Think Twice Before Buying an Electric Vehicle

 

Enrico Trigoso at BasedUnderground has a report that should make every driver think twice before switching to an electric vehicle (EV):

The corporate-controlled media is finally coming around to accepting the truth about the electric vehicle (EV) revolution, which is not even close to being as environmentally friendly as its supporters and promoters claim.

Reuters published a piece this week revealing that even the smallest EV accidents, including minor fender-benders, almost always result in insurance companies having to total the entire car. The reason for this has to do with EV batteries, which are so expensive to replace that it makes more sense to just replace the entire car.

“We’re buying electric cars for sustainability reasons,” said Matthew Avery, research director at the automotive risk intelligence company Thatcham Research. “An EV isn’t very sustainable if you’ve got to throw the battery away after a minor collision.”

The battery pack in your average Tesla, for example, costs tens of thousands of dollars to replace. The battery pack alone represents a sizable portion of the vehicle’s overall price tag, it turns out.

Tesla and many other EV manufacturers have made battery packs a structural component of their cars in order to reduce costs for end consumers – but at what cost to the environment? Unless EV manufacturers change the ways in which they incorporate battery packs into their cars, all this needless waste will continue to pile up. . . .

. . .

(Related: It will never be possible for the electric grid as it currently exists to charge everybody’s EVs once gas-powered vehicles are gone.) . . .

More at the link here.

# # #

Has The Experiment Failed?

 

What If The Largest Experiment On
Human Beings In History Is A Failure?

Dr Robert W Malone posted this on Substack yesterday.  I hesitated to link to it since the implications are so frightening.  But when Dr Malone reports for the record – even with qualifiers --  it’s a time to read and listen:

A report from an Indiana life insurance company raises serious concerns.

A seasoned stock analyst colleague texted me a link today, and when I clicked it open, I could hardly believe what I was reading.  What a headline.  “Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”.  This headline is a nuclear truth bomb masquerading as an insurance agent’s dry manila envelope full of actuarial tables.

People frequently write to Jill and myself. People we have never met.  They call, they arrive at the farm by appointment or unannounced, they fill our email in boxes with their inquiries. They all want something; time, attention, an interview.  Many want to tell us about their fear, illness, nightmares, or (what often seems like) outright paranoid conspiracies.  And then, over time, these fears and “conspiracies” keep getting confirmed.  As Jan Jekielek (a senior editor with The Epoch Times) recently said to me, it is getting harder and harder to tell which ones are mere conspiracy theories and which are true reality. 

One farm visitor told me of his foreshadowing massive numbers of deaths within three years consequent to the genetic vaccines, and that this was all about the “Great Reset” and the depopulation agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF).  I tried to reassure him that, in my opinion, this was highly unlikely- while privately thinking about how easily people fall into this type of conspiracy ideation, and how I need to be careful to avoid going there when confronting so many public health decisions that appear either incompetent or nefarious.  At the time, I only knew of the WEF as the host of a big annual party in Davos Switzerland where the uber rich and the hoi oligoi of the Western nations went to watch Ted talks, drink the best wine, see and be seen.  Silly me.  What a long, strange trip this has been.  I doubt that even Hunter S. Thompson could have imagined it in his most drug and booze addled state.  Suffice to say, I nominate Ralph Steadman as official illustrator of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.  Or a resurrected Hieronymus Bosch.

But I am wandering from a point that I am afraid to clearly state. 

It is starting to look to me like the largest experiment on human beings in recorded history has failed.  And, if this rather dry report from a senior Indiana life insurance executive holds true, then Reiner Fuellmich’s “Crimes against Humanity” push for convening new Nuremberg trials starts to look a lot less quixotic and a lot more prophetic.

Here is what lit me up in this report from The Center Square contributor Margaret Menge.

“The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.

“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”

OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance to employers in the state.

Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.

“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.””

So, what is driving this unprecedented surge in all-cause mortality?

“Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths,

Davison said.“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.””

Take a moment to read the entire article.  Now.  Then let’s continue on, assuming that you have.

AT A MINIMUM, based on my reading, one has to conclude that if this report holds and is confirmed by others in the dry world of life insurance actuaries, we have both a huge human tragedy and a profound public policy failure of the US Government and US HHS system to serve and protect the citizens that pay for this “service”. 

IF this holds true, then the genetic vaccines so aggressively promoted have failed, and the clear federal campaign to prevent early treatment with lifesaving drugs has contributed to a massive, avoidable loss of life. 

AT WORST, this report implies that the federal workplace vaccine mandates have driven what appear to be a true crime against humanity.  Massive loss of life in (presumably) workers that have been forced to accept a toxic vaccine at higher frequency relative to the general population of Indiana.

FURTHERMORE, we have also been living through the most massive, globally coordinated propaganda and censorship campaign in the history of the human race.  All major mass media and the social media technology companies have coordinated to stifle and suppress any discussion of the risks of the genetic vaccines AND/OR alternative early treatments. 

IF this report holds true, there must be accountability.  We are not just talking about running over the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and grinding it into the mud with an army of artificial intelligence-powered heavy infantry. This article reads like a dry description of an avoidable mass casualty event caused by a mandated experimental medical procedure. One for which all opportunities for the victims to have become self-informed about the potential risks have been methodically erased from both the internet and public awareness by an international corrupt cabal operating under the flag of the “Trusted News Initiative”. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

I hope I am wrong.  I fear I am right.

Source: click here. 

# # #

King vs. Burwell and Obamacare

Art credit: crooks and liars.com

The King vs. Burwell case is expected to be decided by the Supreme Court at the end of June. The SCOTUS could strike down Obamacare subsidies in 34 non-exchange states. Here is an interactive map showing the status of each state and its health care exchanges. Ohio is one of seven states categorized as “Federally facilitated marketplace; state conducting plan management.”

Last week, Betsy McCaughey identified the potential winners and losers if SCOTUS strikes down the subsidies:

If Supremes slap ObamaCare, it’s health insurers who lose

. . . the Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell, expected this month . . . will determine the fate of these subsidies in 37 states.

Without subsidies, ObamaCare buyers in those states will have to pay the actual — and unaffordable — sticker price of ObamaCare. And you — taxpayers — will not have to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize insurers over the next decade.

But the dirty secret is that insurers stand to lose the most from King v. Burwell.

The Affordable Care Act compels the public to buy their product, and forces taxpayers to subsidize it. What a sweetheart deal.

The giant players — United Healthcare, Cigna, Aetna, Anthem and Humana — have seen stock prices double, triple, even quadruple since the law was passed in 2010. The coming ruling threatens to put an end to their gravy train.

Democrats are predicting disaster if the court rules against President Obama.

Republicans will “rue the day” they let millions of people lose their subsidies, says Nancy Pelosi. That’s crazy talk.

No one will lose their coverage immediately, the poor will be unaffected and the biggest losers will be insurance companies.

Employers, job-seekers and taxpayers actually stand to win here.

In addition, most Republicans in Congress are inclined to compromise with the president to provide some type of financial help for insurance buyers. If the Supremes gut ObamaCare, there will be many more winners than losers. Here’s how it shakes out:

The Affordable Care Act says subsidies will be provided only in states that set up their own exchanges. But only a handful of states (including New York) did.

In 37 states that didn’t, people use the federal healthcare.gov Web site instead. The Obama administration handed out subsidies to these people anyway, playing fast and loose with the law — and your money.

If the justices rule that the Obama administration can’t do that, some 7.7 million people will eventually lose their subsidies.

. . .

Insurance companies are lobbying furiously for a congressional fix.

Meanwhile, outside Washington, DC, a ruling nixing the subsidies will benefit employers and job-seekers.

Any of the 37 states that want to can set up an exchange and immediately qualify for the subsidies. But most are controlled by the GOP and won’t do it.

Without subsidies, the employer mandate is toothless, because employers are only fined if their uninsured workers go to an exchange and get a subsidy.

Employers who have been struggling to keep their workforce under 50 (where ObamaCare kicks in) and use part-timers (who aren’t subject to ObamaCare) won’t have to worry any more. Nullifying the employer mandate is likely to ignite a hiring boom.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, that looming mandate has caused 21 percent of small businesses to reduce workers’ hours, 41 percent to delay hiring and 27 percent of franchises (such as fast-food restaurants) to replace full-timers with part-timers.

People facing a penalty for being uninsured will also come out ahead. Without subsidies, most will be exempted from the penalty, saving them $2,000 on average next year.

Despite Democrats’ dire warnings, the poor won’t be hurt. An amazing 89 percent of people who are newly insured because of ObamaCare are on Medicaid, which won’t be affected.

Ignore the alarmist rhetoric. A loss for the Obama administration in King v. Burwell will be a win for most Americans.

Read the entire article here.

# # #