Jump to content

Political discussion, including, but not limited to, the Iraq war and Bush II


Recommended Posts

Even in portsmouth, it's possible to get a 3br apartment for $700.

For now let's say it is, now pay for heat, electricity, and maybe a phone and you're at the $1000/mo figure I mentioned. That's "rent" in my book, however much it costs to live somewhere with the barest of necessities. And you'd never find a 3br in portsmouth for a grand, even in the shitiest of neighborhoods. Rooms for rent go for more than that in places where I've literally seen dead bodies by the front door. No fucking joke.

It's priorities, and unfortunately, lots of people make poor choices. I am not that far removed from living on significantly less than $20k/yr. I know the compromises involved. Many of my friends are still there.

It has nothing to do with priorities. Food isn't a priority. A roof over your head isn't a priority. Notice I didn't include a car of any kind. $2000 a month in raw, not-able-to-be-lived-without necessities is easy to imagine. Take home pay for $40k a year is probably in the $2500 a month range, assuming that you live in NH with no income tax. That's precious little buffer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 248
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Even in portsmouth, it's possible to get a 3br apartment for $700.

Portsmouth, NH?

A quick search on craigslist finds 1BR from $650-$1100, 2BR from $900-$1300 and 3BR from $1250-$1600 for places within 20 minutes of Portsmouth.

I was paying $750 for a 650 sq. ft. 1BR with heat, hot water and electric adding another $100.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Portsmouth, NH?

A quick search on craigslist finds 1BR from $650-$1100, 2BR from $900-$1300 and 3BR from $1250-$1600 for places within 20 minutes of Portsmouth.

I was paying $750 for a 650 sq. ft. 1BR with heat, hot water and electric adding another $100.

I live in a 'shitty' apartment that is about 15 minutes from campus. It is a two bedroom, approx 700sq. foot apartment. Rent alone is $900. Electricity runs about $350/month. We'll leave out the cable bill and internet for arguments sake. That's 1250 just to live in this apartment, which is CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP for an apartment around here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a quick craigslist search and found a 3 br for $700.

The fact is Dan, you can't speak for all 17 million that are uninsured. If you truly believe that all of them are do to poor choices on their part then we are :horsey:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is Dan, you can't speak for all 17 million that are uninsured. If you truly believe that all of them are do to poor choices on their part then we are :horsey:

I don't claim to. I'm saying that I don't see a better solution to the problem than our current system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I've got a solution: Tax lawyers at 80% and use the revenue to pay for health insurance for the middle class.

I would still make a cool mil, I think I can sacrifice and live on that. Anyone want to buy my dog in the Post the last thing you bought thread, I'm going to need the money. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is Dan, you can't speak for all 17 million that are uninsured. If you truly believe that all of them are do to poor choices on their part then we are :horsey:

Honestly Mike, for me it's as much about the folks who can only afford health insurance where the premium is more than they make a month (which is getting more and more common). A lot of employers are being forced to move to plans like this due to the increasing cost of insurance. A friend of mine, who has a good job at a good company recently got told that his company provided insurance was changing. He now gets to worry about a $5k deductible on top of whatever the monthly premium is for he and his family. So basically, even when he's healthy he pays through the nose every month and then pays for any treatment that he does require up to $5k. And you wanna bet that that $5k is probably per insured and not a total for the plan? I don't know about the rest of you but I couldn't absorb many $5k hits before I'd be up shit creek, and I've got my priorities pretty well sorted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I was wrong with the apartment, apparently coastal nh isn't cheap :) But I'd bet not a lot of people in portsmouth make less than $40k either.

The view out my office window tells a very different story. The seacoast (and southern NH in general) is a pretty polarized region where you're either mid to upper middle class or scraping by.
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a point of reference, I just went to blue cross, and got a quote for major medical coverage for my family.

$261 a month, $2400 out of pocket maximum, $1200 per person deductible, everything else covered at 100%. Put the other $139 a month in a medical savings account to cover 1 person's deductible. $400 a month for medical insurace for a family of 6, maximum additional out of pocket of $732 the first year. Any leftover money continues to belong to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a point of reference, I just went to blue cross, and got a quote for major medical coverage for my family.

$261 a month, $2400 out of pocket maximum, $1200 per person deductible, everything else covered at 100%. Put the other $139 a month in a medical savings account to cover 1 person's deductible. $400 a month for medical insurace for a family of 6, maximum additional out of pocket of $732 the first year. Any leftover money continues to belong to you.

Can I be in your family?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I've got Anthem Blue Cross and I'm paying around $150 a month for just me, and I'm pretty sure my deductible is > $1200... More like $2000. I know a friend of mine who is a healthy single woman of child-bearing years will have to pay almost $300 to continue the same or worse coverage through Anthem. We were just talking about it because her office is closing and she's trying to figure out is she can swing COBRA for continuing her health care coverage on her savings on top of everything else while looking for a new job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maternity coverage is outrageous. That's because it's expensive to have kids, and risky. 2 of my 4 kids births were over $20k (before insurance).

Anthem has a plan with a $2500 deductible for $156 a month, 100% coverage after the deductible is met, all preventative care covered. It's another $800 a month for maternity coverage, which I agree is insanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My job changed health insurance this year from United to BlueCross, and the plan they picked has left many of the lower paid employees where I work unable to afford basic tests and whatnot. Under the old plan, basic physical and labs were a simple co-pay or completely covered. I went for my annual female checkup, and just to cover visits, mammogram, labs, cost me over $1000 after insurance. My doc wanted to do a biopsy, but that would have cost me well over $3000 more. She agree with me to just watch things for now, and I can swing the costs if necessary, but I know others where I work who simply can't. There's one woman who suspects she's diabetic (she's very overweight and having problems), but she's trying to save enough to even get it checked out.

Here is where I have an internal conflict going. I really believe that basic check ups and preventative care should be available to everyone, cutting down on the healthcare costs for everyone, but I question who should have to pick up the tab if people refuse healthcare and solutions for problems when they are preventable and wait until they are astronomically costly. My co-worker, for example, has been told for 10 years to lose weight or she will have problems. She absolutely refuses, eats nothing but fried chicken, ribs, Wendy's, bags of chips, jumbo sodas, etc. all day long, says she won't learn to cook and that Big is Beautiful. She's 45, needs knee replacements and may need treatment for diabetes. Costly and preventable. Same question with those who develop lung cancer after point blank refusing to quit smoking. Where's the line between individual accountability and having a system that makes healthcare available to all?

I guess the same questions pose the same problems re welfare and medicaid. I lean towards more providing care towards those who need it, but as the heathcare system is being crushed (many doctors in FL don't even carry malpractice insurance [mine don't] with big signs in every office stating that fact), who should get care if it's not affordable? Example: My mother, who had lung cancer after never smoking a day in her life, or my old boss who had lung cancer, an operation, chemo, etc. and continues to smoke to this day?

It actually pisses me off and messes me up. I want my co-worker to have the care she needs, but I also know that I can't afford the care I may need. I'm doing everything I can to educate myself and take care of myself, and she's doing everything she can to cause her own problems and wait for a system to cover her expenses (she actually told me that if she loses her job because she can no longer work, it might be better for her because all her medical bills will be paid for).

And then there is the who gets to decide problem...

kinda wish I didn't even get started here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that people are responsible for their own health and welfare. As a rich society, we are able to help where practical. However, I'm of the opinion that it's reasonable to expect people to help themselves as they're able, and to not provide extreme support for people who's health is damaged through their own choices.

My job changed health insurance this year from United to BlueCross, and the plan they picked has left many of the lower paid employees where I work unable to afford basic tests and whatnot. Under the old plan, basic physical and labs were a simple co-pay or completely covered. I went for my annual female checkup, and just to cover visits, mammogram, labs, cost me over $1000 after insurance. My doc wanted to do a biopsy, but that would have cost me well over $3000 more. She agree with me to just watch things for now, and I can swing the costs if necessary, but I know others where I work who simply can't. There's one woman who suspects she's diabetic (she's very overweight and having problems), but she's trying to save enough to even get it checked out.

Here is where I have an internal conflict going. I really believe that basic check ups and preventative care should be available to everyone, cutting down on the healthcare costs for everyone, but I question who should have to pick up the tab if people refuse healthcare and solutions for problems when they are preventable and wait until they are astronomically costly. My co-worker, for example, has been told for 10 years to lose weight or she will have problems. She absolutely refuses, eats nothing but fried chicken, ribs, Wendy's, bags of chips, jumbo sodas, etc. all day long, says she won't learn to cook and that Big is Beautiful. She's 45, needs knee replacements and may need treatment for diabetes. Costly and preventable. Same question with those who develop lung cancer after point blank refusing to quit smoking. Where's the line between individual accountability and having a system that makes healthcare available to all?

I guess the same questions pose the same problems re welfare and medicaid. I lean towards more providing care towards those who need it, but as the heathcare system is being crushed (many doctors in FL don't even carry malpractice insurance [mine don't] with big signs in every office stating that fact), who should get care if it's not affordable? Example: My mother, who had lung cancer after never smoking a day in her life, or my old boss who had lung cancer, an operation, chemo, etc. and continues to smoke to this day?

It actually pisses me off and messes me up. I want my co-worker to have the care she needs, but I also know that I can't afford the care I may need. I'm doing everything I can to educate myself and take care of myself, and she's doing everything she can to cause her own problems and wait for a system to cover her expenses (she actually told me that if she loses her job because she can no longer work, it might be better for her because all her medical bills will be paid for).

And then there is the who gets to decide problem...

kinda wish I didn't even get started here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

boomana

You just articulated the essence of the issue. There are no simple solutions. Idealism suggests the simple. Pragmatism suggests a different solution with some going without or at least paying for more of the solution. This is the quandary and ideologies work on the edges to move people to their sides and they just confuse things since the only answer seems to be an extreme.

What I see happening is that whenever government steps in to a certain level, private insurance steps back and lets the government coverage move to that level and then they start picking it back up. Private insurance is moving their bar up all the time as government Medicare coverage grows. If you make to much then the government coverage will not be there because it falls off with raising income but the gape between what you need and have will with the private insurance will remain the same and the results for you will be very expensive. This is a real issue that I see today for the middle income more than anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...