Cash for clunkers? Here's what's wrong with the theory...

The whole problem is that the program is list-based and not actual-performance-based.  It doesn't differentiate between two cars of the same year, make and model when one is in pristine condition running like new and the other has been poorly maintained with a resulting loss of performance.
 
My 1994 Camry 4 cylinder is not on the list.  But a 1994 Camry 6 cylinder is, presumably because it "should" get worse mileage.  However, my Camry is in dire need of a tune up, idles roughly, leaks exhaust, and definitely gets worse mileage than a 6 cylinder in good working condition.  I haven't sunk money into maintaining it because the car isn't worth very much.  The trade-in value is next to nothing, so I'm not interested in selling or upgrading.  With gas prices far below their highs of the last few summers, there is no incentive for me to spend money to repair or replace my vehicle.
 
With an extra $4,500 specifically allocated to my transportation needs, I would surely either bring the car back to optimum performance or trade it in on a new hybrid - more likely the former, because even with a good deal, I just don't want a new car payment.  But I'm not going to get any help, whereas someone with a car in better condition and better fuel efficiency will.  And who has these cars?  People with more disposable income, who originally bought the more expensive 6 cylinders and spent more money over the years keeping them in good shape!
 
And now, with a program like this, the government wants me to trust them on administering health care logically and efficiently?