"100% of people who do not save money do not have any!"--Dave Ramsey

[All Darc]

Addicts... Do they need protection???
Even about ilegal drugs they choosed to take???

Adicts from presribed drugs are one thing... Medicine failed... Some can argue there are adicts whho took more than the doctors told them, just for fun or get high or "in clouds".
Others can compare drunkers with adicts of street drugs, since both opted to use knowing the risks.

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/jo...take-note.html

[Xist]

”We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us"--FDR

[All Darc]

Young Roosevelt could be the Pink Panther :

Originally Posted by Xist

”We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us"--FDR

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by litesong

You can see that Shaneajanderson is a re-pub-lick-un complaining about the democrat's min. wage.
Even on a democrat's min. wage, the "apartment" is one room, the vehicle can never break-down, the kids are forbidden to get sick (hard to do while starving), the boss can never fire min. wage workers & the parents have to work to age, 90.
It is obvious that if we discuss the re-pubic-lick-un min. wage, Shaneajanderson isn't telling the truth.

I haven't read the two pages that follow this comment yet, but I will respond to it anyway.

I said nothing for or against minimum wage, for or against either republican or democrat policies, really nothing for or against anything. What I did was make a factually observation that minimum wage workers in America have a very good life relative to the rest of the world.

I did see that Redpoint made a good point, and that is that nobody who is willing to put out even a little bit of effort will stay at minimum wage for long. In fact I was making more than minimum wage in high school, and have climbed quite rapidly in my adult life simply due to applying myself to hard work, and taking every opportunity possible to learn new skills.

Not everything is politics, you should learn that.

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by Xist

The millennials that I watch on YouTube say to:
1. Live within your means.
2. Save up for 3.5% down on a modest house--ideally new paint and other cosmetic, but not structural, improvements.
3. Assuming this is your new primary residence and your living costs have not increased substantially:
4. Save up for 3.5% down on another modest house with the same criteria.
5. Buy the house and rent it out for market value.
6. Repeat 4 and 5 as much as you can safely.

Even if you can afford nice things, they say your money is better invested.

They regularly talk about how you can limit your tax liability. In this case, it encourages affordable housing, but I am confident there are many other scenarios.

I kind of like Homestead Home's approach, buy a dire fixer-upper cheaply, and, would you believe? Fix it up?

He pays about the same amount in cash that other people might pay for a down payment. If they both spend the same amount to make it rentable (with Homestead Home doing all of the work himself), HH may own a house worth $100,000 for $30,000, but if he spends six months or a year renovating it, he is really a repairman that happens to own several properties. I do not believe that I have done the math, but I would think that you could grow faster buying good houses than buying trashed ones and remodeling them.

However, I do not feel there is anything special about the easy approach, but I think that taking a shell of a house, and turning it into a home takes real skill.

That depends on your skillset:

If you have a substantial savings to buy good homes, and are good at property management, than you might be better off buying liveable homes.

However, if you are like me, with bad people skills, but reasonable repair skills, you may be better off buying fixer houses, fixing, them, and then selling.

Find a niche, everyone has one, but not everyone's is the same.

[Shaneajanderson]

Now that I have read the two pages I will add this to the discussion:

A common theme here is the high cost of healthcare, and that the government needs to do something about it. The reality of the matter is that American healthcare (I can't speak to any other nations, but economics work essentially the same everywhere) was affordable before the government put it's heavy hand into the industry. Healthcare should be treated like every other industry, let the free market do what it does, and the only government involvement should be arbitration of disputes, and even that is debatable.

I'm not computer savvy, and have never figured out how to post pictures here, but there is a chart out there showing inflation of various products, and the trend you'll find is the items that are most unregulated (electronics, etc.) have greatly fallen in price, while simultaneously rising in quality and extravagance. there are products that have some regulations in place, but not too crazy that have stayed pretty much static in price while quality has improved (new cars), and then there is healthcare, probably the most heavily regulated industry in America, and low-and-behold the prices have gone through the roof, and some would argue certain aspects of the quality (think nurse: patient; doctor: patient ratios) have fallen.

Following the scientific method, we see that adding more government causes prices to climb, and quality to fall, relative to each other. So the obvious solution is to reduce the government involvement to bring prices down.

(Cue Litesong: something something REPUBLICANS unintelligible)

Couple edits for grammar...sorry.

[redpoint5]

We essentially have healthcare subsidy, which is part of why it's so expensive. The cost of service for those that don't pay, the uninsured, and even Medicare and other government regulated systems that don't cover the full cost of care ends up being shifted into insurance premiums and cash pay patients. The "book price" of any given service is well above the actual cost to provide it, but is negotiable depending on factors such as ability \ likelihood of being able to pay.

There's tons of factors playing into the high cost of healthcare. I had an eye emergency early this year and the ophthalmologist prescribed Combigan. It's a very small dropper containing a combination of medications that already existed and no longer have patent protection and it costs $300. When medications lose patent protection, the pharmaceuticals slightly change the proportions (recipe) of the concoction and it gains new patient protection status. Then they send drug reps in to feed the doctors nice lunches while they sell their "new" products...

I went back to the doctor and asked if there was a cheaper medication I could take since I have an HSA (pay out of pocket the first $4k). He asked me how much Combigan was, which is ridiculous considering there's probably a very limited number of medications an eye doctor prescribes, and Combigan is probably among the most prescribed in his office. He was surprised to learn it was $300 and prescribed me the old medication which was just as good, and costs $5.

[All Darc]

300 dollars for a eye drog...
Why they (industry) don't point a gun to your face and ask your walet? At least it would be more honest.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

300 dollars for a eye drog...
Why they (industry) don't point a gun to your face and ask your walet? At least it would be more honest.

$60 per mL

[All Darc]

Hey, could you be less like mr Spock, please ?

Originally Posted by redpoint5

$60 per mL