Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
ParticipantI just bought 4 Magellan Maestro 4370’s for my guys in the field. I was tired of paying extra for rental cars with GPS’s. Refurbished, they were $113, no sales tax and free shipping from Amazon. A lower end model, so it may not have all the bells and whistles some have. I just took a quick look at them so can only report what my guys had to say. 3 of the 4 worked flawlessly. Easy to figure out how to use and got my guys all around the Phoenix area for 5 weeks without problems. The 4th one tended to freeze up 1/2 a mile from the destination, so I returned it for a replacement unit. So far havent had any complaints about it.
My wife has been using a Magellan 4050 for about 3 years and loves it. Got me all over new england a couple summers ago. Other than confusion when I took the ferry from Long Island to CT, we became very good friends.
ParticipantI just bought 4 Magellan Maestro 4370’s for my guys in the field. I was tired of paying extra for rental cars with GPS’s. Refurbished, they were $113, no sales tax and free shipping from Amazon. A lower end model, so it may not have all the bells and whistles some have. I just took a quick look at them so can only report what my guys had to say. 3 of the 4 worked flawlessly. Easy to figure out how to use and got my guys all around the Phoenix area for 5 weeks without problems. The 4th one tended to freeze up 1/2 a mile from the destination, so I returned it for a replacement unit. So far havent had any complaints about it.
My wife has been using a Magellan 4050 for about 3 years and loves it. Got me all over new england a couple summers ago. Other than confusion when I took the ferry from Long Island to CT, we became very good friends.
ParticipantI just bought 4 Magellan Maestro 4370’s for my guys in the field. I was tired of paying extra for rental cars with GPS’s. Refurbished, they were $113, no sales tax and free shipping from Amazon. A lower end model, so it may not have all the bells and whistles some have. I just took a quick look at them so can only report what my guys had to say. 3 of the 4 worked flawlessly. Easy to figure out how to use and got my guys all around the Phoenix area for 5 weeks without problems. The 4th one tended to freeze up 1/2 a mile from the destination, so I returned it for a replacement unit. So far havent had any complaints about it.
My wife has been using a Magellan 4050 for about 3 years and loves it. Got me all over new england a couple summers ago. Other than confusion when I took the ferry from Long Island to CT, we became very good friends.
ParticipantInteresting that you should bring this up today. My small group just renewed Aetna for another year. But I had similar experience. The plan that most employees were on was discontinued and replaced with a plan with lower coverage, a higher co-pay and a 35% increase in premiums. We changed to a partially self-insured plan combined with a high deductible plan to cover the excess.
Unfortunately, this years increase was not exceptional. It follows last year’s increase of 35%. It was the 6th time since 2003 that annual increases were 25% or higher, the 3rd time the increases were more than 30%.
We had a $15 co-pay policy. Changing to a $40 co-pay policy, the premiums would still have been 9% higher than the previous policy. Even with the change to the partially self-insured plan, my premium rates are now 332% of what they were in 2002.
None of the parts of the new law which may help stabalize rates have taken effect, and won’t for a couple more years. But if HCR had any effect on this rate increase, it was only to gouge us as much as they can before the new law takes effect. But given what has happened over the last 10 years, it’s hard to prove HCR has had any effect at all. They get what they can, when they can.
ParticipantInteresting that you should bring this up today. My small group just renewed Aetna for another year. But I had similar experience. The plan that most employees were on was discontinued and replaced with a plan with lower coverage, a higher co-pay and a 35% increase in premiums. We changed to a partially self-insured plan combined with a high deductible plan to cover the excess.
Unfortunately, this years increase was not exceptional. It follows last year’s increase of 35%. It was the 6th time since 2003 that annual increases were 25% or higher, the 3rd time the increases were more than 30%.
We had a $15 co-pay policy. Changing to a $40 co-pay policy, the premiums would still have been 9% higher than the previous policy. Even with the change to the partially self-insured plan, my premium rates are now 332% of what they were in 2002.
None of the parts of the new law which may help stabalize rates have taken effect, and won’t for a couple more years. But if HCR had any effect on this rate increase, it was only to gouge us as much as they can before the new law takes effect. But given what has happened over the last 10 years, it’s hard to prove HCR has had any effect at all. They get what they can, when they can.
ParticipantInteresting that you should bring this up today. My small group just renewed Aetna for another year. But I had similar experience. The plan that most employees were on was discontinued and replaced with a plan with lower coverage, a higher co-pay and a 35% increase in premiums. We changed to a partially self-insured plan combined with a high deductible plan to cover the excess.
Unfortunately, this years increase was not exceptional. It follows last year’s increase of 35%. It was the 6th time since 2003 that annual increases were 25% or higher, the 3rd time the increases were more than 30%.
We had a $15 co-pay policy. Changing to a $40 co-pay policy, the premiums would still have been 9% higher than the previous policy. Even with the change to the partially self-insured plan, my premium rates are now 332% of what they were in 2002.
None of the parts of the new law which may help stabalize rates have taken effect, and won’t for a couple more years. But if HCR had any effect on this rate increase, it was only to gouge us as much as they can before the new law takes effect. But given what has happened over the last 10 years, it’s hard to prove HCR has had any effect at all. They get what they can, when they can.
ParticipantInteresting that you should bring this up today. My small group just renewed Aetna for another year. But I had similar experience. The plan that most employees were on was discontinued and replaced with a plan with lower coverage, a higher co-pay and a 35% increase in premiums. We changed to a partially self-insured plan combined with a high deductible plan to cover the excess.
Unfortunately, this years increase was not exceptional. It follows last year’s increase of 35%. It was the 6th time since 2003 that annual increases were 25% or higher, the 3rd time the increases were more than 30%.
We had a $15 co-pay policy. Changing to a $40 co-pay policy, the premiums would still have been 9% higher than the previous policy. Even with the change to the partially self-insured plan, my premium rates are now 332% of what they were in 2002.
None of the parts of the new law which may help stabalize rates have taken effect, and won’t for a couple more years. But if HCR had any effect on this rate increase, it was only to gouge us as much as they can before the new law takes effect. But given what has happened over the last 10 years, it’s hard to prove HCR has had any effect at all. They get what they can, when they can.
ParticipantInteresting that you should bring this up today. My small group just renewed Aetna for another year. But I had similar experience. The plan that most employees were on was discontinued and replaced with a plan with lower coverage, a higher co-pay and a 35% increase in premiums. We changed to a partially self-insured plan combined with a high deductible plan to cover the excess.
Unfortunately, this years increase was not exceptional. It follows last year’s increase of 35%. It was the 6th time since 2003 that annual increases were 25% or higher, the 3rd time the increases were more than 30%.
We had a $15 co-pay policy. Changing to a $40 co-pay policy, the premiums would still have been 9% higher than the previous policy. Even with the change to the partially self-insured plan, my premium rates are now 332% of what they were in 2002.
None of the parts of the new law which may help stabalize rates have taken effect, and won’t for a couple more years. But if HCR had any effect on this rate increase, it was only to gouge us as much as they can before the new law takes effect. But given what has happened over the last 10 years, it’s hard to prove HCR has had any effect at all. They get what they can, when they can.
Participant[quote=outtamojo]
I shoulda said” with the less than trend household formation we are seeing now “(with the expectation that we would get more household formation when the economy eventually improves).[/quote]
Now that you’ve changed what you said, it does make more sense. And just to clarify, I think what you’re saying is that recent lower household formation is a function of the lousy economy. Fair, and probably, at least in part, supported by the evidence. And that as the economy improves, higher new household formation will follow. The problem with that forecast is that solely relying on economic trends and ignoring demographic trends can lead to faulty conclusions.
The economy may improve, despite the downward trend that began in the early 80’s (thank you reaganomics!), thought it’s less than a certainty. What will not improve is the new household formation age group, which is a function of the birthrate from the late 70’s through the 90’s, and the babyboomers sharply reducing their housing footprint over the next 20 years.
The X factor is immigration.
Participant[quote=outtamojo]
I shoulda said” with the less than trend household formation we are seeing now “(with the expectation that we would get more household formation when the economy eventually improves).[/quote]
Now that you’ve changed what you said, it does make more sense. And just to clarify, I think what you’re saying is that recent lower household formation is a function of the lousy economy. Fair, and probably, at least in part, supported by the evidence. And that as the economy improves, higher new household formation will follow. The problem with that forecast is that solely relying on economic trends and ignoring demographic trends can lead to faulty conclusions.
The economy may improve, despite the downward trend that began in the early 80’s (thank you reaganomics!), thought it’s less than a certainty. What will not improve is the new household formation age group, which is a function of the birthrate from the late 70’s through the 90’s, and the babyboomers sharply reducing their housing footprint over the next 20 years.
The X factor is immigration.
Participant[quote=outtamojo]
I shoulda said” with the less than trend household formation we are seeing now “(with the expectation that we would get more household formation when the economy eventually improves).[/quote]
Now that you’ve changed what you said, it does make more sense. And just to clarify, I think what you’re saying is that recent lower household formation is a function of the lousy economy. Fair, and probably, at least in part, supported by the evidence. And that as the economy improves, higher new household formation will follow. The problem with that forecast is that solely relying on economic trends and ignoring demographic trends can lead to faulty conclusions.
The economy may improve, despite the downward trend that began in the early 80’s (thank you reaganomics!), thought it’s less than a certainty. What will not improve is the new household formation age group, which is a function of the birthrate from the late 70’s through the 90’s, and the babyboomers sharply reducing their housing footprint over the next 20 years.
The X factor is immigration.
Participant[quote=outtamojo]
I shoulda said” with the less than trend household formation we are seeing now “(with the expectation that we would get more household formation when the economy eventually improves).[/quote]
Now that you’ve changed what you said, it does make more sense. And just to clarify, I think what you’re saying is that recent lower household formation is a function of the lousy economy. Fair, and probably, at least in part, supported by the evidence. And that as the economy improves, higher new household formation will follow. The problem with that forecast is that solely relying on economic trends and ignoring demographic trends can lead to faulty conclusions.
The economy may improve, despite the downward trend that began in the early 80’s (thank you reaganomics!), thought it’s less than a certainty. What will not improve is the new household formation age group, which is a function of the birthrate from the late 70’s through the 90’s, and the babyboomers sharply reducing their housing footprint over the next 20 years.
The X factor is immigration.
Participant[quote=outtamojo]
I shoulda said” with the less than trend household formation we are seeing now “(with the expectation that we would get more household formation when the economy eventually improves).[/quote]
Now that you’ve changed what you said, it does make more sense. And just to clarify, I think what you’re saying is that recent lower household formation is a function of the lousy economy. Fair, and probably, at least in part, supported by the evidence. And that as the economy improves, higher new household formation will follow. The problem with that forecast is that solely relying on economic trends and ignoring demographic trends can lead to faulty conclusions.
The economy may improve, despite the downward trend that began in the early 80’s (thank you reaganomics!), thought it’s less than a certainty. What will not improve is the new household formation age group, which is a function of the birthrate from the late 70’s through the 90’s, and the babyboomers sharply reducing their housing footprint over the next 20 years.
The X factor is immigration.
Participant[quote=DWCAP]
What he means is that with more American households in the future, more new houses will be needed for them to live in. Therefore, long term, new housing is bullish.[/quote]
Then bullish would make sense. But what he said was
[quote=outtamojo]
Lack of building and less than trend household formation are bullish for prices in the far out future.[/quote]“less than trend” sounds like he’s saying that household formation is going down. Which I think is probably true. I’m shorting whatever he’s buying.
-
AuthorPosts
