The partial headline certainly does suggest they are bragging about their wealth. The “only” is on their debt (Mortgage). If it were about not having enough your would imagine it would be written as “and I STILL owe xxx on my house” and “only have xx in savings”
If you have no insurance, sure. If you have even crappy insurance and max out both your in network and out of network out of pocket maximums, you are talking tens of thousands, not hundreds.
Source: Just did a bunch of worst case scenario comparisons between options insurance options for my wife and I.
Edit: There is a caveat here, I didnt consider originally. If you have insurance that ONLY covers in-network, then yeah… you can get fucked real hard in an emergency medical situation that puts you out of network. Dont get that kind of insurance, people. No amount of cost savings is worth that risk.
This is only true if the insurance decides if your treatment or received health care is covered. If you happen to need something that the insurance just outright will not cover, then you foot the bill.
Fair point. Generally, emergency minimally life saving care is covered by default. That’s the point of getting insurance. I’m sure there’s many examples of that failing to hold true, though.
Wisconsin is literally the worst state when it comes to unemployment. Id be dropping from near $7k a month to $1.5k. Without savings I’d be homeless in a matter of months.
I don’t understand two things honestly. The first is why can’t they federalize unemployment, and the second is why isn’t it paid out at a set percentage of your average income over x number of years.
It’s crazy to me that someone who has paid into the system at a higher rate doesn’t have the same level of protection, percentage wise, as someone who has paid in less.
It would be very different if people had a set cost of living, but that just isn’t the case. 275 can be an amount you can live on, however uncomfortably, until you find a job, or it can be… homelessness in a matter of months.
Add comment