So okay, I was listening to the news today, about all the health care talk and such. And how all these people are crying that its socialism and what not being foisted on the American public. It made me think. Isn't the concept of insurance as we know it socialism at its core? I mean, yes you pay a monthly premium each month for your 'own' coverage.
But, where do you think the money comes from that covers you when you get sick and need meds, or go to the hospital? The insurance company kicks in the difference right? Okay so along that same train of thought, where is the insurance company getting their money from (since its not you, your sick remember and your previous payments aren't covering your bills). They are getting their money from other people who AREN'T sick, and AREN'T in the hospital. They are using those people's premiums to pay for YOUR hospital stay and meds. So in essence other people are paying for you AND them, when they pay their premiums.
Yes of course there is profit taking. That's where the capitalism part comes in, the overseers of these insurance companies get their profit for the work that they do (or don't). So really isn't it just a pool of money that is contributed to by many for the benefit of all. Or at least all policy holders from that insurance company. And if this is the case then why would we be so opposed to the government, or maybe some type of non-profit being in charge of it. It would eliminate the overhead of the salaries of these insurance tycoons and leave more money in the pool for actual medical needs.
Those are my thoughts, I welcome any comments or thoughts. Maybe I'm off base here? Maybe I'm right?
-Jeremy
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Your tax dollars at work, being wasted as usual.
Below is what actually happens to your car when sent to the 'cash for clunkers' program by the gov't. This will occur at an 'authorized disposal company'.
Engine Disablement Procedures for the CARS Program
THIS PROCEDURE IS NOT TO BE USED BY THE VEHICLE OWNER
Perform the following procedure to disable the vehicle engine.
1. Obtain solution of 40% sodium silicate/60% water. (The Sodium Silicate (SiO2/Na2O) must have a weight ratio of 3.0 or greater.)
2. Drain engine oil for environmentally appropriate disposal.
3. Install the oil drain plug.
4. Since the procedure is intended to render the engine inoperative, drive or move the vehicle to the desired area for disablement.
5. Pour enough solution in the engine through the oil fill for the oil pump to circulate the solution throughout the engine. Start by adding 2 quarts of the solution, which should be sufficient in most cases.
CAUTION: Wear goggles and gloves. Appropriate protective clothing should be worn to prevent silicate solution from coming into contact with the skin.
6. Replace the oil fill cap.
7. Start the engine.
8. Run engine at approximately 2000 rpm (for safety reasons do not operate at high rpm) until the engine stops. (Typically the engine will operate for 3 to 7 minutes. As the solution starts to affect engine operation, the operator will have to apply more throttle to keep the engine at 2000 rpm.)
9. Allow the engine to cool for at least 1 hour.
10. With the battery at full charge or with auxiliary power to provide the power of a fully
charged battery, attempt to start the engine.
11. If the engine will not operate at idle, the procedure is complete.
12. If the engine will operate at idle, repeat steps 7 through 11 until the engine will no
longer idle.
13. Attach a label to the engine that legibly states the following:
This engine is from a vehicle that is part of the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS). It has significant internal damage caused by operating the engine with a sodium silicate solution (liquid glass) instead of oil.
Yes, the true goal of cash for clunkers comes out. Wasting our tax dollars on destroying perfectly running vehicles. No one thinks of donating them to some charity, or some person/country in need. Fucking waste...
Save the environment... YEAH RIGHT!!! It's all about padding their pockets.
Okay, so today I browsing the web and I happened across an article about the top 10 most fuel efficient cars. One stood out to me, and it was the smart Fortwo. I'm sure you guys have seen these little 'cute' cars putting around the roads. Anywho, I have always been slightly disgusted with the thought of a car that tiny ONLY getting 36mpg. I mean doesn't a Toyota Corolla get those numbers? So in this article I discover that there is a diesel version that isn't available in the US (Blame your fucking Government), and it gets 70mpg! Now these are numbers worth talking about. Much better than the 'Jesus Prius' and the grunt of diesel power to boot.
All this talk about mpg got me thinking, of all these crazies that want to 'save the planet' and whatnot. Yet in these circles of green, there isn't much love for diesels. Diesel engines are about 40% efficient, as opposed to gasoline which is about 25 to 30% efficient. Just looking at that it stands to reason that diesels would be the clear winner. But wait, diesels pollute more right?
Well okay, you got me there. They do pollute more the numbers are 19.4 CO2 per gal for gasoline and 22.4 CO2 per gal of diesel. So thats about a 14% increase in CO2 emissions.
My goal now is to show you that even with the increase in emissions you can STILL save the planet, even more so by switching to diesel. So we take this Smart Fortwo that gets ONLY 36mpg and drive it 12,000 miles a year right? That's the generally accepted yearly mileage for a vehicle. Using the numbers above, during this year you would burn 333 gallons of gasoline using the numbers above, this would mean that you would produce 6,460 lbs of CO2 (333 x 19.4 = 6460.2).
Dang! Thats a LOT of CO2 in the atmosphere right? Okay now, take that same smart and equip it with the diesel version that gets 70mpg. During that same 12,000 mile year you would burn 171 gallons of diesel fuel and you would produce 3,796.2 lbs of CO2 (171 x 22.2 = 3,796). Which is a 41% decrease from the amount that you would have burned with the gasoline equipped smart.
Now I know you guys may be saying now that I'm cheating by using a small efficient car and you would never buy a car that is as small as a suppository. So I did the same calculations on another car that is available in the US that is a little more mainstream. The the Volkswagen Jetta heres a regular everyday sedan the gasoline version gets 26 average mpg, lets put it to the same test. Again 12,000 miles a year, 461 gallons burned, 8,943.4 lbs of CO2 produced (461 x 19.4 = 8,943). As for the diesel version that gets 36 average mpg (a little lower than I would expect, but according to reviews real world is actually more). But, we will roll with 36mpg. Same 12,000 miles, 333 gallons burned and 7,392.6 lbs of CO2 produced (333 x 22.2 = 7,392.6). That gives us savings of 1550.8 lbs of CO2 or 17% decrease in emissions.
So, after reading this, you tell me if you think the gov't is really looking out for saving the planet. Because they say that diesels pollute more, and will put more greenhouse gases and such in to the atmosphere. I say that those assholes are just padding their pockets and stringing the 'green party' along.
If you really want to save the environment (not to mention save some money in fuel costs)... buy a diesel.
Sources:
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05001.htm (Carbon calculations)
http://www.vw.com/jetta/completespecs/en/us/ (Jetta mpg)
http://www.smart.com/-snm-0135207752-1239438359-0000011079-0000000000-1248548120-enm-is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/mpc-uk-content-Site/en_UK/-/GBP/Smart_NG_ViewStatic-PageComponent?NavigationID=urn%3Auuid%3Ae0a1fb03-d93b-5af7-80ab-7c81f0ff63f2 (Smart mpg and info)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency (Basic efficiency numbers)
All this talk about mpg got me thinking, of all these crazies that want to 'save the planet' and whatnot. Yet in these circles of green, there isn't much love for diesels. Diesel engines are about 40% efficient, as opposed to gasoline which is about 25 to 30% efficient. Just looking at that it stands to reason that diesels would be the clear winner. But wait, diesels pollute more right?
Well okay, you got me there. They do pollute more the numbers are 19.4 CO2 per gal for gasoline and 22.4 CO2 per gal of diesel. So thats about a 14% increase in CO2 emissions.
My goal now is to show you that even with the increase in emissions you can STILL save the planet, even more so by switching to diesel. So we take this Smart Fortwo that gets ONLY 36mpg and drive it 12,000 miles a year right? That's the generally accepted yearly mileage for a vehicle. Using the numbers above, during this year you would burn 333 gallons of gasoline using the numbers above, this would mean that you would produce 6,460 lbs of CO2 (333 x 19.4 = 6460.2).
Dang! Thats a LOT of CO2 in the atmosphere right? Okay now, take that same smart and equip it with the diesel version that gets 70mpg. During that same 12,000 mile year you would burn 171 gallons of diesel fuel and you would produce 3,796.2 lbs of CO2 (171 x 22.2 = 3,796). Which is a 41% decrease from the amount that you would have burned with the gasoline equipped smart.
Now I know you guys may be saying now that I'm cheating by using a small efficient car and you would never buy a car that is as small as a suppository. So I did the same calculations on another car that is available in the US that is a little more mainstream. The the Volkswagen Jetta heres a regular everyday sedan the gasoline version gets 26 average mpg, lets put it to the same test. Again 12,000 miles a year, 461 gallons burned, 8,943.4 lbs of CO2 produced (461 x 19.4 = 8,943). As for the diesel version that gets 36 average mpg (a little lower than I would expect, but according to reviews real world is actually more). But, we will roll with 36mpg. Same 12,000 miles, 333 gallons burned and 7,392.6 lbs of CO2 produced (333 x 22.2 = 7,392.6). That gives us savings of 1550.8 lbs of CO2 or 17% decrease in emissions.
So, after reading this, you tell me if you think the gov't is really looking out for saving the planet. Because they say that diesels pollute more, and will put more greenhouse gases and such in to the atmosphere. I say that those assholes are just padding their pockets and stringing the 'green party' along.
If you really want to save the environment (not to mention save some money in fuel costs)... buy a diesel.
Sources:
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05001.htm (Carbon calculations)
http://www.vw.com/jetta/completespecs/en/us/ (Jetta mpg)
http://www.smart.com/-snm-0135207752-1239438359-0000011079-0000000000-1248548120-enm-is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/mpc-uk-content-Site/en_UK/-/GBP/Smart_NG_ViewStatic-PageComponent?NavigationID=urn%3Auuid%3Ae0a1fb03-d93b-5af7-80ab-7c81f0ff63f2 (Smart mpg and info)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency (Basic efficiency numbers)
Monday, April 13, 2009
Screw Pay to Play, Let's Hold 'em Accountable
Ok, looks like today is a double whammy for blog posts. Same friend today I was talking to but this time it was about politics. Well, politicians, more accurately. The idea is this, why do politicians make so much money? I mean 400,000 dollars a year for the president? 100,000+ a year for senators and such? This is a bit excessive I think, my initial knee jerk reaction is to say 'Make em work for free'. But then I realized that this isn't quite the way to go.
Why exactly DO they get paid this much money, I think that they should work for minimum wage. This would encourage an 'appropriate' minimum wage for all. As well as even the playing field of politics. It is my take that money has corrupted our political system. Pay to play politics have turned our society in to one of extreme greed. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for paying someone based on their merits. As a matter of fact I think that the president's salary should be based upon our GDP as a nation. You know what... make it ALL elected officials salaries. They should DIRECTLY correspond to how our country is doing as a whole. When the country is doing good, they make more. Country doing bad? Dammit they should make less.
This would encourage them to actually do their JOB, as opposed to soaking up a paycheck regardless of how things are going. Because honestly as it stands now, the world of politics as I see it, has become so corrupted by greed, power and money that if someone has been deemed fit to hold office. This person is more than likely the last person that you want doing so. Just by virtue of having gotten to that point. You have to be so two-faced, and lack any scruples to get in to any position of political power. Yet, these are the people that we have chosen (or not chosen) to lead our country/legislature.
Why exactly DO they get paid this much money, I think that they should work for minimum wage. This would encourage an 'appropriate' minimum wage for all. As well as even the playing field of politics. It is my take that money has corrupted our political system. Pay to play politics have turned our society in to one of extreme greed. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for paying someone based on their merits. As a matter of fact I think that the president's salary should be based upon our GDP as a nation. You know what... make it ALL elected officials salaries. They should DIRECTLY correspond to how our country is doing as a whole. When the country is doing good, they make more. Country doing bad? Dammit they should make less.
This would encourage them to actually do their JOB, as opposed to soaking up a paycheck regardless of how things are going. Because honestly as it stands now, the world of politics as I see it, has become so corrupted by greed, power and money that if someone has been deemed fit to hold office. This person is more than likely the last person that you want doing so. Just by virtue of having gotten to that point. You have to be so two-faced, and lack any scruples to get in to any position of political power. Yet, these are the people that we have chosen (or not chosen) to lead our country/legislature.
Death and Cigarette Taxes
Today I was having a conversation with a friend and the topic came up of the new cigarette tax. I personally think that it is total and complete bullshit. I am not a smoker, but I don't believe that the idea behind this tax is noble. Sure the money is going to help childrens healthcare, but on the same token they say that they want smokers to quit. And raising prices will assist in getting them to quit.
That makes no sense at all. They are making it darned near impossible to smoke ANYWHERE in public, and NOW they have a fairly hefty tax on it, that does NOTHING to help these smokers quit. If they REALLY wanted to help them quit then the money raised from taxes would go to funding programs to help smokers quit. Because as it stands now, most states are cutting funding to programs that do just that.
But really, when you think about it, getting the smokers to quit was never the governments intention. Do you really think that they would be financing a program with the funds from cigarettes if they thought that they would be making people quit? What would happen to that program if smokers actually DID quit? Will the government just say, oh well, tough titties, kids with health issues are just gonna have to suck it up cause the funding ran out?
NOPE, this notion of getting people to quit seems to be just a way to not 'look' bad, hiding their real agenda of fleecing these poor smokers for every last dime. And now that the FDA has been given permission to REGULATE tobacco products, expect to see further price hikes in the near future. I pity the person that smokes... as it soon will be unaffordable to do so.
That makes no sense at all. They are making it darned near impossible to smoke ANYWHERE in public, and NOW they have a fairly hefty tax on it, that does NOTHING to help these smokers quit. If they REALLY wanted to help them quit then the money raised from taxes would go to funding programs to help smokers quit. Because as it stands now, most states are cutting funding to programs that do just that.
But really, when you think about it, getting the smokers to quit was never the governments intention. Do you really think that they would be financing a program with the funds from cigarettes if they thought that they would be making people quit? What would happen to that program if smokers actually DID quit? Will the government just say, oh well, tough titties, kids with health issues are just gonna have to suck it up cause the funding ran out?
NOPE, this notion of getting people to quit seems to be just a way to not 'look' bad, hiding their real agenda of fleecing these poor smokers for every last dime. And now that the FDA has been given permission to REGULATE tobacco products, expect to see further price hikes in the near future. I pity the person that smokes... as it soon will be unaffordable to do so.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
How do you fight an enemy that doesn't fear death?
Well, the thought for this post came from a couple of sources. First one was the F-22 Raptor crash that occurred yesterday. This was the end for a 120+ million dollar plane. Pilot... not sure if he made it out or not. But that's not the focus of this post.
Just a few weeks ago, there was public outcry for AIG to renege on their contracts to some employees. Those totaled around 218 million from the recent numbers. But before the numbers were closer to 150 million or so. Not that I'm asking people to go out and boycott the military and ask for the pilot to repay the money or something, but it makes you think a little bit. WHY in the hell do we need an aircraft that costs 120 million dollars each. Yeah yeah it has sensors that can put a missle up a flys ass from 20 miles away... but does that really matter when your opponent is stuffing bombs in camels? And blowing themselves up.
I do think that technology needs to take a bit of a backseat in these times. How many armed forces do more with less? Now, don't get me wrong, I do think that our guys and gals out in the field need good equipment. I am not saying skimp on proper equipment, but currently I would say that we are doing a lot of experimenting as well, and that experimenting is costing a lot of extra dollars. Check out the A-10 Thunderbolt II or "Warthog" as I like to call it. That tank killing machine has been around for what seems like ages (1977) And costs only 12 million or even the F-16 for under 20 million each. Hell even the F-117 Nighthawk is only just over 42 million. Why must we try to have bigger and faster when what we have obviously works? I'm sure we could have an amazing fleet if we would focus on refining what we have instead of trying to reinvent the 'wing' each time we make an aircraft.
So, how DO you combat an enemy that doesn't fear death? Well, it damned sure isn't by spending excessive money on unnecessary technology.
Just a few weeks ago, there was public outcry for AIG to renege on their contracts to some employees. Those totaled around 218 million from the recent numbers. But before the numbers were closer to 150 million or so. Not that I'm asking people to go out and boycott the military and ask for the pilot to repay the money or something, but it makes you think a little bit. WHY in the hell do we need an aircraft that costs 120 million dollars each. Yeah yeah it has sensors that can put a missle up a flys ass from 20 miles away... but does that really matter when your opponent is stuffing bombs in camels? And blowing themselves up.
I do think that technology needs to take a bit of a backseat in these times. How many armed forces do more with less? Now, don't get me wrong, I do think that our guys and gals out in the field need good equipment. I am not saying skimp on proper equipment, but currently I would say that we are doing a lot of experimenting as well, and that experimenting is costing a lot of extra dollars. Check out the A-10 Thunderbolt II or "Warthog" as I like to call it. That tank killing machine has been around for what seems like ages (1977) And costs only 12 million or even the F-16 for under 20 million each. Hell even the F-117 Nighthawk is only just over 42 million. Why must we try to have bigger and faster when what we have obviously works? I'm sure we could have an amazing fleet if we would focus on refining what we have instead of trying to reinvent the 'wing' each time we make an aircraft.
So, how DO you combat an enemy that doesn't fear death? Well, it damned sure isn't by spending excessive money on unnecessary technology.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Bank Bailout Simplified... and why its so Stupid.
OK here goes, put in simple terms... The banks spend all their money essentially gambling with it. And losing badly. The tax payers GIVE them more money (Via bailout). The banks then are supposed to 'lend' the money back to the taxpayers (which is already the taxpayers money anyway), and charges them for lending it to them (via finance charges and fees).
So how I see it. Broken down to kindergarten level. Its like i have this friend... he has a gambling problem and he only has $5. He loses his $5 dollars on a bad bet. So i give him MY $5. He lends it back to me and charges me for him lending it back.
Now i ask... WHERE IN THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?!!?!?
I know its oversimplified... but essentially its true. Think about it.
-Jeremy
So how I see it. Broken down to kindergarten level. Its like i have this friend... he has a gambling problem and he only has $5. He loses his $5 dollars on a bad bet. So i give him MY $5. He lends it back to me and charges me for him lending it back.
Now i ask... WHERE IN THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?!!?!?
I know its oversimplified... but essentially its true. Think about it.
-Jeremy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
