[joec]

Yeah, I have no experience with Blue Shield, but Anthem (Blue Cross) was a very negative experience…

Blue Shield seems much better in terms of their provider and doctor access.

[joec]

[quote=flu]Priced at $24/share

Openned at $31/share

Unfortunately, I didn’t get the full $10k allotment from Loyal3….Drat… Oh well..

Sell…[/quote]

Did much better than I thought it’d do…Maybe people are thinking things are still too bad which means the market will go higher for a few more years…

I just sold out of some of my holdings since I need the money…Market probably will roar another 20% now.

[joec]

I’d suggest it just depends on your situation…I don’t think anyone will know what will be best for you since:

Being a landlord isn’t for everyone.
What are you going to do with the sale proceeds?
You aren’t cash flowing currently where someone else who always cashflows may have a diff opinion.
What other properties/rentals do you have?
What’s your tax situation like?
How much other investments do you have?

As you can see, there are tons of questions to ask and since no one can see the future, it’s not possible to know what’s best.

I just sold out of a fair bulk of my stocks, but the decision is because I needed the cash proceeds so selling at an all time high is a plus…It can go higher, but basing your decisions on the “why you need to do it” (I need money)

is a better bet than the “maybe” or “might happen” (like property/stock can keep going up, they might change tax laws, etc…).

[joec]

I don’t think all dads aren’t disciplinarians…

My kid has told me multiple times that I’m not nice and mommy is nice…

I notice I also rarely swear so I have nothing to give up. My wife swears tons more than me and the other day, the kid asked what f*ck was.

[joec]

[quote=SK in CV]

It doesn’t work that way. Provider contracts (i.e., contracts between carriers and providers which outline how much providers will be paid for each service) are different, or at least can be different for each policy. Carriers don’t offer contracts on every policy to every provider and providers don’t necessarily accept each contract offered. So even if a carrier offers a similar policy both on and off an exchange, their reimbursement contracts to providers can be different for each, possibly resulting in at least slightly different provider networks. All perfectly legal.[/quote]

I was just commenting on what’s even accepted, not any rate/payments or reimbursement contracts. More of the “Do you take [fill in the blank insurance plan]?”

So as an example, I was saying if, say UCLA medical center doesn’t take Blue Shield ACA, then no matter what Blue Shield health plan you have, UCLA medical will never take it since they don’t have a provider/insurance contract with Blue Shield.

At least that’s what I’ve read.

Again, this is all self purchase and company plans might be different.

[joec]

[quote=bearishgurl]

joec, I have a Blue Shield of CA Platinum PPO from Covered CA. It took a l-o-o-ong time to get my membership card, but so far, I am happy with it and they have paid 90% of the bill for one “expensive test” so far in 2014 and all my current providers take the plan. I just found out that Sharp Rees Stealy is not on their provider list (not sure about Sharp hospitals) when I tried to access care in a local Sharp Rees Stealy Urgent Care clinic a few weeks ago on a weekend. They sent me to a nearby “US Healthworks” urgent care clinic who treated my minor injury just fine and I’m all healed up now.

IIRC, Sharp Platinum EPO was going to be ~$125 per month more for me and I needed national provider access, due to being on the road several weeks per year. Blue Shield of CA belongs to the BCBS National Provider Directory in the 48 contiguous states and even worldwide:

http://provider.bcbs.com/

Absent needed emergency care while out of county, Sharp EPO only covers the bills of providers within their EPO …. all located in San Diego County.[/quote]

Thanks for sharing…and confirming what I found out since in December, Anthem actually listed them as a provider as well.

We wanted to use the Sharp Rees-Stealy hospitals (and also Rady’s Children) since my kids have been going there since birth and Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield just didn’t offer them at all…so we switched.

Glad to hear you’ve been happy with it so far and your current medical professionals still takes your Blue Shield.

Just hate dealing with any issues with the Blue companies since it takes so long to get anyone on the phone.

[joec]

[quote=SK in CV]

I’ve seen a lot of articles and comments (elsewhere, not here) indicating a lot of confusion about “ACA plans” or “Obamacare plans”. With minor exception, all private insurance is now ACA compliant, irrespective of whether the plan is provided through an employer, purchased on a state or the federal insurance exchange, or purchased privately outside the exchanges. Effectively, ALL insurance is now an “ACA plan”.

In some states, some carriers have identical plans available both in and outside the exchange. And identical means identical, the exact same provider network. But there is no requirement that carriers offer identical plans off the exchange. In some states, carriers offer no off-exchange policies. And there is no requirement that provider networks be similar. Nothing about this is new. Big carriers like Anthem and Aetna have always had dozens of plans and each one had their unique provider network. Often providers will contract for some carrier plans but not others.[/quote]

Yes, you are very correct that all plans are now ACA compliant.

Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but I’ve read that if a provider network isn’t contracted to be offered through ACA, they also won’t be offered through private purchase directly outside ACA neither.

So this point you mention isn’t correct from what I’ve seen and have personally experienced first hand:

”
Big carriers like Anthem and Aetna have always had dozens of plans and each one had their unique provider network
”

I’ve read that the networks are the same whether it’s ACA or private purchase.

I don’t know about employer plans since that’s probably totally different.

My point being:

My kids wanted to use Sharp facilities via Anthem Blue Cross outside of ACA. Anthem isn’t contracted with Sharp currently so if you have Anthem, you can’t go to a Sharp Rees-Stealy Hospital/Medical facility (again, I don’t know about employer plans).

Maybe someone with Anthem Blue Cross (non-employer since I think that’s a totally different market) can state they HAVE been able to use Sharp Hospitals with Anthem…but when I called Anthem, they couldn’t find anyway to get that so we had to all switch…

Again, this is from my own real life experience as I was rejected actually AT the Sharp hospital so take it for what it’s worth.

[joec]

[quote=bearishgurl]

TemekuT, it appears we’re both in the same boat. I have spoken to a third broker in SD last week and he told me that, even though Covered CA’s website and charts do not indicate that tax credits are available for anything but the “Silver Plan” (2nd from the bottom plan), he was certain they would be available to help pay for the Gold or Platinum Plan. I have a few unanswered questions about ALL of the plans on the exchange, mainly regarding access and choice. I understand the differences in the co-pays and all of the plans offered by Covered CA have low deductibles. But I’m wondering if access and provider choice are the same on all of them. If it is, then the Silver Plan would be the way to go because it is, by far, the cheapest. But if access and choice are better or much better on the Gold or Platinum plan, then those plans merit looking into.

I’m waiting to see which of the exchange’s plans will be administered by CA carrier Anthem Blue Cross. That will undoubtedly be the plan with the most choice.

I don’t care as much about the cost of copays but want preventative care (incl periodic “expensive” tests) covered at least 75%.

The “Bronze Plan” appears to be geared towards 20-somethings (who generally have little need for any services outside of basic preventative care).

I’m also in the 55-60 age group and, at first blush, it appears the top three plans on the exchange will have monthly premiums between $557 and $866 month (abt 50%-250% higher than my current mo premiums). Even though I currently have a higher deductible ($5K) and coinsurance requirement ($3K), I have the ultimate in nationwide access, the ultimate in provider choice and 100% of my preventative care is covered (incl “expensive” tests and scans). In addition, my copays for office visits are less than those on the “Silver Plan.” (My particular plan configuration is “grandfathered” and thus hasn’t been offered to new enrollees since before the PPACA became law in March of 2010.)

I’m so sorry to hear about your sister, TemekuT. My sister never drank or smoked but was a road/sky warrior 8-12 business days per month for many, many years so had to learn to regularly sleep on planes, live in hotels and dine in restaurants alone or with colleagues for nearly every meal. When she returned home, she spent her precious time watching her kids sporting events and readying her suitcase for the next trip instead of going to the gym. She even traveled extensively while expecting and a few weeks after the births of her children. Luckily, she had competent caregivers and a supportive spouse, who took care of her until the end. In hindsight, I feel her lifestyle took a toll on her health in that it possibly contributed to a late diagnoses. She wasn’t obese but became a little overweight in her forties. I believe her cancer was inherited but will not know for certain for at least another year when I will be able to return to the east coast and pay for genetic testing. I’m worried about my kids as well and, even if it skips me, I’m worried about my nieces and nephews.

If a “single-payor system” is the direction this country ends up taking, I don’t have a problem either with subsidizing the health premiums of unlucky people like our sisters. But I’m with you in that I don’t want to subsidize the premiums of people who are eating, smoking, drinking and drugging themselves into early graves.

Due to the sheer volume of currently uninsured people in CA who will qualify for tax credits to obtain health coverage on one of Covered CA’s plans, I just feel their need will be great. Throughout 2014 and 2015, (if this group continues to consistently pay the monthly balance of their premiums after their tax credits), they will become established with primary care providers and specialists. In doing so, they will be taking up a LOT of appointment time (meaning a 45 min appt instead of 5-15 mins) because many of them haven’t seen a health provider in decades and will undoubtedly encounter many surprises. I just feel these provider groups will be swamped and not know how far apart to space appointments and possibly have to stay open evenings and Saturdays to accommodate all the new insureds, along with their regular longtime patients. Going to the doctor will be like going to traffic court. These problems will severely lessen the quality and quantity of care for everyone, IMHO, if the provider list for all of the exchange’s plans are the same.

If the above happens, not only do I see a lot of (very established) providers retiring or relocating, I see a lot of boomers leaving large CA urban areas and flocking to the “nicer” rural areas (ex: Lake Tahoe, Mammoth Lakes, Mendocino, Solvang … even the Rockies) where there aren’t so many people (the previously uninsured and newly-minted US citizens) vying for appointments with the same provider groups. I’ll be right behind them.[/quote]

Not sure if anyone has used their ACA coverage yet, but I HAD Anthem Blue Cross thinking they had a good network, but their coverage and doctor/hospital access is EXTREMELY limited. Also, based on the law, ACA coverage should be the same as their regular plans in terms of doctor/hospital access so if they don’t have it in ACA, they probably would not have it even if you purchased outside of ACA (no idea on grandfathered plans).

There was just an article published this week I think investigating that they misled consumers in CA as to which doctors they even had access to so I’d recommend everyone who has Anthem to check to see if they can even access the doctor they wanted to. I know I signed up specifically for Anthem since the doctor was on the list, but low and behold, it was a lie and they weren’t.

I changed our plan right after I couldn’t be seen. Also, getting support and talking to ANYONE at Anthem is incredibly hard and they are the WORST company to deal with. I’m still waiting for a billing issue currently.

We eventually went with Sharp Health since it’s much smaller and when you call, someone picks up immediately actually and you aren’t in a phone tree…It was also cheaper amazingly.

They AREN’T national though so if you have to pick someone who is, you’re more limited…(honestly, who needs national anyways?)

I never hated Kaiser, but it seems like a lot of people do (like my wife) and I’ve probably picked them instead if not for Sharp.

[joec]

[quote=CA renter]
All that being said, if the cultural and language barriers were the crux of the problem, why do so many Asian students do so well, especially when one considers the fact that their languages and cultures are even more dissimilar than many of those who perform poorly on these tests? …Of course, some would argue that the people coming over from China, Japan, Korea, etc. are wealthier (therefore, more intelligent) while the people coming from Latin America and Africa are more likely to be the downtrodden because they are more likely to be descendents of slaves, or people who weren’t doing well in their native Latin American countries, so made their way over here. Then, we’re right back to, “I just don’t know.”[/quote]

Being one of the asian people who came here, I think it’s really just culturally, the focus is on academics over really much anything else…Unlike in Latin America perhaps where you have baseball players, soccer stars, etc…In Asia, it’s all about doing well on those entrance exams because if you don’t get in, you future life/career in those asian countries is going to be extremely limited…

In Asia, there isn’t as many second chances like in the US and it’s not as easy to just start some internet company and make billions.

Overall, I think asians tend to just put more (ALL) their focus on academics and are willing to sacrifice everything (no retirement savings, live in in-laws/parents/whatever, no sports, fun, friends) to get there…From all the studies I’ve read, after like 3 generations, they revert to the typical Caucasian family as well so it’s more of an immigrant phenomenon as well.

At the end of the day, the immigrant from India/Asia/wherever simply wants it more than someone else…

A lot of parents here want their kids to get along with other people, make friends, etc…I don’t think a lot of old asian families cared about that (maybe they play with their extended family more).

[joec]

[quote=nla][quote=joec]Yeah, I believe UCs (the “tier 1/2” ones) are pretty hard to get in now…

I’ve read especially UC Berkeley and UCLA being the toughest…(probably depending on if you want to live in nor cal or so cal…)

Then, I think UC Davis and UC San Diego are just a step below those 2.

For the people with HS kids, maybe they can share if they applied/were able to get in. It seems much harder now though from all I’ve read.
[/quote]

I have a daughter who just graduated from HS. She was accepted to all UCs that she applied to including UCLA and Berkeley. In fact she was admitted as a Regent scholar at UCLA but she’s heading to an Ivy League school. It’s getting harder now to get in to UCLA and UC Berkeley but for the most part, acceptance to a UC is pretty much predictable compared to the elite private schools. If you have perfect to near perfect GPA and a decent SAT/ACT plus respectable EC’s/awards, you’re pretty much a shoo-in to UCLA/Berkeley. You can’t really say that to elite private schools since they have other qualifications and categories to fill (Under represented minorities, Athletes, legacies, donors, international, etc.).[/quote]

Thanks for sharing…I think going to an Ivy is a better bet myself. UCs have less budget, harder to get classes, more crowded, isn’t as “cheap” anymore with financial grants…

Not sure how Ivy schools are, but felt UCs had a lot of weeding and 1/3 of the classes, someone had to fail (engineering) and retake the class or drop out of the major.

For your daughter, with grants/forgivable aid, was the cost just as good or close to the UCs as well? I keep reading it’s not as cheap anymore.

[joec]

I have kids and I don’t mind people saying “I can’t stand kids.”

You have to understand for them to say/think this, probably they were at some theater, restaurant, etc…where the kids there also were very poorly behaved. People are made up of their experiences and it’s taboo to have any prejudices nowadays.

If you choose to ignore people who have some, feel perfectly ahead. That’s your choice. It shouldn’t be used in some unlawful actions like hiring, housing, etc since that’s illegal, but I think everyone is racist/prejudice to some degree that it will affect all decisions a little.

I agree that society doesn’t allow freedom of thought. You say anything like “I hate dogs!” and people think you are the like the equivalent of being Hitler…(maybe I got bitten or mauled?)

I think people just need to be more tolerant and accept that some people aren’t like us and it’s ok for others to ignore other people or have prejudices.

[joec]

I still find it hard to believe that if you took different race and economic backgrounds of kids maybe aged 2 or younger, there would be much difference in IQ…

The young age of 6 would start having differences due to economic impact (like most wealthy kids with a stay at home mom or people who can afford preschool) would obviously do better on IQ or other tests because they have had this interaction or game before, but I have strong doubts that given the same pre-school opportunity, someone of a certain color/race/parent with lower IQ will score lower than someone else.

Is there a study stating this? Again, I am removing poor economic environments where the young kid may worry about being shot daily and be malnurished vs hereditary IQ genes being passed to the next guy…

[joec]

The best is watching a 11:10am matinee of a brand new movie. You can yell or whisper and hear the echo of your voice in the movie theater.

Loved taking time off…

Yes, it’s really all it’s cracked up to be.

[joec]

I agree that kids will suck up all your time…When they are awake, you really won’t have time for much else since they will want your attention so you can’t tell them to read a book and leave me alone…

That said, like someone else said, the 1st 2 years, you probably can play games or watch TV…I’d say to really enjoy it since you won’t get to do it as much after they are older and if it’s an activity you enjoy, do it as much as you can now.

After that, you have to decide what you want your life to be like (all for the kids, give up everything?).

I don’t think it matters as much what the dad does. Like my parents never used computers and we did growing up. Also, I’m sure Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, you name any tech company would’ve NEVER been started if the founders weren’t allowed to play with computers early and play games early so is it really that bad? Just monitor use and don’t let the kid EVER get it in their head that they can say no or they set the rules. I’ve seen a lot of other kids not so well disciplined and are wild outside. Most likely, they “won” some early battles and do as they please. Remember that letting a kid do whatever they want ISN’T helping them at all actually. I know a kid who is allowed ice cream for breakfast…

I’ve also heard/seen cousins which supposedly was led by a tiger mom and weren’t allowed any TV time at all, last time we saw them to eat lunch, the kids had both their eyes glued to either an ipad or a gamepad…throughout the whole lunch…not sure how good that worked out.

I don’t know how effective it is if you have to work and are already worn out (pick your battles)…especially if all their friends/other family cousins have these toys/phones so I’d just set boundaries/guidelines/time restrictions, etc…was never a fan of banning it all since that doesn’t each people how to manage their own time/money/what’s too much, etc…It’s better if they learn how to do it at a younger age.

Another point not discussed so far is we don’t hit our kids since studies supposedly show hitting doesn’t help…I got hit plenty…no wonder I’m so screwed up…so maybe they are right…

congrats and good luck! Life is forever changed and over with kids and your time is all gone now.

studies also consistently show that parents with kids are not as happy as married couples without…I don’t disagree with this, but like many things in life, it’s not just about being the happiest I guess and if we wanted that life experience (which can’t be described if you don’t have kids), just do it and live with it…I’m sure the relationship with the spouse forever changes as well.

[joec]

[quote=CA renter]

Ideally, every student could learn at his/her own individual pace, but that kind of learning might not be evident on a state test as some students might hyper-focus on one thing to the detriment of all of the other subjects, etc.

FWIW, the reason we started homeschooling was because our “gifted” child was 2-3 grade levels above her class in certain areas, and at grade level in other areas, but the principal wouldn’t allow her to be in a pull-out program because they didn’t believe in it for students below third grade. The teacher was awesome and fully supportive, but the principal/school district had rules that prevented her from doing what was best for our child. The teacher was not able to spend the time specifically with our one child while she had 20+ students who, technically, needed more help; and I never held this against her because I could see what she was dealing with when I volunteered in the classroom. She helped me talk my DH into homeschooling at the parent-teacher conference.[/quote]

I think the new Poway school is doing this where the kids just do classwork based on ability…You could have some kid good in math in 1st grade study with 3rd graders I believe, etc…

It seems like it’s being done in numerous schools in the bay area as well so like with the teacher issue, things can change if people want to and teachers aren’t resistant to it…

A part of me wonders if the teacher/principal is supportive of your home schooling because at the end of the day, they just wanted you to stop bothering them and go away. 🙂

I know as a business owner, I really don’t want a lot of problem customers or people who make my job harder than it needs to be. Yes, we’re all a little lazy and have our own problems.

[Author]

Posts