May 15, Already?

Where is this month, this year, this life going?  Time just flies.  A guy I spoke with the other day was either lamenting or was astonished that his 50th class reunion is coming up.  (Join the club, buddy!)  He almost stuttered, "50 years!" while shaking his head.  Einstein was right about relativity; reality, or perception of it, relies upon frames of reference.

What adolescent thinks of, say, reaching 60 or 70 years?  I know I didn't and I'll bet few, if any, others do.  What's a wasted hour of one's life at age 15 or 22 or even 36?  But at age 70, that wasted hour takes on a completely different meaning.  Maybe you'll have to take my word for it, at least for now.

Sometimes the little things that go right help to make up for the big things that go bad.  It was just a flag football game for 7- and 8-year olds.  It was fun to watch the little ones, even some girls were playing, running around enjoying themselves.  Nobody, other than some of the parents, seemed to care who was ahead or behind or won or lost.  Catching a pass or scoring a touchdown made the moment fun.  No, I'm not talking about participation trophies; I can't stand them.  But I can't see anything at all wrong with kids enjoying success, even with something as trivial as a Sunday afternoon flag football game.

That my grandson scored his first touchdown wasn't at all important to me.  That he was so excited and happy was very important to me.  With luck and some guidance, maybe he'll be able to use that experience, that some practice (hard work?) leads to success and enjoyment.

On the other hand, a couple of kids from the other team were a handful.  More than once these teammates were not involved in the play(s) or even the game.  They were chasing each other around, even kicking at each other--during the game action!  Initially I felt sorry for their coaches (having been in similar youth coaching situations) and then realized what their teachers had to endure!  I don't want to tell others how to raise their kids (I'm certainly no expert and, even now, am still learning about this "parenting" thing, all over again.), but it would have been nice to see Mom and/or Dad come down to speak to their kids.

Speaking of sports, my Michael this year is playing lacrosse for the high school(s) united JV team.  He has ever played before, just picking up a lacrosse stick for the first time the day before his first practice.  I guess I wasn't surprised that some of his teammates have been playing the game for 10 years or even more.  He likes the game, although he is behind in some of the skills--hey, he's been at it less than 2 months vs 10 years!  But, of the 40-minute games, he usually plays more than 10 minutes.  In several of the games, when the team was a bit short-handed, he even played more than 30 minutes!  Yep, he was very tired.  We were talking about it last night, coming home from taking Grandma out to dinner for Mother's Day (Michael's idea!), lacrosse being different from his other sports.  In the others, he said, football, basketball, and of course baseball, "There's always time to rest.  In lacrosse, I'm always running somewhere."  Yes, he is.  It's an interesting game to watch and I am still picking up on some of the rules and nuances.

And, speaking of schools, I read an interesting fact (Of course, is it really a "fact?"  Who can tell nowadays, with so many distortions, untruths, and outright lies passing as "facts?"  I certainly can't and have fallen victim to them just like everyone else seems to have.) about the best private high schools.  (I believe the article called them "elite private secondary schools," but would have to double check.)  Tuition, the author claimed, at these "elite" schools was "from $30,000 to $40,000."  Whoa!  That's far more than public colleges/universities!  What makes them "elite?"  I don't know for sure.  Is it results, particularly compared to public schools?  Locally, our district schools get about $7,000 to $8,000 per student.  I don't think I need my calculator to recognize that's a far cry from "$40,000."  I know there are other expenses involved, but $30,000+ per student per year?  It's probably strange hearing from one who taught in the public schools say he isn't opposed to private schools or school choice, but I'm not.  After all, we have "choice" in picking our colleges and universities to attend.  And I went to a private college.  Competition between the public and private schools?  Bring it on, I say.  I've never shied away from competition in anything.  I do say, let's play by the same rules and I would suggest that many of the comparisons being made do not involves schools and results that play by the same rules.  Trump, DeVos, et al should know that and, if they don't, should be made aware and questioned about "the rules."

Last week a local columnist wrote about the pitfalls of "repealing Obamacare," which I fear will not happen.  What he wrote might well have been true.  He based his entire article, supporting the results of Obamacare and critical of the more recent attempts to pass new health care legislation, on a single example.  He might well have been able to cite more examples, but he didn't.  Among what he said, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, was that, without Obamacare, this person cited wouldn't have been able to access a doctor and the medications she needed.  They were beyond her financial means.  Yep, I don't doubt that.  But what this columnist (and both of my Democrat US Senators) fails to realize (or accept?) that it's now not just those who were without coverage who have been affected. (And according this this writer, the woman was positively affected).  Does anyone consider those, under Obamacare, whose premiums have shot through the roof, whose co-pays and deductibles for care and prescriptions have put them beyond their financial reach?  I'll use a personal example.  With my former coverage, before Obamacare, I had co-pays that were reasonable.  I didn't like them; after all, who doesn't want free stuff, esp medicine?  But they were reasonable.  After a fairly serious eye injury last summer, I was given four prescriptions by a specialist.  Before leaving, I inquired as to their relative cost and absolute necessity.  With my new (after Obamacare) coverage, I could afford two of the prescriptions.  OK, I could have afforded all of them, but the chunks out of our budget would have been dire.  Just like the columnist surely could have found others to make his point, that Obamacare has helped them, I'm certainly not the only one whose higher costs have precluded visits to doctors, forgoing medications, etc.  It's just something to consider.

Yesterday, on this same topic, a local editor broached the subject of paying for health coverage.  Of course, he admitted, it is very desirable for all Americans to have health insurance.  Who can argue otherwise?  After all, some would say, European nations have provided it for years.  But hold on a minute.  (Again, are the figures he tosses around accurate?  Who knows today?  I have no reason to dispute them.  I could likely find sources to support and sources to refute them.  Such is today's world.)  The average American taxpayer now pays about 20% of his income to the federal government.  With my taxes last month, that's about right on the money.  Now, that doesn't include local taxes--state, county, township, and school.  It doesn't include property taxes, sales taxes, and even state and city income taxes, all of which we pay.  If all of those local taxes are added up, I'll bet I pay more than 25% in total taxes.  And that seems to be right; I remember reading 28% somewhere is the norm, but I'm hazy on when and where I read that.  Still, that's not the point.  The editor points out that, in those European nations which have "free" health insurance, tax rates, the average real tax rate, in the European union is 45%.  Obviously not all of the increase can be attributed to health care bills, but in other social spending, too.  But in the European nations with the highest social spending, the average tax rates are also the highest.  Imagine Sweden, paying a tax rate of 47%, Germany, 52%, and Belgium 57%.  France comes in with an average tax rate of 57.5%.  I guess that's not bad--if it's "the other guy" who is paying that much.  But it isn't. In that same Belgium, a married couple with two kids pays almost 40% in taxes.  In the US, a similar family pays less than half that.  Again, it's OK if "the other guy" foots the bill.  Will this fairly "average" or "typical" American family be willing to pay double the taxes it already does? My guess is not.

Consider how Americans live and whether they would be willing to give up their lifestyles.  In the US, according to the figures presented by this editor, the average American (It's not clear if he means family or person, but likely person) lives in a home of 1000 square feet.  In Europe, the average housing space is 400 square feet (again, it's not clear if that means family or person, although I suspect person).  We have more than 1000 square for our family and do not complain.  We are very comfortable.  But we also have the house with the smallest square footage in our entire subdivision.  How about our cars, most notably our pick-ups and SUVs?  Are Americans going to willing drive the popcorn machines of Europe in order to pay more taxes?

Of course the United States can afford health care for everyone.  The question is really whether they will.  What politician (at least openly!) would suggest doubling taxes?  And taxing the 1% or 10% or 20% won't do it.  Most European nations tax their wealthiest citizens at extraordinarily high rates; how much blood can be squeezed from a turnip or beet (or whatever it is)?  There's no doubt that the middle class here would have to be hit with higher rates.

Oh, I think I'll save the rest for later in the week......