<p>Thanks Thumper…the better language is asking for a “leave of absence”. Yes, when I said “gap year”, I meant “leave of absence” that has been carefully coordinated with the school for a smooth return.</p>
<p>My advice would be to continue to live as if you made $40,000 and save as much of the rest as you can. You’re both self-employed, so you are familiar with the way your taxes are calculated - with that increased “income” will come increased expenses, so your net income will not increase as much as you are expecting, and you will not be expected to contribute all of it.</p>
<p>I think that is a good idea.
I know Wesleyan meets full need, but that also includes forms besides FAFSA, and those who are self employed often have to pay a big chunk.
It would be a good idea to inquire about how your expectations will change with increased income so you don’t have a big surprise next spring incase she needs to transfer.</p>
<p>IMO finding medical insurance would take priority over paying for an expensive private college, but I can see how " free" would be pretty attractive, even if that was only for a year.
I’m assuming your daughter has insurance through college?
You might consider enrolling in a class or two at a community college, they often have group insurance that disregards pre existing conditions, as do some other affiliations.</p>
<p>
I’m totally failing to see your issue here. You were marching through life on $40K/year, during which time you managed to get a $75K operation despite not being insured or able to pay for it, and your daughter is on “very generous” financial aid at Wesleyan. Presumably you also have a roof over your heads. At what point do/did you “only get to have one of these”? </p>
<p>If your wife’s extra income is going to be such a negative, perhaps you want to let someone else have that client?</p>
<p>As for having to choose, in this country, between health care, education, and a roof over one’s head</p>
<p>We have free public education for all from 1st-12th grades, Not all countries can say the same. I agree we need better health care and affordable housing, but some of us have chosen to work for employers who offer health care, even if that means we need to live in areas with higher costs of living.</p>
<p>We are all adults, we recognize that our choices either limit or expand future choices.
Don’t we?</p>
<p>It’s the same old story when you get a windfall, the needs seem to eat it up faster than it can make a dent in your lifestyle. It’s just the way it works. I remember a friend of mine whose many kids qualified for free lunch for a few years at their schools. I don’t think she was happy in the least to qualify; it embarrassed her greatly. But when the day came that she was out of that category, the reality of having to make all of those lunches, and make sure the kids got breakfast at home hit awfully hard. The free lunch program meant not having to think of those meals on school days as it included a breakfast in the morning as well. Coughing up the money and having to deal with that aspect of life that was covered for a couple of years, was painful </p>
<p>It’s tough and counter intuitive to feel grateful for the privilege of paying for something you were already getting without payment. Even when that means that there is that blessing of extra funds.</p>
<p>Hi Chris,</p>
<p>You must also realize that even if your child should “become independent” (highly unlikely) on the FAFSA, it does not automatically mean that she would be considered independent as far as the institutional aid (the biggest part of your financial aid package) is concerned. </p>
<p>At the majority of schools that give their own institutional aid, if you start as a dependent student, you finish as a dependent student, even if you meet one of the criteria on the FAFSA that makes you an independent student.</p>
<p>Your child attends Wesleyan. They specifically state the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So even on the way off, chance that your daughter would “become independent”, Wes will still give their money based on your family’s income/assets.</p>
<p>As for health insurance and the way health care works in this country, all I can say about that is it’s a quagmire of its own. Sometimes you are better off without insurance. My son who has little in the way of income, truly poverty level as an auditioning actor is on our health insurance. That means, the deductibles and limitaions on coverage have to be paid anytime he has a medical need. He could get the same treatment for free, if he didn’t have the insurance! Yes, I double checked when he got the bill for his hand injury. Because of the insurance, he doesn’t qualify for medicaid or for any relief based on his non income. But the deductibles and reasonalbe and customary limits as well as the copay, make this a hefty bill for anyone. Crazy? Yes, but that is the way it works.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse,
Who would have treated your son “for free”? I ask this because hospitals are required only to treat life-threatening conditions. Having my daughter in a similar situation I can say that we could not find anyone in her part of Wisconsin (at that time) willing to take her on for therapy after her ankle surgery (surgery was pre-loss of insurance but recovery came after).</p>
<p>KKmama -</p>
<p>If your daughter qualified for Medicaid, she would have been eligible for treatment with any provider who accepted Medicaid.</p>
<p>And, in many locations, hospitals will provide reduced-cost services for low-income patients.</p>
<p>A reason we will pay for our son’s insurance if he cannot, is because certain conditions are difficult to get treated without insurance; what is considered elective,like your daughter’s ankle surger. My son cut up his hand and, was treated as a non pay as he identified himself as such, since he did not have his insurance information with him and did not want to bother us. He was treated and was asked to complete a form for Medicaid/state funds for indigent care. At that point, he said he had insurance, and that is how we all know. Though he was no where close to being in life threatening condition, he was treated as are many who enter the hospital through the emergency room. His bill came to about $5K with about 75% of it covered by our insurance, part of it through luck that the surgeon who was used happened to be in our network. The hospital was not but had to be so treated as it was an emergency admittance. To get the cost down to that figure required a lot of time wrangling with the insurance company, something a lot of people, sadly my son included would not do. </p>
<p>Now if his hand were not quite right thereafter and needed extra work, how the hospitals would treat that if he didn’t have insurance, I don’t know. Another son was operated on for a broken nose for “free”, again with charges when it came to light that he had insurance. That one, was a misunderstanding on the admittance clerk’s part as he did tell them he had insurance. A lot of discussion t get that covered as well since it was all done out of network. But, yes, it would have been “on the house” had he not had insurance. The hospital so much told me when I was on the phone with them. </p>
<p>But a friend of ours son could not get elective cranial facial surgery needed from issues when he was a child when he was without insurance. With Obamacare, he was able to be put on his parent’s insurance for the one remaining year he could due to age, and got this very expensive surgery done. But most other medical care he got with no problem for free while he was uninsured. ANd the hospitals and doctors who did the surgery are now stuck still treating him and writing anything off that he can’t pay (and he can’t pay much or anything) involving what was done. </p>
<p>Personally, I believe that health insurance is imperative and I will go in debt and go without a lot to make sure my immediate family members are covered with what I deem a decent policy. But family members and friends don’t look at it the same way. As far as I am concerned the insurance requirement that Obama care is shifting some of payment for services that those who would be uninsured if they could be onto them that the government and the hospital has been picking up. Whatever this Obama care costs is paid for in part by this shift.</p>
<p>Without a doubt, having additional income (even if temporary) is a nice problem to have, and I’m glad we have it (as I’ve said).</p>
<p>I’m not glad about the following:</p>
<p>I had four bouts with gall stones during the past year (all on weekend evenings, coincidentally). The first three I thought were indigestion, and managed somehow to tough them out because we were uninsured and reluctant to risk paying thousands of dollars out of pocket for an emergency room visit. Each time I thought my belly was going to explode; easily the worst pain I’ve ever experienced. The fourth time, I couldn’t take it, and luckily decided to bolt to the ER and damn the cost.</p>
<p>After a CT scan, EKG, and various other tests, it turned out my gallbladder was full of stones, badly infected and inflamed, in danger of bursting, and needed to come out right away. After removal 12 hours later, turns out the organ was gangrenous, and it was lucky I’d had it removed no later than I did. Tens of thousands of people die early each year in America (equivalent to multiple 9-11 tragedies annually) due to lack of insurance. Had I not gone to the ER that fourth time, I could have become one of them.</p>
<p>Had I been insured, I would have gone immediately to the ER the very first time, discovered the gall stone problem, and arranged for surgery before it became a life-threatening situation that needed to be resolved at much greater cost (not to mention boat loads of unnecessary stress) on a emergency basis.</p>
<p>In this country, far too many people only get to enjoy one: health care, full access to higher education without crippling debt, or housing, due to prohibitive costs. I never said we’d only had access to one of these; we had access to two: higher education and housing. But in choosing to pay for those, we couldn’t afford health insurance. Now we have a $75K medical bill to deal with.</p>
<p>Health care isn’t accessible when a family of three making under $40K a year before taxes must pay $1500+ a month on the private market to get decent insurance (with riders excluding several pre-existing conditions). When public university systems triple tuition in 10 years (e.g. University of California, our own state system), making it far LESS expensive for lower-middle class students to go to the most expensive private colleges out-of-state than an equivalent state school in-state, access to higher education is becoming far too limited. Unless citizens have reliable access to all three necessities, as is already the case in most modern countries, I don’t see what is meant by “the American dream” or how we as a nation can claim to be living up to Jefferson’s assertions about “inalienable rights.” It’s a shameful reality. That’s my point.</p>
<p>To those who’ve never lived this way, or can’t understand “the issue,” I don’t know what to say.</p>
<p>Hi, everyone! </p>
<p>I think this is starting to become a political issues thread, so you might want to tone it back a bit before the thread gets locked.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Chrisb, gather up all of your medical bill and make copies and then summarize them for the year, and you will very likely get consideration for them from the school’s financial aid office. </p>
<p>I’m truly sorry that you and for a number of CC parents who are going through medical issues of their own, their children’s and their parents and other loved ones. Many of us who have been on these boards for a while now have seen our numbers go though many such issues. It’s always difficult and painful, and there are some members who are actively in my prayers right now.</p>
<p>
And yet, you have not delineated what your issue is. Presumably everyone should get everything they need in life for free. Nonetheless, you are now faced with a reality that many of us already are dealing with. You may have to spend your own money to put our D through the expensive school, and you need to figure out if it is worth it to you (hey lots of us can’t justify it, don’t feel bad), or if she might have to transfer someplace cheaper. Moving up isn’t always all it’s cracked up to be. Generally it’s preferable to staying poor.</p>
<p>I think I’ve made my point quite clear, but I’ll try to summarize it.</p>
<p>There are shocking and terribly unjust inequities that have developed over the past few decades in American society that simply weren’t around when I grew up in the 1960s and 70’s. They don’t exist in many other countries today, but they do in ours. These inequities can and should be remedied.</p>
<p>Until then, I intend to try to find the least expensive way to meet the my family’s needs, just like everyone else on this board is doing.</p>
<p>I hope that’s clear now.</p>
<p>I highly disagree that they weren’t around in the 60s and 70s. I just think they were in different shapes and less visible.</p>
<p>chrisb:
Last year other folks subsidized your D.
Now, you will experience how it feels being forced to subsidize other people.
The social engineering + price discrimination that schools exercise seems great when one is on the receiving end. Not so much when one is in the discriminated end.
Also, this price discrimination policy messes up everything. It is hard to know what will be the real cost of 4 years of college (do not tell me about the NPC calculators… They do not work well and cannot guarantee year-to-year stability) and it allows these unrealistic COAs. Without these price discrimination policies, people would have more clarity when deciding between different priced schools.</p>
<p>In the 1970s excellent public universities (the best in the world, like the UC system) were available to any in-state students that could qualify, and were virtually free (compared to today). Health insurance was affordable and available to all, with or without pre-existing conditions. Home prices were MUCH lower compared to the average wage rate than they are today. Only one parent had to work outside the home, generally. Income inequality was FAR less pronounced than it is today; a rising tide would lift all boats, not just the yachts. In general, life was MUCH easier for average Americans.</p>
<p>Social inequities have always and will always exist in our or any other society. Some social inequity is inevitable, and is actually a good thing, if limited, in my opinion. That doesn’t mean when particular inequities suddenly get much worse we shouldn’t object and push back.</p>
<p>–</p>
<p>I’ve gotten the information I came here to get regarding my original idea.</p>
<p>Thanks to all who helped answer my question and to those who offered constructive suggestions and thoughts.</p>
<p>I never said we’d only had access to one of these; we had access to two: higher education and housing. But in choosing to pay for those, we couldn’t afford health insurance</p>
<p>I agree with you, that, that was your choice.
I dare say there are thousands of families that are choosing health coverage & housing, which are needs as opposed to higher education, which is a want.
:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps not in YOUR backyard . . . but they certainly existed!</p>