The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Ask a Mustachian => Topic started by: Miamoo on February 18, 2014, 12:50:36 PM
-
http://theprudenthomemaker.com/index.php/frugal-living/saving-money
I find others referring to her and just wondered. Many great ideas.
-
Great list...
"18. Find a new home for your pets, unless they are a food source (chickens, goats, pigs, cows)"
sounds extreme...Maybe limit the amount of new/replacement pets??
-
Really good list. Now let's each customize it!
1. What's a "car" and why do people need one?
2. Get rid of your landline and use your cell phone infrequently.
15. Turn your thermostat way lower at night.
20, 29, 37. My total electrical bill is less than she was paying to keep her kitchen lights on during dinner and her computer on at night. Remind me not to move to wherever she lives.
27. Remember to re-evaluate whether you even need to insure whatever it is you're insuring.
36. Dryer > clothes drying rack
38. If you're using baking soda solely for cleaning, buy non-food-grade baking soda from the feed store.
But on the whole, this nails so many little and big things that people can do. No mention of bikes, though, as far as I can tell...
<edited for spelling>
-
I like it. I do alot of these things already, but some I hadn't thought much about.
I do think the pet advice was a bit harsh, but I get where she is coming from. One companion animal I understand, but if it's just for that you don't need more.
Fortunately, our non-meat-producing animals have jobs. The dog is our security guard/alarm system and my fitness partner (having a high-energy dog ensures I get out to run/cycle/hike even on days where it's tempting to stay inside), and the two cats earn their keep by hunting and killing the mice that make their way into our home (happens a lot here in the country), not to mention the rabbits that plague my garden.
Now, I need to get back to making bread.
-
+1
I enjoy her blog and facebook page. As with the posts everywhere I take what I can apply now and file the rest for the future as needed.
-
I've read her blog some. I find that her lifestyle is very very different from mine, so I don't find all of her advice helpful. (I am a DINK, living in cold New England, she is a stay at home mom homeschooling a fleet of kids in Nevada, with strong religious beliefs.) She has some great meals, and an astonishly beautiful garden, but I have to remind myself she feeds the family on 40/cents per person per day out of necessity and it's ok to spend more. (Her "job" and my "job" leave us different amounts of time.) I like to integrate some of her cheap meals into my menu planning. Overall she has some good stories/advice. Other times the advice is less adaptable (e.g. living in an apt, I wasn't able to buy in bulk to the same extent as she does).
ETA: Corrected location. Still a warm spot with a climate very different from mine!
-
I'm a married mom of two who works outside the home, (gladly and gratefully) sends my kids to public school, rarely sews or embroiders, doesn't attend church, leaves all gardening to my spouse, and lives in one of the most liberal towns in the U.S.
I really, really like the Prudent Homemaker blog (she's in Las Vegas, not Arizona, BTW). Though I don't do many of the things on it, I enjoy PH's positive outlook, even when things are financially tough. She's practices an Amy Dacyczyn level of frugality, yet, like Amy D., PH is incredibly creative and aesthetically inclined. I love the positive nature of her posts--and the comments--and find it fascinating to read about a world that is unlike my own. I cannot help but respect how much she accomplishes every day--with 7 kids under 14 (?), no less!
-
I have read her and personally, I don't like her. She seems to not understand that not everything works for everyone and that people may have other priorities.
-
I found her blog through this site. It is interesting.
She obviously has a very different life than me (god, 7 kids, her climate, etc) but a lot of it is good thoughts.
I would die if I had to eat what her family appears to eat based on her shopping posts. Die, I tell you. Of course her shopping posts don't include everything from her extensive garden, and in her climate she can garden most of the year. But still. All those canned goods, blech!
I wonder why she doesn't monetize her blog, and I wonder what the heck kind of terrible real estate agent her husband is that he has made such a minimal salary from 2007 until now. Maybe its time for a new job, dude.
I imagine the lack of focus on biking stems from the whole 7 kids thing. Biking with little kids sucks big time when you have screamers in the burley, and are hauling a combined 150 lbs between a burley, trail a bike, and 3 little bodies. Plus trying to herd the older ones.
-
I hadn't heard of her. It does seem like a lot of it wouldn't apply to our family of four. We live in an apartment, and I work from home. So instead of busting my butt canning things and cooking bread from scratch, I'm on the computer making a few bucks that way. To each his own. But holy cow, if she's doing all that while blogging and homeschooling... I better read more often. It might remind me to get off my ass and get more done!
I have trouble identifying with the choice to have a large family on a small income and with no health insurance, but I can respect how hard she's working to make that work.
-
I would die if I had to eat what her family appears to eat based on her shopping posts. Die, I tell you. Of course her shopping posts don't include everything from her extensive garden, and in her climate she can garden most of the year. But still. All those canned goods, blech!
I would say our panty looked just like hers as we were growing up. Pretty much if we didn't grow it we didn't eat it. Summers were great because we could eat out of the garden but we had to can lots of stuff to get us through the winter. We bottled peaches, pears, cherries, raspberries, fruit cocktail, apricots, apple slices, apple sauce, carrots, green beans, corn, tomatoes, beets, pickles, venison, chicken, and all kinds of jams and jellies. We also had a cold storage room in the basement where we could store potatoes and winter squash. My mom would buy a box of apples and a box of oranges at Christmas time but I don't ever remember her buying fresh veggies in the winter. This was pretty common for where I grew up.
-
I wonder why she doesn't monetize her blog, and I wonder what the heck kind of terrible real estate agent her husband is that he has made such a minimal salary from 2007 until now. Maybe its time for a new job, dude.
I actually asked her about this. She said she has reached out to sponsors with very little interest. Her blog attracts viewers, but not consumers, so I can see the problem. I told her she should add a "donate now" button, but she won't do it. She feels that a lot of her readers would try to donate out of their limited funds. She feels that she receives blessings for sharing this with others, and I respect that.
But yeah, hubby needs to think of a new profession.
-
I dip into her blog from time to time. As others have said, her life is very different to mine, but I learn lots of interesting things from reading what she has to say and she certainly is creative and artistic as well as very positive.
Initially I just accepted it, but the lack of income for so long recently struck me as a little odd or at least very passive. Maybe they've adapted and like things the way they are, maybe there's another part of the story we don't know that prevents hubby from increasing their income.
-
I would have fewer kids and more pets. ;) To each her own.
-
I would have fewer kids and more pets. ;) To each her own.
Indeed, I have 2 kids, ahem children and 6 cavies
-
interesting. just checked out her site for the first time... I agree with others, her life is SO different from mine but I definitely think I can get some good ideas out of it!
one thing I don't understand is her twofold justification/reasoning behind stocking up on food. I understand doing it to take advantage of sales and/or bulk pricing, but then she also seems to emphasize that "when we didn't have an income for months, we still had food because I had stocked up." why not stock up on... money? like, when your husband DOES make a sale, don't spend it ALL on pantry food, save some so you can buy fresh food... right?
-
interesting. just checked out her site for the first time... I agree with others, her life is SO different from mine but I definitely think I can get some good ideas out of it!
one thing I don't understand is her twofold justification/reasoning behind stocking up on food. I understand doing it to take advantage of sales and/or bulk pricing, but then she also seems to emphasize that "when we didn't have an income for months, we still had food because I had stocked up." why not stock up on... money? like, when your husband DOES make a sale, don't spend it ALL on pantry food, save some so you can buy fresh food... right?
Personally, I'd keep my kids protected even if it meant a night job, or an early morning one (when kids/dad are asleep). Staying home but not having health insurance seems so irresponsible and selfish.
-
I would die if I had to eat what her family appears to eat based on her shopping posts. Die, I tell you. Of course her shopping posts don't include everything from her extensive garden, and in her climate she can garden most of the year. But still. All those canned goods, blech!
I would say our panty looked just like hers as we were growing up. Pretty much if we didn't grow it we didn't eat it. Summers were great because we could eat out of the garden but we had to can lots of stuff to get us through the winter. We bottled peaches, pears, cherries, raspberries, fruit cocktail, apricots, apple slices, apple sauce, carrots, green beans, corn, tomatoes, beets, pickles, venison, chicken, and all kinds of jams and jellies. We also had a cold storage room in the basement where we could store potatoes and winter squash. My mom would buy a box of apples and a box of oranges at Christmas time but I don't ever remember her buying fresh veggies in the winter. This was pretty common for where I grew up.
I garden and can a ton, too, but we still eat fresh eggs, some fresh veggies, some fresh fruit, dairy other an powdered milk, etc during the winter.
It isn't the idea of canning 100 lbs of pears (I have probably 100 quarts of applesauce in my basement) but the idea that there is nothing fresh, ever. I know she now has a garden and in LV does get fresh stuff from it most of the year, but the first year her H lost his income she said they bought no groceries for an entire year. That is the year I object to! She said the market crashed in the spring, so they had income for the first few months of 2007 then nothing the rest of the year. I'm thinking that after a few months of that, maybe one of them could have gotten a minimum wage job to put some eggs and fresh fruit on the table.
So basically I majorly side eye her lifestyle choices while also finding her interesting and getting some entertainment if not new ideas from her blog. I can't say that her list of frugal ideas includes anything new to me but it is still good to be reminded.
-
I garden and can a ton, too, but we still eat fresh eggs, some fresh veggies, some fresh fruit, dairy other an powdered milk, etc during the winter.
It isn't the idea of canning 100 lbs of pears (I have probably 100 quarts of applesauce in my basement) but the idea that there is nothing fresh, ever.
Fresh fruits & vegetables are seasonal foods, though. If you want fresh fruits & vegetables in winter, you either must live in a climate where they grow at that time of year, grow them yourself under grow lights, or have them trucked "green" over great distances. I applaud the ability & dedication required to eat one's own produce year-round, fresh in summer, canned & frozen through the winter.
-
I garden and can a ton, too, but we still eat fresh eggs, some fresh veggies, some fresh fruit, dairy other an powdered milk, etc during the winter.
It isn't the idea of canning 100 lbs of pears (I have probably 100 quarts of applesauce in my basement) but the idea that there is nothing fresh, ever.
Fresh fruits & vegetables are seasonal foods, though. If you want fresh fruits & vegetables in winter, you either must live in a climate where they grow at that time of year, grow them yourself under grow lights, or have them trucked "green" over great distances. I applaud the ability & dedication required to eat one's own produce year-round, fresh in summer, canned & frozen through the winter.
There are winter veggies though.
-
interesting. just checked out her site for the first time... I agree with others, her life is SO different from mine but I definitely think I can get some good ideas out of it!
one thing I don't understand is her twofold justification/reasoning behind stocking up on food. I understand doing it to take advantage of sales and/or bulk pricing, but then she also seems to emphasize that "when we didn't have an income for months, we still had food because I had stocked up." why not stock up on... money? like, when your husband DOES make a sale, don't spend it ALL on pantry food, save some so you can buy fresh food... right?
Personally, I'd keep my kids protected even if it meant a night job, or an early morning one (when kids/dad are asleep). Staying home but not having health insurance seems so irresponsible and selfish.
I won't judge what she feeds her children because there are tons of kids that survive on worse. However, I didn't realize she didn't have health insurance for her children. If her husband makes so little, shouldn't there be some low income health coverage for children?
In most states, yes. And surviving is not thriving, so I do judge. Then again, I am sure people could judge me for a lot too. :)
-
Some religions prohibit health insurance as a type of gambling. Some communities "self insure" (e.g. Amish). Some folks also do not believe in public assistance of any kind. I don't know her stance, but I think more people choose to not have health insurance than you might expect.
-
Some religions prohibit health insurance as a type of gambling. Some communities "self insure" (e.g. Amish). Some folks also do not believe in public assistance of any kind. I don't know her stance, but I think more people choose to not have health insurance than you might expect.
And that very well may be true, I still can find it selfish and irresponsible. People can make choices for themselves that put them at risk, but forcing certain choices on minors, risking them when they have no choice is something I can't find acceptable.
-
I am impressed she can do so much, I mean she could have just sat down and cried and signed up for welfare, she seems to be a go getter who loves her family and get it done! We should have more with that kind of attitude.
-
Although everytime I eat meat I think of her and how she says they can't afford it, then I feel a little guilty and a little luxurious eating the delicious meat that we often eat.
-
Some religions prohibit health insurance as a type of gambling. Some communities "self insure" (e.g. Amish). Some folks also do not believe in public assistance of any kind. I don't know her stance, but I think more people choose to not have health insurance than you might expect.
And that very well may be true, I still can find it selfish and irresponsible. People can make choices for themselves that put them at risk, but forcing certain choices on minors, risking them when they have no choice is something I can't find acceptable.
Fair enough. I'm a health care lawyer myself, so I consider it important too! I just can see how some people don't. (For the record, the Amish model actually works very well though, through donations and pre-negotiated immediate cash discounts, and a healthier more active population in general.)
-
"18. Find a new home for your pets, unless they are a food source (chickens, goats, pigs, cows)"
I read this as find a new home for your children unless they are a food source... (they paying rent)
Yeah... I don't begrudge people having kids/pets but I don't want any... but I'm not "too" old yet at 27
-
Some religions prohibit health insurance as a type of gambling. Some communities "self insure" (e.g. Amish). Some folks also do not believe in public assistance of any kind. I don't know her stance, but I think more people choose to not have health insurance than you might expect.
She is LDS (Mormon), so health insurance is NOT prohibited by her religion. In fact, Mormons believe in self-sufficiency first, then family help, then church help, and then govt. assistance. So providing a healthcare safety net would be very important. I would be shocked if she didn't have Medicaid for her family. Also, to clarify, Mormons do value and cherish their children and families, but the church does not limit contraception or tell people how many children to have. Her views on homeschooling are totally her own, as well.
I think she does a great service with the blog and website, because it shows what you can do with very little. Her posts are so lovely and do not look "deprived". However, I do disagree with her choice to homeschool, not work (I would have my kids in good public schools and at least have a night job), and to keep supportive of her husband's career.
-
"18. Find a new home for your pets, unless they are a food source (chickens, goats, pigs, cows)"
I read this as find a new home for your children unless they are a food source... (they paying rent)
Yeah... I don't begrudge people having kids/pets but I don't want any... but I'm not "too" old yet at 27
This made me snort!
-
She does have some good tips, but I agree that some of their decisions strike me as irresponsible. Her main post says that they had her 5th child after her husband's income dramatically dropped. Since then, their income has not recovered, but they have chosen to have 2 more! I can't imagine choosing to bring in more people into the world, knowing that there is a good chance I wouldn't be able to feed them or get health insurance for them.
-
I read it from time to time. I'm an atheist working mom who reads a lot of christian homemaker blogs. Oh well, I get a lot of great tips and recipes from them! I wouldn't want to live her lifestyle, especially the lack of health insurance, but there are definitely valuable things to pull from what she writes.
-
"18. Find a new home for your pets, unless they are a food source (chickens, goats, pigs, cows)"
Who says cat isn't a food source?
-
Some religions prohibit health insurance as a type of gambling. Some communities "self insure" (e.g. Amish). Some folks also do not believe in public assistance of any kind. I don't know her stance, but I think more people choose to not have health insurance than you might expect.
She is LDS (Mormon), so health insurance is NOT prohibited by her religion. In fact, Mormons believe in self-sufficiency first, then family help, then church help, and then govt. assistance. So providing a healthcare safety net would be very important. I would be shocked if she didn't have Medicaid for her family. Also, to clarify, Mormons do value and cherish their children and families, but the church does not limit contraception or tell people how many children to have. Her views on homeschooling are totally her own, as well.
interesting. that explains the food storage too, although I am surprised she didn't mention that in her main food storage posts (maybe she did and I missed it, I was kinda skimming).
I think she does a great service with the blog and website, because it shows what you can do with very little. Her posts are so lovely and do not look "deprived".
agreed! I also find that inspirational.
-
There seem to be an awful lot of judgemental opinions about this woman and her lifestyle, which I find a bit disheartening.
I don't know what her situation is in terms of income, but she obviously has clear priorities and values that are important to her and her family (staying home with the kids, homeschooling, not practicing birth control) and is not complaining about where that leaves her. I admire and respect that.
I confess, however, the whole "you should get a job so your kids have health insurance" blows my Canadian mind. Are not poor people covered by some kind of health care in the US? Would these kids be turned away from hospitals if they got sick or injured? I don't get the "selfishness" here.
-
Yes! I read the Prudent Homemaker! I find it so inspirational how much she accomplishes in a day with such a cheerful heart. She motivates me to work harder and smarter in my own home. I have found many of her frugal living ideas well in line with MMM, though clearly, her lifestyle is drastically different. As with anything, I take what I find useful from many blogs (including MMM) and leave the rest behind :-)
Susan in Vancouver
-
There seem to be an awful lot of judgemental opinions about this woman and her lifestyle, which I find a bit disheartening.
I don't know what her situation is in terms of income, but she obviously has clear priorities and values that are important to her and her family (staying home with the kids, homeschooling, not practicing birth control) and is not complaining about where that leaves her. I admire and respect that.
I confess, however, the whole "you should get a job so your kids have health insurance" blows my Canadian mind. Are not poor people covered by some kind of health care in the US? Would these kids be turned away from hospitals if they got sick or injured? I don't get the "selfishness" here.
But she is also judgmental about having pets. I think that's okay. Everyone has to use his/her own judgment to decide what works best.
I have not one car, but no cars. So I'll keep my cat (which as someone else pointed out, I guess I could eat, but he'd be pretty tough ;)).
-
In Nevada with that low an income & that many kids they would qualify for Medicaid if they applied. I will have to read the blog to see what i think. I hate when people talk about getting rid of pets to save $. It would be one thing to decide not to get more when they all die but to get rid of them when you have made a commitment is terrible.
-
Pets are on the list, yes, but it's being blown out of proportion in terms of the time she talks about it. (This is the first I've seen.). And let's be fair - pets DO cost money. If you are in a serious hair on fire debt emergency we'd likely all reject a suggestion that the person go get a pet. And if you had no money to feed your kids, I'd agree to give up existing ones. I think she comes from a place of frugality by necessity, which is different than many choice of frugality here (including my own).
-
There seem to be an awful lot of judgemental opinions about this woman and her lifestyle, which I find a bit disheartening.
I don't know what her situation is in terms of income, but she obviously has clear priorities and values that are important to her and her family (staying home with the kids, homeschooling, not practicing birth control) and is not complaining about where that leaves her. I admire and respect that.
I confess, however, the whole "you should get a job so your kids have health insurance" blows my Canadian mind. Are not poor people covered by some kind of health care in the US? Would these kids be turned away from hospitals if they got sick or injured? I don't get the "selfishness" here.
ERs are required to make sure you won't die, but that is it. No, they do not get preventive care, they also don't get anything past "don't die" in the ER. This means lack of shots, this means no doctors visits to check for concussions etc. Basically, her kids are likely not getting the same treatment as a kid with parents who have health insurance. They are more likely to be sick, more likely to have permanent issues because of this woman's choice. So yes, I think it is very selfish to not give your child basic care.
-
Commoncents, I did not say you should get a pet if your hair is on fire but you should certainly not get rid of an existing pet. It is an obligation that you need to fulfill. Also she is being irresponsible with her kid's medical care by not signing up for free Medicaid. If she does not want government help then one of the adults should take on more work to buy their insurance. YOu have a responsibility when you have kids to adequately take care of their basic needs if at all possible.
-
I assumed that the reason why they have no/low income was because her husband owned his business and chose not to draw any income from it rather than fire staff... I assumed it was some kind of religious belief around looking after your employees before yourself, and that he was giving the employees all the listings instead of taking any for himself, so that they would still get sales commissions.
But I don't think that's listed anywhere on the site so I probably made it up! I don't know very much at all about their religion, so I could be way off base.
Her choices are so, so not the ones I would make in her position, but I admire her attitude and her garden is incredibly beautiful. She leads an extremely frugal life and I get a lot of value out of reading her blog, even if I do occasionally wonder about continuing to have so many children while living in poverty. Much like with MMM, I take what inspiration I can from her blog and leave whatever doesn't work for me.
-
Pets are on the list, yes, but it's being blown out of proportion in terms of the time she talks about it. (This is the first I've seen.). And let's be fair - pets DO cost money. If you are in a serious hair on fire debt emergency we'd likely all reject a suggestion that the person go get a pet. And if you had no money to feed your kids, I'd agree to give up existing ones. I think she comes from a place of frugality by necessity, which is different than many choice of frugality here (including my own).
If it's on her list, I think it's fair game (ha ha love the pun) and not blown out of proportion.
-
I like her positive attitude and her craftsmanship. She models finding the beautiful in everyday items and processes. But as one who does her best to eat pasture-raised meat and eggs from free-range hens (and not too much of either), I wince when I hear about another cheap turkey or ham, because I know that those animals did not have good lives. In short, she has made me aware of yet another luxury I enjoy.
No way could I home school. Heck, we threaten our son with home school, as in Mom and Dad hovering 24/7: "there is no recess in Home School; there are no vacations from Home School." He feels he gets quite enough schooling at home, even though he escapes us all day.
-
No way could I home school. Heck, we threaten our son with home school, as in Mom and Dad hovering 24/7: "there is no recess in Home School; there are no vacations from Home School." He feels he gets quite enough schooling at home, even though he escapes us all day.
Be careful. If your kids find out what homeschooling *really* looks like they may call your bluff. ;-)
Around here, we (jokingly) threaten to SEND the kids to school, lol.
-
There seem to be an awful lot of judgemental opinions about this woman and her lifestyle, which I find a bit disheartening.
I don't know what her situation is in terms of income, but she obviously has clear priorities and values that are important to her and her family (staying home with the kids, homeschooling, not practicing birth control) and is not complaining about where that leaves her. I admire and respect that.
If she is Mormon, then there aren't any religious reasons for her not to use birth control. I was raised Mormon & it was always emphasized that you should have as many children as you can afford. I think that being financially sound & self-reliant was a big deal. Their decision to have more children when they can't afford to feed the ones they already had was not really a religious decision. I'm fairly certain no LDS leader has ever said "Have more children, even when you need to depend on gift cards from family & friends to feed them."
I have a crazy amount of respect for how she manages to feed her family off of what she does. It reminds me of my grandparents & how they raised their children. At the same time, I think it's crazy to rank staying home with your children above making ends meet. Boggles my mind, really. My parents & siblings have the same priority and are Mormons, but I don't think they'd take it to this extreme. I know my SILs have given music lessons, tutored, babysat, & done other jobs at home when their budgets have been tight, so color me confused regarding this situation.
-
There seem to be an awful lot of judgemental opinions about this woman and her lifestyle, which I find a bit disheartening.
I don't know what her situation is in terms of income, but she obviously has clear priorities and values that are important to her and her family (staying home with the kids, homeschooling, not practicing birth control) and is not complaining about where that leaves her. I admire and respect that.
If she is Mormon, then there aren't any religious reasons for her not to use birth control. I was raised Mormon & it was always emphasized that you should have as many children as you can afford. I think that being financially sound & self-reliant was a big deal. Their decision to have more children when they can't afford to feed the ones they already had was not really a religious decision. I'm fairly certain no LDS leader has ever said "Have more children, even when you need to depend on gift cards from family & friends to feed them."
I have a crazy amount of respect for how she manages to feed her family off of what she does. It reminds me of my grandparents & how they raised their children. At the same time, I think it's crazy to rank staying home with your children above making ends meet. Boggles my mind, really. My parents & siblings have the same priority and are Mormons, but I don't think they'd take it to this extreme. I know my SILs have given music lessons, tutored, babysat, & done other jobs at home when their budgets have been tight, so color me confused regarding this situation.
Well, she does manage to feed and make ends meet with the 7, even if some here disagree with choices. Re extra cash, she charges $35 pp for garden tours. Also charges for speaking, I think.
-
At the same time, I think it's crazy to rank staying home with your children above making ends meet.
For some people, the decision to stay home with the kids is based on convictions (not religious beliefs) that doing so is the best thing for the children. For others, they feel that their children are not harmed, or perhaps are even better off, having both parents working.
I've heard arguments on both sides and they are equally compelling - the difference comes down to the personal value that a family places on either one, not to mention the conditions that are unique to their situation. There is no "right" answer, but you cannot convince a working-by-choice mother that her children are going to be better off if she stays home, any more than you can convince a stay-home-by-choice mother that her kids would be better off if she went to work.
My point is that we shouldn't judge her decision to place being home with her children as a higher priority than having health insurance, for example, or anything else. Those are clearly her priorities and the fact that she is not complaining and is making do is, IMO, admirable and worthy of respect.
-
At the same time, I think it's crazy to rank staying home with your children above making ends meet.
For some people, the decision to stay home with the kids is based on convictions (not religious beliefs) that doing so is the best thing for the children. For others, they feel that their children are not harmed, or perhaps are even better off, having both parents working.
I've heard arguments on both sides and they are equally compelling - the difference comes down to the personal value that a family places on either one, not to mention the conditions that are unique to their situation. There is no "right" answer, but you cannot convince a working-by-choice mother that her children are going to be better off if she stays home, any more than you can convince a stay-home-by-choice mother that her kids would be better off if she went to work.
My point is that we shouldn't judge her decision to place being home with her children as a higher priority than having health insurance, for example, or anything else. Those are clearly her priorities and the fact that she is not complaining and is making do is, IMO, admirable and worthy of respect.
Health insurance is a basic NEED, it is like shelter and food. It is part of taking care of your child. So, yes a want (being home) being prioritized over a need (health insurance) is going to make me judge and judge hard. If she wanted to be home, go work at night, take a early morning shift, something. You don't just say, oh well, let me not provide the BASICS for my child so I get what I want.
-
@CommonCents, I didn't realize that she did garden tours & other things to earn some money. That's really great to hear. I still don't think I agree that she does make ends meet. She wrote in her About section that she got donations from friends & family members for fruits, toothpaste, and other things. She even has a whole section about what to do when you run out of food that essentially consists of "tell other people & hope they give you stuff."
@wordygirl, I'm not starting a WOHM vs SAHM war. Please don't turn it into that. I understand that people have convictions & opinions that are different than mine. More power to them. But when your convictions expose your children to the instability of not knowing if they'll have enough to eat (as evidenced by her posts about needing help from friends), that weirds me out. As Mustachians, we judge people who open themselves up to financial instability by going into debt, etc because of their convictions about money. I don't see this as much different, I guess.
-
I assumed that the reason why they have no/low income was because her husband owned his business and chose not to draw any income from it rather than fire staff... I assumed it was some kind of religious belief around looking after your employees before yourself, and that he was giving the employees all the listings instead of taking any for himself, so that they would still get sales commissions.
But I don't think that's listed anywhere on the site so I probably made it up! I don't know very much at all about their religion, so I could be way off base.
Actually I believe she had a blog post recently (she has a blog AND a site) where she discussed that fact - that her husband owns the business and chooses not to fire staff. Or maybe it was on her facebook page.
I really enjoy her blog (as a working mom of two and an atheist to boot)! Her meals are simple and nourishing, and not too far off from what I ate growing up. We gardened and canned in the summer and ate canned food in the winter. I am now spoiled in California though.
I am kind of "meh" on the health insurance. Personally, I think we need a single-payer system in this country. But truthfully? Much of my life as a child we didn't have health insurance. We rarely went to the doctor or dentist, and paid out of pocket when we did. I had surgery when I was 12 (twice) and my parents paid off those bills $100 a month for YEARS. If her family and church are supportive, they can probably make it through.
-
@mm1970, Wow. That is amazing. I guess I'll have to rein in my judgement (which I should do anyway) because that information just makes them really stand-up people.
-
I am kind of "meh" on the health insurance. Personally, I think we need a single-payer system in this country. But truthfully? Much of my life as a child we didn't have health insurance. We rarely went to the doctor or dentist, and paid out of pocket when we did. I had surgery when I was 12 (twice) and my parents paid off those bills $100 a month for YEARS. If her family and church are supportive, they can probably make it through.
I agree on the need for a single payer system, but with our current system I don't see going without insurance as feasible unless you're incredibly lucky and are never sick or injured. Over the past 25 years, household medical expenses have increased at about 5 times the rate of household incomes, so a medical bill has a much bigger impact on finances.
-
Great list...
"18. Find a new home for your pets, unless they are a food source (chickens, goats, pigs, cows)"
sounds extreme...Maybe limit the amount of new/replacement pets??
Right....so what's the thrust here? Unless it's something you're going to slaughter and eat....it's not worth having around?
Her credibility just took a nose dive in my opinion....to each their own.
-
Great list...
"18. Find a new home for your pets, unless they are a food source (chickens, goats, pigs, cows)"
sounds extreme...Maybe limit the amount of new/replacement pets??
Right....so what's the thrust here? Unless it's something you're going to slaughter and eat....it's not worth having around?
Her credibility just took a nose dive in my opinion....to each their own.
She's not saying that everyone should do that though. She's saying if you've been in a bad financial situation for an extended period of time and are trying to find ways to cut even further.
-
Great list...
"18. Find a new home for your pets, unless they are a food source (chickens, goats, pigs, cows)"
sounds extreme...Maybe limit the amount of new/replacement pets??
Right....so what's the thrust here? Unless it's something you're going to slaughter and eat....it's not worth having around?
Her credibility just took a nose dive in my opinion....to each their own.
Why is she no longer credible to you? Her comment makes perfect sense. If a family struggles to provide food for everyone in their household, the expense of maintaining and caring for pets probably isn't feasible.
-
I do read her blog. I admire anyone who works that hard to achieve their goals. Although I'm not crafty and I don't do half the things she does I still think she is very inspirational. I appreciate her lifestyle even though I wouldn't actually want to live that way myself.
As far as the pet comment, did she actually get rid of a family pet? It's easy to make a suggestion to someone on how to lower their costs. Actually doing it yourself may be another matter. My guess is they didn't have a family pet. Most people wouldn't get rid of a family member even in the worst circumstances. She probably just made that comment without having actually had that experience.
-
I do read her blog. I admire anyone who works that hard to achieve their goals. Although I'm not crafty and I don't do half the things she does I still think she is very inspirational. I appreciate her lifestyle even though I wouldn't actually want to live that way myself.
As far as the pet comment, did she actually get rid of a family pet? It's easy to make a suggestion to someone on how to lower their costs. Actually doing it yourself may be another matter. My guess is they didn't have a family pet. Most people wouldn't get rid of a family member even in the worst circumstances. She probably just made that comment without having actually had that experience.
Surrendering a pet because a person can't afford it is fairly common. Top reason is moving out of the area or moving into a rental that doesn't allow pets, but cost is pretty high up there.
http://www.petfinder.com/pet-adoption/dog-adoption/pets-relinquished-shelters/
-
As far as the pet comment, did she actually get rid of a family pet? It's easy to make a suggestion to someone on how to lower their costs. Actually doing it yourself may be another matter. My guess is they didn't have a family pet. Most people wouldn't get rid of a family member even in the worst circumstances. She probably just made that comment without having actually had that experience.
My boyfriend is younger than I am. He calls my cat my "other boyfriend." Cougars and cat ladies don't easily give up their pets. ;)
-
There seem to be an awful lot of judgemental opinions about this woman and her lifestyle, which I find a bit disheartening.
I don't know what her situation is in terms of income, but she obviously has clear priorities and values that are important to her and her family (staying home with the kids, homeschooling, not practicing birth control) and is not complaining about where that leaves her. I admire and respect that.
I confess, however, the whole "you should get a job so your kids have health insurance" blows my Canadian mind. Are not poor people covered by some kind of health care in the US? Would these kids be turned away from hospitals if they got sick or injured? I don't get the "selfishness" here.
ERs are required to make sure you won't die, but that is it. No, they do not get preventive care, they also don't get anything past "don't die" in the ER. This means lack of shots, this means no doctors visits to check for concussions etc. Basically, her kids are likely not getting the same treatment as a kid with parents who have health insurance. They are more likely to be sick, more likely to have permanent issues because of this woman's choice. So yes, I think it is very selfish to not give your child basic care.
but there is a difference between health insurance and "basic care" (which I assume you mean health care). we have insurance and guess how many times we have used it. 4 kids. oldest is 7. not a one has been to the doctor for a sick child visit (or to the ER for a concussion). they get well child checks, but i had hubby add it up. we have paid far more in premiums then it would have cost to just pay out of pocket for the exams. and we DO pay out of pocket for dental and vision, as they are not covered. besides, face it, the kids ARE covered. they go to the hospital or get (really) sick, you just go to the doctor or ER and sign up for medicaid. sheesh, lets not judge everyone so much. to each his own.
-
I don't like to judge people, but based on the comments in this thread I don't think I will be visiting her site again. I checked it out after seeing the thread. It looks very sharp. However, I can't get past the pet comment.
Putting a limit on new pets, I understand. She took it to another level.
-
There seem to be an awful lot of judgemental opinions about this woman and her lifestyle, which I find a bit disheartening.
I don't know what her situation is in terms of income, but she obviously has clear priorities and values that are important to her and her family (staying home with the kids, homeschooling, not practicing birth control) and is not complaining about where that leaves her. I admire and respect that.
I confess, however, the whole "you should get a job so your kids have health insurance" blows my Canadian mind. Are not poor people covered by some kind of health care in the US? Would these kids be turned away from hospitals if they got sick or injured? I don't get the "selfishness" here.
ERs are required to make sure you won't die, but that is it. No, they do not get preventive care, they also don't get anything past "don't die" in the ER. This means lack of shots, this means no doctors visits to check for concussions etc. Basically, her kids are likely not getting the same treatment as a kid with parents who have health insurance. They are more likely to be sick, more likely to have permanent issues because of this woman's choice. So yes, I think it is very selfish to not give your child basic care.
but there is a difference between health insurance and "basic care" (which I assume you mean health care). we have insurance and guess how many times we have used it. 4 kids. oldest is 7. not a one has been to the doctor for a sick child visit (or to the ER for a concussion). they get well child checks, but i had hubby add it up. we have paid far more in premiums then it would have cost to just pay out of pocket for the exams. and we DO pay out of pocket for dental and vision, as they are not covered. besides, face it, the kids ARE covered. they go to the hospital or get (really) sick, you just go to the doctor or ER and sign up for medicaid. sheesh, lets not judge everyone so much. to each his own.
In my opinion, no there is not. Health insurance is part of basic care. ERs will stabilize you and that is IT. You have been lucky that in the last 7 years there have been no medical emergencies, but I won't trust luck to protect my child. I am not of a religion that say I should not just, so really, no I am going to judge an adult putting their wants over their child's needs.
-
I totally agree. If you bring 6 kids into this world you need to provide as best you can. Choosing to not provide health insurance or working enough to get it or not applying for Medicaid are all very irresponsible if you ask me!
-
Health insurance is a basic NEED, it is like shelter and food. It is part of taking care of your child. So, yes a want (being home) being prioritized over a need (health insurance) is going to make me judge and judge hard. If she wanted to be home, go work at night, take a early morning shift, something. You don't just say, oh well, let me not provide the BASICS for my child so I get what I want.
Sorry, got to pick a fight on this one.
Health INSURANCE is a basic NEED?
Or is HEALTH a basic need?
Health insurance is (or used to be or IMO should be) designed to protect your financial assets from the major financial setback of a catastrophic illness.
If you do not have the basic human right to accept responsibility for the health of your own body and the health of your children, what rights do you have left?
Abuse of children is criminal--and should be. But to characterize a mother who evidently loves her 7 children enough to have them and spend her life caring for them as abusive because she doesn't leave them for someone else to raise and go buy health insurance seems extreme to me.
If it were an either/or, I would take the loving care and attention of the full-time mother and forego the health insurance. The children's long-term health would be far better served.
I'm speculating, but I would bet that were one of her children to become seriously ill and the medical bills beyond their ability to pay a family of that moral fiber would have a wide network of friends and family happily willing to chip in to help. Were that insufficient, I would bet that the family would diligently work for as many years as possible to satisfy the medical bills with the healthcare providers.
Note: I pay for health insurance for my family because I find it valuable to have and sell health insurance professionally.
-
I did not say she had to get a job. Her hubby could work more, buy thru ACA, get Medicaid because I am sure they qualify. There are options and it would be a shame for them to pay for years to pay off a bill when they could have insurance. Also if something happens they can't pay for we all end up paying for it so be responsible and take care of your family.
-
Health insurance is a basic NEED, it is like shelter and food. It is part of taking care of your child. So, yes a want (being home) being prioritized over a need (health insurance) is going to make me judge and judge hard. If she wanted to be home, go work at night, take a early morning shift, something. You don't just say, oh well, let me not provide the BASICS for my child so I get what I want.
Sorry, got to pick a fight on this one.
Health INSURANCE is a basic NEED?
Or is HEALTH a basic need?
Health insurance is (or used to be or IMO should be) designed to protect your financial assets from the major financial setback of a catastrophic illness.
If you do not have the basic human right to accept responsibility for the health of your own body and the health of your children, what rights do you have left?
Abuse of children is criminal--and should be. But to characterize a mother who evidently loves her 7 children enough to have them and spend her life caring for them as abusive because she doesn't leave them for someone else to raise and go buy health insurance seems extreme to me.
If it were an either/or, I would take the loving care and attention of the full-time mother and forego the health insurance. The children's long-term health would be far better served.
I'm speculating, but I would bet that were one of her children to become seriously ill and the medical bills beyond their ability to pay a family of that moral fiber would have a wide network of friends and family happily willing to chip in to help. Were that insufficient, I would bet that the family would diligently work for as many years as possible to satisfy the medical bills with the healthcare providers.
Note: I pay for health insurance for my family because I find it valuable to have and sell health insurance professionally.
Yes, IMO, in the USA because we do not have socialized medicine, health insurance is a basic need along with food, and shelter.
-
What a beautiful blog/site. I'll have to peruse it in detail soon to get more ideas of how I can stretch my own frugal muscles. I liked the link to remaking cheap skirts into maternity skirts, as I'm due this summer and on a no-clothes-buying year. I've got a couple of old skirts that would be perfect for re-making.
-
I don't like to judge people, but based on the comments in this thread I don't think I will be visiting her site again. I checked it out after seeing the thread. It looks very sharp. However, I can't get past the pet comment.
Putting a limit on new pets, I understand. She took it to another level.
My dogs mean everything to me but I would give them up if I were facing homelessness and I couldn't care for them.
-
I agree, if you're in dire straits, can't afford your basic bills - pets may have to go. I've seen situations where people will go and acquire pets who really can't afford them, and then act surprised by vet bills and the ongoing costs of medication/food/etc. I'd place having health insurance above having pets.
-
I take issue with the idea that pets are disposable. For many people, they're part of the family. I will agree that too many people adopt pets without considering the financial impact.
However, many people have CHILDREN without considering the financial impact, too.
Society doesn't accept abandoning babies, right? So why is it okay for people to find any excuse they want (moving, layoff, time) to get rid of an animal? Pets are not possessions.
-
#29. Unplug your....ceiling fan?
-
I read her posts all the time. I may have been the one to introduce her blog to this site. She has a new one on saving even more money: http://theprudenthomemakerblog.blogspot.ca/2014/02/cutting-expenses-when-you-think-you.html
Here is my take: there is much to admire and little to criticize. Differences of opinions on religious stuff or homeschooling or having a lot of kids are just that: differences.
Here is a woman who manages her home and family in a way that is so fiscally responsible/frugal that I would hire her in a heartbeat to run my company. Everything in her circle of control is cared for and thought about.
She is asking for hand-outs from no-one. She volunteers at her church. She homeschools her kids. The kids look happy, clean, well-fed and well cared for. Everything is done in an esthetically pleasing way and she has a real knack for gardening, cooking, canning, sewing, and photography. She reuses, recycles and repurposes.
As far as finding new homes for pets, it is sound advice if you are so close to the line that you can't feed your family. She doesn't say you have to do this, but it is a way to save money. I personally wouldn't do it, but I make a lot of money.
Where I do differ with her is that I think there must be a way to bring a bit more income in. In her shoes I would consider looking after another child after school.
As far as the criticisms about the car go, her husband needs it for work. They do have bicycles and they do often use them and they walk to save gas.
I am not Morman and not particularly religious. I work outside the home. I have fewer children. I would be very stressed out to live that close to the edge myself. That all said, I admire so many aspects of her lifestyle and her competence.
-
I read her posts all the time. I may have been the one to introduce her blog to this site. She has a new one on saving even more money: http://theprudenthomemakerblog.blogspot.ca/2014/02/cutting-expenses-when-you-think-you.html
Here is my take: there is much to admire and little to criticize. Differences of opinions on religious stuff or homeschooling or having a lot of kids are just that: differences.
Here is a woman who manages her home and family in a way that is so fiscally responsible/frugal that I would hire her in a heartbeat to run my company. Everything in her circle of control is cared for and thought about.
She is asking for hand-outs from no-one. She volunteers at her church. She homeschools her kids. The kids look happy, clean, well-fed and well cared for. Everything is done in an esthetically pleasing way and she has a real knack for gardening, cooking, canning, sewing, and photography. She reuses, recycles and repurposes.
As far as finding new homes for pets, it is sound advice if you are so close to the line that you can't feed your family. She doesn't say you have to do this, but it is a way to save money. I personally wouldn't do it, but I make a lot of money.
Where I do differ with her is that I think there must be a way to bring a bit more income in. In her shoes I would consider looking after another child after school.
As far as the criticisms about the car go, her husband needs it for work. They do have bicycles and they do often use them and they walk to save gas.
I am not Morman and not particularly religious. I work outside the home. I have fewer children. I would be very stressed out to live that close to the edge myself. That all said, I admire so many aspects of her lifestyle and her competence.
But to me, it is not competence to leave your child's health at risk because you'd rather be at home. She could work at night, her husband could pick up a side job during the winter when real estate is low. There are a lot of options that don't require putting the parents' wants ahead of the kids' needs. That is not a little thing and for me, that covers everything else she does. It put her personhood in question for me. What kind of person would do that? Her children are not cared for without health insurance to me and that makes me judge her very hard.
You may be able to see past that and find some use from her and I am happy for you. I can't.
-
I read her posts all the time. I may have been the one to introduce her blog to this site. She has a new one on saving even more money: http://theprudenthomemakerblog.blogspot.ca/2014/02/cutting-expenses-when-you-think-you.html
Here is my take: there is much to admire and little to criticize. Differences of opinions on religious stuff or homeschooling or having a lot of kids are just that: differences.
Here is a woman who manages her home and family in a way that is so fiscally responsible/frugal that I would hire her in a heartbeat to run my company. Everything in her circle of control is cared for and thought about.
She is asking for hand-outs from no-one. She volunteers at her church. She homeschools her kids. The kids look happy, clean, well-fed and well cared for. Everything is done in an esthetically pleasing way and she has a real knack for gardening, cooking, canning, sewing, and photography. She reuses, recycles and repurposes.
As far as finding new homes for pets, it is sound advice if you are so close to the line that you can't feed your family. She doesn't say you have to do this, but it is a way to save money. I personally wouldn't do it, but I make a lot of money.
Where I do differ with her is that I think there must be a way to bring a bit more income in. In her shoes I would consider looking after another child after school.
As far as the criticisms about the car go, her husband needs it for work. They do have bicycles and they do often use them and they walk to save gas.
I am not Morman and not particularly religious. I work outside the home. I have fewer children. I would be very stressed out to live that close to the edge myself. That all said, I admire so many aspects of her lifestyle and her competence.
But to me, it is not competence to leave your child's health at risk because you'd rather be at home. She could work at night, her husband could pick up a side job during the winter when real estate is low. There are a lot of options that don't require putting the parents' wants ahead of the kids' needs. That is not a little thing and for me, that covers everything else she does. It put her personhood in question for me. What kind of person would do that? Her children are not cared for without health insurance to me and that makes me judge her very hard.
You may be able to see past that and find some use from her and I am happy for you. I can't.
Am I missing something here? Not having health insurance doesn't mean your children can't get healthcare. When my first child was born
I went six months without health insurance. I worked PRN while a waited for a position I wanted to open up. It was a risk I took. I still took my daughter to all her well baby check ups. I just paid out of pocket. I eventually took a less desirable position because I didn't feel I should wait any longer. I'm lucky nothing catastrophic happened. I don't feel like I was a bad mother. If something has happened she still would have gotten care and I would have found a way to pay for it. I don't know that having health care is a better choice than leaving so many kids with a sitter. I hope her situation gets better someday and they can afford health care.
-
I read her posts all the time. I may have been the one to introduce her blog to this site. She has a new one on saving even more money: http://theprudenthomemakerblog.blogspot.ca/2014/02/cutting-expenses-when-you-think-you.html
Here is my take: there is much to admire and little to criticize. Differences of opinions on religious stuff or homeschooling or having a lot of kids are just that: differences.
Here is a woman who manages her home and family in a way that is so fiscally responsible/frugal that I would hire her in a heartbeat to run my company. Everything in her circle of control is cared for and thought about.
She is asking for hand-outs from no-one. She volunteers at her church. She homeschools her kids. The kids look happy, clean, well-fed and well cared for. Everything is done in an esthetically pleasing way and she has a real knack for gardening, cooking, canning, sewing, and photography. She reuses, recycles and repurposes.
As far as finding new homes for pets, it is sound advice if you are so close to the line that you can't feed your family. She doesn't say you have to do this, but it is a way to save money. I personally wouldn't do it, but I make a lot of money.
Where I do differ with her is that I think there must be a way to bring a bit more income in. In her shoes I would consider looking after another child after school.
As far as the criticisms about the car go, her husband needs it for work. They do have bicycles and they do often use them and they walk to save gas.
I am not Morman and not particularly religious. I work outside the home. I have fewer children. I would be very stressed out to live that close to the edge myself. That all said, I admire so many aspects of her lifestyle and her competence.
But to me, it is not competence to leave your child's health at risk because you'd rather be at home. She could work at night, her husband could pick up a side job during the winter when real estate is low. There are a lot of options that don't require putting the parents' wants ahead of the kids' needs. That is not a little thing and for me, that covers everything else she does. It put her personhood in question for me. What kind of person would do that? Her children are not cared for without health insurance to me and that makes me judge her very hard.
You may be able to see past that and find some use from her and I am happy for you. I can't.
Am I missing something here? Not having health insurance doesn't mean your children can't get healthcare. When my first child was born
I went six months without health insurance. I worked PRN while a waited for a position I wanted to open up. It was a risk I took. I still took my daughter to all her well baby check ups. I just paid out of pocket. I eventually took a less desirable position because I didn't feel I should wait any longer. I'm lucky nothing catastrophic happened. I don't feel like I was a bad mother. If something has happened she still would have gotten care and I would have found a way to pay for it. I don't know that having health care is a better choice than leaving so many kids with a sitter. I hope her situation gets better someday and they can afford health care.
She could get medicaid for her children and has chosen not to. This is also not a short term issue but a lifestyle choice. And based on her "solutions" that she has posted for saving for medical care, it does not appear she is having them have basic care. And, personally, if you have another choice, leaving your kids without insurance/ health care because you want to home school them (or not find a night job), is putting your wants above their needs.
-
But to me, it is not competence to leave your child's health at risk because you'd rather be at home.
Her child's health is not at risk. Her children are healthy and well cared for.
Their health might be at risk if they were in a toxic environment, playing in dangerous circumstances, etc. But their health is not at risk in a loving, caring home environment with a mother who lays down her life for them.
What is the worst that can happen?
Her children could experience some catastrophic medical problem. She would then take them for medical treatment. In this country, treatment would not be refused to them.
After the treatment, the parents would be left with a mountain of medical bills for which they are responsible. They would then be forced to pay those bills in full, negotiate the bills with the providers and pay what they can, pay them over time as they're able, not pay the bills and be delinquent, or declare bankruptcy and not pay the bills.
At no point in any of those scenarios is the child's health affected by the parents having or not having health insurance.
The parent's financial health is protected from a medical catastrophe by the paying of health insurance.
The parents have evidently made their decision and are aware of the potential repercussions and consequences. It's their choice (or in my opinion should be--PPACA makes that choice now unlawful, so clearly the courts have sided with your point of view).
My point is simply that "health" and "health insurance" are not synonymous. Health is something that you have the responsibility to care for. Health insurance is something that you can purchase to protect your finances from a failure to care for your health.
-
On what basis are you both informing the world that she has no health insurance? Her tips for those who do not have health insurance - of which I presume there are many among low income folks in the US? Her list of medical tips is for those who don't have coverage and she does not state how she manages health care for her children.
Also, gin1984 stated that: "She could get medicaid for her children and has chosen not to." On what basis do you state this? She has a blog and a facebook site you can ask questions on. Are you sure of this or are you making things up based on some inference that cannot be logically connected to your statement?
Given that they have seven healthy children and have had three births since having a loss of income I think asking would be better than inferring a lack of competence or negligence.
-
I looked into medical coverage for Nevada where Brandy lives.
They make approx. $36,000 a year or less for a family of nine. Nevada check-up offers 100% coverage for medical and dental with no deductible for children until the age of 18 at this income/family level. It costs $100 a year total.
Unless there is some downside I'm unaware of I'd be very surprised if this coverage was not in place - but again, you should ask before posting.
http://nevadacheckup.state.nv.us/faq.htm
-
I looked into medical coverage for Nevada where Brandy lives.
They make approx. $36,000 a year or less for a family of nine. Nevada check-up offers 100% coverage for medical and dental with no deductible for children until the age of 18 at this income/family level. It costs $100 a year total.
Unless there is some downside I'm unaware of I'd be very surprised if this coverage was not in place - but again, you should ask before posting.
http://nevadacheckup.state.nv.us/faq.htm
I asked a couple years back about medicaid for her kids, and she directed me to her ways to save if you don't have insurance. Maybe it has changed since then, but that was the last I could be comfortable reading her site.
-
But to me, it is not competence to leave your child's health at risk because you'd rather be at home.
Her child's health is not at risk. Her children are healthy and well cared for.
Their health might be at risk if they were in a toxic environment, playing in dangerous circumstances, etc. But their health is not at risk in a loving, caring home environment with a mother who lays down her life for them.
What is the worst that can happen?
Her children could experience some catastrophic medical problem. She would then take them for medical treatment. In this country, treatment would not be refused to them.
After the treatment, the parents would be left with a mountain of medical bills for which they are responsible. They would then be forced to pay those bills in full, negotiate the bills with the providers and pay what they can, pay them over time as they're able, not pay the bills and be delinquent, or declare bankruptcy and not pay the bills.
At no point in any of those scenarios is the child's health affected by the parents having or not having health insurance.
The parent's financial health is protected from a medical catastrophe by the paying of health insurance.
The parents have evidently made their decision and are aware of the potential repercussions and consequences. It's their choice (or in my opinion should be--PPACA makes that choice now unlawful, so clearly the courts have sided with your point of view).
My point is simply that "health" and "health insurance" are not synonymous. Health is something that you have the responsibility to care for. Health insurance is something that you can purchase to protect your finances from a failure to care for your health.
I've worked in the medical field, that is not what happens. A person without insurance is not going to get the same care at a hospital as someone with insurance. You will be stabilized and sent on your way. If you can write a check up front, then you may get more (depending on the hospital). Hospitals are in the business of making money.
-
I looked into medical coverage for Nevada where Brandy lives.
They make approx. $36,000 a year or less for a family of nine. Nevada check-up offers 100% coverage for medical and dental with no deductible for children until the age of 18 at this income/family level. It costs $100 a year total.
Unless there is some downside I'm unaware of I'd be very surprised if this coverage was not in place - but again, you should ask before posting.
http://nevadacheckup.state.nv.us/faq.htm
I asked a couple years back about medicaid for her kids, and she directed me to her ways to save if you don't have insurance. Maybe it has changed since then, but that was the last I could be comfortable reading her site.
I see. So because she directed you to that post you made the leap of logic that she is not enrolled in the $100/year plan which is readily available?
You know what my inference is? She intends to keep that aspect of her life private and it is therefor none of your business. Perhaps she wishes not to invite criticism for accessing a publicly funded program given that they have seven children on a low income. Many people on this site would find that irresponsible given that the system is subsidized by taxpayers. I find the US medical system irresponsible myself - medically necessary health care should be protected as a human right. Just my two cents and one I have no problem paying taxes for.
In any event, given the level of care and attention to detail she exhibits in every other published aspect of her life it seems more likely than not that this is attended to - that and you can see the pictures of her kids and know that she has had three additional births on a low income.
So, I would suggest that before you start posting derogatory information about someone publicly that you do not know to be a the truth you consider that this action constitutes libel if untrue. I would suggest you modify or remove your post accordingly as not falling within the parameters of fair comment.
-
Considering that she is making her life public by writing a blog she is open to others interpretations/comments, etc. Since she directed someone to her posts about how to do things without insurance I think it is a fair assumption that they do not have insurance. It is fine to have a large family if you can afford it but not so much when you live in poverty and have no $ to buy food, etc. No one is doubting that she is taking good care of her kids but being a responsible parent goes further then that. It is also providing healthcare, some activities, worthwhile experiences, etc without spoiling kids. Not to be so dirt poor that they only survive. The fact that they have no $ to buy food but must live on the pantry, etc and then still continue to have kids-sorry but I & others think it is irresponsible!
-
Considering that she is making her life public by writing a blog she is open to others interpretations/comments, etc. Since she directed someone to her posts about how to do things without insurance I think it is a fair assumption that they do not have insurance. It is fine to have a large family if you can afford it but not so much when you live in poverty and have no $ to buy food, etc. No one is doubting that she is taking good care of her kids but being a responsible parent goes further then that. It is also providing healthcare, some activities, worthwhile experiences, etc without spoiling kids. Not to be so dirt poor that they only survive. The fact that they have no $ to buy food but must live on the pantry, etc and then still continue to have kids-sorry but I & others think it is irresponsible!
I was driven to post again, because there's a LOT of assumptions in that post.
I too, disagree that directing you to the post on insurance is the same as saying she has none. I don't think there's enough evidence either way to call it.
But I was most concerned by your remarks regarding providing experiences and activities. I challenge you to ask if you did so many activities in December? Do you think many parents did? http://theprudenthomemakerblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/advent-activities.html On this site of all place, I would hope that activities/experiences are not confused with requiring money (e.g. one needn't pay for Disney trips or private piano lessons to have meaningful experiences)!
Also from this interview "We’ve spent time teaching new skills to our children, including sewing, painting, cooking, and gardening. These simple activities have given us great conversations with our children as well as helped them to learn to enjoy something new....We take turns letting our children stay up one night a month, where they can do an activity of their choice with mom or dad. We’ll watch a movie that we already have and eat popcorn, play a game, or cook something together. The children enjoy our undivided attention, and we enjoy that time with each child." http://www.blueberrycottage.org/2010/10/interviewthe-prudent-homemaker.html
-
When I was raising my 3 kids we did a lot of free outdoor activities and played a lot of board games, etc with them. However, we also did things that cost $. They were in cub scouts/boy scouts/played sports, went to scout camp in the summer for a week, etc. We lived frugally on one income for many years while saving $ but also provided experiences that cost $. It is one thing to be poor with a large family because of circumstances but quite another to continue to have kids when you obviously can not afford them. I love to rescue Maltese dogs but are limited to 3 because of my ability to provide vet care, etc. It would be irresponsible of me to rescue a bunch more but then not be able to afford vet care, etc.
-
Considering that she is making her life public by writing a blog she is open to others interpretations/comments, etc. Since she directed someone to her posts about how to do things without insurance I think it is a fair assumption that they do not have insurance. It is fine to have a large family if you can afford it but not so much when you live in poverty and have no $ to buy food, etc. No one is doubting that she is taking good care of her kids but being a responsible parent goes further then that. It is also providing healthcare, some activities, worthwhile experiences, etc without spoiling kids. Not to be so dirt poor that they only survive. The fact that they have no $ to buy food but must live on the pantry, etc and then still continue to have kids-sorry but I & others think it is irresponsible!
I agree that you have a right to fair comment. Fair comment is limited to truth and opinion. Opinion on facts is fine, making up facts that are not based on truth is not. Making up facts that would bring someone's reputation into disrepute and posting them online is libel.
Let's examine your statement: " (a responsible parent is) also providing healthcare, some activities, worthwhile experiences, etc without spoiling kids. Not to be so dirt poor that they only survive."
1. We don't know about healthcare - but it is available for all the kids at a cost of $100 a year at their income level. Given that we do not know, you can post your opinion that it is necessary and that if she does not have it you disagree with this choice, but you cannot state that she is irresponsible for not having it when you do not know it to be true without being at risk of engaging in defamation.
2. The kids are involved in archery and many church and extended family activities. They have music and sewing lessons. They do a large amount of craft and science projects. They have an in ground trampoline and playground equipment in their yard including a merry-go-round. They do daily chores together. They have and attend birthday parties and parties on other occasions. They volunteer a lot of their time at the church.
3. Worthwhile activities - see 2 above. I personally know a lot of kids who spend time on video games/computer - my kids included. I do spend a lot of time with my kids because I work from home and they have music lessons and play sports and have lots of friends, but my impression is that Brandy is doing a better job on the "worthwhile activities" aspect than I am. She has devoted her time to her family, has schedules for schooling, and this is pretty valuable in my books.
4. "Not to be so dirt poor that they only survive"... the sense I get from her blog is that she has a deep sense of satisfaction with her home, garden and family life and her children seem very happy. It is far from "merely surviving". When I finished law school I had to work long hours. I made money, but it was "merely surviving" because money is simply not the measure of a good quality of life in my books. I soon quit because I was merely surviving.
Where I would agree with you is that a little extra money would go a long way in their situation. I would look for a small pt job from home - which she has in her blog. This is merely my opinion though.
I also agree that public figures are subject to a slightly different standard re. defamation in the US. However, having a blog does not necessarily mean you are a "public figure" and even "limited purpose public figures" and "public figures" can sue for defamation when untrue statements are made that are calculated to bring them into disrepute.
You may wish to reference this US guide for bloggers:
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation#7
-
There seems to be an overwhelming disdain for large families on this board. Some people would actually rather have children than travel the world. Imagine that.
(Yet on this board traveling the world is the epitome of worthwhile things to spend time & money on.)
-
I do not mind large families at all. My uncle had 8 kids and one of my best friends had 6. However, the difference between them and her is that they could afford them. Sorry but she can not. If she had all those kids and something bad happened people would feel sorry for her. However, she had a few more kids after their financial situation took a dump. Many see that as irresponsible as do I!
-
I see absolutely no evidence to support your statement that "she cannot afford them".
The kids are well fed, active, involved in their community, and appear well-adjusted. Their house backs' on to their grandparents home and they have a large extended family. Her husband owns a real estate business that hit hard times when prices fell - which won't keep on that way forever. What will not last forever are child-bearing years.
I'm sure that many people felt that Amy Daczcyn's children were not affordable on their incomes. However, her children turned out to be quite grateful for their upbringing:
(her daughter Jamie)
"At the time, I didn't realize how valuable it was that we always had at least one stay-at-home parent. Looking back, I see that this was a massive luxury that I might not be able to give my future kids. Because our parents were so frugal, we got to see more of them because they weren't working long hours to make ends meet."
http://thefrugalshrink.blogspot.ca/2013/05/dacyczyn-interviews-jamie-part-1.html
-
Another daughter Laura states:
"I want to make sure this is clear- we were not deprived in any way, I had a wonderful childhood, and I would not have traded it for anything. It wasn’t until I was older that I learned about the allegations some readers made about the effects my parents lifestyle would have on their children. I have read some people’s claims that the cheap foods our parents fed us would cause us to become malnourished. I grew up eating garden fresh vegetables and made-from-scratch meals instead of junk food. I have frequently seen readers claim that my parent’s approach to money would cause all of us kids to turn into shopaholics who would spend frivolously to fill some emotional void. Or at the very least we would rebel when we were teenagers and come to hate our parents for not buying us the latest fads."
And daughter Rebecca:
"I can very clearly say that the frugality I was raised with has made my adult life much easier...
I am already raising my children in a similar way. My childhood was awesome, and I want the same things for my children...
I remember reporters coming to our house and asking if we felt deprived. There may have been a VERY brief period in my early teens that I felt like my parents were being unfair to us. Looking back, I am so glad that they spent all those years teaching us the importance to spending money wisely. I know that an important part of parenthood is not necessarily doing what makes your child feel good at the time, but making choices that will help raise a responsible adult."
-
Has not been able to buy any groceries for a year. Got gift card for $ to buy food from someone. sure sounds like can not afford to me!
-
Remind me to nominate her for mother of the year award-ugh!
-
Obviously we are going to have to agree to disagree on this woman!
-
What is the problem with not buying groceries when you have a very large year-round garden, a stock of frozen meat, lots of canning and a separate storeroom of dry goods?
Her canning: http://theprudenthomemaker.com/index.php/pantry/this-years-canning
And they eat a varied diet with lots of fresh vegetables and fruit in season and very little processed stuff. http://theprudenthomemaker.com/index.php/recipes
It is not my lifestyle but it seems more nutritious than the average North American diet. We have enough money to eat whatever we like and probably have less variety than she does.
-
I check her blog ou from time to time. I think she is pretty awesome. I don't agree with everything she does but I think I am open minded enough to appreciate her hard work, her creativity, and her overall attitude. I wish I had her energy and her self discipline. I think her children have many benefits many other kids don't have. If there were more mothers like her, our country would be a better place
-
It is a fact they don't have insurance. She states is directly on the website. 'We do not have insurance'.
-
But to me, it is not competence to leave your child's health at risk because you'd rather be at home. She could work at night, her husband could pick up a side job during the winter when real estate is low. There are a lot of options that don't require putting the parents' wants ahead of the kids' needs. That is not a little thing and for me, that covers everything else she does. It put her personhood in question for me. What kind of person would do that? Her children are not cared for without health insurance to me and that makes me judge her very hard.
You may be able to see past that and find some use from her and I am happy for you. I can't.
How is she leaving her children's health at risk? She cares for them and feeds them a healthy diet.
Do you think she'd be able to feed her children a healthy diet if she were working nights? I wonder how exhausting it is to care for 7 children all day?
Health insurance =/= health care. Even without health insurance, I had health CARE as a child. Even these days, I have family members without health insurance who have health CARE. It is VERY common to not have health insurance in this country, even if you work a full time job.
Her children are WELL cared for. Better than many children (if not most) in this country who have health insurance.
-
I see absolutely no evidence to support your statement that "she cannot afford them".
The kids are well fed, active, involved in their community, and appear well-adjusted. Their house backs' on to their grandparents home and they have a large extended family. Her husband owns a real estate business that hit hard times when prices fell - which won't keep on that way forever. What will not last forever are child-bearing years.
I'm sure that many people felt that Amy Daczcyn's children were not affordable on their incomes. However, her children turned out to be quite grateful for their upbringing:
(her daughter Jamie)
"At the time, I didn't realize how valuable it was that we always had at least one stay-at-home parent. Looking back, I see that this was a massive luxury that I might not be able to give my future kids. Because our parents were so frugal, we got to see more of them because they weren't working long hours to make ends meet."
http://thefrugalshrink.blogspot.ca/2013/05/dacyczyn-interviews-jamie-part-1.html
This. Who are you to say she cannot afford her children?
-
But to me, it is not competence to leave your child's health at risk because you'd rather be at home. She could work at night, her husband could pick up a side job during the winter when real estate is low. There are a lot of options that don't require putting the parents' wants ahead of the kids' needs. That is not a little thing and for me, that covers everything else she does. It put her personhood in question for me. What kind of person would do that? Her children are not cared for without health insurance to me and that makes me judge her very hard.
You may be able to see past that and find some use from her and I am happy for you. I can't.
How is she leaving her children's health at risk? She cares for them and feeds them a healthy diet.
Do you think she'd be able to feed her children a healthy diet if she were working nights? I wonder how exhausting it is to care for 7 children all day?
Health insurance =/= health care. Even without health insurance, I had health CARE as a child. Even these days, I have family members without health insurance who have health CARE. It is VERY common to not have health insurance in this country, even if you work a full time job.
Her children are WELL cared for. Better than many children (if not most) in this country who have health insurance.
It is my opinion, which is my right to have thank you very much, that health insurance is the USA is a basic need (which is a common opinion). As I have said beforehand, this decision to put her wants (to stay home) over a basic need of health insurance means I don't read the blog. Why is my choices in reading and my judgements something you need to fight against?
You may think that what she is doing is good care, I don't. Why do you need to argue with me on it. How is my opinion harming you or her for that matter?
-
I see absolutely no evidence to support your statement that "she cannot afford them".
The kids are well fed, active, involved in their community, and appear well-adjusted. Their house backs' on to their grandparents home and they have a large extended family. Her husband owns a real estate business that hit hard times when prices fell - which won't keep on that way forever. What will not last forever are child-bearing years.
I'm sure that many people felt that Amy Daczcyn's children were not affordable on their incomes. However, her children turned out to be quite grateful for their upbringing:
(her daughter Jamie)
"At the time, I didn't realize how valuable it was that we always had at least one stay-at-home parent. Looking back, I see that this was a massive luxury that I might not be able to give my future kids. Because our parents were so frugal, we got to see more of them because they weren't working long hours to make ends meet."
http://thefrugalshrink.blogspot.ca/2013/05/dacyczyn-interviews-jamie-part-1.html
This. Who are you to say she cannot afford her children?
That is not the same person the OP was talking about.
-
It is a fact they don't have insurance. She states is directly on the website. 'We do not have insurance'.
Can you post the link where she states that her children do not have insurance please? That would certainly provide an answer. I did not see it on her site myself but perhaps I missed it.
-
Gin 1984 stated"
"As I have said beforehand, this decision to put her wants (to stay home) over a basic need of health insurance means I don't read the blog. [/quote]
Really? She is not required to work to obtain full coverage for her children - they are already eligible at a cost of $100 a year for all seven of them. How would working help that?
While you are entitled to your opinion I am unclear how the logic works.
-
I see absolutely no evidence to support your statement that "she cannot afford them".
The kids are well fed, active, involved in their community, and appear well-adjusted. Their house backs' on to their grandparents home and they have a large extended family. Her husband owns a real estate business that hit hard times when prices fell - which won't keep on that way forever. What will not last forever are child-bearing years.
I'm sure that many people felt that Amy Daczcyn's children were not affordable on their incomes. However, her children turned out to be quite grateful for their upbringing:
(her daughter Jamie)
"At the time, I didn't realize how valuable it was that we always had at least one stay-at-home parent. Looking back, I see that this was a massive luxury that I might not be able to give my future kids. Because our parents were so frugal, we got to see more of them because they weren't working long hours to make ends meet."
http://thefrugalshrink.blogspot.ca/2013/05/dacyczyn-interviews-jamie-part-1.html
This. Who are you to say she cannot afford her children?
That is not the same person the OP was talking about.
No, it is the daughter of Amy Dacyzcn who had many of the same criticisms leveled against her for raising her children on an extreme "tightwad" budget based on spending choices similar to theprudenthomemaker.
-
Gin 1984 stated"
"As I have said beforehand, this decision to put her wants (to stay home) over a basic need of health insurance means I don't read the blog.
Really? She is not required to work to obtain full coverage for her children - they are already eligible at a cost of $100 a year for all seven of them. How would working help that?
While you are entitled to your opinion I am unclear how the logic works.
[/quote]
She is choosing not to get health insurance, maybe because of cost (likely) maybe for another reason. I don't know. I know she has stated that they don't have it a few times, when I first checked it out (it might have changed now) and that has pointed people, myself included to her list of what to do when (not if) you don't have insurance. If she can't afford it, yes my assumption, go get a job and make the amount needed, even if that means nights. Getting pregnant, without insurance, honestly scares me. It makes me wonder what she is teaching her children. Going without insurance is not something I support, when you have any other option. Therefore, I don't support her blog/website by not going there. That is the logic.
-
Show me the link where this is stated otherwise it is your speculation. Given all seven children can be covered for 100 dollars a year with no deductible please explain how working for coverage with so many young children needing care makes any sense - never mind financial sense. It would be a very poor parenting decision IMO
-
GIN1984-thank you for pointing out the obvious which many of us keep trying to do. A few other people have also mentioned the same thing. Irresponsible to not have insurance, keep having kids, etc. The people that think this is great really seem to be missing something here. don't really know why it is so difficult for them to see. Tried to use the dog rescue analogy earlier but guess it was too deep for some of them.
-
GIN1984-thank you for pointing out the obvious which many of us keep trying to do. A few other people have also mentioned the same thing. Irresponsible to not have insurance, keep having kids, etc. The people that think this is great really seem to be missing something here. don't really know why it is so difficult for them to see. Tried to use the dog rescue analogy earlier but guess it was too deep for some of them.
Yes, it must have been too deep.
First, please demonstrate the evidence to substantiate your claim that there is no health insurance. Her children can all be covered with no deductible for $100 a year which is certainly affordable.
Second, the dog rescue analogy. I understand that you can only afford care for three maltese dogs right now. That is fine and I'm glad you know your budget. I don't; however, see any evidence that this particular family cannot afford the children they have so I fail to see how the "deep" analogy works in this case - or the logic. In particular, I see no lack of meeting needs or giving what children need to thrive.
Have you spent any real time researching this by viewing the links or her site by the way?
I would agree with you if we were talking about Nadya Suleman or any number of other examples, but not in this particular case.
-
Yes I actually read all her posts when someone recommended it. That is how I came to my conclusions as many others have. It does not matter because you have decided that she is awesome. Secretly I am sure that you are happy not to be one of her kids!
-
I think her kids have a lot to be thankful for. I would choose that family over many many others. My impression is that her children are fortunate in many ways.
I'm curious as to which posts brought you to conclude she had no insurance and was an irresponsible parent?
-
Since I have way too much free time on my hands...
http://theprudenthomemaker.com/index.php/about/living-on-food-storage
"Lots of other things happened during that first year living on our food storage. I became pregnant. My daughter broke her arm (we do not have insurance), and my husband sold his motorcycle (our only other vehicle besides our car) to help pay the mortgage one month. We planted a garden and not much grew. My sweet midwife (who had delivered my previous four children) delivered my fifth child out of the kindness of her heart."
I express no opinions on whether or not this makes anyone a good or bad person.
Back to my regularly scheduled life...
-
Thanks Bruinguy.
That post is from 2009 which is why it may have been difficult to find. So we know for sure that five years ago they had no medical insurance and we know that at approx. $36 000/year of income they qualify for no deductible health and dental at a cost of $100 per year for all seven children.
Assuming that they have not enrolled in the Nevada Check-up, why would they make that choice? I'm not in the US so I don't understand the ins and outs of health care so perhaps I'm missing something? To me it seems like this would be a poor choice given that, in the case of a serious illness, the family would receive treatment but be potentially bankrupted by the bills without this coverage in place.
I can understand why others might feel that this decision does not make sense and puts the family at risk. Given the extremely low cost I don't think it is an issue of affordability, but rather a personal decision. I just don't understand why unless it is part of a self-reliance ethos which, while somewhat admirable on some level, seems far too risky to me to adopt or condone when you have children in your care.
In addition, health care seems like a basic human right to me so I don't view accepting subsidized insurance as an ethical issue. In Canada we are all covered at an extremely low cost for medical, but not dental. Dental is covered by private insurance for those who have it, again at a very low cost.
-
I see. I can understand not applying for food stamps when you qualify but can manage without but coming from a country with universal health care I don't have the same view of medical coverage Wouldn't there be a significant financial risk if, say, surgery was was required?
-
Thanks Bruinguy.
That post is from 2009 which is why it may have been difficult to find. So we know for sure that five years ago they had no medical insurance and we know that at approx. $36 000/year of income they qualify for no deductible health and dental at a cost of $100 per year for all seven children.
Assuming that they have not enrolled in the Nevada Check-up, why would they make that choice? I'm not in the US so I don't understand the ins and outs of health care so perhaps I'm missing something? To me it seems like this would be a poor choice given that, in the case of a serious illness, the family would receive treatment but be potentially bankrupted by the bills without this coverage in place.
I can understand why others might feel that this decision does not make sense and puts the family at risk. Given the extremely low cost I don't think it is an issue of affordability, but rather a personal decision. I just don't understand why unless it is part of a self-reliance ethos which, while somewhat admirable on some level, seems far too risky to me to adopt or condone when you have children in your care.
In addition, health care seems like a basic human right to me so I don't view accepting subsidized insurance as an ethical issue. In Canada we are all covered at an extremely low cost for medical, but not dental. Dental is covered by private insurance for those who have it, again at a very low cost.
See now I see the problem here. You are assuming the kids would get treatment without insurance. That does not happen, often. Doctors here refuse to see cash only patients often. ERs stabilize and let you go, if you don't have insurance. It boils down to the fact that you think that the kids would get treatment, and I know from working within the field that they would not. They would often not get meds they need, etc.
And frankly, the difference is the child did not make the choice, the adult did. You want to be an idiot and risk yourself, your problem, you risk a child in your care, that I have an issue with.
-
I see. I can understand not applying for food stamps when you qualify but can manage without but coming from a country with universal health care I don't have the same view of medical coverage Wouldn't there be a significant financial risk if, say, surgery was was required?
Depends on why surgery was required. If it was required so you don't die right then and there (appendix bursting) yes, now you have a significant financial cost but if it was say, something causing great pain and they don't know why? And for people with insurance, they would do exploratory surgery to check X, Y and Z. But for someone without insurance. Sorry, you don't have insurance, can you you pay cash up front? No financial risk, but your kid won't get treatment.
-
Yes, I was wondering about the appendicitis scenario. My kids are healthy and haven't needed much health care apart from a broken finger in the past 15 years. That said, there is always a risk of something - my nephew had cancer at nine. I would not be comfortable not having health insurance for that reason. I don't think it is a good choice to go without care when very affordable coverage is an option - unless I'm missing something.
-
I think her kids have a lot to be thankful for. I would choose that family over many many others. My impression is that her children are fortunate in many ways.
I agree. Having grown up in a really abusive home, her children seem loved and well cared for. The homeschooling (which in their case does seem to be of the really sheltered sort) and the potential for religious indoctrination are not for me, but I still think her children are in fortunate circumstances compared to many.
Interesting perspective about how the religious community can pull together, Serpentstooth. Thanks for sharing it.
-
Yes, I was wondering about the appendicitis scenario. My kids are healthy and haven't needed much health care apart from a broken finger in the past 15 years. That said, there is always a risk of something - my nephew had cancer at nine. I would not be comfortable not having health insurance for that reason. I don't think it is a good choice to go without care when very affordable coverage is an option - unless I'm missing something.
Primary Children's Medical Center serves the area of Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming. They may not publish the fact, but they would never turn away any child based on lack of ability to pay. We've always had great insurance for our kids, but out GI doc says they will even do transplants or chemo, at no charge, for kids who need it.
I would highly recommend getting the whole family covered if possible. LDS members are supposed to "be prepared"- food storage, updated job skills, etc. I think health insurance is part of that. They should get the kids covered, but it would be really disastrous if something happened to the mom or dad.
-
I'm curious if they're getting coverage with the new Affordable Care Act--don't you have to get it or pay a fine?
-
For all those who are saying "but look at her huge garden, look at what she cans!". Yes. That is true now. It wasn't true when the market suddenly crashed and they had to not grocery shop for a year with no warning (at least from what I can gather reading her posts- she talked about there only fruit for the year being canned mandarin oranges and canned pears, and I can't remember what the vegetables were but it was one or two things, all canned).
Now- I think they eat great. I think it is great to eat seasonally. But carefully planning and storing food to eat seasonally is a different scenario entirely than having to live for a year off of whatever happened to be in sale for 25 cents a can during a case sale.
-
I have to say, I'm a little blown away by the criticism leveled at this woman who is doing what I thought most of us were striving for --- living frugally, only mindful spending, etc.
Of course, most mustachians make more money and are at impressive savings levels, but that just isn't where this family is AT THIS POINT in their journey. Just think how awesome they'll be doing when those children are older and she can work outside the home (or more lucratively at home) and when her husband's work picks back up! They have the living frugally thing down pat!
-
For all those who are saying "but look at her huge garden, look at what she cans!". Yes. That is true now. It wasn't true when the market suddenly crashed and they had to not grocery shop for a year with no warning (at least from what I can gather reading her posts- she talked about there only fruit for the year being canned mandarin oranges and canned pears, and I can't remember what the vegetables were but it was one or two things, all canned).
Now- I think they eat great. I think it is great to eat seasonally. But carefully planning and storing food to eat seasonally is a different scenario entirely than having to live for a year off of whatever happened to be in sale for 25 cents a can during a case sale.
But she wasn't living for a year off of whatever happened to be left in the pantry. The LDS church wants members to store at least three month's and ideally a full year's worth of food that your family will eat and that is nutritionally adequate. It's not random pantry flotsam; it's carefully planned to allow your family to survive off it. Which is seems like that's what she did and it worked. The food storage is enough to keep everyone alive until you can put into place stopgap measures, whether increasing your income or growing a garden or getting public assistance.
Do you really think the children are going to be in dire nutritional straits because of a year of canned fruits and vegetables? In the 1950's glory days of better living through chemicals, that's basically all the produce my father and uncle are for the better part of two DECADES. It's still more fruits and vegetables than many, if not most, American kids get on a daily basis. What do you want to do, haul in every parent who feeds their kid multiple Happy Meals in a week?
I have to disagree about the healthfulness of food from a Bishop's Storehouse. My parents relied on this for a year while I was growing up and, while it was nutritionally adequate, it was not particularly good for us. We ate a lot of dehydrated apple slices (high in sugar), starches like white rice & potato pearls (low in fiber, high in sodium), sugary canned fruits & canned veggies that were high in sodium. We also had to switch to powdered milk which none of us liked, so the only time we got calcium was when we drank it with hot cocoa. My mom relied a lot on starches in casseroles flavored with bouillion. A lot of it has to do with your cooking style (my parents never used the dried beans, which are super healthy), but it's cheap survival food. It's supposed to tide you over until you can get back on your feet; it's really not meant to be used all the time.
One downside of the Mormon storage thing is that my family members are CONSTANTLY eating this stuff because it goes bad. It's a waste to replace your whole stash every five years, so they are always eating down the oldest potato pearls & bags of white rice, which I really don't consider healthy.
-
I have to say, I'm a little blown away by the criticism leveled at this woman who is doing what I thought most of us were striving for --- living frugally, only mindful spending, etc.
Of course, most mustachians make more money and are at impressive savings levels, but that just isn't where this family is AT THIS POINT in their journey. Just think how awesome they'll be doing when those children are older and she can work outside the home (or more lucratively at home) and when her husband's work picks back up! They have the living frugally thing down pat!
Yeah I am too. I mean from a purely frugal angle she's doing something pretty amazing/old school. It seems like the default response for some people is criticism, and I think that become especially true when the person being criticized is doing something impressive. I mean, I personally don't believe in Mormonism even a tiny bit- that doesn't suddenly negate everything else she's doing. People are multifaceted, to expect that everyone would live up to your own personal moral standards seems at best naive and at worst self-centered.
-
Pint size Must: you are so right that eating out of the pantry is not healthy & the criticism again comes from the fact that they keep choosing to expand a family they can not afford.
-
Actually, I see no sign that they cannot afford the family they have:
1. they own their house
2. they pay their taxes which (at least in Canada) includes school taxes for which they may receive no benefit as homeschoolers (?)
3. the are healthy-looking and seem extremely happy
4. they own a vehicle
5. they own bikes
6. they have a lot of community involvement and activities
7. they pay for their medical care in whatever way they do - they mention midwives and a hospital visit for a broken arm
I'm not sure about the no fresh foods during that one year five years ago, but since then they eat a lot of garden produce. More than most families. They also eat a lot of beans.
The only thing I'm with you on as a potential issue is health insurance and I don't know if anything is changed since five years ago which is the last time they posted they did not have coverage. This might have made more sense at the time as her husband made over $100,000 the previous year and then their income dropped - perhaps they could not afford premiums the next year if they are calculated on last years' income? (I don't know how it works in the US)
Again, if they are not enrolled it is not because they can't afford it - it is extremely affordable at their income level $100 a year for all seven children with no deductible for full medical and dental.
If they are not enrolled currently it is for some other reason which may have something to do with not depending on government aid and having support through the LDS community in the way of doctors and fund raising if needed. I would be enrolled in their shoes as I would be very concerned about the risks - but I'm not Mormon.
I don't know if Obamacare impacts anything either.
-
I and many others have stated in previous posts why they can't afford such a large family. Nothing against large families either. I seriously doubt an agreement will ever be reached about this-half of us think this way and half think they are fine. To each his own.
-
This thread is an excellent reminder of why I will never start a blog.
-
This thread is an excellent reminder of why I will never start a blog.
Blahaha ruthiegirl. I agree!
-
This thread is an excellent reminder of why I will never start a blog.
Blahaha ruthiegirl. I agree!
Yep.
-
http://theprudenthomemaker.com/index.php/about/living-on-food-storage
On this page she talks about her daughter breaking her arm and she said 'we do not have insurance'
-
I like the frugality tips, but I get the impression that they are living paycheck to paycheck (or worse at times), which I find off-putting coming from a Mustachian mindset.
-
http://theprudenthomemaker.com/index.php/about/living-on-food-storage
On this page she talks about her daughter breaking her arm and she said 'we do not have insurance'
Yes. That has already been identified. Your point?
-
I like the frugality tips, but I get the impression that they are living paycheck to paycheck (or worse at times), which I find off-putting coming from a Mustachian mindset.
I agree they seem to be living without an emergency fund right now. They are living on their income though and are not using credit. I would not be comfortable that way but they are in much better shape than many of the case studies posted here of families with kids.
-
I'm really surprised by all the positivity! In my mind, what it comes to is this: these folks were barely breaking even & just squeaking by on the generosity of their friends, family, & community. During this period of barely making ends meet, they decided to add more expenses. In every other case study where people aren't saving, the advice is usually decrease expenses or earn more money. If I posted a thread about how I was spending all my income, didn't have a safety net, didn't have insurance, & was considering going on a vacation to Bali, I would get ridiculous amounts of incredulous comments.
The only difference I'm seeing is that some people place more value on children or being a stay at home parent, which somehow gets The Prudent Homemaker a pass for being financially reckless. They can afford their children in the absolute, bare-minimum sense of the word, but considering this is the MMM forums, I'm shocked that there's so much approval. I mean, we have threads where people are installing bidets & being glad about saving toilet paper, MMM showers 2-3 times a week & saves water, folks who spend tons of time couponing to get free supplies! Then we have the Prudent Homemaker who has kind of "retired" to take care of her kids with no safety net beyond a year's worth of canned food.
Lastly, why is there so little discussion of the husband? Couldn't he step up & be the primary caregiver while she got a job? Her stepping out of the home to work doesn't mean that those poor children will be abandoned to the evil influence of outside caretakers if Dad stepped up at home.
-
I'm really surprised by all the positivity! In my mind, what it comes to is this: these folks were barely breaking even & just squeaking by on the generosity of their friends, family, & community. During this period of barely making ends meet, they decided to add more expenses. In every other case study where people aren't saving, the advice is usually decrease expenses or earn more money. If I posted a thread about how I was spending all my income, didn't have a safety net, didn't have insurance, & was considering going on a vacation to Bali, I would get ridiculous amounts of incredulous comments.
The only difference I'm seeing is that some people place more value on children or being a stay at home parent, which somehow gets The Prudent Homemaker a pass for being financially reckless. They can afford their children in the absolute, bare-minimum sense of the word, but considering this is the MMM forums, I'm shocked that there's so much approval. I mean, we have threads where people are installing bidets & being glad about saving toilet paper, MMM showers 2-3 times a week & saves water, folks who spend tons of time couponing to get free supplies! Then we have the Prudent Homemaker who has kind of "retired" to take care of her kids with no safety net beyond a year's worth of canned food.
Lastly, why is there so little discussion of the husband? Couldn't he step up & be the primary caregiver while she got a job? Her stepping out of the home to work doesn't mean that those poor children will be abandoned to the evil influence of outside caretakers if Dad stepped up at home.
I guess I just don't see that it's my business at all how she runs her life.
It's not like she posted a case study here and asked our advice.
I follow a frugal lifestyle in my own way and don't expect everyone to be like me. At least she's not like the ridiculously spendy people who post here about how they can't possibly save any more money because they NEED x,y,z and cause the rest of us to scratch our heads.
-
I guess I just don't see that it's my business at all how she runs her life.
It's not like she posted a case study here and asked our advice.
Just for the sake of argument, if she posts all of this on her blog, putting it all out there, isn't she inviting comment?
Yet another reason for NOT writing a blog, if you ask me. ;-)
-
I guess I just don't see that it's my business at all how she runs her life.
It's not like she posted a case study here and asked our advice.
Just for the sake of argument, if she posts all of this on her blog, putting it all out there, isn't she inviting comment?
Yet another reason for NOT writing a blog, if you ask me. ;-)
:) Sure she is. But it's like all the complainypants who get all over MMM. Don't live like them if you don't want to. If it works for them and not you, that's okay. Issue resolved.
-
Pint Size Must: I totally agree with you. If Dad is not taking a salary his business is not working so he should close it and get a JOB!
-
For the people that read her blog and enjoy her tips and ideas...
Why not send her an amazon gift card? She doesn't make much off the website. If you have gotten use of her information and you have the means, I think she would appreciate a thank you!
Her email is:
brandy@theprudenthomemaker.com
-
I'm so over this lady, but I wish her and her family the best.
-
Ever since this thread introduced me to her blog, I keep thinking about it! I keep asking myself what The Prudent Homemaker would do/think. Sort of to remind myself (a) that I have it pretty easy in life, all things considered and (b) I should be less lazy. I mean, if she can manage all those children and still get all that stuff done, I should be able to manage a mere TWO children and get (less) stuff done, too.
-
I'm really surprised by all the positivity! In my mind, what it comes to is this: these folks were barely breaking even & just squeaking by on the generosity of their friends, family, & community. During this period of barely making ends meet, they decided to add more expenses. In every other case study where people aren't saving, the advice is usually decrease expenses or earn more money. If I posted a thread about how I was spending all my income, didn't have a safety net, didn't have insurance, & was considering going on a vacation to Bali, I would get ridiculous amounts of incredulous comments.
The only difference I'm seeing is that some people place more value on children or being a stay at home parent, which somehow gets The Prudent Homemaker a pass for being financially reckless. They can afford their children in the absolute, bare-minimum sense of the word, but considering this is the MMM forums, I'm shocked that there's so much approval. I mean, we have threads where people are installing bidets & being glad about saving toilet paper, MMM showers 2-3 times a week & saves water, folks who spend tons of time couponing to get free supplies! Then we have the Prudent Homemaker who has kind of "retired" to take care of her kids with no safety net beyond a year's worth of canned food.
Lastly, why is there so little discussion of the husband? Couldn't he step up & be the primary caregiver while she got a job? Her stepping out of the home to work doesn't mean that those poor children will be abandoned to the evil influence of outside caretakers if Dad stepped up at home.
It would be one thing to not have a safety net, etc., if you were living on the dole. And they aren't. I can't speak for whether they now have insurance or not. Which is worse - not having insurance and paying out of pocket with all those kids? Or accepting taxpayer funded state insurance and continuing to have children?
The fact of the matter is - as far as I can tell - the children are well cared for. They have a good diet. They are fed, housed, and clothed.
Her husband already has a job. Why should she get one? After not working for X number of years, do you think she could earn more than he currently does? How easy would it be for her to get a decent paying job after being out of the work force? How easy would it be for her husband, at 50, to get a new job? And doing what?
In my mind, she gets a pass for being the queen of frugality. She's not wasting money on frivolous items. I have learned quite a lot from her site.