Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Does anyone have a recent rough quote for a retired couple on CVX's retiree insurance, pre-65, the $5,000 per person deductable plan? Thanks.

Some people will always see the negative side of anything, even though it doesn’t necessarily exist. Those are are the malcontents among us, the ones who complain about everything and are bitter and unhappy mist of the time. Change that losing attitude, son.

Well.... Houston might be a streach ;-/.

@jzzp, yes so true, like Houston!

There is someone who sees the inner beauty of every sh-- hope place.

You may not realize that north Mississippi and north Alabama are excellent choices for retirees to go live. The standard of living is great, real estate is affordable and the overall tax exposure is lower than in other States. Look at the suburbs outside of Birmingham, AL and those outside Huntsville, MS. Do your homework and you might be surprised how nice it could be to go there to retire.

Who cares about Mississippi and Obamacare? I doubt that many CVX and ex-CVX employees live there. And what does that have to do with medical premiums? MS is one of the poorest states, so it makes sense that it would benefit from handouts. Mississippi also has the highest percentage of black residents in the country—37 percent. They tend to vote democrat.

“Mississippi is among the ten states whose uninsured population has decreased most since Obamacare took effect. The state's healthcare landscape now includes coverage available through the federally facilitated exchange, employers, the private marketplace, and programs such as Medicaid and CHIP.”....from state web site.

The State that I live in that has a law that prohibits denial of coverage based on a legitimate pre-existing condition such as crohns, MS. etc. is not a blue state at all, but an extremely red state and the only kind I will ever live in. That is not what a person below incorrectly and arrogantly guessed. He guessed California, one of the least if not the least retiree friendly states in the US. Not even close. Says a lot about the twisted mentality of those in the "layoffs" or concerned about being laid off category though. Focus on bettering yourself and working for a living, supporting yourself instead of what you can sponge/leech off others for free and you will be much happier and better off. Just a thought.

Government takeover of 20% of the economy is a LOT more radical than single payer... which basically just cuts the insurance companys out of the loop. It is very questionable if it would be constitutional... in fact I am quite sure it would not fly in the courts.

Medicare has very high approval ratings and low costs overall, so a more reasonable idea would be to offer Medicare to all as an option and roll into that any subsidies for the poor. I still strongly favor the Romney care mandate that everyone must pay something into the system, because at the end of the day we (the government) will get stuck with the bill if they get really sick. With that in place the government run Medicare and the remaining insurance companies would have to come up with better ways to get the free market medical system to become more efficient. There are already some interesting ideas how to do this coming out of the Berkshire Hathaway -Amazon collaboration...infusing technology and results-based compensation metrics into medical practice. If that works, and ineffective doctors and hospitals start going bankrupt, then I will start to believe free enterprise can fix our system.

The government had a hard time setting up a system to order insurance, so not sure it has the wherewithal to take over the whole banana even if it legally could. What it can do is help define a better playing field (regulations, data sharing structures, insentives) to focus free enterprise forces on solving the “real” problems... better care at lower cost!

Yes, good solution. We need the government to have full and complete control over the health care and pharmaceutical industries. They have done such a great job with everything else and that's just what Americans need and desire in the land of the free and home of the brave! Full government control over one of the most important aspects of everyone's lives! /s.

@gmxk, I agree with you, especially with the second paragraph. Solving the high cost and fairness in delivering healthcare to everyone is very complex with the current laws on the books. I feel that nothing of any consequence can be accomplished to fix the problem. I’m afraid the only solution is for the federal government to take complete control of the US medical and pharmaceutical industry. It’s rather clear to me it won’t fix itself. Insurance premiums and astronomical deductibles make it a tremendous burden for most middle class couples and families, not to even mention the poor in this country.

Let me guess... you live in California... a blue state. If you are not in state pool, how can you blame the ACA for your rate increases? Rates are controlled by individual insurance companies, not the government, and everyone’s rates have been skyrocketing for years with or without ACA. The ACA subsidies are paid for by general revenue, and not directly by your health care dollars (b--ch about the taxes you pay or the deficit increase to support ACA subsidies, far enough, not about your insurance rates). If anything the ACA subsidies are helping keep your insurance rates lower, because previously hospitals had to jack their rates to cover the poor that showed up in their emergency rooms with no insurance...and now more people have some insurance. Get rid of ACA, and watch for some huge rate increases across the board!

Before ACA this is how it worked here. You would get a policy that was guaranteed coverage as long as you never dropped. Rates for the plan would increase each year, but you were always offered a “new” plan at a lower rate. Then you got sick. No more offers for a new plan and the rates for the one you are in go up at an astronomical rate. You are still covered, sort of, but without the protection of a large employer pools you get completely f***ed.

@gynl, the State that I live in has a law that prohibits denial of coverage based on a legitimate pre-existing condition such as crohns, MS. etc. That was in place well before the enactment of the ACA. One of my family members that I cover is in that category. All that the ACA did was make our rates go up more than they ever had, nothing else. I was never in fear that I would lose coverage based on a pre-existing condition and the ACA did nothing to change that. I have no reason to lie to you.

In any event the purpose of the pre-existing condition denial is to prevent people from playing the system like waiting until they get sick to get coverage which is essentially fraud protection. Some would like you to believe it is a "throw grandma under the bus" provision but it is not.

-guif: the ACA has everything to do with my being able to get a policy at a group rate, because my wife has a pre-existing condition. We have always had insurance through employers. When she got sick, I decided to move to part time consulting as we have significant savings. This choice was only possible because I could continue to get insurance at group rates through the state ACA pool (and, no, my policy is not subsidized). The Republicans repeated attempts to undermine the insurance pools could leave me (and many others who are self employed) in a very bad situation!

The people who get free stuff provided by others who work are not complaining! Imagine that!

guif, All I know is that the ACA is helping me out considerably on costs. I’m retired and not working. Since I’m nearing Social Security age and have enough after-tax money to live on in combination with very meager distributions from my taxable retirement accounts, I’m able to get a great ACA plan for less than $75 a month. The ACA has been a benefit to me for the last 4 years. I’m not complaining. Neither would you if you were able to qualify.

"What ACA did was allow me to get similar coverage in early retirement" The ACA has nothing to do with that and did nothing of the such! . I was researching many options for health insurance far prior to the ACA and the options were greater and more cost effective, In TODAY's dollars, thank you very much! All the ACA did was LIMIT those options and make them more costly.

gjxa, You are correct, the insurance is part of the compensation that an employee earns and is provided by the employer. However, the republicans are only attempting to dismantle and rebuild a system that is extremely flawed, however unsuccessfully. It's no secret that they prefer a free-market, capitalist type system but that's besides the point. The problems that you speak of with the ACA were put in there by 100% democrat and essentially executive/politically motivated fiat (constitutional, because its not a tax, passed because it's considered a tax???????). At the time the ACA was passed, it did not have majority support of the Americans polled. That's just a fact. The Democrat's little baby was destined for failure and many supporting it even pointed that out, and that it was just the beginning and needed to be revised. Meanwhile, you pay for others who earned much more and are considerably more wealthy than you. And in other areas, many able bodied working age residents (legal and illegal) simply get free health insurance/care. Thank Ms. Pelosi and friends!

-gqwc: To be clear, you do not “pay” 200 mo. for health insurance...some of the payment for your plan is by the way of deferred compensation from your part time work and the $200 is after tax dollars you need to add to that pot. That is the traditional USA model and it works ok as long as you work for a larger company or a company in which no one gets unusually sick. What ACA did was allow me to get similar coverage in early retirement... although I have to pay the whole price in after tax money. Some have figured out ways to milk the system to get subsidies put in for the poor... but that is a different issue from simply being able to get insurance without being in an employer group. The republicans focus on destroying the ACA just makes is harder (even though, again, I pay full price!). A focus on improving health care efficiency will raise all boats!

@grdu you can disregard immature idiots like this "popcorn boy" poster gatb who trolls this site regularly just to stir up the pot and have nothing intelligent to contribute. There are quite a few like that on here. We appreciate and respect your opinion.

gnmw Thanks for the response and good luck to you also although you probably don't need luck. I think it's mostly the complainers on this site who will have the most difficulty since they refuse to put forth the effort that it takes to improve their situation.

gatb, I don't know what your deal is with the strange references and stupid adolescent internet acronyms(and I really don't give a crap) but I have nothing against the ACA , just the GOP obstructionists trying to take away the best thing that has ever happened to the US health care industry. Sure, it has it's faults and problems but those can be readily fixed and we are a lot better off today than we have been in years.

So what you are saying “popcorn boy” (aka-ROTFLOL-boy) is after all your big talk about how evil all the freeloaders are you have been shoveling it in from the ACA trough all along...as I always suspected!, because the loudest are always the biggest sinners! I, for one, agree some significant changes in ACA are needed (including closing the early retirement loophole), but think we are better fixing it rather than starting over with no alternative plan even on the table (let alone past into law).

Good for you -gqwc about the part time job you found and enjoy. Staying occupied with something you enjoy and also getting paid is all the better. Congratulations.

I am not the poster below but I pay less than $200 a month for 2 people including dental. I work part time also, semi-retired. I think that the family plan is not much more. Contrary to popular belief and what the Obarrassment administration wanted you to believe, retiring early does not come with free or subsidized health care at no cost and it really shouldn't when you think about it. I am not sure where they were going with the "encourage people to sit on their A$$" movement . More Votes for dems? wow. brain surgery. There is a "loophole" so to speak, not actually a loophole, but a great big gaping hole of failed consideration, as is most of the ACA, which allows wealthy retirees to pay close to nothing, with low(declared) earned income. I have too much income, even without working, to comply. However, having a part time job that I love is the best thing that I could ever have done. The best of both worlds. I strongly suggest considering it. I never enjoyed work as much as I do now. No pressure, get to hang with the younger folks, get half a year off, etc. Investments grow, Can leave at any time. etc.

It would seem that making “America great again” aims for the late 1800s when Rockefeller and a few other tycoons had all the wealth and the rest 99% pretty much worked from childhood until they dropped. Move over India, Nigeria, and the rest of the 3rd world... the USA is planning to pass you on the way to the cellar.

@gqyb, So true, so true, my podna. You should have not been born rich but at least worked for it like me. I have millions and the socialist pigs are paying for my healthcare(or rather I only pay $52 a month for 2 old sickly people) so I certainly hope that their dreaded ACA at least survives to coddle me to Medicare. Then I can continue to mooch off of the smart-a-- millennials who have so much disdain for us boomers as they go to work each day to pay for my socialist healthcare that they are so adamant about having more of!!! Keep it coming! And pass the popcorn, I need some to go with my single malt! I don't give a flip about my health anymore, I have millennial socialists killing themselves to pay for me through single payer, universal health care, and all sorts of different entitlements!! Keep complaining about how costly it is so that I can benefit! Good deal!

Both the republicans and democrats have absolutely no ideas to improve the health care system. Truth be told, over 90% of our collective knucklehead politicians don’t possess an effective acumen in economics, business or science. They are mostly masters of politics and backroom deals that benefit themselves, their friends and big donors. Whores [rhymes with oars] of a feather flock together.

The republicans have absolutely no ideas to improve the health care system...all their proposals are focused on one goal and that is to make the system collapse... so they can say “see we told you ACA would not work”. The problem with that idea is it is not just the “hated” subsidies for the poor that will go away. Much of the previous local hospital infrastructure that previously took on indigent care has moved to for profit... so their whole idea for lowering cost is to just push the bottom third in the gutter. To bad s---ers... you should have been born rich like me. As someone posted below, just do not get sick... if you do you must be a sinner do your own fault!

Aside from the children on summer break posting on this site, please respond to the post by fczv. Thanks.

Yes. I'd like that too. And after that I'd like a large cheeseburger, fries, and a chocolate malt. Thanks!

-fblh, Please define “pretty affordable” for us, because everything is relative in terms of affordability. Keep in mind that income for “working stiffs” is not the same as “retirees”, as one group is still earning a paycheck and accruing benefits and the other group is no longer pulling in a paycheck and their benefits are fixed. I’d like to for you to post a premium amount of what’s pretty affordable. Thank you.

I agree, we should have more options for affordable insurance outside of the workplace, I thought that was one of the objectives along with the dismantling of the abortion known as the ACA. That being to offer low cost, high deductible catastrophic event type policies which would keep many from going broke on a health event, but filter out the abusers a bit. For instance you couldn't go tie up the clinics for petty stuff like some do with no copay type policies.

However, the insurance that I have is very affordable and we are a pretty small company. less than 50 employees.

It won’t be very long before the majority of Americans realize that a single-payer healthcare system is desperately needed and will be the #1 voting concern on the ballot. Canada has it and the USA will soon follow. Our current system is broke and can’t be fixed. It will be scrapped and completely replaced.

-fxnw: Love it or leave it has always been the modo of cowards and the infirm. People willing to step up and work toward fixing it continue to be what makes America great. No we do not get what we pay for from our health care system... most of us pay too much into a system that wastes a huge percentage on ineffective endeavors and a few milk the system to ride on the coat tails of the rest.

Well if you think being a jerk is being a multi-millionaire and having others who are struggling to make ends meet almost fully subsidize my health insurance through the ACA, then I guess I am a big fat jerk!!! LOL I pay about $53 a month for Me and my spouse! Keep working, losers for my health insurance so I don't have to - LMAO!

fftf, please state your point if you have one. If not, your comment will be disregarded for the gibberish that it is, "Jerk".

fxxk, I simply suggest that you kindly move to Canada and leave us alone. I am perfectly happy with the health care that I receive and I do not paying more for better service, but that's just me. You get what you pay for.

Why are some so fearful that the "other" will get something undeserved that they will cut off their own foot to impede progress. Healthcare costs do not need to be a zero-sum game...the efficiencies of single payer are in reducing the overhead costs, not in the level of provided care. Assuming we as a society are not willing to let the indigent die in the streets with minor treatable ailments, we are better off making sure everyone gets basic preventive care rather than pulling folks into the emergency room for extraordinary measures after it is too late to make a real difference. Why is it that the Canadians can provide better care ("better defined by most all average outcome metrics) for "everyone" for less than half the cost we spend providing care for 2/3 of our population...there is something out of whack? I am not saying the Canadian system is right for us (USA), but rather pointing out that the current system is not working well for anyone (except maybe some healthcare investors...of which I am one, with holdings heavy weighted in healthcare stocks).