Where are the $100K jobs?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bsrsharma]I started consulting nostra, What do you do for health insurance? Can you please recommend some good plans for someone wanting to go contractor? Thanks[/quote]
bsrsharma, I am a contractor now and I am with Aetna Advantage Plan, for three years now. It is a PPO with $5K deductible if I land in the hospital, plus 20% of the balance up to $8K out of pocket per year, then 100% paid. It has a $40 co-pay for a primary-care physician and a $50 co-pay for a specialist. However, any preventative health is 100% paid. Generic drugs are $12 and name-brand drugs are $27, I believe. Pregnancy is not covered. You can choose any doctor you want to see. I pay $192 per month but I am old. A young person would pay as little as about $110 for the same coverage.

The qualifications for this plan were rigorous, however. They reviewed my entire medical record and sent a Scripps nurse with machines to my home to perform various procedures, including weighing and measuring me and taking photographs of me (several views).

They also have HSA compatible plans. I am not concerned about the deductible because I can usually cut hospital bills down after the ins. co. pays their portion. It is the lesser of the two evils.

IMO, this is the best deal out there. I don’t know if any of the new laws will prevent an applicant from having to go through what I did to obtain the policy.

I AM concerned that my rates will go way up next year when they have to lower their standards for admission due to the new health care bill passed by Congress. Many persons in my age group are cancer survivors or former drug abusers and smokers who have chronic health conditions.

[Aecetia]

I have the same concerns although I have a government HMO. It has gone up every years for about the last 10. I think all costs are going up and probably taxes, too. Thanks for the info. on your plan.

[Aecetia]

I have the same concerns although I have a government HMO. It has gone up every years for about the last 10. I think all costs are going up and probably taxes, too. Thanks for the info. on your plan.

[Aecetia]

I have the same concerns although I have a government HMO. It has gone up every years for about the last 10. I think all costs are going up and probably taxes, too. Thanks for the info. on your plan.

[Aecetia]

I have the same concerns although I have a government HMO. It has gone up every years for about the last 10. I think all costs are going up and probably taxes, too. Thanks for the info. on your plan.

[Aecetia]

I have the same concerns although I have a government HMO. It has gone up every years for about the last 10. I think all costs are going up and probably taxes, too. Thanks for the info. on your plan.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=davelj]I thought I’d weigh in on the insurance issue. I’m self-employed and I pay $160/month through Blue Cross of CA for a policy that has a $10K deductible and covers 100% of everything else up to $2 million of health costs annually. So, essentially, I’m self-insuring myself for the first $10,000 and insuring through Blue Cross of CA for anything really serious.

This is probably the best sort of plan for anyone with ALL of the following characteristics:
(1) self-employed;
(2) healthy – no known pre-existing health issues;
(3) single or married with no kids;
(4) under 55;
(5) enough liquidity to comfortably pay $10K if something bad comes up.

Many folks here in the U.S. are way overinsured for their real needs. When I was an employee several years back I paid $270/month through some high-fallutin’ plan and I think I used about $100/year of that insurance when I’d go to the doctor once a year for a check-up. Otherwise, it was flushed down the toilet. Had I not been part of group coverage, I’m sure that same coverage would have cost $400/month or more. Now, I’m not against insurance, per se. But a lot of people don’t think about their real insurance needs and how they should structure their policy. If you meet 1-5 above, self-insuring that first $10K is probably the most cost effective means of insuring yourself until you hit 55. For what it’s worth, my doctor agrees with this thinking as well.[/quote]

davelj, I agree with everything you’re saying here. I had an Aetna PPO when I was an employee and my employer pd. $237 per mo. for it and I pd. $96 of the $333 premium. I rarely used any of the benefit all those years.

However, the 50-65 age-group is very problematic to insure. Ins. co. age-discrimination is legal and small businesses bear the brunt because they essentially pay the same rates as individual policyholders. The persons that have always worked out and taken care of themselves are penalized because the vast majority has not (no disrespect intended to cancer survivors or those with birth defects other similarly unlucky individuals). Also, there are many healthy middle-aged persons and seniors in SD. However, we are lumped as an age-group in with those residing in the hollers of Kentucky (dramatization).

If I take another W-2 position, I will tell the employer that I WILL NOT give up my policy and give them a copy of my current premium invoice. They can pay the premium for me as a condition of my employment or put the cash in an HSA on my check and I will convert to an HSA policy. This will not only keep them from discriminating against me upon hire, they will find I’m cheaper to insure than what they’re paying for their 35 yr. old employees.

It’s way too risky for a baby boomer to give up a health insurance policy for a flaky “job.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=davelj]I thought I’d weigh in on the insurance issue. I’m self-employed and I pay $160/month through Blue Cross of CA for a policy that has a $10K deductible and covers 100% of everything else up to $2 million of health costs annually. So, essentially, I’m self-insuring myself for the first $10,000 and insuring through Blue Cross of CA for anything really serious.

This is probably the best sort of plan for anyone with ALL of the following characteristics:
(1) self-employed;
(2) healthy – no known pre-existing health issues;
(3) single or married with no kids;
(4) under 55;
(5) enough liquidity to comfortably pay $10K if something bad comes up.

Many folks here in the U.S. are way overinsured for their real needs. When I was an employee several years back I paid $270/month through some high-fallutin’ plan and I think I used about $100/year of that insurance when I’d go to the doctor once a year for a check-up. Otherwise, it was flushed down the toilet. Had I not been part of group coverage, I’m sure that same coverage would have cost $400/month or more. Now, I’m not against insurance, per se. But a lot of people don’t think about their real insurance needs and how they should structure their policy. If you meet 1-5 above, self-insuring that first $10K is probably the most cost effective means of insuring yourself until you hit 55. For what it’s worth, my doctor agrees with this thinking as well.[/quote]

davelj, I agree with everything you’re saying here. I had an Aetna PPO when I was an employee and my employer pd. $237 per mo. for it and I pd. $96 of the $333 premium. I rarely used any of the benefit all those years.

However, the 50-65 age-group is very problematic to insure. Ins. co. age-discrimination is legal and small businesses bear the brunt because they essentially pay the same rates as individual policyholders. The persons that have always worked out and taken care of themselves are penalized because the vast majority has not (no disrespect intended to cancer survivors or those with birth defects other similarly unlucky individuals). Also, there are many healthy middle-aged persons and seniors in SD. However, we are lumped as an age-group in with those residing in the hollers of Kentucky (dramatization).

If I take another W-2 position, I will tell the employer that I WILL NOT give up my policy and give them a copy of my current premium invoice. They can pay the premium for me as a condition of my employment or put the cash in an HSA on my check and I will convert to an HSA policy. This will not only keep them from discriminating against me upon hire, they will find I’m cheaper to insure than what they’re paying for their 35 yr. old employees.

It’s way too risky for a baby boomer to give up a health insurance policy for a flaky “job.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=davelj]I thought I’d weigh in on the insurance issue. I’m self-employed and I pay $160/month through Blue Cross of CA for a policy that has a $10K deductible and covers 100% of everything else up to $2 million of health costs annually. So, essentially, I’m self-insuring myself for the first $10,000 and insuring through Blue Cross of CA for anything really serious.

This is probably the best sort of plan for anyone with ALL of the following characteristics:
(1) self-employed;
(2) healthy – no known pre-existing health issues;
(3) single or married with no kids;
(4) under 55;
(5) enough liquidity to comfortably pay $10K if something bad comes up.

Many folks here in the U.S. are way overinsured for their real needs. When I was an employee several years back I paid $270/month through some high-fallutin’ plan and I think I used about $100/year of that insurance when I’d go to the doctor once a year for a check-up. Otherwise, it was flushed down the toilet. Had I not been part of group coverage, I’m sure that same coverage would have cost $400/month or more. Now, I’m not against insurance, per se. But a lot of people don’t think about their real insurance needs and how they should structure their policy. If you meet 1-5 above, self-insuring that first $10K is probably the most cost effective means of insuring yourself until you hit 55. For what it’s worth, my doctor agrees with this thinking as well.[/quote]

davelj, I agree with everything you’re saying here. I had an Aetna PPO when I was an employee and my employer pd. $237 per mo. for it and I pd. $96 of the $333 premium. I rarely used any of the benefit all those years.

However, the 50-65 age-group is very problematic to insure. Ins. co. age-discrimination is legal and small businesses bear the brunt because they essentially pay the same rates as individual policyholders. The persons that have always worked out and taken care of themselves are penalized because the vast majority has not (no disrespect intended to cancer survivors or those with birth defects other similarly unlucky individuals). Also, there are many healthy middle-aged persons and seniors in SD. However, we are lumped as an age-group in with those residing in the hollers of Kentucky (dramatization).

If I take another W-2 position, I will tell the employer that I WILL NOT give up my policy and give them a copy of my current premium invoice. They can pay the premium for me as a condition of my employment or put the cash in an HSA on my check and I will convert to an HSA policy. This will not only keep them from discriminating against me upon hire, they will find I’m cheaper to insure than what they’re paying for their 35 yr. old employees.

It’s way too risky for a baby boomer to give up a health insurance policy for a flaky “job.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=davelj]I thought I’d weigh in on the insurance issue. I’m self-employed and I pay $160/month through Blue Cross of CA for a policy that has a $10K deductible and covers 100% of everything else up to $2 million of health costs annually. So, essentially, I’m self-insuring myself for the first $10,000 and insuring through Blue Cross of CA for anything really serious.

This is probably the best sort of plan for anyone with ALL of the following characteristics:
(1) self-employed;
(2) healthy – no known pre-existing health issues;
(3) single or married with no kids;
(4) under 55;
(5) enough liquidity to comfortably pay $10K if something bad comes up.

Many folks here in the U.S. are way overinsured for their real needs. When I was an employee several years back I paid $270/month through some high-fallutin’ plan and I think I used about $100/year of that insurance when I’d go to the doctor once a year for a check-up. Otherwise, it was flushed down the toilet. Had I not been part of group coverage, I’m sure that same coverage would have cost $400/month or more. Now, I’m not against insurance, per se. But a lot of people don’t think about their real insurance needs and how they should structure their policy. If you meet 1-5 above, self-insuring that first $10K is probably the most cost effective means of insuring yourself until you hit 55. For what it’s worth, my doctor agrees with this thinking as well.[/quote]

davelj, I agree with everything you’re saying here. I had an Aetna PPO when I was an employee and my employer pd. $237 per mo. for it and I pd. $96 of the $333 premium. I rarely used any of the benefit all those years.

However, the 50-65 age-group is very problematic to insure. Ins. co. age-discrimination is legal and small businesses bear the brunt because they essentially pay the same rates as individual policyholders. The persons that have always worked out and taken care of themselves are penalized because the vast majority has not (no disrespect intended to cancer survivors or those with birth defects other similarly unlucky individuals). Also, there are many healthy middle-aged persons and seniors in SD. However, we are lumped as an age-group in with those residing in the hollers of Kentucky (dramatization).

If I take another W-2 position, I will tell the employer that I WILL NOT give up my policy and give them a copy of my current premium invoice. They can pay the premium for me as a condition of my employment or put the cash in an HSA on my check and I will convert to an HSA policy. This will not only keep them from discriminating against me upon hire, they will find I’m cheaper to insure than what they’re paying for their 35 yr. old employees.

It’s way too risky for a baby boomer to give up a health insurance policy for a flaky “job.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=davelj]I thought I’d weigh in on the insurance issue. I’m self-employed and I pay $160/month through Blue Cross of CA for a policy that has a $10K deductible and covers 100% of everything else up to $2 million of health costs annually. So, essentially, I’m self-insuring myself for the first $10,000 and insuring through Blue Cross of CA for anything really serious.

This is probably the best sort of plan for anyone with ALL of the following characteristics:
(1) self-employed;
(2) healthy – no known pre-existing health issues;
(3) single or married with no kids;
(4) under 55;
(5) enough liquidity to comfortably pay $10K if something bad comes up.

Many folks here in the U.S. are way overinsured for their real needs. When I was an employee several years back I paid $270/month through some high-fallutin’ plan and I think I used about $100/year of that insurance when I’d go to the doctor once a year for a check-up. Otherwise, it was flushed down the toilet. Had I not been part of group coverage, I’m sure that same coverage would have cost $400/month or more. Now, I’m not against insurance, per se. But a lot of people don’t think about their real insurance needs and how they should structure their policy. If you meet 1-5 above, self-insuring that first $10K is probably the most cost effective means of insuring yourself until you hit 55. For what it’s worth, my doctor agrees with this thinking as well.[/quote]

davelj, I agree with everything you’re saying here. I had an Aetna PPO when I was an employee and my employer pd. $237 per mo. for it and I pd. $96 of the $333 premium. I rarely used any of the benefit all those years.

However, the 50-65 age-group is very problematic to insure. Ins. co. age-discrimination is legal and small businesses bear the brunt because they essentially pay the same rates as individual policyholders. The persons that have always worked out and taken care of themselves are penalized because the vast majority has not (no disrespect intended to cancer survivors or those with birth defects other similarly unlucky individuals). Also, there are many healthy middle-aged persons and seniors in SD. However, we are lumped as an age-group in with those residing in the hollers of Kentucky (dramatization).

If I take another W-2 position, I will tell the employer that I WILL NOT give up my policy and give them a copy of my current premium invoice. They can pay the premium for me as a condition of my employment or put the cash in an HSA on my check and I will convert to an HSA policy. This will not only keep them from discriminating against me upon hire, they will find I’m cheaper to insure than what they’re paying for their 35 yr. old employees.

It’s way too risky for a baby boomer to give up a health insurance policy for a flaky “job.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=fuggy] . . . California employers like to employ locals who bought their home in the 1970s. Cuz you can pay them little. . . [/quote]

fuggy, CA employers DO NOT like to employ individuals “who bought their home in the ’70’s.” Do the math, here. A person who bought a home in 1979 is at least 54 years of age now and probably at least 60. Original Prop 13 homeowners are 55 years old on up. For the health insurance issues mentioned on this thread, AGE DISCRIMINATION IS ALIVE AND WELL in employment and will continue to be so.

Part of the low-wage problem in this region relative to others is our very porous border. I personally know several PROFESSIONALS, including lawyers, living in MX and working in SD County. It is MUCH CHEAPER to live in Tijuana than SD. This will never change.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=fuggy] . . . California employers like to employ locals who bought their home in the 1970s. Cuz you can pay them little. . . [/quote]

fuggy, CA employers DO NOT like to employ individuals “who bought their home in the ’70’s.” Do the math, here. A person who bought a home in 1979 is at least 54 years of age now and probably at least 60. Original Prop 13 homeowners are 55 years old on up. For the health insurance issues mentioned on this thread, AGE DISCRIMINATION IS ALIVE AND WELL in employment and will continue to be so.

Part of the low-wage problem in this region relative to others is our very porous border. I personally know several PROFESSIONALS, including lawyers, living in MX and working in SD County. It is MUCH CHEAPER to live in Tijuana than SD. This will never change.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=fuggy] . . . California employers like to employ locals who bought their home in the 1970s. Cuz you can pay them little. . . [/quote]

fuggy, CA employers DO NOT like to employ individuals “who bought their home in the ’70’s.” Do the math, here. A person who bought a home in 1979 is at least 54 years of age now and probably at least 60. Original Prop 13 homeowners are 55 years old on up. For the health insurance issues mentioned on this thread, AGE DISCRIMINATION IS ALIVE AND WELL in employment and will continue to be so.

Part of the low-wage problem in this region relative to others is our very porous border. I personally know several PROFESSIONALS, including lawyers, living in MX and working in SD County. It is MUCH CHEAPER to live in Tijuana than SD. This will never change.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=fuggy] . . . California employers like to employ locals who bought their home in the 1970s. Cuz you can pay them little. . . [/quote]

fuggy, CA employers DO NOT like to employ individuals “who bought their home in the ’70’s.” Do the math, here. A person who bought a home in 1979 is at least 54 years of age now and probably at least 60. Original Prop 13 homeowners are 55 years old on up. For the health insurance issues mentioned on this thread, AGE DISCRIMINATION IS ALIVE AND WELL in employment and will continue to be so.

Part of the low-wage problem in this region relative to others is our very porous border. I personally know several PROFESSIONALS, including lawyers, living in MX and working in SD County. It is MUCH CHEAPER to live in Tijuana than SD. This will never change.

[Author]

Posts