Then they're too poor for a nanny instead of daycare. And a remote job is still a job
I worked as a nanny in college and post-college. I quit after too many clients reneged on the conditions of my employment (I was the nanny, not the house cleaner, dog walker, and cook). My brother and sister-in-law have been struggling to find care for their 3-year-old twins and infant and constantly complain to me about the cost. They want Mary Poppins for pennies.
Our mother stayed to help until the baby was three months old but she lives in another state and has a small business there. They have not been able to keep reliable child care and my sister-in-law is thinking of leaving her master’s program because of it.
I finally broke my silence when I pointed out that the pay they were offering for the number of hours they wanted someone to work amounted to about $2 an hour. My sister-in-law got defensive and ranted about how hard they had it and that it was all that they could afford. I suggested that they needed maybe to look to share the cost with another family or daycare for the twins. My brother told me to butt out. I did but they continue to moan and groan about it. Then my sister-in-law had the bright idea that I come live with them! My job is remote and my rent just went up. I was debating where to move. They even got my mother in on it now. How do I gracefully say, “No way in hell” to them?
—Not the Nanny
Re: Then they're too poor for a nanny instead of daycare. And a remote job is still a job
The childcare situation in this country sucks (I assume the LW is from the US) but that does not mean that the proposal by the R candidate for VP and "ask your family" holds water.
But the LW is also making it way harder than it needs to be. A response of, "I already have a f/t job and don't want another one," is factual and not mean at all. Bonus points if their remote job doesn't have flexible hours and the hours their brother/SIL want would interfere with that.
The LW could even add a dash of, "I've been living independently for a long time and don't want to live with other people."
Background: Cartman can't bear waiting 6 week for the new Nintendo Wii to come out. He freezes himself and gives Butters instructions to defrost him in 6 weeks. Except then an avalanche happens and Cartman isn't defrosted until the year 3000.
He sees a commercial for a toy called Crank Prank Time Machine phone that kids use to make prank calls to people in the past. Cartman decides to get this toy so he can call his past self and tell him not to freeze himself. Here's a paraphrasing of the convo at the store:
Cartman: I'd like the Crank Prank Time Machine phone.
Shopkeeper; That will be 300 Parsecs.
Cartman: 300 Parsecs?!?! Are you kidding me? That's a rip off. LOOK. I NEED the Crank Prank Time Machine phone.
Shopkeeper: Concerned tone, "Oh! I'm so sorry! I didn't realize how much you needed it." Sarcastic tone, "Then I NEED 300 Parsecs."
I bet the next answer to repealing the affordable care act is asking people to help w/ healthcare costs for a preexisting condition if you don't have coverage. Chiquita's are a five figure bill to the insurance co on the invoices I see. NBD there right??
My cost is $0 for insulin. So I suspect that's my insurance's cost also. I think whatever contracts with secret price lists they have with pharm. companies, that particular insulins are thrown in as freebies.
There have also been price protections put in for insulin over the last few years that I'm not sure exist for any other medications. So even most Joe-Schmos without insurance isn't paying $550 for a box of insulin pens either.
Yet, those AHs at Eli Lilly still say it's $550. Maybe for some tax dodge. And I remember before the price protections that it was absolutely what a person would have had to pay out of pocket.
In reality, they'd make about a 30% profit if it cost $10 for a vial of that same insulin. Perhaps add a few more dollars for the plastic to make the pens. And that includes ALL the expenses, including research for other drugs.
With that said, the US government ALREADY funds a lot of medical research for pharm. companies. But then those companies cry in their sack cloths when called out for their exorbitant prices/profits and say, "But, but, but...RESEARCH!"
I like what many other countries do. They treat this industry like the oligopoly it is and the monopoly some of the drugs are. They set the max. prices and simply do not allow their citizens to be price-gouged. Though some of it is self interest because these are usually countries that have socialized medicine. I believe they also look at how much a drug costs a company to produce, which even I will say is fair.
I'll give a good example of this for a drug I know well. Mounjaro/Zepbound. The FDA has approved it to treat both T2 diabetes and obesity. The UK's health care system covers it for T2, but only with significant other qualifications. They don't cover it at all for obesity.
But the retail cost for it when the NHS doesn't cover it is 229 pounds/month (about $340/month). In the US, the retail cost is about $1200/month.
It was a couple years ago that Biden put political pressure on the pharm. companies to lower their insulin prices for everybody else.
The pharm. companies made BIG press announcements they were doing that and I think they all capped it at $35. Expecting accolades and roses to be thrown at their feet. But you also can't walk into your pharmacy with a prescription and expect to pay that. I think you have to go to their website and request a coupon or something like that. But it has been their choice and not a government mandate.
It was a couple months after that my insulin was suddenly free.
It was also good timing for Eli Lilly. Their patent for insulin lispro (what I take) had expired a couple years earlier anyway and Walmart was making it...I think themselves...and charging less than $90 retail.
I'm sure the press releases included bullshit about "their concern for people's health and making this life-saving medication more affordable".
Ignoring they'd killed a bunch of people over the years because they were charging a 5,000% profit.
I read a stat a few months ago that 25% of diabetics have rationed insulin at least once because of the cost. I never quite did that. But did have times between jobs in my younger years where I ate less food and was especially strict limiting carbs, so I could keep the insulin I was taking to a minimum.