chrisrb

Without a doubt, having additional income (even if temporary) is a nice problem to have, and I'm glad we have it (as I've said).

I'm not glad about the following:

I had four bouts with gall stones during the past year (all on weekend evenings, coincidentally). The first three I thought were indigestion, and managed somehow to tough them out because we were uninsured and reluctant to risk paying thousands of dollars out of pocket for an emergency room visit. Each time I thought my belly was going to explode; easily the worst pain I've ever experienced. The fourth time, I couldn't take it, and luckily decided to bolt to the ER and damn the cost.

After a CT scan, EKG, and various other tests, it turned out my gallbladder was full of stones, badly infected and inflamed, in danger of bursting, and needed to come out right away. After removal 12 hours later, turns out the organ was gangrenous, and it was lucky I'd had it removed no later than I did. Tens of thousands of people die early each year in America (equivalent to multiple 9-11 tragedies annually) due to lack of insurance. Had I not gone to the ER that fourth time, I could have become one of them.

Had I been insured, I would have gone immediately to the ER the very first time, discovered the gall stone problem, and arranged for surgery before it became a life-threatening situation that needed to be resolved at much greater cost (not to mention boat loads of unnecessary stress) on a emergency basis.

In this country, far too many people only get to enjoy one: health care, full access to higher education without crippling debt, or housing, due to prohibitive costs. I never said we'd only had access to one of these; we had access to two: higher education and housing. But in choosing to pay for those, we couldn't afford health insurance. Now we have a $75K medical bill to deal with.

Health care isn't accessible when a family of three making under $40K a year before taxes must pay $1500+ a month on the private market to get decent insurance (with riders excluding several pre-existing conditions). When public university systems triple tuition in 10 years (e.g. University of California, our own state system), making it far LESS expensive for lower-middle class students to go to the most expensive private colleges out-of-state than an equivalent state school in-state, access to higher education is becoming far too limited. Unless citizens have reliable access to all three necessities, as is already the case in most modern countries, I don't see what is meant by "the American dream" or how we as a nation can claim to be living up to Jefferson's assertions about "inalienable rights." It's a shameful reality. That's my point.

To those who've never lived this way, or can't understand "the issue," I don't know what to say.

TitoMorito

Hi, everyone!

I think this is starting to become a political issues thread, so you might want to tone it back a bit before the thread gets locked.

Thanks!

cptofthehouse

Chrisb, gather up all of your medical bill and make copies and then summarize them for the year, and you will very likely get consideration for them from the school's financial aid office.

I'm truly sorry that you and for a number of CC parents who are going through medical issues of their own, their children's and their parents and other loved ones. Many of us who have been on these boards for a while now have seen our numbers go though many such issues. It's always difficult and painful, and there are some members who are actively in my prayers right now.

sylvan8798

And yet, you have not delineated what your issue is. Presumably everyone should get everything they need in life for free. Nonetheless, you are now faced with a reality that many of us already are dealing with. You may have to spend your own money to put our D through the expensive school, and you need to figure out if it is worth it to you (hey lots of us can't justify it, don't feel bad), or if she might have to transfer someplace cheaper. Moving up isn't always all it's cracked up to be. Generally it's preferable to staying poor.

chrisrb

I think I've made my point quite clear, but I'll try to summarize it.

There are shocking and terribly unjust inequities that have developed over the past few decades in American society that simply weren't around when I grew up in the 1960s and 70's. They don't exist in many other countries today, but they do in ours. These inequities can and should be remedied.

Until then, I intend to try to find the least expensive way to meet the my family's needs, just like everyone else on this board is doing.

I hope that's clear now.

romanigypsyeyes

I highly disagree that they weren't around in the 60s and 70s. I just think they were in different shapes and less visible.

NotYourBusiness

chrisb:
Last year other folks subsidized your D.
Now, you will experience how it feels being forced to subsidize other people.
The social engineering + price discrimination that schools exercise seems great when one is on the receiving end. Not so much when one is in the discriminated end.
Also, this price discrimination policy messes up everything. It is hard to know what will be the real cost of 4 years of college (do not tell me about the NPC calculators... They do not work well and cannot guarantee year-to-year stability) and it allows these unrealistic COAs. Without these price discrimination policies, people would have more clarity when deciding between different priced schools.

chrisrb

In the 1970s excellent public universities (the best in the world, like the UC system) were available to any in-state students that could qualify, and were virtually free (compared to today). Health insurance was affordable and available to all, with or without pre-existing conditions. Home prices were MUCH lower compared to the average wage rate than they are today. Only one parent had to work outside the home, generally. Income inequality was FAR less pronounced than it is today; a rising tide would lift all boats, not just the yachts. In general, life was MUCH easier for average Americans.

Social inequities have always and will always exist in our or any other society. Some social inequity is inevitable, and is actually a good thing, if limited, in my opinion. That doesn't mean when particular inequities suddenly get much worse we shouldn't object and push back.

--

I've gotten the information I came here to get regarding my original idea.

Thanks to all who helped answer my question and to those who offered constructive suggestions and thoughts.

emeraldkity4

I never said we'd only had access to one of these; we had access to two: higher education and housing. But in choosing to pay for those, we couldn't afford health insurance

I agree with you, that, that was your choice.
I dare say there are thousands of families that are choosing health coverage & housing, which are needs as opposed to higher education, which is a want.

dodgersmom

Perhaps not in YOUR backyard . . . but they certainly existed!

chrisrb

I dare say there are thousands of families that are choosing health coverage & housing, which are needs as opposed to higher education, which is a want.

--

I disagree.

Virtually impossible to live much above poverty without a college degree in this country, nowadays ... and this trend is getting worse, not better. If the criteria differentiating "needs" from "wants" is staying out of poverty (e.g. health insurance, housing, etc.), higher education has made the transition from a want (in the 1970s) to need (today).

In the richest country that ever existed, families shouldn't have to choose between health insurance, housing, and the education required for their children to find employment that keeps them out of the poor house. It's insane from both a moral and a productivity standpoint. This choice wasn't necessary here only a few decades ago, and isn't necessary in most advanced countries today. Sad that the standard of living for ordinary Americans has fallen that far (see also: life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.)

sylvan8798

Yeah, no. The inequities may have changed some since then, but there were inequities just as bad back in the 60's and 70's.
Gee, I wonder why I never had health insurance before the age of 19?

dodgersmom

chrisrb -

Even if I accepted the rest of what you're saying (which I don't), no student "needs" an expensive private liberal arts college education . . . except perhaps those privileged few headed to Wall Street. Like it or not, your daughter can get an education at her local state college. And if that's still unaffordable, then she can get a job, save some money, and pay her own way through school. I understand that's not what you want for her . . . but plenty of kids do just that, and survive to tell the tale.

emeraldkity4

70% of people over 25 do not have a college degree.
15.1% people are living in poverty, wonder what % of those with degrees?

If a college degree is a better investment than moving to where work is perhaps OP better dust off his book bag.

'rentof2

Chrisb, I haven't read this whole thread -- not so interested in the political exchanges -- but I think you probably won't see a cataclysmic decline in aid. Our family income has changed over the years of my kids' college, a similar change to yours (and without any history or current issues with very high medical costs) and our aid adjustments were fairly modest. Don't assume you'll have a problem. You'll just have to see what comes back when you re-file for aid next year. You can always ask for a review if you need to.