Any Liberal Places in Oklahoma? (Stillwater, Coalgate: hospital, house, move)

[Schousse]

Originally Posted by TheComputerGuy

If New England is so great, why would I be going to OK?
(And no, I'm not on crack!)

For the same reasons I did? Because of a higher quality of life?????



BTW .... how come we can't edit our posts?

[LadyRobyn]

Originally Posted by Schousse

BTW .... how come we can't edit our posts?

You have to edit it within 90 minutes... after that you need to ask a Mod to do it for you.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by colleeng47

Peggy, it's pretty much the same on the east coast as well. NJ is a liberal state, but they have more government regulations than you could ever imagine. And every regulation takes money out of your pocket and puts it into the pockets of the politicians or their friends. NJ also has a strong "redistribution of income" attitude. And since NJ has so many very, very rich people, and so many very, very poor, it makes for a very interesting political arena.

Sounds just like Massachusetts. Like your point here about where a lot of the money the regulations take from the taxpayers really goes. Too much--way too much--goes into funding cushy patronage jobs hidden away in the many layers of state bureaucracy.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by redbird4848

Let's make sure we are all on the same page as far as definitions. Quality of Life per Wikipedia:
Quality of life
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quality of life is the degree of well-being felt by an individual or group of people. Unlike standard of living, quality of life is not a tangible concept, and therefore cannot be measured directly.
Furthermore, quality of life consists of two components. The first is a physical aspect which includes such things as health, diet, as well as protection against pain and disease.
The second component is psychological in nature. This aspect includes such things as stress, worry, pleasure and other positive or negative emotional states.
It is virtually impossible to predict the quality of life of a specific individual, since the combination of attributes that leads one individual to be content is rarely the same for another individual. However, one can assume with some confidence the higher average level of diet, shelter, safety, as well as freedoms and rights a general population has, the better overall quality of life said population experiences.

Understanding quality of life is today particularly important in health care, where monetary measures do not readily apply. Decisions on what research or treatments to invest the most in are closely related to their effect on a patient's quality of life.




Yes, but do higher taxes result in a healthier state? There are other factors such as culture. Here in Oklahoma, we have a very high percentage of Native Americans, and as a Native American I know first hand my People have a much higher rate of diabetes along with obesity, etc. But being a fattie does not result FROM lower taxes or higher taxes. It stems from diet and exercise. And I might add, pound for pound, we are the happiest people you could ever meet!! (see my jolly smile?)



These statistics may be true, but are they correlational or causitive? I don't think any teenager girl is going to say, "Gee, synopse/CG, the taxes are low here in OK, so let's do it until the cows come home!"
Less fatal traffic accidents? Those are probably because we have so many rural hwys and when there is a wreck here, it is usually pretty nasty.



Personally, the NE seaboard can have the gold seal standard of high posh living, but Oklahoma is where I choose to live and I could care less about the NE state's standards or stats.
I am sure there are a lot of folks who will agree with Stillwater, and I am usually one of them, but on this issue, Oklahoma may be bassackwards, but it is "home" for me.
My tribal roots are here and although I make fun of okies every chance I get, I prefer living here to any other state.

P.S. I have only lived in CA, KS, and TX.

Some excellent thoughts here. And on many of the recent posts on this thread. Rep all around, Redbird, LadyR, Peggy, ComputerGuy, Schousse . . . did I miss anyone here? Well, if I've forgotten to mention you here, I've repped you already . . . except for a couple I can't right now, because they want me to "spread it around."

Redbird, you make some really good points here, about how much more complex this all is than just the notion that the states that throw a lot of taxpayers' money at anything anyone calls a problem will have a better quality of life--whatever exactly that means. And several people have made the astute observation that what is meant by quality of life is difficult to pin down.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But being a fattie does not result FROM lower taxes or higher taxes. It stems from diet and exercise. And I might add, pound for pound, we are the happiest people you could ever meet!! (see my jolly smile?)

These statistics may be true, but are they correlational or causitive? I don't think any teenager girl is going to say, "Gee, synopse/CG, the taxes are low here in OK, so let's do it until the cows come home!" " (quote, Redbird).

LOL! I had previously thought of my own example of how individual choices are independent from the tax rate, but I'm not prepared to present it with quite as much humor as you see above. With good humor or not, the thought I had was that I'm generally in pretty good health. As far as dietary habits go, to have the best diet possible I could probably stand to cut down on meat, and switch from refined to whole grain for bread rolls, rice, and pasta, but I do try to eat plenty of fruits and veggies, and to get frequent doses of whole-wheat and multi-grain bread (I basically always use whole-wheat as my sandwich bread) and whole-grain cereal. I get regular exercise. I don't smoke (anything ). I follow these habits of good health because I choose to, not because of the tax rate where I live. If, for various reasons, including those related to local and regional culture, others choose to do otherwise, that's their business, and it does not really affect my personal quality of life, no matter what the average statistics are for my state.

Yes, this is all more complex than simply looking at what people do as individuals, but it's also way more complex than the notion that throwing money at any situation someone sees as a problem will make the purported problem go away. I think that in order to have a full view of the quality of life in a place, or the overall health of the people there, it's important to keep the question of personal choice in the foreground. The quality of people's lives has much to do with the quality they themselves add to their lives.

[redbird4848]

Now to flip that coin. Oklahoma highways are HORRIBLE! We have traveled by car to CA and to WY in recent years, and when let me tell you what, you will need a new kidney after driving I-40 east of the Seminole exit! Hopefully some of the casino money will go towards better hwys.

I am not up on other taxation issues, so I will quietly bow out of that whole taxation discussion. I just want to make sure StillwaterTownie knows that I know there are always two sides to every coin and I am not disrespecting him personally.

As for health care, I go to IHS, which is pretty much on par with the VA hospitals across the nation. Enough said.

[ogre]

Stillwater Townie, I've seen some good posts you've made on this forum, and a few months ago, when I first posted here with some questions, you offered some good information, and I appreciate that. But on this subject, I think you might want to take a closer look at whether there's really any correlation between high taxes and high ratings for health or other factors related to quality of life. Redbird has raised an interesting question: whether any congruity between taxes and health that may exist is "correlational or causitive," but a close look raises the question of whether there's even any congruity at all.

Below are links to the 2007 Morganquitno state rankings for health and for overall quality of life, and the most recent state rankings of combined local/state/federal tax burden. As Schousse has pointed out, statistics aren't always reliable indicators, but maybe these lists at least give an idea of how the states measure up.

Healthiest State Award 2007
Most Livable State 2007
The Tax Foundation - State and Local Tax Burdens Compared to Other U.S. States, 1970-2007

Take a look. True, Minnesota was rated best for health, and comes in pretty high for total tax burden, at 11th place. And, as I sit here in "Taxachusetts," I can't help but note that this state ranks seventh in total taxes, third in health, and eighth in statistically measured quality of life, but take a look at some other states. For example, New York: second in total taxes (third in local/state taxes), but way back in the middle of the pack for livability (29) and health (27). Similarly, California shows the 12th highest state/local tax burden, and the eighth highest for total taxes (state/local/federal), but ranks a respectable, but not really top notch, 19th for health, and drops to 30th for livability. Another example is Ohio, way up there for local and state taxes combined, at fifth place, and fairly high for the total burden of local, state, and federal taxes (18), but ranking kind of high-average on health, at 20th, and dropping below the middle of the pack on overall q of l, with a rank of 36th.

Conversely, a number of states with relatively moderate or low taxes do pretty well on q of l. For example, New Hampshire, the low-tax anomaly of the Northeast (yeah, ComputerGuy, I know the winds of change seem to be blasting into NH and sweeping it away toward the left, but traditionally it's been a low-tax libertarian state), rates way up there in q of l, at fifth for health and FIRST for livability, despite being in the middle of the pack for local, state, and federal tax burdens combined, ranking 29th, while having the second lowest cobined state and local tax burden. Two other examples are the Dakotas. ND is 37th from the top for overall tax burden (including federal taxes) and 39th for cobined local and state taxes, while SD ranks way down at 43rd and 44th, respectively, for those two tax burdens, yet in the health rankings SD ranks a solidly high-average 22nd and ND is getting up there fairly close to the top at 12th, and both states rank toward the top in livability, ND at 13th, and SD at ninth.

And these are just a few examples. A number of people have made some good points on this thread, about the unreliability of statistics alone as an indicator of something as subjective as quality of life, and the fact that the complexity of issues like health and the overall quality of life makes it difficult to generalize for an entire state and apply that to one's personal situation, but even if you want to look only at the rankings based on statistics, Minnesota notwithstanding, a close look makes it difficult to support the sweeping assertion that life is better in states with high taxes.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by redbird4848

Now to flip that coin. Oklahoma highways are HORRIBLE! We have traveled by car to CA and to WY in recent years, and when let me tell you what, you will need a new kidney after driving I-40 east of the Seminole exit! Hopefully some of the casino money will go towards better hwys.

I am not up on other taxation issues, so I will quietly bow out of that whole taxation discussion. I just want to make sure StillwaterTownie knows that I know there are always two sides to every coin and I am not disrespecting him personally.

As for health care, I go to IHS, which is pretty much on par with the VA hospitals across the nation. Enough said.

Well, the roads in Taxachusetts aren't too hot either. "Kin yew say, 'pothooooooollle . . . !'"

[ogre]

I guess it's not really off topic to get into some discussion of politics when the words "liberal" or "conservative" are mentioned in the thread title, but, um, I'm just wondering whether anyone does have any further thoughts for the poor guy who posted a few pages back, about where or whether the "Austin of Oklahoma" might be found.

[TheComputerGuy]

Originally Posted by ogre

Stillwater Townie, I've seen some good posts you've made on this forum, and a few months ago, when I first posted here with some questions, you offered some good information, and I appreciate that. But on this subject, I think you might want to take a closer look at whether there's really any correlation between high taxes and high ratings for health or other factors related to quality of life. Redbird has raised an interesting question: whether any congruity between taxes and health that may exist is "correlational or causitive," but a close look raises the question of whether there's even any congruity at all.

Below are links to the 2007 Morganquitno state rankings for health and for overall quality of life, and the most recent state rankings of combined local/state/federal tax burden. As Schousse has pointed out, statistics aren't always reliable indicators, but maybe these lists at least give an idea of how the states measure up.

Healthiest State Award 2007
Most Livable State 2007
The Tax Foundation - State and Local Tax Burdens Compared to Other U.S. States, 1970-2007

Take a look. True, Minnesota was rated best for health, and comes in pretty high for total tax burden, at 11th place. And, as I sit here in "Taxachusetts," I can't help but note that this state ranks seventh in total taxes, third in health, and eighth in statistically measured quality of life, but take a look at some other states. For example, New York: second in total taxes (third in local/state taxes), but way back in the middle of the pack for livability (29) and health (27). Similarly, California shows the 12th highest state/local tax burden, and the eighth highest for total taxes (state/local/federal), but ranks a respectable, but not really top notch, 19th for health, and drops to 30th for livability. Another example is Ohio, way up there for local and state taxes combined, at fifth place, and fairly high for the total burden of local, state, and federal taxes (18), but ranking kind of high-average on health, at 20th, and dropping below the middle of the pack on overall q of l, with a rank of 36th.

Conversely, a number of states with relatively moderate or low taxes do pretty well on q of l. For example, New Hampshire, the low-tax anomaly of the Northeast (yeah, ComputerGuy, I know the winds of change seem to be blasting into NH and sweeping it away toward the left, but traditionally it's been a low-tax libertarian state), rates way up there in q of l, at fifth for health and FIRST for livability, despite being in the middle of the pack for local, state, and federal tax burdens combined, ranking 29th, while having the second lowest cobined state and local tax burden. Two other examples are the Dakotas. ND is 37th from the top for overall tax burden (including federal taxes) and 39th for cobined local and state taxes, while SD ranks way down at 43rd and 44th, respectively, for those two tax burdens, yet in the health rankings SD ranks a solidly high-average 22nd and ND is getting up there fairly close to the top at 12th, and both states rank toward the top in livability, ND at 13th, and SD at ninth.

And these are just a few examples. A number of people have made some good points on this thread, about the unreliability of statistics alone as an indicator of something as subjective as quality of life, and the fact that the complexity of issues like health and the overall quality of life makes it difficult to generalize for an entire state and apply that to one's personal situation, but even if you want to look only at the rankings based on statistics, Minnesota notwithstanding, a close look makes it difficult to support the sweeping assertion that life is better in states with high taxes.

Very well said and you're oh so right about NH.

[Schousse]

Originally Posted by LadyRobyn

You have to edit it within 90 minutes... after that you need to ask a Mod to do it for you.

How absurd.

Thanks, LR ..........