Economy 101

14 years ago

Well, I'm sorry another thread got hijacked... so this thread is to discuss current economic conditions and how it's affecting our families... so, it's semi step related since most of us are in stepfamilies.

I disagree with unemployment being at 10%. That may be the national average based on unemployment applications or open claims, but that does NOT take into consideration the vast population that do not qualify for unemployment because they were self employed or are ineligible for benefits for other reasons. I think 10% is conservative... in my county, it's 18% and there are more vacant offices/buildings than thriving businesses. Our family business is hanging on, only because we don't have much debt... others aren't so lucky.

Not long ago, a man our family has known for years, came into the office. Just a couple of years ago, he was living in a multimillion dollar estate. His business was booming. Well, he came in to talk to my dad. He has lost his home and is living with his daughter. She lives in an apartment so it's crowded with her family and he wants to leave but cannot afford to. He was discussing an arrangement where he could park his RV and live in it on one of my dad's properties. It is hard to see how much some people are being affected.

Is there anyone out there that has NOT been affected?

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (94)

wild_thing
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Oh yeah, and we used to have extra money to have our vehicles maintained, but not so much any more. Our van was broke down for a week before we could get it running again. Dh did all the work and we bought some of the parts used, like the fuel pump, but we bought the fuel filter new. That was real fun for him to repair. Thank goodness for the long days of summer.
Plus theft has increased, because in two weeks we had two lawn mowers and one of the kids bicycles stolen out of our fenced lit up yard. It is craziness.
mariealways
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Yes. With business slowing down and legal work more scarce, my firm was forced to cut salaries. In the grand scheme of things, the decrease didn't need to necessarily make a dent in our lifestyle, but we've chosen to downsize anyhow so that our level of savings will remain the same despite the pay decrease --> fewer meals out, more movies at home, no large vacations for awhile, put a halt to decorating our new house, etc. CS is coming more irregularly but I think that's just because the ex puts (and has always put) his family expenses above CS because he feels its ok since I make a decent living.
Related Discussions
EPA regs likely to kill 68-year-old Louisiana peach orchard
Q
Comments (14)
Like so many others have said, this article is a propaganda piece. It's intent and design was to cast doubt on the credibility of gov't and bash "big gov't". I'm surprised so many folks take the bait and get all riled up. Fox News makes a living on this very tactic. They don't let truth or facts get in the way, just spin the story to further their political objectives. Crap like this is why this stuff is/was still being used 30 years after 26 countries and the USA agreed to it's phase out. I wholeheartidly agree with Joppa...guys like this need also to be phased out. Truth is, this guy has an old played out orchard, his kids aren't interested in furthering. Oppurtunity for a political spin piece from the deep south largely anti-gov't, anti-enviroment crowd. Drew51...You want proof? Go look it up and study it. I am sure you will doubt the science of all 27 nations anyway. Why is it that you feel you need to have it proven to you as an individual. Should the US gov't send a special envoy to your house armed with data/video/slideshows and other evidence to prove it to you? Maybe you require a representative from all 27 nations to do that. Do you have a degree in enviromental science and chemistry necessary to refute their data? Probably not.
...See More
Fennel 101
Q
Comments (9)
An older plant of fennel will often develop a swollen stem at the base, near the dirt. This 'bulb' (which isn't a bulb at all, but that's what it's called) is often used as a vegetable, and can be eaten raw or cooked. There is a cultivar of fennel developed especially to produce better 'bulbs'. It's called Florence Fennel. Check out the pix at the link below. The leaves of fennel are often used in cooking, too, both as a flavouring and as a garnish. It goes particularly well with fish. It can be used as a subsitute for dill. Here's a recipe which uses the leaves, just as an example. They can be chopped into salads etc. Carrots and Fennel 20 baby carrots 2 tablespoons fennel leaves, chopped 2 tablespoons butter salt and pepper lemon wedges Steam the carrots until just tender, about 10-12 minutes over medium heat. In a medium saucepan, melt the butter. Over low heat, add the carrots, stirring to coat with the butter. Add the fennel leaves and stir to combine. Serve in a decorative dish and garnish with lemon slices. Fennel Vinaigrette Dressing 1/2 cup olive oil 1/2 cup fennel leaves 1/4 cup lemon juice 1 garlic clove, peeled and crushed pinch salt pinch sugar In a small saucepan, heat oil, fennel leaves, lemon juice, crushed garlic and salt and sugar. Simmer over low heat for 5 minutes. Pour over a bowl of sweet red onion and thinly sliced cucumber. Fennel goes well with: Salad, sausage, pork, duck, fish, cabbage, cucumber, onion, herb butter, cheese spread; seeds in desserts and breads. The greens can be used almost interchangeably with dill and the seeds can be used ground in lentil soups, whole in boiling water for rice and brussels sprouts. Seeds and leaves used with fish, in soups, salads and dressings. In short, the entire above-ground parts of fennel can be eaten. Here is a link that might be useful: florence fennel
...See More
China controls more of US economy
Q
Comments (30)
Try this article for a more balanced global outlook. I repeat, the biggest investor in the US is Canada. But I guess since they're the right "color" nobody gets excited about condemning them. Overseas Investors Buy Aggressively in U.S. January 20, 2008 NYTimes (excerpt only; article is over 3 pgs long) Last May, a Saudi Arabian conglomerate bought a Massachusetts plastics maker. In November, a French company established a new factory in Adrian, Mich., adding 189 automotive jobs to an area accustomed to layoffs. In December, a British company bought a New Jersey maker of cough syrup. ..Last year, foreign investors poured a record $414 billion into securing stakes in American companies, factories and other properties through private deals and purchases of publicly traded stock, according to Thomson Financial, a research firm. That was up 90 percent from the previous year and more than double the average for the last decade. It amounted to more than one-fourth of all announced deals for the year, Thomson said. During the first two weeks of this year, foreign businesses agreed to invest another $22.6 billion for stakes in American companies Â more than half the value of all announced deals. If a recession now unfolds and the dollar drops further, the pace could accelerate, economists say. Â..The influx is the result of a confluence of factors that have made the United States both reliant on the largesse of foreigners and an alluring place for opportunistic investors. With American banks reeling from the housing downturn and loath to lend, businesses are hungry for cash. The weak dollar has made American companies and properties cheaper in global terms, particularly for European and Canadian buyers. Even as Americans confront the prospect of a recession, economic growth remains strong worldwide, endowing oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Russia and export powers like China and Germany with abundant cash. As the German company ThyssenKrupp Stainless broke ground in November on what is to be a $3.7 billion stainless steel plant in Calvert, Ala., its executives spoke effusively about the low cost of production in the United States and the chance to reach many millions of customers Â particularly because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which allows goods to flow into Mexico and Canada free of duty. "The Nafta stainless steel market has great potential, and weÂre committed to significantly expanding our business in this growth region," said the companyÂs chairman, JÃ¼rgen H. Fechter, according to a statement. Foreign giants like Toyota Motor and Sony have been sinking capital into American plants. Investment in the American subsidiaries of foreign companies grew to $43.3 billion last year from $39.2 billion the previous year, according to the research and consulting firm OCO Monitor. "This is a vote of confidence in the American economy, the American marketplace and the American worker," the deputy Treasury secretary, Robert M. Kimmitt, said. "These investments keep Americans employed and keep balance sheets strong." Five million Americans now work for foreign companies set up in the United States, Mr. Kimmitt said, and those jobs pay 30 percent more than similar work at domestic companies. Nearly a third of such jobs are in manufacturing, which explains why Rust Belt states have been wooing foreign investment. "WeÂve lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs," said MichiganÂs governor, Jennifer M. Granholm, a Democrat, who has traveled three times to Europe and twice to Japan in pursuit of investment since taking office in 2003. "IÂve got to get jobs for our people." Â..Proponents of investment from overseas note that finance from sovereign wealth funds is a mere trickle of the overall flow from abroad. Indeed, the bulk comes from Europe, Canada and Japan. Just as Americans have scattered investments around the world in pursuit of profit Â with holdings of foreign stock and debt exceeding $6 trillion in 2006, according to the Treasury Department Â foreigners are looking to the United States, with their capital generating economic activity, proponents say. Â..The United States has lost more than three million manufacturing jobs since 2001, with foreign trade often taking the blame. Foreign-made goods now account for roughly one-third of all wares consumed in the United States, roughly tripling their share over the last quarter-century. The soaring price of oil and a widening trade deficit underscore how the American economy is increasingly vulnerable to decisions made far away. Â.."It would be good if these companies didnÂt need all this capital and better if the capital was available in the United States," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who was a vocal opponent of the DP World deal. "But given the situation that these institutions find themselves in and the fact that thereÂs a pretty strong credit squeeze, thereÂs only two choices: Have foreign companies invest in these firms or have massive layoffs." Â..Trade experts assume tensions will rise as developing countries Â which tend to have more state companies Â continue to expand their share of investment in the United States. Canada still spends the most money buying stakes in American companies Â more than $65 billion in 2007, according to Thomson. But other countriesÂ purchases are growing rapidly. South KoreaÂs investments swelled to more than $10.4 billion last year from just $5.4 million in 2000. Russia went to $572 million from $60 million in that span; India to $3.3 billion from $364 million. But even if political tension increases, so will the flow of foreign money, some analysts say, for the simple reason that businesses need it. "The forces sucking in this capital are much bigger than the political forces," said Mr. Garten, the Yale trade expert. "If there is a big controversy, it will be between Washington on the one hand and corporate America on the other. In that contest, the financiers and the businessmen are going to win, as they always do."
...See More
Laundry 101 basic answers needed
Q
Comments (7)
No, you don't have to forget everything and learn new! First, have you had satisfactory cleaning with previous machines, with same sorting, temps and products? Then do the same routines. F/L laundry is not all that different from T/L, nor is it magic. Basic priniciples: Many (but by no means all) "non-toxic" products don't clean very well. If the product wasn't working well before, it probably won't work any better in a Miele. I haven't used Persil for years, but 3 scoops sounds like a lot. Have you tried using less? Is your water particularly hard (i.e. you live in Europe of Us mountains or desert?) Your water company can tell you if you have public water supply. Detergent build-up (or incomplete rinsing due to excess product) causes dingey results in every kind of washer, but particularly in F/L. Before you make yourself crazy with options cover the basics: Sort by color first; then by either soil level or toughness of fabric/fabric content/proposed wash treatment, whichever quality(s) impose most the extreme constraints. For example white lacy underthings are separated from brown Carhardt work overalls (duh!), but they are further separated from white kitchen towels (sorting there based on proposed washing needs, not color). The brown canvas work pants are separated from the brown linen blouse (even though each can take serious heat in the wash) because the brown work pants are much dirtier than the blouse and so need a longer/rougher cycle than would be good for the blouse. If you have to make compromises, for economy or efficiency, say white lacy underthings (which need gentle, medium temp wash, probably not very soiled) and a couple of white cotton shirts (could take higher heat and might have collar soil and a BBQ splotch) then wash at the temps and action for the underthings, but pretreat the extra soiled areas of the blouses. Priniciple: combining is OK, as long as the temps and cycle choice won't damage the most demanding items. Add pre-machine pretreatment for additional items to ensure cleaning of all in one load. So in your example, if you must wash normal dark clothes with sweaty soil (presumably dark) clothes then pretreat/presoak the sweaty clothes first, then wash with similar colored clothing. Machines can't wash different things differently in the same load, nor can any machine reliably remove stains that ought have been pretreated beforehand. Your whites may have set-in stains, that nothing short of soaking Clorox will remove. Try further subdividing your whites into smaller categories that can take the most extreme heat and experiment with product and cycle combos. What sorts of stains are you trying to get out? Old washed-in and dried-in blood: nothing removes that. Yellowing from deodorant and perspiration: sometimes that can be lessened using tough detergents and STPP. General collar and cuff grime-ness: detergents that remove fats and oils, along with STPP and a pretreater like Shout often works. Specific stains like ketchup, BBQ, grease, oil, all take pretreating before washing. General yellowing of whites is caused by using a detergent without optical brighteners (OBAS) which are flourescent dyes added to detergents to replace what is being washed out of the fabric. Many non-toxic detergents leave out OBAS. (I don't like them myself and choose a product without them, but am willing to put up with the results, your preferences may be different.) Almost all white and light colored fabrics sold in US today have OBA applied on the bolt. As clothes are washed (particualrly at hotter temps, longer periods and stiffer wash action), these OBA dyes are lost in the water. An OBA-carrying laundry product reapplies that to some extent. (It can also lead to blotchiness on much-older fabric that never had OBAs originally like old linen table cloths or sheets.) I only use the extended wash on very soild items like cleaning cloths or work clothes. I use hotter temps for many things than most people(regularly 190F for cotton and linen whites, for instance). I always consider risk for possible fabric shrinkage before using hot temps, though. Hot temps are hard on elastics (some), too. This primarily affects my choices in clothing and linen purchases, more than my laundry practices; I try not to buy what I can't wash the way I like. I'd consider trying some different laundry products, too. I think it's better for the environment to get clothes clean in one go, rather than endless re-washing, so I'm not hung up on "non-toxic" definitions. I try to pretreat effectively to make sure I'm getting stains shifted before I put things in the wash. Clothes are expensive (and for a non-shopaholic like me, boring to acquire) so keeping them in good order saves money and fuss in the long run. FWIW, I use regular (non-HE) Cheer powder as my regular detergent, and have for more than a decade. It has served me well in my F/Ls (Mieles and Askos). I tried dozens of detergents, but that was what worked best for me. It is hard to find locally, but Target still carries it. I keep a full selection of additives on hand: Charlie's All-purpose liquid, sodium percarbonate, Shout, Hydrogen peroxide, vinegar, acetone, grain alcohol, STPP, borax, Dawn grease-remover, Clorox, mineral spirits, Gunk-off, De-solv-it, dye remover, etc., plus I keep an assortment of special-purpose detergents: wool, silk, down, Perwol powder, Ivory soap powder and washing soda along a couple of the "sensitive products" in case I get a finicky guest. But I use Cheer powder day in and day out. It's relatively cheap, works well with my water and is quite effective, for me. (And non-stinky at the dosing rate I use, about 1 1/2 Tbs per load.) I use no fabric softener or rinse additive, at all. If you can be more specific about your sorting habits and particular laundry challenges, I'd be glad to make additional sggestions If you had clean clothes before, then you can easily have that again from similar products and routines. If you didn't have success before, you will have to consider changing products and routines to get there. Just changing machines isn't going to make that big a difference, though, for the majority of your laundry. What it does is give additional options for out-of-the-ordinary challenges. HTH, L
...See More
dotz_gw
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Wild thing, Just to clarify, was not trying to be flip and poor bash...I just think a school day would be better off not wasting time on PE or art class,these are things that were done after school back in the day...When so many kids today cant find anything on a map, read, write, spell, I think instruction should be increased....( BTW my DS is an artist ;))and I still think these classes should be cut..I took him to Art class at the library after school and on Saturdays at no cost.....Hope things pick up for you economy wise...
imamommy
Original Author
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
The point I was trying to make regarding the school budget cutting PE out... well, the point was missed. Or maybe it was intentionally misdirected because the point is that just about every night on the news, there are talks about the budget crisis, loss of school funding, raising college tuition, cutting police & firefighters, closing DMV, furloughing workers, etc. on and on... and then they announce a program to give $4500 to people for turning in a clunker with a million strings attached. If people could afford to or really wanted to drive a better car, they would. $4500 of taxpayer money, when they are cutting out police, fire and school programs?

There is no reason to cut ANYTHING out from schools. For the last ten years at least, I have been given a long list of school supplies to buy the kids for back to school... most of which SD didn't even use last year. They want the parents to buy supplies that the schools provided when I was a kid... fine. It is the parent's job to buy the supplies.. I agree with that. (but they did give me a notebook, pencil & crayons on the first day of school every year during elementary school... not anymore) Then we go to back to school night and are given another list of items the teacher would like donated to the classroom... a teacher's wish list. Again, the school budget cuts are mentioned... it was one of my pet peeves, teachers complaining that they are underpaid... schools complaining that there is no money in the budget for anything.. cutting programs & field trips. I am not going to argue whether those are things kids should be entitled to or not.. I take my kids to the missions, the museums, art center, concerts, and historical sites. My kids played little league, went to dance class and we went to the park nearly every weekend. We had a pool & they swam all the time. They didn't rely on school for exercise but I thought PE was more than exercise.. it's physical education. They wouldn't have to cut anything if the teachers weren't constantly demanding raises. I know teachers don't make a lot for the amount of education they had to get or for spending all day in classes with 20+ kids. It's stressful and it's one reason I never even dreamed of wanting to be a teacher... NO WAY! But if you research careers and you know those are the hours (they have excellent work hours) nights/weekends and all summer off.. you know what they earn.. and if you still choose to make that your career, why would you complain about the pay or working conditions? I've seen the same thing in other careers, so I'm not picking on teachers, but I chose my career and with it comes good and bad. I choose to stay until the bad is not worth it and I'll do something else. But, I do get sick of hearing about things being cut and then the government is going to dole out money on something I don't see is beneficial.

and dotz, if the kids cannot find anything on a map, read, write or spell... don't you think the parents have the responsibility to work on those things at home too? School is a place for instruction, and PE is just 30 minutes of instruction where the kids are able to get a taste of things they would not otherwise have a chance to do. We played each sport for a week or two... then we would know if it's something we want to sign up for in a league. Just as we spent a small amount of time doing art or music... enough to see if there is an interest or talent. Hopefully nobody expects schools to teach kids every little thing and understand they learn mostly from their parents/role models at home. As a kid, I had every subject every day... my kids were put on block scheduling so they had some subjects one day.. others the next... and eventually, they didn't have this subject or that subject and there is something wrong with that system. Teachers, back in the day, could teach all subjects in a day and we'd go home and work on our homework, not play video games... then we'd go play outside. There is something wrong with the system when they are collecting more taxes but schools cannot afford to provide quality instruction.. and they drop programs.

And it was insulting to single out obese children because all children benefit from PE... being thin does not make someone fit. and I don't know where the poor bashing began but the school SD goes to is not welfare families wanting free anything... we live in a fairly affluent community and no, the PTA is not raising money to fund this... some parents have formed a community group that is not associated with the school district or PTA. Not sure if it's a valid organization or if they are allowed to contribute to a teachers salary... um, speaking of that, he is a teacher... if PE is just running around... why do PE teachers need a college degree?

But, then again the point of my post was not about the school losing a PE teacher, I'm more upset about the sworn officers let go and the firefighters & firehouses closing. We live in a rural community where if there is a fire, there is brush and forest that burns rapidly... I'm a bit more concerned about that, than PE. Oh yeah... and to add insult to injury... they are going to refer to your older car as a clunker... gotta love it!
pseudo_mom
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"I work for a very poor district, parents don't buy any school supplies and 99% of the kids are on free lunch, everyone is on welfare, most parents drink and do drugs on the weekends, so who is going to collect what."

Amazing .... good thing for poor people or you would be out of a job too.

Poverty level in america family of 4 is $22,050

So if you are making federal minimum wage at $7.25 an hour working 40 hours a weeks gross earnings is $15,080 Two wage earners in the household household wouldn't be able to get any help.

So lets say a single mom with one kid ... she should qualify for a boat load of free programs right? guess again

Making $7.25 an hour she earns the same $15,080
Family of 2 ...$14,570 guess what she doesn't qualify for any help she is SOL.
finedreams
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"There is no reason to cut ANYTHING out from schools."

ima, I agree with that totally, very important programs are cut and neither teachers nor students can do anything about it. I teach high school so it is a bit different because we have to provide courses for graduation, but everything else gets cut.

pseudo these people do not work, and if they do it is for cash only in family owned businesses (so they can receive assistance as unemployed), most women have multiple children with different men. some have as many as 5-6 children with no men in sight. or they have many children wiht that same man but they are not married and supposedly he lives elsewhere. majority are on drugs and drink heavily. i do know that people who work even for minimum wages (legally work not for cash) do not qualify for anything. but if you keep giving birth every year-two and have no income you'll get stuff. and if children have disabilities you'll get SS for them and live off that.

no, single people wiht one child do not qualify for anything. But I am not talking about working single mother with one child.

in a long run who suffers? of course children. but do these parents care, no, they think it is OK to send kids to school with no coat and hungry. nice. luckily we have clothes drive regurarly etc The biggest dream most of our students have is to get out of the community and move on with their lives and never live as they parents do, some will, but some won't. some get pregnant in 9th grade and so it continues. painful.
finedreams
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"If some of you honestly think that the poor have a "better quality" of life than you, then whatever....go on ranting and raving."

of course they don't. how could they possibly have better quality of life? my concern is for suffering children because they certainly have very low quality of life, half hungry etc
finedreams
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"For the last ten years at least, I have been given a long list of school supplies to buy the kids for back to school... most of which SD didn't even use last year. They want the parents to buy supplies that the schools provided when I was a kid... fine. It is the parent's job to buy the supplies.. I agree with that. (but they did give me a notebook, pencil & crayons on the first day of school every year during elementary school... not anymore) Then we go to back to school night and are given another list of items the teacher would like donated to the classroom... a teacher's wish list. "

imamommy, I think your SD probably attends afluent school district. i always bought everything for DD, never ever school provided anything. also at a high school level i had to pay Internet usage fee, library usage fee and other stuff. she never got anything from school district, and I never knew she was supposed to. she attended two different districts and both were the same way.

where i work though we don't ask for anything and provide all of the supplies. at the beginning of the year school provides it but during the year school gives us nothing, so we buy with our own money. if we don't buy, students would not have anything to write on or with. some kids buy their own stuff but not too many.

My point is there is a HUGE difference in different districts. If you would move SD to a low social-economic area (I don't suggest you do) you would see a different picture. maybe they ask for all that in SD's school because they know parents can afford it?
imamommy
Original Author
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"maybe they ask for all that in SD's school because they know parents can afford it?"

Maybe that is true, I don't know why they ask for it. But, we also are expected to pay for bus passes, which cost around $150 a year per student. Thank goodness we only have one but when my kids were all in high school when I moved here, it was 3 of them and I was a single parent. And it's rural foothills so it's very difficult to just drive them to school. I grew up in this area. I went to elementary school and middle school here... and I always got basic supplies given to me by my teacher and bus service was not charged. Aren't schools funded from property taxes? In our county, good luck finding a run down fixer upper for under $250k. A decent basic home is around $250-300k. Most homes are $500k to million dollar ones (and they are not mansions) but property values are very high here. (During the boom, those $250k homes were going for $350-400k, so those are the current values) and if they are collecting property taxes on mostly million dollar homes, I would think that money goes directly into the schools in THAT community and therefore, they would have more local money than poorer areas that get more state and federal government funding. Maybe I am not understanding how schools are funded, but I think it penalizes parents that work hard if they only make affluent families pay for those things.

I'm not bashing the poor. I know their quality of life for the most part is not great... but I have to say that some do have it better. I don't think it's fair to generalize and say they all work under the table or cheat the system though. Personally, I'd like to see them abolish welfare. I saw a lot of fraud being committed and abuse of 'disability' status... lots people claiming to be disabled, yet having more children. I also saw parents have their children diagnosed ADD/ADHD to get them on SSI because that gave them more money than welfare. I had one client that made more than my BF & I combined (He was a deputy & I was a social service worker) and she had three kids on SSI, she got welfare for herself.. food stamps, housing and other benefits. She claimed she could not work because she was needed at home to care for her ADHD kids that were in school. She could have worked while they were in school, even if it were part time, but she got a pass because of liberal rules. But, there were truly needy people that hit hard times... lost jobs, house burned down, death of a partner, divorce, etc. The difference is that the ones that I feel deserve help the most are the ones that are trying to help themselves. If they are going to school, working min. wage jobs, and trying to get ahead, it doesn't bother me to pay their daycare, help with transportation, feed kids at school, or even pay their rent. If they are working to better their lives, give them help to become independent members of society... they become taxpayers. If they got rid of the welfare system and put all that money into improving the unemployment and disability systems... only those that were truly disabled should get help and only those that work and pay into it would get help when they are between jobs. If you are healthy enough to have a baby... you are healthy enough to work, even if it's just answering phones. I don't begrudge someone that hit's hard times and needs temporary help but they need to do something to help themselves too.
imamommy
Original Author
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"maybe they ask for all that in SD's school because they know parents can afford it?"

Maybe that is true, I don't know why they ask for it. But, we also are expected to pay for bus passes, which cost around $150 a year per student. Thank goodness we only have one but when my kids were all in high school when I moved here, it was 3 of them and I was a single parent. And it's rural foothills so it's very difficult to just drive them to school. I grew up in this area. I went to elementary school and middle school here... and I always got basic supplies given to me by my teacher and bus service was not charged. Aren't schools funded from property taxes? In our county, good luck finding a run down fixer upper for under $250k. A decent basic home is around $250-300k. Most homes are $500k to million dollar ones (and they are not mansions) but property values are very high here. (During the boom, those $250k homes were going for $350-400k, so those are the current values) and if they are collecting property taxes on mostly million dollar homes, I would think that money goes directly into the schools in THAT community and therefore, they would have more local money than poorer areas that get more state and federal government funding. Maybe I am not understanding how schools are funded, but I think it penalizes parents that work hard if they only make affluent families pay for those things.

I'm not bashing the poor. I know their quality of life for the most part is not great... but I have to say that some do have it better. I don't think it's fair to generalize and say they all work under the table or cheat the system though. Personally, I'd like to see them abolish welfare. I saw a lot of fraud being committed and abuse of 'disability' status... lots people claiming to be disabled, yet having more children. I also saw parents have their children diagnosed ADD/ADHD to get them on SSI because that gave them more money than welfare. I had one client that made more than my BF & I combined (He was a deputy & I was a social service worker) and she had three kids on SSI, she got welfare for herself.. food stamps, housing and other benefits. She claimed she could not work because she was needed at home to care for her ADHD kids that were in school. She could have worked while they were in school, even if it were part time, but she got a pass because of liberal rules. But, there were truly needy people that hit hard times... lost jobs, house burned down, death of a partner, divorce, etc. The difference is that the ones that I feel deserve help the most are the ones that are trying to help themselves. If they are going to school, working min. wage jobs, and trying to get ahead, it doesn't bother me to pay their daycare, help with transportation, feed kids at school, or even pay their rent. If they are working to better their lives, give them help to become independent members of society... they become taxpayers. If they got rid of the welfare system and put all that money into improving the unemployment and disability systems... only those that were truly disabled should get help and only those that work and pay into it would get help when they are between jobs. If you are healthy enough to have a baby... you are healthy enough to work, even if it's just answering phones. I don't begrudge someone that hit's hard times and needs temporary help but they need to do something to help themselves too.
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
We have also been affected by the economy, not terribly, but somewhat. I would agree with both sides of the luck vs. planning argument. When it comes to our circumstances.

First, I started working at my company right before things started getting bad. My job is in Commercial Real Estate, so my Company has been very affected by the downturn (which I guess you could see as unlucky for me to have chosen this field). I make a pretty decent salary, but not great. I have quite a bit of experience in my field, but did not have experience with my particular job, so I started out as somewhat of an assistant to someone with a more senior position than mine in order to learn the ropes. Since I started, my responsibility has increased exponentially, however, because of hiring/raise freezes, my salary has not increased. However, I am in a position now where I'm able to earn monthly bonuses based on the profit our office brings in and that has helped to increase my pay somewhat, despite the salary freeze. I have been able to maintain a position with my company even though we have had several rounds of lay-offs within our company and my office, in particular has decreased by 1/3. I attribute that to planning and hard work. I did not have seniority over most of those who were let go, but I think that my work ethic saved me. My husband has been very lucky with respect to his job. He works for a union (of which neither of us are a fan because jobs are strictly seniority based rather than merit based). He has been lucky to just barely have missed being furloughed a few times and he has actually been able to get a couple of pay increases since the downturn.

I also think it is hard, as a young person these days because if you are just starting out, the market is saturated with experienced workers and there is so much competition that it is difficult to get a leg-up. There are so many Baby-Boomers that are putting off retirement. Even more so since the market took a downturn. Add to that, the fact that if you do well at all, you pay at least 1/3 of your income to Uncle Sam. It really is hard to get ahead and to find anything extra to put into savings. On top of that, as young people we are paying into Social Security and we will most likely not ever see any return on that as the system is scheduled to go broke within the next 5-10 years. So I guess if you are just getting started right now, that is unlucky. However, if you work hard and are motivated, I think you can overcome any obstacles in your path.
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I think that the reason that taxes are going up, meanwhile services are declining is because there are fewer people paying taxes right now. If your home has been foreclosed on, you are not going to be paying your property taxes, although generally, the bank would then become responsible for payment of those taxes. Also, in many areas, those services are supplemented by sales taxes, which have declined since consumption has declined. Many States also help to fund those services with State Income Tax. If there is no income, taxes won't be paid. So the burden falls to those of us who are still paying and taxes are increased. I think there are several programs in need of reform and government should be forced to make difficult cuts in hard times just as business are forced to do the same. I think there are far more areas that could be cut/reduced rather than focusing on schools, police and firefighters, because those areas are more legitimate functions of government than many of the other programs, such as welfare, that are being funded with our tax dollars. There are far too many people who take advantage of the welfare program as it stands now and the fraud and waste needs to be reigned in.

I completely agree with you about all of these government programs. I believe if the government allowed us to keep a larger portion of the money we earn, that we would be able to consume more and fuel the economy. The government, however, does not think we are capable of spending our money the way that they think we should, therefore they start these ridiculous programs that squander our hard earned money.
wild_thing
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
blah blah blah...blah blah
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Nice, really nice. I bet you are a real joy to have as a stepmother.
kkny
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Raek, I agree with you as to govt waste. The problem I see is how do we take care of all the 1-5 YOs, who clearly have done nothing wrong to justify going without food or shelter, without rewarding irresponsible parents.
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I absolutely agree. It is terrible that the deadbeat parents of those children benefit when they continue to have children they cannot and will not support. What's even worse is when the parents get the money/support, but they still don't properly care for those children. I think the system is terribly flawed and it would be nice if some of the politicians would acknowledge that and do something about it.
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I meant to mention this in my prior post. My credit cards also raised my interest rates to an ungodly high amount. I gave them the a call the other day and asked that the rate be lowered. They did it with no questions asked. You may want to suggest that FDH does the same. Also, they usually won't work with you if you close the account and then ask them to lower it, plus it's better for your credit if you do not close them, especially if you are not paying an annual fee for keeping it open. Just some food for thought.
imamommy
Original Author
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I honestly think that most of those people would not have more children if there was no welfare, if there were no programs that reward them. They would think twice before having a baby if they actually had to get off their butt and get a job to take care of them.

In CA, they implemented welfare reform several years ago. They sent out notices.. to be fair, they sent the notices 10 months prior to the start date, letting welfare recipients know that they would not get more money for additional children if they received welfare during the 9 months prior to the child's birth... which would presumably mean the child was conceived while the parents were on welfare. The number of pregnancies instantly spiked. I mean we started getting several calls a day to report new pregnancies... welfare mothers were hurrying up to get pregnant so they would have their child before the cutoff.. one more kid. )obviously, it wasn't all welfare moms, but many did)

RE: deadbeat parents. Perhaps some of these guys that have babies all over, would not procreate all over if they were held responsible.. put in jail. I sit in court and see father after father get slaps on the wrist, giving excuses and getting chance after chance... and those are only the ones that get caught/found/or show up. Maybe mothers would also think twice about making kids they dump off on the father or their parents to raise... make them work for a welfare check (including NCP that doesn't pay support) if they are not going to get a job and support the child...
kkny
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Ima, I can top you. In my state, years ago, the state medical plan paid for invitro fertilizaiton for women on welfare. They stopped when people complained.
mariealways
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
wild_thing, I'm with you. The nonsensical rants on this thread regarding the poor and government programs requires no further response than a "blah blah blah" or "whatever" with a capital W. My only further response would be a reminder that the world is not black and white like those ranting seem to think it is.
wild_thing
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
wild_thing, I'm with you. The nonsensical rants on this thread regarding the poor and government programs requires no further response than a "blah blah blah" or "whatever" with a capital W.

Indeed. I don't come here for political views. I could give a sh*t what you all think about those things. Go tell it to your congressmen! You aren't going to accomplish anything ranting here.
So kiss my sweet A$$ raek. what does any of this garbage have to do with me being a stepmom????????? Yeah, thats what I thought!
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Then go to another post. Like I said, I'll bet your SD thinks you are just sunshine and roses to be around everyday. Poor thing. You think she should exercise every bit of personal responsibility in her life, but tax payers should just throw money out the window for dead-beats who take no personal responsibility for themselves or the children they create. And I doubt your A$$ is very sweet, so I think I'll pass, but thanks a bunch for the offer. It's about attitude, your little "blah, blah, blah" post along with your latest rants about your SD shows it all.
imamommy
Original Author
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"Then go to another post"

Ditto!

Nobody is forced to read anything. The original post stated: "this thread is to discuss current economic conditions and how it's affecting our families... so, it's semi step related since most of us are in stepfamilies."

"Indeed. I don't come here for political views."

There is a thread on annulments & religion, you didn't go yell at them for sharing their religious views?
lovehadley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"In my state, years ago, the state medical plan paid for invitro fertilizaiton for women on welfare."

Is that true?!

GRRRRR. That makes me MAD. I have GOOD private health insurance through Blue Cross--have had the same policy for me and DD for 7 years now. I've never had a problem with it.

BUT I have no infertility coverage. Private health insurance plans never cover infertility. Large group plans usually cover something, but often not much. My policy covered diagnostic procedures, but that was it---we did three medicated IUI cycles and they cost about $700-800/per cycle. All out of pocket. We will not be able to conceive without IVF and that's around 10-12K for ONE cycle. Given the court expenses we've had, we had to put IVF off until this fall, and even that is not for sure, not for monetary reasons now, but I just want to get things straight with DH and how we plan to *handle* BM before we add another child. I think we need some time in counseling and some changes before....it sucks, though, because I hear "tick tock" and I keep looking at DD and thinking I never wanted such a huge age gap between my children. Oh well. It is what it is at this point.

I am appalled that the state would actually finance IVF for someone receiving welfare! wow.
wild_thing
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Raek you can still kiss my A$$. Are you a perfect step mother? Bet you have not been doing it for as long as I have, or have the issues that I have to deal with. So we can go round and round if you wish. No skin off my back. I posted my opinion, if you don't like it. then move along and go bash someone else, you aren't anything but a hater in my opinion.

There is a thread on annulments & religion, you didn't go yell at them for sharing their religious views?

No, but I could if it would make you happy to think that I am an equal opportunity kind of person. I think that thread is just as ridiculous as some of the garbage in this one, but hey that is just my opinion. Take it or leave it. Or kiss it lol.
kkny
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Love, they stopped, when people not on Welfare found out. Unbeleivable. You have famlies who cant take care of the kids they have, and they want more??
imamommy
Original Author
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"Take it or leave it. Or kiss it lol."

Exactly! Take it or leave it or kiss it! Why not take your own advice?
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I am not a step mother. I'm a step daughter. I came to this site to talk about my relationship with her and the hardships she caused on me and my relationship with my dad. So although I have no experience as a step parent, I do see things from your SD's perspective. So, even though I'm not a Step Mother, I know all about Step Mothers who are full of venom, who can never admit when they are in the wrong, and who are hateful just for the sake of being hateful. By the way, I'm not saying all Step Mothers are that way, and most I find in this forum are not, but that is my impression of you, based on your attitude and the things you have posted about your SD.

My point is that if you don't want to read the opinion of other people about politics, step relations, or anything else, then don't read them. If you have a constructive argument about what they say, then by all means, voice your opinion, but the "blah, blah, blah", that is disrespectful and equivalent to a little kid putting their fingers in their ears and saying "I'm not listening, I'm not listening, La La La".

If you don't want to read about politics, I strongly suggest that you stay away from threads titled Economy, Health Care, Taxes, or Welfare. I also suggest that you stay away from watching the news or reading the paper. That way you can stay blissfully unaware and continue to vote based on your emotions rather than on logic or knowledge about the political issues at hand. You can continue to think that all wealthy people are evil and all poor people are victims.

Again, I respectfully decline your offer of kissing your A$$. But thanks, again, for the offer. Take care now.
mariealways
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I'm not going to comment on w_t as a step-parent, but raek, your entire paragraph re: politics, etc. is not based in logic and entirely contradictory. Because she disagrees with a lot of what is being said on this thread she is "vot[ing] based on [her] emotions rather than on logic or knowledge?" So the opinions expressed on here are the end all and be all on all these topics you mentioned? And I have not seen anything by w_t on this thread that would suggest that she believes that "all wealthy people are evil and all poor people are victims." In fact, I would argue that this thread is full of irrational emotional rank generalizations and speculation, which is why I agree with w_t that it does not warrant a serious response. There is nothing rational about saying (1) that because some people abuse government programs that we should get rid of all such programs, (2) that some poor people have it good, and (3) something to the effect that any self-respecting person should pick themselves up by the bootstraps and manage without government assistance regardless of the circumstances. But that is what I have been reading on here and quite frankly, I find much of what has been said on this thread to be downright appalling. (I am well-educated, financially well-off and fairly liberal-leaning).
finedreams
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I do not oppose government assistance, i am very much for government assisatnce for those in need and I am in support of national health coverage (yes, i am) but I oppose people having babies every year so they can stay on welfare. i don't think making babies nonstop and perpetuate poverty is liberal, it is just stupid and selfish.

overall i think we do not have to agree, we all come from different walks of life, why do we have to agree? we can all have different opinions on economy and politics. I don't see anyone saying anything appaling, just different views.
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
If it does not warrant a serious response, nobody is forcing anybody to respond at all. It's rude to respond the way she did.

I believe, based on her response that she doesn't care to hear anybody's opinion but her own on any issues, that leads me to believe that she is not open to discussion about anything. I might be opinionated, but I'm also open to learning and hearing what other people have to say about things and I believe that is the only way you can truly grow in your knowledge of the topics. Labeling me a "hater" because she doesn't like what she hears is typical of people who can't make a logical argument as to their beliefs and so they try to label any opposing opinions as "hate speech".

I think you are putting words in peoples mouths. Nobody said the programs should be illuminated, just reformed. I also don't believe that anybody said anything about circumstances not warranting assistance sometimes. I'll admit that sometimes it does. It should not be a permanent solution for a healthy person to rely on the tax-payers indefinitely.

I think some poor people do have it good. I think you would be hard pressed to find many poor people in this country who do not own a cell phone or a television. I personally know somebody who is on welfare and who continues to have children (pregnant with No. 5 now, by 3 different looser fathers), does drugs, smokes and takes no responsibility for herself or her children. Her 4 year old child is still not potty trained. Do I think she has a wonderful lifestyle? No. Would I trade places with her? No. Did she choose her life? Yes. Could she change it if she wanted to? Yes. Would she even think of lifting a finger to change her circumstances? No. Is she too lazy and selfish? Absolutely. So, you are wrong when you say that it is not rational to say that some poor people have it good. If they didn't enjoy their life style, they would work to change it. Nobody said all poor people in this country have it good. I would argue that most of the poor people in this country have far better quality of life than many middle-class people in other countries.
imamommy
Original Author
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
well, I did say welfare should be abolished...

but I also worked in the welfare department for ten years and saw first hand, the abuse that goes on while the agency turns a blind eye... there aren't enough investigators or money to prosecute all the fraud cases.. so they pick & choose who to make an example of or do nothing. People that committed fraud but are not prosecuted continue to collect welfare. When workers have 300 cases/families to oversee, they can't possibly verify that every family is playing by the rules, so they rely on honesty. Even when they know the family is defrauding the government, there is not enough resources to stop it or prosecute. Every case I ever closed because they were ineligible or committing fraud was reopened after the defrauder filed an appeal. We were instructed to write up over payments and deduct it from future benefits, but that's it... very few cases were actually filed in criminal court. None of mine ever were and I had lots of fraud referrals that should have been prosecuted. Some wrote confessions and still, were never prosecuted. As a taxpayer, I have a right to opinion how I would like my tax money spent. I'd rather see hard working people get help when they hit a bump, not give it to someone that wants to have a baby every five years so they can stay on the dole. Not only are those people being lazy & selfish, they teach their kids to be that way and then you get generational welfare families.

But, this thread is about a specific subject and if you think it's a stupid subject and the posts here do not deserve a serious response, then why is someone bothering to come here with an immature response? It only reinforces the idea that WT is rude and immature. How do you respect someone that can only respond with 'blah blah blah'? I can only imagine what her SD has to deal with.
finedreams
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"I personally know somebody who is on welfare and who continues to have children (pregnant with No. 5 now, by 3 different looser fathers), does drugs, smokes and takes no responsibility for herself or her children."

I know very very many. You describe parents of my students. Almost all of them. And yes of course they have TV, cell phone, and other stuff...I wish welfare was for people who trully needs it. But what is the solution? I don't know. It bugs me when trully ill people cannot obtain SSI yet someone can get everything, how do they do it...

as about blah blah blah, it is childish, don't like it debate it or say nothing.
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I think drug testing for welfare recipients would be a step in the right direction. Also, I think a system more like WIC, where the parents are given coupons they can use for specific items such as healthy food, milk, etc. along with regular monitoring of the health and well being of the children would be a step in the right direction. I agree that the solution would not be easy, but something needs to be done.
nivea
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I agree, something needs to be done. I keep thinking that in order to receive welfare long term (not in dire need, quick situations), on top of drug testing etc, that recipients should be working for the county/state to pay off. The county should be keeping a tab. Clean up roads, mow govt property etc This would motivate the people who stay on welfare for years to get off of it.
imamommy
Original Author
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
nivea, in CA they began fingerprinting welfare recipients a few years ago.. ok, several years ago and the number of people on aid went down. One of the reasons: People were applying in more than one county and had cases in several counties and when they started fingerprinting, they were told that it was going into a statewide system to verify if they are aided in another county... so, they did not want to risk getting caught and many closed their cases.. and new applications went down. The federal government has rules that make certain felons ineligible for federally funded programs, like food stamps. Drug offenders cannot get food stamps or student financial aid.

It sickens me to think of how much money is spent to deter fraud (fingerprinting system, income verification systems, and even though it isn't nearly enough, they have a fraud unit and overpayment workers that do nothing but spend all day writing up over paid benefits and sending it to a collections department!)... that money that could be used for truly needy families.

At least in CA, they are requiring recipients to work or do unpaid work hours to get their benefits. But, then many still claim to be disabled, etc.
wild_thing
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I'm not going to comment on w_t as a step-parent, but raek, your entire paragraph re: politics, etc. is not based in logic and entirely contradictory. Because she disagrees with a lot of what is being said on this thread she is "vot[ing] based on [her] emotions rather than on logic or knowledge?" So the opinions expressed on here are the end all and be all on all these topics you mentioned? And I have not seen anything by w_t on this thread that would suggest that she believes that "all wealthy people are evil and all poor people are victims." In fact, I would argue that this thread is full of irrational emotional rank generalizations and speculation, which is why I agree with w_t that it does not warrant a serious response. There is nothing rational about saying (1) that because some people abuse government programs that we should get rid of all such programs, (2) that some poor people have it good, and (3) something to the effect that any self-respecting person should pick themselves up by the bootstraps and manage without government assistance regardless of the circumstances. But that is what I have been reading on here and quite frankly, I find much of what has been said on this thread to be downright appalling. (I am well-educated, financially well-off and fairly liberal-leaning).

I thought it needed repeating :)
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Please see above for my prior response. No need to repeat what I already said.
wild_thing
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Since you all either want me in the fray or out, here is my opinion on it then. It is just that, an opinion, that will do not good here at all. Just another post in a long ranting thread about our economy. A post that has nothing to do with the original topic, but my first post did however so if anyone wants to know how the economy affected our family then you can refer to that one....otherwise you probably will want to just skip the rest because it is just a long rambling opinion.

The state of today's economy in my own opinion is sh*t. You won't learn anything new from me, it won't change your life or your view etc.
I think the govt should have stopped giving hand outs to big business. Stop bailing out banks and auto industries. Should have put that money back into the people's pockets and watch them spend it. That would have boosted our economy. I love that the CEO's of the auto industries arrived in their big new jets to get their hand outs. Ooops, was everyone watching?? I think the housing market is a shambles. I think they screwed a lot of families with the ARM's and it shouldn't have been like that. They should have worked with the families, and not waited until it was too late. I think that our stock market is still sh*t and it had an effect on the global economy as well not just our own. I think they should quit sending our jobs overseas. I think they should close the borders. I think they should deport illegal citizens. I think we should have affordable healthcare . I think that welfare reform doesn't work as well as they thought it should.
What can I do about it? I will keep on voting.
kkny
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Raek, I agree with you on drug testing. The point of welfare is to make life better for children. The persons takind care of kids should be subject to this.

If you have infants, I am not certain what work you can do, but I would require regular medical and dental checkups and school attendance for all children under 10. After that age, is it harder to put it all on the parents. JMO.
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Much of what you said I agree with. I also think that the money is better off in the pockets of the people who earned it and not with the Banks, Auto Industries, etc. I think the Banks are causing their own problems when they refuse to work with anybody until they are at least 3 months behind on their mortgages. They also don't seem to have a clue what properties they currently own and which they do not. It's a mess all around.

I also think we should have affordable health care and I think that there are ways to do that without nationalizing it.
lovehadley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
"I also think we should have affordable health care and I think that there are ways to do that without nationalizing it"

I wholeheartedly agree.

What scares me is that this socialized healthcare program will put all the big insurance companies out of business---maybe not initially, but certainly within 10-20 years. That is a frightening thought. I personally don't want the government running my health care because anytime the government runs anything, it is a total bureaucratic nightmare.

I think one thing that would help the cost of healthcare is to put caps on all medical malpractice lawsuits. That is one thing that's really driving up costs. Another idea would be to set up some sort of free/low cost clinics and doctor's offices for people on a govt. plan.

One thing that really has heightened the health care crisis is emergency room visits. People who do not have insurance can still always be seen and treated at an ER. So then they skip out on the bill and who winds up paying---we do.

If there were clinics and doctor's offices for people with no or govt. insurance, this would cut down on unneccessary (and expensive!) ER visits.

I don't profess to know much about any of this, so I don't know if any of these ideas make sense...but it certainly seems to me we should at least something before going straight to socialized medicine.
finedreams
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I don't know...

DD can go and see any doctor for free, no lines, no commotion, paying nothing. Not dental care though (it is really bad in UK by the way) but any other care is free and is always there and medication is cheap. i feel good that any time DD is sick, and she does get sick quiet a lot, she has no problem to get free care immidiatelly. Her GF had to go to emergency recently, they were taken care of immidiatelly, no endless waiting or commotion wiht insurance, she stayed in the hospital for free for as much as she needed, and care was good, and everything was done what needed to be done etc i suspect it is not perfect but better than not having health care.
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Finedreams...

I understand what you are saying, but it wasn't really free when your DD went to the doctor. It may not have cost her at the time of her visit, but somebody paid for it. Maybe it was her dad, out of his income by way of taxes. Maybe it was some stranger who paid for it.

I just had surgery for cervical cancer and I am thankful that I live in this country. I didn't have to pay anything for my surgery because I have insurance and only payed minimal co-pays for the original doctor visits for the diagnosis. I also didn't have to wait very long from the time of diagnosis to the time of treatment. I'm not sure that would be true if I lived elsewhere and if I were relying on government to take care of me.

Canadian and British patients wait about twice as longsometimes more than a yearÂto see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

Statistics show that Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

Lovehadley...I think you are right. I think the high costs of malpractice insurance adds significantly to health care costs.

I also think that if the state governments eased mandates on insurance, it would help. What I mean is that if I did not plan on ever having children, or if I could not get pregnant, I couldn't buy an insurance policy that did not cover me for pregnancy in my state. If I didn't drink or do drugs, and did not want to be covered for addiction treatment, I could not buy a policy in my state without that coverage. These mandates increase the cost of health insurance.

I also think that individuals should be allowed to deduct the cost of their health insurance. As it stands now, only employers can do that now.
kkny
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Raek, I agree with you re state mandates. It burns me up when the Obama crowd talk about how employer provided health care encourages employees to go for "Cadillac" plans. THEY KNOW BETTER -- THEY KNOW THE REASON IS STATE MANDATES. My employer would rather not cover a number of things -- but has no choice.
kkny
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I would just like to add, state mandates effect mostly small businesses and individuals. Large busisneses self-insure under federal law and Erisa pre-empts state mandates. So the businesses least able to bear the burden are the ones that pay it.
finedreams
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
My DD's dad never lived in UK and pays no taxes there. DD lives in UK, not her dad. She works and pays taxes, but it is besides the point. Of course health care there is paid by taxes, but people work in the US and pay taxes too yet have no health care. You got your cervical problems treated and I got mine treated but people who were laid off and lost their jobs don't get treated. That's my point. When I lost my insurance i immidiatelly got sick and now have astronomical debt because I had to charge my health needs. Those who didn't want their credit history screwed, ended up not going to doctor at all and are possibly dead already. i am glad you have insurance but you do not represent the entire population.

Nobody waits over a year to see a specialist in UK, who told you that. i know very many people in UK, no one waits for anything beyond reasonable appointment time or no time at all.

US has good health care and the most expensive one but it ranks very low in the world in overall performance, US has high infant mortality rate, low life expectancy, overall health condition of Americans is one of the lowest among industrialized nations.

I totally agree that some serious conditions including cancer are treated well in the US, but overall populations' health is bad for one major reason: people do not take care of their health because it is not affordable and not attainable. For such a wealthy country such a poor health care is a shame.

You are either very naive or read too much right wing press, you are being misinformed. You have to open your eyes.
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
Sorry, I wasn't aware of the age of you DD or if she was with a parent in the U.K.

"Of course health care there is paid by taxes, but people work in the US and pay taxes too yet have no health care."

You are right, but we also have no extra money in the system to pay for it. Therefore, taxes will increase if health care is nationalized. We can hardly afford to pay more taxes than we already do when we are struggling economically right now.

"For such a wealthy country such a poor health care is a shame. "

The U.S. has wonderful health care. Some people don't because they are not covered, but we have the most innovative health care facilities in the world. I'd also like to point out that some people are not covered because they choose not to be. Most of the poor are covered by Medicare.

I would be in favor of some type of unemployment type of coverage that would cover the costs of Cobra Insurance or something along those lines for people who are temporarily unemployed. I just feel that when the government gets involved, things tend to take a downward turn. I think there is very little that government does well.

"US has good health care and the most expensive one but it ranks very low in the world in overall performance, US has high infant mortality rate, low life expectancy, overall health condition of Americans is one of the lowest among industrialized nations. "

I think that you are right about the infant mortality, however I'd be interested to find out exactly how that is tracked in each country. I've heard, that in some countries, the infant must have been alive for at least X amount of time (I think it was 1 month, but may be wrong about that) before they are considered in that statistic. Also, I would like to know what the correlation between obesity and drug use is with those numbers as well. I think the life expectancy rate can be attributed to more crime, gang activity, drug use, etc. and really doesn't speak to the health care system. Also, overall health...this country has a very high obesity rate. I believe there are so many health problems associated with that and would also contribute to that statistic.

My source of information: http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

Another related article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8148116.stm
lovehadley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
" I'd also like to point out that some people are not covered because they choose not to be. Most of the poor are covered by Medicare. "

But this is the crux of the problem. It's the middle-class that is most affected. If you are very wealthy, healthcare is not an issue, and if you are very poor, it is again not an issue.

It's the people in the middle who lose their insurance for whatever reason and cannot afford to pay for either a private policy, or cannot afford to pay medical bills without insurance.

Again, I really don't know what the solution is.
Ashley
14 years ago
last modified: 9 years ago
I think the costs would come into the more affordable range if they make some changes.

Economy 101

Comments (94)

Related Discussions

imamommyOriginal Author

imamommyOriginal Author

imamommyOriginal Author

imamommyOriginal Author

imamommyOriginal Author

imamommyOriginal Author

imamommyOriginal Author

imamommyOriginal Author

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

imamommy
Original Author

imamommy
Original Author

imamommy
Original Author

imamommy
Original Author

imamommy
Original Author

imamommy
Original Author

imamommy
Original Author

imamommy
Original Author