Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Heads if you are planning to retire

Health benefits are brutal. Obama’s health care plan was a complete lie that you would not pay more than $2500 a year. This year open enrollment for Kaiser CA is $1200 a month for two. Anthem Blue Cross is a $1000. Better to stay healthy and put the $14,000 or more away in an investment plan, and pay for a high deductible catastrophic plan. Retirement health benefits are almost as much as the lying Obama plan.

by
| 1916 views | | 35 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+1iUFiC24

35 replies (most recent on top)

Healthcare insurance is too expensive in this country. It’s really criminal if you seriously consider it. We would have never needed the ACA if Congress and the President ever got off their lame @sses to pass common sense measures, like Tort Reform, Allowing insurance to be purchased across State lines, Prescription dr-g price management by the federal government (Medicare), etc. Just a few tweaks and that would make everything truly affordable.

by
|
Post ID: @9qnu+1iUFiC24

@8gcr: yes everything is Obama's fault: It can't be the private companies set the prices, that the general health care costs charged by these private companies have skyrocketed, that costs also increased because the republicans got rid of the mandate so many decided to not get health care until after they became sick: No I am sure you are right, all this would have been prevented but for the ACA. As to the costs you pay, I assume you do understand that ACA subsidies come from general revenue and not directly from your payments to the private health insurance companies?

by
|
Post ID: @8xuj+1iUFiC24

You have your facts completely confused. Obama promised to save average Americans $2500/yr on healthcare costs. Please try to keep up!

by
|
Post ID: @8khl+1iUFiC24

Thank you kindly @8frs. I was almost certain that’s the way it is handled, just wasn’t 100% sure.

by
|
Post ID: @8jnp+1iUFiC24

@8mpq, I appreciate your reply. I’m aware that a retiree’s spouse and family can be covered under a Chevron Medical plan after retirement from the company. My question is more about the HRA (Chevron medical contribution). Does the spouse AND the retiree both get their separate HRA amounts?

by
|
Post ID: @8wzq+1iUFiC24

Yes, both the employee and spouse/family are covered by the plan, such as it is. Many take alternative coverage.

by
|
Post ID: @8mpq+1iUFiC24

Post-65 Retiree Insurance question: Does the BOTH the Chevron retiree and spouse get an HRA medical contribution amount at age 65 when they opt for a Medicare Advantage plan through Via Benefits, or is the HRA amount something only the retiree gets?

by
|
Post ID: @7rgs+1iUFiC24

Nobody is leeching. Workers pay taxes to run the government which should provide healthcare for all, regardless of wealth or income.

by
|
Post ID: @6cil+1iUFiC24

@6hxrm Here in the U.S. we have a system where about half of the residents, legal citizens as well as others, leech off of a diminishing working class. That includes a small portion of wealthy people with low reported income as well as a massive swath of lower income people, those intentionally with no or little "reported" income as well as some gaming the system through multiple avenues (dependents, real and imaginary, false disabilities, intentionally low or unreported income, laziness, intentional deception of multiple forms, etc.) That section of "creative leeching" if you will was expanded with the ACA. In addition to the above, the expansion of an elite "government worker class" has to supposedly run all of the programs, permissions and provisions and they are treated to the best pensions and lifetime health care/insurance provisions in the country. Basically a bloated, incompetent, and ever-growing expensive tax-payer funded system. Sure, it had some problems all along but never as many and at so large of a burden to the working class as since the implementation of the ACA, which ironically, but not surprisingly considering it's partisan origin, is anything but "Affordable".

by
|
Post ID: @6usk+1iUFiC24

5rzd: As to how retirement medical works, just as with employee insurance you can select plans for just yourself, yourself and spouse (ect.), and the total Chevron pays is a bit higher for those selecting plans with spouse but no where near twice what Chevron pays for a policy just for you.

by
|
Post ID: @6onk+1iUFiC24

6kfx: unfortunately in practice medicare for all with the rich having additional supplemental insurance does not work (it has been tried in other countries). If there is one health care system, but those with supplemental policies get to go to the front of the line then it morphs the system unfairly to those who pay just a little bit extra. It would only work if there was two totally different systems: some doctors and hospitals in the public system only and others only in a separate private system. In reality that is the way it works in Canada: for every day care everyone uses the public system but for extensive extraordinary care some also have policies they can use in the USA or other countries. In that way at least the rich are not leaching the public system, they travel elsewhere if they choose (which is fair enough for all).

by
|
Post ID: @6hxr+1iUFiC24

Question for Post-65 Retirees…. I’m aware a retiree gets their earned HRA contribution from Chevron when they get a Medicare Advantage plan through Via Benefits. But I’m curious to know whether the retiree’s spouse can expect to get the same Chevron HRA contribution amount when they turn 65 and are added to the retiree’s Medicare Advantage plan? Thanks.

by
|
Post ID: @5rzd+1iUFiC24

@1xwg, Same here, my rates were much, much lower before Obamacare. Everyone knows and remembers how rates started going up exactly when they started the preparations for obamacare and then they went up and up and up more than anytime before in history and that's when inflation was low. Many tried to blame it on other things but that's false and typical. Also those who are either blaming the problems with it on something else, blaming the high cost on something else (doctors, insurance companies, etc) are typically the ones benefiting, go figure. Those things also contribute to higher costs but that's a different issue and topic. Sure, it's always nice to have someone else pay for your expenses, we get it, and those people who benefit will vote for politicians who benefit them. No reason to conflate Medicare with the ACA, that was always there, and always paid for from your paycheck for years. Like SS, you paid into it, and that's for you when you are elderly and cannot easily work to pay for it. Sure it has faults, we get it, it's government run and those millions of government workers need to get paid. (over paid and with great benefits/retirement/fantastic health insurance, mind you)
The ACA is completely different as they manage to rope you in to also pay for those who are too lazy to pay in to a system or just choose not to. Quite simple and those people will also vote for those politicians who rob others for them under the false guise of the recipients being needy and less fortunate. Vote buying. It's as old as the hills.

by
|
Post ID: @2xwm+1iUFiC24

@1axk, That would be false, there's never been anything "passed because it's a tax" and having requirements to buy or be penalized as being "free market" in the history of economics unless you're prepared to change the definition, not surprising with your side. I know you guys are doing your best to disown it and no one can blame you, because of the disaster it has been and costly for so many of the workers. The ACA is a 100% democrat created and voted for invention. No one else was involved.

by
|
Post ID: @2vzl+1iUFiC24

@1rzw, I'm not sure, Do I get the 35+ years of FICA-OASDI payments back or is that part of your definition of the government's mooching off of me? If so, I will be fine with the return of those payments + interest, of course like any other banking transaction. Then there's no mooching involved. Thanks.

by
|
Post ID: @2nan+1iUFiC24

“Obamacare is ACTUALLY the “free market” plan that he took directly from the 1989 Right-wing Heritage Foundation, figuring that’s what the GOP would vote for.” This is exactly correct. The Democrats got ACA passed by basically giving republicans almost everything they asked for, until they realized it would pass and then did not want it anymore. This is why the republicans were unable to repeal and replace: They had no idea what to replace it with. The democrats real preference, basically Medicare for all, would have helped lower overall costs but only by basically having the government set all the health care reimbursement rates… a single payer would rule the roost, take it or leave it.

by
|
Post ID: @1axk+1iUFiC24

Will you mooch off social security or fail to file?

by
|
Post ID: @1rzw+1iUFiC24

I don't now about you guys but I am completely grateful and overjoyed that I can afford my own health care and health insurance without having to mooch off others. And I don't hold it against anyone who needs help, are needy and cannot stand on their own two feet. Everyone deserves a chance even the people who are uneducated, not too bright or lazy, destitute, and did not prepare well.

by
|
Post ID: @1jlp+1iUFiC24

@1obo, Were you given the opportunity to opt out of your FICA-HI payments or was it taken out of your paycheck involuntarily for all of your working years? If not, what did you contribute to make you eligible for the Medicare benefits? What did you contribute to make you eligible for the ACA subsidies?

by
|
Post ID: @1oma+1iUFiC24

I love folks here complaining about “Obamacare”as being govt-run healthcare and looking forward to making it to 65 so as to qualify for Medicare.

Medicare IS govt-run health insurance and is a lifesaver to millions.

Obamacare was a compromise because the republicans acting like babies and didn’t want to give Obama a win. Obamacare is ACTUALLY the “free market” plan that he took directly from the 1989 Right-wing Heritage Foundation, figuring that’s what the GOP would vote for.

The original idea was going to be “Medicare for All” which would have been superior.

by
|
Post ID: @1obo+1iUFiC24

Hwy if you feel bad about benefits to
Which you are entitled, don’t take them. Your choice. I’m all for free benefits. No guilt in my case.

by
|
Post ID: @1atx+1iUFiC24

Yes indeed, other people paying for anything instead of you having to pay for it is always a great deal! Just like Food Stamps.

by
|
Post ID: @1vkx+1iUFiC24

Retired two years ago so no income a just living off post tax investments. ACA works great for us. Full subsidy.

by
|
Post ID: @1zgz+1iUFiC24

High Deductible Insurance Plans are a joke. The monthly premium is too high for a plan where you still need to shuck out the first of $$$Thousands of money in deductible when you will need to use it. The joke is on anyone who “thinks” they really have affordable insurance.

by
|
Post ID: @1yde+1iUFiC24

@1myd, Do what you want, but the law is for everyone. If you could play poor, you would. Just admit you chose a different path in life to diversify your wealth, but didn’t. Now that you realize you can’t profit from the government assisting you with massive subsidies to lower your premiums, you prefer to bad mouth individuals would can. You disingenuously say you won’t take a subsidy if you could get it? Well, go ahead and don’t take your standard deduction when reporting your federal 1040. People who put down the ACA are the very people who haven’t prepared themselves well enough for adversity. The ACA has worked very well for me. It’s not perfect in every way, but then again, nothing ever is.

by
|
Post ID: @1ivs+1iUFiC24

@1myd, you are correct, and also pre and post ACA, You, LIKE ME, have a more difficult time obtaining insurance, it cost more since our procedures/medications cost more, as it should be. HOWEVER, all Workplace plans that I know of. including CVX, have accepted those with pre-existing conditions that are legitimate well before the ACA. Other plans would too, Pre-ACA, just at a much higher rate. I have no problem keeping the current employer plan that more or less promises that I can keep a rate like all other employees and retirees for a plan that I prefer to the nightmare ACA, which some providers reject. That is the same as it has always been, has never changed. The fact that I prefer the group plan over the ACA or an outside insurer because I have an actual pre-existing condition (think diabetes, crohn's, not the fake just got sick kind) has been the same since the 80's and 90's. Nothing new there. You want good affordable coverage, get a job. There were also more high deductible and miscellaneous plans to pick from before, you could always find a policy if you were willing to pay. That is no longer the case. It's laughable and absurd how the children brought up during the abomination that is the ACA think that it was worse before. It was more of a free market before,(not completely) and Medicaid was always there., just not abused as extensively. Now more people are on the government dole and the shrinking workforce shoulders more of the burden. Someone voted for it, I didn't.

by
|
Post ID: @1qft+1iUFiC24

The rates did no go up because of ObamaCare! Our health care industry is controlled by for profit insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors. ObamaCare simply restricts them for cherry picking only the healthy by denying those with health issues. It also provides subsidies for the poor, but those subsidies are paid for by general revenue taxes not by your health insurance payments.

by
|
Post ID: @1yiv+1iUFiC24

As a heads up for those thinking of retiring pre-65: My Chevron insurance next year will be about $17k (and that after retiring with over 55 points, so enjoying some small Chevron subsidies). I could get cheaper ACA insurance, but with some health issues I am afraid to go that route least the Republicans get back in power and manage to ki-l the ACA. To be clear, I would not ask for ACA subsidies but before ACA it was hard to get any reasonable insurance with preexisting conditions. As to those who “play poor” … living off savings and Roth accounts so as to falsely claim low income to get Huge ACA subsidies…. No I am not that type of low life. I go through life paying my own way and helping others who are less fortunate when I can…. Not stealing for the communal plate.

by
|
Post ID: @1myd+1iUFiC24

Let’s get real folks. The huge cost increases in USA health care are not related directly to ACA: Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies remain free enterprise entities that can charge anything the market will pay. ACA subsidies come from general revenue: They are not subsidized by your payments to the insurance companies (although yes the subsidies payments do come from your taxes and the continuing deficits). What was false was the Republican’s idea that free enterprise would control (lower) health can costs: like folks are able to shop around after they get sick. Dropping the mandate also increased costs for the insurance companies because of the number of young (generally healthy) folks that can op-out until they get sick. If we had changed to a national health care system (like that enjoyed by many other countries (a system preferred by most Democrats when ACA was being discussed) the overall costs would now be much lower, but it would have been a hard change to get there from our current free enterprise based system. At this point we have the system we have: It is not like the Republicans have any alternatives aside from just pushing the poor under a bus. The least we can do now, however, is to allow collective bargaining of government programs (Medicare, VA) with the insurance and dr-g companies to get some control of costs (and health/ dr-g provider profits). Specifically, given what our government already spends of medical research (leading to new treatments) we as a country should not be paying more for dr-gs than anyone else!

by
|
Post ID: @1ips+1iUFiC24

@bst, It was better before the ACA. I paid for insurance, the rates were better the coverage was better, the choices were greater and the deductibles were lower. Are you too young to remember? I got insurance with and without going through work. You got a better deal through work, but it was not night and day as there was more competition outside of employer plans. The smokescreen that the rates already were going up before obamacare is a lie. The rates went up BECAUSE of obamacare and because they knew what was coming, it was no secret so it appeared they were already going up. Rates gradually go up and always did, , sure. inflation. but never have they gone up as much as during the ACA initiation and after. Who do you think pays for all of the new freeloaders and subsidized people, rich and poor? Magic? Money trees? Golden geese? Many people forget math when free stuff for them is involved.
Que the pathetic" we all have a natural born right to ______ fill in the blank" high tech medical services paid for by others person.

by
|
Post ID: @1xwg+1iUFiC24

Obarrassment made a lot of false promises and told many lies, but that is one. During the implementation of Obammydon't-care the cost of all policies started significantly increasing across the board. Insurance companies also knew what was coming and pre-empted it by raised policies because much of the legislation was aired out and they know that had to prepare or experience losses. Many used that as an argument that cost increases were not due to ACA -Total BS . Sure, a select few who they could buy votes from got a break at the expense of many. Wealth people can pay poor and get breaks. Great plan, BO. More people pay more now than less. Obummer-care was a Win-lose. Big-government & Big insurance wins, you lose. The number of working age people who get to sponge off others increased. Some people consider that a good thing. Do you?

by
|
Post ID: @1dpr+1iUFiC24

When Obamacare lost the individual mandate and ability to penalize (tax) non-compliance and many folks elected not to pay for health insurance coverage, that’s when premiums started to steadily increase. I remember having Obamacare after being laid off in 2016 and I was only 61 years old. I was fine with retiring and not working anymore, but I didn’t yet qualify for Medicare, so my wife and I relied on Obamacare. Because I was able to keep my taxable income very low and not have to draw from my retirement accounts, we lived off our bank savings and unreported cash rental income. The premium tax credits I received were very high, so the Obamacare healthcare insurance premiums were less than $60 per month, and that covered both my wife and I for a Gold level HMO plan from UnitedHealthcare in the greater Houston area. Now that we’re both over 65 and on post-65 Medicare Advantage through Chevron’s retiree insurance administrator, Via Benefits, our UnitedHealthcare HMO-POS Plan is $0 monthly premium, $0 PCP copay, $25 Specialist copay, $90 Emergency Room and prescription dr-g plan has no copay for Tier 1-4 type dr-gs. Only Tier 5 dr-gs have a low percentage copay. So yes, affording a good medical healthcare plan can be a serious concern if you’re planning to retire before age 65. Chevron’s pre-65 premiums are and always have been sky high. Not worth it.

by
|
Post ID: @1nyy+1iUFiC24

Obamacare failed to live up to its promises to reduce health care costs, increase access, and improve health care quality. With its dramatic premium increases, decreased access, and reduced choice in insurer markets, Obamacare has done the exact opposite.

by
|
Post ID: @1bir+1iUFiC24

Post a reply

: