Middle-class, the most financially burdened?

Is middle class becoming harder financially than the poor-class in today’s world? I am looking at today’s financial burdens and future financial burdens. I know there are social, security, and all around well-being factors also when comparing these two classes, but I am not looking at those in this article. I will be comparing middle-class to poor-class in the areas of education and health insurance because I know these are two critical burdens financially; I will not add upper-class into the equation. I feel upper-class’s burden is not near the other two classes in these areas. Poor-class is an annual family income of around $0-$19,177 and middle-class is around $36,000 to $57,657.

Education is becoming more and more a required standard for living decent. More jobs are requiring college education. This being said, funding for college education is now a regular payment, like a car. Families’ survival depends on members going to college. Parents of middle-class students tend to have to help with their kids’ college career if they want them to “have a better life.” This puts financial strain on their already strenuous life. A lot of middle-class parents have to take out loans or even pull money from their retirement.

FASFA, the agency that handles financial aid, makes you fill out your parents’ financial information when applying for financial aid. They assume that parents make contributions towards their childrens' college education. A student can claim independence when filling out their tax information but not when filling out financial aid information. They combine a students’ income with their parents’ income and then figure out if one qualifies for aid and of what kind. The majority of students that I spoke to or read about do not meet the requirements to receive financial aid through grants from the government. Instead they receive financial aid through loans, which most students try to stay away from loans for fear of debt. One student I spoke to said her income of $16,000 a year and her moms of $25,000 a year was too much to receive grants, so she resorts to accepting only student loans. Another way students pay for their college is by using credit cards. According to an article by Tamera Briones in The Green Gazette, 24% of students put their school expenses on credit cards. There is some hope for middle-class students though. Ivy League schools are starting to pay full or partially for middle-class students’ tuition but because of the competition for those schools,for most students that is not an option. Also students that are considered within the poor class usually have an advantage when attending public schools. Often these students qualify for grants and scholarships, which do not have to be paid back, because of their parents "understood" inability to contribute.

Health insurance is a major financial burden, if not the greatest financial burden. According to an article by Robert Pear of International Herald Tribune, about 17 million people of the 47 million uninsured have a family income of 40,000 or more. This number is steadily increasing as middle-class is becoming more of a struggle. The same article writes about a lady who made 60,000 a year working for herself. She could not get an insurance company to insure her for a reasonable price because she previously had cancer. She would have to pay $2,400 a month for insurance. A few of my coworkers have to pay about $400 a month for their families to be insured. One of them had to take his wife off of his insurance plan because he could not afford her, so she is uninsured. This is a known occurrence with middle-class families. They constantly have to make sacrifices to their health to deal with the increasing cost of insurance. The same lady that had cancer has to pay out of pocket for doctor visits which she attends sparingly to save money. Also her medicine that costs about $300 a month, she must takes 3 times a week instead of 7 to save money. If you are classified as being within the poverty group you can qualify for Medicaid, which will cover most of your medical expenses including medicines.

I am not saying lower-class should not get help with medical expenses by all means. I am saying the government has left the middle-class out of the aid equation. I spoke to a woman who is considered in the poor-class, who is scared to work for fear of earning too much. By earning too much Medicare will get taken away from her, thus rendering her enable to afford her necessary medications. This causes more unemployment because people feel working makes their lives harder.

The government has created a black and white system. You either get aid or you do not. A lot of people I talked to in the poor-class feel that moving up the economic ladder is unfeasible becauseof the loss of help when you make more money. I think the middle-class needs help from the government, just not as much as the poor-class. If the government increases the maximum family income limit that received financial help and kept it percentage based, it would help several of our economy’s problems. There would be less uninsured, and it would help unemployment as more people feel that working truly benefits them.

Overpaid Insurance

I'm critiquing an article by Vincent Navarro, entitled "The Next Failure of Health Care Reform", on Counterpunch.Health Care is a major problem in the United States of America. People have problems maintaining and accessing healthcare when they need it. When they do access their healthcare, they have problems paying their bills. The number of people that were uninsured in 2006 was 47 million or 15.9% of Americans. That does not even include the number of people who are underinsured and cannot pay their medical bills. Health care has become a political point at least on the democratic side during presidential campaigns. The problem is finding a president that has an effective plan to support a dramatic change to the healthcare system.

It started with Dukakis who spoke of universal health care but was afraid of being too radical, so it did not succeed. In 1992, Bill Clinton put universal health care at the center of his program. Clinton’s ties with Wall Street and Robert Rubin caused the lack of commitment to antagonize the insurance industries. He did manage to reform the health care system with one called “managed care,” which left insurance companies at the center of the system. Bill had a good system setup, but he compared to the Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration health plan. The problem was that those programs are managed by the government, a single-payer. The healthcare system we have now is managed by insurance companies. These insurance companies also donate large sums of cash to campaigns. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the insurance industry has contributed $525,188 to Hillary Clinton, $414,863 to Barack Obama, and $274,724 to John McCain. Interestingly not one of the candidates is asking for a publicly funded system. This is not allowed in most other democratic systems, so why is it allowed in the U.S.? There are things wrong with our system in my opinion, but is it completely bad?

The single-payer system of Canada is good if you do not have any emergencies. Ever wonder why people come to the U.S. for critical conditions? The U.S. has good medical facilities and offers good services. The question is at what price? Would you rather get treated now and worry about the large bill later, or wait in a long line but pay less.I found an article from CBSNEWS entitled "Canadian Health Care in Crisis." In the article they discuss that the Canadian healthcare system is still good but it also needs work. One of the better aspects is that medical doctors know that they will get paid because they get reimbursed by the government, unlike the U.S. where they have to fight insurance companies. Usually the person being treated is stuck in the middle fighting their insurance. In the meantime, they are turned into collection agencies and it in turn damages their credit. The main problem is, like I stated, the waiting line for government hospitals. There were an estimated 1 million Canadians waiting for medical needs in 2005. In some parts of Canada they allow private hospitals where immediate assistance can be obtained.

If we cut out the middle man in the U.S., the insurance companies, I think that would put us in the right direction. The overhead for the public system in Canada is only 4% compared to the U.S. of 30% that goes to marketing administration. The U.S. spends 14% on their GDP on insurance which is more than Canada. What would be the reason for keeping insurance companies? Is it an economic reason or is it a political reason?