And here's my first entry into political blogging..yay..
Honestly, I thought that I'd be at least a little more excited upon writing my very first blog about politics. But in truth, I'm a bit troubled. So I'm coming to you..my faithful readers (YES ALL THREE OF YOU) seeking your opinion, and an open place to babble my scrambled thoughts.
Hmm..so where should I begin. Well, I guess I'll start by saying Virgina just recently elected a new governor, Bob McDonnell:
안녕~
But yeah, so we just elected this guy. I personally really liked him during the campaign. He seemed like a great candidate for office, especially since his opponent sucked. Even the Democrats agree.
Now, I'm not trying to say that I don't like him anymore. I still do. I'm just a little...confused. So with all this said, here's the deal:
Governor McDonnell ran on the premise that he would not raise taxes. And everyone loves this. No one wants their taxes raised (unless they're sadistic?). And he's sticking to his word--good man. No taxes are being raised. But what a lot of people don't (or didn't) understand is that when taxes are not raised, something has to get cut. Even if people do anticipate a budget cut in the future, it is so detached from them and their current state, that a tempting appeal to a low-tax kinda guy overpowers their forecasting abilities.
I hate tax increases. I love lower taxes. And I support budget cuts. So none of what I've said above is really that much of a big deal to me.
What bothered me then, is what happened today in AP GOV. My teacher, Ms. Batts, is liberal (duhh..teacher.). So obviously she doesn't like Mr. McDonnell. I come into that class always taking her words with a grain of salt (as I should do with anything though, nothing special). And this has done me good in the past. For example, were having a discussion on health care insurance companies:
Ms. Batts: *dadadada........*...and I also think that a lot of the problem with rising health care costs is the massive profit margins health care insurance companies have.
Josh: Oh..hmm yeah I could see large profit margins being a factor. How much do of a margin do you think they have?
Ms. Batts: Oh..I'd say anywhere around 70%. But I'm just putting numbers out there, but I'd say its pretty high over all.
Josh: (hiding *WTF ARE YOU SMOKING* reaction) Oh, well yeah that's pretty big..
The following evening I researched current profit margins from a Yahoo! Business source. They reported that "large name health care insurance companies" had a profit margin somewhere around 3%...
So you can probably understand why I'm not too ready to just take everything Ms. Batts says at face value.
ANYWAY...
So Ms. Batts brought up Mr. McDonnell today in class. And he has in fact carried through in my expectation, that he is going to cut the budget. Although she was under the impression that all of the money was going to be slashed out of the education budget, Mr. McDonnell's exact words were something like, "[no part of the budget is safe, not even education]" To me, that didn't sound like a complete isolation of education, but just a notification that state-wide education is not immune to budget cuts. But I can still understand the frustration.
So she went on to talk about furloughs. The way she explained it, a furlough is when you are made to come into work, but do not recieve pay for that day...
I didn't even know they had such a thing. This is ridiculous in my mind. How can you go into work and not be paid. I'd be so pissed if that happened to me. Having worked in the past, I can tell you that it's not fun. The only, only good thing about it was getting that money at the end of the week. What the hell am I doing there if there's no reward...?
So I'm not really sure what my point is. Ms. Batts went on to continue about other things that could come with the budget cuts: teacher salary slashes, less funding, blah blah, etc. But I honestly think that we have to feel some pain. We're in a freaking recession; how can the government expect to be impervious to it. And I'm not just saying this because I can; it's not like I come from some massively rich family that can take any damage. I'm not sure where some of you get this idea but we really aren't awesomely wealthy. Any pain affects us as well. So I say this, completely unsure of the future. But I also know what I believe, and I will stick with it. I don't want a tax increase. So I will accept budget cuts. If we have to live on a tightened salary, then so should the state government. So should any government.
But the problem is that the government is not just some enigma. It's not just a machine. A collection. It's run by people. A cut in that means a cut for those people. I can't help but be sympathetic. "Yeah sure, you go and take the fall too, ya stupid public servants," isn't something I can easily say. Something interesting Ms. Batts said:
"If I have to go through all this furlough, through these pay cuts, and through even tougher situations at work, then I would have gladly taken the tax increases. The money I lose that way is undoubtedly less than the money I'd lose with these budget cuts."
So basically, I'm not sure what to say. I'm sticking to what I believe: low taxes is, in the end, better for the country. But what about the people it affects, in a not so good way?
Now, I'm not trying to say that I don't like him anymore. I still do. I'm just a little...confused. So with all this said, here's the deal:
Governor McDonnell ran on the premise that he would not raise taxes. And everyone loves this. No one wants their taxes raised (unless they're sadistic?). And he's sticking to his word--good man. No taxes are being raised. But what a lot of people don't (or didn't) understand is that when taxes are not raised, something has to get cut. Even if people do anticipate a budget cut in the future, it is so detached from them and their current state, that a tempting appeal to a low-tax kinda guy overpowers their forecasting abilities.
I hate tax increases. I love lower taxes. And I support budget cuts. So none of what I've said above is really that much of a big deal to me.
What bothered me then, is what happened today in AP GOV. My teacher, Ms. Batts, is liberal (duhh..teacher.). So obviously she doesn't like Mr. McDonnell. I come into that class always taking her words with a grain of salt (as I should do with anything though, nothing special). And this has done me good in the past. For example, were having a discussion on health care insurance companies:
Ms. Batts: *dadadada........*...and I also think that a lot of the problem with rising health care costs is the massive profit margins health care insurance companies have.
Josh: Oh..hmm yeah I could see large profit margins being a factor. How much do of a margin do you think they have?
Ms. Batts: Oh..I'd say anywhere around 70%. But I'm just putting numbers out there, but I'd say its pretty high over all.
Josh: (hiding *WTF ARE YOU SMOKING* reaction) Oh, well yeah that's pretty big..
The following evening I researched current profit margins from a Yahoo! Business source. They reported that "large name health care insurance companies" had a profit margin somewhere around 3%...
So you can probably understand why I'm not too ready to just take everything Ms. Batts says at face value.
ANYWAY...
So Ms. Batts brought up Mr. McDonnell today in class. And he has in fact carried through in my expectation, that he is going to cut the budget. Although she was under the impression that all of the money was going to be slashed out of the education budget, Mr. McDonnell's exact words were something like, "[no part of the budget is safe, not even education]" To me, that didn't sound like a complete isolation of education, but just a notification that state-wide education is not immune to budget cuts. But I can still understand the frustration.
So she went on to talk about furloughs. The way she explained it, a furlough is when you are made to come into work, but do not recieve pay for that day...
I didn't even know they had such a thing. This is ridiculous in my mind. How can you go into work and not be paid. I'd be so pissed if that happened to me. Having worked in the past, I can tell you that it's not fun. The only, only good thing about it was getting that money at the end of the week. What the hell am I doing there if there's no reward...?
So I'm not really sure what my point is. Ms. Batts went on to continue about other things that could come with the budget cuts: teacher salary slashes, less funding, blah blah, etc. But I honestly think that we have to feel some pain. We're in a freaking recession; how can the government expect to be impervious to it. And I'm not just saying this because I can; it's not like I come from some massively rich family that can take any damage. I'm not sure where some of you get this idea but we really aren't awesomely wealthy. Any pain affects us as well. So I say this, completely unsure of the future. But I also know what I believe, and I will stick with it. I don't want a tax increase. So I will accept budget cuts. If we have to live on a tightened salary, then so should the state government. So should any government.
But the problem is that the government is not just some enigma. It's not just a machine. A collection. It's run by people. A cut in that means a cut for those people. I can't help but be sympathetic. "Yeah sure, you go and take the fall too, ya stupid public servants," isn't something I can easily say. Something interesting Ms. Batts said:
"If I have to go through all this furlough, through these pay cuts, and through even tougher situations at work, then I would have gladly taken the tax increases. The money I lose that way is undoubtedly less than the money I'd lose with these budget cuts."
So basically, I'm not sure what to say. I'm sticking to what I believe: low taxes is, in the end, better for the country. But what about the people it affects, in a not so good way?
2 comments:
"it's not like I come from some massively rich family that can take any damage." lying whore. LOL jk.
question though: how would a large profit margin an health insurance company has explain the rising healthcare costs?
if, like your teacher said, a profit margin for a certain company were 70%, that simply means that the company is extremely profitable and has more hold of its costs compared to the competitors.
i don't understand how that would raise the cost of healthcare...?
idk too much about the relationship between taxes and paycuts.
seems the same to me LOL
To your question:
A large profit margin does mean that a company is very profitable,yes, but it actually would contribute to the rise in health care cost.
A profit margin on 70% would mean this:
If it cost you 3 dollars to produce some product, but you sold it for 10 dollars, you would garner a profit of 7 dollars. This is a 70% profit.
Some people believe that health care insurance companies have an unfair profit margin. They believe that, especially for something as critical and necessary as health care, a company should not sell their goods for such a large price in relation to its cost to produce.
Thus, if a health care insurance agency had a profit margin on 70%, some people would want the government to say, "No, you can't make that much. Decrease your profit margin to a reasonable number." And they would make up that number. This in turn would decrease the cost of health care.
To taxes and paycuts:
eh, taxes are money that the government takes from you. A paycut is when a company slashes your salary for whatever reason. My teacher's point is that she'd rather take a tax increase, because the amount of money that she would be "losing" by giving it to the government is less than the money she would lose due to paycuts and furlough.
Post a Comment