Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what I have been reading, it seems jobs aren't too big a problem in Maine if you have drive and a desire to learn- i'm seeing some good work in medical and engineering/ mechanical work- I am seeing positions on Indeed for machinists, etc- I get the impression that low level labor jobs are few but if someone desires to learn and advance there is actually a lack of employees for more educated work. I have the capacity to go that way, if the need arises; on top of the woodworking, I also used to have a maching side to my business, with a Bridgeport mill and a 16" engine lathe. After downsizing, I have a 12" lathe and a Lincoln Stick/ Tig welding set up. My point being upper entry level machinist positions wouldn't be difficult for me. Also, I designed and built my CNC router, so I have experience sin CNC machining, 3D design Cad/Cam work and line level G Code editing. Also, I was a technical theatre major in College, so anything pertaining to that is a possibility. I ran the corporate warehouse for a large restaurant chain (Del Taco) in college, worked the front desk of a hotel in high school, had my own tech consulting/ networking and OEM system building computer business in college, was a low voltage installer for a couple years doing home theatre and distributed audio and conference systems for businesses. I also had a small Saltwater Aquarium maintenence business for about 6 years before I shut it down last year to focus on my woodworking more.
Basically, i'm turning 32 and have spent most of my life learning and gathering skills that help me to do most anything necessary to provide for my family. I don't know if this is the concept of 'hungry', or if 'hungry' implies a laborer that just scratches by doing what others don't want to do, the dirty work without any training or knowledge necessary. I can do that too, but my interest has always been more working towards betterment and ability to do more specialized work that not anyone off the street could do. My grandfather was pretty much an antique dealer while I was growing up, so I have spent hundreds of hours researching and learning about that my whole life, so I'm not the kind of guy that just goes to sales, thinks, 'hey, this is probably worth money' and then tries to buy to resell, I have a good knowledge of what to buy. I know the market out there will be very different and I look forward to learning more.
Not trying to brag or puff myself up, I just wanted to note my skill set. Do you think I could make a run of it in Maine? Also keep on mind that most of my income now comes from sales online, so that will move with me. I almost make enough to survive with just online sales. Local work would be for expansion and being able to grow and have more financial safety.
Last edited by phoenix02; 09-05-2016 at 10:36 AM..
phoenix, can you do house framing? One of my sons makes good money in Mass. doing just that.
I would guess that maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of people in Mass. are getting subsidized insurance through the Health Connector, MassHealth. My feeling is that if you contribute to the state you live in in meaningful ways as a volunteer, you balance out the assistance. Maybe your girls could grow up volunteering; every state needs help in many ways.
Thank you for the warning! I am aware of it, but I'm currently 31. I figure if I am still on Medicaid by the time I'm 55 I'm doing something REALLY wrong. My goal is to be off and fully self sufficient asap; I have just been reading this forum and reading some of the local newspaper websites and there seems to be a major bias for folks coming it to Maine just to be on welfare, which I completely agree with- it's insipid to go into a new place for the express purpose of gaming the system and taking advantage. I know that I don't have the ability to not have Medicaid, with the ACA necessity, and was concerned that this consternation would be extended to me, too, if anyone were to find out.
I would say that wherever you go people may have questions, in a general way, about other people's decision to have children and their plan to care for them. Children need healthcare. Healthcare is a necessity at the same level as food, clothing, and shelter. It's a survival need, something that needs to be planned for along with the decision to have children.
We all have to make decisions that take into account the social system and the economic resources of the country we live in. In countries with true universal healthcare, the decision to have children wouldn't be conditioned by the availability of healthcare since everyone receives it automatically. But that's not the case in the U.S. In this country, responsible child bearing takes the cost of healthcare into account.
There may be any number of individual situations that deviate from the general rule principle that it's wise to have a plan for caring for children independently before having them. E.g., parents who lost their long-term secure jobs during the recession, the death or disability of a wage-earner in the family, etc. What working tax payers bristle against is people who have children when they lack the resources to care for them and seem to have no plan to get those resources other than depending on the government safety net. Medicaid is paid for by working taxpayers and it's understandable that they want to know that their money is going to people who truly can't care for themselves and who ended up in that circumstance through no fault of their own. They want to be assured that the people who are using their money for all types of social assistance had children responsibly. Of course this isn't the case, hence the resentment toward having to support not only themselves and their families, but other people.
This is the classic Republican/Democrat debate. Personally I think the right policy is somewhere between the extremes of making everyone 100% responsible for themselves and providing so much assistance that people have no incentive to take care of themselves. I think these ideas apply no matter where you go. They aren't unique to Maine.
Well, my wife and I had insurance through her work before she quit to raise our children, which was our choice. After that, we were without insurance and it worked fine- I had a good size specialty woodworking shop- about 3k sqft of woodworking and metalworking, from welding to CNC and laser work, but focused on woodworking. We took care of ourselves, used homeopathic remedies, even bought livestock antibiotics a couple times, but when we had any bigger sicknesses that wouldn't go away, we paid to see a doctor, in cash. I was worried about major injuries, but it was a risk I chose to take. The recession came and work slowed precipitously until I could no longer support the shop, even working multiple other side jobs, so I shut down and operate out of my garage now.
Then the ACA was enacted and I had no choice but to get medicaid. I appreciate having it as a safety net, but I don't feel medical insurance should be necessary. What happened 100 years ago? People knew how to take care of themselves. The doctor was available and wanted to make a living, not be a millionaire. Costs were reasonable. Institutionalized medicine, and the concept that we can't function without it and a plethora of drugs is the problem. Medicine should not be a consumer sport making billions and billions, but a utility.
I didn't really understand how bad and over inflated medical costs were until our first child. I received the bill for $11,750 for my wife's cesarean- which wouldn't have happened if the doctor and hospital weren't so interested in getting her birthed and out of the room asap, btw. Then, for some reason they sent me the bill for her insurance negotiated rate, stating what her work insurance paid. $5,500. Less than half price. If a hospital can function charging over 50% less to insurance companies than they do to the average consumer, why are they allowed to profit billions of dollars a year by over charging so much? If uninsured people were given the same rates insurance companies were, the 'need' for insurance would diminish precipitously and we would be back to a world where people could take care of themselves.
Well, my wife and I had insurance through her work before she quit to raise our children, which was our choice. After that, we were without insurance and it worked fine- I had a good size specialty woodworking shop- about 3k sqft of woodworking and metalworking, from welding to CNC and laser work, but focused on woodworking. We took care of ourselves, used homeopathic remedies, even bought livestock antibiotics a couple times, but when we had any bigger sicknesses that wouldn't go away, we paid to see a doctor, in cash. I was worried about major injuries, but it was a risk I chose to take. The recession came and work slowed precipitously until I could no longer support the shop, even working multiple other side jobs, so I shut down and operate out of my garage now.
Then the ACA was enacted and I had no choice but to get medicaid. I appreciate having it as a safety net, but I don't feel medical insurance should be necessary. What happened 100 years ago? People knew how to take care of themselves. The doctor was available and wanted to make a living, not be a millionaire. Costs were reasonable. Institutionalized medicine, and the concept that we can't function without it and a plethora of drugs is the problem. Medicine should not be a consumer sport making billions and billions, but a utility.
I didn't really understand how bad and over inflated medical costs were until our first child. I received the bill for $11,750 for my wife's cesarean- which wouldn't have happened if the doctor and hospital weren't so interested in getting her birthed and out of the room asap, btw. Then, for some reason they sent me the bill for her insurance negotiated rate, stating what her work insurance paid. $5,500. Less than half price. If a hospital can function charging over 50% less to insurance companies than they do to the average consumer, why are they allowed to profit billions of dollars a year by over charging so much? If uninsured people were given the same rates insurance companies were, the 'need' for insurance would diminish precipitously and we would be back to a world where people could take care of themselves.
Welcome. You won't be alone in being self-employed - there are many here who do what they can to make a living.
As far as over-inflated medical costs, the reasons are many, but chief among them is the lack of insurance coverage for many self-employed, underemployed, or unemployed people. They simply cannot afford it and make too much to qualify for ACA subsidy or state Medicaid. So, they often resort to ERs and then don't pay their bills - in many cases because they simply can't.
In fact, most of the time the medical bills are the very last to be paid on if there is anything left to pay them with. I'm not offering an opinion on this - I'm stating a fact.
Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, providers cannot operate on nothing. They still have to meet core expenses to stay in operation. Many small hospitals are climbing under the umbrella of larger ones because otherwise, they'd close. Other smaller institutions are falling into a very large reimbursement pit of quicksand. Add to it the federal and state mandates that require them to purchase expensive computer systems and equipment? They go even further in the hole. And don't get me going about what seems to be the current "trend" to have administration hire 6 figure "consulting firms" to come in and tell them how best to hatchet their programs and employees - right down to how many housekeepers they think can clean a building for nothing.
People need to realize this. When the hospital charges you "$10 for a bandaid!" you're paying for the 9 other peoples' bandaids who didn't pay their bills. The complicated dance which is known as reimbursement "negotiations" between insurance companies and providers would quite literally make your head spin. If you try to make heads or tails of it, you'll be told by your insurer that it's "part of the confidential contract between your provider and us."
Medicare will use a "push/pull" system of reimbursement. If patient A has a condition that medicare has agreed to pay for a five day stay for, they will pay for 5 days only and that's it. If the patient stays 7 days due to complications, they'll only still pay for 5 days. If patient B qualifies for a 7 day stay, but goes home after 3, the provider will still be paid for 7. That's the simplest way to explain it. It goes far deeper than that. Trust me. It's about as transparent as a 2 X 4.
The governor is refusing federal money (which we ALL pay for anyway through our federal taxes by the way - not "free" money) because he is trying to make a point which is literally screwing us all. Other opinions may vary, but I'm watching it personally. You may also qualify for certain charity care which is what a pretty large segment of our population is doing because our governor has "saved" us so much money by booting the so-called "able-bodied" citizens off MaineCare (the name of the state program). Unfortunately that does include some of Maine's elderly population as well. The providers can at least write off some of the debt that people can't pay, and those who do have insurance will continue to pay more for their deductibles, premiums and bandaids in the ER.
I've watched it for many years in my profession. Like it or not, it's happening. As an aside: The ACA has been a blessing for a large number of Mainers as they are now covered under programs such as Maine Community Health Options. Some people don't like it, or think it's expensive, but otherwise, they'd have nothing.
The good news is, if you can pass a background check and a drug screen, there are some good construction companies who would love to meet you. They pay decently and often have a good insurance plan. Lane Construction and Cianbro are two. They do a wide-variety of services from general construction or in the case of Lane, road construction.
Good luck in your endeavors.
Last edited by cebdark; 09-11-2016 at 11:07 AM..
Reason: added
Cebdark, you're talking about a cycle. My question is, when did the cycle start? If you go back in time to when insurance was unnecessary and people paid their own way, few people didn't pay on their debts, no matter how long it took to pay. So, where did it happen? Are we talking the 60s, when the youth of the country had a 'stick it to the man' concept? Perhaps that's when people stopped paying. Or was it when insurance started becoming prevalent, what, in the 50s? At that time, did the medical institution hike prices to increase profits and force people onto insurance? I'm not being argumentative, just curious if you know. It didn't just happen without a catalyst.
I know for a fact because of my personal experience seeing the desparagement in what I would have been charged compared to what our insurance was charged that yes, hospitals can function and be profitable on FAR less than they charge uninsured people. I think the 'we have to pay more to pay for everyone who doesn't pay' excuse is just a great way for hospitals to justify significant profits. Show me a hospital that isn't turning a significant profit and I'll believe they are hurting because of people that don't pay. I think the truth lies more in saying 'we charge $3 for a $.50 bandaid, and the last two people couldn't afford the $3, so you have to pay $10. That extra dollar is just for good measure.' Don't you think that if they charged $1 for that $.50 bandaid, they would still make a good profit and have more people able to pay the $1?
The problem lies more with a lack of free market enterprise. Hospitals and doctors have a monopoly and can charge whatever they want without competition. If I build a dining room table for you and decide that I want to charge $50,000 for it, what will you do? Go somewhere else. What if I say the last guy only paid $5,000, so I need to up the cost to you in order to compensate for my loss? See how the excuses given by the medical profession don't work for ANY other profession? Something has to give. Unfortunately it seems like the only way that will happen is regulation on costs, because profit driven medical providers can't be trusted to be honest and fair. Show me a hospital without high 6 figure incomes for the administrators, etc, and I'll believe they care about providing medical service, not making oodles of money. People used to become doctors because they cared about helping people and it was good, steady money. Now people become doctors to retire millionaires. This is all just really annoying to me, as I personally don't believe in regulation or federal overreach, but if the industry won't police itself, who is going to? Like I said, there is no free market to it, they have a captive audience.
I was worried about major injuries, but it was a risk I chose to take. . . . I don't feel medical insurance should be necessary.
.
People who take risks can't win 100% of the time. At some point they do get injured or sick. If they don't have insurance, someone has to take care of them and someone has to pay for it. Same for car collision insurance---if you don't have it someone else has to bear the responsibility for your accident. Second, children need to be cared for, we can't expect them to take risks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix02
What happened 100 years ago?
.
People got sick and died?
You point out flaws in the healthcare payment system. You're right about this. But this is a reality of living in this society and having children in this society. Having children needs to take into account the social realities of the cost of giving birth, healthcare, food, clothing, shelter, education, and much more. Couple A might become aware of these facts and decide not to have children they can't afford support. Couple B might know the facts and have children anyway. Couple C might not bother to find out the facts before having children. Couple D might have children intentionally in order to profit from the welfare system. Workers who are footing the bills for B, C, and D might not appreciate it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
