[bearishgurl]

It appears Joe C decided he wasn’t interested in the Costco plan. From the looks of things, he’s probably better off leaving “well enough” alone.

I’ve been an Aetna Advantage (PPO) member (HDHP) since 2004. I medically qualified thru their own salespeople in PA. I didn’t use a broker.

I just had a chance to review my (HDHP) policy and it appears mine is *better* than Costco’s “Preferred Network 5,500 Deductible Plan” (which it most resembles) in a number of ways.

These differences are for In-Network providers:

My Annual Deductible is $5K/$10K. Costco’s is $5,500/$11K.

My Coinsurance Maximum is $3K/$8K. Costco’s is $5K/$10K.

My Annual Out-of-Pocket Maximum is $8K/$20K. Costco’s is $10,500/$21K.

My Emergency Room copay is $100 (waived if admitted). Costco’s is $350.

My Generic pharmacy price is $15 copay (ded waived). Costco’s is $15/$20 (at Costco only). I can fill mine anywhere at this price. (I’ve actually gotten them at $5 and $9 in the past, depending on what they were.)

My Preferred Brand pharmacy price is $35 copay (ded waived). Costco’s is $30/$35 (after ded).

My Non-Preferred Brand pharmacy price is $50 copay (ded waived). Costco’s is $40/$50 (after ded).

Here’s Costco’s Aetna brochure. Wait to load:

https://www51.aetna.com/iqs_contentMgt/consumerPortal/assets/pdf/CA/CA_Costco_Broch_020113.pdf

I also have this additional coverage (which may or may not be a part of Costco’s plans – they don’t state):

Urgent Care Clinic copay is $50 (ded waived).

Up to 30 days Hospice – 30% (after ded) $10K max lifetime benefit.

Routine Cancer Screening (as ordered by dr) – 100% (ded waived). (I’ve already had two colonoscopies pd for by Aetna as a cost of abt $2200 for both.)

Ambulance – 30% (after ded) $2K max annual benefit.

Organ Transplant – 30% (after ded)

Hearing Aid – $200 every 36 mos (ded waived)

The rest of my coverage is the same as that of the Costco plan.

Fortunately, I don’t have to cover any dependents … only myself.

********************************************

Note that I am “grandfathered” into this policy. Even though my premium has gone up >12 times since 2004, I would be a fool to switch carriers until I am Medicare-eligible, at which time I’ll buy a MC supplement and “Part D” prescription coverage (that is, IF MC is still around, then) :=0.

And I may not need to switch then, either.

http://www.aetnamedicare.com/foundplans.jsp?0.8760750378390612

It’s interesting to see how my carrier has insidiously shaved benefits from their plans since the law has required them to accept any applicant, regardless of pre-existing condition. For many of these new applicants, the carriers obviously can’t know in advance exactly what to charge them in premiums, due to the unpredictable nature of their ongoing medical bills. All they can really do is issue this subset of applicants a policy and “play it by ear” as to how much to raise their premiums every 6-12 months :=0

[bearishgurl]

$90K divided by 29 parcels is an average of $3103 per parcel in back taxes, lol …

[bearishgurl]

Looks like Deee-TROIT is poised to get an “infusion” of US investor, foreign and/or mutual fund money.

. . . “There’s going to be a big turnaround for Detroit, and I want to be part of it,” says Peter Grosso of New York, who paid about $90,000 for 29 Detroit homes at an auction last October. He plans to rent them for income over the next decade, then sell at a profit.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-24/detroit-housings-for-sale-and-global-investors-want-in

Since it has nowhere to go but “up,” this can only be good 🙂

[bearishgurl]

I glanced over the article and wonder if these fast-selling (outlying) new communities in the PHX area will lift ALL boats (new and old) in PHX.

Are buyers just flocking to the *new* because it is there? Many major cities aren’t allowing any building right now, ran out of land for subdivisions long ago or it doesn’t make sense, financially, for builders to enter a particular urban market.

I DO feel buyers flock to the *new,* no matter WHERE it’s located. ESPECIALLY younger buyers.

It will be interesting to see how this latest “building boom” affects home values in the entire residential RE market in PHX.

[bearishgurl]

I’m starting to “downsize” and clean up/repair/renovate, etc.

Unfortunately, I can’t move for another 16+ months but I see the writing on the wall.

I don’t really like being a “landlord” but if I relocate, I’ll just hire a PM Co if I decide to rent out my home instead of sell it.

What I am a bit concerned about is, “What will I have to pay for a (~1600 sf) replacement home?” I’m considering mountain towns with 1K to 55K people.

Hopefully, the exodus of “boomers” from cities won’t drive up the prices in these areas, as well. In some mtn resort areas, the residential RE prices have already doubled in the past ~15 years.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer]Just checking in from afar–(guess Piggington “is” an addiction:)

I don’t think any of us meant for our posts on this thread to be rude or inconsiderate–I know I certainly didn’t. I’m very much aware of what’s going on in the world for the majority of the population, and feel that none of us are immune to what might come our way.

I only brought any of this up with regard to property values for the purpose of making a comparison to today’s appreciation–to let people know how much it has changed over the years–nothing more.

I honestly don’t think the fact that a particular group of people happened to be at the right place at the right time with the right resources is a bad thing. Given the opportunity, I think most anyone would have taken advantage of those circumstances. It really had nothing to do with being ruthless or greedy–it was really more about luck and timing.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.[/quote]

[quote=flyer (earlier today)]….without going into a lot of detail, many of the homes my wife and my family members purchased in the 60’s and 70’s for $70K or so, are now in the seven figure range. We purchased in CV and RSF in the 80’s and 90’s.

The older homes are all in great locations, and many have been remodeled, and passed down to younger members of the family.

San Diego has always been a great place, but even when my wife and I were growing up in La Jolla, I don’t think anyone knew or even expected San Diego to develop as it has–especially from a real estate perspective.[/quote]

Thank you for your latest post, flyer.

I just wanted to re-clarify that the prices flyer and his relatives paid for SD County (prime) properties in decades gone by in no way reflects what those homes are today. They have no doubt been improved and expanded, perhaps multiple times, to command their current prices.

IOW, what they bought for “$70K” is NOT the same home as it is today.

He is correct that given what was in SD at that time (ESP bayfront and dtn skyline-view properties) in no way reflects the available amenities close to and views from those same properties today.

No one back then had any idea of what SD was to become, thus paying ~$70K in SD, for example, when the average city property was ~$20K could have very well been a “leap of faith” at that time!

flyer is a member of one of many thousands of families in CA who bought properties many, many years ago and likely will not sell most of them. They will simply be handed down to children and grandchildren.

That’s why unless CA Props 58 and 193 are repealed, CA single-family inventory will continue to be tight in its coveted coastal areas and in cities such as SF, IMO.

There is little incentive for these families to let go of any of this prime RE unless, for some reason, they just find they “need the money.”

That’s not likely in the vast majority of cases, IMHO.

[bearishgurl]

I have no further comment re: ltsdd’s vitriol except to say that he/she obviously didn’t read (or comprehend) my prior posts on this thread.

Everything has been asked and answered by me multiple times. My latest post is nothing new :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone]And why don’t you wait until after March 1st before giving any more uneducated opinions and speculation about subjects you no nothing about.[/quote]

Don’t you mean, “know” nothing about??

Actually, I DO know what happens in these situations. That’s why I stuck my neck out here and made some “predictions.”

Time will tell who is telling it like it is and who is excitedly spouting garbage spewed from the MSM.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone]I think this is mostly political posturing. Other than the furloughs, I don’t think anybody knows for sure exactly where the cuts will be or how it will play out. The point of sequestration is it is supposed to be “across the board” so that by defintion will negatively impact every aspect of DoD.[/quote]

Okay, then. Instead of “posturing” along with the pundits, why don’t you wait until after March 1 to determine what, if any, non-events actually do take place in SD.

You might sleep easier if you take this stance 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ltsdd][quote=bearishgurl]The Federal workers that will be let go will retire under FERS….[/quote]…Now, back to the delusional assertions that you made[/quote]

Actually, this statement is partly in error. If the retirement applicant has ~30 yrs of service, he/she will be retiring under CSRS/TSP (w/o agency match) or CSRS/FERS (w/partial agency match). The combined ~70% retirement under CSRS for a 30 yrs service PLUS TSP contributions over most of the employee’s tenure should make the annuity 90%+ of his/her’s average of their top three years pay.

[quote=ltsdd]Please stop introducing more irrelevant bull to the thread and deviate from the original assertions that you made. Just please show me an example how someone could retire under FERS could realize the same income with the FERS and TSP.[/quote]

They could do it with FERS and TSP contributions with an employer match of 5%.

Why don’t you study the different allocations to determine which one was the best investment since 1982-1983?

Here, let me get you started:

https://www.tsp.gov/investmentfunds/shareprice/sharePriceHistory.shtml

I think this is a “good project” for you, ltsdd. And when you’re done with that, please get back to the Piggs with your “findings.”

At that time, I’ll have some more “exercises” up my sleeve for you to complete to determine the actual monthly retirement pay of our “theoretical longtime-SD DOD worker.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone]Are you seriously retarded BG? Just read today’s F-ing UT.[/quote]

The Navy has said that current budget problems could force it to slash $219 million of spending in San Diego, most of which was to be used to modernize and repair warships. Hundreds of millions more could be eliminated if an automatic budget cut known as sequestration kicks in on March 1. BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair notified 1,368 workers this week that they face the risk of being laid off due to the budget problems.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/22/shipyard-workers-layoffs-san-diego/

I understand that the UT will print anything “newsy” that moves but WHERE did the Navy actually state this?? Why is Congressman Peters and NASSCO/(SW Marine?) all riled up over this?

Re: mandatory cuts triggered by the 2011 Budget Control Act, WHERE is the directive, letter or report signifying the Navy’s intentions? And, if these plans were broadcast via word-of-mouth, WHO stated the Navy’s specific reduction-in-force and cancellation/nonrenewal-of-contract plans for SD and WHEN did they state this?

Advance thanks to any Pigg for their diligent research on this topic 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone]BG, although I know I’m wasting my time here trying to explain this to you, I do want to point out one important flaw in your thinking. You are exclusively focused on federal workers because all the news is talking about the furlough that was announced. But in the defense business there are far more contractors than federal workers. They are the ones who will get axed in the long run. A reduction in force for federal workers is rare and they will be the last ones to go. The impact on the non-federal defense workers is the problem. Do some research and get back to me.[/quote]

That’s not what the local news reports are saying, deadzone. They’re talking about some (DOD and Port District) civil service jobs and military functions being axed in SD.

Since no other Piggs have thus far, why don’t YOU take the challenge I posted earlier in the day and get back to me?

[quote=bearishgurl on February 22, 2013 – 9:18am.]Does any Pigg have any concrete evidence from a reliable source, (preferably someone close to the “horses mouth”) that Defense contracting is going to be cut or decimated after the “Federal sequester” takes effect March 1?[/quote]

[bearishgurl]

dupe

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl]ltsdd, it is clear here that you have no experience in government.

My kids had SEVERAL elementary-school teachers who didn’t retire until their 36th-38th year. One teacher didn’t retire until he had taught 40 consecutive 4th grade classes in two district schools. He had their class pics posted on one his classroom walls in chronological order. Yes, showing him standing next to his class sporting every variation of sideburns, full beard, horn-rimmed glasses and Angel Flight pants :=0

A LOT of my kids’ classmates parents were in those photos!

He and his colleagues stayed on for their love of teaching and the kids. CA public school teachers can retire with 30 yrs svc with full pay but many don’t.

They LOVE getting up in the morning and going to school.

[/quote]

Just have to clarify this point. Teachers do NOT get 100% of their pay upon retirement.

“The age factor is the percent of final compensation to which you are entitled for each year of service credit, determined by your age on the last day of the month in which your retirement is effective. It is set at 2% at age 60. The age factor is decreased if you retire before age 60 and increased to a maximum of 2.4% if you retire later than age 60. If you retire with at least 30 years of earned service credit, a 0.2% career factor will be added to your age factor, up to a maximum age factor of 2.4%.

Service credit is the accumulated period of time, in years and partial years, during which you receive creditable compensation for service as a member of the Defined Benefit program.

You may be able to purchase service credit or receive additional credit for unused sick leave.

CalSTRS estimates that the median benefit replaces 60% to 65% of a CalSTRS member’s pre-retirement income. The average monthly member-only benefit is $4,329.**”

http://ctainvest.org/home/CalSTRS-CalPERS/about-calstrs/calstrs-retirement-benefit.aspx

———-

So, even if a teacher works full-time, without any breaks in service, for 40 years, they would receive 96% of their pay. Of course, the number of teachers who actually work 40 full years is miniscule. Most of the “lifers” (usually women without families of their own) will work ~30 years, max. At 30 years, they make ~72% of their pay upon retirement. The vast majority of teachers never make it that long since the attrition rate is extremely high in the teaching profession.[/quote]

CAR, that is interesting that CalSTRS bases their retirement formula of age at time of retirement. Obviously, in CA, there is a HUGE incentive to work as a public school teacher until at least age 60. An avg of $4329 is much higher of a monthly annuity than I would have figured for a PS educator. I have at least a dozen relative-teachers and public school administrators in two “flyover” states who received 100% of their highest year’s pay as a retirement pay after 30+ years but their pay was obviously much lower than CA school districts pay. I think the the highest paid one is getting a retirement of a little more than half of that but he was a longtime PS Principal.

I should mention that unused sick leave can be substantial, amounting to thousands of hours for a “healthy” teacher where the district not have a “use or lose” policy. Perhaps this (unfair) policy is prohibited by CEA contracts.

I feel so fortunate that my kids were all educated by the highest-seniority, award-winning teachers. They had the good fortune to attend the best schools in the district at the time and that is where the high-seniority teachers flock to. They were ALL wonderful!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=paramount][quote=bearishgurl]

I actually have several current neighbors who are Federal retirees (some fairly recent) and they are ALL doing just fine.

[/quote]

Of course they are…I wouldn’t expect anything less.[/quote]

If you only owed ~$22K on your primary residence (currently worth ~$350K), or owned it “free and clear,” you would be “doing fine,” as well, paramount 🙂

[Author]

Posts