Eccentric Flower talk:200908/What Does It Mean

Joy:

Your point about the Dutchman made me laugh out loud, which I practically never do. Hah!

-- 18:55, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Iain:

A bit of a digression:

Taxes are already high, and often it seems like we're not getting much value for our money.

For what it's worth: our taxes aren't high. They really really aren't. Compared to what other countries pay, or even to what we used to pay before Reagan and his cronies announced their battlecry of "Up the rich forever!" they're just not that bad. We've become increasingly unwilling to pay them, in part because politicians won't tell us what things really cost, and keep promising us the combined snake oils of "We won't raise taxes!" and "We'll cut the fat and keep taxes low!" (which usually means, "How can we screw the poor and middle class?")

You may want to sweep the under- and uninsured under the rug, but they don't stay swept. They don't vanish just because you've decided they're not worth the consideration, and eventually they will come back to haunt you in various ways.

Ah, but the key here is that they don't come back to haunt the people with the brooms, who are usually well off enough to stay away from the peons.

Honestly, I have nothing reasonable to contribute, only side kvetching about class issues. Though I think part of the issue is that class issues are, for a wonder, coming out to play in this debate -- which they rarely do here -- and people are terribly uncomfortable with that.

-- 19:00, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Joy:

Iain you're right of course about the absolute level of taxes. And I'm actually okay with having much higher taxes.

But, depending on where you live, the taxes can be brutal. On top of federal taxes, my state taxes are high, plus I have city taxes, and then also school district taxes. The latter two add up to the same amount I pay in state income tax, plus we have one of the higher sales taxes too.

I though I was paying a lot of tax living on long island - man am I taxed waaaay more here than there though. I'm grumpy about it at one level, but I still vote in favor of the increases, because of course I actually *can* afford it.

-- 19:54, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Columbina:

Iain, it was the latter clause of the sentence that was the key bit. I think we are not taxed all that ferociously in terms of raw numbers, but I think in terms of value received, we get less for our tax money than several other nations I could bring to mind.

Or, alternatively: I don't mind paying more taxes if you can assure me that, for once, the money will be well-spent.

As you point out, more candor about what things really cost and where the money's actually going would be a big step in the right direction.

I agree with you that for once the class issues are coming out and it's making people very uncomfortable/hot-headed. Good. It's about time we confronted some of these things.

-- 20:52, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Harmony:

My concern isn't so much the level of taxes -- I agree here with everyone to a point: our taxes seem high for what we get, we don't pay nearly as high a tax rate as many other civilized nations, and the cumulative effect of sales/property/state/local taxes can be quite a chunk -- as it is that I feel that our taxes aren't being used very efficiently and that no matter how low they get, people seem to clamor for lower taxes at the same time that they want increased services. You can't have it both ways. More services cost more money. California is figuring that out the really hard way, but we've all been affected. And the return on all of that investment sometimes looks like a pretty bad deal. Oregon's property taxes went up ~20 years ago to fund education. Now we still pay really high property taxes, as well as additional county and city levies off and on, and the schools in Portland are abysmal for what we pay. Teachers are trying hard and kids are getting educated, but the schools have a terrible reputation and the consensus is that the system is pretty well and screwed. Where the fuck did all that money go? We're paying more every year, and cutting more and more programs. It doesn't make sense.

When it comes to that, I *am* scared about the government managing a system like health care, because of these inefficiencies (are we going to end up with $300 thermometers like the Army has those $400 hammers and toilet seats?). But like I said in the forum thread, I am still willing to try something new, because the system we are in now takes our money and then tries to deny us care. A system that takes our money, uses it badly, but still treats us when we get sick, and is really available to everyone, is still a better deal.

-- 21:01, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Columbina:

I am still willing to try something new, because the system we are in now takes our money and then tries to deny us care. A system that takes our money, uses it badly, but still treats us when we get sick, and is really available to everyone, is still a better deal.

See, I should have let Harmony write my entry and she'd have gotten it down to one sentence.

-- 21:08, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Ursula:

The problem I have with a lot of conservatives, and particularly with their attitude toward health insurance reform, is that they connect A to B, and then stop there, failing to see (or refusing to admit) that there's a whole alphabet beyond that. "Universal health care would mean higher taxes! I'd be paying for poor people's health care! Nooooo!" Never mind human compassion, they can't see that the health care system we have now is such a disaster that it's destroying people's lives - not just the sick, but all the people AROUND the sick. They can't see how the insurance companies are totally ripping us all off. They can't get outside of their own thick skulls for ten seconds and see that why think of as using their taxes to "pay for poor people's health care" is a system that works for other countries, far better than our own system. It's like they're freaking children. And the insurance companies have managed to whip up a lot of "debate" in this country by spreading lies you'd have to be a child to believe. Palin says health care reform will lead to "death panels," and a lot of people hear that and just refuse to think it through any more. A has been connected to B in their minds. The end.

I recognize the risk of smugness when I go on like this. I don't think of myself as somebody who has the world figured out, and I don't like screaming about how stupid my countrymen are. But people are displaying a level of idiocy here that is Homer Simpson-esque, it's genuinely hard to believe. When Obama trots out this compromised, half-assed reform, and the Republicans manage to convince half the nation that he's a radical socialist... Holy fuck, let's just drop the nukes, already.

-- 00:00, 21 August 2009 (BST)

Ursula:

Arrgh. "They can't get outside of their own thick skulls for ten seconds and see that why think of as using their taxes..." Should be "that what they think of as using their taxes."

-- 00:03, 21 August 2009 (BST)

Mel:

I have already noted that no one on the national stage is asking the real question, the question "Why does our health care cost so much more than everyone else's?"

We are getting our information from different sources, for the most part, because in mine that question has been asked quite a lot. I haven't seen a completely convincing answer, but the question is definitely there.

-- 04:59, 21 August 2009 (BST)

Spc476:

A few comments to this: Where's my free food, clothes and housing? If free health care is a God-given right, then I would think food, clothing and housing is right there among them, for without any of those, then it doesn't matter how healthy you are, you won't be for long. And why single out health care?

Second thought: how much would you expect a general checkup, two dentist visits and two eye exams to cost? (which I think is the recommended minimum per year for those services) Got a figure? Good, multiply that by 300,000,000 (three hundred million). *THAT'S* your base-line yearly cost for health care nation wide (excluding prescriptions, emergencies, ongoing medical conditions, general sicknesses, Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, etc).

Third: why are the costs so high? I think I commented on this a bit in a previous post, but it seems to partly come down to, a lack of doctors, becoming a doctor is expensive, and insurance (malpractice adds to a doctor's cost, and general health insurance makes us immune to the true costs, which is why we're asking this in the first place).

-- 07:11, 21 August 2009 (BST)

Spc476:

Oh, and I would feel *so much better* if the Congresscritters were forced into whatever plan they pass for us mere non-politically connected peons.

-- 07:13, 21 August 2009 (BST)

Xeney:

I am pretty sure we already have $300 thermometers. We certainly have $50 Tylenol tablets.

-- 14:13, 21 August 2009 (BST)