View Full Version : Affordable care act.
Birchwood
11-11-12, 2:01pm
How do you think it will affect you or your family in the long run?
OK forget a repeal. As Boehner said Obamacare is the law of the land so we got to stop the debate to stop it.
In the long run, I think we will learn to live with it.
More folks are going to be covered. There will always be complaints, just like in other systems.
It's going to be interesting to see which is "standard care" to be covered?
"preexisting illnesses not to be denied"? Sorry all you private insurances?
Greedy hospitals and doctors stopped from doing more unecessary stuffs?
More people covered thru mandates?-- Romney care nationalized?
Yeah all of us needed to pay higher taxes to support it, like Canada, Sweden Germany, Switzerland?
Any comments appreciated!
iris lily
11-11-12, 3:00pm
I'm interested in seeing how these shake out:
* the Federally mandated state healthcare exchanges and how they work (in tandem? in conflict? cancel out?) state programs for the uninsured
* what IS the minimum standard of coverage mandated by Obamacare
* how much does that cost the individual insuree?
It will be interesting.
ApatheticNoMore
11-11-12, 3:24pm
I think health insurance cost will continue to go up (there's really nothing stopping it).
I think we will learn to live with it.
"Live" being the operative word.
I hope they add a single-payer option to it. If they do and I can get in, I'll join.
try2bfrugal
11-11-12, 3:55pm
We will most likely benefit greatly from the affordable care act since we are self employed and our rates right now are over 1K a month for insurance alone, not including co-pays and deductibles. One emergency room visit alone for one of us this year will be about 2K out of pocket over and above the insurance premiums.
If we didn't have our small business, we most likely wouldn't even be able to obtain private health insurance because of various pre-existing health condition exclusions.
For us it is a blessing.
I'm with Iris lily on this one.
It has the potential to create a really dynamic free market for individual coverage -- and I think that's exciting.
I think that the tax penalty issue might cause several hiccoughs, but should win out.
And, like try2bfrugal, the benefits for small business owners is really enormous.
Since I live off my investments I'll be able to adjust my income from time to time to get the Government handout. Ive been selling some investments lately to go ahead and pay the gains now. Then I can try and keep my taxable income below the 400% of poverty line. I probably won't be able to do it every year, but I'll figure out what works best for me. I may even just get a big home loan, live off that for a few years while mine sits in the bank. Then I could show very little income.
Since I live off my investments I'll be able to adjust my income from time to time to get the Government handout. Ive been selling some investments lately to go ahead and pay the gains now. Then I can try and keep my taxable income below the 400% of poverty line. I probably won't be able to do it every year, but I'll figure out what works best for me. I may even just get a big home loan, live off that for a few years while mine sits in the bank. Then I could show very little income.
Ah, well, it's good to know someone is already trying to figure out how to game the system. :(
One of the 47% I suppose. Didn't know you were a democrat, dmc...
No matter. Some folks never felt the responsibility to cover themselves before Obamacare simply because others would cover their butts in case of need. Obamacare won't change the integrity, or lack there of, with these folks.
It will, however, allow those who want to be responsible for themselves and their families to do so.
I agree peggy. For the 'personal responsibility' folks, one would think that the idea of gaming the system to get the most government benefits would be the antithesis of what they would do. One would think they would act in accordance with their stated values of government autonomy.
ApatheticNoMore
11-11-12, 5:28pm
+1 It's frankly against my principles to game the system, and I feel I've lost out a lot because of that.
Most large businesses "game the system", in order to take advantages of tax breaks that up their bottom line. It's considered smart business. When individuals do that, it's considered wrong. What I think is wrong are the rules! If I had the financial wherewithal to do what DMC is suggesting, I'd probably do it to improve my own financial situation. That is the basic principle behind capitalism.
However, I don't have FI, and as a consultant with private pay insurance, I have no idea what is best for me. I guess it's time to figure that out!
Is someone who follows the YMOYL simple-living approach, who has made efforts to minimize their expenses and their taxable income so as to be able to retire far earlier than the age of 65 "gaming the system" or somehow displaying a moral failing?
Should they be forced to go back to work instead?
awakenedsoul
11-11-12, 5:44pm
I think mine's the same, $125.00 a month for catastrophic. I'm with Anthem. I'm fortunate that I'm in excellent health. I've decided to up my exercise back to two hours a day. I do a mix of walking, biking, yoga, pilates, and dance exercise. Hopefully my premiums won't rise too much in the future. I'm concerned that with the unhealthy work demands people are facing, Americans will become sicker and have more injuries. All this overwork is so unbalanced and unhealthy. It affects us all, price wise...
I live in MA, which was supposedly the model for Obamacare. My premiums have skyrocketed, because the state government has declared that everyone HAS to have coverages that I would not otherwise choose. I pay $750 /month for the cheapest plan. My husband and I both have normal cholesterol, low blood pressure, exercise > 150 minutes per week, don't smoke, drink and eat moderately. In other words, I'm doing all I can to stay healthy but my premiums have doubled in the last few years. I'm all for the government making different coverage choices /available/ but I'm not really happy about making them /mandatory/. But I guess you have to get the healthy people who say no to excess to subsidize the ones who choose to make bad choices (I'm fine with subsidizing those who didn't win the gene lottery that we did- I recognize how lucky we are to not have chronic genetic illnesses).
iris lily
11-11-12, 6:57pm
Ah, well, it's good to know someone is already trying to figure out how to game the system. :(
...Obamacare won't change the integrity, or lack there of, with these folks.
It will, however, allow those who want to be responsible for themselves and their families to do so.
Perhaps it will, perhaps not, depending on how much private insurance will cost after shakedown of Obamacare. My friend doesn't have health insurance because she can't afford it. She believe that that will soon change. To afford it today she would have to give up:
*Her smart phone
*Her pottery class
*Her super premium cable tv
*Her completely paid for $300,000 vacation house in another country
*Building the addition onto the aforementioned completely paid for $300,000 vacation home in another country to make it a $350,000 vacation home
*Super premium cable tv in that $350,000 vacation house in another country
*A serious shopping problem (everywhere we go, she buys crap)
...To name some of the obvious stuff I see.
There are people like this all over America making these choices every day. "I can't afford health insurance" is a phrase I don't automatically believe. It may or may not be true, but I'm skeptical every time I hear it.
iris lily
11-11-12, 7:05pm
Is someone who follows the YMOYL simple-living approach, who has made efforts to minimize their expenses and their taxable income so as to be able to retire far earlier than the age of 65 "gaming the system" or somehow displaying a moral failing?
Should they be forced to go back to work instead?
Ok I'll play.
Sure, yes you are gaming the system. In the world of one size fits all, you or me or anyone should not retire until the age of 65. If you can work until you are 65 to pay into entitlement and retirement systems for all, then you should do that. No exceptions except for people with special needs. If you are clever (oops--sorry-- lucky) enough to have raked in enough income to allow you a net worth to retire well before 65, then that is a failing of our government to let you keep that much of it. If you aren't particularly gifted at getting income but are exceptionally frugal, well, you still have excess money. Pony up, share the wealth.
The retirement age is 65. Who do you think you are to get out early? What are you, special or something?
iris lily
11-11-12, 7:08pm
I live in MA, which was supposedly the model for Obamacare. My premiums have skyrocketed, because the state government has declared that everyone HAS to have coverages that I would not otherwise choose. I pay $750 /month for the cheapest plan. My husband and I both have normal cholesterol, low blood pressure, exercise > 150 minutes per week, don't smoke, drink and eat moderately. In other words, I'm doing all I can to stay healthy but my premiums have doubled in the last few years. I'm all for the government making different coverage choices /available/ but I'm not really happy about making them /mandatory/. But I guess you have to get the healthy people who say no to excess to subsidize the ones who choose to make bad choices (I'm fine with subsidizing those who didn't win the gene lottery that we did- I recognize how lucky we are to not have chronic genetic illnesses).
I remember your reports from time to time about Romney Care and I wonder how others who live in Mass. find it? The mandate about a minimum standard of insurance isn't something I though about until you brought it up in an earlier post.
What do you think that national OBamacare mandates will do to costs of the type os insurance you get?
Ive been paying for my own health care for several years now. It's over $1200 a month now. Do you really think it's going to get cheaper unless you get the government handout? Look how much college cost have gone up and that's not mandatory, just easy money was provided.
This is no difference to doing what you can to reduce your taxes. I'm going to do everything I can to keep as much of my money as I can. The power's that be are spending our future away at an alarming rate.
iris lily
11-11-12, 7:35pm
I'm going to do everything I can to keep as much of my money as I can. The power's that be are spending our future away at an alarming rate.
Amen brother.
The retirement age is 65. Who do you think you are to get out early? What are you, special or something?
My mistake, I once again forgot that I exist only to serve the State.
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands."
ApatheticNoMore
11-11-12, 8:06pm
Um you're actually trying to get subsidized insurance from the government. Sorry I forgot I exist to pay taxes in order to benefit a bunch of people who need it far less than I do.
awakenedsoul
11-11-12, 8:22pm
I'm floored by how much all of you pay for health insurance. Wouldn't catastrophic coverage be much cheaper for you?
Irislily,
I was one of those people who thought I couldn't afford health insurance. I was only earning around $25,000.-$30,000. a year teaching ballet and yoga. But, I see now that if I had been shopping for groceries at Costco, I could have used that money for a catastrophic policy. In retrospect, I see that I didn't like paying for things like insurance, property taxes, home repairs, and car repairs. So, I would sabotage myself. Now I enjoy saving up for and paying those things. I guess it was immaturity and irresponsibility.
I'm floored by how much all of you pay for health insurance. Wouldn't catastrophic coverage be much cheaper for you?
I pay nearly $1000 a month now for a catastrophic coverage policy that covers very little, for a family of two adults and one teenager.
It's my single biggest expense other than property taxes.
Um you're actually trying to get subsidized insurance from the government. Sorry I forgot I exist to pay taxes in order to benefit a bunch of people who need it far less than I do.
So would you require YMOYL-style early-retirers to go back to work?
Wouldn't catastrophic coverage be much cheaper for you?
You're not allowed to have catastrophic insurance in Ma. You have to have all kinds of coverages, including full prescription coverage, even if you don't use it or want it. You aren't allowed to pick and choose what works for you and your family. The government knows whats better for me than I do.
iris lily
11-11-12, 8:55pm
You're not allowed to have catastrophic insurance in Ma. You have to have all kinds of coverages, including full prescription coverage, even if you don't use it or want it. You aren't allowed to pick and choose what works for you and your family. The government knows whats better for me than I do.
I hear you.
Again, I'm wondering how others in MAss see this? I'm pretty sure there are proponents of it here, seems like I've seen positive reviews.
I think you all are identifying the big problem with Obama Care. There are no cost controls in it. It depends on the so called free market but it is not really a free market as there are only 4 or 5 major players in the health insurance market. At church today I spoke to a very conservative member at happy hour. I almost feel off my chair when he said we need socialized health insurance in this country like the rest of the world. He voted for Mit.
try2bfrugal
11-11-12, 10:04pm
I'm floored by how much all of you pay for health insurance. Wouldn't catastrophic coverage be much cheaper for you?
Believe me, as someone who has a chart of how many watts of electricity every appliance and every light bulb uses and how much different foods cost per calorie, I have comparison shopped extensively for health insurance and that is what a policy costs in our state for a family with two parents our ages and kids to be covered. That pretty much matches what many pay on the early-retirement.org forum in states without universal coverage. And that is with high deductibles and out of pocket limits.
I have only looked at HIPAA and small business policies. I personally wouldn't get a private policy because of concerns over rescission for forgetting to list something minor on the application for one of us or the kids, even if we would qualify.
to both redfox's and bae's assertions:
as most tax breaks and such are designed to create certain outcomes for individuals and businesses, I do not think that it is "gaming the system" to utilize those. Ie, I have no problem, for example, with Romney's tax rate.
but, i do think it is "gaming the system" if you are utilizing the welfare system when you can support yourself.
I have a friend who has both a trust fund and a small business (yoga). In both instances, they are designed to have him pay the least amount of tax possible, and for his income to be low enough to not pay tax. I think that this is ok as the code is written. If he wants to get bigger, then he'll pay tax, and I'm ok with him not getting bigger (business wise).
Yet, because of his tax levels, he decided that instead of providing his own health insurance (through a group plan through a professional organization -- it was quite affordable for an individual IMO, and would be another tax break for him in the business expenses), he would go on medicaid because he qualified, and when he went and got that, he learned he also qualified for a small housing stipend and food stamps. He also accepted those.
Now, on the one hand, I didn't have a problem with him doing medicaid per se. It was the "most affordable" and since he did pay some tax (notably state tax), and it was the state-funded system (with federal back up -- that's how I perceive it anyway), I can see how he would qualify. But, it seemed a little hinky to me when he could get his own insurance, run it through his business, and then lower that tax rate there again.
For me, there's nothing wrong with shifting around for the tax rate (and as such, in an open system, qualifying for the best rates for insurance), but I think that when you go that extra step of then using the welfare system, rather than choosing not to use it because you don't need to . . . is abusing the system.
flowerseverywhere
11-11-12, 10:14pm
fascinating points.
I did not feel like we were doing anything morally wrong by being super frugal and retiring early. We live on way less than most people but still pay some income taxes, and of course property taxes and sales tax. We also stayed in the workforce until age 55 because we could stay on DH's health plan, but we pay a healthy premium for it. DH had two different cancers and lives about as healthy a lifestyle as you can. Stuff happens. No way we could have gotten insurance without the in we had.
When the full law takes effect we'll have to make some interesting choices. But I don't want middle class people to pay for me - and we all know those are who will end up paying the most proportionately.
Zoebird - should people who "don't need" their Social Security payments refuse to take them?
I provide for my mother, housing, power, and whatnot. She receives SS payments, if she didn't, I'd give her a similar amount to cover her "misc" expenses. She can "afford" not to cash those checks. Is she in the wrong for doing so?
When I qualify for Medicare in a few years, should I continue to pay out of my own pocket for covered items instead?
For me, that's the issue of the mandates in the AHCA -- the fact that you have to have certain coverages as demanded by law. I'm more for a person having free choice, and for the individual choosing the sort of coverage that they want.
Like Iris lily mentioned (on this thread or another), the real issue of the "free" physicals is that it does mean that the insurance premium has to be up at a certain point to matter what in order to 'get what you pay for' whereas, one could choose to keep their premium down and have a co-pay for preventative care, knowing that they are generally healthy, and then as they age (or seem to become unhealthy), can opt for different insurance.
The problem, as herbgeek points out, is that there isn't the breadth of choice that individuals may want for themselves -- knowing how they want to spend their money. I would likely do catastrophic, basic dental and basic preventative -- without need for prescription plans until it became obvious that I would need an on-going prescription. Whereas, my father definitely needs *massive* medical coverage, as does my sister. Both have pretty major health problems (diabetes), which requires a great deal of on-going medical care.
------
I don't understand the question around "would you have YMOYL retirees return to work?"
Why would they? If they have enough income to be retired and self-sufficient (which I believe is what YMOYL is about), and they are using the tax code to their advantage to stay self sufficient (part of the underlying philosophy of certain aspects of teh tax code), then why would they need to return to work?
If, in this process, they would then become eligible for lower-cost insurance through the government exchange, I'm fine with that. I would not be fine with YMOYL retirees moving to welfare. That, to me, is taking advantage of the system when you *can* work and/or you haven't achieved what YMOYL is about imo (since I see it as about being self sufficient. maybe i'm wrong in that assessment).
To me, the whole idea of YMOYL, traditional american conservative policy, and the tax code (which has many conservative fiscal policies in it), is to create self sufficiency of individuals. It allows for all kinds of entitlements -- which I think are good (some being better than others) -- which help create this self sufficiency.
If we then, in turn, use that tax code to the point of qualifying for welfare services, that is fine. But if we then USE those welfare services when we technically (financially) do not need to, then *that* is abusing the system.
awakenedsoul
11-11-12, 10:46pm
I don't think I could live in MA if that's how it works. It seems like such a rip off, especially if you are healthy and into self care. That would really frustrate me. What also concerns me is how generally unhealthy Americans are. I don't go for any of the regular things people do my age: physicals, mammograms, etc...I know this sounds radical to some, but it's just my personal belief. (I don't broadcast it.) I know my body, and if something is wrong, I get treatement. (Last time I went to a doctor was for an ear infection 15 years ago. I took the antibiotics, missed a day of work, and it went away.) I like knowing if I'm in an accident I'm covered. The whole prescription business and surgery mindset is not for me. I guess I have to hope that my catastrophic policy will stay affordable. I do extra eye exercises now that my vision needs it. I get bodywork if my hip bothers me. Have used accupuncture for an injury years ago, too. I always just pay cash. For dental, I do the Zellies system. My dental bills used to be huge!
My parents are wealthy but they only had catastrophic medical insurance, too. (My dad is super frugal.) When my mom went into the hospital for a couple of weeks she was on life support and the policy covered everything. Now they have Medicaid. (Is that what it's called? Sorry, I'm so out of it with medicine and the terms.)
bae,
As the benefits that you define qualification is based on age, once you cross that threshold, it's a right entitlement.
From a personal note, I wouldn't accept these benefits unless I felt it was absolutely necessary. That's just me, though. Because I believe that social security will collapse, I'm working and planning to not require it. Similarly, I am working and planning on having private, full coverage health care in the future (which is allowable here in NZ), also covered through my own efforts.
This is simply because of how I work. I'm an independent sort. I believe in the social safety nets and I'm thankful for them should anything happen to me, and of course, as things happen to other people. I think that they can make a society healthier overall, and I'm happy to have what taxes I do pay go toward making society healthier overall. I think they are also great for helping out the most vulnerable in our society: children and seniors (as well as disabled individuals).
But I also believe, personally, that as an able bodied individual I should be working for my own life-long self sufficiency. In the process, through both tax and private means, I can also provide for others who are less able and less fortunate than I am.
I do not work so hard so that trust-fund baby yoga teachers can have food stamps because he was able to fill out his tax form such that he qualified for them. To me, that is gaming the system. He doesn't need the money, so why would he use the services that could be utilized for another?
I feel the same way about insurance in general. For example, elective c-section was covered 100% in my insurance. It costs about $40k. It's a lot of money. It's also a lot of medical resource. For me, I knew that being low risk in pregnancy and birth meant that it would be wasteful and using the system (abusing both medical and insurance/financial) to elect for a c-section (setting aside, of course, that the c-section for a low risk woman increases risk of injury and death of woman and child). My insurance would also cover 100% the birth in a hospital with an in-network midwife or doctor. If I had a drug-free, intervention free hospital birth, it was $18k. Strangely, insurance did not cover home birth, which would be only $3k, and is even more efficient for low risk women like myself.
Ultimately, due to my own understanding/philosophy of birth, I opted to not utilize any of these resources, and birth at home unassisted. This not only saved valuable money (in terms of the insurance company and ourselves), but it also saved valuable resources. Had an emergency arisen, we would have gone to get medical help as necessary, and that would have been covered under insurance with no problem.
So, you see, I largely look at this in terms of resource allocation. There are women who NEED these services and access to these services (who are on my insurance plan). As a person who doesn't need them, I feel that it's a personal duty to only utilize what I need, so that others who do need things can have access to them without over-burdening the system.
I don't know if I'm clearly asserting my personal philosophy on this. And, I'm not saying it should be universally agreed (ie, everyone must believe/act this way). But it is my personal belief and I act on that belief.
We are like you, awakenedsoul.
we had insurance through DH's workplace. we considered several options because the coverage was not what we truly wanted. one option was to forgo insurance, and we asked the company if we could get a salary increase to match the dollar value of the benefit (since they itemized that for us). We were told that we could choose not to have insurance, but we wouldn't get the dollar value. That was annoying.
We then considered going through a group insurer through one of the professional organizations to which I belonged. It was very simple catastrophic care with one physical every-other year (which changed over time to have more tests as you age. very interesting process.), and one dental cleaning/check up per year. Everything else would be out of pocket.
IF DH's company had provided us some cash for the benefit, we would have been able to afford this at the time. By the time my business could afford it (or DH and I could afford it), the professional organization had dropped the insurance (though anyone prior insured were able to stay on the group plan), and as such, the opportunity was no longer there.
To be honest, I always thought that would be best for us because it would free up more money for us to get the sorts of treatments that we valued. Toward the end of our time in the US, we were actually able to get the treatmetns taht we preferred (ongoing chiropractice care, TCM, and paying for our doctor visits out of pocket), but we held onto DH's insurance due to the fact that we considered it our catastrophic insurance, even though it had a heck of a lot more things than we actually needed.
On the plus side, our initial immigration medical stuff was covered by insurance entirely, and this year we're paying $920 out of pocket for it. No bigs, I knew what it would cost and saved up for it. :)
The thing is, Zoe, I've paid 8 figures of income tax over the years, so I view any scraps I can get back as simply reclaiming a bit of that.
And as I spend the bulk of my funds in philanthropic pursuits, and believe I can more efficiently use these funds for the public good than the government can, I think there's a moral argument to be made that this is the *preferred* course of action for me.
Perhaps it will, perhaps not, depending on how much private insurance will cost after shakedown of Obamacare. My friend doesn't have health insurance because she can't afford it. She believe that that will soon change. To afford it today she would have to give up:
*Her smart phone
*Her pottery class
*Her super premium cable tv
*Her completely paid for $300,000 vacation house in another country
*Building the addition onto the aforementioned completely paid for $300,000 vacation home in another country to make it a $350,000 vacation home
*Super premium cable tv in that $350,000 vacation house in another country
*A serious shopping problem (everywhere we go, she buys crap)
...To name some of the obvious stuff I see.
There are people like this all over America making these choices every day. "I can't afford health insurance" is a phrase I don't automatically believe. It may or may not be true, but I'm skeptical every time I hear it.
I can see why, particularly if you are running with this crowd and they are bleating about it. That frustrates the crap out of me.
I have the same problem here with a lot of able-bodied yoga teachers who refuse to work and would rather be on the dole. They are seriously able-bodied and most of them educated. And then, being on the dole, they call all of their faffing around to be "work." Hey everyone, I just spent 5 luxurious hours practicing yoga, getting a amssage from my friend, and meditating, then I wrote this one-page worksheet! YAy! I'm giving back in the world.
No, you're a leech on a system designed to help the truly poor and unable to work.
These people are able. They could even get regular day jobs and grow their yoga business on the side so that it's even more profitable (a path that I took in the first 2 years after graduating from law school before going full time as a yoga teacher). And then they could be contributing financially to society as well as personally.
but no. you see, that would be a lot of work. And we are apparently allergic to that.
Then they complain to me about how the market for yoga teachers is saturated when, truth be told, I have more work than I can staff, and I ask these people if they want the jobs that are coming to me left, right, and center, and they always can't manage to take those gigs because they are "too busy" or "not at a good time for me." And then there is the issue that I have in keeping them staffed: once i get the gig set up and send the teacher over and they agree to do the gig for 6 months, they decide about 3 weeks in that it's "not really want they want to do at this time" and le sigh, abandon the class, which leaves me scrambling for more staff or. . .as is more commonly the case. . . I take over the job and make more income.
And then, of course, I'm called greedy because I am making a living as a yoga teacher, teaching 17 classes per week (max), and also running a business. I'm trying to employ them (or rather, contract them as vendors to do the work), and I pay a fair rate (same rate as other yoga studios and gyms for LESS time, so technically a higher rate), and they vanish in short order because it's all so darn difficult.
And, of course, if they work too much, they loose their stipends.
Yeah, it's infuriating.
We dont' qualify for welfare (it would get us deported, technically), but even if we did, I don't see how an able-bodied person would want to utilize it when they could work doing something that they love (like I do). Or even just work doing a crap job but supporting yourself and contributing to society.
Anway. . . ranting now. LOL
The thing is, Zoe, I've paid 8 figures of income tax over the years, so I view any scraps I can get back as simply reclaiming a bit of that.
And as I spend the bulk of my funds in philanthropic pursuits, and believe I can more efficiently use these funds for the public good than the government can, I think there's a moral argument to be made that this is the *preferred* course of action for me.
I see right entitlements -- in the tax code or by age -- as right entitlements. I don't see it as a problem for you to utilize them. I do the same, so that I can also provide for others in philanthropic pursuits (and of course, I'm sure you also give over a lot of time in your life to these sorts of pursuits which is even more of a gift than money, imo).
But, I would see the issue in terms of my friend, who doesn't use his funds to philanthropy, doesn't use his time that way, uses the tax code to keep as much money as possible (ostensibly to be both self sufficient and do these things), and then actively *abuses* the system when he doesn't need to.
And I think that's a very big difference, don't you?
And I think that's a very big difference, don't you?
Oh yes indeedy - I live on The Island Of Slacker Yoga Teachers here :-)
Maxamillion
11-12-12, 2:39am
The one thing I don't like about the ACA is being forced to buy insurance, without there being a public option. Personally, I'm for Medicaid or Medicare for everyone. I'm on both, and I love it.
bae: me too, FFS (that's swearing).
I keep having yoga teachers come look for work, tell me how hard it is to make a living as a yoga teacher (i've only been doing it for 12 years now, what do I know?), only to fink out on their contract 3 weeks in, and then refuse to work more than (magical number under 10) classes a week, and OMG I couldn't possible not go to bali 3x a year for vacation/yoga retreat (attending, not leading), and so on and so forth.
So, yeah, it chaps my hide.
bae: me too, FFS (that's swearing).
I keep having yoga teachers come look for work, tell me how hard it is to make a living as a yoga teacher (i've only been doing it for 12 years now, what do I know?), only to fink out on their contract 3 weeks in, and then refuse to work more than (magical number under 10) classes a week, and OMG I couldn't possible not go to bali 3x a year for vacation/yoga retreat (attending, not leading), and so on and so forth.
So, yeah, it chaps my hide.
But why work if you can live on the dole, and still go to Bali 3X a year.
I suppose one of the downsides of big government is trying to make one size fits all rules for some 300 million people. There are probably times when bending the limits makes sense with in the limits of the rule's intentions. There are other times when "playing the system" goes past the good intentions of the rules and the rest of us ultimately pick up the tab. The large banks in the recent financial crisis are an example of staying legal, but playing the system and bending ethics.
I am in the insurance pool of my past employer and pay less than half the cost of my health insurance. My understanding is that people with insurance through their work won't see any big change, so I have't studied up on the details. The subject came up at a social event I attended and there was a general opinion that the ACA would cost small business owners and people on medicare significantly more. I should probably study up on it, but was mostly under the impression that it would mostly affect those without insurance and the rest would not see big changes?
Zoe Girl
11-12-12, 10:58am
I think mine's the same, $125.00 a month for catastrophic. I'm with Anthem. I'm fortunate that I'm in excellent health. I've decided to up my exercise back to two hours a day. I do a mix of walking, biking, yoga, pilates, and dance exercise. Hopefully my premiums won't rise too much in the future. I'm concerned that with the unhealthy work demands people are facing, Americans will become sicker and have more injuries. All this overwork is so unbalanced and unhealthy. It affects us all, price wise...
Yes I feel this too. It feels very much caught in the middle. My daughters and i all work full time and i feel lucky to cover all my children at $400 a month. I know people who pay $1,000 a month as well. We are in good health in all the ways we can affect by lifestyle, but I have not been able to exercise regularily. It is a big job to cook healthier food and bring lunches daily honestly. My one daughter brings her lunches as well but none of us have space to exercise other than parking farther from work. My daughter is taking a college class and I am learning Spanish for future earnings, and that is essential. But we do pay and have had insurance anytime it is available, including working poorly paid jobs and workign 7 days a week just to have access.
The one thing I don't like about the ACA is being forced to buy insurance, without there being a public option. Personally, I'm for Medicaid or Medicare for everyone. I'm on both, and I love it.
Sadly that was never put on the table.
I know here in MA, the ones who have it the hardest are those making too much get subsidized coverage, but not that much more. And don't get any coverage from their employer. It's a big expense.
But this is the point of the insurance exchanges. It isn't one size fits all, and the exchanges in each state will allow those who want to shop around. But the insurance companies who want to be included in the exchange must follow some rules that state how much of a premium must go towards medical care, what they must cover, etc...Insurance companies will join the exchanges because here is a fresh new group of customers, and they will compete for them. Win win for everyone.
I see Obamacare as a first step towards national health care, which I think should be the ultimate goal. It is the law of the land. As parts of it are implemented (remember, the majority of it hasn't even been implemented, despite all the hand wringing) we should look at each section and tweak where needed. No system is perfect. Everything evolves. But we needed to do this as our archaic, broken system wasn't working.
bae, you are an exceptional case. But how many people out there are really like you? There are a few, but most I believe are like Romney who only spend time trying to 'game the system' with tax avoidance schemes without the philanthropy part. Or like some posters here who only want to game the system, because they can.
You are certainly entitled to medicare. That is your right as an American citizen who has played, and paid all along. But you also benefit from your taxes in so many other ways. I know we have listed all the benifits of living in this modern, progressive country before. Our taxes don't just go to welfare.
Welfare is different. It is something we all pay simply because we refuse to allow our least fortunate citizens to go without food and shelter. And to that we add basic health care. To me, it is a price I gladly pay because of what my country stands for, and what I stand for. We all pay into this. All of us. And I think what gets my goat (and that of a lot of people) is when someone proudly proclaims that they will hide their assets, or stuff it in a mattress, or do whatever they can to 'get' some of this money that we all contributed to, in good faith, to be used for those who truly need it. Need it. I'm not saying you personally would do this as I don't think you would.
But saying you would, just to make a point doesn't really shine the best light on your message.
First of all, the ability to 'game the system' has always been there, and Obamcare doesn't really change anything for those whose character allows them to try to get something for nothing. Obamacare isn't going to suddenly turn good honest people into dishonest ones anymore than legalizing gay marriage is going to turn straight people gay. Mind you, I don't think of those who truly need it as getting something for nothing. They are using something we the people set up just for them, knowing they can't afford basic health care.
The up shot is, reading here how some (not necessarily you) are planning to work the system to get these 'goodies', when they don't really need it, sets about as well as reading how someone plans to dress in rags and rub some dirt on their face so they, and their family, can get the free Christmas dinner and gifts for their kids, stuffing extras in their pockets as they go along! Or how someone is planning to hand letter a sign how poor they are and just need money for gas, and stand on the street corner waiting for sucker motorist.
I know some don't like Obamacare. I get it. But what those people need to keep in mind is, even those of us who voted for it pay. We voted to pay for this. It isn't just some republican punishment for losing the election. WE don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else. But we said, this we need. This our country needs.
iris lily
11-12-12, 12:56pm
The one thing I don't like about the ACA is being forced to buy insurance, without there being a public option...
Sit tight, be patient, Nanny G is coming to scoop you up in her arms and take care of you thoroughly.
What Free and Peggy said, with bells on.
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 1:19pm
On the exchange thing...
There was an article in our local paper about the fix my governor is in. Mary Fallin has said in the past in political spin speeches there would be no exchange set up Oklahoma, but now it seems hospitals, insurance companies, and other industries that are likely to benefit are starting to put pressure on her to get one going. However, this is the redest of the red states (Obama didn't win a single county... again), and so there is a real political danger for her to do what industry wants her to do. Her money backers want her to do it because it is good for business and jobs, yet her voters abhor everything about Obamacare.
She is in a real tight spot. It will be interesting to see how it plays out politically.
iris lily
11-12-12, 1:34pm
On the exchange thing...
There was an article in our local paper about the fix my governor is in. Mary Fallin has said in the past in political spin speeches there would be no exchange set up Oklahoma...
How is she getting OK out of that? (by the way, it is AWESOME to see a woman leading this red state. I can't comprehend how that could happen since we all know conservatives dishonor women or disrespect them or dis-whatever. Guess you guys are just a freaky exception and Mary F must be some kinda woman to make this happen, she must not be your typical out-of-a-binder gal. )
I thought that if the state took no action to do that which is federally mandated, the the feds will do it for that state. Either way, it will happen in OK, right?
Perhaps you just mean that she will take no action.
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 1:52pm
I thought that if the state took no action to do that which is federally mandated, the the feds will do it for that state. Either way, it will happen in OK, right?
Yes, according to the article she has until the end of next month to take action, but must signal intent almost immediately or the feds will set one up. I don't know how that is different, but the various interested parties seem to think it is important.
Which includes the chambers of commerce in our two largest cities, btw. That makes me think this fight is over, nationally. Once business decides it is good for business and it has a chance to get set, it is a done deal and ain't goin' nowhere. I don't see how any mainstream presidential GOP candidate can oppose it now.
And yeah, Mary is quite the politician. I wouldn't be surprised to see her on somebody's ticket some day, perhaps her own. She is definitely no Sarah Palin.
Wouldn't it be cool to see a Fallin/Hilary matchup next time around? That would be somethin'.
iris lily
11-12-12, 2:01pm
My state voted to keep our Democratic governor's hands out of setting up the insurance exchange, the authority goes to the Legislature.
Since we can't vote down Obamacare we can at minimum let the Republican controlled state legislators have some say in how it's done.
My state voted to keep our Democratic governor's hands out of setting up the insurance exchange, the authority goes to the Legislature.
Since we can't vote down Obamacare we can at minimum let the Republican controlled state legislators have some say in how it's done.
Yeah, cause we want the guy who thought it was a great idea to enshrine Rush Limbaugh in our capitol rotunda setting up something that is supposed to benefit the people. Sure, he has our best interest at heart...:(
iris lily
11-12-12, 4:20pm
:)
Yeah, cause we want the guy who thought it was a great idea to enshrine Rush Limbaugh in our capitol rotunda setting up something that is supposed to benefit the people. Sure, he has our best interest at heart...:(
Well I really don't mind Jay Nixon, and in there's probably not difference between what Nixon or the Republicans in our legislature would do, but it's the principle of the thing. Since I can't vote down Obamacare I can vote No for any Republican lead ballot in front of me that mentions it.:D
Iris what do we do with the 40 million uninsured in this country. What is your plan.
But why work if you can live on the dole, and still go to Bali 3X a year.
I think, largely, this is a personal failing though (character flaw or "poverty of spirit" in the yoga world), and not an issue of whether or not welfare (in general) is a good system per se.
There are a lot of things that I *like* and value about the system (isn't that what I talked about before? I mean, I wouldn't get rid of SS or medicaid, but I also am working to not require it for myself).
A lot of people assert to me "why work when you can. . ." when I mention these issues, and to that I say "because working is personally rewarding, because you can provide so much mroe for others, and be a true benefit to society, rather than a drain, leaving the resources to allocate to people truly in need."
I don't think that doing away with welfare to prevent people with poverty of spirit (or personal integrity) from using the system is the answer.
Actually, there are a lot of capable republican women out there who have definitely 'earned their stripes' and yet Palin was pegged for the veep in 2008. I think that's a bit wonky-donk, and the woman also turned out to be a bit of a loose canon (and not-moderate).
Yes, there are binders full of solid republican women politicians out there. Most of them are moderate, socially progressive, and traditional republicans. Most of them get zero air time. A few of them are theocons (more rare such as Buchmann and Palin), who get a ton of air time.
In the end, I think it's foolish for a state to have the fed set up their exchange. it makes more sense to have it done in legislature in the state -- particularly if you have any interest in local rule rather than fed rule. It only makes sense that the republican stance would be to move it toward a more local process, rather than letting the feds do it. THat's just damn foolish IMO.
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 5:33pm
Yes, there are binders full of solid republican women politicians out there. Most of them are moderate, socially progressive, and traditional republicans. Most of them get zero air time. A few of them are theocons (more rare such as Buchmann and Palin), who get a ton of air time.
Nothing moderate about our governor. Very conservative, both fiscal and social. She just isn't an idiot loudmouth, so many folks don't know her.
iris lily
11-12-12, 6:20pm
Iris what do we do with the 40 million uninsured in this country. What is your plan.
Well free, I would counsel my friend her $300,000+ paid-for vacation home, to start. That will pay for her health insurance until she gets on Medicare, that's for sure. Gosh she wouldn't even have to give up premium cable.
You have to understand that I don't buy "have no health insurance" equates to "can't afford health insurance" OR equates to "have no health care."
Iris what do we do with the 40 million uninsured in this country. What is your plan.
Correct me if I am wrong, but people without health insurance are not turned down for medical treatment. They will maybe start at the emergency room where treatment is far more expensive than routine avenues, or maybe go to a hospital that accepts patients without insurance. They will be billed at a rate higher than insurance will accept and then either pay up front or declare bankruptcy or other inability to pay. There are some stats that say 50% of bankruptcies are due to uninsured medical expenses. Default on payment is passed onto the rest of us in terms of higher medical rates. Since they probably have not sought out preventive medical care until their condition is serious, it may cost more.
I have a few friends without insurance. Some I think could afford some sort of low rate catastrophic. Others, like a single mother with two children or a man with pre-existing conditions, really can not afford it. It's not a black and white situation.
Well free, I would counsel my friend her $300,000+ paid-for vacation home, to start. That will pay for her health insurance until she gets on Medicare, that's for sure. Gosh she wouldn't even have to give up premium cable.
You have to understand that I don't buy "have no health insurance" equates to "can't afford health insurance" OR equates to "have no health care."
Forcing those who can afford health care insurance or make them take responsibility for it is part of Affordable Care Act. It was also part the the Republican plan about 20 years ago. The Republican were for than why not now.
DMC Clinton and the Republican Congress killed the dole. Food stamps and care for young children is about the only type of assistance out there. I am amazed by how many people think there is still a dole in this country.
iris lily
11-12-12, 8:06pm
Forcing those who can afford health care insurance or make them take responsibility for it is part of Affordable Care Act.
Do you know, then, the income caps or categories or whatever? High net worth/low income folks can take a lot of advantage of "the system" as we have been discussing. When qualifying for a gooberment program takes mainly income into account, there's a whole lotta room for wiggling.
Correct me if I am wrong, but people without health insurance are not turned down for medical treatment.
They will not be turned down for emergency treatment - very different. ER"s are only required to stabilize and then the patient is released.
Also, it would not surprise me if the EMTALA is challenged at some point.
morning girl
11-12-12, 8:32pm
Health care is the only industry where you can get service and not pay for services rendered. There is a law that is abbreviated as EMTALA. It requires hospitals (ones that take Medicare/Medicaid) to provide emergency treatment and stabilization to anyone. You can not be turned away. This is one of the things that drives up cost because often these are the sickest patients and require the most care. I would like to see a single payer system to eliminate situations like this. Most of the developed world has some form of universal care. We also need to remove the incentive of profit. I am a big believer in non-profit healthcare. In a non-profit world the patient is the center. In the for profit sector its the investor who is the most important.
iris lily
11-12-12, 9:49pm
This morning's local newspaper featured an article about a young woman from England who stopped in St. Louis for a unique medical procedure after having been to Chicago for another unique, life saving treatment for MS. She's from London.
So two major US health research centers trumped anything she could get in her own NHS country. I think innovation will die back greatly when Nanny G takes over the health care industry here.
Now for me, I'd be content with NHS level treatment, but for my daughter with MS--nope.
The federal gov't already funds much of the basic hard sciences: http://www.nsf.gov/#3
For-profit companies build on that and then trumpet the final results as all their own.
The U.S. will continue to have cutting edge medical treatment because the Affordable Care Act doesn't address that; it's a vehicle for putting having many more people covered, not a takeover of health care.
I'm with lainy in terms of research/funding/etc, though I've heard the criticism before.
The reality is that a lot of countries have very different standards at FDA and similar "ministries" than the US does. THe US is strict in some areas such that US citizens travel abroad to get cutting-edge treatments all over Europe (i've heard of many who do this). They pay out of pocket (just like this Londoner probably did). Similarly, other ministries decide not to allow treatments in their country yet (this is aside from choices made within the actual medical system per se), and as such treatments are entirely unavailable, and so those individuals have to travel to the US or other european nations -- or even asia -- to get the treatments that they want.
And lets not forget the whole industry of medical tourism. Thailand has a major stake in that market -- most of their people are educated in europe, too, and their government allows all kinds of treatments that aren't available in western nations. SO, sometimes you go to thailand for treatment, right?
End of the day, if you have the money, you can go and get any treatment you want. If you don't ahve the money, then it may not be possible at all.
In my own case, I had a breast cancer scare, and immediately did my research on it. I chose a clinic in Nevada (i was in PA at the time), where my insurance would not cover treatments. Which meant that DH and I looked at our savings. It was a traditional chinese medicine clinic with over 40 harvard studies on their specific treatments for breast cancer, all demonstrating that it works. It would have cost us $10k in treatments, plus whatever it would cost me to live there (they did out-patient treatments) for the duration of the time.
Luckily, everything came back fine and dandy in the biopsy, and it was just a cyst. Thank goodness.
But, I was going well out of network and well out of comfort zone, and a friend of mine who has TCM contacts in Taiwan suggested the clinic where he was educated -- doing the same process, same supported academic research, and half the price (with the exception of a more expensive flight there and back). And, they had housing connected, which really cut the price.
So, I would have had to go to Taiwan for the best price, best treatment that I could find that is also scientifically supported, but technically hasn't been moved into mainstream treatments or approved by the FDA for treatment (as an alternative treatment, it technically didn't come under their jurisdiction at the time). Does this mean that their entire health care system is better than the US?
Of course not. It just means that the individual found the treatment s/he wanted, had the money, and took the leap to get it. No big deal. :)
freein05
11-12-12, 11:43pm
This morning's local newspaper featured an article about a young woman from England who stopped in St. Louis for a unique medical procedure after having been to Chicago for another unique, life saving treatment for MS. She's from London.
So two major US health research centers trumped anything she could get in her own NHS country. I think innovation will die back greatly when Nanny G takes over the health care industry here.
Now for me, I'd be content with NHS level treatment, but for my daughter with MS--nope.
Give me a break. What about the thousands of people who get care in the UK who would not get it here. Who paid for her treatments?
If one person chooses to travel out of her own country to seek special treatment, that doesn't mean that the whole medical system of that country is useless. There are probably many hundred thousand MS sufferers in the UK who receive perfectly adequate treatment, which does not bankrupt them. Here's a comment by a US American with MS, living in the UK:
"Something that also is not pointed out is that the NHS covers everyone without regard to "pre-existing conditions" or underwriting. I am an American who has received excellent treatment for my Multiple Sclerosis on the NHS, including the drug Betaseron. When I lived in the USA, my insurers imposed restrictions for pre-existing conditions and chronic conditions. Everyone rations. The NHS does but so do US insurers. The difference is that in the UK the rationing is explicit and done by NICE, a publicly accountable body. In the US it is done by insurers, with no public accountability." David James, http://www.examiner.com/article/stephen-hawking-investors-business-daily-and-nhs-health-care-rationing.
Few people ever point out that the UK has a flourishing private health insurance and private medical supply network operating alongside the NHS. People who want faster treatment or drugs or procedures that the NHS NICE assessment finds too expensive for the results achieved can get it by going private. And the wealthy can go anywhere in the world they want for whatever they want. I'm assuming the young woman referenced by Iris Lily is not short of a penny or two if she's continent-hopping! But what about the 97% who don't have the money? Nanny G seems to do a pretty good job in countries where it either offers national healthcare or tightly regulates private providers. Japan, for instance, is not exactly lacking innovation-wise, and it's tightly regulated; ditto Switzerland.
Besides, while the US may excel in heroic measures, it doesn't do very well in providing good quality basic health care to its overall population, and this certainly shows in its world health rankings! The US didn't fare well even in a one-on-one comparison with the UK. The study was wrapped up early because, shockingly, it turned out that the poorest, sickest, Britons were on a par, healthwise, with the wealthiest, healthiest US Americans. I find it interesting that the researchers reject outright the idea that the NHS has anything to do with this, because they say it doesn't explain why the wealthier are still healthier than the poor in the UK, and carefully avoid the question of why the poorest NHS-trapped Britons are still healthier than the wealthiest, private-insurance blessed US Americans!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0503_060503_healthier.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5377794
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-02-health-survey_x.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html
Here's how Japan does it
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/lessons.html
good analysis, suzanne. :)
iris lily
11-13-12, 12:27am
The U.S. will continue to have cutting edge medical treatment because the Affordable Care Act doesn't address that; it's a vehicle for putting having many more people covered, not a takeover of health care.
Oh I know that Obamacare doesn't directly address R & D, mine was vaguely a response to the post above "we need to remove the incentive of profit." I think removing a profit motive would affect innovation in R & D, but we have some time before the inevitable government takeover of all health care services.
I'm not certain that is necessarily so. A lot of R/D goes on in systems with national health care of some sort -- i know people who work for multi-national, for-profit companies whose main offices are in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, France, etc. That seems pretty competitive to me.
ApatheticNoMore
11-13-12, 12:31am
I question how useful the wonderfully innovative U.S. healthcare system really is, perhaps not as advertised.
Here is a researcher who claims they have a vacine for breast cancer. It seems to be a legitimate scientist doing science (not someone selling "magic berry cures everything!"). It works in mice. Does it work in humans? The researcher themselves doesn't know, so surely I don't. They are very eager to find out, but getting the human trails is a huge obstacle. They need to raise $6 million and are basically resorting to the equivalent of bake sales to raise it.
http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Breast-Cancer-Vaccine-100-effective-in-mice-Waiting-for-human-trials-173738701.html
"Susan G. Komen has turned down three requests for funding, Avon will not even consider a request and the Department of Defense has also rejected requests."
"Ruddy is also frustrated that months after news of Dr. Tuohy's vaccine, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, through the Artemis Project, announced they will begin to work on a breast cancer vaccine with a goal of 2020,
"They decided about four to five months after the Cleveland Clinic published the news of its first preventative breast cancer vaccine that they were going to do the same thing."
Hmm. It's enough to make one a conspiracy theorist. Note I make no claim that THIS IS IT= THE CURE, because that's a gutsy stance one could take a big fall for, when frankly noone knows. Just hmm, is this research real (it sure appears like it - the mice part). Where are the pharm companies when you really need them? Well the most profitable drug ever was Lipitor, which noone is terribly certain even does any good for many of the people it is prescribed for. Hmm. Is that innovation?
I question how useful the wonderfully innovative U.S. healthcare system really is, perhaps not as advertised.
The problem is the primary purpose of the U.S. healthcare system is not health - it's to make money.
Here is a calculator http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/
In my case, family of 2, I can show 60,000 in income and receive a $810 per month subsidy. But if I show $61,000 I get nothing. I'm sure that is just one of the many screw ups in this law. So once the details are sorted out I'll see what works best for me. Ive paid quite a bit in taxes over the years and continue to do so. Ive always followed the rules.
I'll just have to see what the final deal is with taxes on capital gains and dividends. Then I'll adjust as needed. We spend much more than $60,000 per year, so there may be times when this wont work. But I have enough cash set aside that I can make it work from time to time.
You can call this "gaming the system", but it's just financial planning to me. I didn't ask for it, but $9720 a year will pay for some nice trips.
Here is a calculator http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/
In my case, family of 2, I can show 60,000 in income and receive a $810 per month subsidy. But if I show $61,000 I get nothing. I'm sure that is just one of the many screw ups in this law. So once the details are sorted out I'll see what works best for me. Ive paid quite a bit in taxes over the years and continue to do so. Ive always followed the rules.
I'll just have to see what the final deal is with taxes on capital gains and dividends. Then I'll adjust as needed. We spend much more than $60,000 per year, so there may be times when this wont work. But I have enough cash set aside that I can make it work from time to time.
You can call this "gaming the system", but it's just financial planning to me. I didn't ask for it, but $9720 a year will pay for some nice trips.
I believe that under the existing rules a family of 4 earning up to $91K per year can receive the same subsidy. Seems to me we'll be subsidizing the vast majority of people very soon and I'm not sure where all the money will come from.
Here is a calculator http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/
In my case, family of 2, I can show 60,000 in income and receive a $810 per month subsidy. But if I show $61,000 I get nothing. I'm sure that is just one of the many screw ups in this law. So once the details are sorted out I'll see what works best for me. Ive paid quite a bit in taxes over the years and continue to do so. Ive always followed the rules.
I'll just have to see what the final deal is with taxes on capital gains and dividends. Then I'll adjust as needed. We spend much more than $60,000 per year, so there may be times when this wont work. But I have enough cash set aside that I can make it work from time to time.
You can call this "gaming the system", but it's just financial planning to me. I didn't ask for it, but $9720 a year will pay for some nice trips.
This is a problem with the MA system as well - jumps in costs where they could have made it more gradual.
As far as "gaming the system", people do this all the time with SS, making income decisions. so it does not impact benefits. I manage my son's SSI, I occasionally have to make purchases I would not have necessarily had made just to keep his assets down to "eligible" levels (not that I have much choice to do otherwise, if he loses SSI he also loses Medicare, funding for his group home etc.), all or nothing scenario.
Zoe Girl
11-13-12, 11:23am
Yes I do not understand that most of these programs are not graduated so much. I would take a $50 subsidy in the case of earning more rather than a $200 subsidy and not reaching for more in my career options.
I guess my perspective is very much colored by much career choice. I chose to work in education and helping people and children be safe and learn. WHen I hear that I just need to change and go out to earn the money I wonder who will do my job (and I do it pretty darn well). I would say a large percentage of people in my type of work qualify for subsidies. Meanwhile we get grants and offer care to families that are working but cannot afford a safe place for their children after school. We have a great program, as good as any in the higher income neighborhoods, and are working hard to be on their feet.
It is just that I work for the community, and I don't expect Disneyland or a new car or a lot of things. But asking me and my family to scrimp every time we go to the grocery store to afford basic healthcare is really too much some days.
I believe that under the existing rules a family of 4 earning up to $91K per year can receive the same subsidy. Seems to me we'll be subsidizing the vast majority of people very soon and I'm not sure where all the money will come from.
They will just print more. The debt is now what? 16 trillion, divide that by a population of 300 million and what does every person now owe? If every household was sent a bill I bet they would want to stop much of the spending.
Yes I do not understand that most of these programs are not graduated so much. I would take a $50 subsidy in the case of earning more rather than a $200 subsidy and not reaching for more in my career options.
I guess my perspective is very much colored by much career choice. I chose to work in education and helping people and children be safe and learn. WHen I hear that I just need to change and go out to earn the money I wonder who will do my job (and I do it pretty darn well). I would say a large percentage of people in my type of work qualify for subsidies. Meanwhile we get grants and offer care to families that are working but cannot afford a safe place for their children after school. We have a great program, as good as any in the higher income neighborhoods, and are working hard to be on their feet.
It is just that I work for the community, and I don't expect Disneyland or a new car or a lot of things. But asking me and my family to scrimp every time we go to the grocery store to afford basic healthcare is really too much some days.
I have no idea on your income. But you made the choice to work in your field. Most teachers around here seem to do OK. They have nice working conditions and they get what 3-4 months off. My wife has several friends that work in the school district. Most look at you in disbelief if you ask them if they are going to get a job in the summer. That's their vacation. If the husband and wife both teach they make good money and have a nice retirement, they don't pay into SS so they have a much nicer pension. And many can retire in their early 50's.
Actually not a bad choice.
They will just print more. The debt is now what? 16 trillion, divide that by a population of 300 million and what does every person now owe? If every household was sent a bill I bet they would want to stop much of the spending.
They came up with an agreement to get spending and revenue more in line with each other - it's called a "fiscal cliff".
They came up with an agreement to get spending and revenue more in line with each other - it's called a "fiscal cliff".
That would be fine if it were allowed to happen. Neither side has the guts to take some pain now instead of the usual kicking the can down the road strategy.
awakenedsoul
11-13-12, 2:08pm
Rogar,
When I didn't have health insurance, I went to the Urgent Care place in my area. I was diagnosed with an ear infection, got my prescription, paid cash for both, and was finished. It cost me under $100. That's the only time I've been to the doctor in the past 15 years. Oh, I did go there one other time to have ear wax removed. I paid cash again.
Many people who "can't afford insurance" don't see areas in their budget where they could cut back and find the money. Once I read Dave Ramsey's books, I was easily able to afford catastrophic coverage in CA. I also heard about EHealth Insurance on line, from Suze Orman. I found a policy far cheaper. (It went from $173.00 a month to $110.00) It has a high deductible. I keep that in savings.
I know there are still people who are just strapped, but some are like I was. They just don't see the areas that could be shifted in the budget.
Ok I'll play.
Sure, yes you are gaming the system. In the world of one size fits all, you or me or anyone should not retire until the age of 65. If you can work until you are 65 to pay into entitlement and retirement systems for all, then you should do that. No exceptions except for people with special needs. If you are clever (oops--sorry-- lucky) enough to have raked in enough income to allow you a net worth to retire well before 65, then that is a failing of our government to let you keep that much of it. If you aren't particularly gifted at getting income but are exceptionally frugal, well, you still have excess money. Pony up, share the wealth.
The retirement age is 65. Who do you think you are to get out early? What are you, special or something?
He he!! This reminds me of a conversation I had with my Dad and step-mom about what they wanted to leave to their kids (sis and I and three much older step-siblings) when they passed away. The parents decided that since my sister and I had lived extremely frugal lives with no debt, bought inexpensive used cars and kept them forever, had tiny homes or rented apts, and owned or had almost nothing else so we could pay for those things with cash and have no debt, that they would leave everything to the 3 step-siblings. That because the step-sibs were so deep in debt from all the luxury items they bought on credit from huge Mcmansions to boats, Cadillac SUVs, Harley Davidsons, dirt bikes and jet skiies and Rvs and vacation homes and luxury vacations - including high stakes poker excursions to Vegas where they would lose $10K in one game, etc... that the poor poor indebted step-sibs just needed it more then frugal simple living sis and I did!
Do you know, then, the income caps or categories or whatever? High net worth/low income folks can take a lot of advantage of "the system" as we have been discussing. When qualifying for a gooberment program takes mainly income into account, there's a whole lotta room for wiggling.
On a business radio talk show yesterday about Obamacare a guy who makes $88K/year called in and wanted to know what governement subsidies he qualifed for to reduce his health insurance. While he and his wife didn't qualify for any, his 2 very healthy kids did. I personally have no problem at all paying extra taxes to help low income people, or those who can't get coverage, to subsidize medical coverage, but someone who makes $88K a year needs to pay for his own kids medical insurance. That is not low income in my book.
ToomuchStuff
11-13-12, 3:31pm
I haven't gone through all these pages on this discussion yet, nor have I read the entire act. (consider me ignorant)
I understand this connects to medicaid, how about the doctors who don't deal with medicaid? (quite a few, here)
What kind of protections are there for unknowing medicaid fraud? (know it happens, had a relative in a hospital injured due to negligence, and they told the doctor to bill it to medicaid, he found out from us, who he knows, after the fact).
I have heard more, but until I read it, to see what it says (bet it might be in there), my only other thought is, this isn't universal health care, but a hybridized system. I think I would have less problems with a universal system, in which my representatives, would stand in line after me, if they had a later appointment.
ApatheticNoMore
11-13-12, 3:40pm
On a business radio talk show yesterday about Obamacare a guy who makes $88K/year called in and wanted to know what governement subsidies he qualifed for to reduce his health insurance. While he and his wife didn't qualify for any, his 2 very healthy kids did. I personally have no problem at all paying extra taxes to help low income people, or those who can't get coverage, to subsidize medical coverage, but someone who makes $88K a year needs to pay for his own kids medical insurance. That is not low income in my book.
I don't know that I really agree with that. If he's making that with an employer provided plan CHANCES ARE the employer picks up most of the cost, so yea he should be able to swing it. What is more concerning is people buying insurance without the employer subsidy. From what I hear the cost of insurance in MA is quite high, has gone up since Romneycare, near the most expensive in the nation at this point. That's very concerning, insurance costs going up, without employer subsidy, and without being low income enough to qualify for the government subsidy, without really being rich in any sense. Not just with current insurance costs but with insurance cost GOING UP (as they have in MA). That's what a hard cut off means, a lot of middle class people are going to be pressed really hard, if costs keep rising, and they don't have any way to mitigate them.
try2bfrugal
11-13-12, 3:54pm
On a business radio talk show yesterday about Obamacare a guy who makes $88K/year called in and wanted to know what governement subsidies he qualifed for to reduce his health insurance. While he and his wife didn't qualify for any, his 2 very healthy kids did. I personally have no problem at all paying extra taxes to help low income people, or those who can't get coverage, to subsidize medical coverage, but someone who makes $88K a year needs to pay for his own kids medical insurance. That is not low income in my book.
I am not sure I understand the response. Are his kids adults children needing their own policies or dependent children or students on a family policy? Subsidies end at 400% of the federal policy level, so for a family of 4 that is 92.2K in the lower 48 states. My understanding is that the policy costs are not computed by individual by individual for a given household with dependents.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html
try2bfrugal
11-13-12, 3:57pm
UC Berkeley Labor Center has an estimator here to use for projected premiums -
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/
ApatheticNoMore
11-13-12, 4:18pm
So my premium would be the same as it was a year ago under CORBA? Of course I didn't qualify for any subsidy in that calculation (this is what I mean by squeezing the middle class! :)). I just question how accurately they are projecting premium increases.
Notes: This calculator shows expected spending for families and individuals eligible to purchase coverage in the Exchange under the Affordable Care Act. Under the law, maximum contributions to premiums will be based on modified adjusted gross income, while estimates in this calculator are based on the annual income entered by the user. Actual premiums in the Exchange are not yet known. The premiums in this calculator reflect national estimates from the Congressional Budget Office for 70% actuarial value plans, adjusted for premium inflation and age rating. Premiums are shown in two tiers: individual and family (two or more family members), though premiums in the Exchange will vary based on additional family tiers which are yet to be determined. Coverage in the Exchange will begin in 2014, but the spending amounts are estimated in 2012 dollars.
try2bfrugal
11-13-12, 5:09pm
The poverty rate for a family of 2.5 would be around ~17K in the U.S., while median gross income for the same size household is ~50K. Health care subsidies go to 4 X poverty level, or around ~68K MAGI, so for most middle class families I would think they would be on the receiving end of health care subsidies.
iris lily
11-13-12, 5:21pm
.... The parents decided that since my sister and I had lived extremely frugal lives with no debt... that they would leave everything to the 3 step-siblings. That because the step-sibs were so deep in debt from all the luxury items they bought...
Hey blondie, you should have purchased enticements to keep your boy-toy Sven around, going into debt for that! I don't know what Sven would have liked best: Ferrari? Regular spa/ski vacation packages?
I have no idea on your income. But you made the choice to work in your field. Most teachers around here seem to do OK. They have nice working conditions and they get what 3-4 months off. My wife has several friends that work in the school district. Most look at you in disbelief if you ask them if they are going to get a job in the summer. That's their vacation. If the husband and wife both teach they make good money and have a nice retirement, they don't pay into SS so they have a much nicer pension. And many can retire in their early 50's.
Actually not a bad choice.
No it isn't a bad choice if you get a teaching job. My job is supporting after school programs since I did not get a teaching job. I work extra all summers and breaks and earn under 30K a year. My sister has been teaching a long time and does not work over the summer but she often takes classes at her own expense to keep her teaching credential and does planning and prep for the year over the summer. I don't know, 10 hours a week or so.
I may have sour grapes because I didn't get a job in teaching, and because if I have trouble making ends meet I generally hear that I chose it. I see plenty of teachers who have a nice enough income, get some breaks over summer, and get to retire at a good age so that was the choice I thought I made. Meanwhile I also chose to serve a lot of people who are not my family and so getting a break on something is something I would like to feel okay about. I will admit I don't think I am expressing myself well.
I am not sure I understand the response. Are his kids adults children needing their own policies or dependent children or students on a family policy? Subsidies end at 400% of the federal policy level, so for a family of 4 that is 92.2K in the lower 48 states. My understanding is that the policy costs are not computed by individual by individual for a given household with dependents.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html
Well this was in the LA metro area of Calif and his kids were young dependants. Apparently making $88K/year is enough to warrent governement subsidies for his 2 dependant kids health insurance premiums. It may be something Calif has as they also have programs to help the poor with healthcare costs - of course the crux is I don't consider $88K (or $92.2K if that is the max) as "poor" even by Calif standards. According to the calculator try2bfrugal put up, they would get fed subsidies of approx $330/month at age 40 yet that jumps to $588/month at age 45. Big difference!
Hey blondie, you should have purchased enticements to keep your boy-toy Sven around, going into debt for that! I don't know what Sven would have liked best: Ferrari? Regular spa/ski vacation packages?
Sven was a simple living kind of guy so maybe a Corvette instead of a Ferrari :-)!
UC Berkeley Labor Center has an estimator here to use for projected premiums -
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/I just looked up mine and it looks like I could have it almost 100% subsidized. Heck maybe I can go on Medicaid! Then I'll have more of my very early retirtement dollars to keep Toy-Boy Sven in style. Well I am actually already subsidized by my dear old Uncle Sam (and you generous American taxpayers) because I can use the VA hospital for low cost (and no monthly premiums) co-pays. But I do pay for an emergency plan so maybe I'll get that subsidized too. Sven will be so happy with his shiney new Corvette I can buy him with all the money I'll be saving!
Seriously though, while I completely support subsidizing healthcare I just think the income numbers they are using are WAY WAY to high. I mean - when has 400% of the poverty level ($92.2K for a family of four) come to mean "impoverished" and needed government handouts. That needs to be adjusted to a much lower income amount IMHO.
Also, are they taking the value of ALL assets, savings and incomes into consideration? Houses, rental properties, second homes, cars, jewlery, furs, art work, and other luxuries, etc... Even the VA does that each year that when determining how much I have to pay for co-payment on any non-service connected medical care I recieve (my service-connected disability is covered by them 100%). You are required to list anything of value as well as all your savings and investments, and all your income from every source. I have a tiny income but lots of cash assets - assets I feel are my responsibily to use to pay for my medical insurance when I decided to quit work. Will those be looked at when determining how much subsidy I can qualify for? If nbot, then they should be.
try2bfrugal
11-15-12, 8:04pm
I just looked up mine and it looks like I could have it almost 100% subsidized. Heck maybe I can go on Medicaid! Then I'll have more of my very early retirtement dollars to keep Toy-Boy Sven in style. Well I am actually already subsidized by my dear old Uncle Sam (and you generous American taxpayers) because I can use the VA hospital for low cost (and no monthly premiums) co-pays. But I do pay for an emergency plan so maybe I'll get that subsidized too. Sven will be so happy with his shiney new Corvette I can buy him with all the money I'll be saving!
Seriously though, while I completely support subsidizing healthcare I just think the income numbers they are using are WAY WAY to high. I mean - when has 400% of the poverty level ($92.2K for a family of four) come to mean "impoverished" and needed government handouts. That needs to be adjusted to a much lower income amount IMHO.
Also, are they taking the value of ALL assets, savings and incomes into consideration? Houses, rental properties, second homes, cars, jewlery, furs, art work, and other luxuries, etc... Even the VA does that each year that when determining how much I have to pay for co-payment on any non-service connected medical care I recieve (my service-connected disability is covered by them 100%). You are required to list anything of value as well as all your savings and investments, and all your income from every source. I have a tiny income but lots of cash assets - assets I feel are my responsibily to use to pay for my medical insurance when I decided to quit work. Will those be looked at when determining how much subsidy I can qualify for? If nbot, then they should be.
I think I would be more concerned about millionaires with hundreds or millions of dollars in assets paying zero federal taxes more than I would begrudge a family of four in California, probably paying 400K for a 3 bedroom house, a health care subsidy. On top of the premiums there are still copay, deductibles and adult dental costs to be paid. A family with parents in their mid fifties with two kids, even with the subsidies still pay almost 9K in premiums and up to 12K per year in deductible and co-pays, plus annual dental and vision expenses.
I think I would be more concerned about millionaires with hundreds or millions of dollars in assets paying zero federal taxes
Well, yeah, I'd be very concerned with that too.
iris lily
11-15-12, 10:39pm
...Will those [assets] be looked at when determining how much subsidy I can qualify for? If nbot, then they should be.
That's where the rubber meets the road. If Nanny G cannot get more sophisticated in her ability to qualify folks for gooberment handouts thatn measuring income, we are all doomed. Oh wait...
But meanwhile we are upthread tossing about ways to qualify based solely on income. I can, theoretically, make my income statement say whatever it needs to say to get me what I want. I'll set it up so that it works best for me.
Wow, that calculator is interesting.
One of the reasons we continue to work is for health insurance coverage. We would need a much bigger FI stash to afford premiums for our family on the private market.
If we were to return to the US and continue to work for our present salary level but not be eligible for employer-provided health insurance, we'd need to pay an estimated $1028/month for coverage according to that calculator.
If, on the other hand, we sold our apartment here at its current value and didn't go to work, buying a house for cash and living an FI lifestyle on 40k/year (a very modest SWR based on our remaining assets), we would qualify for a subsidy of $859/month and pay only $169/month for coverage. That is less than our share of our current employer-provided coverage (currently pay $184.70 for medical alone, $220.44 for medical + dental). Out-of pocket maximums would go up from $3000/year to $4033/year.
Does anybody have a link to discussions of whether there is going to be any means testing with this system? Because if there isn't I think there are going to be a lot of happy early retirees out there! I'm not sure how I feel about that. Personally, it would be great for us and would allow us to FIRE much earlier than I am currently contemplating (health insurance is really the big unknown/scary piece of the puzzle for me). But it doesn't seem right that we would get such a huge subsidy based on our ability to live off of a minimal draw on extensive assets.
lhamo
iris lily
11-15-12, 10:42pm
...Does anybody have a link to discussions of whether there is going to be any means testing with this system? Because if there isn't I think there are going to be a lot of happy early retirees out there!
lhamo
Bingo.
Wow, that calculator is interesting.
Indeed - in most typical years, I'll be seeing > $1k/month subsidy. Yee haw. That'll buy a lot of fuel for my yacht.
try2bfrugal
11-15-12, 11:50pm
Does anybody have a link to discussions of whether there is going to be any means testing with this system? Because if there isn't I think there are going to be a lot of happy early retirees out there! I'm not sure how I feel about that. Personally, it would be great for us and would allow us to FIRE much earlier than I am currently contemplating (health insurance is really the big unknown/scary piece of the puzzle for me). But it doesn't seem right that we would get such a huge subsidy based on our ability to live off of a minimal draw on extensive assets.
lhamo
It is huge news on the early-retirement.org forum. So far I am not aware of any asset testing. There isn't any asset testing for Social Security or Medicare right now. For financial aid for college, on the FAFSA, personal residence, retirement accounts and small business assets are exempt assets, so it is entirely possible for a family who has done their homework to be worth millions and none of it counts against financial aid consideration.
Health insurance is big reason some of the people I know in real life and on the forums do not retire early when they are otherwise financially able to do so. Decoupling health insurance from a 40 hour a week job may allow more people to retire early, work part time or turn towards self employment. I have wondered if it will help with the unemployment rate.
PS: According to this overview from the Kaiser Family Foundation, "Assets will not be considered in determining eligibility [for subsidies under the exchanges]."
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8194.pdf
Wow. Potentially a real game changer for us. But since it seems it will be offered as a tax credit (?), I'm not sure we would actually get the full subsidy, as our tax levels at 40k of annual income for a family of four would be much lower than the subsidy (only $1363 actually owed in income tax versus a hypothetical credit of $15,122).
Looks like if we pushed the withdrawal rates up to the maximum of 92k of income, we would get the maximum subsidy that would just about cover the tax paid on that income (at 2011 tax rates assuming nothing but the standard deductiosn and exemptions that would be $8994 in income tax owed, almost canceled out by $8354 in insurance subsidy refunds. We'd still be paying a projected $8740/year in insurance out of pocket, though -- that works out to $728/month, which is not bad but still not cheap.
Please nobody harsh on me for trying to game the system. This is a purely mathematical exercise at the moment. I am not at all sure that we would elect to get insurance through the exchanges/claim the subsidy should we be eligible for it. Just thought it interesting to explore the hypothetical possibilities.
I would not count too much on gaming the system. There is a big difference between a tax credit and the gov paying for your insurance. Some bean counter in the gov has figured this out.
gimmethesimplelife
11-16-12, 1:20am
I think mine's the same, $125.00 a month for catastrophic. I'm with Anthem. I'm fortunate that I'm in excellent health. I've decided to up my exercise back to two hours a day. I do a mix of walking, biking, yoga, pilates, and dance exercise. Hopefully my premiums won't rise too much in the future. I'm concerned that with the unhealthy work demands people are facing, Americans will become sicker and have more injuries. All this overwork is so unbalanced and unhealthy. It affects us all, price wise...I totally agree with what you have posted, Awakened Soul.....this constant work work work consume consume consume with less and less time off the treadmill lifestyle that so many live seems to be a recipe for health issues.....I know when I was living my life this way I was always a stressed out wreck and had all kinds of stomach pain issues and aches and pains that went away (over time) when I got off the treadmill.....Say I had not gotten off, what would the long term effects on myself be? I don't like to think about this but my gut instinct is - not very good for my health and well being at all. Now think about how many people don't let themselves off the treadmill and think of what a healthcare crisis that could be down the road too....both physical and mental health.....Rob
iris lily
11-16-12, 1:24am
...Please nobody harsh on me for trying to game the system. ....
Sweetie, upthread several of us are plotting to do just that.:laff:
try2bfrugal, I've also wondered what would be the result of people retiring :Early" no longer tied to their job for health insurance and how many jobs that would open up for those unemployed and underemployed.
Aside from subsidies, I'm still very interested in how much private insurance costs in the exchanges. I'm not opposed to paying $1,000 monthly for the two of us, similar to the cost of health insurance at work. I'm concern about how fast it goes up, that's the problem.
gimmethesimplelife
11-16-12, 1:28am
Iris what do we do with the 40 million uninsured in this country. What is your plan.Good question. I've never heard a real answer from the other side of the aisle. A very good question indeed.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
11-16-12, 1:34am
Well free, I would counsel my friend her $300,000+ paid-for vacation home, to start. That will pay for her health insurance until she gets on Medicare, that's for sure. Gosh she wouldn't even have to give up premium cable.
You have to understand that I don't buy "have no health insurance" equates to "can't afford health insurance" OR equates to "have no health care."Given my lack of a $300,000 home to fall back on, and my $14,000 income last year, what do you recommend for folks in my situation? (though I will admit my financial picture has recently brightened) - point being, for those making $14,000 what is your answer? Many live too far away to flee to Mexico for medical and dental as I have done.....and yes, I do agree that healthier eating and exersize can help but sometimes blank (fill in the blank) happens.....what is your plan for such people? Rob
gimmethesimplelife
11-16-12, 1:38am
Health care is the only industry where you can get service and not pay for services rendered. There is a law that is abbreviated as EMTALA. It requires hospitals (ones that take Medicare/Medicaid) to provide emergency treatment and stabilization to anyone. You can not be turned away. This is one of the things that drives up cost because often these are the sickest patients and require the most care. I would like to see a single payer system to eliminate situations like this. Most of the developed world has some form of universal care. We also need to remove the incentive of profit. I am a big believer in non-profit healthcare. In a non-profit world the patient is the center. In the for profit sector its the investor who is the most important.+1
gimmethesimplelife
11-16-12, 1:46am
Interesting posts here. I am wondering about the early retirees who don't want to go back to work (if they can even find it) to pay for any potential cost increases they may or may not face under ObamaCare - I am wondering if there will be an exodus over the next fews years of fiftyish folks with means moving to Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Panama - places where it is not hard to get in, where the cost of living is lower than the US, and healthcare is not something to be lived in fear of, but where quality can be obtained for much less than in the US. I am wondering if healthcare will become the straw the broke the camel's back for many and may get some to give up and leave, at least for most of the year to qualify for residency wherever they take off to? Interesting, and I guess with time we will see.....Rob
iris lily
11-16-12, 2:17am
Given my lack of a $300,000 home to fall back on, and my $14,000 income last year, what do you recommend for folks in my situation? (though I will admit my financial picture has recently brightened) - point being, for those making $14,000 what is your answer? Many live too far away to flee to Mexico for medical and dental as I have done.....and yes, I do agree that healthier eating and exersize can help but sometimes blank (fill in the blank) happens.....what is your plan for such people? Rob
I don't own your problem and I don't have to have a plan.
But since you asked, I do wonder: If health insurance is as important to you as it seems to be (you do talk a lot about it on these boards) why isn't that a priority in your employment? And $14,000 a year--why don't you make more?
What are option in clinics where services are provided on a sliding scale by income?
Do you have any health insurance at all now? If not, why not at least catastrophic care? If you are not insurable through private means then--what about through your state's uninsurable program?
I do think that going to Mexico for several kinds of treatment is a good idea, kudos.
Interesting posts here. I am wondering about the early retirees who don't want to go back to work (if they can even find it) to pay for any potential cost increases they may or may not face under ObamaCare - I am wondering if there will be an exodus over the next fews years of fiftyish folks with means moving to Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Panama - places where it is not hard to get in, where the cost of living is lower than the US, and healthcare is not something to be lived in fear of, but where quality can be obtained for much less than in the US. I am wondering if healthcare will become the straw the broke the camel's back for many and may get some to give up and leave, at least for most of the year to qualify for residency wherever they take off to? Interesting, and I guess with time we will see.....Rob
People with an income low enough that paying the prices of the exchanges would be a struggle can instead just pay the penalty for not participating -- since that is based on a percentage of income, it is a fairly low level fine if you are not making a lot already.
I think the exodus is going to be in the other direction -- of people who have been waiting for an affordable healthcare solution finally getting the courage to retire early or go part-time. That should free up employment opportunities for others.
lhamo
I think I would be more concerned about millionaires with hundreds or millions of dollars in assets paying zero federal taxes more than I would begrudge a family of four in California, probably paying 400K for a 3 bedroom house, a health care subsidy. On top of the premiums there are still copay, deductibles and adult dental costs to be paid. A family with parents in their mid fifties with two kids, even with the subsidies still pay almost 9K in premiums and up to 12K per year in deductible and co-pays, plus annual dental and vision expenses.
On the other hand I doubt you, or most people, would be quite so willing to pay extra taxes to subsidize someone in my situation. I left work voluntarily at age 42 so that I could basicly spend everyday at the beach playing volleyball. Living off a small income from tax deferred investments at that age and paying approx. $400/month for COBRA healthcare coverage.. So do you, or anyone, really want to be paying more in income taxes to cover almost 100% of my healthcare premiums with government subsidizes while I hang out at the beach all day? For 25 years until I was old enough to get Medicare? I doubt it and I feel that you shouldn't have to. That's my responsibilty to fund if I choose to retire early and play. Not the taxpayers. I have the same feelings about higher income earners who choose to have expensive homes, cars, or stuff when they should be using that income to cover their, and their kids, health insurance premiums. And from what I have seen, you don't need anywhere near $92.2K to have a nice lifestyle even here in Calif. I consider that a very high income even for here. To me, I feel that the healthcare act should be in place to cover low income people who earn too much to qualify for Med-i-caid but not enough to cover their modest expenses AND pay for insurance premiums. It shouldn't be for those who can afford to buy $400K houses, $50K SUVs, $500 Coach handbags, fuel for Bae's yachat, or who can spend their days at the beach playing volleyball and surfing instead of working. It should also be for those higher income earners who can't get affordable coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
Please nobody harsh on me for trying to game the system. This is a purely mathematical exercise at the moment. I am not at all sure that we would elect to get insurance through the exchanges/claim the subsidy should we be eligible for it. Just thought it interesting to explore the hypothetical possibilities.
I won't harsh you as I'll probably try to "game" the system myself even though I don't agree with how it's set up. I would have a serious problem NOT taking the subsidies if everyone else was. Ethically I don't think I should but...well, ethics be damned :-)! Because I am so low income - seriously low income by most standards but by choice - there are so many things I can get for free or low cost that are completely taxpayer funded. I don't because I DO feel that I made a choice to live on/need less income and not work, so it would be wrong of me to use those things. But, again, if others are doing it then I might myself. Too bad it will be a tax credit though as much of my income is tax free (previously taxed income) and the taxable amount is very low - in the zero % tax bracket after deductions - so don't even know how I could get a subsidy. There must be a way to get it for people who don't have any income but do have assets so don't qualify for Medicaid.
Given my lack of a $300,000 home to fall back on, and my $14,000 income last year, what do you recommend for folks in my situation? (though I will admit my financial picture has recently brightened) - point being, for those making $14,000 what is your answer? Many live too far away to flee to Mexico for medical and dental as I have done.....and yes, I do agree that healthier eating and exersize can help but sometimes blank (fill in the blank) happens.....what is your plan for such people? Rob
And you are exactly the person who should get the benefit from the Act. Unfortunately there will be many people (many of them my $50K - $100K income SoCal Friends) who do have second homes and fancy cars and expensive lifestyles who will also benefit from the Act. Maybe even to a greater extent then a lower income working person because they may have many valuable assets to supliment their incomes. Those are people who CAN afford to cover their own insurance and, IMHO, should in order to leave more of the taxpayers money to cover the millions of lower income or uninsurable people who can't afford or get coverage.
Now if there was a true universal care or Public healthcare program similair to our free public education where EVERYONE, irregardless of income, can get access to healthcare, then I'd have less of a problem with that.
try2bfrugal
11-16-12, 5:12pm
On the other hand I doubt you, or most people, would be quite so willing to pay extra taxes to subsidize someone in my situation. I left work voluntarily at age 42 so that I could basicly spend everyday at the beach playing volleyball. Living off a small income from tax deferred investments at that age and paying approx. $400/month for COBRA healthcare coverage.. So do you, or anyone, really want to be paying more in income taxes to cover almost 100% of my healthcare premiums with government subsidizes while I hang out at the beach all day? For 25 years until I was old enough to get Medicare? I doubt it and I feel that you shouldn't have to. That's my responsibilty to fund if I choose to retire early and play. Not the taxpayers. I have the same feelings about higher income earners who choose to have expensive homes, cars, or stuff when they should be using that income to cover their, and their kids, health insurance premiums. And from what I have seen, you don't need anywhere near $92.2K to have a nice lifestyle even here in Calif. I consider that a very high income even for here. To me, I feel that the healthcare act should be in place to cover low income people who earn too much to qualify for Med-i-caid but not enough to cover their modest expenses AND pay for insurance premiums. It shouldn't be for those who can afford to buy $400K houses, $50K SUVs, $500 Coach handbags, fuel for Bae's yachat, or who can spend their days at the beach playing volleyball and surfing instead of working. It should also be for those higher income earners who can't get affordable coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
The median home price for house in the Bay Area is over 400K. That isn't necessarily for anything upscale and many of those homes are in not so great public school districts. Try multiplying your personal expenses X 4, add in saving for college for 4 - 5 years for 2 kids at state schools, and saving for retirement since most people don't get pensions these days. Then subtract out 16% for Social Security and Medicare taxes even before paying any federal, state or property taxes. Life gets a lot more expensive when you live in a high cost of living area, have kids, have to live near the job markets, want decent public schools and don't have a pension.
The median household income for a family of 4 in California is 70K so after taxes 92K in the high cost urban areas isn't poor but it is not exactly living Warren Buffet's lifestyle either.
The median home price for house in the Bay Area is over 400K. That isn't necessarily for anything upscale and many of those homes are in not so great public school districts. Try multiplying your personal expenses X 4, add in saving for college for 4 - 5 years for 2 kids at state schools, and saving for retirement since most people don't get pensions these days. Then subtract out 16% for Social Security and Medicare taxes even before paying any federal, state or property taxes. Life gets a lot more expensive when you live in a high cost of living area, have kids, have to live near the job markets, want decent public schools and don't have a pension.
The median household income for a family of 4 in California is 70K so after taxes 92K in the high cost urban areas isn't poor but it is not exactly living Warren Buffet's lifestyle either.
But isn't it a person's choice to have children, or several children? Requireing a large house, a bigger car, more household and post-high school education expenses? And more medical insurance coverage? I look at this choice the same as I do my choice of leaving work early - if that's the choice I make, I should make sure I can fund it myself barring unforseen circumstances such as loss of job or income or extraordinary expenses - medical or otherwise like being sued or losing everything is a natural disaster, etc... I guess my feelings are that if someone has the money to put away in 401Ks, IRAs, buy a house, fund the childrens collge fund, etc... then they don't need government subsidies to pay for their medical insurance. They have enough to pay for their own medical insurance, and that of their kids, and I feel a person should pay for their own insurance BEFORE they fund those other things. Just a difference of opinion I guess.
ETA: I just did the calculator and it looks like I could get almost 100% of my medical insurance covered by subsidies - approx $500 a month or more. I just don't think that is right to cover someone like me - or someone who isn't low income (by my personal standards). But I realize that other's feel differently
flowerseverywhere
11-16-12, 6:12pm
But isn't it a person's choice to have children, or several children? Requireing a large house, a bigger car, more household and post-high school education expenses? And more medical insurance coverage? I look at this choice the same as I do my choice of leaving work early - if that's the choice I make, I should make sure I can fund it myself barring unforseen circumstances such as loss of job or income or extraordinary medical expenses. I lived in Orange County and owned a home on an after tax/401K pay at about $3,000/month. I had to make certain financial choices so that I could pay for all those things you mentioned including medical insurance.
yes, but many people make decisions with the best intentions. They want children whom they desperately love as part of a union with a partner, and want to do the best for them. I don't think many of us anticipated that you could have a decent job and not be able to afford health insurance or housing and live where you could send your kids to decent schools. The Economy has put many wonderful well intentioned people in a very difficult position. I am not talking about people who are promiscuous and have a bunch of kids with different people they don't take care of and have no intention of supporting , but really good people who want to work and have a family. It's natures way that many people have the need to procreate and have a family- we would become extinct if that was not.
It would be wonderful if we all made the best decisions in every aspect of our lives, but being human beings sometimes we don't always see every aspect of our decisions.
yes, but many people make decisions with the best intentions. They want children whom they desperately love as part of a union with a partner, and want to do the best for them. I don't think many of us anticipated that you could have a decent job and not be able to afford health insurance or housing and live where you could send your kids to decent schools. The Economy has put many wonderful well intentioned people in a very difficult position. I am not talking about people who are promiscuous and have a bunch of kids with different people they don't take care of and have no intention of supporting , but really good people who want to work and have a family. It's natures way that many people have the need to procreate and have a family- we would become extinct if that was not.
It would be wonderful if we all made the best decisions in every aspect of our lives, but being human beings sometimes we don't always see every aspect of our decisions.
True. And I have a lot of empathy for people who do anything, have kids, start their own business, etc..., with the best intentions and find it much more costly then planned. But my point was that people at those imcome levels allowed by the healthcare act ARE funding many other things - such as college educations and retirement plans - rather then medical insurances. So they do have the money to buy insurance (at least reasonably priced insurance which is something that should be available for everyone) but are choosing to use it for other things.
try2bfrugal
11-16-12, 6:49pm
But isn't it a person's choice to have children, or several children? Requireing a large house, a bigger car, more household and post-high school education expenses? And more medical insurance coverage? I look at this choice the same as I do my choice of leaving work early - if that's the choice I make, I should make sure I can fund it myself barring unforseen circumstances such as loss of job or income or extraordinary expenses - medical or otherwise like being sued or losing everything is a natural disaster, etc... I guess my feelings are that if someone has the money to put away in 401Ks, IRAs, buy a house, fund the childrens collge fund, etc... then they don't need government subsidies to pay for their medical insurance. They have enough to pay for their own medical insurance, and that of their kids, and I feel a person should pay for their own insurance BEFORE they fund those other things. Just a difference of opinion I guess.
ETA: I just did the calculator and it looks like I could get almost 100% of my medical insurance covered by subsidies - approx $500 a month or more. I just don't think that is right to cover someone like me - or someone who isn't low income (by my personal standards). But I realize that other's feel differently
Medicaid already exits to help the poor. The affordable care act was designed in part to help the middle class. 92K for a family of 4 in California may be the comfortable side of middle class, but it isn't the land of yachts and private Gulfstream jets. 70K, the median CA income for a 4 person household, is 75% of 92K.
You could make your same argument about people who choose to have kids should have to shoulder all the bills for K - 12 schooling, instead of the general public through tax revenues for public schools. Some Libertarian guy on Jon Stewart the other night was making the case for that. But if most people in the U.S. agreed with that stance then Ron Paul would be president.
I don't own your problem and I don't have to have a plan.
But since you asked, I do wonder: If health insurance is as important to you as it seems to be (you do talk a lot about it on these boards) why isn't that a priority in your employment? And $14,000 a year--why don't you make more?
.
I might not understand the whole story but I wonder about this comment? I am wondering about the just earning more, I mean I would earn more and maybe my mistake was what schooling and career path I chose. But a whole lot of people earn low incomes and I am sure they would earn more, I would earn more but this is the best I have done in 5 years of diligent searching and earning my masters.
Again if I missed something, if someone turned down a better paying job and I was not aware, let me know. Other than that I assume that we are all trying our best to earn what we can.
awakenedsoul
11-16-12, 8:54pm
I think there are people who truly can't afford to buy health insurance. They are the working poor, the underearners. I don't know the numbers, but I think there are a lot of them. People who work at fast food places, or for minimum wage and rent apartments.
My father used to lecture us that going to college was a waste of money "unless you were going to be a doctor, lawyer, etc..." He had money set aside for us to attend, but I didn't go. I was always at the top of my class in school, and I probably would have made much more money had I gone. But, I wanted to follow my dream, and pursue dancing in Broadway shows. Production contracts paid a great salary, but for most of the time I was squeaking by. I was happy, though. My brother who went to college makes $100,000. a year with Enterprise. His wife works for the IRS and makes the same amount. I didn't choose that path, or take advantage of that money. I paid for my own dance classes instead. I would do it all over again.
I also think there are people who CAN afford health insurance but would rather buy "fun" things. They are very materialistic. There's a recklessness to that. For me, you have to have a certain level of discipline and financial maturity to set aside money for home repairs, property taxes, insurance, etc. I was weak in those areas well into my forties. I made enough to pay my bills but I struggled to pay my property taxes and home repairs. I think being single, too, is a different situation. Had I been married, I think I would have been able to save money. I wasn't wasting it. But, after doing the Dave Ramsey work, I did find places to cut, and picked up a side job.
I think personal finances are fascinating.
ApatheticNoMore
11-16-12, 9:38pm
But my point was that people at those imcome levels allowed by the healthcare act ARE funding many other things - such as college educations and retirement plans - rather then medical insurances
isn't funding a retirement plan (maybe not maxing it out, but putting *something* away) kind of a basic necessity? They keep threatening us about Social Security afterall.
iris lily
11-16-12, 11:34pm
I might not understand the whole story but I wonder about this comment? I am wondering about the just earning more, I mean I would earn more and maybe my mistake was what schooling and career path I chose. But a whole lot of people earn low incomes and I am sure they would earn more, I would earn more but this is the best I have done in 5 years of diligent searching and earning my masters.
Again if I missed something, if someone turned down a better paying job and I was not aware, let me know. Other than that I assume that we are all trying our best to earn what we can.
I don't know, perhaps Rob, since he brought it up, will talk about details. He works a seasonal job, for one thing. He's free to move elsewhere--no kids, no spouse. I certainly don't know all circumstances, but there is a lot of opportunity in this country.
Is someone who follows the YMOYL simple-living approach, who has made efforts to minimize their expenses and their taxable income so as to be able to retire far earlier than the age of 65 "gaming the system" or somehow displaying a moral failing?
Should they be forced to go back to work instead?
Should someone who has lived the YMOYL approach "game the system" to collect foodstamps just because they probably can? I don't see any difference between that and gaming the system to get gov't provided healthcare under obamacare.
iris lily
11-17-12, 2:14am
Should someone who has lived the YMOYL approach "game the system" to collect foodstamps just because they probably can? I don't see any difference between that and gaming the system to get gov't provided healthcare under obamacare.
There is means testing for food stamps in my state, so it's unlikely that someone who lives a YMOYL life can quality. They count assets for qualifying and anyone with assets in financial instruments can't qualify. Home and car doesn't count. The online calculator couldn't process assets with worth beyond 5 figures so if you've got realy retirement quality assets you will NOT qualify for food stamps.
If the Obamacare bill doesn't count assets, that's not the fault of someone who want to take advantage of the program.
flowerseverywhere
11-17-12, 8:40am
There is means testing for food stamps in my state, so it's unlikely that someone who lives a YMOYL life can quality. They count assets for qualifying and anyone with assets in financial instruments can't qualify. Home and car doesn't count. The online calculator couldn't process assets with worth beyond 5 figures.
If the OBamacare bill doesn't count assets, that's not the fault of someone who want to take advantage of the program.
means testing for food stamps varies in states. It seems very logical to means test for any kind of benefits including the health care act, as we also could game the system with a paid for house we could borrow against. There you go again, making sense.
this is a very interesting and civil discussion.
goldensmom
11-17-12, 9:26am
means testing for food stamps varies in states.
Means tests…… programs have many different qualifiers and qualifying does not mean scamming/gaming or taking advantage of it just means qualifying. Example of interesting asset exemptions, in certain counties in the UP of Michigan a snowmobile is exempt as a means of transportation; one automobile is exempt; homesteads are exempt and if an applicant has additional properties adjacent to the homestead that additional property is exempt but if the property is not adjacent it is counted as an asset. Cash assets cannot exceed $2000. And it goes on and on. Personally, I have an ethical view in that even if I qualify, if I don’t need it I won’t apply. I know people who would qualify for a program but do not apply because they can get by without it. I also believe that it all works out in the end, the million dollar lottery winner who continued to receive food stamps (did he need food stamps?) because of a glitch in the rules ended up in jail on a drug charges.
iris lily
11-17-12, 11:04am
means testing for food stamps varies in states. It seems very logical to means test for any kind of benefits including the health care act, as we also could game the system with a paid for house we could borrow against. ...
Well it's logical (and responsible use of taxpayers' money) to means test, for sure, but I would imagine that the devil in the details would create jobs for about a bezillion little gooberment bureaucrat accountant types. How does the government DO that in a practical way? 'course I don't know how states do it now with food stamps.
Medicaid already exits to help the poor. The affordable care act was designed in part to help the middle class. 92K for a family of 4 in California may be the comfortable side of middle class, but it isn't the land of yachts and private Gulfstream jets. 70K, the median CA income for a 4 person household, is 75% of 92K.
From the medicaid website. May change under Obama care to 133% of the poverty level I think:
"Having limited assets is one of the primary requirements for Medicaid eligibility, but poverty alone does not qualify a person to receive Medicaid benefits unless they also fall into one of the defined eligibility categories.[21] According to the CMS website, "Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups."
While Medicaid may help the poor with few assets, it doesn't help the lower income earner in many cases. Those who have too high of an income to qualify for Medicaid (I believe that income limit was up to $22,500 for a family of 4 in Calif in 2011) or who have assets over a certain limit since it does requires means testing. Those are the people who i "thought' were going to be covered by Obamacare - those lower middleclass and working class people with limited income and assets who didn't qualify for medicaid - when I voted for Obama mainly based on Obamacare. So I'm not saying people shouldn't recieve subsidies - heck I'm the queen of wanting universal healthcare for all - but I believe the financial ceiling is just too high, especially if there is no means test to determine the amount of assets someone has. Personally I think a ceiling of around $50K for a family of 4 and a certain amount of assets - a house, a car, some money in savings and retirement investments - is more realistic. And yes, for what it's worth, I do feel that higher income people with kids in school SHOULD foot some of the costs for their public education. Maybe pay more in taxes that go directly to schools or eliminate or reduce the large tax write-offs people with kids get. While I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes towards education even though I don't have kids, I think high income earners who have kids in public school should pay more then low income childless me towards that.
isn't funding a retirement plan (maybe not maxing it out, but putting *something* away) kind of a basic necessity? They keep threatening us about Social Security afterall.
Yes but it's a matter of priorities. If you decide to do something by choice that limits your income: have kids, have one working person quit their jobs to stay home with the kids, start a business, buy a house instead of a condo, get a big student loan you'll have to pay back, or just travel around Europe with your backpack for a few years, you need to make priorities about what to pay first. So, following the Dave Ramsey model, it's shelter, food (rice and beans and beans and rice), utilites, healthcare, a clunking old used car (or a bus pass), needed clothing, and then, if you have anything left, fund other stuff. Build an emergency fund, pay off debt, THEN save for long term things like a house, kids education, retirement. So unless you have the money to fund ALL those things, you need to prioritize in order of importance. If you have decided to have children, then you may have to put off saving for retirement. If you want to have a college fund for them or buy a bigger house ratrher then live in an apt, you'll have to put off saving for retirement. etc...
But again I'm not suggesting that you deny people subsidizes who really need it to pay for their insurance coverage, I just think a $92.2K financial ceiling is way too high. Make that ceiling lower - $50K for a family of 4 (maybe $30K for a single person) - and have some means testing.
try2bfrugal
11-17-12, 6:14pm
But again I'm not suggesting that you deny people subsidizes who really need it to pay for their insurance coverage, I just think a $92.2K financial ceiling is way too high. Make that ceiling lower - $50K for a family of 4 (maybe $30K for a single person) - and have some means testing.
Hypothetical self employed family, parents in fifties, in Bay area with 2 kids in 3 bedroom rental house. Income 60K.
Rent 2K a month in Bay Area = 24K a year
Social Security and Medicare tax 16% = 9.6K
Health insurance - no subsidies = 15.4
Dental, vision, and health deductibles and co-pays for 4 people = 5K
Leftover for food, gas, utilities, school supplies, clothes, entertainment, car payments, retirement savings, college savings, transportation, yachts and designer purses = 6K.
iris lily
11-17-12, 7:05pm
Hypothetical self employed family, parents in fifties, in Bay area with 2 kids in 3 bedroom rental house. Income 60K.
Rent 2K a month in Bay Area = 24K a year
Social Security and Medicare tax 16% = 9.6K
Health insurance - no subsidies = 15.4
Dental, vision, and health deductibles and co-pays for 4 people = 5K
Leftover for food, gas, utilities, school supplies, clothes, entertainment, car payments, retirement savings, college savings, transportation, yachts and designer purses = 6K.
Will the one-size-fits-all federal program recognize that in SF you pay $24000K annually for housing and in bootheel Missouri you pay $2400K annually?
Related to the Cost of Living on the coasts: I made a choice to stay in the midwest when I was in my 20's because I wanted to own my own house before I was 30. I would have loved moving to expensive cities! I remember specifically interviewing in Chicago suburbs, Eugene Oregon and poduck Iowa and guess where the real estate was better priced?
That was a choice of where to live. Sometimes people can exercise a choice. Sometimes people don't recognize a choice when it is just that.
try2bfrugal
11-17-12, 7:37pm
Will the one-size-fits-all federal program recognize that in SF you pay $24000K annually for housing and in bootheel Missouri you pay $2400K annually?
Related to the Cost of Living on the coasts: I made a choice to stay in the midwest when I was in my 20's because I wanted to own my own house before I was 30. I would have loved moving to expensive cities! I remember specifically interviewing in Chicago suburbs, Eugene Oregon and poduck Iowa and guess where the real estate was better priced?
That was a choice of where to live. Sometimes people can exercise a choice. Sometimes people don't recognize a choice when it is just that.
If you take off 1K for housing a month that still leaves the hypothetical family with 18K leftover for cars, gas, utilities, food for 4, college savings, school supplies, yachts, designer purses, retirement savings, clothes and everything else. It still isn't a jet set lifestyle. Plus SS since it isn't cost of living adjusted by area is worth less to people in more expensive urban areas, so they will need to save more for retirement.
I don't think everyone from New York and San Francisco can just up and move to bootheel Missouri. Three quarters of the U.S. population live in urban areas, so I do not think having a mass exodus from urban areas is going to solve economic issues for the middle class as a whole. Many of us have to live where the jobs or clients are for our lines of work. If you do not think middle class families in urban areas making 60K a year deserve any subsidies then that is your choice. But these numbers help explain why Obama is very popular with urban voters.
awakenedsoul
11-17-12, 8:00pm
Do you think many people in the Bay Area in their fifties are renting? I'm just curious...I grew up in San Mateo, and my aunt lived in West Portal, San Francisco. When I think of that location, I think of people with a lot more money. Family money, higher incomes, and real estate. Homes in that area are so much more expensive than where I live now. There's also (from my experience) a higher spending habit among families there. My brother and his wife have their two boys in private school. (It costs $24,000. a year for a two year old and a five year old.) My brother plays adult soccer and his wife takes swimming lessons. Their two sons also play soccer. They have an underwater mortgate and cc debt. I'm not saying this to be mean, but I just think they could make wiser choices. I feel like they are trying to keep up with the wealthy couples, and it's killing them. They bought a small home that's cute, but it cost them $790,000.!
When I get frustrated with my neighborhood, I add up how low my expenses are, especially for Southern California. It makes me appreciate what I have. If I had to, I could live on $1,000. a month. (Including buying catastrophic health insurance.) But, in reality, I spend about $20,000. a year. I've spent about the same amount since 1983. I think we kind of get in a groove with spending. Many people aren't conscious of how much they spend. Suze Orman says that most people underestimate their monthly expenses by at least $500. a month. That rings true to me.
try2bfrugal
11-17-12, 8:19pm
Do you think many people in the Bay Area in their fifties are renting?
I put in renting because Spartana had issue with the 400K house mortgage, even though that is the median home price in the Bay Area. Either way it is expensive and there isn't much left over after you pay for housing, SS taxes and health and dental expenses for four people on a 60K income. Unless you have a paid for house, mortgage payments on 80% of 400K + insurance + property taxes + home repairs are going to be about the same cost as renting, if not more.
On an individual level a family could move to a lower cost of living area to better afford health care on their own, but on a macro level Obama is not going to solve the economic squeeze on the middle class and a lack of affordable health insurance by telling families to move en masse out of New York, Chicago and San Francisco.
try2bfrugal
11-17-12, 8:32pm
When I get frustrated with my neighborhood, I add up how low my expenses are, especially for Southern California. It makes me appreciate what I have. If I had to, I could live on $1,000. a month.
If you were an accountant with two kids, could you live where you do and commute to a major job market and send your kids to decent, safe public schools? And if you were a family of 4 multiply your current living sq footage X 4? Then how much would housing cost you?
I put in renting because Spartana had issue with the 400K house mortgage, even though that is the median home price in the Bay Area. Either way it is expensive and there isn't much left over after you pay for housing, SS taxes and health and dental expenses for four people on a 60K income. Unless you have a paid for house, mortgage payments on 80% of 400K + insurance + property taxes + home repairs are going to be about the same cost as renting if not more.
I didn't have a problem with the $400K figure for a house - I actually think that is low for that area. My point was that a family shouldn't buy a house in the first place if they couldn't afford the basic cost of providing healthcare for their family - especially if they earned close to $92K/year. I think even $60K is a middle income - maybe lower-middle income in the Bay area.
Again, it's just a difference of perceptions we have. I personally feel a family of 4 can live a comfortable on $60K - and certainly on $92K - pretty much anywhere in the USA. They might have to give up many things they want in life - like owning a house in the city - and instead rent a small apt far outside the city and comute (what all those folks in the LA metro area do who can't afford housing) or put off saving for the kids education or vacations or funding retirement plans until their incomes increased or they could get that bigger downpayment for the house. But again, it comes doesn't to priorities. To me, I can't even phanthom someone with an income of $92K and a modest lifestyle, not being able to live comfortably in the Bay area - or just outside the Bay area. I lived in Novato in Marin county and many people I worked with lived far out towards Vallejo, American City, Fairfield, etc... and comuted in if they wanted to buy a house. The rest bought tiny condos or rented apts. But I do understand the points you are making Try2bfrugal - ggod points - it's just that I see it differently. But then I'm a cheapskape minimalist so may be highly delusional about the financial for others.
Will the one-size-fits-all federal program recognize that in SF you pay $24000K annually for housing and in bootheel Missouri you pay $2400K annually?
Related to the Cost of Living on the coasts: I made a choice to stay in the midwest when I was in my 20's because I wanted to own my own house before I was 30. I would have loved moving to expensive cities! I remember specifically interviewing in Chicago suburbs, Eugene Oregon and poduck Iowa and guess where the real estate was better priced?
That was a choice of where to live. Sometimes people can exercise a choice. Sometimes people don't recognize a choice when it is just that.
OK, just to set the record straight, housing in the boot-heel, or anywhere else in Mo is not just $200 a month! Even a seedy apt would cost more than that! I know you are just trying to make a point, Iris, but I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. We are considered the 'fly-over' part of the country as it is,...not worthy of consideration. But Stuff in St. Louis can be quite expensive as well. This really isn't the hillbilly state with ramshackle shacks, and a goat in every garage.
Personally I agree with Spartana. We should just get on to universal health care and be done with it. Maybe now that Obamacare is the law of the land, we can look towards that, which by the way the President and democrats in congress were all about at first until they realized, quite early, that it wouldn't fly with republicans.
try2bfrugal
11-17-12, 9:31pm
Again, it's just a difference of perceptions we have. I personally feel a family of 4 can live a comfortable on $60K - and certainly on $92K - pretty much anywhere in the USA.
If you want to post a hypothetical 60K budget for a family of 4 on how you would do it that would be great or you can adjust the numbers I posted on how it could be done.
iris lily
11-17-12, 9:37pm
OK, just to set the record straight, housing in the boot-heel, or anywhere else in Mo is not just $200 a month! Even a seedy apt would cost more than that! I know you are just trying to make a point, Iris, but I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. We are considered the 'fly-over' part of the country as it is,...not worthy of consideration. But Stuff in St. Louis can be quite expensive as well. This really isn't the hillbilly state with ramshackle shacks, and a goat in every garage.
Personally I agree with Spartana. We should just get on to universal health care and be done with it. Maybe now that Obamacare is the law of the land, we can look towards that, which by the way the President and democrats in congress were all about at first until they realized, quite early, that it wouldn't fly with republicans.
oh, ok.:)
ToomuchStuff
11-18-12, 2:41am
OK, just to set the record straight, housing in the boot-heel, or anywhere else in Mo is not just $200 a month! Even a seedy apt would cost more than that! I know you are just trying to make a point, Iris, but I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. We are considered the 'fly-over' part of the country as it is,...not worthy of consideration. But Stuff in St. Louis can be quite expensive as well. This really isn't the hillbilly state with ramshackle shacks, and a goat in every garage.
Uh, ok.
Granted, when I bought, it was an unusual situation. (sub $200 mortgage payment)
But after talking to a gal I am currently working with, I learned a lot and was tempted to house shop. A house that was tax appraised closer to what the value would have been in 2008, an accepted offer of $50k was put in, when they had just dropped it to $80k from over $100k. My street is ALL over the place. Foreclosed house (one owner died, the other went in a nursing home) was owed $77k and sold last month for $16K. I looked at a house my coworker didn't like (smaller rooms, fair size lot, nice size garage for workshop) and they were asking $42 in an area where the homes are older and in the $80K range normally. I considered putting in an offer of about half and selling the big truck, using a bit of savings, and having a $5k mortgage for less then two years.
It would have cost me more to rent. I once had someone ask about me renting a room to them, but even though I could/would have profited by a roommate, I prefer not to deal with others (never had a roommate situation).
Not even going to mention problem area's like Detroit, etc. I think you were talking out your :moon: without facts.
ApatheticNoMore
11-18-12, 3:09am
That's what I think as well. 2000k in rent a month (for a family, not for a studio for a single person or even a shared apartment for DINKS), it's the having kids and thus wanting a house that makes it unaffordable. Probably to buy the place would be 3000k a month. Then I imagine there being a heavy heavy tax bite off the income, but maybe that's not true. A family might not pay much taxes, maybe it's mostly just payroll taxes for them. All I know is that as a single person, the taxes you pay (20-25% of gross at least), it makes the gross a hard figure to even deal with intellectually, since it's so vastly inflated from anything you will ever see. Of course then I go around deducting for medical plans, and 401k (always at least 10%), and FSA, and vision, and I wonder why I see less than 60% of my gross when the actual check comes.
try2bfrugal
11-18-12, 4:09am
That's what I think as well. 2000k in rent a month (for a family, not for a studio for a single person or even a shared apartment for DINKS), it's the having kids and thus wanting a house that makes it unaffordable.
"San Francisco is the most expensive metropolitan area in the country for renters, according to a recent report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition (http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=realestate&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22National+Low+Income+Housing+Coalition%22) , which compared rents to wages. The going rate for a two-bedroom apartment in the counties of San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo requires a $76,200 annual income, the report said. By contrast, the New York metropolitan area, which includes eight counties, requires a $56,950 annual salary."
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Rental-competition-fierce-in-S-F-s-market-3543722.php
I am sure 60 - 92K is a really good income in many parts of the country, but it doesn't buy a country club life in the more expensive cities where a lot of the tech jobs are located. Health care subsidies will really help out middle class family budgets in places like New York and San Francisco.
Uh, ok.
Granted, when I bought, it was an unusual situation. (sub $200 mortgage payment)
But after talking to a gal I am currently working with, I learned a lot and was tempted to house shop. A house that was tax appraised closer to what the value would have been in 2008, an accepted offer of $50k was put in, when they had just dropped it to $80k from over $100k. My street is ALL over the place. Foreclosed house (one owner died, the other went in a nursing home) was owed $77k and sold last month for $16K. I looked at a house my coworker didn't like (smaller rooms, fair size lot, nice size garage for workshop) and they were asking $42 in an area where the homes are older and in the $80K range normally. I considered putting in an offer of about half and selling the big truck, using a bit of savings, and having a $5k mortgage for less then two years.
It would have cost me more to rent. I once had someone ask about me renting a room to them, but even though I could/would have profited by a roommate, I prefer not to deal with others (never had a roommate situation).
Not even going to mention problem area's like Detroit, etc. I think you were talking out your :moon: without facts.
UH, Detroit isn't in Mo, first of all, so i don't know exactly how that fits in, and, well, I don't mean to sound harsh, but I don't think I would want to live in a neighborhood where the houses are only 16,000. Where, exactly are you finding all these 'great' deals on houses? What part of the state?
ToomuchStuff
11-18-12, 11:45am
UH, Detroit isn't in Mo, first of all, so i don't know exactly how that fits in, and, well, I don't mean to sound harsh, but I don't think I would want to live in a neighborhood where the houses are only 16,000. Where, exactly are you finding all these 'great' deals on houses? What part of the state?
Home of Harry Truman, bordering on KC.
No kidding Detroit isn't in MO. That point being it isn't just this state. Houses around here are getting close to 50's prices in some cases (not all), so it can be done.
awakenedsoul
11-18-12, 1:14pm
If you were an accountant with two kids, could you live where you do and commute to a major job market and send your kids to decent, safe public schools? And if you were a family of 4 multiply your current living sq footage X 4? Then how much would housing cost you?
try2bfrugal,
I just have a different approach than you do. I'm not trying to argue. I wouldn't have kids on my income, it's too low. There are several families in my neighborhood who have children and live in tiny homes like mine. (One bedroom, one bathrooms.) I wouldn't want to do that. I did live in NYC when I was auditioning and dancing professionally. That's where the work was. I shared a one bedroom with two other girls. One of us was always on the road at the time. We were gypsies. We had to make it work, and it was temporary. I moved to Queens where I could afford a two bedroom and I commuted by subway to work. My roommate got married and now has twins. She left NY because the cost of living is so high. She now lives in Pittsburgh. (She was a director/choreographer for the Rockettes.)
The accountant I used for twenty years lives in Reno, NV. I did my taxes with him by phone each year. He has many other long distaance customers from the same period when we all worked at MGM Reno together. Now I use VITA to save money. They do my taxes at AARP for free.
Our school district is considered very good, from what I hear. Also, if I were to buy a home, I would probably buy a foreclosure or short sale. The home across the street from me just sold at auction for $250,000. It's got two kitchens, three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a pool. Home prices around here are very low right now, because of all the foreclosures and short sales.
Home of Harry Truman, bordering on KC.
No kidding Detroit isn't in MO. That point being it isn't just this state. Houses around here are getting close to 50's prices in some cases (not all), so it can be done.
Independence may have some deals, but it's a small town, and not really practical for commuting to KC. But, granted, if you want to, and can live and work there, maybe you can find a deal. But, there is a reason the prices are so low.
We can't always find a job where the home prices are low and in fact, often that is why the prices are low. More often than not, you have to go where the jobs are and then consider housing, working with the average prices in that area. Sure, throughout the state, there are deals to be had, but that isn't really reflective of the general state of home prices in the state.
This is actually often my gripe when I see people stuck, as it were, in a depressed area, complaining about the lack of jobs or opportunity. Move for heavens sakes. This is a free country and everyone has that opportunity, or can create that opportunity. Sure it's hard, and you might have to move more than an hour or two from your parents/family/home town, but you do what you have to do. Although I'm sure I don't need to repeat my feelings about having a safety net, from observable experience, I do believe a great deal of poverty/lack of opportunity/dependency (on state, church,etc..) is due to poor choices. Victim-hood is often brought upon one self. And perpetuated by the notion that 'we simply can't move away from hometown America so we'll sit here on welfare and food stamps and wait for the Hostess factory to open up again.'
OK, I'm kind of off subject now. Sorry.;) Every state, California and NY included, have 'deals' but they certainly aren't the norm.
iris lily
11-18-12, 3:13pm
...This is actually often my gripe when I see people stuck, as it were, in a depressed area, complaining about the lack of jobs or opportunity. Move for heavens sakes. This is a free country and everyone has that opportunity, or can create that opportunity. Sure it's hard, and you might have to move more than an hour or two from your parents/family/home town, but you do what you have to do. Although I'm sure I don't need to repeat my feelings about having a safety net, from observable experience, I do believe a great deal of poverty/lack of opportunity/dependency (on state, church,etc..) is due to poor choices. Victim-hood is often brought upon one self. And perpetuated by the notion that 'we simply can't move away from hometown America so we'll sit here on welfare and food stamps and wait for the Hostess factory to open up again...
Alan I completely agree. It's the peggys of the world don't get it, the great opportunities STILL in this country.
Wait------peggy? Peggy!!!!??????:)
Alan I completely agree. It's the peggys of the world don't get it, the great opportunities STILL in this country.
Wait------peggy? Peggy!!!!??????:)
Obviously an alien has taken over Peggy's body or someone else is posting on her account.
Holy carp! That coming out of Peggy? OMG...
Kinda confused, I don't need welfare but I am also not going to move for some fantasy job that would pay mega more money. And putting money for retirement is a hard call with healthcare, without healthcare I may not live for retirement but I am pretty darn sure that there will be another group of people standing there when I neede retirement help shouting at me that I shoulda made better choices as well.
Pretty much makes me prefer talking to my mother, at least I am only responsible for how bad my house is and what my kids do and that I work and a few other things like needing to sleep a few hours instead of working 24-7 on said messy house and correcting my big kids.
Alan I completely agree. It's the peggys of the world don't get it, the great opportunities STILL in this country.
Wait------peggy? Peggy!!!!??????:):idea: By jove, I think she's got it!!
try2bfrugal
11-18-12, 6:11pm
But, in reality, I spend about $20,000. a year.
Spending 20K per person per year X 4 people = 80K annual expenses in after tax money. At just 20% in taxes (SS, federal and state) that would require a 100K gross income for a family of four.
A working couple with two kids working 60 hours each with commutes, homework, doctors appointments, band practice and soccer games aren't going to have time to do so much DIY stuff. And if I remember right you inherited money to help pay cash for your house? That is not something most middle class families can count on. They are going to have to pay for housing as a part of their annual expenses, plus save for college and retirement.
You people are so funny, and so predictable! Of course you haven't actually read anything I've posted over the last few years cause then you would know that I have been consistent in my opinion. You have only imagined what I 'meant' by my postings. I have never been for apple pie and motherhood only to reject it because the opposition is for it. What do you think I am? A Republican?:0!
I AM for personal responsibility, always have been. I also believe a good number of problems are created by bad choices. Of spouse, or lack there of, of education, of location, etc...these are personal choices that have screwed up many lives. But I have also said that many problems are not of our choosing but just bad luck, health problems, personal tragedy, weather acts of god, etc...
The point is, democrats aren't stupid. We see, and we know this. We just refuse to make the distinction as you are standing in the bread line. Sure, that single woman probably shouldn't have had 5 kids from 5 different fathers, but the fact is, out of that family of 6 on welfare/food stamps, 5 of them are in a situation beyond their control. This is a compassionate nation, or at least that is the meme we present to the world. And the fact is, we are, but it is largely through democratic efforts.
My comments about moving are consistent with what I have always posted here. It is frustrating to see young people refuse to do what is necessary to succeed in this society, especially if it only involves moving to where the jobs are. A no brainer in my opinion.
What does this have to do with Obamacare? Well, personal responsibility is what Obamacare is about. (that thing republicans were for, before they were against it) Democrats are for personal responsibility. They really don't want a welfare state. We want everyone to have the opportunity to succeed, whatever medical roadblocks life throws at you. We want individuals to strike out on their own and start a business if they want. We want people to plan for their future, including their retirement, without it being completely destroyed by a catastrophic illness, or car accident, or child born with health issues. And we want everyone who can to pay into this pool to do so, cause we realize the practically/power of a large group paying into a program.
And, most importantly, we pay into this system gladly while saying we hope we never ever need to use it! Maybe that's the difference between republicans and democrats. Maybe Republicans simply can't bring themselves to pay into anything that doesn't bring them direct profit/benefit. And they don't see a modern, progressive, educated, healthy country as a benefit.
awakenedsoul
11-18-12, 10:02pm
Spending 20K per person per year X 4 people = 80K annual expenses in after tax money. At just 20% in taxes (SS, federal and state) that would require a 100K gross income for a family of four.
A working couple with two kids working 60 hours each with commutes, homework, doctors appointments, band practice and soccer games aren't going to have time to do so much DIY stuff. And if I remember right you inherited money to help pay cash for your house? That is not something most middle class families can count on. They are going to have to pay for housing as a part of their annual expenses, plus save for college and retirement.
I feel real estate in the Bay Area is overpriced. I would have chosen to have one child on your combined income. (Or no children.) I have dropped my lessons in this economy because I want to save money. If I had children and money was tight, I wouldn't consider band practice and soccer to be needs. There are scholarships available for college. I had to pay for my own dance classes growing up and received a few scholarships that helped me greatly. I also wouldn't spend $20,000. a year on each child. I have a different definition of needs than you do. I also would move to a cheaper location if I felt it was the solution to making a living and having my expenses be affordable. I moved 15 times to follow the work during my dance career. I enjoyed it.
You have a combined salary, which is also a plus. You and I have very different viewpoints. I am fortunate that I came from a family that was frugal and had inherited money. My father spent only the interest on that money. I have followed his example. If I had children, I would still live this way, so that I would have something to pass on to them.
iris lily
11-18-12, 10:36pm
Kinda confused, I don't need welfare but I am also not going to move for some fantasy job that would pay mega more money.
You can't move because your minor children need to be near their father. But in a few years: you mean you wouldn't move for a job that would pay mega more money? Or you wouldn't move for a fantasy job (that you think doesn't exist?) I don't' understand what you mean.
try2bfrugal
11-18-12, 11:00pm
I feel real estate in the Bay Area is overpriced. I would have chosen to have one child on your combined income. (Or no children.) I have dropped my lessons in this economy because I want to save money. If I had children and money was tight, I wouldn't consider band practice and soccer to be needs. There are scholarships available for college. I had to pay for my own dance classes growing up and received a few scholarships that helped me greatly. I also wouldn't spend $20,000. a year on each child. I have a different definition of needs than you do. I also would move to a cheaper location if I felt it was the solution to making a living and having my expenses be affordable. I moved 15 times to follow the work during my dance career. I enjoyed it.
You have a combined salary, which is also a plus. You and I have very different viewpoints. I am fortunate that I came from a family that was frugal and had inherited money. My father spent only the interest on that money. I have followed his example. If I had children, I would still live this way, so that I would have something to pass on to them.
I'm just saying you are spending more per person with your life as it is, with a paid for mortgage and an inheritance for retirement savings and time to grow your own food, than a 60 - 100K income 4 person family would need to spend per person to get by on an equivalent lifestyle plus pay for housing, college and save for retirement, major expenses which are not included in your budget.
I have never said what my income is. I'm just hoping to get people to see that 60 - 90K is not a lavish lifestyle in an urban area with a family of 4. I would like Obamacare to be judged for what it is - a program to help middle class families who have been losing real income these past years. 60K does not fund a lavish lifestyle in most urban areas. This isn't a program designed to give tax subsidies for the ultra wealthy.
And if the Affordable Care act is designed out help middle class families, then these are the kind of families that can use a little help. For a family with a member with cancer or diabetes or autism, they could easily max out their out of pocket max for the year and spend 20 - 30K currently on health care alone between deductibles, co-pays and premiums. With the affordable care act, that could go down to 11K a year plus dental and vision. It is still a lot of money to pay after taxes, housing, and college and retirement savings, but it is a better situation than before. Our health care costs will be close to 15K this year, and we are still covered under COBRA for dental and vision and have no major diseases that require ongoing care.
In San Francisco, a family of four making less than 75K a year qualifies for low income housing (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-voice-for-affordable-housing-for-middle-class-3265202.php).
Zoe Girl
11-18-12, 11:13pm
Hmm, I can see something totally off topic or at least teetering on the edge. Some of the very responsible people, and if that is me then there have got to be others, struggle with this because we are waiting for someone to say that yes, we did work hard enough. Or our poor choices weren't that bad (I chose to have children and raise them responsibly, not take drugs). That maybe it is okay to do our best to work hard and not move away from family and comfort zone. Maybe to say there is a value to being down the street or in the same town when grandma needs help instead of across the country so you can earn money but not value other things. I don't know, i do know that I am taking this personally. There is not a person i know who either is unemployed or underemployed who has not had a huge emotional hit, a huge blow to the basic self confidence you get from just surviving, that hasn't had the rest of their family suffer such as kids getting low grades, getting into trouble more, So this is supposed to be political but it is so personal to me. and to others.
Here in the simple living world we get a little strange. We are really awesome in some ways. It is nice to be here when I am excited that I didn't buy lunch for work for a month or when I have no clue what is happening in the world because i avoid TV. Other times I think we forget that one of the reason many of us live in a simple way is for relationships and family. There is no guarantee that those relationships and family will value the same simple living tenets as we do, but we value them anyway.
Here's my take on it, ZoeG.
First, in terms of jobs themselves, I truly believe that people have "callings." Some of us are called to occupations that will be high-paying. Others of us are not. When I was "just a yoga teacher" -- my job was not high-paying. I would have to work to the bone to earn enough to cover expenses, which would not have allowed me to have a child (assuming DH didn't work or what have you). When I went into business for myself (as I am now), I have a lot more opportunity to earn more income over time, and as such, the occupation is much higher paying. But it requires more of me than "just teaching yoga" did -- managing a business is a completely different skill set.
And honestly, not everyone is up for it.
A friend of mine works as a nurses assistant. She's been doing it for 25 years. She loves it. She's lived simply all of these years, and has never made much above minimum wage. She met her "job description's income cap" about 5 years in, and the only way she can get more money is to get an RN (which she has and they paid for, so she did try it), and then move into higher positions until she's in management and administration. Except that, her heart's work is working directly with clients in the NA roll, not in an RN roll, and definitely NOT in management. As such, she is inhibited by the arbitrary determinations of what a job should be paid, not her level of talent in that role or seniority besides.
One might say: she should be an RN, then! or, they might say, she should move, where she might have a place with a different pay scale. Or, they might say that she should live way more frugally. I don't know. But the reality is that she's doing her heart's work, and I can't fault her for that. She hasn't moved because the place is a long-term care facility that not only cares for the aged, but for children who are severely disabled as well as some younger people besides. These people are a part of her heart, so going elsewhere for more money is no different than leaving family in her own mind.
And, as I say, I can't fault her.
I think though, the difficulty for people comes in when others complain about what they earn. And, I'm not saying you do. I say that you *inform* about what you earn and the difficulties of it. That is like my friend, she doesn't complain. She understands that unless she makes different choices (doing work she doesn't want to, or moving away, or what have you), this is what her pay is going to be -- whatever the struggle of that.
But I have another friend who does complain.
She lives close to family in HI. It's an expensive place. I can't fault her for wanting to be near family and have a certain lifestyle that goes with that. But there is *no work* in her town for what she and her husband want to do. So, they both take on menial jobs to make ends meet -- because that's what's available. They usually do seasonal, menial work.
But, if they just moved across the island (which is not that far) to the larger city, they would be able to get jobs in their fields. In fact, BOTH OF THEM turned down high-paying, professional jobs in their fields in the city because they "didn't want to leave family." Family was not sick or aged -- they just wanted to be in the same neighborhood as their parents and brothers and sisters and everyone.
On the one hand, I can't fault them for the lifestyle choice. But on the other hand, stop complaining about not being able to "find" work. In all truth, if they COMMUTED to work, it would be 1.5 hrs each way (which both of them could do together even), and there's so much family around to watch the kids after school, that there's really NO EFFING REASON to turn down really good jobs in yoru field earning good wages with health insurance just because either A. you don't want to move 1.5 hrs away or B. you don't want to commute 3 hrs a day.
If you make that choice, then say "this is the choice I made, and until jobs in my field suddenly blossom in my home town, I accept that I am working menial jobs and not making the money that I would like" -- do not complain that the jobs dont' exist in your rinky-dink town (and, after all, they never did. you just came home from uni expecting a job to be in that field in your home town when there is no work of that sort in your home town?).
So for me, listing to her bitch about how crappy her life is and how hard it is to find a job and blah blah blah makes me want to wrench my own hair out! She's made a CHOICE and so has her husband, but they are blaming everyone but themselves for that choice. They blame the economy, where their families choose to live, the great purple whale for all I know!
I finally just suggested that she not talk to me about it. I moved away form everyone for an opportunity -- and it's working out nicely. Yes, I lost a lot in the move, but I gained a lot too, and it's all good in the end IMO. But I don't complain about my kid not being around my parents or wahtever. I will inform that such is the case "oh, why can't he stay with his grandparents while you come out and party with us?" Oh, because his grandparents live on the other side of the planet. That's it, really, it's no complaint! It's a choice that I made, and that choice -- like all of them -- has consequences.
One consequence -- often -- of following passions is that you might not get paid as much. No big deal, if you accept that's the case. It's ok to accept it -- lots of people do! And, it's also ok to say "you know what, I no longer accept this, so I'm going to find other work." That's ok too. It's all choices.
Just don't bitch about the choices as if you didn't make them. I think that's the point. :)
(and, i'm not saying that you are bitching about your choices ZG, just that, you know, I think that's what peggy's getting at).
ApatheticNoMore
11-19-12, 3:09am
One consequence -- often -- of following passions is that you might not get paid as much. No big deal, if you accept that's the case. It's ok to accept it -- lots of people do!
do what you hate and the money will follow. A job that has some intrinsic reward probably doesn't have high pay, but if OTOH you're counting the minutes till lunch, till end of day, till end of week, till retirement, find you job pointless in the scheme of things, and live in dread of Mondays ... you might be earning a good income.
Well, there's certain security in it. My husband worked a desk job for many years which provided us many things. It didn't pay great, but it paid enough. Still, he didn't care for it.
And, I do what I love -- and it has intrinsic value imo -- and it isn't earning us a lot right now, but it will as we grow. That's the plan -- to grow. It certainly has the potential to earn us far more than DH earned, and it's currently earning us nearly what he earned when he left his job after 10 years (we've been at it nearly three here), and that's pretty decent.
Here's my take on it, ZoeG.
First, in terms of jobs themselves, I truly believe that people have "callings." Some of us are called to occupations that will be high-paying. Others of us are not. When I was "just a yoga teacher" -- my job was not high-paying. I would have to work to the bone to earn enough to cover expenses, which would not have allowed me to have a child (assuming DH didn't work or what have you). When I went into business for myself (as I am now), I have a lot more opportunity to earn more income over time, and as such, the occupation is much higher paying. But it requires more of me than "just teaching yoga" did -- managing a business is a completely different skill set.
And honestly, not everyone is up for it.
A friend of mine works as a nurses assistant. She's been doing it for 25 years. She loves it. She's lived simply all of these years, and has never made much above minimum wage. She met her "job description's income cap" about 5 years in, and the only way she can get more money is to get an RN (which she has and they paid for, so she did try it), and then move into higher positions until she's in management and administration. Except that, her heart's work is working directly with clients in the NA roll, not in an RN roll, and definitely NOT in management. As such, she is inhibited by the arbitrary determinations of what a job should be paid, not her level of talent in that role or seniority besides.
One might say: she should be an RN, then! or, they might say, she should move, where she might have a place with a different pay scale. Or, they might say that she should live way more frugally. I don't know. But the reality is that she's doing her heart's work, and I can't fault her for that. She hasn't moved because the place is a long-term care facility that not only cares for the aged, but for children who are severely disabled as well as some younger people besides. These people are a part of her heart, so going elsewhere for more money is no different than leaving family in her own mind.
And, as I say, I can't fault her.
I think though, the difficulty for people comes in when others complain about what they earn. And, I'm not saying you do. I say that you *inform* about what you earn and the difficulties of it. That is like my friend, she doesn't complain. She understands that unless she makes different choices (doing work she doesn't want to, or moving away, or what have you), this is what her pay is going to be -- whatever the struggle of that.
But I have another friend who does complain.
She lives close to family in HI. It's an expensive place. I can't fault her for wanting to be near family and have a certain lifestyle that goes with that. But there is *no work* in her town for what she and her husband want to do. So, they both take on menial jobs to make ends meet -- because that's what's available. They usually do seasonal, menial work.
But, if they just moved across the island (which is not that far) to the larger city, they would be able to get jobs in their fields. In fact, BOTH OF THEM turned down high-paying, professional jobs in their fields in the city because they "didn't want to leave family." Family was not sick or aged -- they just wanted to be in the same neighborhood as their parents and brothers and sisters and everyone.
On the one hand, I can't fault them for the lifestyle choice. But on the other hand, stop complaining about not being able to "find" work. In all truth, if they COMMUTED to work, it would be 1.5 hrs each way (which both of them could do together even), and there's so much family around to watch the kids after school, that there's really NO EFFING REASON to turn down really good jobs in yoru field earning good wages with health insurance just because either A. you don't want to move 1.5 hrs away or B. you don't want to commute 3 hrs a day.
If you make that choice, then say "this is the choice I made, and until jobs in my field suddenly blossom in my home town, I accept that I am working menial jobs and not making the money that I would like" -- do not complain that the jobs dont' exist in your rinky-dink town (and, after all, they never did. you just came home from uni expecting a job to be in that field in your home town when there is no work of that sort in your home town?).
So for me, listing to her bitch about how crappy her life is and how hard it is to find a job and blah blah blah makes me want to wrench my own hair out! She's made a CHOICE and so has her husband, but they are blaming everyone but themselves for that choice. They blame the economy, where their families choose to live, the great purple whale for all I know!
I finally just suggested that she not talk to me about it. I moved away form everyone for an opportunity -- and it's working out nicely. Yes, I lost a lot in the move, but I gained a lot too, and it's all good in the end IMO. But I don't complain about my kid not being around my parents or wahtever. I will inform that such is the case "oh, why can't he stay with his grandparents while you come out and party with us?" Oh, because his grandparents live on the other side of the planet. That's it, really, it's no complaint! It's a choice that I made, and that choice -- like all of them -- has consequences.
One consequence -- often -- of following passions is that you might not get paid as much. No big deal, if you accept that's the case. It's ok to accept it -- lots of people do! And, it's also ok to say "you know what, I no longer accept this, so I'm going to find other work." That's ok too. It's all choices.
Just don't bitch about the choices as if you didn't make them. I think that's the point. :)
(and, i'm not saying that you are bitching about your choices ZG, just that, you know, I think that's what peggy's getting at).
Exactly! That's exactly what I'm talking about. You put it perfectly! I'm not deriding anyone's choice, as long as they own the choice. I'm really talking about the folks like Zoebird mentions. They refuse to do what they need to do to find the happy circumstance they want. Sure, the economy may be bad, but what they won't admit is, the economy has always been tight in a small town/area, and some simply won't support what you want/need to do no matter what! If you're happy doing little bits of business and get by, then great! We always talk here about getting by on as little as we can, but I've always seen it as more a celebration than a complaint. Trying to stay where you are, and finding ways to do that, celebrating every little victory, is very different than sitting in a cold room complaining about your poor circumstance. And as Zoe says, blaming the world.
One of the hardest things I ever had to do was to take my 18 year old son to university in another country, then leave. It just about tore me up. But we had always encouraged him to follow the path he felt necessary to achieve what he wanted to achieve, and I have always been very proud of him for doing that very brave thing.
Just as I'm sure Zoebirds folks are proud of her for following her path to success. I'm sure it was scary for her, and them, but she did it. So I don't see moving an hour or two, or 5 away as that big a deal.
Please don't take this personally Zoe Girl. You say you are happy where you are. Great! We aren't talking about you, then. This isn't really about getting more and more. It's about getting enough. And taking responsibility for getting enough.
And we happen to believe Obamacare allows people to take responsibility for getting enough, especially if they want to stay in their small town/where ever. Getting by, happily, on very little, and planning for your future can be totally derailed by a catastrophic illness/accident, which is largely beyond your control.
Yeah Obamacare!
Next up, universal health care.
Zoe Girl
11-19-12, 10:02am
Zoe bird, I think I get it. I mean I get super frustrated because I trained for something and didn't get a job directly in it. I saw how much it affected my kids to move about 45 minutes from our old home with the foreclosure and decided to stay here until my son finishes high school. The kids were all in really bad shape longer than I expected. I am sure a couple years ago I may have gotten a job teaching if I moved out of state, but now who knows. I am working in my field to some extent and working on learning Spanish. That is the best I can do. I do many days love what I do, and I see how much I learn and work through frustrations. I know what I do is valuable, but I struggle moving up into more adminsitration with close to a living wage and getting away from the children directly. I will take those opportunities for sure, but I am looking for little ways to keep in contact with the kids.
Bottom line is that over what has happened the last few years I have lost hope. I think some of the choices people are making are based on how unrealistic things have been for so long, the media, plans based on when the economy was overblown, and then the reality that not many want to beleive. I just let my family say that I didn't really want a teaching job or that something happened with my kids to make it difficult, rather than explaining that although I am not perrfect I really did my best for 5 years to get a job.
ToomuchStuff
11-19-12, 10:34am
Independence may have some deals, but it's a small town, and not really practical for commuting to KC. But, granted, if you want to, and can live and work there, maybe you can find a deal. But, there is a reason the prices are so low.
We can't always find a job where the home prices are low and in fact, often that is why the prices are low.
I only have to walk a block to ride the bus into KC. At most points I am at in Independence (sits NEXT TO KC) I am within a mile of the KC city limits. I guess that is too far to be practical for you. No we can't always find a home price that low, but you stupidly said it couldn't be done at all, EVER. Your making yourself look like an idiot. I guess two cities (it isn't a town) that intertwine is a concept you have never seen. Amazing since I would think ST Louis would be similar with some of its suburbs.:laff:
It's not that we ever held money up as the ultimate goal, but I personally think I did my kids a disservice by ever telling them anything except find what you love, do it with conviction and to hell with the rest. Ahhhh, hindsight...
Gregg, i keep reading that sentence (it's early here), and I'm not sure how it reads:
I did a disservice to my kids to tell them to do what they love and not worry about money; or
I did a disservice to my kids by telling them not to do what they love and try to make money; or
a combination thereof? :)
I try to tell my son that, realistically, he can find a way. It's important to have work that you love, but that might not coincide with the lifestyle that you want. If you want a different lifestyle, then you have to find a way for the work that you love to achieve that or do work that you do not love (or simpy like, or love less or whatever) to earn the income that you require to make the living that you desire (to create that lifestyle).
To look at my own field, there are several routes to wealth. Probably the easiest in terms of having a 'steady' lifestyle (without having to travel for work) is to own a studio. One well-run studio with a couple of teachers (less than 10) can actually create something really great: about $250k income for the owner per annum. This is a 25-30 classes/wk schedule with some workshops and other income. Studios that run at about 1-3 teachers and run about 15 classes per week earn about $45-50k per annum for their owners.
Studios that run at either size and run 'average' teacher trainings training roughly 20 teachers at a time (usually 2-3 times a year) can bring in an additional $90k in revenue from a single, full teacher training (it's big business these days).
And independent yoga teacher who doesn't own a studio needs to work an average of 25 classes per week in order to earn around $35-40k per annum after expenses. Some teachers do not want to own studios -- and I understand that. This process can allow them a simple income that will work for a single person
But, people also might put on artificial limits. One teacher here won't teach more than 7 classes and won't teach more than 12 people at a time and won't . . . right? Which means income is limited even if she has the highest prices in the city. That drastically inhibits income, you know? So, when she complains about "not making a living as a yoga teacher" it's really her own ideas about what a "max" for a yoga teacher is that inhibits her ability to earn.
I have limits, too, though so it's understandable to have some limits. But knowing those limits means also choosing other courses of action when those limits inhibit your ability to make the living that you want. So, start a business where you can hire others or some such, and make more income, or work a part time/full time gig of some other kind, or what not. There are lots of options, honestly.
And, you might not always get things *exactly* as you want, but you can make good progress to go the way that you want to go by thinking creatively or making peace with decisions that you make either way.
My husband says he's very much at peace with the decision to have worked for so long as he did -- though at the time he had bouts of really struggling with it. Now, he has made peace with the fact that he has to work the business with me (for now), and that he gets less time for his own projects (an average of 6 hrs a week on that). But, he's made peace with that, and notes that his life is *very very good* because he gets to do a lot of dad-son stuff as well as his own projects, gym, taking care of himself, and I do the "lions share" of the work at the office and a fair amount at home (mostly washing the bathroom and tidying, while he does laundry and maintains the kitchen and cooks).
I'm lucky that I do work that I love, but we also knew coming over to start this business that 1. It wouldn't be producing the income that we were accustomed to in the states at first, and 2. it was a big gamble. But, the gamble is paying off as we head into the first quarter anyway, and I feel really good about it.
awakenedsoul
11-19-12, 9:55pm
Sounds like you are "in the flow" Zoebird. It's wonderful when your work is rewarding and you are using your talents. Your income is tremendous!
When I was dancing in my first show, at MGM Reno, NV I told a friend, "I really want to dance with the Rockettes and do Broadway shows." (I was nineteen at the time. We were making $440. a week, and I was in heaven!) "Well, you're not going to do that here," he answered. I saved up $6,000. that year and headed to San Franscisco to audition for my first touring Broadway show. I got the job. It was hard to leave my friends and the security of MGM, but I just had to see if I could do it.
When I lived in Santa Fe, NM, I got discouraged because I couldn't afford to pay rent for my guesthouse there, plus pay for hotels on tour. I talked with a dancer friend in NY. "Well, you're not stuck there," he told me. "Maybe LA..." I flew to Vegas for an audition and landed it. I packed up and moved. At the end of the contract I moved to LA.
Oprah says that struggle means you're off track. I know it's hard to hear that, but when I was at my lowest, it rang true for me. I've also learned to let go of what's not working.
I only have to walk a block to ride the bus into KC. At most points I am at in Independence (sits NEXT TO KC) I am within a mile of the KC city limits. I guess that is too far to be practical for you. No we can't always find a home price that low, but you stupidly said it couldn't be done at all, EVER. Your making yourself look like an idiot. I guess two cities (it isn't a town) that intertwine is a concept you have never seen. Amazing since I would think ST Louis would be similar with some of its suburbs.:laff:
wow! Not only do you have a reading comprehension problem, you're actually pretty nasty about it. Where exactly did I say (stupidly?) that you couldn't ever find a good deal? In fact, if you would just actually read the quote you sourced, I said that Independence may have some deals.(but then you would know that since only an idiot wouldn't read the very quote they sourced)
I have also said, in numerous places, that there are deals out there, but they may not be where the jobs are, and often there are deals for very good reasons. Why this pisses you off I haven't a clue. I don't live in St Louis, but I have lived in the largest city in the world and I can tell you it takes 4 or 5 hours to travel from one side of it to another, so distance is relative.
Gregg, i keep reading that sentence (it's early here), and I'm not sure how it reads:
I did a disservice to my kids to tell them to do what they love and not worry about money; or
I did a disservice to my kids by telling them not to do what they love and try to make money; or
a combination thereof? :)
Well Zoebird, maybe it was just early here when I wrote it! What I mean is, in hindsight, I wish I would have put a lot more emphasis on the value of finding what you love and going after it. That was always part of the mix, just not always a big part. I wish I would have told the kids to always made it the top priority rather than just something to add to the pro & con list.
I have also said, in numerous places, that there are deals out there, but they may not be where the jobs are, and often there are deals for very good reasons.
This is very true. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of small farming towns in the mid-west where you can buy perfectly comfortable housing for far less than just the cost of the materials to build the same thing new. Of course those towns won't offer much culturally, will have very limited employment options, can be a long way from medical centers and airports, etc. Location, location, location.
This is very true. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of small farming towns in the mid-west where you can buy perfectly comfortable housing for far less than just the cost of the materials to build the same thing new. Of course those towns won't offer much culturally, will have very limited employment options, can be a long way from medical centers and airports, etc. Location, location, location.
Location IS the thing, true that. When I hear young people, or anyone really, say 'but I want to live in this small town' I say great. But maybe you just might have to leave it for a bit in order to live there. Leave it to go to school, or get the training, or the connections, or whatever is necessary, so you can return to this tiny, limited job market with the right marketable skills that just might enable you to stay. You might have to leave to find your niche that you can carry back into that small town job market.
Luck is a wonderful thing and if you are lucky enough to find a job you like in that small town with the great home prices, great! But, your chances are probably going to be better if you actively plan and 'work it' rather than waiting for luck. You know the old saying..."the harder you work, the luckier you get!"
Gregg,
It was probably early or late when I read it too. But now I get you. :)
ApatheticNoMore
11-20-12, 4:42pm
so you can return to this tiny, limited job market with the right marketable skills that just might enable you to stay. You might have to leave to find your niche that you can carry back into that small town job market. But, your chances are probably going to be better if you actively plan and 'work it' rather than waiting for luck. You know the old saying..."the harder you work, the luckier you get!"
The problem is how many people at age 18 have that kind of knowledge of exactly what fields will be marketable where, so that they can plan for things to work out that way? So no they will mostly end up with careers that are only marketable in big cities much to their surprise, because the kind of wisdom and broader knowledge ot the world to understand job markets, what might be marketable where etc., it comes with life experience, not with youth, and even then has a hit or miss element.
While that is true, there is a lot of information out there about it. I remember when I was in university, there was a lot of talk about different kinds of marketable skills and what sort of work to look for in different fields, etc.
When I switched from a science major to english, I went to the career counsellors offices and they talked to me about the wider job market for english majors. There were lots of writing gigs of all kinds -- from difficult-to-get magazine writer gigs to basic copy editing of technical manuals -- and then there were also lots of directions in terms of moving into all kinds of administrative assistant and secretarial positions.
They provided all kinds of information about different job markets across the US, the challenges of small town (or having to commute to larger cities or what have you) plus also the amount one could expect to be paid in different kinds of rolls with an english degree. I felt confident that I could change my major and support myself until I was able to do what I wanted (run my own yoga studio).
When I was in law school, and realized that I didn't want to practice law as a lawyer, I did the same thing. They actually provided a lot of insight into the sort of work I could do that wouldn't require me sitting for the bar exam (which was an expensive proposition), and also what the expected income could be. The easiest entry-level position was to be a legal analyist, which provided about the same income as working at an entry-level at a law firm. The only difference was that LAs don't have the chance at things like partnership -- which is where the big money comes in for lawyers -- but they do have the opportunity to move up into management of legal departments in larger companies. They also provided information about the market trends and income possibilities.
As it was, I rather ridiculously chose another route (usually choosing against myself due to youth and need for emotional security), when really I just should have taken certain risks.
DH and I talked about how we regret not going immediately to CA after we both graduated (he with his masters, me with my bachelors). There was nothing stopping us from going other than fear. We would have had a combined debt of $20k to pay off, one car between us, and we could have gotten office jobs just as DH did in PA -- and I would have been able to learn and teach yoga on the side anyway. DH could have gotten involved in his writing more in that scene.
And at that time (1999), the job market was still quite large and DH and I could have found jobs. Alternatively, we could have worked as many do in the service industries, and of course I could have always gone for administrative assistant work as well. I'm really not too proud.
I was mostly too afraid.
And it was that fear that sent me to law school and debt, and it was another strange thing -- perhaps fear as well -- that kept me from working-working (getting a desk job). DH was adamantly against it, wanting me to focus on building my business, and perhaps he was right considering where we are now. though had I worked a day job, we likely could have paid off my entire debt much more quickly.
But, hindsight is perfect, right? LOL
Anyway, it's true that 18 yr olds might lack the maturity to make good decisions, and certainly some of it is luck, but at the same time, we can't say that the information isn't available to us. I was able to access it pretty simply, and so was my husband. But, we just didn't act on it necessarily. . . due to our fears (a product of our lack of maturity, I suppose).
ApatheticNoMore
11-20-12, 7:07pm
I seem to have been driven by a lot of "conventional wisdom" and stuff I had overheard from parents and so on in those days. Stuff like: there's money and jobs in a business degree ... you'll never be able to make a living as a musician (almost certainly true, I definitely wasn't that good, except possibly giving lessons or some other non-performance career) .... there's no money and jobs in liberal arts degrees (some I decided were bad for me anyway, an english degree would have driven me batty, but I would have enjoyed history or something) ... computers are supposedly in demand these days ... unlike liberal arts you might be able to make a living with an economics degree but less than with a business degree (I got this information from my economics professor, she talked about the salaries in that major!). Anyway I kind of had a huge emotional breakdown/identity crisis/whatever about the whole issue then (age 20 or so), and so sort of followed my present path. I never did see school counselors, they were there if I had sought them out I suppose, it never really occured to me. Of course I'm talking community college and large state universities, not somewhere where you automatically get personalized attention or anything, you are a number, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist if you seek it out. I did see a career counselor outside school briefly in my youth (have done so in adulthood, but I'm talking back then), mostly they just gave me a Meyer's Briggs test, and told me "oh no wonder you'll never get the jobs you are applying for, your personality is all wrong for them!", I have never found such private career counselors helpful on anything practical like job markets at all.
ToomuchStuff
11-20-12, 7:09pm
wow! Not only do you have a reading comprehension problem, you're actually pretty nasty about it. Where exactly did I say (stupidly?) that you couldn't ever find a good deal? In fact, if you would just actually read the quote you sourced, I said that Independence may have some deals.(but then you would know that since only an idiot wouldn't read the very quote they sourced)
I have also said, in numerous places, that there are deals out there, but they may not be where the jobs are, and often there are deals for very good reasons. Why this pisses you off I haven't a clue. I don't live in St Louis, but I have lived in the largest city in the world and I can tell you it takes 4 or 5 hours to travel from one side of it to another, so distance is relative.
You said in post #141:
OK, just to set the record straight, housing in the boot-heel, or anywhere else in Mo is not just $200 a month!
Then you proceeded to say:
Independence may have some deals, but it's a small town, and not really practical for commuting to KC.
Without living here, or knowing how close bus routes and access to park and rides, etc. are. Talking from ignorance and extremism are things I have to deal with too often. So yes it more then pisses me off. Living in the largest city in the world, well whooptity do. Cities differ from cities, they are not all the same. Talking about one you haven't lived it, is as you say "I haven't a clue".
You made an extreme comment, and I responded to it. You then said something without having any facts to back it up. If the later was your OPINION, then you should CLEARLY state it as such, so it doesn't read as a statement of fact.
I went to a large state school, but I guess I'm just motivated to look for this information? Maybe. :)
I had some pretty major identity crises over the years, too. I went through one just a few weeks ago. Seriously, it just goes in waves. I was so frustrated that I didn't do what I knew I wanted to do sooner because of my fear. I was *really* upset about it. It was a pretty hard core week. I'm still feeling it, of course, but I'm doing ok. I mean, that week I wasn't doing much more than working and existing (and alternating between eating and not eating). Even DH was concerned, and he's not usually that concerned when I get into a 'funk' (which usually lasts a day or so because i'm a generally up-beat person).
I suppose these things are normal.
Common sense sometimes gets shoved a little too far down the list when you're 18 (and for some of us older folks, too). Location wise, all the small towns around me are a good example. If kids from there, or anywhere else, want to live in that kind of place it is not rocket science to figure out what you need to know. In our case there are almost no little towns that have an economy based in anything except agriculture. There are a whole lot of choices regarding what you can actually do around here, but the odds will be significantly stacked against you if you are not somehow involved in the production of crops or livestock. I think most regions have their go to industries that would provide the same litmus test. Of course no answer is ever that simple, but if people just stop for a minute and clear all the mental clutter out of the way it tends to make the answers simpler to find.
You said in post #141:
Then you proceeded to say:
Without living here, or knowing how close bus routes and access to park and rides, etc. are. Talking from ignorance and extremism are things I have to deal with too often. So yes it more then pisses me off. Living in the largest city in the world, well whooptity do. Cities differ from cities, they are not all the same. Talking about one you haven't lived it, is as you say "I haven't a clue".
You made an extreme comment, and I responded to it. You then said something without having any facts to back it up. If the later was your OPINION, then you should CLEARLY state it as such, so it doesn't read as a statement of fact.
Whatever...clearly you got a burr up your bu--, so I won't dignify it with an answer.
I was interested in seeing my old stomping grounds mentioned in this thread. I grew up in the Missouri bootheel (at about the spot where the heel meets the sole), midway between St Louis and Memphis. My mother and three younger brothers all still live there. You can easily rent apartments or houses in my old hometown for $200 a month, which is fortunate because if you're not a farm owner there's not much of an economy which would allow for pricier digs.
awakenedsoul
11-20-12, 11:33pm
When I was a senior in high school, I took a computerized test for careers. Computers had just come out. I typed in that I wanted to be a professional dancer. The computer responded, "Only 1% of dancers make a living. Your personality would be suited to being a garbage collector or mailman." I'll never forget it! I think I had answered questions saying that I liked working alone, and I liked being outside. So funny! The dance career was a dream come true. I'm so glad I just got in my 1967 Chevy and drove to LA. Worked the 4:30 a.m. shift at Mac Donalds and danced the rest of the day and night. Work soon followed.
Now that I'm older, I do enjoy working on my own and growing my food outside.
if only i'd had that courage awakened soul. DH and I talked about moving to LA after uni, but just didn't have the courage. Now we look back and go. . . what was our problem? LOL
gimmethesimplelife
11-21-12, 8:43am
I don't own your problem and I don't have to have a plan.
But since you asked, I do wonder: If health insurance is as important to you as it seems to be (you do talk a lot about it on these boards) why isn't that a priority in your employment? And $14,000 a year--why don't you make more?
What are option in clinics where services are provided on a sliding scale by income?
Do you have any health insurance at all now? If not, why not at least catastrophic care? If you are not insurable through private means then--what about through your state's uninsurable program?
I do think that going to Mexico for several kinds of treatment is a good idea, kudos.Iris Lilly - I have been thinking several days here of how I wanted to answer your post and will answer when I return from Texas.....Rob
I was interested in seeing my old stomping grounds mentioned in this thread. I grew up in the Missouri bootheel (at about the spot where the heel meets the sole), midway between St Louis and Memphis. My mother and three younger brothers all still live there. You can easily rent apartments or houses in my old hometown for $200 a month, which is fortunate because if you're not a farm owner there's not much of an economy which would allow for pricier digs.
Where Alan? I have family that lives near Poplar Bluff, and my husband was born in the middle of a bean field (in a cabin obviously) near Qulin.
That is actually one of those areas where I would say leave if you want to live there. Not everybody is a farmer, but the 'support staff', if you will, is limited. But they do need doctors, and nurses and bakeries, and auto mechanics, etc...
I never actually said there weren't any deals out there, just that the deals were deals for a reason. And when anyone speaks of 'housing', they generally aren't talking about couch surfing or living in a cardboard box, which are also options I suppose. Or the occasional deal, which I'm sure even exists in LA. I speak of the type of housing that the average working person with a family could actually live in with reasonable expectation of community support (jobs, stores, libraries, etc..)
Where Alan? I have family that lives near Poplar Bluff, and my husband was born in the middle of a bean field (in a cabin obviously) near Qulin.
My hometown is Sikeston although between the ages of 2 and 11 we lived in the middle of a cotton field in Wolf Island (betcha can't find that on a map), where I went to school in a two room country school divided up by 1st through 4th graders in one room and the 5th through 8th graders in another.
awakenedsoul
11-21-12, 12:25pm
if only i'd had that courage awakened soul. DH and I talked about moving to LA after uni, but just didn't have the courage. Now we look back and go. . . what was our problem? LOL
It sounds to me like you have a lot of courage. Your business is doing really well, and you're happy in your location.
Thinking back to that time of my life, I had a lot of helpful ballet mothers around. I was seventeen, and had a car. They hired me to housesit and stay with their kids while they went on short trips with their husbands. They lived in Beverly Hills and the Palisades. So, I was in these fancy homes, getting paid, having fun, and I got lots of work. I made dinner for their kids, drove them around to their classes, and kept house. The dance studio gave me lots of classes, I got a job upstairs in the cafe, and the taught classes at the Jewish Community Center and the Montessori preschool. I had a lot of great people who recongnized my ability and recommended me for work. At that age, I seemed to get along with everybody, too. It was a very happy and productive time. I think it's great to travel when you're young and don't have responsibilities like a mortgage, children, etc...
My hometown is Sikeston although between the ages of 2 and 11 we lived in the middle of a cotton field in Wolf Island (betcha can't find that on a map), where I went to school in a two room country school divided up by 1st through 4th graders in one room and the 5th through 8th graders in another.
I went to high school in Charleston, lived in Bertrand. Went to college in Murray KY. I still have relatives that live in Sikeston, Bertrand, and the area. And I know where Wolf Island is.
I went to high school in Charleston, lived in Bertrand. Went to college in Murray KY. I still have relatives that live in Sikeston, Bertrand, and the area. And I know where Wolf Island is.I'll betcha my relatives know your relatives.
The Storyteller
11-21-12, 2:12pm
Our governor has made her call. Wonder how all this is going to shake out.
Fallin rejects health-care exchange
Tulsa World (OK) - Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Author: WAYNE GREENE World Senior Writer
Gov. Mary Fallin rejected state participation in a health-care exchange and expansion of the state's Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act on Monday.
The decision means Oklahoma will not do anything to accommodate the federal health-care law known as "Obamacare." It also means the state will skip an opportunity to help some 693,000 uninsured Oklahomans, 18.7 percent of the state population, get coverage through the federal government.
"After careful consideration, I have today informed U.S. Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius that Oklahoma will not pursue the creation of its own health insurance exchange," Fallin said. "Furthermore, I have also decided that Oklahoma will not be participating in the Obama administration's proposed expansion of Medicaid."
Any exchange that is compliant with the federal health-care law would necessarily be state-run in name only and would require Oklahoma resources, staff and tax dollars to implement, Fallin said.
"It does not benefit Oklahoma taxpayers to actively support and fund a new government program that will ultimately be under the control of the federal government, that is opposed by a clear majority of Oklahomans and that will further the implementation of a law that threatens to erode both the quality of American health care and the fiscal stability of the nation," she said.
Medicaid expansion could cost the state up to $475 million between now and 2020, with escalating annual expenses in subsequent years, Fallin said.
The Affordable Care Act promises that 100 percent of the cost of newly eligible Medicaid patients would be federally funded for the first three years, but Fallin said economic realities put that promise in doubt.
"The federal government's broke," Fallin said in an telephone interview with the Tulsa World. "Just because the federal government says they may do something in the future, even with Obamacare, doesn't mean it's going to be there because that fact is we have a huge deficit and a big fiscal crisis in our nation."
Expanding the state's Medicaid program would come with some state expenses, and that is money that won't be available for other priorities, including education and transportation, she said.
"I can't print money, unlike the federal government," Fallin said. "I have to balance our budget. I have to live within our means."
Fallin's decision means the federal government will set up a health insurance exchange in the state that will start selling federally subsidized private insurance plans to people who earn between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level - $30,657 to $92,200 for a family of four under current standards.
But her decision not to accept the Medicaid expansion means there will be a coverage gap for people who earn too much to be eligible for the state's existing Medicaid plan or are categorically ineligible for the program but earn less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level.
For example, a single, 19-year-old man who earns $15,400 a year would be eligible for a $2,921 federal subsidy on a $3,391 insurance plan, according to figures developed by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
But without the Medicaid expansion, the same man would get nothing if he earned $100 a year less.
Fallin acknowledged that gaps are possible and said the state may be able to seek solutions by expanding the Insure Oklahoma program, which is funded with federal Medicaid money and state tobacco tax revenue, or through Medicaid waivers.
"The reality is there have always been some gaps in the system, and we're actually trying to address some of those needs," Fallin said.
Oklahoma Hospital Association President Craig Jones said his group was disappointed by the governor's decisions.
Cuts to future hospital funding increases to fund the Affordable Care Act will mean state hospitals will receive $1.6 billion less through 2020 without the Medicaid money coming in to make up the difference, he said.
"The reluctance to expand Medicaid here in Oklahoma means that cuts experienced by Oklahoma hospitals for patient care will be used to provide expanded coverage in other states," Jones said.
Fallin said the decision was made after working with legislators, stakeholders and health-care experts from around the country...
Our governor has made her call. Wonder how all this is going to shake out.
"Oklahoma Hospital Association President Craig Jones said his group was disappointed by the governor's decisions.
Cuts to future hospital funding increases to fund the Affordable Care Act will mean state hospitals will receive $1.6 billion less through 2020 without the Medicaid money coming in to make up the difference, he said.
"The reluctance to expand Medicaid here in Oklahoma means that cuts experienced by Oklahoma hospitals for patient care will be used to provide expanded coverage in other states," Jones said."
Coverage is going to be a moot point if the hospitals shut down.
Coverage is going to be a moot point if the hospitals shut down.
Can the state or local government not step up to fund this valuable local service if the people living there so desire?
One of the islands in my county approved a special hospital taxing district a couple of years ago, the doors open on their nice new hospital in a couple of weeks, and it is funded almost entirely from the local taxing district (which had something like 80% voter support) and private philanthropy.
Oklahoma could simply raise taxes to get the revenue they want for whatever it is that they want -- ie, for medicaid expansion or whatever else. There's not a big difference between "raise taxes locally for hospital districts" and 'raise state taxes to support state hospitals."
Bae, who actually owns the hospital on your neighboring island? Who staffs/administers it? Where do patient's payments actually end up? Just curious.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.