In terms of the organ transplant, we have that here. They have to be rationed because there are so many people on the wait-list and so few organs available on any given day. So they take into account all kinds of things...other health issues that may cause the person to not live at least five years, ability to care for self given the anti-rejection med routine is not forgiving, immune system function, etc. People die in this country all.the.time. when an organ match comes available but that organ has a better chance of saving someone else's life on the transplant list, or because the patient came down with a cold, an infection, anything that ramps up the immune system, is diagnosed with another issue, shows sign of other system failures, etc. So yes, it is unfortunate, but unless they can start growing a plethora of organs off stem tissue in labs, made to order to be perfect matches for everyone on the wait lists, people die. They aren't being cruel. The transplant team doesn't even make the choice of who gets it. That goes to a transplant committee of experts in the field who discuss and vote so that this life and death decision is not on the shoulders of a single person. The UK didn't deny grandma just because they want to kill off old people. The reality is that past 60, the chances of surviving the surgery, managing the med routine, not rejecting, etc. goes way down as other systems of the body start having issues.

Copy and pasting to relatives in the area. I don't have time for this!!!! ?

Thank you! I am tired of the rationing scare. Seriously. Thousands of people die every year because their care is rationed by insurance companies and hospitals that can't afford to dole out high end care for free. Sorry. The argument is a total non starter. And yes, some single payer systems have had issues. But not all. France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden....world class and the citizens live MUCH longer than the US. They have high "happiness" or quality of life scores, low infant and maternal death rates, low child death rates across the spectrum. While life style issues do come into play in this, the biggest reason they don't die of treatable disease and injuries is because they can get treatment and it isn't dictated by the CEO and investors of Blue Cross Blue Shield. My sister has a very expensive to treat, rather rare autoimmune disorder. She is an American citizen living in France, an EU permanent resident. She has ZERO problem getting treatment. She would die if she came back to the states. She would make too much money to get Medicaid which would cover treatment, but not enough to purchase a cadillac health plan, and even then, without the pre-existing condition law, she'd be hosed even if she could afford the damn policy. No thanks. I've seen enough death and destruction here to no longer be scared of single payer systems like much of Western Europe and the Scandinavian countries have. For what it's worth, if there ever should have been rationing, it should have been my father figure. Medicaid coughed up more than a quarter million dollars of cancer treatment because he wanted to gamble on the 1% chance (not a typo, you read that right) of getting "more time". He didn't get any extra time obviously. The tax payers could have used that money to pay for someone else's insulin or epilepsy meds, or cochlear implant, or kidney transplant, or...... I've seen the other side.

Very likely she filed a criminal assault complaint against him. The charges may very well be tossed out in court when evidence is presented. And often authorities will look at this as a problem between the two of them that does not necessarily translate to him becoming an abuser of the children. It can take A LOT for children to be removed.

My mother in law had to stay put during a mandatory hurricane evacuation many years ago. FIL was immobile, dying of cancer, on hospice, and at home. Hospitals were full or being evacuated. She had no where to take him, and couldn't have moved him by herself either. She talked to the sheriff's office, and they said they understood and would send someone over to check on them as soon as they could. The army corp of engineers showed up quite promptly after the worst was over, and tarped her house until the roof could be prepared. National Guard came also quite quickly and gave her water, MRE's, and asked if there were any medications they needed to secure for her, any meds that needed refrigeration, etc. They had portable generators and what not, and were trying to set up places where people without power could keep medications. One young guardsman was assigned to come back every few hours to check on them. We were so grateful! They were very worried about FIL dying in the home, and MIL not being able to get help. We lived 1400 miles away and couldn't get to them. It takes money to evacuate, and the assumption shouldn't be that everyone has the extra cash around to pay for gas, hotels, food on the road, etc. much less the ability. In low lying areas, often the need is to travel long distances, not just a matter of a few miles. I really think that we don't have good plans in place for the mandatory evacuation of the homeless, low income, elderly, infirm, patients, prisoners, etc. It just isn't something that there has been enough planning for, and so it seems that FEMA is always operating from a "fly by the seat of their pants" kind of situation. That's how it feels, though obviously they do have a fair amount of action plans in place or things would be exponentially worse. They do a LOT of good work, but it could be so much better if our state and federal governments cared to invest more energy into it. I am always thankful for the National Guard. They seem to be more organized and definitely mobilize more quickly. They also seem to have more resources.

Arctic has said exactly what I think. We, the Hive, would like to collectively puke on his "offer" and send it back to him. Boy I wish we could......

I am so sorry, Ottakee. I don't have personal experience with this, but an extended family member does. Not the same charges though. Her adult son was convicted of killing someone when he was high on meth. He was given 25 - life. What helped her and the younger children in the family was that they did move just to get a fresh start. They developed a stock answer for inquiries and made it clear that they would not discuss the convicted son. She and the children did not confide in anyone except in a support group they found for families of convicts. This group was lead by social workers and professional therapists with experience in the area. That support group was her life line, and helped her teens A LOT. So I highly recommend trying to find something like that. Her son was not in a prison nearby but it was in a somewhat reasonable commuting distance. He was kept out of the general prison population on a suicide watch and was not allowed phone calls, letters, or visits for quite a while. When he could finally be visited, she did make the commute to see him on the designated day. She determined that it was really not a good situation with that particular prison for any of the siblings to come visit. Some prisons have fairly nice, homey lounge type facilities for visits so that the family feels more at ease, but some do not. He was only in that facility for one year, and was transferred to a facility three states away. She has not seen him since then, and his siblings have never visited them. It is very, very sad. But that said, it has also allowed her younger kids to move forward and heal. She did tell me she was certain that her letters to him are opened and read before being given to him. I know that your adult children are special needs so I guess my recommendation would to try to find a family therapist with experience in this kind of situation in order to determine if it is appropriate for your children to continue to have any kind of contact with their dad or not. I hope you can find some time for self care, and will seek counseling.

It was Dr. Elizabeth Morgan. She spent 21 + months in jail for contempt when she refused to produce her daughter who was at that time being hidden in New Zealand with relatives. Kiwi courts ruled that the evidence of the father sexually molesting his daughter was overwhelming and refused to send the child back to the US. Here is an old article that highlights the basics of the case at the time the battle occurred. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/21/magazine/who-s-to-judge.html Here is a link to a summary of his loss of custody to his first daughter, Hilary's half sister. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1990-12-07/news/1990341075_1_foretich-daughter-new-zealand I find it interesting in the first case that experts in childhood sexual abuse had their testimony dismissed, but "experts" for Foretich who admitted in court that they were not experts, had their testimony admitted. At any rate, the loss of visitation to the first child is damaging. As for the original case, I would probably also help. Statistics bear out that it is pretty rare for these cases to be exaggerated or untrue. Abusers are just so good at what they do, and are quite effective at manipulating the legal system. It seems like someone has to end up dead before the courts and prosecutors say, "Well duh! Guess we should have done something. Who knew?" As for restraining orders, they mean nothing. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law so making a "rule" isn't going to deter criminal behavior.

We did find out that there is a junk selling group we can hire to clean out her house. Well more to the point, we sign a contract that they get the contents of the house in exchange for cleaning it out and getting it ready for sale. I guess this group pays to have a small dumpster put on the property, sorts and tosses, and then runs an estate sale with what is left. They will do an evaluation though and if there isn't enough good stuff on the house to make it worth doing, then we'd have to pay a $1000.00 fee up front for the work. It would be worth it to me. She won't get rid of much of anything, and my father was a pack rat. But, there is also some good fishing and hunting equipment, and a few antiques. Either way, I think that when the time comes, that is what we'll do. I am not likely to ever have a job with ample paid vacation so that I can tackle it in a timely manner, and frankly, when my boys are home from college, I'd much prefer we spend time together that ISN'T wading up to our eyeballs horded stuff, and then cleaning it and running a sale or making multiple trips to the landfill or Goodwill or whatever. I recently started putting money into a savings account for that. I want that money there for this service. It is a big issue for me. I feel overwhelmed by her house, and it causes a lot of stress.

I agree, moving is expensive. The reality is that the people who are working cannot be the ones to move away from work to the elders. When one has many years of work ahead, one can't give up paying jobs because elders don't want to move. So either someone pays for it, or the elders languish alone. It is what it is. I do know one couple who simply sold out everything, got on a plane, and arrived in their new state with two suitcases a piece, having spent a few dollars on sending some boxes of photographs ahead. But, they were minimalists, and they didn't care about stuff, and did not want the expense of moving it. They wanted to be near their kids who were two thousand plus miles away and had jobs with benefits they couldn't just willy nilly give up. They rented a furnished cottage nearby. Of course, it helped that the proceeds of the sale of their house would pay that rent for many years to come.

And this is a huge problem. The government thinks somehow non-rich people should have the magic money to put their kids through college and launch them into adult life, while at the same time, funding their parents' retirements and medical bills,and saving for our own health problems and future inability to work. This is not sustainable. But, it's the government. Common sense left the capitol buildings a long, long time ago. Filial responsibility laws if enforced would put a huge number of working people on the fast track to bankruptcy and homelessness. That they cannot see this is proof of just how blind politicians have become.

Really agree here!!! I really wish I had been more practical about the cost of homeschooling, and by that, I mean the long term cost, not the dollars spent on curricula or museum memberships or whatever.

Yes, agreed. I have heard some of this pollyanna kind of crap before. LOL, it is often from parents who are "homeschooling" a pre-schooler, and telling this stuff to parents about to pull an older child out of PS. It kind of makes my head spin, but I don't like to engage in the conversation. I have become cranky in the past few years about being a free education consultant. I don't have the energy for it, and need to work to pay college tuition and expenses. So I lay low, and wage the internal war to overcome the urge to speak.

I think that depends on the state. So much of these things are not a matter of federal rules. In Michigan, one cannot be directly held responsible for one's spouses medical bills IF the spouse refuses to sign any of the paperwork in which you consent to be responsible for the bill. We made sure my mom refused to sign any of that for my DNA donor. He was determined to accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills fighting for the 1% chance of getting a couple more years. What he got was a few months of abject pain and misery, and making everyone else so miserable and anxiety riddled that we all are on meds to deal with the fall out. But, for every hospitalization, I went along or my sister did - she took a couple of leaves of absence from her doctoral studies in France to come home for two or three months at a time. When paperwork was handed to mom by a member of hospital staff, we grabbed all the financial stuff and said, "Nope. She's got no assets. Nothing to tap. If you treat him and he doesn't pay, that's your problem not hers." Since the house had been signed over to her after he was arrested the year before, they apparently couldn't go after the house. It isn't much of house, but at the time, the only roof over her head that she could count on. After he died, when the first hospital bill came rolling through with the laundry list of things they had done to him or provided for him that either was subject to deductible, co-pay, or simply put Medicare was refusing to pay for, she just sent a copy of the death certificate and a note reminding them that she had NEVER signed to be financially responsible for his bills, and that was the end. Never heard another word. We did the same thing with the credit cards he ran up. We made sure her name was off his accounts while he was still competent to do it, so when those tens of thousands of balances came due, we sent them his death certificate - didn't have mom do a thing "Our dad passed away, here is the certificate, he left no estate and died a pauper as you will see since these credit card bills are all payments to the medical providers." They left everyone alone after about three attempts to collect. But, when it came to his legal woes, there was no such protection. She still ended up being legally responsible for his lawyer bill, and since his court fines came due before he died, there was absolutely no way to refrain from paying them. The court threatened to take her car, her TV and computer, etc. Apparently in this state they can seize anything they think is of value from the spouse to pay the legal fees. It took all of his social security for three months to pay that which left them living on $779.00 a month which is what she drew from SS. Even with a house paid off, that isn't enough to pay for utilities, home owner's insurance, food, prescription and doctor's office co-pays, etc. So you can guess who had to empty all of their emergency savings for that. Be careful in the state of PA. There is a filial support law on the books. Here is a link. Basically, you can be forced to pay for your parent's medical bills, particularly nursing home bill. https://www.paelderlaw.net/pennsylvanias-filial-support-law-children-can-be-held-responsible-for-parents-unpaid-nursing-home-bill/

We drive used vehicles here and do a lot of repairs because insuring newer ones is very expensive. But at 145K, $3500.00 would be more than we'd be willing to put in the vehicle.

I always thought we would be the people that would volunteer for years and years and years after our kids graduated out of the program. Then the program changed and the volunteer work became a ridiculous amount of work for the volunteer leaders. Like seriously, NUTS. So we made a rule that the parents had to help because we simply couldn't give that many hours. Parents could have older teens or grandparents, whatever help or they could ask another parent who was already going to be there to do their part, and then they would come the following month and do double duty in exchange. We made it easy. Super easy. We tried to be flexible. And the parents would not help us. So at the end of nine years with the organization, and eight years with the rocket team, we are resigning. The rocket team had already started on this season's designs, so we found a local civic group to take on sponsorship of the team which makes it pretty simple because the civic group doesn't require a bunch of extra work from us besides the 200 hours we put in with the team. Yes, you read that number right. The STEM club however with the amazing, monthly science and mathematics projects is over as of July 30. Parents are very upset, almost angry. But none of them are willing to do even five or six hours out of the entire year to help alleviate our load. If you burn out your leaders and make them want to bang their heads against the wall, then probably you will lose the program. If you can't help, that's fine, but you also can't complain if the leaders burn out and choose not to continue. And the reality of a lot of programs that have been run by moms is that many of us, me included, are facing an economic reality of needing to get back into the workplace. That means the hours that we can reasonably give to a volunteer program have been seriously curtailed. I think Scouts and 4H are going to at some point have to face this new reality, and if the programs are going to survive, people are really going to have to chip in to help the leaders. There simply isn't going to be any other way to do it. My mom would like to volunteer for 4H, she believes in it show much, however her health won't allow it. That is another reason many retirees cannot take on extensive leadership responsibilities, and some of the sixty-two year olds who might have been in good enough shape to do it, and in times past might have done so, are now working. Economics. It isn't pretty for a lot of people. Case in point is the newly formed "Director of Community Arts" position funded through an education endowment. Originally, the organizers thought that this could be a volunteer outfit. Volunteer leaders, volunteer manager. Sounds nice. In times past that might have been possible if there was a retired musician/artist in the area with the necessary expertise to do it, and the desire. However, none of the people in the county who would be qualified for the job and could conceivably pull off starting and running a community arts program are retired or able to work for free. Once they offered it for salary, then it was something I could consider because I am returning to the workforce to help pay for our three sons' college educations. If there was no salary attached, I wouldn't be able to do it because I'd be traveling outside this area to find paid, music work. I have accepted the position because the pay was the minimum I needed to make for this coming year. And of course the down side is that another program that is not offering pay for the unbelievable hours that I've given them is losing me. But the budget no longer allows me to be a SAHM and volunteer. That's a reality that can't be avoided. I think many programs are going to see more of that.

We are retiring from it, though the extension office will not be informed until July 30. Our kids have graduated and we have complete ten years of service as STEM club leader, eight years with rocket team, and nine as fair superintendents over the sciences. I can’t manage everything now that I am returning to work, and new policies are going to make the job way too burdensome to consider continuing. The rocket team will have one more year but with a different 501C sponsor. The program in our area has taken some huge hits over the years and I just don’t have the energy to continue the political and funding fallout. In terms of socialization, in our area clubs meet nine times per year plus additional education days and outings. They do offer a lot. But the backs of the volunteers have been broken one too many times so I predict a major loss of leaders in the coming year.

If the child has no right to access literacy, then the compulsory education laws should be made unconstitutional. Sometimes I think our courts have their heads very far up their butts! Seriously, one cannot even begin to participate as a full citizen without literacy. Yes, some students cannot achieve it due to specific types of issues beyond the control of the courts, but to say that access is not a fundamental right is the height of STUPIDITY! Repeal those compulsory education laws. If you are going to be idiots, at least be consistent idiots! If there is no constitutional right, then this should trump state constitutions. Logically forced attendance for something in order to gain something that is not constitutionally guaranteed, a fundamental right, would be an over-reach of state and local governments.

We have never stayed in the city so I can't speak to that. We have however stayed in Manassas and Centerville, and then took the Vienna St. Station/Fairfax metro into the city. If you get off at L'Enfant station, you are not far from the Smithsonian Air and Space. Capitol South spits you out close to the Library of Congress and the Capitol lawn. It is about $11.00 per person round trip. DC is going to be hot, hot, hot. I recommend that you dress comfortably and have good walking shoes.

We have access to 0% interest cards for up to 18 months so we can break it into payments on the card. We are disciplined about doing it, and not buying anything that we can't pay off without the interest. So leaving money in the money market or whatever even if it doesn't earn much interest is still better than taking it out to pay cash. But that only works when one has the option. We don't talk IRL about our finances with other people. The culture has become so "in your face" when there are differences of opinion on how to do things. Mostly I try to keep conversations to the weather, music and art, our rocket team, and if I have to, "So how 'bout those Wolverines?" Blech. But, it saves a lot of angst. I talk here a lot more openly, but then I've never identified myself or my exact location to more than about three people so there is still a measure of privacy.

Carol is correct. Those colleges that look at the CSS profile and see equity are expecting you to borrow against it. In the case of Cedarville, though they never required the profile so had no idea what our equity was, they absolutely expected that there was the option to borrow on the house and were flabbergasted that we weren't willing. Between all four of our kids, they applied to and were accepted at 24 colleges and universities, some private, some public. Not a single college actually cared how we got the money, nor listened to any appeals. They said you could appeal financial awards, but it is pretty rare for them to up the amount offered. The assumption is you'll figure it out or your student won't attend, no skin off their nose. That works when you have a huge student body to choose from. Once the bubble bursts, that won't be so. Maybe then they'll have to rethink that.

The magic college fairy apparently! I have never had any kind of remotely satisfactory answer to this one. State schools and private colleges in my state are rarely struggling. Really. They just aren't. MSU, U of MI, MTU, Kettering U, Andrews U, Hope.....these places aren't having financial problems. Their issue is they want to spend the money on other things BESIDES the important ones. Now MSU is definitely going to feel the pinch over the NASSAR thing. They deserve it. Seriously, no one feels sad for that school. The thing is, they always always always have money to fund bizarre numbers of administrative positions they don't need, stadiums, luxuries for the president/chancellors and his/her buddies, you name it. They have not been motivated to spend it on professors or helping students attend their institutions because the student loan industry and parents killing themselves to make college happen has floated the whole thing along quite nicely. Most of the institutions with serious money woes are for-profits who got the rug yanked from underneath them, and just a few places with really unique woes like Sweet Briar. An awful lot of the colleges claiming money problems have it due to stupid spending and fund raising priorities, not lack of money. In my state, yes our state schools aren't getting much from the legislature, but they definitely are not hurting for dollars. If you saw what they spend money on, it would stagger the imagination. And the thing is, they don't "fund-raise" for the students. They fund-raise for pet projects that puts the president's best buddy's name on a building, and all kinds of crap like that. They seem to assume parents have a magic money tree in the back yard. Unfortunately our house does not have a magic money tree, and if I have a fairy, she hasn't made an appearance thus far in the 50 years I have now inhabited the earth. I predict that the college bubble will burst. It will simply be far enough out of control that something will have to give, and far fewer students will sign up. Once that happens, colleges will have to vie for a much smaller pool of students which may force them to bring prices down or get generous pretty darn quick with aid and scholarships. Seriously, the endowments at some of these schools are staggering, and it is kind of immoral how small the scholarship and grant amounts are relative to the cost to attend. It isn't going to be sustainable forever.

The other thing that makes the whole thing mind boggling is the difference between EFC and the actual bill. Usually there is a gap, often for middle class parents a LARGE gap. Many schools do nothing to assist with the gap. So unless your kid is in the top 2% and is awarded all the best scholarships in order to cover your EFC AND that gap, they are rather hosed. Most years, the gap between EFC and the bill minus scholarships is significantly more, and our kids did quite well on SAT/ACT and had other stackable scholarships. I can't imagine what that gap looks like for kids who don't test well, or didn't get other types of scholarships.

She doesn't live with us at this time. She is determined to age in place. It would actually be a financial relief if she would move in here. I will discuss is with another tax person.

I would apply. You won't really know all the particulars unless you get to interview for it, so there isn't anything wrong with turning it down if offered, and some of the details simply will not work. You don't have anything to lose, and you aren't wasting the company's time because you very well might be able to make it work and will want the job. You just don't know.