With all the fanfare over the town hall meetings, the press and the political parties are obscuring one basic fact about any government-run health care system: a deadly, built-in conflict of interest.
Imagine this. What if some super-major, greedy oil company were to run all the social security, medicare, medicaid and health care insurance in this country? Now imagine that Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic developed a heart procedure or drug that would extend everyone's lives by ten good years. The cost to the greedy oil company would be enormous! Folks would live longer, meaning more social security payouts. And, more chances for other ailments to crop up during those extra ten years -- more medicare and medicaid health care costs!
There is no way the greedy oil company wants you to live longer! In fact, they will need to do what it takes to suppress any new health care innovation that may extend your life.
Why don't we let some super-major, greedy oil company run health care in this way? Why, because that would be a conflict of interest! Their interests will be to keep your life to 65 years or less. Your interests will be to live as long as possible!
It is that simple --- under any legal standard, the government has a built-in conflict of interest. But, unlike the greedy oil companny, they have ultimate power and control. They can restrict new drugs and new medical procedures through their FDA. They can slow funding to research institutions. They can restrict the level of care based on age alone. They can hide how they pull the plug on grandma.
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Cash for Clunkers - The Ultimate Attack on the Environment!
What?! Isn't Cash for Clunkers supposed to help the environment? After all, look at all those nasty gas-guzzling cars we are taking off the road!
OK, let's look and see if the numbers really add up!
First, let's assume that each clunker would have gotten 50,000 more miles on the road before their owners finally retired them. (Now, wait a minute, if these are clunkers, then they probably weren't going to last another 50,000 miles!) Yes, I know -- but actually, we better use the 50,000 mile figure -- otherwise the environmental savings we calculate will be next-to-nothing.
OK, 50,000 miles at 10 miles per gallon savings. (Hey, wait a second, that is not even close to the reported average MPG difference -- it is much less.) Yes, I know -- but actaully, we better give this program the benefit of the doubt and use the 10 MPG figure.
That's 5,000 gallons of fuel saved over 50,000 miles. Not bad, we spend $4500 to save $10,000 in fuel. Oops! That's not the way to calculate the savings! 50,000 miles at 17 miles per gallon is about 2950 gallons of gasoline. 50,000 miles at 27 miles per gallon is about 1900 gallons of gasoline, a difference of just under 1100 gallons. That's $2200, not $10,000.
But wait, gasoline represents only 1/4 to 1/3 of the total energy compared to the energy used to make the car. At least as much oil and gas is used in making the car as will be consumed in gasoline over the life of the car. Since we are retiring that car 50,000 miles early, we are replacing it with $10,000 to $15,000 in energy costs to make the replacement.
The net result? We save $2,200. We spend $19,500 doing it. Not counting the environmental costs of disposing the clunker.
That's assuming the clunker would have been on the road for another 50,000 miles. At 25,000 miles, a more reasonable figure, you are looking at consuming $19,500 to save $1,100. Sounds like a twenty-for-one attack on the environment!
So, if you are an anti-environmentalist -- go ahead and trade in that clunker, now! It may be a long time before you get a better chance to slap an environmentalist in the face!
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
OK, let's look and see if the numbers really add up!
First, let's assume that each clunker would have gotten 50,000 more miles on the road before their owners finally retired them. (Now, wait a minute, if these are clunkers, then they probably weren't going to last another 50,000 miles!) Yes, I know -- but actually, we better use the 50,000 mile figure -- otherwise the environmental savings we calculate will be next-to-nothing.
OK, 50,000 miles at 10 miles per gallon savings. (Hey, wait a second, that is not even close to the reported average MPG difference -- it is much less.) Yes, I know -- but actaully, we better give this program the benefit of the doubt and use the 10 MPG figure.
That's 5,000 gallons of fuel saved over 50,000 miles. Not bad, we spend $4500 to save $10,000 in fuel. Oops! That's not the way to calculate the savings! 50,000 miles at 17 miles per gallon is about 2950 gallons of gasoline. 50,000 miles at 27 miles per gallon is about 1900 gallons of gasoline, a difference of just under 1100 gallons. That's $2200, not $10,000.
But wait, gasoline represents only 1/4 to 1/3 of the total energy compared to the energy used to make the car. At least as much oil and gas is used in making the car as will be consumed in gasoline over the life of the car. Since we are retiring that car 50,000 miles early, we are replacing it with $10,000 to $15,000 in energy costs to make the replacement.
The net result? We save $2,200. We spend $19,500 doing it. Not counting the environmental costs of disposing the clunker.
That's assuming the clunker would have been on the road for another 50,000 miles. At 25,000 miles, a more reasonable figure, you are looking at consuming $19,500 to save $1,100. Sounds like a twenty-for-one attack on the environment!
So, if you are an anti-environmentalist -- go ahead and trade in that clunker, now! It may be a long time before you get a better chance to slap an environmentalist in the face!
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
