They're not lazy. They simply don't possess the mental capacity to qualify for a higher paying job. It's not their fault. Tieing benefits like healthcare to one's ability to achieve and maintain a certain level of employment is somewhat feudal-esque, IMHO.

So everybody should make the same wage?

No, they should all have equal access to healthcare.

"yes and no...

When my wife last held a job with health insurance she was not able to take the coverage from her company as long as I was paying for the family plan that covered the kids.

Basically it makes no difference if she is working or not. As long as I am buying the family plan she has to take that insurance. She cannot be covered twice."

So you make my point....she stays home by choice and cannot be compared to someone who has no choice.

Everyone has a choice, some people continue to choose poorly...

I guess that makes me an elitist... BTW I dont fish for pinks or chums either

My health care plan was negociated out of wages, I've worked long and hard for years to get to this point where I can afford decent healthcare. I already pay additional healthcare dollars into Medicare. Each year I pay deductable prescription and other health care costs that total at least a $1000. And now what I'm hearing is that I will have to accept less care, longer waits, hospice and end of life counsoling after I retire.

Back to the regularly scheduled program...



Clunker Confusion: MPG Figures
Some car shoppers find that the fuel economy for their old cars has suddenly improved - making them ineligible for Cash for Clunkers.


By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com senior writer

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Some car shoppers are finding that their trade-in vehicles, which qualified for a Cash for Clunkers rebate last week, don't this week thanks to changes in the EPA's fuel economy ratings.

In some cases, car buyers say, dealers are backing out of sales they've already made because the EPA changed the fuel economy figures on their trade-in.

"My wife just received a call from the sales manager saying that our clunker doesn't qualify anymore, and that we could either pay the extra $4,500 or return the new car (and get our old car back)," a car buyer wrote Tuesday on a message board at the Edmunds.com automotive Web site.

The buyer said he had signed a document agreeing to provide additional documentation needed to process his trade-in, but had not done so yet.

Another car shopper emailed CNNMoney.com saying he went to the Environmental Protection Agency's fueleconomy.gov Web site on Saturday to double-check the fuel economy rating for his 1987 Mercury Grand Marquis. When he had visited previously, the car's combined city and highway fuel economy was rated at 18 miles per gallon, making it eligible for the program.

But on Saturday, he found something different: The fuel economy for his car had been raised to 19 mpg -- one mile per gallon over the maximum fuel-efficiency allowed under the Car Allowance Rebate System (aka Cash for Clunkers). As a result, he became ineligible for a trade-in credit worth up to $4,500.

Even though the program's basic requirements have been known since it was created by Congress earlier this year, Cash for Clunkers didn't become official until July 24. So as part of the official launch, the EPA conducted "quality assurance and quality control effort regarding fuel economy calculations on more than 30,000 vehicle model types spanning the past 25 years," according to an e-mail sent by EPA spokesman Dale Kemery.

As a result, eligibility for roughly 100 vehicles was affected, Kemery wrote. However, roughly equal numbers became newly eligible and newly ineligible.

Car shoppers have been posting comments on various Internet message boards, including several at the automotive Web site Edmunds.com, describing their frustration with the changes.

The owners of a 1993 Camry V6 wagon, a 1995 Saab 900S and a 1988 Toyota 4Runner all describe their vehicles becoming suddenly ineligible for the program around the time the rules officially went into effect.

Consumers who believe their eligibility may have been hurt by EPA's changes should contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which administers Cash For Clunkers.

"They should call our attention to it," said Rae Tyson, spokesman for the NHTSA. He did not promise, however, that the agency would bend the rules.

Cash for Clunkers benefits are retroactive to July 1, so dealers have been able to make deals since that date. But they had to wait until July 24 to file for their reimbursement checks.

Hyundai Motor America has been helping its dealers close Cash for Clunkers deals since July 1 by providing them with cash advances equal to the expected CARS rebate, a Hyundai spokesman said. As of last Friday, about 14% of Hyundai sales were Cash for Clunker deals, according to the automaker. Last month, Hyundai sold about 38,000 cars.

It is unclear if any of Hyundai's deals so far were made ineligible by the changes, said Hyundai spokesman Phil Leinert, or how the automaker might deal with situations in which a car's eligibility changed.

Brian Benstock, owner of Paragon Honda in New York City, said he's done 33 Cash for Clunkers deals since July 1. So far, he said, he has had no problems because of altered fuel economy numbers.

"Fortunately, most of our customers weren't on the edge," he said. The average fuel economy of his Clunker trade-ins has been about 16 mpg, he said.

Dealers who entered into agreements with customers before last Friday, based on a fuel economy figure listed at fueleconomy.gov, have only themselves to blame, said Tyson.

"We made it very clear that they would be holding themselves out to some risk if they consummate a deal before the program officially begins," Tyson said.

Aunty gets her wingnut propaganda from SH.net nowadays anyway KK.

Has anyone seen the Frontline episode on dueling health care systems, where the compared the systems used by England, Taiwan, Switzerland, Japan, Germany and the US? Good show, and it exposes the truth behind what's going on in healthcare, not some schpiel delivered by some blowhard radio host, insurance lobbyist, or politician.

This link will take you to a summary page, that puts it in terms even someone with the attention span of a fruit fly should be able to browse through and understand. Read it, and if you surpass the fruit fly with your attention span, watch the show.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

Afterward, just remember that you're phuckt, because even if we could cook up a perfect plan, it would never be implemented because many people have an interest to protect, and the American voter is dumber than a f'n fencepost and will believe what a radio host, or industry lobbyist says rather than expending an hour to find out the truth.

Half our health care expenditures could be eliminated tomorrow if you put me in charge. Show up at the ER with a runny nose and a fever, and you'll be given a reason to be admitted. Maybe a punctured lung, or compound fracture will get you a bed, hmmmmm? Show up at the doctor's office obese, and you'll be sent to a quaint desert island "reeducation" camp, where you'll eat nothing until you're not obese, then you're welcome to use the health care system again. If you smoke, you'll have a year to quit.......with our assistance of course, including patches, gum, etc. If you don't quit in a year, you're out. The majority of our medicine will be proactive, rather than reactive. Things that reduce outlandish future costs will be provided at little or no current cost.

Oh, and everyone's in. No exceptions. The system depends on EVERYONE paying in, so the pool of those that don't burden the health care system will cover those that do. But here's a secret.........if you ARE a burden to the health care system, it had better be due to genetics, an accident, or simple bad luck, and NOT due to your laziness.

But, look at that. We're back to that Dictator thing from earlier conversations. The voters won't make me the Dictator, and they won't vote for a responsible candidate. They want a solution...........or so they say. I say they're full of sh!t. They just want to piss and moan. If you have any doubts, refer to the thread about the cop, prof, and Obama.

Then get two f'n lawyers and spend two days, John Conyers.

You're a f'n congreeman. WTF else do you have going on? Spending lobbyist money? Shooting off your piehole on TV?

Read the f'n bill and report back on it WITHOUT soundbites about "rationing" and "audits". Does YOUR healt plan allow you to go to the doctor 362 days a year? Would they "audit" you if you did that? Is there a lifetime max on your coverage? Can we call that "rationing"?

I see lots of GOP criticism. I hear no GOP alternatives. Offer one up, and critique the opposing plan. Or at least come up with a better excuse than "it would take two lawyers and two days to read it". Half you f'ers ARE lawyers.

That's a load of crap, Hank.

When the GOP held both houses, and the WH, there was no talk of health care reform by them, only terrorism.

Meanwhile, the lugnuts have loosened further.

So, maybe you could direct me to the GOP's alterntive plan?

What percentage believes in angels?