You know, I hadn't considered health care as an environmental issue before, but you make an excellent point. If we didn't have that expense, there wouldn't be so much pressure to have a high income, which would result in less consumption all around. Let's face it, the more you have, the more you spend on frivolous shit--even if you need that money for other things like health care. It's an indirect connection to the environment, but I think it would make a major difference. And for that matter, while we're reducing consumption, I wouldn't at all mind paying a local tax for a few years if it would build better public transportation systems. It would be a temporary thing--once the infrastructure is in place, the system should fund itself, and then some. Because let's face it--in most places, for the standard American lifestyle, you *do* need a car. In large cities, the need for a car is largely a myth; in small cities, suburbs and rural areas, it's really not. You charge a little up front to eliminate that need, and then eventually far more people--particularly lower-income people--don't have to make car payments, so they're pocketing more of their salary, so less stress. So, basically, what I think we're saying is, we need higher taxes and more concrete services, so we'll be less stressed, less forced to be overly materialistic, and more free to love whom we wish, and the environment will be cleaner. When we pitch this to the public, we should find a way to phrase it other than "we need higher taxes."