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

Options
1…6791112…29

Replies

  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    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.
  • BABetter1
    BABetter1 Posts: 618 Member
    Options
    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?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    BABetter1 wrote: »
    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.)
  • 100df
    100df Posts: 668 Member
    Options
    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 all :smiley:
  • mommarnurse
    mommarnurse Posts: 515 Member
    Options
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    stealthq 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: »
    stealthq 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.
  • VividVegan
    VividVegan Posts: 200 Member
    Options
    snikkins 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.
    It IS from spending too much. People these days just suck at budgeting and saving, especially with an increase of technology and gadgets (buying the newest phones), spoiling children (overspending on their video games, toys, ipads, etc), and lack of money saving skills like couponing and applying for scholarships for example. My boyfriend makes around 35k and works full-time. I make less than 20k, work part-time and attend college (which is paid for after applying for 200+ scholarships). We've been money savers since teenhood when we began working. Both own homes, live independently, his car is paid off, my home is paid off, and we strictly budget. "If its not necessary, don't buy it." It's called minimum wage because its only for the necessities. If you spend willy nilly then of course its going to become a struggle.
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    snikkins 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.
    It IS from spending too much. People these days just suck at budgeting and saving, especially with an increase of technology and gadgets (buying the newest phones), spoiling children (overspending on their video games, toys, ipads, etc), and lack of money saving skills like couponing and applying for scholarships for example. My boyfriend makes around 35k and works full-time. I make less than 20k, work part-time and attend college (which is paid for after applying for 200+ scholarships). We've been money savers since teenhood when we began working. Both own homes, live independently, his car is paid off, my home is paid off, and we strictly budget. "If its not necessary, don't buy it." It's called minimum wage because its only for the necessities. If you spend willy nilly then of course its going to become a struggle.

    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!
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    snikkins 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.
    It IS from spending too much. People these days just suck at budgeting and saving, especially with an increase of technology and gadgets (buying the newest phones), spoiling children (overspending on their video games, toys, ipads, etc), and lack of money saving skills like couponing and applying for scholarships for example. My boyfriend makes around 35k and works full-time. I make less than 20k, work part-time and attend college (which is paid for after applying for 200+ scholarships). We've been money savers since teenhood when we began working. Both own homes, live independently, his car is paid off, my home is paid off, and we strictly budget. "If its not necessary, don't buy it." It's called minimum wage because its only for the necessities. If you spend willy nilly then of course its going to become a struggle.

    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.
  • RosieRose7673
    RosieRose7673 Posts: 438 Member
    Options
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    mskessler89 wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    mskessler89 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    snikkins 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).
  • VividVegan
    VividVegan Posts: 200 Member
    Options
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    snikkins 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.
    It IS from spending too much. People these days just suck at budgeting and saving, especially with an increase of technology and gadgets (buying the newest phones), spoiling children (overspending on their video games, toys, ipads, etc), and lack of money saving skills like couponing and applying for scholarships for example. My boyfriend makes around 35k and works full-time. I make less than 20k, work part-time and attend college (which is paid for after applying for 200+ scholarships). We've been money savers since teenhood when we began working. Both own homes, live independently, his car is paid off, my home is paid off, and we strictly budget. "If its not necessary, don't buy it." It's called minimum wage because its only for the necessities. If you spend willy nilly then of course its going to become a struggle.

    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.
  • VividVegan
    VividVegan Posts: 200 Member
    Options

    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    snikkins 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.
    It IS from spending too much. People these days just suck at budgeting and saving, especially with an increase of technology and gadgets (buying the newest phones), spoiling children (overspending on their video games, toys, ipads, etc), and lack of money saving skills like couponing and applying for scholarships for example. My boyfriend makes around 35k and works full-time. I make less than 20k, work part-time and attend college (which is paid for after applying for 200+ scholarships). We've been money savers since teenhood when we began working. Both own homes, live independently, his car is paid off, my home is paid off, and we strictly budget. "If its not necessary, don't buy it." It's called minimum wage because its only for the necessities. If you spend willy nilly then of course its going to become a struggle.

    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)?

  • VividVegan
    VividVegan Posts: 200 Member
    Options
    newmeadow wrote: »
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    snikkins 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.
    It IS from spending too much. People these days just suck at budgeting and saving, especially with an increase of technology and gadgets (buying the newest phones), spoiling children (overspending on their video games, toys, ipads, etc), and lack of money saving skills like couponing and applying for scholarships for example. My boyfriend makes around 35k and works full-time. I make less than 20k, work part-time and attend college (which is paid for after applying for 200+ scholarships). We've been money savers since teenhood when we began working. Both own homes, live independently, his car is paid off, my home is paid off, and we strictly budget. "If its not necessary, don't buy it." It's called minimum wage because its only for the necessities. If you spend willy nilly then of course its going to become a struggle.

    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.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    snikkins 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.
    It IS from spending too much. People these days just suck at budgeting and saving, especially with an increase of technology and gadgets (buying the newest phones), spoiling children (overspending on their video games, toys, ipads, etc), and lack of money saving skills like couponing and applying for scholarships for example. My boyfriend makes around 35k and works full-time. I make less than 20k, work part-time and attend college (which is paid for after applying for 200+ scholarships). We've been money savers since teenhood when we began working. Both own homes, live independently, his car is paid off, my home is paid off, and we strictly budget. "If its not necessary, don't buy it." It's called minimum wage because its only for the necessities. If you spend willy nilly then of course its going to become a struggle.

    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.
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    snikkins 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.
    It IS from spending too much. People these days just suck at budgeting and saving, especially with an increase of technology and gadgets (buying the newest phones), spoiling children (overspending on their video games, toys, ipads, etc), and lack of money saving skills like couponing and applying for scholarships for example. My boyfriend makes around 35k and works full-time. I make less than 20k, work part-time and attend college (which is paid for after applying for 200+ scholarships). We've been money savers since teenhood when we began working. Both own homes, live independently, his car is paid off, my home is paid off, and we strictly budget. "If its not necessary, don't buy it." It's called minimum wage because its only for the necessities. If you spend willy nilly then of course its going to become a struggle.

    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!
  • Purplebunnysarah
    Purplebunnysarah Posts: 3,252 Member
    Options
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    snikkins 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.
    It IS from spending too much. People these days just suck at budgeting and saving, especially with an increase of technology and gadgets (buying the newest phones), spoiling children (overspending on their video games, toys, ipads, etc), and lack of money saving skills like couponing and applying for scholarships for example. My boyfriend makes around 35k and works full-time. I make less than 20k, work part-time and attend college (which is paid for after applying for 200+ scholarships). We've been money savers since teenhood when we began working. Both own homes, live independently, his car is paid off, my home is paid off, and we strictly budget. "If its not necessary, don't buy it." It's called minimum wage because its only for the necessities. If you spend willy nilly then of course its going to become a struggle.

    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...
  • BABetter1
    BABetter1 Posts: 618 Member
    Options


    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.

Categories