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.
In New York City, LA, San Francisco and other areas many homeless are not totally destitute; that is they do have income of sorts (pensions, Social Security, disability, etc...) but simply cannot afford rents landlords are asking.
NY, LA and SF have some of the highest housing prices in the nation. The only real reason to live there is the opportunity for a very high-paying job in a few specific fields. If you're on a low, fixed income-move somewhere that has a housing cost 1/4 or less of those places. In much of the country you can buy a very livable house for $100-150K or even less. Or buy a mobile home and pay a very reasonable lot rent. No reason to live where a one-bedroom apartment goes for $3000 a month.
There is no "right" to live anywhere you choose to. I could move to CA and probably make 50-100% more than I do now as a mechanical engineer. But the cost of living is such that I'd have less discretionary income every month than now. To say nothing of the traffic, and the fact that there is no way I could get a place on 20 acres on a lake and be within commuting distance to work. Life is about choices. If you have no skills beyond that of a min-wage job, let alone a fixed income-why would you want to live in the most expensive places in the nation?
No, but how you choose to deal with a cancer diagnosis is. My sister passed away from a rare, aggressive form of sarcoma, and she made choices regarding her financial life as it pertained to her illness and diagnosis. Not only did she not ruin her financial life, not one person in our family had their financial lives affected at all, minus the various gifts and well wishes we paid for.
My father-in-law lost the ability to move or speak for the last 2 years of his life, and it didn't ruin my mother-in-law. In fact, all told it cost our whole family about $300 per month to handle all of the bills related to just helping her out with an extra aide.
Etc.
If you accept that life ends in death for everyone, discard the notion that there is some amount of money spent on healthcare that will grant immortality, and make a conscious choice to not bankrupt yourself or your family, no medical diagnosis will cause financial ruin. And before you ask, my wife and I have already had this talk, we both agree completely, and she is a registered nurse who has worked bone marrow, pediatric cancer, cardiac stepdown, hospice and is currently doing outpatient chemo. No medical issue will bankrupt us because we choose to not allow that to happen.
This is the difference between non-Statists and Statists in a nutshell.
One follows natural law and accepts the course of life. The other believes that enough government intervention, money, social engineering, etc. can overcome natural law/nature in general.
It's why all of my arguments usually echo what T0103E once proclaimed in a thread (ok, I stole it from him): The Statists problem is with the construct of life itself/existence.
We aren't making the rules. We don't get out of the rules either. We are just honest in our dialogue about what they are.
Nah - I'll never be homeless. Zero chance. I can always move back in with my parents or, if I'm in a real jam, move in with our good friend Detroit desert person, since we are practically neighbors.
I am neither. I am middle aged and make a decent living in the world of technology. 45-50+ hours per week, every week, last 32 years in a row...I work for a living, tyvm.
What you failed to mention that I am is a realist who understands various biological, financial and economic concepts. I don't have hundreds of $thousands to throw at some illness, and I wouldn't throw that kind of money at something like that even if I had it. I'd rather pass that money on to people who could put it to far better use than keeping some old man alive another couple months, maybe year. That's me making a choice. My living will explains this in the event that I am unable to.
My sister made this exact choice when told of this experimental thing and that that could maybe perhaps possibly do this or that, etc. I was the person she told first, and as her best friend, yeah, it was a bummer to have the "OK, so we agree, cancer wins" conversation, but she couldn't see spending all the money on her disease when she has a son and daughter who could make way better use of that money.
So it is, in fact, a choice. I am not rich, I am not young, and I don't think I am immortal. I have health insurance, a pretty sizable HSA, and I go to the doctor when I am sick. But I also have reason and free will, and how my money gets spent is my choice. My net worth could grant me another 6-18 months of drug/doctor filled misery, or it could help pay for my nephews and nieces going to college. Hell, it could go to the local animal shelter and do more good than keeping me alive, sick and miserable for another 6-18 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
Enjoy your trust fund. Maybe you should be out golfing somewhere instead of wasting your life talking to the “little people?”
Again, not a trust fund kid. I grew up poor, and scraped it together to where I am now. Just because I can face mortality doesn't make me arrogant. I am going to die. So are you. How we leave things for people after us is a choice, not a requirement. If you choose to let an illness bankrupt your family, cool, have at it. I choose differently. It all comes down to a choice.
Yes they are most Americans can't afford a 400 dollar emergency let alone hundreds of thousands in medical bills. Medical debt is the surest way to the poorhouse and once your there good luck climbing back up.
How can they accrue that much medical debt when EVERYONE is forced to buy health insurance?
Sure. With a government as out of control as it has become over the past one hundred years, anything is possible. They can essentially do anything they please if they are discrete about it, including booting you off your property. Imminent domain is simply a springboard and excuse.
Absolutely. The line between having it all and homelessness is paper thin.
All it takes is coming down with a mental disease, a bad decision, a job loss, or any unforeseen bad circumstance. None of us knows what tomorrow holds. It can all come crashing down in a nanosecond.
Sure, if a person has zero savings, retirement, home equity, assets, investments, disability, and life insurance policies.
Homelessness isn’t “paper thin.” I’ve seen people endure months of unemployment because they had enough saved up.
However if you are living paycheck to paycheck, then yes, it is paper thin.
Location is irrelevant. I’ve seen homeless people in some of our poorest states. Mental disease doesn’t respect geography.
I think location is very relevant. There are far more homeless people tend to migrate to more temperate locations that are survivable to live outdoors during the winter months. Even somebody who is mentally ill understands the risk of dying from exposure to freezing temperatures, inclement elements and starvation due to lack of food to hunt, glean or scavenge outdoors during winter.
I've yet to see a transient in a cardboard box in the middle of a North Dakota prairie winter.
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.
