like Debtor, the Carver court concluded that “[b]y rendering [§ 506] inapplicable to [claims covered by the flush language of section 1325(a) ], Congress expressly eliminated the mechanism by which they could be treated as secured claims under the Chapter 13 plan.” Id. at 525-26. See also Jean Braucher, Rash and Ride-Through Redux: The Terms for Holding on to Cars, Homes and Other Collateral under the 2005 Act, 13 AM. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 457, 471 (2005) (“A large problem with the argument that the intention [of the flush language of § 1325(a) ] was to dictate full debt repayment for certain recently acquired collateral is that section 1325(a) nowhere says that.”); 8 Collier on Bankruptcy at ¶ 1325.06[l][a], at pp. 1325-28— 1325-29 (Lawrence P. King et al. eds., 15th ed. Revised 2005) (<HOLDING>). However, unlike Debtor, the Carver court does
holding that if claim is not an allowed secured claim pursuant to section 506a by its terms section 1325a5b is inapplicable holding that if  506 does not apply to an allowed claim such claim cannot become a secured claim holding that the meaning of allowed secured claim in  506a does not determine the meaning of allowed secured claim in  506d holding that the secured creditor was only entitled to the amount of its claim as provided in the debtors chapter 13 plan when the destruction of the vehicle yielded insurance proceeds greater than the secured creditors claim recognizing that the flush language of  1325a may be intended to that require certain secured claims are treated as fully secured regardless of the value of collateral but concluding even if that was the intent because the new language added to section 1325a ren ders entirely inapplicable for some creditors the only section section 506 that gives those creditors allowed secured claims it does not carry out such intent