penniless 0 #1 February 5, 2005 abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=463499 Don't get sick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 February 5, 2005 Quote abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=463499 Don't get sick. How can someone be considered middle class and file bancruptcy over a debt of $11,854? Something doesn't add up. The Bancruptcy Courts would not approve a filing over this amount because most people considered middle class have more than this in equity in their homes? I wonder what the definition of middle class was in this study? Certainly someone who doesn't even have access to this small amount of money isn't middle class by my definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoadRash 0 #3 February 5, 2005 QuoteQuote abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=463499 Don't get sick. How can someone be considered middle class and file bancruptcy over a debt of $11,854? Something doesn't add up. The Bancruptcy Courts would not approve a filing over this amount because most people considered middle class have more than this in equity in their homes? I wonder what the definition of middle class was in this study? Certainly someone who doesn't even have access to this small amount of money isn't middle class by my definition. That's true...Middle class and variations, such as upper-middle class have vastly different income ranges these days. And what one person deems as middle class and another views as middle class are two very different animals it seems. I am also well aware of how easily medical bills can add up. One trip to the emergency room last year, to tell me what I already knew at the time, (that I was perfectly fine except for some terrible bruising and scrapes), cost me over $7000. Not to mention the 15 minute ride in an ambulance. ~R+R...~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bodyflight.Net 0 #4 February 5, 2005 seems cheaper to NOT have private health insurance! QuoteThe average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #5 February 5, 2005 Quoteseems cheaper to NOT have private health insurance! QuoteThe average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses. We have a medical insurance with copay, deductiable etc, but don't have any children. For a person with insurance to end up with a $13K bill and then go bankrupt there may have been other factor's involved in the bankruptsy. The $13k medical bill based on my insurance tells me that there may have been a very serious illness/injury that also contibuted to drastic drop in wage earning capacity. A lot of the middle class is living on the edge of what they can afford based on two incomes. If one domestic partner gets insured/sick and loses their job the couples income is cut in half. We know it happened to us for three yr's. But we were lucky enough to only have been living on half our income.The health care providers are usually nice folks and will let you pay off your bill on the monthly payment plan. The comparision of out of pocket expenses between insured and uninsured is a over simplification unless you look at the expenses for the same medical procedures. The other kicker is the amount the insured person and their employer is paying for the insurance. R.i.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #6 February 6, 2005 You have to remember that most people are credit addicted. They already have everything mortaged to the hilt and owe ridiculous amounts to everyone and their brother. Also, a lot of people would rather file for bankruptcy and let the judge figure it out than do it themselves. Hell, with a number like that I'd tell someone to buy a smaller house, sell their SUV for a used civic, and come back if there is still a real problem later.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #7 February 8, 2005 QuoteQuote abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=463499 Don't get sick. How can someone be considered middle class and file bancruptcy over a debt of $11,854? Something doesn't add up. They could be out of work at the same time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #8 February 8, 2005 QuoteThey could be out of work at the same time. The article says 75% had medical insurance at the onset of their illness. It also says less than 1% of bankruptcy filings are due to credit card debt. Are you suggesting they lost their jobs due to their illness? If medical bills during unemployment was the cause of the bankruptcy filing, why was the amount the result of owing such a small copay? How can someone who files bankruptcy, when they owe so little, be considered middle class? I find it hard to believe that 2 million bankruptcies per year are caused by someone being sick and unemployed at the same time when the amount they owed was so small. Doesn't sound like a catostrophic illness to me. Sounds more like someone trying to take the easy way out of debt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #9 February 8, 2005 they may not be officially "unemployed", but if their sick time runs out, they're on "unpaid leave" and not bringing in any money, and the employer is probably not paying their health care premiums. I know when I was working (I'm currently on a leave of absense for school), if I had to take more than a few weeks off for illness/injury, I'd have to start paying my own insurance premiums, which are a couple of hundred bucks a month, plus I wouldn't be getting paid because I'd run out of sick time and vacation time. While my residence and salary put me solidly in the middle class, there's no way I could survive something like that financially without leaning on family for help. Not everyone has family that is able to help, and therefore end up with cancelled insurance, foreclosed homes, and bankruptcy filings. Also, not everyone considered "middle class" owns a home. Many people choose to rent for various reasons and therefore don't have that equity to rely on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #10 February 8, 2005 Hi GM >>"About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9 to 2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy," they wrote.>> "Medical causes" IOW the medical condition started a domino effect that led to job loss. I'm thinking there were other major creditors that were knocking on the door. "Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness." "Had insurance at onset of illness" The article doesn't say how many people lost their insurance which would have been a indicator of job loss. $10K in out of pocket medical costs is a indication of major long term medical condition. If you working construction/self employed/small business, no workee, no $$$$ Need a Bankruptcy lawyer to explain what was going on. Save house, car etc. Claiming banruptcy is Once you get employed again you will be able to get credit 20% interest car loan, etc. R.i.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #11 February 8, 2005 QuoteHi GM >>"About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9 to 2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy," they wrote.>> "Medical causes" IOW the medical condition started a domino effect that led to job loss. I'm thinking there were other major creditors that were knocking on the door. "Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness." "Had insurance at onset of illness" The article doesn't say how many people lost their insurance which would have been a indicator of job loss. $10K in out of pocket medical costs is a indication of major long term medical condition. If you working construction/self employed/small business, no workee, no $$$$ Need a Bankruptcy lawyer to explain what was going on. Save house, car etc. Claiming banruptcy is Once you get employed again you will be able to get credit 20% interest car loan, etc. R.i.P. So would you call the above description one of somebody "Middle-Class"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 February 8, 2005 Quotethey may not be officially "unemployed", but if their sick time runs out, they're on "unpaid leave" and not bringing in any money, and the employer is probably not paying their health care premiums. I know when I was working (I'm currently on a leave of absense for school), if I had to take more than a few weeks off for illness/injury, I'd have to start paying my own insurance premiums, which are a couple of hundred bucks a month, plus I wouldn't be getting paid because I'd run out of sick time and vacation time. While my residence and salary put me solidly in the middle class, there's no way I could survive something like that financially without leaning on family for help. Not everyone has family that is able to help, and therefore end up with cancelled insurance, foreclosed homes, and bankruptcy filings. Also, not everyone considered "middle class" owns a home. Many people choose to rent for various reasons and therefore don't have that equity to rely on. I disagree with your definition of "Middle-Class". While there is always the exception, I doubt if the 2 million people who filed bankruptcy over a measley $11K were all or mostly renters with no equity. I know of nobody I would describe as Middle Class who doesn't need the tax write-off of a home mortgage and I seriously doubt it's true in this case encompassing 2 million people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #13 February 8, 2005 Must be a trend. Cook County (Chicago) is adding a whole section to the Court system just to handle the amount of foreclosures in the area._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #14 February 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteThey could be out of work at the same time. Are you suggesting they lost their jobs due to their illness? Yup. They could also be on unpaid leave. Quote If medical bills during unemployment was the cause of the bankruptcy filing, why was the amount the result of owing such a small copay? The article implies that the bankruptcies came from the co-payments but doesn't state that explicitly. "About half cited medical causes," for their bankruptcies. "among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness." We know that the average direct medical expenses were about $12K but don't know what their other expenses were at the time or how their income changed. Quote I find it hard to believe that 2 million bankruptcies per year are caused by someone being sick and unemployed at the same time when the amount they owed was so small. The article says nothing about total credit, debt, or assets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #15 February 8, 2005 Well, if you look at California, there's many middle class people who could easily afford a home in any other part of the country who are renting because they don't have the $400,000 (and that's a conservative estimate) it takes to buy a house anywhere within an hour's commute of their job. Even if they could get a loan, they couldn't afford the $4000 per month payments. In most other places in the US, these people could afford a home no problem. Just not here. The US census listed median household income in 2003 at approximately $43,000. That's household. Not per earner. Total. From wikipedia: Most economists define "middle class" citizens as those with net worths of between $25,000 (low-middle class) to $250,000. However, net worths slightly over $250,000 generally are not considered to be wealthy, yet rather, upper-middle-class. ~~~ I'd venture to say that very few people that we think of today as being "middle class" has a net worth of $25,000 or more. Most are buried under mortgages, credit cards and car payments. They have a net worth of less than zero. Sure, they might have more than $25K in equity in their home, but what happens when that paycheck goes away and they can't make their mortgage payments? Sure, they can sell, but that takes time. If they need to pay medical bills NOW, they don't have that time. All of a sudden, there's no paycheck, nothing to buy food with, no way to pay for that nice car or pay the credit card bills. When income stops, equity goes away really fast. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #16 February 9, 2005 QuoteWell, if you look at California, there's many middle class people who could easily afford a home in any other part of the country who are renting because they don't have the $400,000 (and that's a conservative estimate) it takes to buy a house Quoteanywhere within an hour's commute of their job. Even if they could get a loan, they couldn't afford the $4000 per month payments. In most other places in the US, these people could afford a home no problem. Just not here. First off, the mortagage payment on a $400,000. mortgage isn't $4,000. per month, its about $2000. per month and that's assuming a first time home buyer with nothing down. I doubt most first time home buyers would start out with a home that expensive, but lets assume they did. That person would need an income close to $100,000 with a pre tax debt to income ratio of less than 40%. Assuming an interest write off of about $20,000 with a Federal tax bracket of 20% and that reduces the monthly tax payment by about$600. per month. Subtract that from the mortgage payment and the out of pocket is $1400. per month. Explain to me how it makes more sense to rent for $1000 per month on an income of $8500 than to purchase for $400. per month more. QuoteThe US census listed median household income in 2003 at approximately $43,000. That's household. Not per earner. Total. From wikipedia: Most economists define "middle class" citizens as those with net worths of between $25,000 (low-middle class) to $250,000. However, net worths slightly over $250,000 generally are not considered to be wealthy, yet rather, upper-middle-class. Ah. and therein lies the basis of our disagreement. I would not consider a single person making $25,000. per year or a married couple making $45,000. per year as middle class. I would consider them somewhere between poor and lower middle class depending on their debt to income ratio. QuoteI'd venture to say that very few people that we think of today as being "middle class" has a net worth of $25,000 or more. Most are buried under mortgages, credit cards and car payments. They have a net worth of less than zero. Sure, they might have more than $25K in equity in their home, but what happens when that paycheck goes away and they can't make their mortgage payments? Sure, they can sell, but that takes time. If they need to pay medical bills NOW, they don't have that time. All of a sudden, there's no paycheck, nothing to buy food with, no way to pay for that nice car or pay the credit card bills. When income stops, equity goes away really fast. And I would agree with you for the reasons I stated. I still contend there is more to the original story than has been revealed such as what the definition of middle class is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rmsmith 1 #17 February 9, 2005 QuoteMust be a trend. Cook County (Chicago) is adding a whole section to the Court system just to handle the amount of foreclosures in the area. I hope it's not starting yet. Among first time buyers roughly 75% of the mortgages written in California in the last couple of years are ARM (5/25), which often allow interest only during the first 5-years. After that, you have only 25-years to pay off a 30-year note, and some deals even let the buyers pay less than actual interest during the first 5-years with the difference added to the 25-year note, and that is compounding, so they will owe more after the first 5-years have passed. Currently, real estate is the prettiest girl at the dance, but the fun will end when the music stops! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #18 February 9, 2005 Met someone who took the bait on zero down 110% home finance loan, (higher interest rate) When the interest rates hit bottom they wanted to refi at a lower inteest rate and payments New Bank didn't want to take the risk on refi with lower payments due to negative equity . If the owner could afford to pay 8% "they" should have been able to afford 5.5% R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #19 February 9, 2005 My rent is $685 per month. By your estimate, buying a home would cost me over $700 a month more. Your calculation of mortgage payment was based on an interest rate of approximately 5% and a 30 year loan. Many first-time homebuyers, especially those under the age of 30 are not going to qualify for a rate that good. You're also forgetting all the insurance that mortgage companies make you add on to your property. Earthquake insurance, flood insurance, fire insurance, it all adds up. Then, there's maintenance costs. In an apartment, the landlord fixes something that breaks. If the roof leaks, call them and they fix it. Doesn't cost you anything extra. If you're a homeowner and the roof leaks, you can be out hundreds or even thousands of dollars, depending on how much damage there is. There are a lot of hidden costs to home ownership. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #20 February 9, 2005 QuoteMy rent is $685 per month. By your estimate, buying a home would cost me over $700 a month more. Depends. Are you comparing apples to apples? Are you saying you can rent a $400,000. house for $685? I don't think so. QuoteYour calculation of mortgage payment was based on an interest rate of approximately 5% and a 30 year loan. Many first-time homebuyers, especially those under the age of 30 are not going to qualify for a rate that good. Of course they can. Pick up the phone and call any mortgage broker. You may have to pay PMI if you have no equity to transfer or no money to put down, but I seriously doubt someone making enough to qualify for a $400,000. mortgage won't have 20% to put down. If they don't then it's because they don't save enough. QuoteYou're also forgetting all the insurance that mortgage companies make you add on to your property. Earthquake insurance, flood insurance, fire insurance, it all adds up. Then, there's maintenance costs. In an apartment, the landlord fixes something that breaks. If the roof leaks, call them and they fix it. Doesn't cost you anything extra. If you're a homeowner and the roof leaks, you can be out hundreds or even thousands of dollars, depending on how much damage there is. There are a lot of hidden costs to home ownership. True, but as an example, my present home has gone up $150,000 in less than 2 years and I've paid off about another $10,000 in principal, and saved over $10,000 in taxes. Thats a net gain of $170,000 in less than 2 years. Oh, I did have to spend $350. on a new dishwasher and I bought a new dryer because the old one didn't get all the wrinkles out of my clothes. Whereas you have spent over $15,000. and have nothing to show for it, I've gained almost $170,000. This year I'm going to buy at least one investment property fo around $350,000 and let someone else make my mortgage payments by renting while I get all the appreciation and tax benefits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #21 February 9, 2005 No, I'm not saying that you can rent a home for what I pay for my apartment. What I'm saying is that I couldn't get a house for much cheaper than 400K in this area, so, I save money by renting. My apartment is 1000 square feet. My friend's home, which isn't far from here, cost about $390K, and she's got 1200 square feet. Not too much bigger. A yard about three times the size of my balcony. hmm... maybe it is a good comparison. Sure, I don't have a yard, but I don't have to maintain one then. I get pool facilities, a fitness center, and free internet access. As for what I have to show for it: money in the bank (and invested in various places), a car that's completely paid for and a tolerable commute...oh...and a new canopy too. I wouldn't have any of that if I'd bought a house. I could've, but the trade off wasn't worth it. Oh... property doesn't always go up in value. Sometimes it goes down and you lose money. All depends on the market, I guess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #22 February 9, 2005 QuoteNo, I'm not saying that you can rent a home for what I pay for my apartment. What I'm saying is that I couldn't get a house for much cheaper than 400K in this area, so, I save money by renting. My apartment is 1000 square feet. My friend's home, which isn't far from here, cost about $390K, and she's got 1200 square feet. Not too much bigger. A yard about three times the size of my balcony. hmm... maybe it is a good comparison. Sure, I don't have a yard, but I don't have to maintain one then. I get pool facilities, a fitness center, and free internet access. As for what I have to show for it: money in the bank (and invested in various places), a car that's completely paid for and a tolerable commute...oh...and a new canopy too. I wouldn't have any of that if I'd bought a house. I could've, but the trade off wasn't worth it. Oh... property doesn't always go up in value. Sometimes it goes down and you lose money. All depends on the market, I guess. Very good. Would you need to file bankruptcy if you had $11,800 in medical bills? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #23 February 9, 2005 No, I wouldn't. Not to pay the medical bills at least. However, you never know exactly what the situation is going to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #24 February 9, 2005 QuoteVery good. Would you need to file bankruptcy if you had $11,800 in medical bills? Anyone have a idea of how large a medical bill would have to be for a person who has medical insurance to end up with $12k medical /bill in out of pocket expenses? You keep on ignoring the above quote the people who had to declare bankruptsy said the reason was a medical illness. The study didn't cite the total amount of debt. Either address the issue or are you going to continue with the attitude that SC is well known for. Whats next asking JR and his sidekick how many people with $12k in medical bills commit suicide/yr with hand guns. Have a nice day R.I.P. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #25 February 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteVery good. Would you need to file bankruptcy if you had $11,800 in medical bills? QuoteAnyone have a idea of how large a medical bill would have to be for a person who has medical insurance to end up with $12k medical /bill in out of pocket expenses? You keep on ignoring the above quote the people who had to declare bankruptsy said the reason was a medical illness. The study didn't cite the total amount of debt. Relax my friend. I'm not ignoring you or the reasons. Quote"Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness." Seems pretty clear to me. Their copay amount was $11,854. Also: QuoteShe said many employers and politicians were pressing for what she called "stripped-down plans so riddled with co-payments, deductibles and exclusions that serious illness leads straight to bankruptcy." Seems to indicate the reason for the B.K. was due mainly to medical copays. While it may be true that their is additional debt, it specifically says: QuoteHe said fewer than 1 percent of all bankruptcy filings were due to credit card debt. Which would indicate the medical expenses were the primary cause. At least according to this article which I stated in my first post seemed as if something was wrong. QuoteEither address the issue or are you going to continue with the attitude that SC is well known for. Whats next asking JR and his sidekick how many people with $12k in medical bills commit suicide/yr with hand guns. Obviously this has struck a nerve with you and I'm sorry if you disagree with me. I know all situations are different, I'm just commenting on the information we were given in the article. QuoteHave a nice day Don't you get a poutty attitude with me. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rmsmith 1 #17 February 9, 2005 QuoteMust be a trend. Cook County (Chicago) is adding a whole section to the Court system just to handle the amount of foreclosures in the area. I hope it's not starting yet. Among first time buyers roughly 75% of the mortgages written in California in the last couple of years are ARM (5/25), which often allow interest only during the first 5-years. After that, you have only 25-years to pay off a 30-year note, and some deals even let the buyers pay less than actual interest during the first 5-years with the difference added to the 25-year note, and that is compounding, so they will owe more after the first 5-years have passed. Currently, real estate is the prettiest girl at the dance, but the fun will end when the music stops! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #18 February 9, 2005 Met someone who took the bait on zero down 110% home finance loan, (higher interest rate) When the interest rates hit bottom they wanted to refi at a lower inteest rate and payments New Bank didn't want to take the risk on refi with lower payments due to negative equity . If the owner could afford to pay 8% "they" should have been able to afford 5.5% R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #19 February 9, 2005 My rent is $685 per month. By your estimate, buying a home would cost me over $700 a month more. Your calculation of mortgage payment was based on an interest rate of approximately 5% and a 30 year loan. Many first-time homebuyers, especially those under the age of 30 are not going to qualify for a rate that good. You're also forgetting all the insurance that mortgage companies make you add on to your property. Earthquake insurance, flood insurance, fire insurance, it all adds up. Then, there's maintenance costs. In an apartment, the landlord fixes something that breaks. If the roof leaks, call them and they fix it. Doesn't cost you anything extra. If you're a homeowner and the roof leaks, you can be out hundreds or even thousands of dollars, depending on how much damage there is. There are a lot of hidden costs to home ownership. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #20 February 9, 2005 QuoteMy rent is $685 per month. By your estimate, buying a home would cost me over $700 a month more. Depends. Are you comparing apples to apples? Are you saying you can rent a $400,000. house for $685? I don't think so. QuoteYour calculation of mortgage payment was based on an interest rate of approximately 5% and a 30 year loan. Many first-time homebuyers, especially those under the age of 30 are not going to qualify for a rate that good. Of course they can. Pick up the phone and call any mortgage broker. You may have to pay PMI if you have no equity to transfer or no money to put down, but I seriously doubt someone making enough to qualify for a $400,000. mortgage won't have 20% to put down. If they don't then it's because they don't save enough. QuoteYou're also forgetting all the insurance that mortgage companies make you add on to your property. Earthquake insurance, flood insurance, fire insurance, it all adds up. Then, there's maintenance costs. In an apartment, the landlord fixes something that breaks. If the roof leaks, call them and they fix it. Doesn't cost you anything extra. If you're a homeowner and the roof leaks, you can be out hundreds or even thousands of dollars, depending on how much damage there is. There are a lot of hidden costs to home ownership. True, but as an example, my present home has gone up $150,000 in less than 2 years and I've paid off about another $10,000 in principal, and saved over $10,000 in taxes. Thats a net gain of $170,000 in less than 2 years. Oh, I did have to spend $350. on a new dishwasher and I bought a new dryer because the old one didn't get all the wrinkles out of my clothes. Whereas you have spent over $15,000. and have nothing to show for it, I've gained almost $170,000. This year I'm going to buy at least one investment property fo around $350,000 and let someone else make my mortgage payments by renting while I get all the appreciation and tax benefits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #21 February 9, 2005 No, I'm not saying that you can rent a home for what I pay for my apartment. What I'm saying is that I couldn't get a house for much cheaper than 400K in this area, so, I save money by renting. My apartment is 1000 square feet. My friend's home, which isn't far from here, cost about $390K, and she's got 1200 square feet. Not too much bigger. A yard about three times the size of my balcony. hmm... maybe it is a good comparison. Sure, I don't have a yard, but I don't have to maintain one then. I get pool facilities, a fitness center, and free internet access. As for what I have to show for it: money in the bank (and invested in various places), a car that's completely paid for and a tolerable commute...oh...and a new canopy too. I wouldn't have any of that if I'd bought a house. I could've, but the trade off wasn't worth it. Oh... property doesn't always go up in value. Sometimes it goes down and you lose money. All depends on the market, I guess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #22 February 9, 2005 QuoteNo, I'm not saying that you can rent a home for what I pay for my apartment. What I'm saying is that I couldn't get a house for much cheaper than 400K in this area, so, I save money by renting. My apartment is 1000 square feet. My friend's home, which isn't far from here, cost about $390K, and she's got 1200 square feet. Not too much bigger. A yard about three times the size of my balcony. hmm... maybe it is a good comparison. Sure, I don't have a yard, but I don't have to maintain one then. I get pool facilities, a fitness center, and free internet access. As for what I have to show for it: money in the bank (and invested in various places), a car that's completely paid for and a tolerable commute...oh...and a new canopy too. I wouldn't have any of that if I'd bought a house. I could've, but the trade off wasn't worth it. Oh... property doesn't always go up in value. Sometimes it goes down and you lose money. All depends on the market, I guess. Very good. Would you need to file bankruptcy if you had $11,800 in medical bills? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #23 February 9, 2005 No, I wouldn't. Not to pay the medical bills at least. However, you never know exactly what the situation is going to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #24 February 9, 2005 QuoteVery good. Would you need to file bankruptcy if you had $11,800 in medical bills? Anyone have a idea of how large a medical bill would have to be for a person who has medical insurance to end up with $12k medical /bill in out of pocket expenses? You keep on ignoring the above quote the people who had to declare bankruptsy said the reason was a medical illness. The study didn't cite the total amount of debt. Either address the issue or are you going to continue with the attitude that SC is well known for. Whats next asking JR and his sidekick how many people with $12k in medical bills commit suicide/yr with hand guns. Have a nice day R.I.P. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #25 February 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteVery good. Would you need to file bankruptcy if you had $11,800 in medical bills? QuoteAnyone have a idea of how large a medical bill would have to be for a person who has medical insurance to end up with $12k medical /bill in out of pocket expenses? You keep on ignoring the above quote the people who had to declare bankruptsy said the reason was a medical illness. The study didn't cite the total amount of debt. Relax my friend. I'm not ignoring you or the reasons. Quote"Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness." Seems pretty clear to me. Their copay amount was $11,854. Also: QuoteShe said many employers and politicians were pressing for what she called "stripped-down plans so riddled with co-payments, deductibles and exclusions that serious illness leads straight to bankruptcy." Seems to indicate the reason for the B.K. was due mainly to medical copays. While it may be true that their is additional debt, it specifically says: QuoteHe said fewer than 1 percent of all bankruptcy filings were due to credit card debt. Which would indicate the medical expenses were the primary cause. At least according to this article which I stated in my first post seemed as if something was wrong. QuoteEither address the issue or are you going to continue with the attitude that SC is well known for. Whats next asking JR and his sidekick how many people with $12k in medical bills commit suicide/yr with hand guns. Obviously this has struck a nerve with you and I'm sorry if you disagree with me. I know all situations are different, I'm just commenting on the information we were given in the article. QuoteHave a nice day Don't you get a poutty attitude with me. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
