[no_such_reality]

[quote=AN][quote=Hobie]Not to drift the thread too much.. but this shows the construction of the Tesla.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_lfxPI5ObM%5B/quote%5DI wonder how this differs from other production line.[/quote]

It doesn’t, that’s what the lines in Detroit looked like in the 90s, except more people sitting around at picnic tables playing cards.

And the plants were grungier and dirtier from having 50 years of work in them.

[no_such_reality]

Citydweller, The deductible applies to the out of pocket maximum. The OOPM, is $8850, not $8850+$2950. For the bronze plan, the OOPM is $6350, a mere $1350 over the deductible. Basically, a catastrophic coverage plan where you pay most of your health bills until you get into big numbers.

One thing to look at is the non-provider coverage level on your current plan and compare when available to the other plans.

When you get closer, you’ll also want to verify that the doctors in the EPO. Compared to an employer plan, the number of doctors is about 1/2. Not sure how it compares to their previous individual plans.

[quote=citydweller]I’m looking at the benefits page of my current policy (Anthem/Blue Cross), it shows a deductible of $2,950 and then “Participating and Non-participating provider Copayment/Coinsurance Maximum” of $8,850. I take this to mean my annual max out of pocket is $11,800. My monthly premium is $752 (and yes, I’m a boomer, mid-50’s)

I’m again looking at the Bronze plans, the Anthem EPO is only $388 per month, which means I would save $4,368 per year just in premium costs and still be able to stay within the Anthem network.

The deductible for this bronze plan is $5,000, which is ok with me if I’m saving over $4,000 in premium payments per year, and would still have to hit my deductible of $2,950 (on my current plan) even after paying $9,024 annual premium.

Also, the bronze plan has an annual max out of pocket of $6,350. Am I missing something, or does it make sense to switch to this lower cost plan?

I really appreciate everyone’s comments. I very seldom have medical bills and so have very little knowledge of how this all works, but I would like the security of knowing I have good coverage if I need it.[/quote]

[no_such_reality]

There is one PPO available, Blue Shield in the San Diego region.

It covers 50% for out of network providers.

The Anthem EPO, also covers 50% for any out of network providers for emergency purposes.

In LA, the Anthem EPO has 8839 doctors in network. HealthNet, a much smaller competitor has 2316.

In San Diego, HealthNet isn’t a viable option, IMHO, they only have 216 primary care doctors in network.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=citydweller]I’ve just been looking at the Covered California sight and it appears I don’t qualify for any tax credits (I’m single with good income). However, it looks like I can sign up for the Kaiser Bronze 60 HSA HMO for $392 per month ($4,500 deductible and maximum out of pocket for one person is $6,350). I currently have an individual plan thru Anthem/Blue Cross which costs $720 per month ($2,950 deductible and max out of pocket is $11,810).

It has been years since I’ve even reached my current deductible, so the cheaper plan seems like a good idea.

I have a couple questions, Does anyone have experience with Kaiser and would you recommend it? Also, does “maximum out of pocket” really mean what it says? In other words, once I’ve spent $6,350 in medical bills in one year, is EVERY other bill paid by the insurance?[/quote]

Any reason you’re not looking the Anthem/Blue Cross EPO or HSA/EPO that is cheaper than the Kaiser one? Kaiser has 7 million members in California. Basically, 1 in 5 Californians is covered by Kaiser. Your service level will be largely dependent on your ability deal with the system. There’s horror stories, but horror stories are common place across any group that is that large.

As for OOPM, yes and no. The kicker is they’ll cover the bills that are medically necessary. So no optional treatments once you hit the limit, but if you get hit by a bus, you’re covered.

[no_such_reality]

Well, my current 2012 Odyssey has a 7.3 second 0-60 time, gets a combined 25MPG and runs about 30MPG on long highway runs, ie. Phoenix. I know the Sienna is a 7.7 0-60. Mini-vans aren’t the dogs they used to be. But I agree, just double up the 60KW battery pack may be enough.

Not sure who their target market is on the Model-X, it’s twice the cost of the vast majority of performance SUVs, so they must be targeting that very small BMW X5 M & Mercedes AMGs that tilt in at roughly $100K.

[no_such_reality]

Frankly, I’d love to just double that battery pack and drop a single front drive system in to replace the powertrain on my Honda Odyssey.

The Model S and my Odyssey weigh the same, so not sure how much weight I lose by taking my power train out and how much I gain with those battery packs, but seems like I should be able to push the mileage out to about 400 miles.

Of course, the operative question is, is that 85kw battery pack $10000+ a pop to produce.

If I could turn my $35K touring Odyssey into a $50K EV with 400 miles, it’s a winner.

I guess those gull wing doors kind of serve the same purpose.

[no_such_reality]

If you’re under 400% FPL in SoCal, age doesn’t matter much, ACA tax credits, drive your cost for coverage to a common point.

San Diego has an anomaly, in that the HealthNet plans for older people actually have a premium that is below the ACA credit level which is determined by taking (I think) the average of the three lowest plans and calculating a max percentage of income to purchase health coverage.

In other words, whether you are 20, 40 or 60, at a certain income level, ACA credits push your net cost for coverage to ~4% (at $18K single) range and I think 10% at 400% FPL. It doesn’t matter how much the average premium costs, the tax credits push it to same level.

[no_such_reality]

[quote]”Depending on income you may earn outside of Trader Joe’s” — i.e., another job — “we believe that with the $500 from Trader Joe’s and the tax credits available under the ACA, many of you should be able to obtain health care coverage at very little if any net cost to you,” Bane wrote in the memo.[/quote]

Actually, much more cost effective for Trader Joes to let the government pick them up. I just punched it into CoveredCA.com and assumed $18K/yr in income (29 hours a week at $12) and came up with a 87% silver plan for $63 a month. Of which Trader Joes is kicking in $500.

Basically, out of pocket cranks in at $20/month for an 87% of costs health coverage.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Jazzman]I don’t think it’s always about, or should always be about “what’s in it for us?” We are all part of humanity. If an old man drops his wallet on the sidewalk, by picking it up for him, you are not calculating what the gain is (I hope).[/quote]

When you’re dealing with it as a country, you should always understand what’s in it for us.

Particularly, when contemplating messing in another country’s civil war.

BTW, here’s the people the let’s do something crowd will support.

And yes, that’s an execution.

[no_such_reality]

For some reason, most of this thread reminds me a HBO episode of real sex where a guy was talking about having the surgery where the cut tendon or something in your penis so it hangs bigger and how important it was to know when it got tough in business that he had a bigger Johnson in his pants.

Not a metaphorical I got bigger brass balls, but a literal comfort in fighting out the business negotiation because with the surgery, he thought his penis was bigger than theirs. Just one of those LOL memories.

I have great appreciate for our forefathers and mothers. As another mentioned previously, the average subsistence Ghana, could probably kick all of our asses in a fist fight and definitely work us physically into the ground.

Work ‘back then’ was work and they were lean and strong. The Voyagers carried multiple packs weighing 90 lbs each. These aren’t big burly guys, they’re lean guys, probably weighing in at 140-150 pounds, lugging 270 lbs of pack over a half mile slick muddle hilly mosquito infested portage. And back for more.

Driving railroad spikes all day. Loading hay bales. digging ditches, etc.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=SD Realtor]”Low wages are the same as the pollution coming from the car. The argument isn’t that the laborer is doing something that deserve more, the argument is that if the product or service cannot be produced unless it uses sub-living wages, then as society, we’re better off without it”

Yes we may be better off without it. Except we would eliminate perhaps millions of jobs.

It can be argued that every single morsel of fast food is pollution. So by the logic above, (and I agree) that as a society we are much better off without any fast food. So zap every fast food job in America.[/quote]

Would we eliminate millions of jobs? They said that about LA’s hotel living wage thing too. Net effect pretty much zero.

If it forces innovation, how many jobs will be gained because engineers and tech companies expand into new automation efforts?

How many jobs are gain by low wage workers having more money? It’s like the farm labor debate, 88 cents/lb grapes and farm workers paid minimum wage or just illegal. Labor is a big part of farm costs, but not that big. Double the wages and grapes will be what? $1.20? The Horror!

[no_such_reality]

The EV1 would smoke a martin too. It’s the direct drive that does it.

Now they just need to figure out how to cut the price by 2/3rds.

[no_such_reality]

How’s that seat do in a rear end collision? I can’t tell if it’s about the same distance from the rear as a 3rd row minivan (about 2 feet) or if it’s much closer to the rear of the car.

They’re beautiful cars if you can afford one, but $80K before tax incentives is pretty steep compared to sub-$20K and $150/month in gas for many really good sedans.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=spdrun]The real question is “why was the Obamacare law written in such a fucking boneheadedly stupid fashion?”

Instead of making subsidies end at 400% of FPL, they should have gradually tapered subsidies to zero depending on family income, number of dependents, etc[/quote]

It is gradually tapered.[/quote]

Not really, at 299% of FPL, you get a $986/month Tax credit, at 399%, you get $863/month credit, at 400% FPL, you get $0.

IOW, two 64 year olds making $62,039/year get a $863/month credit where as those same two at $62,040/yr, get $0/month credit.

The benefits taper much better in the 100% to 200% FPL range, but a quick cliff shows up at the higher ages for 400% and it’s a $5000-$7000/year difference.

The curve is basically designed so that 10% of your income is health care premiums and then hits a cliff at 400% FPL, where it can jump to 26% for a $1 income difference.

[no_such_reality]

I’m still worried about the expense curve between ages 55-65.

That silver/enhanced silver/gold plan is a little squirrely. If you’re really expecting a hospital visit, then Platinum may be more cost effective. The silver has a deductible and the gold doesn’t and the cost difference is the amount the deductible. Silver has a higher primary care visit but a lower brand drug expense after a $250/deductible. Then there are minor difference in the cost of certain coverage items.

[Author]

Posts