Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=joec]Here’s the court doc:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D063847.PDFThere’s a lot of sexy graphic detail as to what she wants “done” to her.[/quote]
From Joe’s link [copy didn’t format correctly, so I formatted it in a way that is easier to read]:
(1)listing the
victim’s
home for sale;
(2)putting a hold on the victim’s and
the victim’s husband’s mail;
(3)having over a $1,000 worth of
unsolicited magazines, books, and junk
mail sent to the victim’s home;
(4)sending Valentine’s Day cards
from the victim’s husband to the
wives of the victim’s neighbors;
(5)having a county assessor’s office
employee contact the victim and
the victim’s husband about reassessing their
home;
(6)having members of religious groups
visit the victim’s home;
(7)posting an online announcement for a high school New Year’s Eve party at the victim’s home;
and
(8)posting an online announcement for a free
Mexican fireworks giveaway at the victim’s home
on Independence Day.5—————–
IMHO, this should qualify for a civil suit all by itself, irrespective of the rape charges. This woman need to go down.[/quote]
CAR, being the “devil’s advocate” here, I understand that this case will eventually be remanded back to the criminal court to proceed there. I understand the “technicality” the prosecutors prevailed on at the 4th and that the Court decided to publish its opinion. But that’s where it ends. The prosecutors can instruct the jury re: intent to commit a crime but still have an uphill climb to prove Rowe’s “intent” to harm the victim. This is so because the two poor schmucks who answered her ad will testify to help themselves, and, as a byproduct, help Rowe. The supposed assessor employee is a percipient witness IF they actually testify that Rowe asked them to contact the victim-homeowner (to harass them) and so they DID. Based upon that testimony alone, said employee could be disciplined at work. County Assessor employees NEVER contact individual parcel owners unless they are actively working with one on a stipulation in lieu of an assessment appeal hearing (to owners who would have filed an assessment appeal in a prior fiscal year). So this charge seems dubious, to me, and the prosecution will likely have to try to impeach the assessor-witness without any witnesses to do it with.
I haven’t read the briefs or seen the PE transcripts in this case, but if Rowe actually did 2, 3 and 4 “manually” (postcards, snail mail, money orders), it would be hard to prove to a jury it was she who did these things. The rerouting of someone’s mail is likely a “mail-tampering” crime but the printing or writing on the “forwarding” or “vacation hold” postcard would have to be proven to be hers. One can drop those in a any mailbox. If these deeds were done manually, there are no percipient witnesses to them.
Another problem with proving Rowe’s “intent to incite rape and/or sodomy” is that she actually didn’t know if her ad for freak sex adventures (or whatever) would be answered or who would answer it. She didn’t pay anyone to go to the victim’s door and had no control over what, if anything, any visitors to the victims home would do.
I’m with scaredy in that I think Rowe just intended a couple of “creepy dudes” to lurk around the victim’s property. It’s not as if she sought out a hitman based upon someone telling her that he “could get the job done” and she met him with an advance payment first and gave him a pic of the victim and her home/work address and a list of her habits.
Even if Rowe actually worked for the assessor’s office, she didn’t need to use their database to find her victim’s address (it’s public, anyway, for owner-occupants). She already knew where the victim lived because she herself tried to buy the house. Apparently, her victim didn’t have her FB page locked down, either, and Rowe lurked on it and copied picture(s) off of it. That’s not a crime.
At the very least, Rowe has got to be terribly embarrassed at work and in the community. The provisions in your new retirement plan link will not affect her. 99% says she is “Tier A.” Her “analyst” position is was likely considered a “promotional position” when she took it, meaning the agency she worked for only considered internal applications for the position. Rowe was qualified to retire in 2012 and is able to retire today. She may have already done so to avoid the embarrassment and backlash from her superiors, as, even though she has not been convicted of a crime, they could have tried to make her life miserable so she would go away on her own.
This sordid affair is going to descend into a black hole of obscurity and the victims may decide to file a small claim to get a judgment against Rowe for their new security system. If they decide to press a limited civil or civil action against Rowe, it won’t be heard until after she is sentenced. In any case, Sevilla will have a big chunk of her money (and possibly a lien on her house) and her spouse may leave her for all of this mess if he hasn’t already.
ParticipantOh, and uh, Sevilla is no stranger to the 4th DCA …
OR, for that matter, the CA Supreme Court:
Search Results – Supreme Court
Search by Attorney
<< Search screen Last Name: Sevilla First Name: Charles Law Firm: 1 - 25 of 70 Records Found. S197792 E051094 RIF145128 Charles M. Sevilla PEOPLE v. CASTANEDA S195423 D059012 M039138 Charles M. Sevilla Attorney at Law PEOPLE v. VANGELDER S195423 D059012 CA221258 Charles M. Sevilla Attorney at Law PEOPLE v. VANGELDER S194226 G043434 06HF0372 Charles M. Sevilla Law Offices of Charles Sevilla PEOPLE v. DECK S193961 B216425 BA255233 Charles M. Sevilla Law Office of Charles M. Sevilla PEOPLE v. SPECTOR S190821 D055649 SCD212359 Charles M. Sevilla PEOPLE v. HIGGINS S181432 B211975 BA322369 Charles M. Sevilla Law Office of Charles M. Sevilla PEOPLE v. SINGLETON S170704 B201268 NA034319 Charles M. Sevilla Charles M. Sevilla PEOPLE v. MARIN S168076 D052665 SCS207353 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP QUINONES v. S.C. (PEOPLE) S163181 A120701 SCR495892 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP WOLIN v. S.C. (PEOPLE) S161018 D050095 SCE257508 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. DAVALOS S153924 D047879 SCS183269 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. OROPEZA S151546 Charles M. Sevilla BERKEY (JON H.) ON H.C. S145967 D048885 SCE193209 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP SMITH (BOBBIE JO) ON H.C. S142490 G034669 02CF0810 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. BLUM S138260 E038991 FRE5441 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP DAWOOD v. S.C. (PEOPLE) S136824 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP TAYLOR (STACY LEE) ON H.C. S134189 C045608 SF02503 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. BREWER S132413 E033792 S132413 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. DAWOOD S132413 E033792 S123110 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. DAWOOD S132413 E033792 RIF90125 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. DAWOOD S127646 C044224 CM017247 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. BELAHBIB S123110 E035270 S123110 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP DAWOOD v. S.C. (PEOPLE) S123110 E035270 RIF90125 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP DAWOOD v. S.C. (PEOPLE) S119948 D040184 SCD156220 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. AULT nextParticipantLurking on and off here and saw joec’s post of today … I just HAD to respond …
omg, having had a l-o-o-ong local “criminal justice background” and thus “knowing all the players,” I am so struck by this rather unusually graphic opinion that joec posted here (btw, 3 justices constitute a “quorum” on a CA Appellate District panel). I must admit that I haven’t seen an opinion quite like this in the past (thanks for your [very astute] contribution here, joec)!
The REALITY is, folks, Defendant Rowe has an EXCELLENT and VERY CREDIBLE attorney in Chuck Sevilla. I carefully read the entire opinion as well as the `dissenting opinion’ and fully understand why Justice McDonald called it the way he did. I’m not trying to side with defendant here but prosecutors have a VERY REAL problem in front of a potential jury in that the two responders to Rowe’s ad testified at PE that, despite being goaded by Rowe, neither of them were in any position to JUMP the victim if she was surprised by them in any way, and, in fact, one of the “innocent victims” (as the court referred to them) was daunted by the REAL victim’s husband answering the door (he testified that “the man answering the door [actually] lived there”). They were simply answering an ad for a “casual encounter” (not uncommon, folks). It is also NOT uncommon for online “dating” participants (men, especially) to send pics of themselves nude to someone they met online but don’t know, even on “traditional” online dating sites.
I predict this case will “very quietly settle” in the confines of the prosecutor’s darkest back broom closet with a lessor plea by Rowe. If that plea happens to be to a felony (she is NOT “sworn staff,” btw), then she will not lose her civil-service job over it as the alleged crime did NOT happen in her particular “line of duty.” Equally, it could settle with a misdemeanor plea which wouldn’t necessarily result in “disciplinary action” with her employer. Either way, her retirement shouldn’t be affected, depending on if her employing agency was a law-enforcement agency … or not.
That’s the way the “system” works around here.
What really troubles me here is that Rowe testified in PE that she wanted the particular property her “victim” ended up getting (and took “harmless” revenge because her victim got it) because it was a “one-story home” which was suitable for her family in various ways.
SHE COULD HAVE HAD that same “one-story home” ANYWHERE in SD County! It didn’t have to be Carmel Valley (with an avg 3500 to 4500 sf lot replete with audible sounds from the next-door neighbor’s toilet). She COULDN’T HAVE been seeking a particular public school for her profoundly handicapped daughter (her ‘ONLY child’) because her daughter was undoubtedly a “special education student.” It’s not like Rowe was seeking a particular “college prep” course for her daughter or an “edge” for college admission. I’m no psychiatrist, but to me, this smacks of a delusional mindset with narcissistic tendencies, namely borderline personality disorder.
I keep asking myself WHY or HOW something like this could happen in the REAL world! It’s unreal to me… maybe I’m missing something important here, lol…
any “expert comments,” feel free to come forth …. scaredy …??
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=bearishgurl]
Uhhh, kev?? In CA, you have to be married for ten years to be eligible for any alimony at all. [/quote]Uhhh, wtf? Absolutely not true!
http://www.divorcenet.com/states/california/ca_art33
[/quote]svelte, you didn’t read (or understand) my sentence correctly. A marriage is considered of “long duration” in CA if it has exceeded ten years in length. It has nothing to do with how long SS is paid after a divorce as discussed in your article.
see: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/FAM/1/d9/3/2/s4320
Yes, in CA, the court typically retains jurisdiction over a long-term marriage but, practically speaking, a SS payor can (and, more often than not, does) return to court after half the length of the marriage has elapsed post judgment and successfully greatly reduce or eliminate SS. The purpose of SS payments to a non-disabled spouse is to better equalize living conditions between the parties until the lesser-earning spouse can educate themselves for employment and/or advance to a better paying job. SS was never meant to fully support a (voluntarily or involuntarily) unemployed spouse for life while the payor-spouse works FT on up past retirement age to make his/her SS payments into oblivion. CA is a no-fault divorce state and thus doesn’t have “punitive alimony” to be paid to a “victim” of infidelity, for example. The only time in CA when the amount of a SS award is (temporarily) punitively set is when a the payor-spouse pled guilty to or was recently convicted of domestic violence against the payee spouse and the payee spouse suffered prolonged physical, emotional or mental injuries from that DV incident and also makes less than the payor spouse.
The family law attorneys I’ve seen in action representing higher-earning spouses and/or parents in CA who are getting divorces or are sued for paternity fight tooth and nail for lesser SS and CS and nearly ALWAYS fight for their 50%+ timeshare with the child(ren) and receive it. And, believe me, they don’t mind coming back post-judgment for modifications to everything.
I’m not an attorney but my advice to anyone getting a divorce in CA is to make a private deal with your spouse immediately before or after filing for divorce and be willing to take vehicles, RE, cash, stocks, a portion of your spouse’s retirement account IN LIEU of monthly SS payments, if at all possible. Anything could happen to a SS payor’s job or they could suffer long-term injuries, making a SS order virtually unenforceable.
I’ve known two SS payors here in SD County who inherited paid-off modest homes from a parent, then deeded those homes to their spouses while still married but legally separated so that their estranged spouse was considered a “family member” who was eligible to receive an Interspousal Transfer Deed and thus retain the old assessment and low property taxes, pursuant to a Prop 58 loophole. This enabled the long-term ex-spouse (unrelated to his/her deceased parent-in-law former owner) to live cheaply for life while they worked a low paying job and/or collected their pension. The payee spouse took it in lieu of SS and it was a smart decision for them.
GOOD LUCK getting a permanent spousal support award in CA in a dissolution of marriage of less than ten years duration. A judge MIGHT award temporary support while the case is being litigated and/or until an already-enrolled student SS payee finishes school.
I’ve seen several female judges in this county read the riot act to women domestic litigants before them, giving them short time frames to comply for failure to apply for employment when they didn’t have any of their own income. There’s a lot of misconception out there regarding SS and the presumption that one party be supported for life wholly by SS due to the seemingly constant barrage of sensational stories spewing from the MSM over celebrity divorces. Of course, these long-term marriages have many assets to divvy up, often including multiple real property holdings in two or more countries and royalty payments for life.
These CA divorces aren’t the same animal as Joe and Suzy 6p wage-earner(s) who have a mortgage, car payments and possibly minor children in the mix.
October 22, 2013 at 11:32 PM in reply to: OT: Upcoming civil war between Sorrento Valley & Mira Mesa #767191ParticipantOh, hey flu, I just saw your red traincar in the snow:
http://piggington.com/worst_pictures_in_the_mls_contest#comment-235082
I don’t think the one in your photo will rent for $1400 month, BTW. It doesn’t appear have the three top selling points going for it … that is, location, location and location. I would venture an educated guess that it will rent (on a bright, sunny, snowy day) for $225 mo (incl propane).
If it’s any consolation, those traincar-type condos which we discussed here . . .
http://piggington.com/investment_property_san_diego#comment-234737
are not only present in MM/SH/SV. They are ALSO present in ChulaV (91915) and Santee … to my knowledge. This style of condo may be present in other SD County areas as well. They lend themselves well to four-units-per-zero-lot-line-PUDS and other various and sundry developments whose builders sought to squeeze 20+ units out of ONE acre of land.
October 22, 2013 at 11:04 PM in reply to: OT: Upcoming civil war between Sorrento Valley & Mira Mesa #767190ParticipantFWIW, La Jolla proper has ALWAYS been part of the City of SD and always will be.
October 22, 2013 at 11:02 PM in reply to: OT: Upcoming civil war between Sorrento Valley & Mira Mesa #767189Participant[quote=AN]I’ve been saying for awhile that Sorrento Valley is nothing more than a sub development w/in Mira Mesa. Mira Mesa Community Planning Group controls all the development between 805/15 and Lopez Canyon/Miramar. You can’t get a permit from the city w/out initially getting approved by MMCPG first. Secondly, your common area maintenance is being serviced by Calle Cristobal Landscape Maintenance Assessment District, which is part of Mira Mesa. Thirdly, you go to Mira Mesa schools. So, the way I see it is, if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck, you are a duck.
I’m sorry that some of those owners were clueless and got sold by the developers that somehow Sorrento Valley is not Mira Mesa and pay a premium for it. But, face it, you got fooled. All of this is kind of like Torrey Hills saying they’re not Carmel Valley or Park Village is not Rancho Penasquitos or Sabre Springs is not Scripps Ranch.
Those signs were put up by the Calle Cristobal Landscape Maintenance Assessment District and Mira Mesa Landscape
Maintenance Assessment District in the area they service.Here are some more info about the meeting:
http://miramesatowncouncil.org/doc/Plangrp/MMCPG%20Agenda%202013%20October.pdf%5B/quote%5DThanks for injecting some sense into this discussion, AN. Sorrento Valley/Mesa? is what it is and no one can fix it.
So WHAT if it is part of MM. What’s the real problem here?? The properties that lie within the MM planning group vary in size and amenities depending on tract and subdivision (100% of MM lies on a subd tract). Buyers will pay whatever they are worth, taking into account their recent nearby sales comps in comparison to older MM sales comps in areas which may not offer the same style house, setback or lot size.
The City of SD has spoken. Deal with it.
October 22, 2013 at 10:53 PM in reply to: OT: Upcoming civil war between Sorrento Valley & Mira Mesa #767188Participant[quote=flyer]Back the pioneer days :), the early settlers in CV used to tell everyone they lived just east of Del Mar.
In fact, East Del Mar was one of the names in the hat when North City West was renamed Carmel Valley.
Developers tag onto the “close to/hills above RSF” all the time, and it doesn’t bother me.[/quote]
LOL flyer, I remember when CV was called “North City West.” I ALSO remember when it was inhabited by migrant worker camps :=0
ParticipantJust saw this:
I alluded to this problem (off topic) in a recent thread.
http://piggington.com/food_stamp_riots#comment-235175
The above link’s video confirms my suspicions.
It’s not necessarily going to be the 55-64 year-old crowd that will be the most costly for state exchange insurers. Try the 20-54 year-old crowd, the Gen Y portion of whom the exchanges are courting to sign up to avoid that dreaded “downward spiral” because they are banking on this group being “young and healthy” :=0
Prime causes of Gen Y being young but NOT healthy … that is, exhibiting heart disease, stroke and other ailments before their time?
*33% obesity rate
*Lack of exercise
*SmokingIs anyone surprised??
Us boomers didn’t have 14 kinds of hot Cheetos and Taquis to choose from when we were growing up, and, in any case, we had to eat standard cafeteria fare in schools. That is, a meat or fish, a starch, a vegetable or salad and dessert. All were SMALL portions that fit into indentations on a square plastic tray which we bussed ourselves. It came with WHITE milk … NOT chocolate milk.
Cost per day was .25 in elementary school, .35 in Jr High and .50 in Sr High. If five paper lunch tix were purchased at a time, a different color ticket was issued to “free-lunch kids” who had to stand in a separate line to get their food.
No carbonated beverages were available in machines at any public school (against the law).
PE was a REQUIRED class for Grades 1-12 (all 3 years of Sr. High PE required to graduate). It included rope climbing to a 14 ft ceiling, obstacle courses, track and field and individual and team sports. If the weather was too cold, class was held in the the gym. For grades 7-12, a student had to dress out for PE, participate in the activity and shower afterwards. No excuses.
Of course, we didn’t have any cell phones, computers or other gadgets to spend time sitting around playing with, either.
*************************************
Fast forward to today’s CA public school curriculum where PE is an elective and Carl’s Jr, Taco Bell, Chipotle, Starbucks and a yogurt bar are all <3 mins walk away (seniors have open-campus privileges).
A typical grade 1-12 public school lunch is now Dominos Pizza and chocolate milk.
Thus, Gen Y has the health problems we're seeing today and into the near future.
Among those signing up on state exchanges, I think a portion of Gen Y might be better served to sign up for a more "comprehensive plan" than the "catastrophic plans" that are being pushed on them or they are going to find themselves asked to pay out-of-pocket for a LOT of procedures .... with money they likely don't have.
Case in point: Cost of echocardiogram procedure in various markets:
Participant[quote=kev374]Is.it a surprise that a good majority of women here in southern California are gold diggers? They say that the quickest way for a woman to move up the socio-economic ladder is not to work hard but rather to marry up! So why bust your behind when you could just marry some clueless guy then divorce him and get a nice settlement and alimony and retire early under his dime ;)[/quote]
Uhhh, kev?? In CA, you have to be married for ten years to be eligible for any alimony at all. That’s a l-o-o-o-ng time to “put up with” somebody that you just married for money. And “spousal support” (as alimony is called in CA) is set according to the wages of each party. If a low-earner or non-earner spouse is earning low or not at all and their judge thinks they should be making more in accordance with their education and experience, then the court could EASILY impute them a salary that they don’t presently have (for support calculation purposes). If the payor ever comes back to court for a reduction in CS or termination of SS because they lost their job through no fault of their own, it will likely be granted. In addition, 90% of court orders terminate spousal support at half the length of the marriage, unless the payee is completely or almost completely disabled (as decided by the SSA). The same is true of child support calculations. The fact that minor kids are in the mix doesn’t matter. Each parent in CA is expected to contribute support to their children in accordance with their income level.
You can’t just marry someone with assets before they met you and lay claim to those assets … at least not in CA.
Nor can a spouse lay claim to an inheritance of their spouse which took place during the marriage … as long as the heir does NOT commingle the funds (deposit any of it in joint accounts). This is true in almost all states.
Not to mention that anyone with assets who is thinking or marrying or remarrying will get a prenuptial agreement at least 3 months prior to the wedding (6 months is better), if they have any brains at all.
An attempt at “gold-digging” these days isn’t what it appears to be. The ones successful at this have to have clueless people with assets willing to be their victims. And there really aren’t too many of these people around.
Now, being the willing “victim” of a cougar is a victimless crime. To each his/her own …. :=]
ParticipantI forgot to add that our forebears drank more (100+ proof) spirits than we do.
With the proliferation of US wineries, wine has been much more popular in the past 20+ years than mixed drinks, especially in CA.
Also, my math was wrong. 2.85 years worth of boomers are now eligible for MC (and growing every day).
Participant[quote=spdrun]Yet smoking rates are higher and sugar-substitute use is much lower in European countries with a higher life expectancy. The keys, IMHO:
(1) Active lifestyle — a lot more people commute on foot or by bike
(2) Portion control
(3) Lower levels of stress. 50 hr work weeks combined with 3 hr/day commutes are much less common.BTW, outside of CA, indoor smoking in restaurants and bars was allowed well into the 2000s. NY banned it only in 2003, NJ waited till 2005 or 2006 to outlaw it. It’s still legal indoors in bars in Pennyslvania.
As far as sugar substitute use, it’s not clear that most substitutes are any healthier than sugar itself, when used in moderation (since they tell the body to expect a load of sugar while not delivering, confusing the pancreas). And if anything, since a lot more sugar comes from HFCS than it did 20 years ago, we may be worse off now.[/quote]
spdrun, I’m unfamiliar with Europe/Eastern Europe. Is the smoking rate really higher in those countries than in the US? I wouldn’t have thunk it!
As far as sugar use vs. sugar-substitute use, I could see where Europeans would want to stick to their recipes and not substitute sugar for a substitute. And also drink plain coffee and tea with or without plain milk. And have plain biscuits and scones to go with them. Unlike Americans, most of who seem to like their hot drinks and pastries all duded up (not ME!), I see Europeans as being more of a “purist” in that regard.
I’ve used powdered Splenda in recipes that called for sugar for the last few years.
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=no_such_reality]There’s several reasons.
First thing we need to address is that per capita, the USA across it’s levels of Government is currently and has for the last five years been spending on par with GReat Britain, France and Germany. We haven’t taxed to that level, but per person, we’re spending the same level of Government.
Except we don’t have universal health care, SS is kind of like their pensions, but overall, we’ve been funneling our money into the Military.
When you look at Norway, firstly, their top tax rate is 48%, their GDP per capita is twice ours, with a GDP at basically $100K/person.[/quote]
We have universal health care for 119 million people in this country (medicare and medicaid) at a cost of $940/119 = $7,899 per person on the program. Most industrialized nations provide health care for about $3,500-5,550 per capita. http://kff.org/global-indicator/health-expenditure-per-capita/
The real big problem is the total cost of providing medical care is this country. The key is figuring out how to provide medical care for less not figuring out how to get more people to help pay for the exorbitant costs.[/quote]
Besides high costs, I believe the $7899 per person avg annual MC expense is due to the WWII Gen and the dwindling fragments of the Greatest Gen not taking care of themselves. There are only 2.72 years worth of baby boomers currently eligible for Medicare (DOBs: 1/1/46 to 10/21/48). And of course, a few thousand of these new MC eligibles have barely had a chance to sign up and have not yet been to the doctor while covered under MC.
Remember that surgeon general warnings were not on packages of cigarettes until 1966 and they were handed out like candy for free to active duty military members prior to that. And smoking was allowed in every restaurant and bar until the early nineties in most locales. Smoking was also allowed in enclosed workplaces or in designated areas of enclosed workplaces, causing the smoke to filter into the workers who didn’t smoke.
The vast majority of the US population was also ignorant of the adverse affects high cholesterol levels had on the body. And there were very few gyms available to join and work out at until the mid-eighties. Sugar-substitutes other than saccharin pills and powder were unavailable until the mid/late eighties. And many of our mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers also had multiple children one after another which caused them (expensive) pelvic floor problems down the line.
The above are just a few of the differences between generations which are driving the healthcare expenses of the current MC-eligible crowd.
I see boomers as using LESS healthcare (on avg) than their precedessors did because MANY boomers (incl myself) have taken the steps years or decades ago to improve their health and fitness naturally (thru diet, supplements and exercise) and have pulled away from the daily/weekly practice of the regional food cultures that they grew up with. And many boomers (incl myself) also watched multiple relatives die a prolonged, agonizing death from emphysema and COPD.
By the time Gen Y gets to MC age, it’s anybody’s guess how much healthcare they will need. A good portion of them seem to have turned into junk-food junkies from a young age … BUT they still have time to get their sh!t together and “recover” from their bad food choices and inactivity.
In my gym, the over-50 crowd is thinner and fitter overall than the under-35 crowd. Go figure …
ParticipantGood points CE and I’ve got to step out now but wanted to point out that there are/will be much more retiring boomers than Gen X workers available to fill those slots … not sure about how many extra slots will spill over to Gen Y but I would think half … if the organization doesn’t go by seniority for promotions. Why? Because Gen Y are better at automated tasks than Gen X, since they’ve had access to computers all of their lives.
In comparison to boomers and Gen Y, Gen X was a smaller population.
And since America is becoming more and more of a “police state” every month, I just don’t see the lawlessness in our future as you do.
Yes, I certainly will be dead and so will many other Piggs, including you (and maybe even our children) when the sh!t will supposedly hit the fan in this country.
I don’t see this as something we have to be concerned about today.
-
AuthorPosts
