Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

@2Fxvz - First off, don’t bring up Copenhagen, Denmark as a comparison. That country doesn’t have the resources or clout to match the quality of a US Universal healthcare system. Aren’t you happy not to be living there anymore? Of course you are.

Second of all, Universal healthcare is inevitable, maybe not with this new congress, but don’t count out it can’t happen under a Trump Administration. Whether in the next 6 years or 10, you will live to see it happen.

And Third, you are wrong again on the ACA, which was invented as a stepping stone to Universal Healthcare. Too bad it didn’t get enough traction because the law failed to go a step further. It should have included tort reform and required all doctors and hospitals to accept all ACA enrollees, just for starters.

You were right about healthcare costs being more affordable a long time ago, until corporate greed, fraud and inefficiencies got out of hand without a check on things from our rotten and lazy politicians.

-2Fxvz: your post was of little interest the first go, and the second it is just sad. Get a life.

2Dgtq - Wrong, Do the math. not 1/2 the cost and much worse. Source: I lived in Copenhagen, DK, for many years.

2Dkqu - Wrong again, not inevitable with this administration and not with the new (dem house. rep-senate)

2Dvdq, wrong again. We had a much better system that didn't have near as much escalation of costs annually prior to the introduction of the ACA.

Three strikes, you're out.

I have much better threads/sites to read and post on where they at least have a little knowledge of reality and facts. None here. Nothing but illiterate losers with no sites to post on so they gravitate to the "anonymous" poster layoff site to post lies and spew gibberish. Pathetic. buh bye!

-2Ejvi: While I agree something dramatic is needed to get costs and benefits of our medical system more aligned (increasingly efficiency), life expectancy in 1960 was 55 vs. 75 today so such comparison might not be apples and apples.

Something drastic needs to be done about the greed and abuse from the pharmaceutical and medical industry in our country. The U.S. national health expenditure is now at 18.2 percent of GDP, while that number was only 5 percent in 1960. Don’t go off your rails making comparisons or distinctions between the decades since the grotesque differences in percentages is based on national Gross Domestic Product which is a valid normalization factor. The skewed cost difference is owed to corporate greed for profits, frivolous litigation by lawyers, fraud and inefficiencies throughout.

-2Dkqu: I agree that the costs of our current system are out of control (despite what some suggest this has nothing to do with the ACA). Free market competition does not work to control costs, particularly when there is no way to compare prices and results given by all the different independent providers. I also suspect we will end up with single payer, which will be government takeover of the heath care industry (if the government is the only payer, it will have to be the one to set the prices and supervise that the care provided is up to snuff). An ACA like system following a Romney-care like construction was the only real alternative ... and the Republicans are scuttling that. They will complain about single payer the loudest, but it would appear the offer no alternative.

Universal healthcare in the US is inevitable. Costs under this current system are spiraling out of control. Everyone will get a Medicare-style of coverage, which all working people will pay and free for the unemployed and retired. It will cover about 80% of all medical expenses. If a person wants to purchase a supplemental policy to help cover most of the other 20%, they can go to the private insurance market. All medical procedures will have published prices, all Doctors will be obligated to participate and pharmaceutical companies will have their pr-scrip-ion brand medications go generic in 5 years rather than 10. Allow worldwide pharmaceuticals to be imported after a thorough vetting by the FDA.

-2Dcrc: I do not know where you get your info, but a LOT of other “western” countries have universal health care and the result is about 1/2 the cost for BETTER average outcomes. I am not suggesting we can take someone else’s system and apply it directly, but we waste 1/4 of our payments on paperwork, and half of the rest on care for terminal patients who will be dead in a year anyway. We can do better, but it is hard to see a system that will be more effective without universal primary care (particularly if we are going to foot the bill for everyone’s end of life care anyway!). Call it socialism (bogeyman!) if you like, I call it smart to look around to see who figured out a better system. From what I see there are lots of examples to learn from!

2Ctgk, So you want universal, socialized health care. There are a few countries that have that, albeit at a very hefty price(to the society as a whole, not the perceived, imaginary "free" cost - lol) and the outcome is inconsistent, unreliable and unpredictable. Nothing's stopping you and your ilk from moving there. Why stick around and keep trying to ruin it for everyone else who have a choice?

I suppose you’re right, 2Ccth. But old age comes to everyone who doesn’t die young. A universal mandate that would cover everyone, including the employed would be the best “one size fits all” pool, don’t you think? Maybe that is the solution that the US needs to undertake. Once we’re all in the same pool, collectively we will all point our wants and grievances in a single direction- toward improving healthcare even more of everyone, young, old, sick or healthy.

-2Chjm: One pool pricing...Will not work without an insurance mandate or no coverage for preexisting conditions; Otherwise only the sick will sign up and the costs will have to be very high. With large company employee insurance pools everyone is in, in good health and bad...so the costs are spread across a predictable population. Any plan to address health care for the general population needs to solve this problem one way or another (mandate, no coverage for preexisting conditions, huge premiums for those with pre-existing conditions ....make your choice). While we are at at, consider that by any fair accounting, old age is a preexisting condition!

Employer subsidized healthcare insurance is tolerably priced for active employees. For the unemployed and retired under 65 years old, it is a rip-off. Why can’t there there be one large representative pool for the unemployed and pre-65 retired people? Wouldn’t premiums for such a large pool of people like that be just as low as large employer subsidized premiums? I think so.

Congrats to you on the $35 premium reduction for 2019, 2zwfx. What is the 2018 premium you are paying now?

My pre-65 CVX monthly premium for health and dental coverage (2 adults) went DOWN $35, a 3.5% decrease.

I am sure everything in clear when the world is black and white.

I've paid taxes my entire life, sales, income, property, etc. and much more than the piddly little amount that we pay in for SS. The roads and public utilities around my home don't always get fixed and the public school system is in poor repair. What's your point?

Well, regardless whether I’m Peter or Paul, I did pay into this Program for over 40 quarters of my working life. Whether the Program was initially meant to be a lockbox or today it is not, really isn’t my concern. I only know I could never opt-out and each year the SSA provided me my expected benefit at age 62, FRA and 70. The formula for calculating the benefit is also well known and published on the SSA website. While there has been talk about entertainment reform including a percentage reduction of SS benefits after 2037, it’s all possible. Government has railroaded its citizens many times over the decades, but I think screwing the citizens out of their vested expected benefit amount (and I use the word “vested” intentionally) will not be so easy. Our government will need to come up with a solution to replace the current day SS Program with a new mechanism, and at the same time as phasing one out and the other one in, guarantee everyone in one, the other or both Programs equitable payout of their expected benefit when the time comes to file for the benefit.

Yes, that is correct, and it's not my opinion, it's a fact of the program. The "paying in" to the program is taxation. The OASDI tax is not directly linked to the funds that you receive in the same way as a pension(for most pensions). That is one way you can become eligible(paying in, the correct number of quarters - 40) but not the only way. A spouse or eligible child or disabled person can receive benefits without paying in, or not the full 40 qtrs amount, in case it helps your understanding of the OASD Insurance benefit. The monies that you receive today as a-- recipient are being paid by those paying in currently, not out of a fund that had your name on it that your funds went directly into over the years and grew with interest. You are being paid by Peter, and so are many who have never paid into it. It makes no difference how much you paid into it or how much you feel you deserve it more than others. It is Insurance, as the definition implies. That's just how the program works and why it is predicted to be insolvent by ~2035. Like any insurance, you will be better off not needing it, but hope it's still there if you do.

-25mof: you are Paul, without question about that! You are just hoping the government can keep their hands in Peter’s pockets (or at least keep charging his credit card). That said, you might be correct about gutless politicians.

I’m not Peter or Paul. I put in 40 years into this program and I’m now retired and waiting to start Social Security in about 2 years. I expect, as the vast millions of staunch voters in this country do, to receive every dollar of my currently estimated benefit. I’m fairly sure I don’t have too much to worry about because every politician cares more about their own re-election than solving complex problems that could risk their tenure in their lofty government jobs.

You have no choice in the matter, you are either Peter or Paul whether you like the reference or not if you are involved in the SS program. If you are a responsible person, you paid in responsibly, and will accept any changes that the program needs to incur to remain solvent.

I think that addressing the categories of those recipients who do not pay in to the program would be a good start.

@22ohc, You support cutting our earned and paid-for entitlements like Social Security, but whose sacrifice will it be to bear and who exactly will it purportedly benefit? Answer: The middle class will get screwed and the ultra rich along with the military industrial complex will benefit by having more leeway to grab that saved money. Never cede what is yours to no one. The job of our elected officials is to solve the great problems of our times and present workable solutions to the people. In the end, the majority of the voters will decide. That’s why I don’t think Social Security is in danger for many years to come. I’d say at least 17 to 20 years down the road before serious talks of cuts are seriously discussed. And when that time comes, the situation would not have changed. We’d still have a large constituency with too much invested in their expected benefit coming from Social Security.

Do not know what you are talked by about: there is no “conversion of SS to another program” on the table and the country’s debt for the next generations is already much to high (totally irresponsible). Me need to start living within our means, and that includes either higher taxes or budget reductions (most likely both). The latter would need to include cuts to entitlements (which comprise well over half the total budget). No matter how you cut it, someone will come up short. Whatever we do let’s make sure the 1%...those “job providers” ... get to keep their low tax rates!

@22pkk, I get your point, but I’m not Paul or Peter, so I’m not willing to accept a loss for either of them. There is a long term solution to this problem and it doesn’t require anyone in the Social Security pipeline to be screwed over. If there is any loss to be had during the conversion of SS to another program, it will be tacked on to the country’s debt and paid down over future decades. Sorry, but it has been done many times before, this time will be no different. The government is all of us, as you said, so I hold on to the expectation there will be enough of us for a long time in the majority with 100% skin in the game or close to that amount who would vote to continue the SS program intact without cutbacks.

-22bqk: I assume you are the guy making the same point again and again and again. Ok, I get it, you paid into a system and you want your promised returns. The problem is the government is not some monolithic “other”... it is the rest of us. The government does not grow money (it an print more sure, but in the end that just dilutes the value of the rest). The real money comes from the value of all the investment and work being done NOW that is being taxed by the government. You want more, ok then someone needs to be taxed more or the government needs to go even further into debit. If accounts come up short... you demand to be paid first... ya well good luck... a lot of creditors will be making those demands. The sad fact is, at the end of the day, the poor working stiffs can only be taxed so much. Let me suggest you start thinking about who else might pay more to make your payments in full or agree to take less. Long term it might not be a zero sum game, the right investments will raise all boat. Short term, the government can only give to Paul what it has taken from Peter.

@21jvc, Good for you not needing Social Security in your retirement and senior years. But, that’s not the point I’m making. Need it or not, it is yours— you paid into it.

Just as a side note, when segments of the population begin to let the government off the hook in honoring their obligations to all of us, they start to take you up on that. Before long, they feel they can start backsliding on other promises and obligations. Never let that happen, even if the benefit you may be giving up is small potatoes to you.

21ihq Yes Indeed, I totally agree that the ideal level of moral integrity that you speak of should be practiced by our elected politicians and government but of course, that is not the case. And I look forward to the safety net social insurance program (OASDI) that I have paid premiums for, for many years if I ever need it in my elder years, as it was intended. However, I acknowledge that it is not a pension plan and I have prepared to have a financially sound retirement independently. I hope that I do not have to rely upon government assistance or handouts at any point in my life, as well. Thanks for your kind words.

For each one of you who speak badly of social security and the entitlements you earned and were promised by our government, one day you will realize you were wrong. Promises are promised and obligations are obligations. Fulfill them always.

Yes, 1Whou, No monetary return on your dollar was promsed, written or by contract. Sorry if that busts your plans. You should have prepared better for your future. Simple fact. Should have paid attention in school!

“A specific amount is stated of what I’m EXPECTED”.... yes and expectations change, risk is everywhere, live with it!

-1Vqky: You can cry, expect, demand, and dance a jig all you like, that does not always mean you will get what you want (my two year old will be happy to verify this for you). The fact is “government” is not an alien entity, it is us. Your retirement bentifits are only as safe as our overall economy is strong. If we do not invest in the next generation, in keeping the current workforce healthy and employed, and in maintaining our critical infrastructure there will be little wealth generated to support your old age plans. That is simply the reality. You are nuts if you think anyone is stupid enough to “pay you first” before their basic needs or will pay into your SS pyramid scheme if it appears so unstable that they also have to put moneys into a “different system”. The basic facts of life are the social contrasts we have with each other in this country are only valid when they help everyone. We better start figuring out better ways to raise all boats or there will be a lot of shipwrecks besides social security.

WTF??? No monetary return on your dollar was made, written or by contract, you say? Every year I lookup my updated Social Security Statement, I am given a specific amount, you dimwit. A specific amount is stated of what I’m expected to receive at age 62, Full Retirement Age, and 70. What does that have to do with the cost of a future haircut or the price of rice in China today? You are an ignorant azz or deserve to be ripped off by government the rest of your life.

I got the answer to high medical costs, ready very simple. Give the Medicare money’s back to those over 55 who paid in, since their contributions only represent a few pennys on the dollar of what they will really cost the rest of us by the time they die. Tell them to find their own coverage in the free market. Since they had decades to fix the cost unbalance problem in that system and they were too self-centered to address it, why should this be my problem! The younger generation can contract directly with private companies at much lower rates without the huge burden of all these old dodgers milking the system. Just like the life insurance companies, I am sure new products will be offered from private companies in the years. Ahead to protect my health coverage in old age....no need to stupidly buy into this inefficient “pay it forward” shell game nonsense. Time to start fresh, everyone buys their own health care in the free market and pays their real costs. Youngsters probably should get year to year polices for a few thousand and old folks should save for the time their polices will be $40-50k/yr, but fair is fair. That’s what free enterprise is all about! You made your bed, no free ride on my back!

-1Tlei: I think that it is you who that needs to do more thinking. I have lived all over the world and agree there are some places with much lower health care costs where I would be happy to go for some specific procedures (the other poster said Bangkok for good reason). Health care tourism is really a specialized situation however. It needs to be a procedure with a long time window, that is expensive, can be treated with a single operation, and requires only short-term post-op. Broken bone... no, time window too short and not expensive enough. Cancer, no, long term post-op. Nose job with butt lift, yes, long window, expensive, short post op. In any case, this option is not a replacement for at home health care... move there so that that place IS your home ... well, ok, sure... if you want to live there.

Looks like most of you commenting about foreign healthcare insurance really don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you that ignorant or just trolling? Look it up and do some research. Getting in a car crash or some immediate life or death incident in the US is one thing, but being diagnosed with a serious illness is another. One can get treatment overseas for a fraction of the highway robbery costs that are charged in the US. All someone who is 3 years away from getting a much more affordable Medicare Advantage Plan is to take good care of themselves and hope nothing serious befalls them. So if they are in good health presently, just drop their current expensive policy and wait.

The guy who plans to move overseas to a place with lower medical costs; not for me, but if it works for you god bless. To the guy that plans to go without insurance because he will get care overseas should he need it. WTF, how does that work? You get in a car crash and as the ambulance races you toward the hospital you say, hold on! Drive me to the airport so I can get my health care in Bangkok. Get real.

-1Tamq: Ask your family members who work in USA medical and they will be the first to agree our system is broken and needs major intervention. We spend 25% of the total on the paperwork. We spend 50% of the rest on end of life care doing Herculan medicine and old age warehousing. That does not leave much for basic family wellness medicine that has the greatest impact on overall quality of life and longevity. We need to wake up and agree to focus the money on what’s important. Other “rich” countries are going it an dilivering health care with better outcomes for half the cost! (I mean Canada and Germany, for example, not some of the dirty knives health holiday countries some of the previous posters are fantasizing about...which, in practice, they would never use if they got really sick).

“The soaring costs of pre-Medicare Advantage healthcare”... hate to tell you but the same cost increases are occurring after your Medicare starts, the costs are just hidden in general government expenses and the deficit. This is why I am mad at Trump (just like I was at Bill Clinton): I could care less about pu--y grabbing bu11 $hit except it is a distraction from our country coming together and addressing our real problems (besides in this day and age most “pu--ys” I know are fully able to smack tender areas of any grabber right back).

The soaring costs of pre-Medicare Advantage healthcare for retirees is outrageous. It’s synonymous to criminal. Our government refuses to do squat about it. They talk a good game, but have no intentions to fix root causes that are causing sky-high premiums. I’m seriously considering not renewing my healthcare insurance for 2019. I’ve read much about medical tourism and gaining residency in a foreign country with state-of-the-art medical care and hospitals. There are places where medical services and healthcare insurance premiums are pennies on the dollar and offer the same or better level of services as that in the US or western Europe.

1Tmuc: Not sure what specifically you are confused about. I am still an employee, so perhaps got a different mailer than you. The price of the PPO plan is up, but significantly offset by a “wellness credit”. On the flip side, I guess if you are not “well” you could think of this as an extra sickness tax, your choice. The HDP looks about the same price, but the deductible is a shocking 5.4k per couple for in network medical and 10k pr-scrip-ion (and twice that for out of network). Other than price, there does not seem to be any big changes in the policy that effect me directly. Until the medical prices (USA system) gets sorted out I would not go anywhere’s near an ACA plan!