Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Replies
-
I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
Current HSA's aren't that great. If you don't use it, you lose it at the end of the year. An HSA that rolled over every year that you didn't use it up would be great! You could accumulate quite a savings in your healthy years. It would be like self-insuring. I already have a savings account set aside for medical emergencies, but since it's not an HSA, it doesn't save me anything on taxes. I'm not sure about requiring a set amount or capping the amount you can put in or that can roll over. I'd like to be able to choose what I put in.
Are you sure you don't mean an FSA? HSAs rollover every year. I've got about 5 years' worth of accumulated savings in mine.2 -
This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.2
-
This content has been removed.
-
I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
Current HSA's aren't that great. If you don't use it, you lose it at the end of the year. An HSA that rolled over every year that you didn't use it up would be great! You could accumulate quite a savings in your healthy years. It would be like self-insuring. I already have a savings account set aside for medical emergencies, but since it's not an HSA, it doesn't save me anything on taxes. I'm not sure about requiring a set amount or capping the amount you can put in or that can roll over. I'd like to be able to choose what I put in.
Yeah, in my experience what you are talking about is a flexible spending account, which is stupid compared to an HSA. I had one this year and chose not to renew it.0 -
happysquidmuffin wrote: »This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.
I did answer it, and the answer is yes. I've seen what cancer treatment does to people (many times). So far as I am concerned, the best cure for it travels at 600 feet per second. I cannot fathom someone being willing to endure the treatment, let alone the financial burden, in order to snatch a few extra years from the tree of life. Kids, I am a bit more understanding of. That's who we SHOULD be investing in, but no, most of the acailable funding is sopped up by those who's live are effectively already over.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.
I did answer it, and the answer is yes. I've seen what cancer treatment does to people (many times). So far as I am concerned, the best cure for it travels at 600 feet per second. I cannot fathom someone being willing to endure the treatment, let alone the financial burden, in order to snatch a few extra years from the tree of life. Kids, I am a bit more understanding of. That's who we SHOULD be investing in, but no, most of the acailable funding is sopped up by those who's live are effectively already over.
My friend is in her 30s and has a three-year-old. She got rectal cancer and caught it early. She had surgery and 6 chemo treatments. There's no way she would have been able to afford that. She's healthy now. You REALLY think she should have just died before her life was halfway over, leaving her kid without a mom? I would have lost my dad to cancer when he was 49 and I was 17. He's turning 60 this year and has had a great, healthy past 11 years. He intends to have many more. It's not just "a few extra years" for many, many people.13 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.
I did answer it, and the answer is yes. I've seen what cancer treatment does to people (many times). So far as I am concerned, the best cure for it travels at 600 feet per second. I cannot fathom someone being willing to endure the treatment, let alone the financial burden, in order to snatch a few extra years from the tree of life. Kids, I am a bit more understanding of. That's who we SHOULD be investing in, but no, most of the acailable funding is sopped up by those who's live are effectively already over.
You do realize that many people can be healthy after cancer treatment right? Some show no evidence of disease for many years after treatment and die of old age.
4 -
*ignorance
The great majority of cancers are no longer a death sentence. How about my girlfriend who is mother of four and foster mother to a half-dozen children, who fifteen years ago was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer? The treatment itself nearly killed her. Would a bullet have solved the dilemma for all the people whose lives she has touched since? She still treats every year as a bonus, which I think makes her an even more amazing person....and example.5 -
As I said, it's usually impossible to be objective when one has personally benefited from something.2
-
I do feel that the HSA solution could also help to fund at least a portion of the cost to care for those unable to pay due to whatever circumstances. There would undoubtedly be some slippage as people would pass with no next of kin. Likewise, people could donate these their HSA monies to charities that would pay some of those bills.0
-
mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.
I did answer it, and the answer is yes. I've seen what cancer treatment does to people (many times). So far as I am concerned, the best cure for it travels at 600 feet per second. I cannot fathom someone being willing to endure the treatment, let alone the financial burden, in order to snatch a few extra years from the tree of life. Kids, I am a bit more understanding of. That's who we SHOULD be investing in, but no, most of the acailable funding is sopped up by those who's live are effectively already over.
My friend is in her 30s and has a three-year-old. She got rectal cancer and caught it early. She had surgery and 6 chemo treatments. There's no way she would have been able to afford that. She's healthy now. You REALLY think she should have just died before her life was halfway over, leaving her kid without a mom? I would have lost my dad to cancer when he was 49 and I was 17. He's turning 60 this year and has had a great, healthy past 11 years. He intends to have many more. It's not just "a few extra years" for many, many people.
Yes--my mom had breast cancer when she was 40 and I was 13. She's alive now (due to treatment) 33 years later, and has had no return of the cancer.5 -
Obesity is clearly something that people are predisposed toward. We don't make people who are predisposed to cancer pay more.
I'm not against a tax on foods that have no nutritional value, like sodas. It's complicated to decide where to draw the line on nutritional value, but I'm sure it's possible to set a standard.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.
I did answer it, and the answer is yes. I've seen what cancer treatment does to people (many times). So far as I am concerned, the best cure for it travels at 600 feet per second. I cannot fathom someone being willing to endure the treatment, let alone the financial burden, in order to snatch a few extra years from the tree of life. Kids, I am a bit more understanding of. That's who we SHOULD be investing in, but no, most of the acailable funding is sopped up by those who's live are effectively already over.
My friend is in her 30s and has a three-year-old. She got rectal cancer and caught it early. She had surgery and 6 chemo treatments. There's no way she would have been able to afford that. She's healthy now. You REALLY think she should have just died before her life was halfway over, leaving her kid without a mom? I would have lost my dad to cancer when he was 49 and I was 17. He's turning 60 this year and has had a great, healthy past 11 years. He intends to have many more. It's not just "a few extra years" for many, many people.
Yes--my mom had breast cancer when she was 40 and I was 13. She's alive now (due to treatment) 33 years later, and has had no return of the cancer.
That is interesting. How did she pay for that 33 years ago, before ACA?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.
I did answer it, and the answer is yes. I've seen what cancer treatment does to people (many times). So far as I am concerned, the best cure for it travels at 600 feet per second. I cannot fathom someone being willing to endure the treatment, let alone the financial burden, in order to snatch a few extra years from the tree of life. Kids, I am a bit more understanding of. That's who we SHOULD be investing in, but no, most of the acailable funding is sopped up by those who's live are effectively already over.
My friend is in her 30s and has a three-year-old. She got rectal cancer and caught it early. She had surgery and 6 chemo treatments. There's no way she would have been able to afford that. She's healthy now. You REALLY think she should have just died before her life was halfway over, leaving her kid without a mom? I would have lost my dad to cancer when he was 49 and I was 17. He's turning 60 this year and has had a great, healthy past 11 years. He intends to have many more. It's not just "a few extra years" for many, many people.
Yes--my mom had breast cancer when she was 40 and I was 13. She's alive now (due to treatment) 33 years later, and has had no return of the cancer.
That is interesting. How did she pay for that 33 years ago, before ACA?
She worked for a state university that had excellent health insurance. (Good thing, as my dad was self-employed.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.
I did answer it, and the answer is yes. I've seen what cancer treatment does to people (many times). So far as I am concerned, the best cure for it travels at 600 feet per second. I cannot fathom someone being willing to endure the treatment, let alone the financial burden, in order to snatch a few extra years from the tree of life. Kids, I am a bit more understanding of. That's who we SHOULD be investing in, but no, most of the acailable funding is sopped up by those who's live are effectively already over.
My friend is in her 30s and has a three-year-old. She got rectal cancer and caught it early. She had surgery and 6 chemo treatments. There's no way she would have been able to afford that. She's healthy now. You REALLY think she should have just died before her life was halfway over, leaving her kid without a mom? I would have lost my dad to cancer when he was 49 and I was 17. He's turning 60 this year and has had a great, healthy past 11 years. He intends to have many more. It's not just "a few extra years" for many, many people.
Yes--my mom had breast cancer when she was 40 and I was 13. She's alive now (due to treatment) 33 years later, and has had no return of the cancer.
Thanks for sharing. Gives hope to newly survivors. Happy for you all0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »As I said, it's usually impossible to be objective when one has personally benefited from something.
Sorry, I really don't find this to be an adequate response. Your argument is for a system that would benefit you, as someone who does not ever want to use the health care system. More money in your pocket through lower taxes. It's not exactly objective.6 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
You aren't paying for anything. I haven't been to a doctor or hospital (other than for my CDL physicals, which my company pays for) in more than 20 years. I'm not paying in on a "maybe". Not the gambling type. I've been injured several times in that duration, but the fact is, I utterly loathe the medical provider community, and would quite literally rather die than go to a hospital.
And the fact that you are paying for others is your own fault. The day everyone who pays says no at once, it ends.
So you're been fine, you drop in thr street tomorrow, who's paying a 3-400k medical bill?
They won't let you lay there and die.
They won't have any choice. That's as far as I will expand upon the matter.
@Gallowmere1984 - I've been following the thread and am still wondering how, when you are in a serious accident or have a medical emergency that renders you unconscious, no one will be responsible for treating you or having to pay? And what if you are diagnosed with cancer tomorrow? You're a pretty young person... would you really not seek treatment past what you could pay for out of your own pocket? BTW, I'm all for personal responsibility and we have always paid our own bills, but it's the catastrophic health event that none of us can afford.
No, I would not. I've actually made several attempts to have a DNR order put in place, but due to my age, no doctor is willing to. Yet another reason that I really dislike the medical community. This life and body belong to me. They need to step away with their opinions and "saving me from myself". Unlike most, I actually apply my feelings on the whole of society to myself as well. I'm no better, nor more deserving of any treatment that I would deny to another person for fiscal reasons. If I can't afford it, it's not mine to have.
And again, I will not expand upon my earlier statement any further.
Respect your feelings, just hoping you enjoy many years of good health, and remain single & childless!
I'm all for the single and childless. Though really, they'd only stand to gain from my stance, assuming that they themselves were in good condition. When I did kick the bucket, there would be no unnecessary expenses to worry over, and my "burial" wishes consist of "cheapest possible". Therefore, that would leave my entire involuntary life insurance policy (company provides it for free), plus whatever I have banked as their windfall. xD
Just what every kid wants, money instead of the parent that that money could have possibly saved.
*ok, there are some people who may feel that way, but the majority of people would prefer to pay the money to save parent as opposed to the neat little DNR and inheritance.8 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lenoresdream wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
If you can't pay they send you to collections or offer a "payment plan" that is basically high payments in a short amount of months.
Long gone are the days of hospitals eating costs.
If anyone had a hospital do that consider yourself lucky bc hospital payment plans are my experience. (2 times I didn't have insurance)
In the strict sense, perhaps. However, what often happens is that the hospital sends non-payment bills to collections and the individual responsible never actually makes any payments even if they have the money to do so. They'd rather drag out the legal process for years and have bad credit, or they'd rather declare bankruptcy than have a 20+ year payment plan hanging over their heads. Either way, the hospital never sees the money.
I work for a major non-profit health care system. We have a significant portion of our budget dedicated solely to compensating for this exact scenario. If we didn't, we'd have been out of business long ago.
It's almost like giving away things for free isn't a sustainable business model, or something. This exact scenario is why I feel the way I do. The fact that hospitals are compelled to provide a service, regardless of customer ability to pay, is now, and always will be ridiculous.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lenoresdream wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
If you can't pay they send you to collections or offer a "payment plan" that is basically high payments in a short amount of months.
Long gone are the days of hospitals eating costs.
If anyone had a hospital do that consider yourself lucky bc hospital payment plans are my experience. (2 times I didn't have insurance)
In the strict sense, perhaps. However, what often happens is that the hospital sends non-payment bills to collections and the individual responsible never actually makes any payments even if they have the money to do so. They'd rather drag out the legal process for years and have bad credit, or they'd rather declare bankruptcy than have a 20+ year payment plan hanging over their heads. Either way, the hospital never sees the money.
I work for a major non-profit health care system. We have a significant portion of our budget dedicated solely to compensating for this exact scenario. If we didn't, we'd have been out of business long ago.
It's almost like giving away things for free isn't a sustainable business model, or something. This exact scenario is why I feel the way I do. The fact that hospitals are compelled to provide a service, regardless of customer ability to pay, is now, and always will be ridiculous.
Seems ridiculous, but it is the way it is and we, as a society, have to figure out a way to deal with it.
Provide universal healthcare? Major issues there in execution (long wait times, availability of services and medications, the huge tax burdeon to name a couple)
Establishing non-for-profit hospitals for the indigent/uninsured population, and for-profit ones for the people with capabilities? (A discernible difference in quality of care between the two, perhaps)
Revoking EMTALA and being able to turn away those people with a medical emergency / in active labor? (People would literally die a very much preventable death)
There are many other options out there. I think turning away someone who would die without emergency intervention is the worst of anything , short of shooting that person at he door to put them out of their misery.
I have many more thoughts due to my experience by being an ER nurse. I GET the issues. BELIEVE ME. the answer is NOT to deny anyone emergency medical treatment . I think that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
True medical emergencies are seemingly few and far between. The VAST Majority of ED visits of the uninsured are for things that are completely not an emergency. They're things that should be dealt with by a family doctor , dentist, or urgent care clinic . Education, prevention, access to routine medical care and practitioners.1 -
Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.2 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
Interesting! Basically you don't have a mortgage or pay for housing due to having selected and paid off an inexpensive house? Between your age and income level, I have to say I'm rather curious!0 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
Interesting! Basically you don't have a mortgage or pay for housing due to having selected and paid off an inexpensive house? Between your age and income level, I have to say I'm rather curious!
I don't know her specific situation, but to provide a personal example: I had the opportunity to purchase a house, about seven years ago. It needed about $6000 worth of materials and labor to be made acceptably livable (up to code, and a few minor comfort features). The owner was asking $41,000 for it, and I probably could have talked him down another five. It was his long-dead grandmother's house, and he just wanted out from under the property tax. Now, at the interest rates at the time, it would have cost about $500 per month, all included, to mortgage for ten years.
I only passed on it because I honestly have no interest in ever owning a house.
Point being, this stuff can be found quite often. It just requires a bit of effort: something many seem to be allergic to in recent years.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
here is a noble idea, educate yourself and put in some hard work so that one does not need a minimum wage job...
I never understand this argument. SOMEONE has to do the minimum wage jobs. If everyone educates themselves and works hard, who's going to scrub the toilets in your office building? Do your dry-cleaning? Provide the manual labor in your warehouse to keep your business moving? Work as a line cook or server at your favorite restaurant? Staff registers at grocery stores? Considering the utter pittance entry-level teachers (you know, hard-working college-educated people) are currently paid, who's going to teach your kids?
If you don't want government programs filling in gaps to help low wage earners get by, do you want businesses to pay their employees more (thus creating higher costs for consumers)? Are you ok with these people living in housing that's not up to code because it's all they can afford, risking fires? Or in unsanitary conditions so they risk spreading illnesses at work? We're going to pay, one way or the other.
We are getting very close to such jobs being made obsolete by tech. Instead of mourning this, we should be embracing it.
I haven't seen a robot making sushi for me yet, and some companies won't be able to afford automation. There will be many lower-wage jobs technology won't replace. Also, what do we do with the unemployed population and their children as tech makes their jobs obsolete? Let them die of starvation or of medical complications since apparently people should be paying for their own health care out of pocket? It will take time for society to shift to a balance between population and available work.
Where do you eat sushi, that the chef is possibly making minimum wage? Everywhere I've eaten, the owner is the chef.
As for the other part: perhaps people should consider these things before breeding. Their choices are not everyone else's responsibility. But yes, it will take time for the shift, and I understand that. Never once did I say that my ideal should be implemented in a single day. That would cause some Road Warrior-esque stuff, at best.
Ummm... Have you never been to a sushi restaurant or any restaurant for that matter that only the OWNER prepares food?
Do you live in a rural area with one small sushi restaurant and have never ventured further?
I've worked in a few restaurants and still have many friends that do. Some who have been in the same position for YEARS make ~$15 an hour. Starting? Have fun with $10! (This pertains to chefs/cooks, not servers).1 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
Interesting! Basically you don't have a mortgage or pay for housing due to having selected and paid off an inexpensive house? Between your age and income level, I have to say I'm rather curious!
Yes. And there are other tricks to getting around this as well. Not exactly a cheap home, although I wouldn't have minded either way considering the location. It's a beach side condo. I convinced the seller into giving me a gigantic discount. My dad is a small business owner and does a lot of bidding, betting, convincing, deals, etc. He used to work as a dealer for a large sales company. Has taught me the fundamentals lol. But strictly saving and budgeting is probably the important part. Investing is also a way to make money (and not just in homes). Example: my best friend invests in stocks and has made thousands in profit. But I suggest doing a LOT of research first because its trickier than real estate.
0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »FeedMeFish wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
Interesting! Basically you don't have a mortgage or pay for housing due to having selected and paid off an inexpensive house? Between your age and income level, I have to say I'm rather curious!
I don't know her specific situation, but to provide a personal example: I had the opportunity to purchase a house, about seven years ago. It needed about $6000 worth of materials and labor to be made acceptably livable (up to code, and a few minor comfort features). The owner was asking $41,000 for it, and I probably could have talked him down another five. It was his long-dead grandmother's house, and he just wanted out from under the property tax. Now, at the interest rates at the time, it would have cost about $500 per month, all included, to mortgage for ten years.
I only passed on it because I honestly have no interest in ever owning a house.
Point being, this stuff can be found quite often. It just requires a bit of effort: something many seem to be allergic to in recent years.
Interesting, and well said! Question though. Even if you didn't want to live in it, did you ever consider buying it as an investment property (to rent or sell at a future date)?
0 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »FeedMeFish wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
Interesting! Basically you don't have a mortgage or pay for housing due to having selected and paid off an inexpensive house? Between your age and income level, I have to say I'm rather curious!
Yes. And there are other tricks to getting around this as well. Not exactly a cheap home, although I wouldn't have minded either way considering the location. It's a beach side condo. I convinced the seller into giving me a gigantic discount. My dad is a small business owner and does a lot of bidding, betting, convincing, deals, etc. He used to work as a dealer for a large sales company. Has taught me the fundamentals lol. But strictly saving and budgeting is probably the important part. Investing is also a way to make money (and not just in homes). Example: my best friend invests in stocks and has made thousands in profit. But I suggest doing a LOT of research first because its trickier than real estate.
Ummm....how did you do that?
Well besides the saving and budgeting income, I explained being a young responsible college student, and my medical condition, but also basically noted that if they gave a substantial discount I could do full cash payment at once as opposed to small monthly payments that would obviously take years for them to receive everything in full. And noted that a full payment would prove I'm not playing games and am serious about my first home and that I'll be living here for a long time because I love the beach (its true). My family is retiring and moving nearby as well and we would happen to be in the same area if an emergency happened relating to my medical condition (win-win). And I need money leftover for my first car. The seller also wanted to move out asap. And the fact that I don't have a credit or credit card stood out to her as well apparently. The condo is worth over 70k. I bought it for 34k cash. There's a lot of aspects to this (person, timing, location, situation, convincing/persuading, explaining, saving and budgeting [which are very important], and condition). The condo is in good condition. Since she gave me a bigger discount than I even expected, I've decided to financially help my younger (and only) brother get his first car as well.0 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »FeedMeFish wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
Interesting! Basically you don't have a mortgage or pay for housing due to having selected and paid off an inexpensive house? Between your age and income level, I have to say I'm rather curious!
I don't know her specific situation, but to provide a personal example: I had the opportunity to purchase a house, about seven years ago. It needed about $6000 worth of materials and labor to be made acceptably livable (up to code, and a few minor comfort features). The owner was asking $41,000 for it, and I probably could have talked him down another five. It was his long-dead grandmother's house, and he just wanted out from under the property tax. Now, at the interest rates at the time, it would have cost about $500 per month, all included, to mortgage for ten years.
I only passed on it because I honestly have no interest in ever owning a house.
Point being, this stuff can be found quite often. It just requires a bit of effort: something many seem to be allergic to in recent years.
Interesting, and well said! Question though. Even if you didn't want to live in it, did you ever consider buying it as an investment property (to rent or sell at a future date)?
I did, very briefly. Then I remembered how much I hate working on anything having to do with a house. Cars? Sure. PCs? Definitely. Houses? I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty strand of barbed wire. It's why I have decided that I will be staying in apartments permanently, unless someone decides that they want to give me a house for free. Considering the value that I put on my free time, that's near what would be required to offset the labor expense when having to deal with something that I utterly loathe.0 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »FeedMeFish wrote: »FeedMeFish wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
Interesting! Basically you don't have a mortgage or pay for housing due to having selected and paid off an inexpensive house? Between your age and income level, I have to say I'm rather curious!
Yes. And there are other tricks to getting around this as well. Not exactly a cheap home, although I wouldn't have minded either way considering the location. It's a beach side condo. I convinced the seller into giving me a gigantic discount. My dad is a small business owner and does a lot of bidding, betting, convincing, deals, etc. He used to work as a dealer for a large sales company. Has taught me the fundamentals lol. But strictly saving and budgeting is probably the important part. Investing is also a way to make money (and not just in homes). Example: my best friend invests in stocks and has made thousands in profit. But I suggest doing a LOT of research first because its trickier than real estate.
Ummm....how did you do that?
Well besides the saving and budgeting income, I explained being a young responsible college student, and my medical condition, but also basically noted that if they gave a substantial discount I could do full cash payment at once as opposed to small monthly payments that would obviously take years for them to receive everything in full. And noted that a full payment would prove I'm not playing games and am serious about my first home and that I'll be living here for a long time because I love the beach (its true). My family is retiring and moving nearby as well and we would happen to be in the same area if an emergency happened relating to my medical condition (win-win). And I need money leftover for my first car. The seller also wanted to move out asap. And the fact that I don't have a credit or credit card stood out to her as well apparently. The condo is worth over 70k. I bought it for 34k cash. There's a lot of aspects to this (person, timing, location, situation, convincing/persuading, explaining, saving and budgeting [which are very important], and condition). The condo is in good condition. Since she gave me a bigger discount than I even expected, I've decided to financially help my younger (and only) brother get his first car as well.
Hmm, this isn't adding up to me, at least not as something applicable to everyone on minimum wage.
First of all, where I live, $70K (let alone $34K) for property is not realistic, period. I suppose they were giving away houses in Gary, IN at one point, but even so you had to qualify in certain ways and be able to do maintenance, and if you quit your job to move wherever and are initially unemployed (while looking for a new one) you don't qualify and also have created many other issues, at least in the short term.
Second, why would the seller care if you paid a full cash payment vs. monthly payments? It's NOT normal to sell property for small monthly (or any monthly) payments, you know, right? The way a financed sale works is that the seller gets all upfront (part from the bank) and the buyer pays it back to the bank (mortgage). I can't imagine losing over half the value of my house for the non-benefit to me of the buyer not having a mortgage.
Third, no credit card and no experience living alone means no credit, which actually can be a big problem.
Fourth, I don't understand how, at 25, you saved $34,000 while making less than $20,000 and having some expenses for college (books and such always are, even with scholarships, and I'm assuming you wouldn't take out loans given the way you are talking). At least, that's so if you had other expenses, like food and living expenses. If you were living with your parents and they let you pay no rent, then it might make sense (the savings).
And if you used up your savings buying the place there's a possible issue if anything goes wrong. Plus, I hope insurance is in the budget.
I'm all for living within your means -- I paid off my over $100K in student loans in 5 years and bought a condo at the same time (with a mortgage, though), but I was fortunate enough to be making quite a bit of money (this was late 90s boomtime, I'm old).5 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »FeedMeFish wrote: »FeedMeFish wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
Interesting! Basically you don't have a mortgage or pay for housing due to having selected and paid off an inexpensive house? Between your age and income level, I have to say I'm rather curious!
Yes. And there are other tricks to getting around this as well. Not exactly a cheap home, although I wouldn't have minded either way considering the location. It's a beach side condo. I convinced the seller into giving me a gigantic discount. My dad is a small business owner and does a lot of bidding, betting, convincing, deals, etc. He used to work as a dealer for a large sales company. Has taught me the fundamentals lol. But strictly saving and budgeting is probably the important part. Investing is also a way to make money (and not just in homes). Example: my best friend invests in stocks and has made thousands in profit. But I suggest doing a LOT of research first because its trickier than real estate.
Ummm....how did you do that?
Well besides the saving and budgeting income, I explained being a young responsible college student, and my medical condition, but also basically noted that if they gave a substantial discount I could do full cash payment at once as opposed to small monthly payments that would obviously take years for them to receive everything in full. And noted that a full payment would prove I'm not playing games and am serious about my first home and that I'll be living here for a long time because I love the beach (its true). My family is retiring and moving nearby as well and we would happen to be in the same area if an emergency happened relating to my medical condition (win-win). And I need money leftover for my first car. The seller also wanted to move out asap. And the fact that I don't have a credit or credit card stood out to her as well apparently. The condo is worth over 70k. I bought it for 34k cash. There's a lot of aspects to this (person, timing, location, situation, convincing/persuading, explaining, saving and budgeting [which are very important], and condition). The condo is in good condition. Since she gave me a bigger discount than I even expected, I've decided to financially help my younger (and only) brother get his first car as well.
WOW. 70k for a beach side condo - where's that wide eyed emoticon. More power to ya, great job!0 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »FeedMeFish wrote: »FeedMeFish wrote: »Lots of people can't live within their means due to low wages, or if they do, they have no extra per month and not because they're spending too much. A recent article demonstrated that a full time, minimum wage job will not afford you rent in any major US city.
These things contribute to why it's more complicated than a lot of people assume.
Interesting! Basically you don't have a mortgage or pay for housing due to having selected and paid off an inexpensive house? Between your age and income level, I have to say I'm rather curious!
Yes. And there are other tricks to getting around this as well. Not exactly a cheap home, although I wouldn't have minded either way considering the location. It's a beach side condo. I convinced the seller into giving me a gigantic discount. My dad is a small business owner and does a lot of bidding, betting, convincing, deals, etc. He used to work as a dealer for a large sales company. Has taught me the fundamentals lol. But strictly saving and budgeting is probably the important part. Investing is also a way to make money (and not just in homes). Example: my best friend invests in stocks and has made thousands in profit. But I suggest doing a LOT of research first because its trickier than real estate.
Ummm....how did you do that?
Well besides the saving and budgeting income, I explained being a young responsible college student, and my medical condition, but also basically noted that if they gave a substantial discount I could do full cash payment at once as opposed to small monthly payments that would obviously take years for them to receive everything in full. And noted that a full payment would prove I'm not playing games and am serious about my first home and that I'll be living here for a long time because I love the beach (its true). My family is retiring and moving nearby as well and we would happen to be in the same area if an emergency happened relating to my medical condition (win-win). And I need money leftover for my first car. The seller also wanted to move out asap. And the fact that I don't have a credit or credit card stood out to her as well apparently. The condo is worth over 70k. I bought it for 34k cash. There's a lot of aspects to this (person, timing, location, situation, convincing/persuading, explaining, saving and budgeting [which are very important], and condition). The condo is in good condition. Since she gave me a bigger discount than I even expected, I've decided to financially help my younger (and only) brother get his first car as well.
WOW. 70k for a beach side condo - where's that wide eyed emoticon. More power to ya, great job!
Wow is right. That is just not possible here. We are working towards selling our condo and buying an actual house. Our condo will sell for 200-220K and the house will be around 400K. That's for a 1400 sq ft house...
My parents just sold their home for 840K. It's 40 years old and was sold as a tear down. There's a reason we live 12 hours away from them...0 -
She worked for a state university that had excellent health insurance. (Good thing, as my dad was self-employed.)[/quote]
See, now that is what I suspected. I myself decided in my early 20's that medical emergencies do happen, and it was time to compete for a better job, the kind with benefits. It took a few years of stability with a lesser employer to make myself an attractive candidate for the better company. But I did it. It's what responsible people did back then. Even if one partner followed their dream and self-employed, usually the other person had a stable job, stable income, benefits, etc.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions