February 6, 200917 yr What does private insurance cost for a family of four, any idea? Mortgage - 1200.00 Car - 200 heat - 200 (monthly average on the conservative side) elec - 200 Groceries - 600 gas for car - 200 Car Ins. - 150 i am up to almost 3000 a month already just playing around, which is 36,000 a year. 68000 AGI is actually around 57,800 - 36,000 is 21,000. I don't have home insurance here and many other things. lets be conservative and say family of four insurance is 1200.00 per month so that is 14,400.00 per year. Only 7000 to play with for clothes and other incidentals. not going to happen. Especially in you live in the northeast, and I am not talking about Ashland Thank you for making my point that with sacrifices it can be done. I will have to check, but I believe your $1400 a month estimate is high. And I believe that most people, even a 2 wage earning family, earning this amount will have some coverage. It seems from some that sacrifice is a dirty word. I do understand that in some parts of the country that $68,000 does not go as far, but maybe it time to leave those areas and go somewhere else, where taxes are lower and prices are more reasonable.
February 6, 200917 yr What does private insurance cost for a family of four, any idea? Mortgage - 1200.00 Car - 200 heat - 200 (monthly average on the conservative side) elec - 200 Groceries - 600 gas for car - 200 Car Ins. - 150 i am up to almost 3000 a month already just playing around, which is 36,000 a year. 68000 AGI is actually around 57,800 - 36,000 is 21,000. I don't have home insurance here and many other things. lets be conservative and say family of four insurance is 1200.00 per month so that is 14,400.00 per year. Only 7000 to play with for clothes and other incidentals. not going to happen. Especially in you live in the northeast, and I am not talking about Ashland My father's family did it in the Northeast. Long Island, NY. Add in also the cost of 12 years of Catholic schools (each) for 3 children for his parents. Like I said, my dad paid off his own college student loans, as well as my mother's loans. He and my mother started my family in Islip, NY. In order to better themselves financially, my parents agreed to move us to Germany (keep in mind that my dad learned German and even spent his first college summer in Germany as a janitor at a hotel by himself in rural Germany with no English speakers to better his language skills) so that I could have a better life (also keep in mind that my mother had never spoken a single word of Germany till we got there). Only to come back to US after his assignment with the position he was promised to still be filled. So he found another job, and in a few years (after settling back in the states) we had to go back to Germany. My mother's family did in on Long Island as well. My late grandfather never went to college (instead going to Sadie Brown's Business School on bad advice, never getting a degree) after he served our country in the military. My grandmother (who contracted polio when she was 12 and was limping badly by the time she was 20) ran a variety of her own flea-market type business. They raised 2 daughters and lived in the same home for 50 years (which required my grandmother walking up and down stairs to get out). She just retired 3 years ago (at age 74). So yes, it is very, very possible. You want to know how I know? Because I'm living proof of it. Without sacrifice from my grandparents and hard work from my parents, I wouldn't have the life that I do. So get your facts straight- it is very possible, even in the dreaded "northeast". And you know what the funny thing is? This isn't a story about how the poor deserve nothing. This is a story of a family who, if you can believe me, donates a very, very substantial amount of money to the poor. We don't think that people need to be on their own. We just realize that vote-buying government policies that often fail don't get people out of poverty- hard work does.
February 6, 200917 yr My wife and I do. So, yes. Know it for a fact. My mom and dad couldn't afford some bills growing up. They didn't whine about it and wait for the government to do something about it. They grew a garden to save money. Bought a beef to cut down on their food bill. They got parttime jobs to earn extra money. Mom fixed our clothes instead of buying new ones. They worked overtime when they could. THey were not wasteful and made sure we were not wasteful. They did without so that my sister and I could have more. And we did without. No cable. No satellite. No extra bills that were not needs. And I am better for it because of that. We are not growing a healthy society that is looking to have their needs satisfied without some sacrifice on their part. I see people on a government check drop off and pick up kids in $30-40 thousand dollar vehicles. With tattoos up and down their arms or their children's arms, smoking cigarettes left and right and talking about what they watched on satellite last night. And they expect all of those things because of the mindset if the rich have it, then it is only right that they have it to. And they are told they are right. This country is in trouble. Serious trouble because the heart and work ethic of America is not in the right place. I thought you were a public school teacher. If so, you do not pay private health insurance. I teach and my wife works for the state so we cross reference, as you can and our out of pocket expense for a family of 4 is minimal. I thought your wife was also a public school teacher. Why do you have private health insurance?
February 6, 200917 yr My father's family did it in the Northeast. Long Island, NY. Add in also the cost of 12 years of Catholic schools (each) for 3 children for his parents. Like I said, my dad paid off his own college student loans, as well as my mother's loans. He and my mother started my family in Islip, NY. In order to better themselves financially, my parents agreed to move us to Germany (keep in mind that my dad learned German and even spent his first college summer in Germany as a janitor at a hotel by himself in rural Germany with no English speakers to better his language skills) so that I could have a better life (also keep in mind that my mother had never spoken a single word of Germany till we got there). Only to come back to US after his assignment with the position he was promised to still be filled. So he found another job, and in a few years (after settling back in the states) we had to go back to Germany. My mother's family did in on Long Island as well. My late grandfather never went to college (instead going to Sadie Brown's Business School on bad advice, never getting a degree) after he served our country in the military. My grandmother (who contracted polio when she was 12 and was limping badly by the time she was 20) ran a variety of her own flea-market type business. They raised 2 daughters and lived in the same home for 50 years (which required my grandmother walking up and down stairs to get out). She just retired 3 years ago (at age 74). So yes, it is very, very possible. You want to know how I know? Because I'm living proof of it. Without sacrifice from my grandparents and hard work from my parents, I wouldn't have the life that I do. So get your facts straight- it is very possible, even in the dreaded "northeast". And you know what the funny thing is? This isn't a story about how the poor deserve nothing. This is a story of a family who, if you can believe me, donates a very, very substantial amount of money to the poor. We don't think that people need to be on their own. We just realize that vote-buying government policies that often fail don't get people out of poverty- hard work does. We are not talking about the 60s and 70s, and how do you know you had private health insurance? 68000 then is not 68000 now.
February 6, 200917 yr You asked "Why the opposition to SCHIP?" Obama signed an extension to this bill designed to provide halth insurance to children who "fall through the cracks." Families who make to much money for medicaid and are to poor to afford private insurance (or insurance through their employers.) This is a matching funds program administered by each state. Most states eligibility rules allow families to participate who make up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level: 2008 HHS Poverty Guidelines Persons in Family or Household 48 Contiguous States 1 $10,400 2 14,000 3 17,600 4 21,200 5 24,800 6 28,400 7 32,000 8 35,600 For each additional person, add 3,600 SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 15, January 23, 2008, pp. 3971–3972 I don't know what the opposition is in providing health care for the children of this nation. To me it is a basic need, as Obama said, "In a decent society, there are certain obligations that are not subject to trade-offs or negotiations, and health care for our children is one of those obligations." Are people upset because they have a "Why not me?" attitude? thinking things like, "I have to pay, so should every one!" Where is your compassion? It is not the fault of the children! I am sure there are abuses, as there are in every program, every society, but the vast majority of children are benefited by this type of program. AND most importantly to me, Obama paid for the program extension with a hike in the Federal tax on cigarettes!
February 6, 200917 yr http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_610092.html SCHIP failures: Liberal malpractice Public policy must be based on facts -- not feelings. The Democrat-controlled Congress soon will send a grossly expensive $115 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program to President Obama for his signature. It's fiscally irresponsible. This is just more medicinal snake oil cooked up by liberals, because out of every 10 kids who will be added to the SCHIP scheme, six are currently covered by private insurance. The new bill includes kids in families of four earning up to $80,000 per year. But the Congressional Budget Office reports that 77 percent of such children already have private health insurance, according to Michael F. Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank.
February 6, 200917 yr For a less biased link, check out NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100255357&ft=1&f=1001 President Obama on Wednesday signed legislation extending health coverage to 4 million additional uninsured children, providing a big boost to his plan to overhaul the country's health care system. The House passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, by an overwhelming majority earlier in the day. The program calls for $32.8 billion to be spent to insure children from lower-income homes through 2013. An estimated 2.4 million children who would have access to private insurance are also expected to join the rolls. The House approved the measure on a 290-135 vote with the backing of most Democrats and 40 Republicans.
February 6, 200917 yr We are not talking about the 60s and 70s, and how do you know you had private health insurance? 68000 then is not 68000 now. Neither made $68,000, or anything close. That's not the point. The point is whether or not you can get out poverty from government handouts or other methods. The way to do it is through hard work. For some reason, you are convinced this is not possible. You believe that people can not get out of poverty through hard work and sacrifice; instead, you think it is better to rely on government programs that have shown to be poorly run and often abused. Sometimes people need a crutch to rely on sometimes; most proponents of small government recognize this (this is why "conservatives" give 30% more to charity on 6% less income). However, higher taxes (no matter who they are) and more government programs tend to bog down our economy. When economic growth is slowed down, this means that less jobs are created. These jobs are often low-income jobs. What happens is that these low-income people need money because they don't have jobs- and increased welfare comes to the rescue. But the more welfare, the more unemployed, and the more votes for those who give handouts. Yes, the free market is amoral but its constituents are not. For some reason, you believe that only government can dictate the best way of doing the things. From a basic understanding of philosophy, I have always understood that the way people view others is a sort of extension of the way that people view themselves. Your general distrust for the individual man is very telling. I have very much confidence that in a market with minimal government intervention- I do recognize there must be some- those who can not help themselves will be helped. This is because I view myself as someone who would not stand by idly and let people suffer even if they try to do all the right things, and I know that others would do the same. On the other hand, government collectivism will reach a point where someone in government will have to make a decision about who deserves resources more than someone else. Resources are naturally scarce, and as government begins to take from some to give to others, someone will not get what they want. And this is where my location comes into play, "A world in which the wealthy are powerful is still a better world than one in which only the powerful are wealthy." No matter how smart anyone is, no one person can accurately say what the best allocation of resources is for everyone. Instead, I believe it is better for a market structure that relies not on coercion but heavily on each person looking out for they think is best with the resources that they have.
February 6, 200917 yr Neither made $68,000, or anything close. That's not the point. The point is whether or not you can get out poverty from government handouts or other methods. The way to do it is through hard work. The children covered by this program do not "work" Should they be penalized for parental choices? For some reason, you are convinced this is not possible. You believe that people can not get out of poverty through hard work and sacrifice; instead, you think it is better to rely on government programs that have shown to be poorly run and often abused. Sometimes people need a crutch to rely on sometimes; most proponents of small government recognize this (this is why "conservatives" give 30% more to charity on 6% less income). However, higher taxes (no matter who they are) and more government programs tend to bog down our economy. When economic growth is slowed down, this means that less jobs are created. These jobs are often low-income jobs. What happens is that these low-income people need money because they don't have jobs- Low income, means they do have jobs, mostly minimum wage. and increased welfare comes to the rescue. But the more welfare, the more unemployed, and the more votes for those who give handouts. Yes, the free market is amoral but its constituents are not. For some reason, you believe that only government can dictate the best way of doing the things. From a basic understanding of philosophy, I have always understood that the way people view others is a sort of extension of the way that people view themselves. Your general distrust for the individual man is very telling. I have very much confidence that in a market with minimal government intervention- I do recognize there must be some- those who can not help themselves will be helped. Doesn't that include children? This is because I view myself as someone who would not stand by idly and let people suffer even if they try to do all the right things, and I know that others would do the same. On the other hand, government collectivism will reach a point where someone in government will have to make a decision about who deserves resources more than someone else. Resources are naturally scarce, and as government begins to take from some to give to others, someone will not get what they want. And this is where my location comes into play, "A world in which the wealthy are powerful is still a better world than one in which only the powerful are wealthy." No matter how smart anyone is, no one person can accurately say what the best allocation of resources is for everyone. Instead, I believe it is better for a market structure that relies not on coercionI don't believe anyone is "coerced" into this program. Families have to sign up and pass a rigourous qualification procedure but heavily on each person looking out for they think is best with the resources that they have. I believe the basic tenant of the program is to provide insurance to those that cannot afford it, those who do work hard to support their families, but may have to choose between food and healthcare!
February 6, 200917 yr I believe the basic tenant of the program is to provide insurance to those that cannot afford it, those who do work hard to support their families, but may have to choose between food and healthcare! I wasn't specifically speaking on SCHIP (sorry for going off topic). I was speaking broadly on the role government. Re-read the post and then address it, in that context, if you wish. However, one thing you just said is blatantly false, and you should retract it. For one, this study found that, contrary to what we have been told to believe: In total, only 12.7 percent of the benefits from a federal minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour would go to poor families. In contrast, 63 percent of benefits would go to families earning more than twice the poverty line and 42 percent would go to families earning more than three times the poverty line. This includes only 3.7% of the benefits going to African-Americans, and only 3.8% to single mothers. Basically what it means is that increases in the minimal wage generally result in: 1) Teenagers in middle- and high-income family getting paid more rather than who was supposedly intended and 2) Unnecessarily higher business expenses that result in more unemployment. So, "only 9 percent of low-wage employees actually [are] supporting a poor family", and vague statements about the minimum wage and low-income households are untrue.
February 6, 200917 yr Do you really think a family of four making 68,000.00 can afford health insurance for the entire family??? My wife and I do. So, yes. Know it for a fact. . Two public school teachers who I assume are not first year only make $68k combined? How many years have you been teaching?
February 6, 200917 yr FWIW, I don't really have an opposition to SCHIP as long as the legislation clearly mandates that it is for low-income families, (perhaps up to 300% of the poverty line). If not, costs will become tremendous. I am not familiar with the current proposal.
February 6, 200917 yr The catch is the way we measure poverty. The Census Bureau’s federal poverty measure looks at the total income of families and households, and an individual adult or child is “poor” only if the total income of the family lies below a certain level. For example, in 2005, the poverty threshold for a family of five that included two children was $23,891. If the three adults earned $10,000, $10,000, and $5,000, the family earnings totaled $25,000 and all five people were considered “not poor” – even though the adults might all be working minimum wage jobs. Conversely, for a single adult with two children, the family threshold was $15,735. The adult might earn $7 per hour full time, well above the minimum wage, and bring home only $14,000. The family was still considered poor although the adult was paid above the minimum wage. (The poverty threshold is figured before taxes. In short, many minimum wage workers are not officially poor (because the combined family income is above the poverty level — sometimes far above it) and many poor people (whose total family income classifies them as “in poverty”) are earning above the minimum wage. So opponents focus on the comparatively small group of people who are both poor and earning the minimum wage. Supporters, on the other had, focus on both groups — those who are poor but earning above minimum wage and those who earn minimum wage but are not technically poor — and they number in the millions. I might have said, Low income, those that have jobs, working minimum wage or barely above!
February 6, 200917 yr The catch is the way we measure poverty. The Census Bureau’s federal poverty measure looks at the total income of families and households, and an individual adult or child is “poor” only if the total income of the family lies below a certain level. For example, in 2005, the poverty threshold for a family of five that included two children was $23,891. If the three adults earned $10,000, $10,000, and $5,000, the family earnings totaled $25,000 and all five people were considered “not poor” – even though the adults might all be working minimum wage jobs. Conversely, for a single adult with two children, the family threshold was $15,735. The adult might earn $7 per hour full time, well above the minimum wage, and bring home only $14,000. The family was still considered poor although the adult was paid above the minimum wage. (The poverty threshold is figured before taxes. In short, many minimum wage workers are not officially poor (because the combined family income is above the poverty level — sometimes far above it) and many poor people (whose total family income classifies them as “in poverty”) are earning above the minimum wage. So opponents focus on the comparatively small group of people who are both poor and earning the minimum wage. Supporters, on the other had, focus on both groups — those who are poor but earning above minimum wage and those who earn minimum wage but are not technically poor — and they number in the millions. I might have said, Low income, those that have jobs, working minimum wage or barely above! As the article says: The authors found that the median wage of the highest earner in a poor household was much higher than the proposed federal minimum wage—$9.25 for poor households and $9.60 for poor and near-poor households (up to 150 percent of the poverty line) The problem is that they do not get enough hours.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.