I thought the same thing then I went back and re-read it, it's probably all the medical bills they're having to pay off?

I can't imagine anything worse than feeling like you failed your children.

When they went under so to speak Kjosee, they probably still had a lot of bills to pay and I am sure they are still paying on them. Also, just because you are working does not mean you make that much if you are getting minimum wage. For a family of five like this, minimum wage income wouldn't even begin to keep them afloat. Also, the wife is not working right now it says.

I sincerely hope they are able to get back on their feet soon too.

After reading the article, it sounds like medical expenses of the sort that seems like one never is able to finish paying.

Medical expenses are one of the banes of the American working class family and its hard to afford insurance even with a normal paying job.

As someone who is homeless and living at work, let me explain my situation:

1. I have never gone to a homeless shelter. My personal belief is that those who have children, are disabled, with no family or friends, need those facilities more than I--a single person with a working vehicle and a helpful friend--need them. When I found that I could no longer make rent, I left my apartment... there were no incidents with lawyers or law enforcement, and no squabbles with the landlord. I paid what I owed, cleaned my apartment, moved out, and my renter's credit is sterling (which means getting another apartment won't be a problem).

2. Before you become homeless, you accumulate debt. There's no way to avoid that, because you're struggling to hold on to what you have. In this family's case, it might be medical debt, mortgage, or bankruptcy issues. Remember that they've also had years of money going towards utility bills and repair expenses in maintaining a home. I've never had to deal with those things, but I do have credit card debt; I accept my debt as my own, and a lot of my income goes towards keeping my credit cards out of jeopardy. This leaves little opportunity to save money, as I struggle monthly to maintain my excellent credit rating.

(Incidentally, "stop using your credit cards" doesn't work when you need emergency dental work, car repairs, gas, food and other necessities and there's no other way to obtain them. I don't have rich relatives, and I don't sleep around in order to let other people buy things for me.)

3. I have not gone running to unemployment, Social Security Disability (as I have a slight disability and would technically qualify), food banks, etc. because, again, I believe that others need those resources far more than I do. I did apply for food stamps/EBT, only to have the State of California "generously" offer me $22/month plus a work study that essentially had me picking up trash in the parks and roads for $1/hour in trade for my $22 in food assistance; I rejected their offer and never took a penny.

4. I'm fortunate in that I do work and earn a paycheck, but my hours are low. Plus I'm caught on that treadmill of rejection that the rest of the country faces in terms of job searches. They are generous enough to let me live at work but this is by no means a comfortable situation, nor one that everyone could be trusted or responsible enough to maintain. I have no social life, bring no one here and live in virtual isolation.

And bear in mind that the family in this case has children to take care of--that, for them, has totaled up to years of extra expenses (daycare as infants, clothing, transportation, etc.) that I, as a single person, never have to deal with.

Medical bills.

Until there is a legitimate, comprehensible and humane way to provide health care across the board this will be a way of life. Die young Die Broke, Die homeless Brought to you by the for profit health care industry and the 1%ers.

So very sad. I hope they can put this behind them and have a fresh new start. The great part about this story is how well they were taken care of by charity vs. our government entitlement programs.

Aye, from the sounds of it, this family did every thing right, and still fell flat on their faces. They had two incomes, lived within their means, and even had medical insurance.

And there is the rub. Even with medical insurance, a chance problem with the father's kidneys led to medical expenses so high, that the family could not afford to pay rent, even with two incomes!

What does that say about our medical system, that a single, unexpected medical issue can permanently bankrupt a working family, even WITH medical insurance?

Ah, but don't forget, should we dare to have universal health care for all of our citizens, that's committing the evil sin of "Socialism"! That's what "the neo-Marxist, Socialist administration of Obama wants the U.S. to become--a Communist country." (This quote brought to you by the paranoid ultra-conservative right wing party.)

Mercy and compassion need not apply.

Why would you pay the medical bills instead of the rent???????????????????????

impatientgirl: what makes you think they weren't trying to pay both, but simply couldn't? You screw up your credit, and you are doomed in today's marketplace. The bills, believe it or not, ARE the more important thing to pay!

I'm homeless but I have been on top of my bills since I first borrowed money from a bank at the age of eight (at the insistence of my mother--there's a long, troubled family story, there...). In March, I went in for car repairs that would've cost $800, but I didn't have the money. If not for having the option of applying for (and being approved for) a credit card, those repairs would never have happened and I would be without a vehicle.

Protect your credit at all costs, folks. It can be your only lifeline.

@StandUpJokeOff... there are very, very few people in this world who would make the sacrifices you do while considering others. I can only hope if my situation were the same as yours, I could do the same.

you can be working, but if your not making enough to cover the bills, this is what happens. Say both parents are making $10 per hour. How many people could raise a family on that? Remember he had medical bills and the car kept breaking down.

This country needs fixed! Corporate America is greedy. They will lay people off, cut benefits to save a dollar and increase upper management bonuses. The theory that you can work at a company for 30 to 40 years and retire is going away. Companies don't want you that long no matter how good of a worker you are. If you have been there 30 years, you are probably near the top of the pay scale and your probably making more doctor visits and taking more medications. This cost the company on paper. They can let you go and hire a college grad for less and pay less health benefits towards a young healthy college grad.

It's a new war that corporate america has figured out that thet can use and beat the legal system.

There is no loyalty from the company anymore.

The thing is that this is just a quick get rich plan, but down the road if you have all these people laid off or not making enough to pay rent or car payment, it's going to hit the economy at some point. No job, not enough pay just equals nobody buying cars, homes, taking trips, luxury items and then those industries start tumbling. You have to fuel the economy to keep it going for everyone!

They probably are saving but is their income stable enough to afford an appartment? Would they qualify for an apartment. Their credit is probably ruined. It's how our rules and prejudies kick people when they are down that keeps them in perpetual poverty and many Americans don't understand what happens to everything in life when one becomes homeless.

Why would you pay the medical bills instead of the rent???????????????????????

Why would you question what bills these people paid or didn't pay????????

BTW - The job this guy has at a bank call center - when I worked for a very large too big to fail bank - those jobs paid 8 - 11 per hour. Bet that's up to a high of 12 or 13 today.

Try providing food, shelter and the bare necessities on that for a family of five and get the @!$%# back to us on how you did it.

How many of us are one bad injury away from being homeless ?

You end up in the hospital, so you are not earning any money. You have to pay for the health insurance, or you end up owing even more. Even with health insurance, you likely have a deductible and co-pays.

For many people, the thought of bankruptcy is just not within them. They see it as a personal failure.

For others, they are unable to earn enough. A minimum wage job only pays $290 a week. Hardly enough to pay for a decent apartment, let alone purchase a house.

I was happy to see the family get the opportunity to live in an apartment. In five years time, the children will be grown and in college or working on their own. A small gesture can change the life of a person.

This is the type of story that really touches me; a loving family with caring parents, and decent kids who by all accounts is doing everything right, yet still finding themselves down on their luck. As others have said, it's unclear why the family hasn't been able to move into their own place, but I'll speculate that they have unpaid medical bills they are slowly trying to pay down.

While I try not to advocate people skimping on their obligations, people need to realize that personal bankruptcy is always an option and in most cases will work in your favor. There's nothing wrong with admitting you're in over your head and walking away from your debts if this sort of lifestyle is the alternative. With no savings and no major assets, I'm guessing this is the best option for the family at this point.

Also to the poster: StandUpJokeOff
You should never be ashamed to collect unemployment benefits or think that the funds are better used elsewhere. If you were working, then you paid into the system for years and are entitled the benefits you were promised. Believe me, if you don't take that money it's not like some other more deserving person will; it will just be additional funds for the federal government to p*ss away.

The key to understanding this story is that the spiral downward started with an illness. Medical bills were not covered by the employer's health insurance plan and that is what started this mess. There was not enough money for childcare so the mother quit her job. Loss of 1/2 of income at worst possible time, while bills are mounting. Of course that is when the car needs repairs and it escalates out of control very quickly after that.

We are the only civilized country in the world where this happens as a matter of routine. Almost 70% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills. Private health insurance makes over $12 billion a year in pure profit and they contribute not one minute to actual health care. They steadily increase deductibles, drop or barely cover supposedly "covered" treatment. It is a payer system, nothing more, that US citizens are carrying on our backs, and it costs by far more than any other country in the world, while the quality of care deteriorates to third world levels.

Do we really want to continue to line the pockets of this failed industry, which is responsible for the extremely high health care costs in this country and the poor quality of care? It puts decent hard-working Americans out on the streets, but this is somehow preferable to universal coverage and a single payer system?

That's nuts! If the Republicans had not stalled the full implementation of "Obamacare" to 2014, this would not have happened to this family. If they had not fought the implementation of PPACA tooth and nail, using one delaying tactic after another, this would not have happened.

Ah, but don't forget, should we dare to have universal health care for all of our citizens, that's committing the evil sin of "Socialism"! That's what "the neo-Marxist, Socialist administration of Obama wants the U.S. to become--a Communist country."

And while this is off-topic, I did feel the need to address this. Providing universal health care for all does not lower the cost of medical care, which is the core problem this country is facing. It essentially just shifts the costs from the people who use the services onto the people who do not. Perhaps you feel that this sort of arrangement is acceptable, which you have every right to do. However, there are many people who do not agree but that doesn't make them heartless or lacking compassion. I for one would much rather see this family able to provide for themselves and having ability to pay for their own affordable medical care as opposed to just finding someone else to pick up the tab.

Remember, most of the industrialized countries with single-payer systems that certain people like to tout are on the verge of insolvency right now. The reason? They were more concerned with making these types of services more available as opposed to more affordable.

I seriously have NO words......

Dear "Athoughtor2,"

I applaud your point about private health insurers making $12 billion in profit. This is the problem with a "for profit" health care system AND a health care system that values the "big guns" such as surgeons and specialists more than primary care physicians. (More on this later). However, I wonder if those of us fortunate enough to have savings and 401Ks invested in stocks and bonds realize that some of our investments are in these very companies that we profess disgust us. These corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors to make money. That's why people invest in these companies. I bet that if enough people were to tell their brokers to NOT invest them in health care companies (like people did when everyone boycotted South African companies because they endorsed apartheid) then we might start seeing a movement for the capping of exorbitant salaries and high profit margins. Remember, to most investors, there is no such thing as "too much profit."

Regarding primary care physicians (and the lack thereof because of low pay). I wonder what would happen if the US government (i.e. the people) said to prospective medical students: We will pay for your schooling AND guarantee you a salary of $125,000.00 per year if you will work as a primary care physician where we need you the most (urban areas, back hills, low population areas) AND if you give us a minimum of 8 years. If you work for us over 8 years, we will give you a 7,000.00 per year raise for up to another 10 years. If the student backs out of the program before the end of the 8 year minimum, they would be charged for their schooling at a pro-rated student loan rate. Seems like a win-win to me.

StandupJokeoff - thank you for being willing to put your story out there. You're in my prayers.

Killian

While I agree people should not be ashamed to collect unemployment you are wrong about them paying into it. Employers foot the bill for unemployment as insurance for their employees having some kind of an income if they are laid off. Individuals pay no part of unemployment.

You can't see the doctor until you make the copay 1st. You can't pick up any prescriptions until you pay for them up front. Even with insurance, something as simple as an asthma inhaler is still $34. I know plenty of people that only take a part of their maintenance meds so they can get 4 days out of 3 days of pills, etc. Even if they skipped the hospital bills, there are still current day to day medical expenses. Including having the insurance premium deducted from the paycheck each week.

Killian

While I agree people should not be ashamed to collect unemployment you are wrong about them paying into it. Employers foot the bill for unemployment as insurance for their employees having some kind of an income if they are laid off. Individuals pay no part of unemployment.

True. I guess that's an important distinction, but my overal point was that these programs are funded solely because individuals like StandupJokeoff participate in the labor market.

Thank you for your correction.

We are all in danger of being bankrupt by medical bills. Even with health insurance, the bills are outrageous and because the U.S. runs a "for-profit" system, Americans pay the highest amount for medical and drug care. We are in fact subsidizing the rest of the world. Employers don't want to provide health insurance, which is why they take their business to Bangladesh or China where they don't have to worry about benefits or regulations.

Of course, this family got a boost from that $20 weekly payroll tax relief! If they had been a bank, they could have gotten trillions in bailout assistance...even if they had engaged in shady activity.

Killian Jones:

"Remember, most of the industrialized countries with single-payer systems that certain people like to tout are on the verge of insolvency right now. The reason? They were more concerned with making these types of services more available as opposed to more affordable."

The reason? I don't think so. Because for one, not a single one of those nations with national healthcare is, nor has ever, looked or tried to get rid of them. Was it the reason that the US ran into this "great recession"? No it was not. What we have here, and what reverberated throughout the rest of the world, was Wall Street, national/international banking/investment firms, corrupt mortgage services/individuals, and a number of complicit corrupt citizens, who carried out loans that were unsecured, over inflated, and sold them to any unsuspecting entity, until the house of cards came crashing down.

This family in the article, ran into trouble because of healthcare needs, that went beyond what their insurance would deal with, taking everything with it, home, jobs, etc. They have tried, from what we see written, to deal with the situation, and still remain a "family". They were affected by the Great Recession that took away their jobs, and thus their means to sustain a home and financial responsibilities of the day to day living requirements.

People forget that homeless families have to eat OUT every meal (that gets pricey). Homeless families have to pay laundromat fees to wash every sock. There are costs that come with homelessness. You would be surprised how many pay storage fees on their junk that they plan to need as soon as they get back on their feet. It cost a lot to file for bankruptcy too!

The reason? I don't think so. Because for one, not a single one of those nations with national healthcare is, nor has ever, looked or tried to get rid of them.

Let's be honest here. All those countries had fundamental problems with their economies that were not at all caused by the Great Recession (the recession accelerated the effects of those problems). And of course none of those countries are trying to get rid of national healthcare; how long do you think a democratically-elected politician would last if he ran on the platform of eliminating already existing benefits? But that doesn't mean that their programs are solvent, or fundamentally sound for the long-term. Eventually, all of Western Europe is going to have to make extremely difficult choices on which programs they want to keep, and which will have to be eliminated or scaled back. Health care will certainly be included in those discussions. The only question left is who will be making those decisions: the nations' leaders or their creditors?

Credit that is your lifeline in today's society, yet there is no real protection being offered.

Regarding primary care physicians (and the lack thereof because of low pay). I wonder what would happen if the US government (i.e. the people) said to prospective medical students: We will pay for your schooling AND guarantee you a salary of $125,000.00 per year if you will work as a primary care physician where we need you the most (urban areas, back hills, low population areas) AND if you give us a minimum of 8 years. If you work for us over 8 years, we will give you a 7,000.00 per year raise for up to another 10 years. If the student backs out of the program before the end of the 8 year minimum, they would be charged for their schooling at a pro-rated student loan rate. Seems like a win-win to me.

Interesting points, and since my fiancé is a current resident (specializing in otolaryngology), I thought I might jump in. You are absolutely correct that there is a shortage of PC physicians in this country, but mainly because med students have zero financial incentive to specialize in that field. $125,000 a year is nothing when you've racked up $250,000 in student loans, and don't really start working until you reach your 30s. A PC physician's assistant will actually earn more money than a physician himself. Because of this, most doctors specializing in primary care are among the lowest-performing students in their class. The highest ranked students will opt for more lucrative careers in plastics, dermatology etc.

Your idea of creating a program where students commit to a specialty beforehand is an interesting one, especially considering we already have similar post-residency programs around the country that exist to serve under-serviced communities. They will often offer salaries 3x higher than what one could expect to make in an urban setting.

I know several people who are working and living out of their cars, offices or surfing friends' couches.

These aren't kids, either - they're educated mid-career working people.

Being a single mom, our family is one big medical bill away from the same situation. (And before anyone jumps on the bandwagon, I WAS married and got an education before I had kids.)

I spend the entire last week taking an hour away from work here, an hour away there trying to correct all the reimbursement errors from my insurance company this year. They have annual checkups counted as something else (so they have a deductible instead of being 100% covered). They have lab workers in in-network labs who handled our labwork who "weren't on the in-network provider list" and so are being paid as out-of-network claims (with huge deductibles). Etc., etc.

In all, they've charged 6 times my deductible this year, not counting my per-visit copays. If I don't get it straightened out, it's all going to go to collections. And then we'll be where these people are.

Yet my only other option is to miss work to deal with it. Ugh.

Killian: " Providing universal health care for all does not lower the cost of medical care, which is the core problem this country is facing. It essentially just shifts the costs from the people who use the services onto the people who do not. "

Killian, EVERYONE will need health care at some time during their lives. Unless they die first.

EVERYONE will need some sort of health care during their lifetimes.

THis has been going on for YEARS in Hawai'i. Entire families living on beaches, all of them working and with kids, grandparents, etc. Why? Here it is the tourist and real estate industry's fault. Land is such a premium so a studio 500 sq. ft. is like $1,000 dollars plus ulititities. I know of one family who was living in such an apartment --7 people; mom and dad plus 3 kids plus 2 grandparents before the ywere kicked out. Not because of not making the payments, they were, but because the owner evicted them at the lease signing because he could make more money renting to the military and tourists.

THis isn't new. I see itevery day driving here. At least the weather makes it better for outdoor living. This wasn't caused by the economics of the day or Obama care, this is an old problem. THe jobmarket and lack of pay is making it worst. This is the saddest part about it.

THey didn't WANT to be homeless, they aren't lazy, good for nothing , living on welfare and stamps, mooching off the government...THey are regular people who work and lost everything. Sadly, we may be at that point soon, and I am pregnant. Fortunally, I have a family who can take us in until it works out, if it comes to that.

I get ANGRY at people and politicans who say Obama won because of people who want handouts. Nobody wants handouts, we need them to tide us until we can stand up on our own. And to trust a for-profit private business for help...seriously, really? How long would that last? No. I'd rather pay my taxes to help the poor, defend our borders, pay off our debt, and pay for our education and dreams.

Until you walk a mile in their shoes...I hope to god it doesn't get to that point for us.

Combining their student loan debt and medical bills, they found themselves more than $35,000 in debt. Unable to afford child care, Cindy Kennard was forced to quit her job leaving them with only her husband's income, around $23,000 a year.

The guy makes $11.06 an hour before taxes, at a company he's worked at for 7 years, with a college degree folks! The fruits of the Educational Industrial complex are there for all to see. The wife's got a degree too! Who gets a job that makes less than the cost of childcare? Especially someone with a degree? WTF is wrong with this picture? They had medical insurance. The out of pocket may have been a few thousand dollars but C'mon! Find a freaking job that pays better. Move your ass somewhere where the jobs are. It reminds me of the Sam Kinison bit on starving people in Africa. Move to where the food is! Perfect story to plan the heart strings of the bleeding hearts like a violin. WTF did they get degrees in? Romance languages?

Let's be honest here, you're pretty full of it. Your sweeping generalizations are as inaccurate and they are ignorant. First off much of western europe, ie nearly all of Scandinavia is rocking out with the best education system and socialized health-care in the world. They are also some of the most economically stable countries in the world.

The reason countries like ireland, greece, portugal, spain, etc are not doing well is simply because they have 0 control over their currency. When the housing bubble collapsed and they needed monetary control in order to soften the blow, they were tied to the Euro.

There are other much deeper issues at play as well. In case your head has been under a rock for the last year, (this is something any person who has spoken to a greek citizen would know or anyone who watches the news occasionally) Greece hasn't collected taxes on citizens in over 20 years. The average tax rate collected has been roughly at 3% or lower. When you have 0 control over your currency and have limited income due to no taxes AND there is a recession, you will not do well.

Maybe you should stop watching fox news and get educated

If universal health care does not "lower the cost"--then why does healthcare cost many times more in the US than in other industrialized countries, Killian?

I'm not exactly sure how you are weasel-wording this, but the fact remains that health care in countries with universal health care coverage pay less (a lot less) for each service. The service is not always fabulous--but it's heck of a lot better than nothing and a whole heck of a lot better than winding up in crippling debt due to an illness.

When one has for-profit health care, then the cost is shifted to those who will pay and away from those who will not. There's always cost-shifting. Typically, it goes from the people who refuse to pay (even though they could, not infrequently, like young people who skip out on their bills) to those who need ongoing care and have no choice but to pay if they want that ongoing care.

It is true that, because many people in the US simply can't get health care, that the remaining people (those with the best health care) have an easier time scheduling things like elective surgeries. But, that's about it. In any case, "Obamacare" is not universal health care, no one even tried to enact that as it was well known that no one would go for it, and the closest you can get to universal health care is Massachusetts (under the bill created by Romney), and will be in Vermont (I understand that they kicked out the insurers and are going over to single-payer health insurance).

Personally, I think the idea of single-payer health care insurance is the best intermediate plan. If we all go in together to get our health care, it will be lower for all of us. It is true that very young people will pay more than perhaps they need to, but unless they die, they will benefit in the long run when they become middle-aged and/or start to have children. In the long run, they will be better off.

But, yeah--if you think that health care costs the same or more where there is universal health care, there's a little thing called documentable reality that is going to keep biting you on the fanny. It doesn't.

There...for the grace of God... anyone of us could slip and fall.

You're wrong, Rick7570. Unemployment insurance is one of the costs of hiring a person which an employer factors in when setting wages or making a salary offer.

Thus, the employee pays for unemployment insurance. The employer only handles the transaction on behalf of a group of workers. Much less hassle for the state to collect quarterly and deal with delinquent payers this way. Imagine the hassle, errors and delinquency list if each worker had to do this individually each quarter.

The guy makes $11.06 an hour before taxes, at a company he's worked at for 7 years, with a college degree folks! The fruits of the Educational Industrial complex are there for all to see. The wife's got a degree too! Who gets a job that makes less than the cost of childcare? Especially someone with a degree? WTF is wrong with this picture?

I noticed that too, as well as the fact that the article neglected to mention what types of degrees the husband and wife hold. If they're anything like much of today's youth, it's very likely that the squandered their time and money on a major that had no realistic chance to provide them with a financial secure future.

BS, Killian.

I know engineers who are working $10 an hour jobs. And lots of people with PhD's in a variety of supposedly high-need fields who are unemployed. Several of them have even dropped their highest degree off their resume because otherwise they're always told they're "overqualified". (It's gotten a couple of them a job, but of course the pay isn't nearly what they're qualified for.)

Meanwhile, the GOP House has passed a bill to eliminate the caps on foreign "highly skilled" workers coming here under H1B visas to take the jobs these people used to do. At 1/2 the pay.

The system is rigged. Just paying for a good degree is no longer a guarantee that you'll be able to pay your bills once you start working. All of the increase in income in this country for the last 20 years has gone to the top 2%, and wages for everyone else have fallen.

Until we're willing to stand up and do something about, more of us every year are going to fall off the ladder.

Anybody willing to work a full-time job in this country should be paid enough to afford a roof over their head, food and either childcare or a non-working spouse to raise the kids.

This is the richest country in the world. But somehow we've been brainwashed into believing that all that GDP is only for the "already-haves" and not for the people who earn it.

The biggest problem is that 40% of our economy now goes to the financial sector. Which actually contributes nothing.

If universal health care does not "lower the cost"--then why does healthcare cost many times more in the US than in other industrialized countries, Killian?

There's no cause and effect there. Yes, on average European health care costs less than what we have to pay in the U.S., but there's other factors at play that have nothing to do with universal coverage. For example, prescription drugs in the U.S. are on average about 60% more expensive than in Europe. That's not because they have universal coverage, it's because physicians in this country are encouraged to prescribe brand-name products instead of the often cheaper generics that essentially do the same thing.

Also, the U.S. uses many more expensive diagnostic tests (MRI scans, etc.) that are not always statistically necessary, however many doctors feel the need to do them out of fear of lawsuits. Just a disclaimer, I'm not someone who's delusional enough to think 'tort reform' will cure all problems, but fear of civil litigation does play a huge roll in how physicians treat their patients.

But perhaps most importantly is the fact that our primary care system is nowhere near the quality of the system in Europe, mainly because medical school students do not have strong financial incentives to enter that specialty. This eventually leads to higher costs because patients will wait for their conditions to worsen and eventually seek treatment at a hospital when they should been going to their family doctor all along.

All of these factors help contribute to higher costs for Americans, yet providing universal health care does virtually nothing to address them.

@Killian Jones:

"And of course none of those countries are trying to get rid of national healthcare; how long do you think a democratically-elected politician would last if he ran on the platform of eliminating already existing benefits? But that doesn't mean that their programs are solvent, or fundamentally sound for the long-term. Eventually, all of Western Europe is going to have to make extremely difficult choices on which programs they want to keep, and which will have to be eliminated or scaled back. Health care will certainly be included in those discussions. The only question left is who will be making those decisions: the nations' leaders or their creditors?"

In most of those nations with national healthcare, the cost is far lower than it is in the US per GDP. Also, in most of those nations, they have had national healthcare coverage for decades. You attempt to put up GOP styled talking points about how they "might" deal with their own situations, as I have followed this ever since the great recession first showed up, I have not seen any of those politicians, liberal nor conservative, even once raise the possibility of "scaling back", nor of abolishing the NC programs. You are projecting, and doing so with no real proof. That does not constitute anything more than wishful thinking. Having a national healthcare program does not mean then that there will not be any medical screw-ups, etc., because of the simple fact, that we're all human, and humans do manage to mess things up naturally, if not by design. What those other nations with health care programs also demonstrate, is that they have a far better control of costs. Pharmacy charges, as with all medical costs are lower, in some cases far lower than here in the US. We have seen how "for profits" insurance corporations have gained control of costs for both the institutions, and for the citizens, and while they pay themselves gargantuan salaries, bonuses, special perks, golden parachute clauses, make large political donations, build their own large office buildings, etc., we're paying ever increasing premiums...and it took a law to make the insurance corporations to put more of the premium finances we're paying into actually paying the medical bills we encounter. We find that a charity is only putting in 15% or so to the actual charity itself and pocketing the rest, we would end sending them one more dime. But with insurance corporations, we do not have that choice, we pay or else. The insurance corporations whine an awful lot about how much they're paying out in medical expenses, but you really need to see their whole financial report to see how much they are not to understand that they lie...all the time.

impatientgirl

Why would you pay the medical bills instead of the rent???????????????????????

Agreed. The 2 most important bill to pay from the article is the student debt and rent. Medical bills should take the back seat until they get their finances back. It's not the right thing to do but its stupid to go homeless so you can pay all the bills.

And before you guys get on your high horses and say all bills have to be paid....... go look at corporations. They continue to go into bankrupsy to discharge debt with very little stigma, and they are the worst offenders. Why is it ok for the corporations to ignore and stop paying bills but its not ok for struggling families.

At this point, good credit score is not important. Its idiotic to continue paying all bills and go homeless while keeping a good credit score.

If I was in their shoes? Cut all expenses and downgrade to cheapest 1-2 bedroom apartment. It's better than being homeless and adds stability. 2 most important bills to pay are student loans and rent. Medical bills? That can be ignored. Hurt credit score can always recover with time.

The reason countries like ireland, greece, portugal, spain, etc are not doing well is simply because they have 0 control over their currency. When the housing bubble collapsed and they needed monetary control in order to soften the blow, they were tied to the Euro.

There are other much deeper issues at play as well. In case your head has been under a rock for the last year, (this is something any person who has spoken to a greek citizen would know or anyone who watches the news occasionally) Greece hasn't collected taxes on citizens in over 20 years. The average tax rate collected has been roughly at 3% or lower. When you have 0 control over your currency and have limited income due to no taxes AND there is a recession, you will not do well.

Control over the Euro and an inability to conduct monetary policy is not the issue at hand here. In fact, I could easily argue that the Greeks are better off in their current situation because they're being FORCED to address their long-term problems now instead 'softening the blow' and worrying about it later. I'm amazed that individuals like yourself (who I assume buys into the Keynesian theory) advocate for more aggressive monetary policies, only to later complain that prices keep increasing while salaries remain flat.

Until I know what it is I will not say if it is medical bills or their own spending problem. I had a Coworker who had a household income of 140K they spent close to 160-170K a year(no kids). His household income dropped to about 110-120K they lost every thing and divorced He is now living with his father with an income of 40K his wife has an income of 60K and they have a combined debt of 400K no medical bills.

Please tell me how it is the 1%ers fault? DO people have no personal responsibility?

Another sad soul who believes that the plural of "anecdote" is "data."

had-enough - I'd agree that people should put everything on the back burner and just pay to keep the family going once everything financial has hit the fan.

Unfortunately, collection agencies don't see it that way. It takes very little in most states for them to garnish wages to get their money (plus all the fees they tack on for "handling").

If 25% of your check is taken to pay a bill you can't afford, what can you do? Nothing.

Killian

Providing universal health care for all does not lower the cost of medical care, which is the core problem this country is facing. It essentially just shifts the costs from the people who use the services onto the people who do not. Perhaps you feel that this sort of arrangement is acceptable, which you have every right to do. However, there are many people who do not agree but that doesn't make them heartless or lacking compassion.

First, the exact same argument could be used against the police department. I live in the safest city in the US (according to the FBI), where crime is extremely rare. I have never needed to call the police. So why should I pay into something I do not use as much as the people living 50 miles away? The answer: because police protection should not be a "for profit" industry. It is a community service that EVERYONE pays for, regardless of how much you use it.

This applies to health care as well. Why is your health a "for profit" industry, wherein people make MORE MONEY when you are sick. There is a financial incentive to keep people sick. Why is health care not treated as a community service, where everyone benefits from everyone being healthy?

Second, single-payer health care DOES reduce medical expenses. In Germany, everyone pays around $35/month for health care. I don't know about you, but that is a helluva lot cheaper than my plan. There are many other countries with similar programs that are NOT in financial trouble.

The harsh reality is that universal health care did NOT bankrupt the countries you refer to. Juyen already explained why those countries are struggling, so I will not repeat his points. I invite you to read it again.

s'all good: Another article said there are huge identity theft rings, mostly in the southeast. There are steps that you can take:

1. File a complaint with all the details with your local police station. If they refuse to take the complaint (and yes, your credit was stolen, it is something real), make a note of that too.

2. As well as your local police station, file a complaint with all details with the Federal Trade Commission. ID theft is a Federal crime, and this is the group to file with. Also tell the Federal Trade Commission the filing information from your local police; and if the local police refused to allow you to file a complaint, mention that also.

3. If you have credit cards, tell each company that you have an ID theft problem, and have them cancel the charges. They may charge you $50 I think for each card though.

4. If you have no credit cards, or people have taken out fake cards using your ID, the police should have that on record. Sometimes they will know what companies were using your information, and you can notify those banks and businesses. This is the purpose of contacting the Federal Trade Commission, because this cannot be put on your credit history.

5. Ask that your credit history be revised to show that you did not make charges yourself.

Someone in my family had ID theft against her three times. This is not uncommon, and it can destroy credit. However, after correctly filing with police and FTC, she recovered all of her good credit in her credit rating.

As for the homeless: my heart goes out to you. I understand how difficult the medical bills are; my husband has cancer, and we have to pay $4000 a year for the insurance difference (beyond co-pay), and co-pays every time he goes to the infusion center, and co-pays for prescription medicine. It adds to about $6000 to $8000 a year, right when the doctors say that the best thing for a cancer patient is to eat more protein and whatever they want: lamb and mushrooms are best to build the blood. Try affording that though!!!

Back in the 1970s, a secretary's job could earn $5.00 an hour, but what could that money get you? Since then, everything has jumped price 5 to 10 times (except electronics which came down). I can remember in the 1960s having a church dinner, and the Sunday School went shopping with the person who was cooking, and she bought pasta, canned tomatoes, lots of meat, ricotta cheese, parmasian cheese, bread, and salad for 100 people, and the cost stuck in my mind: she paid $35 for the whole thing, and of course there was so much food left over that we served the church again that Sunday. Try and see what even $70 will buy today: you will be lucky to be able to buy enough for ten people; 100 people costs hundreds of dollars. In one month, multiply 5 people times 30 days, and that's 150 people.

The couple who is homeless was making less than $20 per hour. Without medical and car expenses, that could really take them down. Take-home pay for $35,000 a year would be less than $1500 a month (subtracting all the paycheck deductions). Out of that: FOOD is very high for five people. Rent: depends on where they are in the country, but it might be more than a quarter of this money. Transportation (the cheapest possible) to and from work: it costs a lot these days. Clothing (sure they can all shop at Goodwill), medical co-pays for well visits for the kids, shoes (you can't get shoes at Goodwill). Forget the phone. However, laundry costs. This is not something that people understand: at the bottom line, there isn't money enough to cover these expenses on a salary of $35,000 a year. Add to that college loans, medical bills, loss of work due to medical problems, and that's a prescription for homelessness.

If you don't get this, then you are so rich that you think the median income is $250,000 (like Romney). Americans are hurting a lot more than people realize.

In the aftermath of hurricane Sandy, there are more people who are homeless. If we haven't taken care of people who are homeless in the recession, what are we going to do after a disaster?

I hope things can turn around for the family. This is a very sad thing to see in America. My wife and I are not far behind them and if something was to happen to me my wife would never be able to afford a home by herself on her pay. I thank God every time I see these stories Romney didn't become our President. Why, because my wife works part-time for minimum wage at Staples. This is the example of the 12 million jobs he wanted to create.

Bean@home,

If universal health care does not "lower the cost"--then why does healthcare cost many times more in the US than in other industrialized countries, Killian?

Let's see. Maybe because here in the US we want and expect the best of everything. The best imaging systems, the best surgical procedures, the best durable medical equipment, the best drugs, etc... Problem is nobody wants to pay for it. If you take into consideration the diverse make-up of the US and it's population there is no country on Earth that delivers the same high level of care that the US does. Also, many of the other industrialized countries of the world don't have to spend a very high percentage of their tax revenue on defense. Why should they? They have Uncle Sam to cover their butts. Even with this they are finding their Socialized medicine model is bankrupting them. The UK is bringing in US insurers to see what they can do about the problems in their system.

Wow. Complete misunderstanding of "medical costs" going on. Say everyone is responsible solely for his or her own debt medically. Those who can't afford it well, they politely, and politically corectly... Die. Now then, you gonna leave the body laying there? It's dead. It doesn't care if it's causing a (love the word - ) Medical health hazard for YOU. Hey, and nevermind that the neighbor next door might have an extremely dangerous highly contagious medical disease. It's THEIR problem. Not yours. Nevermind that you pay the county to remove the body because it has now become YOUR problem. Nevermind that you'd like the county, the city, the school etc, to ensure that YOU don't get the bad disease of the day. The Black Plague was just a bad dream. Nothing to worry about. No one pays for it. Just make sure you buy your house in the high hills to escape the noxious city air. Those "poor" people who aren't "responsible" enough to take care of their own medical, well, they deserve it, right, Let the bodies stack HIGH boys! We'll burn 'em when we get to 'em! Wear your masks all! The stench? Well, we're not sure if it's the stench of snootiness thinking that only POOR people get sick? or if it's the stench of the rotting dead who DARE leave their bodies on OUR doorsteps to care for?

THAT'S what universal health care is for. the REASONS costs are kept down when it comes to universal health care are manyfold and not as one-sidedly simplistic as stated: yes, pharmaceutical costs are kept down. That's because National GOVERNMENTS have told pharmaceutical companies what they will pay, and those very companies gouging the American consumer uncheccked are without recourse, either cooperate with a government or lose the business. Not because of generic versions replacing the regular name-brand. Hospitilzation is not a "business" in Europe. Medical care is actually medical care. Because people are not financially constrained from preventative care, far less actually get sick. Even preventative care in the U.S. is cost prohibitive. And let's clarify a HUGE difference in what is considered medical care in Europe. Amazingly, it is recognized that dental care is important, therefore part of the universal health care. So is eye care. (need to read that OSHA report in the plant? Or the sign that says DANGER?) Massage, chiropractic and acupuncture care are also recognized as valid, because people feel better. Don't care if you're insisting on "proof" that these are "medically sound." The fact is, people feel better when they choose their own type of care and thus require less medical attention rather than more.

A MAJOR factor in lower costs of health care is the lack of LAWSUITS. I'm hoping that comes around in the U.S. Once everything medical is covered, can't sue for the car accident neck injury, it's covered anyway. For life. Can't sue for falling down on someone's front step, you're medically covered anyway. Can't sue the doctor, because well, you can up and go somewhere else, you're not prohibited from seeing who you choose, you don't have to pass the PC to get to the specialist to get to the hospital, to get anywhere. You just see who you choose to see. As for the "waiting" for months, well remember, life-threatening things are addressed. If you need a nose straightened, I think you can wait. And even in the U.S. we wait before we get to see a specialist. I had to wait 3 months to see mine, and I had a life-threatening problem.

Let me be realistic, there's a downside on the whole no lawsuit thing. Most of it is upside, but the downside is that there are very few checks in place when it comes to malpractice. TRUE malpractice. Not doctor's making a human mistake, but doctors who experiment, who wish to conduct surgeries that the patient does NOT want, who deliberately choose to ignore the person and make them a massive medical experiment. And yes, they do exist in Europe. Plenty of news programs regarding that too.

Doctors don't make huge money being doctors, either. Specialist or no. That too keeps costs down. Universal health care prevented hospitilization and medical care from becoming big business. The point is actually emphasized on the CARE part.

Mind you, university studies are ALSO paid for in most European countries. No parents needing to mortgage the house a 2nd or 3rd time to put the kid through school. Then again, apprenticing at 14 or 15 is still practiced in Europe too. This whole "degree" thing is so out of hand in the U.S. it's not funny. A degree to be a receptionist? Really? A degree for secretary? A degree to fix a car? Nuff said.

There's also a (universal American) misconception that Universal Care was somehow "forced" onto those countries who have it. Many of these countries had an actual popular (no electoral colleges there.) vote regarding the issue. This is something that the people wanted. MOST of these countries implemented universal health care right after WWII. Everyone in Europe was getting sick, was hurt in the war, or too poor to pay a doctor for care. Universal health care turned out to be one of the best things there is in Europe.

Europe's downfall was NOT health care, nor was it "entitlement." Yes indeed, Wall Street rocked the boat considerably, but Europe also bought the stupid stocks that weren't stable, and promoted "borrow and spend" just as heavily as the U.S. Greece did a LOT of borrowing, and plenty of spending. Just like the local kid who's partying through college.

Just to answer the actual question: costs for all Americans, be they homeless or not are: food (for which, prices have risen astronomically) transportation costs have gone up astronomically (even if you don't have a vehicle or mass transit, it's usually prudent to fork over some gas money to someone who will help you out) child care costs (not just babysitting, but clothing, hot water? - no one need showers?, general toiletries) last but not least, the ever choking insurance bill upon each and every family, be it car insurance, health insurance, renter's or homeowner's insurance... God forbid anyone cap the d##n insurance companies.

Entititlement, yes, such a sin. You're not entitled either (for the person who spoke of it) to your police, your fire dept. your school, your mall (yup, your city helped fund it!) your park. NADA. Get off the bandwagon treating people like lepers for needing help and realize that YOU have services you might never have had if you didn't pay taxes. Gee, how many things were started by our very government? NAH, not cellphones. NAH, not roads. NAH, not telephone service. NAH, not water service. Got electirc? Cut it with the whole stupid blaming people for "entitlements" Those are actually few and far between, and that is even figured into the whole unemployed factor. About 5% of EVERY population will never be employed. OF those, a percentage are actually CHOOSING to be unemployed in order to usurp the system. That leaves 95% of those who NEED the help, and not because they have dearly wished to be in the position of having someone like you barking at them about how they're sucking off the system.

why pay medical before rent? Gee, that's the question facing every elder person in this nation. Let's see, no medicine, I die, no rent, I go homeless. Die? Go homeless? Pay for dialysis and live? Go homeless? Right, pay the rent, then you still have an apartment for a year, even though you don't live out the month.

Confused,

I thank God every time I see these stories Romney didn't become our President. Why, because my wife works part-time for minimum wage at Staples. This is the example of the 12 million jobs he wanted to create.

I know what you mean. I'm expecting everything to turn-around in the next month or two. I'll be able to sell my house, get a better high paying job, and all my out of work friends will be back to work. Can you imagine if Romney had been elected? My God!

@Killian Jones:

You raised the issue, and then back away from it saying that's not the issue here. The issue here, as was shown in the article, medical care for the mans Kidney problem. That the bills that came from that were staggering. Here in the US, this is being heard far too often. People are just fine and dandy, until some catastrophic medical incident happens, and if they do not have insurance then the bills go directly to them, and if this economic downturn had taken their job away, they'll face total bankruptcy and loss of home and quite possibly, family. And if the owed industry takes them to court over the debt, the court will have to side with the industry because that is the law. So even if you only have a job that pays at/near minimum wage, the law says that the industry is a legal bill and has to be paid.

As I said before, national health care in the rest of the industrialized world is not being put on the table. But here in America, the repubs want to put Medicare/Medicaid and SSI as well, on the cutting table. Some want to "privatize it", and allow citizens to put the funds into some kind of savings account, which will never grow enough to cover a catastrophic medical incident, or to have the funds invested in the markets, of which we have already seen that could prove to be disastrous.

Hi Dancer:

I'm not sure what you want me to say. I addressed many of those issues in my previous post 1.44

I agree that it's unfortunate this man and his family are now bankrupt because of his health care bills; the point I was trying to make was that we can address those concerns without resorting to a national system as some would like. The biggest issue I see in the HC industry is not access to care, it's cost of care. Bringing down costs will logically result in more people having access. Granting additional access will not on its own bring down costs. That's the part that many individuals have difficulty grasping.

As I said before, national health care in the rest of the industrialized world is not being put on the table

Correct, and I addressed the reasons for this. A politician who runs on the platform of cutting social services is not one that will be elected (see Republicans 2012). But as any country falls further into insolvency, these sorts of cuts must be made. Why do you think elected socialists in Greece are agreeing to plans to reduce pension benefits and cuts in government spending for their citizens? Do you think it's because they want to or because they have no choice?

Indie071

Second, single-payer health care DOES reduce medical expenses. In Germany, everyone pays around $35/month for health care. I don't know about you, but that is a helluva lot cheaper than my plan. There are many other countries with similar programs that are NOT in financial trouble.

Do you have a source for those statistics because I find them very hard to believe. To put in in comparison, the US spends about $2.5 trillion a year on HC costs. Under a similar arragement to the one you suggested,we would be spending less than $200 billion a year. I know HC is cheaper in Germany, but I find it hard to believe that we could cut our expenditure by over 90% and still maintain anything close to what we enjoy now.

Maybe, just maybe, this story will show homelessness the way it really is instead of the rose-colored glasses way some people see it; if you think homelessness is the guy with the sign around his neck at the interesection or the guy livng under the bridge, you have one hell of a lot to learn. You have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of homeless working families with kids in this country. I happen to live in a state with a state park and campground which is basically a colony for homeless working families with kids; some are year-round residents while others move with the seasons to avoid cold weather and find work in more temperate climates. The school system of the town which is home to this state park, consequently, has one of the three highest populations of homeless school children in the state. By demographics, this town qualifies as a middle to upper middle income coastal community. One of my former clients owns a convenience franchise in that town, and he's number one in firewood and propane sales in the entire region; almost all of this business comes from the campground, which is a stone's throw from his store.

The saying about being one week without a paycheck from being homeless should be retired. Would nationalizing health care go a long way to reducing the threat of homelessness? Absolutely. Would reforming bankruptcy laws to make it easier to discharge unsecured debt, like medical bills, student loans, and credit cards also reduce the threat of homelessness. Absolutely. What else would go a long way to reducing the threat of homelessness? Changing unemployment so anyone filing a claim can collect their entire claim, plus all extension weeks in one lump sum. Change the tax law so unemployment is tax-exempt. And make changes so unemployment is excluded from income on financial aid forms for higher education. This is the only way anyone who finds themselves on unemployment will be able to afford things like rent, so they can maintain an address to find a job (list a shelter's address as a residence on a job application and you may as well throw that application in the garbage, because that's what the person running the employment office will do).

My own personal belief is that you need to have a gameplan in place for such a situation long before you find yourself in that situation. Every action I take is taken as if I were going to war, with the intent of waging total guerrila warfare. I always make sure I have a reliable vehicle, and I make sure to have a reliable connection to get a good used vehicle at a good price; if you're in a position to buy a second vehicle and store it at another location, by all means do so. I make sure I have an affordable cell phone with plenty of minutes; I always want the option of building redundancy cheaply available to me when it comes to cell phones. Next on the list is mail drop at a mail drop store. You have the undeniable advantage of a real street address for job applications (not always the case with post office boxes at your local post office). You also have the benefit of invisibility, which can be quite valuable when you start talking in terms of building up survival supplies ahead of time.

The last, and most important, block in the base of any survival plan is, in my opinion, knowing how to use self storage units. It relates right back to having your gameplan together long before you need to use it. Storage units are cheap enough where, if you understand any advantages you have in terms of time and money, you can build what amounts to your own survival network. You have a network of supply depots within your operating area while you live on the move. Every location should have, at a minimum: basic survival gear, basic survival tools, a few sets of warm weather and cold weather clothing, and ready to eat food. Time horizon matters because it's all about building redundancy cheaply, quietly, and efficiently; the earlier you begin planning, the bigger your advantage. And it doesn't hurt to have a small safe at each storage, with a stash of small bills.

Bottom line: the learning curve is your enemy when you are trying to adjust to a brand new and very mobile lifestyle. You want the stuff you need to live that lifestyle in place before you need to live that way. Plan and train is the best, and only, way to go.

Echoe,

Thank you for explaining that solutions to major problems are complex. Life is complicated and rarely a smooth even road. Many of my fellow citizens in the US have bought into the idea that the poor are that way because they are lazy, irresponsible, trying to use the system, and a plethora of negative attributes to dehumanize those who are less fortunate. We have lost our sense of community, see caring for others as a weakness or a social evil. We brag about being the best country in the world yet we ignore the plight of homeless, the sick, the poor, and the abused unless they make the 5 o'clock news. We worship at the alter of money and a person's worth is measured by their wealth. At the same time we complain that we have to pay for roads, schools, hosipitals, police, firefighters, and other insitutions which are the hallmark of a civilized society. Demeaning other people exposes our own fears that we might end up in a similar circumstance.

Not meaning to be cruel or unthinking here, but I've worked since I was 15...couldn't the oldest get a job at McDonalds or some retail store? Especially with Christmas coming, a lot of places need seasonal help.

@Killian Jones:

I think that perhaps we should leave the overseas national healthcare situation for a time when it may be the focus.

A national system, of and by itself, may not exactly reduce health care costs. But it would have the effect where ER's would no longer have to shoulder the cost of non-insured patients, and thus adding those costs to insured and self paying patients. The situation of healthcare costs is a multifaceted problem demanding the examination of various areas. "Blanket solving" is simply not feasible. But we need to look into getting it started, and this is one that would be an easy first rung. It is working elsewhere, and we could adapt it to our standards that fit America.

As for the polit6icians, well they will always run for the nearest cover when it comes to their re-election. I, as an ordinary citizen am willing to do what is necessary for our nation, that is here, in relation to taxes. However, I will resist if I feel, see, that the wealthy corporations continue to get their tax breaks, corporate welfare,, overseas tax havens, etc., while I, and others in less sustainable situations are told to take our lumps and accept things. So far, the labor force has been the ones who accepted lowered pay scales, lowered hours, lowered benefits, and that the impoverished finding that they are being cast adrift because those in power, the politicians, tell them that they are a drain of social and economic concerns of the USA. I'm not saying that we gut the "wealthy", I admire and appreciate the free enterprise system that has served America mostly pretty well. But it we the citizens who are asked to fight the wars, risking death or serious injury, and then hearing the republicans saying that we already give plenty to the Veterans. It was the corporations, some of them, who stated publicly, that they do not want to hire the Veteran because of the PTSD issue. The repubs, and most of the corporations, are the ones saying that they would "do more to hire, to expand, etc., if only they were allowed to pay even less in their federal taxes. They got to pay less when Bush brought in the tax reductions, but they still failed to deliver those claimed jobs, except 'overseas'. Now we're to believe that if we allow them to pay even less, they would make and keep that same promise? The repubs are claiming that Obamacare will harm "small businesses". But what the repubs do not say is exactly what they do see as a "small business".

Oh if only I could have that much money to live on for a year. Me and my 3 kids live on less than 20,000 a year. And, no, medical bills do not come first in a homeless situation. I have been there and lived that. Basic survival comes first. You have kids, you have to put a roof over their heads. I had to let my kids live at their grandparents for a couple of years as I was homeless thanks to my kids father and a little divorce power play he made. Sadly he died about a year later, but it still took me a couple of years to get back on my feet enough to get a place for me an my kids. That was 6 years ago. I work 2 part time jobs right now. One, is a union job thankfully and I get medical for free and a dollar raise every year. I'm up to almost $15 an hour. The other job is with a grocery store and I make 10 dollars an hour and have to pay for benefits. So with both jobs I make maybe 20,000 a year. And we get by. But the fact is we just get by. If an emergency happens we are pretty much screwed. I don't have a car. I ride a bicycle to both jobs, rain or shine. Life is tough. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But we do get by. Oh yea by the way, we have internet but no regular tv. My kids, all late teens and early 20's now never missed the tv.

As bad as it is right now is only the beginning of what is to come. For those who find this upsetting, it will be getting worse as time goes on. Just because a family works two jobs and being homeless is not unbelieveable as our wages keep at the same rate (or lower) while the cost of living keeps going up. Our health care situation is totally out of control. We pay more in insurance payments for less coverage and our employers contribute less at a time when Dr. and Hospital costs are skyrocketing.

Do not expect for this situation to get any better soon, the upper 5% feels that this family still has too good of a life without a place to live and would really like to have their car if they own one.

Frustrated-2987565

That is about the best and smartest thing That I read out of all the comments that I read and there is a lot of them. It is well said and worded and to think that you say anything bad to or about anyone. You are one of a kind and we need more like you to comment on things so that we have something worth reading. I for one have never had to be homeless, famly own a company where empolyees get fully paid health care and a decent pay. we have programs that if an empolyee runs into unforeseen problems we are there to help. Sure it make for smaller profits it a $ sense. But or empolyees are loyal and happy and there is no one that would go to the ends of earth for us and we would for them, and business could be better.

You people know most people pay almost no taxes?

here is the brake down of the averages

0-40K pay an average of 0% and 20% of that group gets a return check larger than what they paid.

40-50K pay an avrage of 3.2% federal income taxes

50-75K pay an average of 5.7% federal income taxes when we made 72K we paid 4.7% this so far covers 4/5ths of the country.

75-100K pay an average of 7.2% federal income taxes we made 91K last year and paid 6.13%

So Obama wants to reduce the middle classes taxes. What are you going to reduce my taxes to??? 4%? 2%? 0?

impatientgirl

Why would you pay the medical bills instead of the rent???????????????????????

Ever gotten behind on a medical bill or a student loan bill? They take it to court and get a court order to take up to 15% of your paycheck BEFORE you even get your paycheck. With the court order the employer is told to send 15% of each paycheck to the debt owning company. They have student loans for both husband and wife as well as medical bills. The federal government backs student loans to the point that they confiscate income tax returns from the husband to pay for not only his student loans but the wife's student loans too as they have a combined home via the marriage. It is not a choice of whether one will pay these bills or pay the rent. The law allows the owner of the debt to recoup the money owed plus fees for having to go to court in order to recoup the money owed thus if they don't pay the bills the bill amount could double or even triple due to all the extra fees added when they go to court for the order to claim it from the debtor's paycheck.

Medical bills are the #1 reason individuals/families file for bankruptcy in this country. Been there, done that and at least have a roof over my head. People who manage to stay afloat these days need to count their blessings. I don't see the situation getting better for a long time.

I would like to see Mitt Romney look these folks in the eye and tell them about how they are in the 47% of "takers".

Why don't the millionaires at Rock Center and NBC use some of the 60 million they are paying their bloviating ignoramus of an employee, Donald Trump, for their POS show "Washed-Up "Celebrities" and Apprentice to an A-hole" and use it to help these people.

....yes, Obozo is an equal opportunity failure of leadership for everyone.....

...yes, and I'm certainly going to listen to the advice of someone that doesn't know how to use proper names and must resort to third-grade name-calling...

Ummmm, nycguy, when it is people of color who "fail," we are told by the right-wingers that it is a moral failing, a desire to have the government do everything for them, and victim mentality. They just need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!

But, when it is people who are pale, it is due to a "failure of leadership"? Thanks for proving Rick's (inelegantly stated, but correct) point.

...excuse me, but when did Obozo get pale?????...Obozo happens to be incompetent, it has nothing to do with his abundance of melanin....

Oh, good. Now we're getting racist.

StandUpJokeOff: Opinions are not racist...so sick of the constant "race" card being played whenever someone doesn't agree with the POTUS (which by the way is half of the country!)

The Saudi's are given primarily military assistance. Surely the conservative wing is all in favor of military assistance under the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' doctrine. What with Saudi being right up against Iran and all.

I really fail to see why we give assistance to any middle east country. These people have been killing each other for 2000 years before we became a country and will continue after we are gone. We are not going to stop the fighting and killing in the middle east short of starting to nuke country's until they do exactly what we say and that's not going to happen. I am truly sorry that people there are being killed but we need to take care of our own not others. I would rather see all of them die than anymore of our people. I know thats not how I am supposed to feel but there it is.

Rick: "I really fail to see why we give assistance to any middle east country."

I'll tell you why. Because we want something from them in return. There are strings attached to each and every dollar. Nothing is "free."

Here's the reality about food stamps: http://www.amazon.com/Notice-Action-Stamps-Approval-ebook/dp/B00585CK6O/ref=la_B002BMCMKQ_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1354112627&sr=1-9

What I don't understand about the rabidly conservative posts on this thread is that if the motivation is truly fiscal conservatism, why aren't they Democrats?

Conservatives don't want tax money spent on public sector employment - it is down by 608,000 workers or 2.7% as of June 2012 since President Obama took office. By this time in Bush's term it had increased by 3.7%

Conservatives want jobs added to the private sector - President Obama has added 4.3 million private sector jobs, a 4% increase. At this point in the Bush administration, he had added only 1.5 million private sector jobs an increase of 1.4 percent.

Conservatives want the budget under control - In gross dollars, so far President Obama has decreased the deficit by $114,497,061,030 each year in office on average. During his term in office, Bush increased it by $100,428,123,853 each year on average. As a percent of the GDP, during his eight years in office, Bush increased it by 85%, and under Obama it is stabilizing and has a chance of decreasing.

Conservatives want a stable society and economy - Under President Bush and because of policies implemented by a veto-proof majority of Republicans in both Houses, the US experienced the worst economic downturn in decades, causing skyrocketing unemployment, bringing us close to defaulting on the massive debt Bush created to finance a voluntary and unnecessary war and a just war that he so badly managed he admitted "we are not winning" it (i.e., we are losing). President Obama halted and reversed that collapse, and the independent Congressional Budget Office projects that we could dramatically reduce the debt if the Republican - controlled House of Representatives agrees to key aspects of the Obama administration economic policies.

BTW, the Food Stamp program was originally designed to support US farmers by creating buyers for their products. It increases aggregate demand and stimulates the economy, and it also improves social stability by preventing the social unrest that happens when people see their children are starving. The current number of recipients is reflective of the dire financial straits the Republican party placed the country in, that the Obama administration is clearly, according to multiple indicators, pulling us out of.

The moral of the story is that you should vote Republican if you want vastly increased debt economic policies that promote the growth of income in the top 10% in the country, regardless of the economic chaos it causes for the country as a whole (not to mention the national security crises it causes).

If you want social and economic stability, a reasonable standard of living for those who are willing to work for it and a decrease in debt as a percent of GDP (it has increased under every Republican administration and decreased under every Democratic administration since Kennedy-Johnson) then you definitely want to vote Democrat. Anything other conclusion is unreasonably partisan.

@AthoughtOr2. You are right in general, but I have seen lately some Republicans bucking the very system they have believed in for so long. It is refreshing to see some in the party actually showing some life, and putting the country first as whole again. My very hope is that the few Republicans that are bucking system, as of right now, will continue to ignite the fires in others in their party, and the party of no, will hopefully will become the party of yes.

Under Obama, the American people are getting poorer and poorer and more dependant on government handouts. If that is the kind of lifestyle you want then you must have voted for Obama. I want to be independant and be able to have a decent paying job and not have to wait for a government check every month. Obama has failed to bring good paying jobs back for the American people because he only cared about his job. The longer you keep people dependant on government handouts, they will always vote for that political party because that is the only thing they will know. They will never know how to go out there and look for a job and be responsible for their own lives... People get real because we are becoming a society of needy people rather than independant people.

Sure, everything is Walmart's and Obama's fault. No one else's, right?

I'm glad someone is finally saying it. We are subsidizing corporations and their low wages. Call it socialism if you want, but hard working people are unable to pay bills on with the salaries they are paid. People want to work, but they also want to be able to eat. The government is giving food stamps in lieu of corporations giving wages so our people don't starve. When will people realize that corporate profit is privatized and corporate debt is socialized, and it affects us all?

Doesn't have anything to do with this vine

That's funny, Rick, because I see a direct correlation to this story of working people losing their home and the fact that working people are not paid enough to keep their homes. Granted, they didn't work at Walmart, but is a fine example of corporations paying full time workers so little that they qualify for public assistance.

Hey Granny, when adults are talking and you don't understand what they are saying, you should refrain from commenting. Right off the bat they are not blaming Obama, but they are pointing out that the taxpayers are paying for Walmart employees health-care, and this is a fact. Walmart is bad, but illegal immigration is even worse. Not only do illegal immigrants undercut American workers, but they also become a heavy burden on taxpayers, like here in California, they cost the state taxpayers on the average about ten billion a year. Unfortunately, people just don't seem to see these underlying issues, they just see how cheap it is, but don't realize they are actually paying more for it through taxes...

One of my rules of thumb for worse case scenarios is to always have a shelter and place to sleep that I can strap to my back if need be. I'm never without paracord and space blankets; if need be, I can grab a sleeping pad and plastic tarp last minute. And I always have a set of simple tools (saw, entrenching tool, axe, machete, knife, and sharpener) along with fire starters (magnesium or ferrocium).

I think you did not read the article carefully enough. They had very high medical expenses (due to the dad's kidney problems) which were not covered by their insurance.

The article does give enough info. It clearly states that the husband had kidney problems and that the family acquire large bills from his treatment. Car trouble and childcare issues followed. Reading truly is fundamental.

But why would you pay medical bills instead of paying rent, utilities, and food???????? All my credit cards and medical bills would be the LAST to be paid if I were in that situation.

The hospital's can take you to court for not paying the bill. The money can be taken out of your pay check.

The American Nightmare.

@taxed, the article gave you exactly the information you and everyone else needed to know. Homelessness among the working and working poor occurs exactly as described. No, the family didn't do anything wrong. They simply lost their financial resources in the face of the two major contributors to homelessness: high medical bills and the car that gets them to work breaking down.

Homelessness does happen overnight. One day a person has a place to live and a key to the door, the next, their stuff is in storage or on the street.

Homelessness takes many forms; shelters operate on many different levels. What the children report as their concerns is shared by almost all, if not all, children in this situation.

Because if you don't make a good faith effort to pay your medical bills, the creditors start coming after you and start taking your wages - thus making any payments for rent, etc impossible. Until you have been in a situation of not knowing how you are going to shuffle payments to try and stay afloat, you can't judge and think less of people. It could happen to any of us.

Hi impatientgirl--here is the reason: Kidney dialysis and hospital stays and medication = you get to live, and NOT die. You are over a barrel. You do not get to continue treatment if you don't pay, which in this mans case, would equal death.

There was nothing in the article that said that the man had renal failure and needed dialysis. You can bet they'd say so if it was a fact.

impatientgirl, you must have missed the part about the father ending up with kidney "problems" which aren't something that doctors just treat and the problem goes away.

Most of the time, kidney problems mean being on a transplant waiting list for 20+ years and being on dialysis 3 times a week. If you don't/can't pay, you're booted and if you don't get dialysis, you die. Most dialysis clinics have waiting lists just get in and some people have to travel to other cities even hundres of miles a way three times a week in order to get their dialysis. It's not cheap and they don't have any obligation, legal or otherwise, to take you.

Waiting for an ER visit (since they can't turn you away) for an emergency dialysis session doesn't work since the survival rate of that isn't too great....

The medical bills on top of the inability to afford childcare forced the wife to quit her job. Leaving them with one income which I believe is not too high since the husband was working at a call center. As others have stated, you can't just disregard medical bills if you wish to continue treatment.

Impatientgirl, I understand how you can question somethings about this situation because many people do not know the real truth about what happens to people when it comes to health and healthcare. Please be patient while I explain some things to you.

First, if you do not pay your medical bills for certain kinds of treatments like Kidney Dialysis or chemo therapy treatments, diabetes, etc....big things like that...you will not get your treatments. If you do not get your treatments, you can die. If you die, you can't continue to work so that you can pay the bills. So rent may need to wait. Move into a shelter or with family sounds better until you can get back on your feet. Even if you have life insurance, you may not have enough to cover the payments left behind on your medical bills that were left unpaid, the funeral, the, care of your family that remains and other things. the bills keep coming even after a death. I know all of this from personal experience. I had cancer from age 15, had medial coverage under my parents. My mom refinanced her house to cover over 300,000 in medical bills. My mom worked hard her whole life and did not receive one penny of goverment help to care for her large family. Fast foward 7 years from that time, I get a brain tumor that I was blessed to survive again , but has left me with some disabilities. I was no longer covered by parents insurance because I was an adult. I had a career with insurance, but insurance does not cover all of your bills. If you are receiving chemo or dialysis for instance, you may get to a point where you are too sick to continue working. then you take "sick days" until that is used up. Then you go on STD if you do not have or qualify for LTD. After all of your savings and income avenues are used up, you just lose an income for a while but the bills keep coming. You just hope to last long enough to get well and back on your feet and pay everyone and everything off...like I did. It took me 15 years to pay off my medical bills which totaled 365,000 out of pocket (the insurance did not cover that part, all totaled with the insurance coverage we're talking well over a million).

I have a business now but I also have to work full-time on a minimum wage job that gives me full insurnace so that I can be insured; cancer patients are not insurable under the pre-existing conditon clause.

I am worn the hell out from working the two jobs full time but i can't risk not having insurance again. I hope you never have to find out the real deal about healthcare costs and how what happened to this family can happen to you very easily and have people judge you unfairly without knowing whats up.

The countries you mentioned all have higher percentages of taxpayers versus non-payers, medical insurance taxes and also high value added taxes. Your "cheap or even free" medical care was neither cheap nor free- someone paid for it.

We can have 'national' healthcare when we have nearly 100% of citizens paying the taxes that fund it.

sorry you just do not get it. watch the news. in every developed country that has universal healthcare they are failing. britian is getting rid of their national deathcare. as long as we have this great welfare state ran by president santa claus we will have what we have now. yet if you come in to this country illegally you get everything handed to you.

Who's subsidizing your families healthcare costs? Hint: not you

75th--no, Britain is not getting rid of national health. What on earth makes you think that?

National Health in Britain is not the most effective system--this is why people are allowed to buy their own, private insurance if they like. It is a good system--if you can't afford your own insurance, you get the standard "free" care (it's as free as food stamps--you pay for food stamps when you are working, and get food stamps when you aren't). It isn't great, but it's better than nothing . . . most of the time.

We have the same thing here in the US--it's called Medicaid. Sometimes, it is quite good. Sometimes, people wind up dying because no doctors take Medicaid or because the doctors who do are not always good.

What we don't have is illegal aliens getting "free medical care." That's a myth that someone is feeding you. Illegal aliens pay cash for their care because they don't want to give real names and addresses. The "illegals" you see getting care are actually citizens--you just think they're "illegals" because you hear them chat in Spanish and because people fudge the figures (the children of legal Hispanic women and other citizens sometimes have fathers who are not legal--these children are called "anchor babies," though they are citizens by virtue of being born here AND have mothers who are citizens.

You are wrong about the illegals getting free medical care. A few years back the Las Vegas Review Journal had an article about illegals getting free kidney dialysis. They show up at the emergency room when they get in really bad shape and cannot be refused care as it is a matter of life and death. BUT it is the same ones that keep coming back as no one wants to deport them because of their health.

As far as the articles goes, I have a degree in accounting and have worked in that field for over 30 years. I lost my job and it took two years to find another. I know a lot had to do with my age and being overweight because of possible health costs I may incur for a company. I, also, heard a lot that I was way overqualified. I am now making 40% of my salary prior to being laid off. Wiped out my savings trying to exist for two years. Being single and not a senior citizen, no aid is available for that group. It can happen to anyone.

You are assuming, of course, that the childcare facility she worked at would automatically hand her a "freebie"? And how unfair would that be to the OTHER working parents at that facility? If you can't afford to pay, your child doesn't get child care. It's that simple.

She has 16, 13, and 9 year old. They're in school during the day and the 16 yr old is old enough to be there when they're not. Quitting for child care was ridiculous.

She has 16, 13, and 9 year old. They're in school during the day and the 16 yr old is old enough to be there when they're not. Quitting for child care was ridiculous.

You said it!! When I was 14 I know I stayed home by myself.

If you have 3 kids, child care can cost upwards of $1500/month. That's $18k/year. Many child cares will care for children of employees for free, but not all of them. I'm not sure that "director" actually meant anything in terms of pay or authority.

The older kids don't need "child care" exactly, but they do need "before and after school" care if both parents are working full time.

I'm assuming that staying home from work also allowed them to ditch the car that needed constant repairs.

It sounds like the husband's kidney condition wasn't covered by their insurance. With all the time in the hospital, he probably used up all his sick leave ages ago, so he's just missing work and not getting paid. Legally they can't fire him for medical issues, so he's technically "employed."

Having been "working poor" for 15 years (we're only just now getting out of it), I have suggestions.

Pride has to go. Most people who fall into the working poor hole dig themselves deeper and deeper for a while so they can preserve their pride. At some point you have to accept that's a waste of time and money. Sometimes you can't do it on your own. You need to accept help.

If you are working hard to get out of being working poor, there is no shame in getting public assistance. That is my philosophy. Work hard to get off of it. That can be a goal. But use it as a tool, a stepping stone, to make yourself a useful and productive citizen again. We were on assistance for 10 years, and now we're in a position to be paying taxes and buying a home. Now we can repay society for the help we've gotten. Now we can afford the luxury of building up our pride again.

He can't afford his medical debt, so there's little option but to default and declare bankruptcy. Hospitals can't deny patients no matter their debt status, so he'll continue getting care.

They need to get back into a house, even a cheap rental, and get the wife employed. Between the two, if her health is better, she might be a better option for breadwinner, at least until the husband's health improves. And if it never improves, he is probably better off being a stay at home dad.

Keep in mind that feeling like a failure is inevitable, but you can push through it. After my third layoff I was pretty damn depressed for a while. My kids pulled me through it. Everything is for them -- remember that. You might not be achieving your dreams, but you can do everything you can to help them. Focus on their education. You have a stay at home parent, so get involved with their school, meet their teachers, encourage their activities, and help them excel. You might not be able to afford their college, so make sure they are doing well enough to earn scholarships.

Remember, when your kids grow up, they never say "I was glad I never saw my parents because at least we had a nice house." YOU are the most important thing in their life, and there is true value in getting more time with them. Enjoy it. It's free. Make family memories. Find local activities and events that don't cost money, and do them. Every smile is a reward. Knowing you're raising good kids, getting compliments from strangers about how wonderful they are, and seeing them grow into incredible young adults goes a long way towards making you feel better about yourself.

Remember that you did everything right. You're not responsible for your family coming on hard times, but you are responsible for how you approach and solve the problems. And sometimes life keeps throwing curveballs, disasters, and tragedies. And no, it's not fair. And even people who believe in God's Plan have to admit that there is no reason for you to suffer more than anybody else. But sometimes that's the way it is. Use the challenges to grow stronger. Find the tools you need to overcome. You might never have as comfortable a life as another random family that doesn't have these challenges, but you will be stronger and smarter because of overcoming them, and you can pass that strength on to your children.

Oh, and how many news stories do we hear about kids "home alone" being involved in tragedies like home fires or assaults... and who gets villified by the press? The parents!

So before anyone else adds that leaving the kids alone because they are allegedly old enough to take care of themselves, remember that if something goes wrong and there is no adult around, the parents are the first ones who will take the blame.

(That being said, I was a latchkey kid from the age of seven. Never got in any trouble.)

About the childcare - I just wanted to point out that older kids don't always get out of school before the younger kids. I recently moved from one county to another, and it's totally BACKWARDS - elementary school kids go to school earlier & leave earlier; the high school kids go to school last and get out last.

Therefore they would need child care, if that's the case with their school system. I'd hate to leave my 16 yr old to babysit her younger sister but I must admit, I would do it under those same circumstances.

Heartbreaking all around...

Sometimes parents need to get creative to solve their childcare dilemmas.

Maybe the older siblings don't get out of school as early as the youngest child? Then ask the parents of one of your young child's friends if they could please let your child go home with their family for an hour after school every day -- offer to pay them for that hour (or contribute to the cost of their nanny). Then the older siblings can pick up their younger sibling and provide the childcare for the rest of the afternoon. Wouldn't that be better than sacrificing an entire full-time income?

It is a complete fallacy that you can get all your medical needs taken care of for free through an emergency room. Break your leg, yes. Kidney disease no. At the Moment it becomes failure, they will treat you for that. They will try to stabilize you, and send you home. They won't schedule the treatments or prescribe the drugs that you need on an ongoing basis for any serious health problem. And at the same time, you are uninsurable and unable to work. It happens to thousands every year. And they die.

You guys seem to be forgetting that not all schools go year round. This could have happened during the summer.

There are a couple of places that does just that. I ran across two sites two years that does just that.....americans helping each other. 2hands.org and modestneeds.org On the modest needs sites needs are verified before assistance is given. On the 2hands site needs are not verified but you choose which ones you want to help. I have done both.

You did not read the story fully. Where is the money going....housing, food, medical care duh.

OleLibJack--go back and reread the article--the dad had kidney problems, therefore had terribly high medical bills.

They don't have two jobs...if you had read the article correctly, the wife had to quit her job because of the cost of daycare leaving only the husband working and trying to pay off the medical bills. Having a family of 5, trying to feed and clothe everyone and pay for the basic necessities have left them homeless, as they were unable to pay for these things with just the one job. Most Americans are a job or medical problem away from being homeless. I myself am in a precarious situation after having to stay in the hospital for a week and we are struggling to make ends meet...we could easily become this family and it's only two of us trying to pay the bills and keep our home. With the rising costs of food, and utility bills, it becomes increasingly more difficult to maintain your household...and we don't spend money on fun things at all anymore. Most of the time, my mother will buy me shoes and clothes for work to help me out...at 32 years old, that feels shameful, but we are doing the very best we can.

and they had an old car which kept breaking down.......we all know how expensive maintaining a car is....Insurance, Gas, repairs, etc....I feel so bad 4 these people....I'm going to make a donation right now to interfaith!!!

I feel for these people but to tell the truth will all else being equal I think quitting a job due to child care when you have 16-14 year old children was irresponsible. I agree the 9 year old needed someone there to watch her ( older sister) but I came home on my own from 12 on because both parents worked. You can contact the kids a couple of times a day after school if needed by phone. They can be told to stay home after school till the parents get home. Neither is the greatest of choices but still better than the situation they are in now.

I guess you can't read? I am willing to bet you also voted for Romney...

The U.S. is a new country, relatively speaking, and our concept of democracy is far from perfect and needs a lot of kinks ironed out.

Think about this: up until 90 years ago, women couldn't vote in every state in the nation. Until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Discrimination Act of 1974, there was widespread discrimination going on towards so-called "minorities" and women. We're just barely out of the shadows of those developments, already take them for granted, and need to bear in mind that those milestones are similar to how the financial situation in America has been developing.

You mean like medicare, medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, section 8 housing, and so on? You think there aren't a million different socialist programs that our country has instituted to help people? There is a point of diminishing returns, however. If times are good economically, jobs will be plentiful and more people will work. But if we take too much out of the economy so the government can "help" people, that's money not available to hire these people.

No matter what, a few people will slip on hard times, that can't ever be eliminated completely; hopefully they can figure their lives out. Life's hard, you just have to keep at it everyday.

This isn't a free market society. the game is rigged. If it were a true free market system you would have a very few wealthy , a very few poor and a large middle class. The typical spread. But it isnt that. Deregulation and in particular, colusion betweeen corporations within the same industries. They used to compete with each other but now work together in ways such that they mirror more like a monopoly than anything else. Example, oil companies lobbying for tax breaks , subsidies, drilling rights , eased regulations etc. Banks the same way. And now that we are a world wide economy, these corporations do not consider themselves American. They really dont care what happens to us. It will take some degree of socialism, (we already have it) to get us out. If it isnt made here, we dont need it. Everyone is regulated. If everyone needs it, we nationalize it, ie public schools, healthcare , infrustructure etc. Banks are forced to break up in that deposits are spread throughout small banks to lessen control.

@globadyne, other socialist benefits enjoyed by just about every American:

public schools

roads, highways, interstates

sidewalks

water treatment plants

the electrical grid

defense

police

firemen

sidewalks

garbage pickup in many parts of the country

food and drug inspections

Unless someone is a public employee, JOBS are not guaranteed, but without them, people end up homeless and needing the programs you named above. And when government budgets get cut, so do many public jobs.

Why do they need a 4 (FOUR) bedroom apt.? They have 3 girls, thus, why wouldn't a 3 bedroom apt do? The cost of that 4 bdrm is going to be expensive. I know the church is granting them the money for 5 years, but WOW. Both parents are sort of obese looking. They don't appear to be too physically active.

The two oldest girls are old enough to begin working to help support the family. Been there and done that. We helped with the family farm, worked in the fields for others, cut fruit every summer at a dry yard packing house, cut grapes, sorted figs, and I was just out of elementary school. Even cleaned motel rooms for $0.25 a room! Anything to help out with expenses that our family of 6 needed. Mostly us 4 kids earned our school clothes for the year. Parents these days, some don't think the kids should do anything towards helping the family, financially. It creates a good work ethic for children, gives them a sense of self-worth. My siblings and I didn't plan on college until we were self-supporting and then only one brother attended city college for a couple years. Both boys went into the service, my sister and I went to work in the private and public sectors.

Good luck to this family, I certainly hope they can get back on their feet. I hope the church funding also includes financial advisement.

Let me help you with the math. 3 girls = 3 bedrooms. 1 set of parents = 1 bedroom 1+3 = 4. There ya go.

Now that said the girls could room together, not perfect but better than homeless. And cudo's to you and your siblings for working at a young age. I started doing odd jobs like shoveling snow, raking leaves ect at about 6 for my neighbors. Didn't need to help out the parents but in my home if you wanted spending money you earned it.

It's a different world out there than it was 30-40 years ago. Not as easy for kids to find jobs as it was for us when we were young. I have worked from the age of 14 (starting at McDonalds) to the present day. I have never been unemployed for longer than 3 days. If I lost a job, I started with temp agencies until I found a more permanent position.

It is harder for the high school population to land and keep jobs. Tennessee does not require a work permit - however, a minor is only allowed to work 3 hours a day. Students need to be able to work and be able to complete their homework. Many employers will not use child labor to handle cash (so a lot of retail jobs go away). Not to mention the fact most hiring manager will fill a position with an adult who is willing to take the same wage than a child with no experience whatsoever. There is, most likely, not a very large agricultural industry where they could just go out there and pick cotton.

It is also not as easy to get those "around the neighborhood" types of jobs as it was in the 70s and 80s. There aren't as many people out there willing to shell out money for raking the leaves, washing cars, cleaning house gutters, etc. Heck - there aren't even newspaper routes to be had out there with the advent of the internet. Might be able to babysit - but everyone wants references these days.

Also - how are the kids supposed to get to and from these jobs. You want the kids to use the public bus system that will most likely cost them the very wages that they are working for, after dark.

It's a different world out there today. The criminal element has become less inhibited than before. The sensationalization of crimes against children has made my skin crawl.

If jobs for teenagers can be done without the expense to their school grades - more power to it. Just don't get on a soap box that generalizes that says that as long as you have two arms, two legs and a social security number that you should be able to get a job.

It's not just a damaged credit rating that can cause you to be rejected for rental properties. Four years ago, I basically had to have one of my employers lie for me about the amount of income that I was making, because the managing company wouldn't rent to me due to my low-income status. My credit rating mattered not at all; the property owners were looking at the bottom line.

Oh, and I went on to live in that apartment for three years, never missing a rent payment or even turning one in late. When my time there was up, I cleaned the place, moved all of my things out, turned in the keys and did a check with the landlord, and left without a fuss.

Just to add to that: I was in that particular building as a subletter for five years before getting my own apartment, with no trouble whatsoever. So the building manager knew me and he had no issues with me staying put and in my own place, but the company he worked for wouldn't permit it without additional paperwork. Also, my grandmother had died and my mother gave me nearly half of her inheritance, which I also offered up as proof of income--and, with which, I could've easily paid for an entire year in advance, but they wouldn't allow me to do that.

That doesn't surprise me. To many people are so disconnected. They can't look beyond their own wants and needs.

you need to refresh your reading comprehension skills. HEALTH CARE COST !!!!

I think Mattydreads is a little harsh, but there is a point: some responsibility has to rest with the individual; we can't make everyone's situation simply bad luck. Yes, vmgarden, HEALTH CARE COST, but why? Kidney problems. Translation: diabetes--most likely as a result of being morbidly obese.

It's still sad, but it is everyone's responsibility to take care of the things he/she can control. Your body is yours, take care of it.

@ Mattydreads

Not everyone can be as functionally naive as you. Your compassion is overwhelming.

Almost no one would have kids if they waitied until they could "afford" them. Be realistic. They could and did afford them for quite a few years until kidney disease changed that. Standupjokeoff is single and fell into the abyss.

Why is it so many equate falling on hard times and trying to raise kids with being a baby factory on welfare with no babydaddy around? That's NOT what happened here. READ the story!!!

There's also a genetic form of kidney disease known as Polycystic kidney disease (PKD). A genetic disorder characterized by the growth of numerous cysts in the kidneys.

This is a inherited form of kidney disease. A disease that has a 50/50% chance of being pass on from parent to child. As the child becomes and adult. Some can go years without any symptoms. There's no cure. Course of treatment medication, dialysis and transplant.

The disease can also damage the liver, pancreas and, in some rare cases, the heart and brain. Polycystic kidney disease is one of the most common life-threatening genetic diseases, affecting an estimated 12.5 million people worldwide.

I have two sister's with this genetic form of kidney disease. One is skinny, One is obese. Neither one is a diabete.

Not everyone that's a diabete is obese. I have a cousin that's a diabete but he isn't over weight.

"it is everyone's responsibility to take care of the things he/she can control. Your body is yours, take care of it."

Diabetes does not need to be a cause of morbidly obese. There is such a thing as type 1 diabetes, which can happen in childhood. When you don't have the money to buy food at the grocery store - you end up buying the dollar menu at McDonalds. That food is not health food and does not help the situation.

Diabetes is a disease that will take its toll eventually - no matter how well you take care of yourself and watch your blood sugars. There will be retinal problems, there will be neuropathy, etc. On top of all of that - he has a wife and kids that he has to think about.

"Just another case of people living beyond their means"

Even though the article mentions health insurance, it does not mention the type of insurance. His company may only offer a high deductible insurance - so they may have to pay a high-deductible before the insurance even kicks in (say $5000K or more per family). After that - there may still be high co-pays for the services needed going forward. THAT'S JUST FOR ONE PERSON.

In the event that he reaches End Stage Renal Disease - he could apply for Medicare benefits and Social Security - but it takes about 6 months for the Social Security to start up, and about 4 months for the Medicare to start the 40 month period that it will only be a secondary insurance to your primary insurance.

Meanwhile - you are using up all your assets to pay the medical bills that lead up to the kidney failure while working on one income. If you don't pay the medical bills so that you can pay rent - then you can be sure that the medical institutions are going to send your bills to collection - followed by an attorney for a lien against your paycheck. Bankruptcy is only an option if you figure that you won't incur more medical debt down the road - I could be wrong, but I'm not sure if you can claim bankruptcy more than twice in a lifetime.

After you think on all of that for a while - think about the depression that has to be dealt with as the cherry on top.

We are supposed to be entering into a season of charity toward others and of hope and good will. Posting posts such as the one that I am replying to is a moral waste and thoughtless.

I, along with a lot of the other posters on this comment line, applaud the entire family for sticking together through the tough times. You can do it any my prayers are with you.

I understand there are genetic forms of diabetes, and that the disease isn't always weight-related; and obviously I don't know the medical history of this person. But there are pictures of him in the story, and he is morbidly obese. Let's not ignore certain facts just because they don't fit the theme of the story.

More than one million school-aged children are now homeless, according to the Department of Education.

For christ's sake people...Stop having so many kids.

If you do not have a $million in the bank. Do not have more than 1 kid.

Granny,

Almost no one would have kids if they waitied until they could "afford" them. Be realistic.

Your first sentence IS realistic, practical and smart. Do not try to defend people that contribute to our overpopulation crisis.

If you have 1 kid I understand. If you have 3 kids and you can't pay for them then you need to accept responsibility and learn from your mistakes(teach your children and everyone you know about the mistake you have made).

It's not a complex problem but herd mentality and ignorance allows this problem to continue.

JakeK--Do not have a child unless you have 1 million dollars in the bank? Are you insane? And 1 million dollars can easily be depleted by one serious health issue--you do know that, don't you?

Although in your case --I agree--please do NOT reproduce!

Anyone offering to pay for birth control for the uninsured?

No takers?

O, sorry, I forgot the poor are not allowed to have sex. They can't afford any other other form of entertainment, but hey, let's take sex away too.

globadyne - you're still judging a book by its cover. Is the man larger because the eats too much, or is he larger because he retains water due to bad kidneys.

You have admitted that you don't know the history - therefore, do not make remarks that allege that his condition is a result of living beyond their means.

Again, I'd like to point out that it's easier to buy a $0.38 pack of ramen noodles (high in sodium) and $0.88 banquet meals than it is to buy the $3.00 Lean Cuisine. The shelters and churches generally don't hold super lean and healthy dinners either. It's usually something like spaghetti, hot dogs and chili or soup.

So, in your mind, would it just be better for him to just forgo eating - because he can't afford healthy alternatives - so that he could look a bit more the roll for his circumstances? Poor people should at least do us the courtesy of looking destitute.

The story isn't about one family that is looking for a handout. It's a story about "it can happen to anyone - even if you are still employed." I frosts me a little when people post generic comments like: "there is a point: some responsibility has to rest with the individual; we can't make everyone's situation simply bad luck."

I will admit that if the guy were an alcoholic, a drug addict, a shopaholic or a gambler that yes - there is some responsibility involved. I choose not to make those assumptions because I lack the facts.

roll = role. Got me thinking about food now.

JakeK - If you do have a million in the bank and have three kids, raise them for 16 years and then have to spend your million on medical bills, should you just shove your kids back where they came from because you can't afford them anymore?

Should the US adopt the One Child Rule that China adopted 40 years ago - only to find ourselves with an aging population that nobody can take care of? Perhaps our advice to the young of today should be "Don't every marry and have kids. Just because you're doing alright now - the big wide world and American Government is going to come along and bite you in the ___. And always make sure you have clean underwear."

So, who's offering to pay for birth control for the uninsured?

No takers?

O, that's right, I forgot that the poor aren't allowed to have sex. They can't afford any other form of entertainment (live movies, dinners out, or hell, even cable), but hey, let's take sex from them too.

irhobbitish, I never said the his condition was a result of living beyond his means, I implied it was a result of a poor diet. I don't know that for a fact--but judging by his wife and middle daughter, I'd say his condition is probably not due to retaining water. (And Lean Cuisine? Is that what you think the alternative is?) And whatever the difference is between healthy food and horrible food, it's a whole lot less than dialysis.

And by the way, why would it be okay for you to judge an alcoholic? That's a disease, right?

All I'm saying is it would be nice just to hear someone in one of these stories say they had some role in their current condition. For example, personally, I'm underwater with my mortgage and am stuck in my house for who knows how long. I wasn't tricked into buying my house; I bought it and now have to deal with it. The banks are shady and corrupt and all that, but it was my choice, it's my life, and I have to make choices that will decide the quality of it. Suggesting otherwise to people only perpetuates the problem.

irhobbitish, I never said his condition was a result of living beyond his means, I said it was likely due to a poor diet. Of course, there could be some water-retaining condition, but judging by his wife, I'm guessing diet.

And why would you be judgmental about a shopaholic or alcoholic or gambler? Those conditions could have been manifestations of depression caused by the loss of a job. Not their fault.

The point is, it would be nice to hear a quote in one of these stories where a person just says, 'some of this is my fault.' For example, I'm underwater with my mortgage, can't sell it, and if I ever lost my job, I'd have to foreclose. It would suck, but I made the choice to buy the house, which was overvalued, and now I have to deal with it. The bankers are shady and corrupt and all that, but I wasn't tricked; it was my choice.

The choices you make from the time you're in school, to your career choice, to your eating habits, to your mate, and so on, all determine where you will be in life. And when you arrive there, it's liberating to just say 'I'm here because of me.' (and by the way, maybe these folks do say that, and all the power to them if they do; this post is more for the people commenting about how all of this is society's fault.)

One more thing: Lean Cuisine, not that much healthier than Ramen noodles.

Maxwell's Silver Hammer and irhobbitish seem to have the same shortsighted justification for bearing a brood of children:

JakeK--Do not have a child unless you have 1 million dollars in the bank? Are you insane? And 1 million dollars can easily be depleted by one serious health issue--you do know that, don't you?

JakeK - If you do have a million in the bank and have three kids, raise them for 16 years and then have to spend your million on medical bills, should you just shove your kids back where they came from because you can't afford them anymore?

They also seem to think my name is Jake.

Yes, it is true that you could spend $million on your healthcare before your kids turn 18...but your chances of taking care of your kids is much, much worse if you have nothing in the bank and you decide to have 3 kids. It's all about odds.

But you are missing the point. The majority of the population thinks just like you...nothing wrong with having 3 kids and making 12 bucks an hour. I'll just go ahead and have 3 kids and figure out how to pay for them later.

You think that it is your right to crank out kids because having a huge family is looked upon by the populous as something noble...when nothing could be further from the truth.

Should the US adopt the One Child Rule that China adopted 40 years ago - only to find ourselves with an aging population that nobody can take care of?

Oh, so you think it is your kids responsibility to take care of you when you are old. What a selfish notion. Why would you put that burden on them?

Perhaps our advice to the young of today should be "Don't every marry and have kids. Just because you're doing alright now - the big wide world and American Government is going to come along and bite you in the ___.

Or maybe you think that the American government should take care of you when you get old.

Quit depending on other people to take care of you. Take care of yourself first. Then you can worry about taking care of multiple kids. That's what responsible people do.

Globadyne - Lean Cuisine was simply a brand name that I picked out of the air, because it was the first to come to mind.

It would have been better for the family if the reporter did not print pictures of the family - because looks can be deceiving. One doesn't necessarily have to "look" sick to be sick. It's not always easy to exercise when one is sick - and if they are depressed as well - they may turn to the wrong kinds of foods for solace.

It was not my intention to be judgmental to the groups that I pointed out - again, I was using it as a metaphor of the way that money may be squandered or spent poorly. (Believe me, I am married to a recovering alcoholic, diabetic with ESRD). Also - I want to specifically point out that I do not want to direct my comments to you, as an person/entity. I only want to make a point.

I agree with the sentiment of "why do we have to live in a society where someone has to be the blame for everything?" I also agree that what happens to people is not "Society's" fault. However, sometimes no on is to blame.

When you are 18 - the world looks a lot different than it does when you are 40. People can go to the best schools, take the best courses for the hot career of the day, have a search committee help you find the perfect mate at the time and become a vegetarian. You have kids when your young and employed - nobody EVER expects the Spanish Inquisition (quoting Monty Python). S(#*(& happens.

I was about to launch on a long tirade about how easily it happens - but I stopped myself.

Nobody makes the perfect decisions unless they are psychic or have a crystal ball (and to the best of my knowledge, there aren't that many people on the planet that have those capabilities). If that were the case, we could wipe poverty from the face of the planet.

You said " I'm underwater with my mortgage, can't sell it, and if I ever lost my job, I'd have to foreclose. It would suck, but I made the choice to buy the house, which was overvalued, and now I have to deal with it."

What if - you didn't have any family that you could go to, you didn't have any friend's couches that you could crash.

What if - you lost your job tomorrow for some unknown reason.

Bottom line - it can happen to anyone. It can happen today, it can happen tomorrow - or 30 years down the line. No one to blame but fickle fate.

To all of the radical posters out there - I would like to take this story more along the lines of this family's resolve to stay together and work it out. The story states that the church gave them a "grant". Perhaps they have attended that church since childhood - got married in that church. They have strong ties to the congregation that took up a collection - without their knowledge - to raise the money for the grant. They didn't ask for a hand out - they were given an opportunity.

They will probably be moving into a rent restricted apartment - but a roof over their heads. By not having to worry about the rent for 5 years, they will be able to put that money toward the old and new medical bills, pay the utilities and keep food on the table.

In the end - they will be getting out of the shelter and are hopeful to get their own feet on the ground.

JACK K - I just want to let you know that society will be very grateful that you intend to not be a burden on the system. Let me know how that turns out for you in about 20 - 50 years.

When this family first started having their children, they were both well able to take care of themselves and their children. Circumstances later came forward that they were unable to meet all of their fiscal obligations. We can't make the assumption that this couple had their kids when they didn't have the means to take care of them - this is an over generalization.

The truth is - nobody wants to or intends to be a burden on their children when they get older. Heaven knows that my own mother had conversations with me when I was growing up that she'd rather die than end up in a nursing home.

I don't expect my kids to take care of me when I am no longer able to take care of myself. I could just walk out into the ocean for that matter. However, a lot of kids do so out of love of their parents. Mom or dad can't live on their own anymore because they are a fall risk or can't cook for themselves anymore. If they can't afford to put them in a nice facility, they generally bring them to live at their house. A majority of these parents are ASKED by their kids to move in with them. I don't imagine that there are parents out there DEMANDING to be cared for.

China's One Child rule was originally penned to help with the budding population crisis. China - different from America - DOES expect the children to take care of their aging parents, and the burden is falling to a single offspring. This specific comment in my previous post was to merely point out that, even if you wanted to be able to dictate the number of children that can be born - it will still create other consequences down the road.

I my own personal opinion - I do not see three children as an overly large family. 8 - 10 - 12 - or more children is a completely other matter.

Finally -

If I am paying in to American Social Security - for my entire career - then YES - I do expect to be able to take the benefit of those funds (at least my share of them). Alluding that this is a burden on "The American Government" is like saying you are a burden on your local bank for writing a check.

I my own personal opinion - I do not see three children as an overly large family. 8 - 10 - 12 - or more children is a completely other matter.

Well, at least you can take comfort that you are in the majority when it comes to this thinking.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain

If I am paying in to American Social Security - for my entire career - then YES - I do expect to be able to take the benefit of those funds (at least my share of them).

Let me know how that turns out for you in about 20 - 50 years.

Funny I remember folks saying this same thing 20-30 years ago................

Right. And I suppose us "sheeple" have no say and no responsibility in our own well-being, thus we have no blame to be put on our shoulders?

Comedian Greg Proops has this joke: " 'I'm gonna step over this disgusting homeless person, and pet this cute little kitty!" That about sums up the "I've got mine, screw you, Jack" mentality of today's American.

hahahahahah - wwwhhhheeeeeeeee

Washington...You're a #%&@*($ idiot... and I'm a republican.

When you begin paying the Obamacare taxes, one to the government, and one to the "for Profit" health insurance companies, your going to find out that the free death counseling is going to be the most used benefit of Obamacare.

2014 you can expect that your standard of living is going to decrease, so start making plans for it. You're going to start paying higher prices on everything you consume as the Obamacare taxes are going to be passed on to the consumers.

Paying money to re-train is, more often than not, the biggest mistake that someone can make. If you don't have the money on hand to make the change, you're only going to dig yourself deeper into debt and still be unable to find work.

And anyone who believes jobs are plentiful... because they look on Craigslist, CareerBuilder or Monster and, oh, wow, look at all the opportunities!... needs to have a reality check, because somewhere between the majority of those jobs simply do not exist. They range from spam to attempts to steal your identity to U.S. government "job" postings to employers obligated to post job openings even when they are already hiring from within.

That is not true. Any rational person can have an idea of what they are going through.

The story is an attempt to solicit sympathy. The story leaves out any real information. If you delve deeper, a reason for their situation will be evident, with the usual cause being the subject and their poor choices.

Not enough jobs? Ha. When hard times come, you find work. Too many people have two jobs to make ends meet for someone to complain they can't find a job. They just don't want to work or think something is beneath them. What ends up beneath them is the uncomfortable cot that is reality.

You are so far removed from reality, Mrrationalthought, and the state of the world today that I can only pity you for your blindness.

hahahahaha - what a 'tard

because you're not looking at the whole picture. First off, the US isn't sending container ships full of money to these countries. They're sending tanks, guns, planes, food, what have you. Would you care to guess where those are manufactured? Right here in America. Now, say you DO stop giving that aid to those countries. Well, what happens next? Those American factories start shutting down, laying off. Now you have a whole new wave of jobless people that might end up homeless. Get the picture?

Really Eric if we are skilled enough to make instruments of death and destruction may be we need to re-engineer those plants to making instruments of life.

Go to YouTube and look at the HBO Documentary trailer, "Schmatta: From Rags to Riches to Rags." That's the U.S. economy, all across the board, in every industry.

It wasn't until I started working at a state job center that I saw unemployment and homelessness for what it is. Much of it is ageism, and people should be afraid. Corporations are laying off people at age 50 (sometimes before), and no matter how hard they try and what their skills are, their chances of getting hired--at any salary--are slim.

Time and time again I met desperate people who had worked hard their entire lives, and at age 50-60 were in danger of losing everything after going through their retirement, paying bills with savings, and unable to find another job. Health care issues are a major problem for people over 50, as is the necessity of taking care of older parents, and spouses, yet people need to keep working, and don't quality for Medicare. It is a no-win situation I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Merry--YOU ARE SO CORRECT!

I know--victim of ageism myself. Sucks!