Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Alert!! Someone who didn't get through 3rd grade English is playing on his mommie's PC - Alert!!

Alert: Attention Defecit Disorder or Anniying Troll. Which, I don't know.

Yes, that guy definitely needs to visit the Deadbeats and Parasites thread, because he is obviously a liberal democrat.

@8jrf, you got the wrong thread. I agree with what the guy is saying, in principal. There's ways to make medicine more affordable without handing it out for free. I didn't read anywhere in the guy's comments that he is asking for free healthcare. Maybe you need to visit that old thread on this site called "Deadbeats and Parasites". There's some real funny $hit in there. That's where you should go spend some time.

I am Like -7fzy, I want everything free and I want to be taken care of by the gubmint because I am a free-loading douche-bag. Can that free doctor cure -7fzy's ADD? I hope he can also cure that petulant hatred and vitriol that he's been spewing. He must be upset because the gubmint is not paying for all of his expenses. I wonder how you get to that point. You know, where you feel that the rest of the world "OWES" you stuff. Any stuff. healthcare, Food, cellphones that didn't even exist 25 years ago, you name it, there's gonna be someone "entitled" to it. I think that if some majority group can afford it, whatever it is, there will always be some demographic who feel that they should get it free. Never fails. Then the tax-payers, mostly the middle class just getting by, get the pleasure of footing the bill. All for a bunch of entitled whiners who think that they are "owed" stuff courtesy of a few pols getting their vote. Thanks to the likes of president Obarrassment. He personally is not responsible for much, save reading a teleprompter and a few very well-written speeches by his writers. He can pick some writers, I give him that! Kudos!

Do you want a "free" doctor?

http://www.cchfreedom.org/cchf.php/1166#.V0ZdfmCFPrc

No, @7thq. I don't want anyone to pay for my healthcare and medicine and I don't want to be subsidizing it for others either. I suppose your Attention Deficit Disorder or lack of understanding undermines your inability to comprehend. WHAT I WANT... is that affordable healthcare and medicine is had by all Americans. I'm not a naive person to think the medical industrial complex would lead the effort to do this voluntarily and some things are out of their control. So that's why I am a proponent that government (don't confuse with only liberals) reign in the industry by mandating change and also enacting laws that promote competition across state lines and eliminate frivolous lawsuits. Hopefully my answer to your rant doesn't result in about bout with your ADD and you finally get what I mean.

-7mma, that reminds me of a protester's sign that i saw recently to the effect of "Food is a human right". I believe that they were protesting the work requirement or some other requirement for foodstamps. It's as if those people - grown-ups mind you, believe that they had a right for other people to provide them with free food. You can't make this stuff up, I tell ya!!

Healthcare is not a birthright. It requires the action of others. It's not like saying that you have a right to free speech or to bear arms. It's a totally different thing when other people have to perform services for you. You simply do not have a right at birth for unnamed strangers to perform services of any kind for you , then now, or for life, at whatever cost. The cost is irrelevant. When you are talking about "rights" and "birthrights" you have shifted the discussion away from costs. You can provide people with free money provided by taxpayers all that you want but you cannot grant them the services of others. As far as I know slavery was abolished many years ago.

@HsidGwq-7zwk, It's crystal clear, then. You are a butthurt liberal parasite loser who wants OTHERS to pay for your health care/health insurance, ala Obamacare or other means. Otherwise you would not have a problem paying for it yourself in a free market system. It's easy to spot liberal parasite losers who wish to ride in the wagon while the hard-working tax-payers have to pull it. It's always OK with them when they can get others who work harder than them to shoulder the greatest burden. They typically masquerade as being compassionate, also. Please enlighten us about how you are not a parasite liberal and are just truly compassionate about others who need care. We all love that piece of repeated fiction.

@7gub (you Dick), are you serious about that question or are you a damn troll? Why should only Americans be granted this "birthright"? Answer for the moron: Because, Dick Head, this is America. It's our country and it should be a birthright only for Americans. After all, in our society of checks and balances, We The People, are the ones paying for it one way or another. Humankind all over the world should also be deserving of affordable healthcare and medicine. But we are the Unites States of America, not the United States of The World. We fix our problems and intact our laws. Let everyone else fix their own problems and intact their own laws. Culture, Language and Borders is my motto. That defines a nation.

Why would a pro-humanitarian type only want "Americans" to be granted this so-called birthright? Are humans in other countries not worthy of living and having affordable health care? Some Americans can really be self-centered spoiled-brat entitled bigots.

@7jfh, don't be naive or ignorant. Both Capitalism and Communism have its dark side. Rampant and merciless greed is the the dark side Capitalism. So much so, that we have anti-trust laws to stop monopoly. Healthcare and medicine are things that any decent society shouldn't deprive it's citizen. Affordable healthcare and medicine can still exist and thrive in a competive capitalist nation, but government needs to be the arbiter in controlling its costs in a greedy capitalist world where profits seem to get the best of us.

@6xgn hates capitalism. Another pinko, commie deadwood butthurt loser.

6svt

Well said.

The Healthcare and Pharmaceutical companies, especially the ones doing business in the U.S. are greedy corporations that are out to make big bucks for their shareholders and top executives. These are corporations that worry more about profits than the well being of the citizens. Sorry, but humankind comes first before money. So yes, I lump affordable and good medical care as a "birthright" for all Americans. Doctors who provide care and scientist to seek to find cures for illness need to enter their profession as a vocation (a calling) and not to hold patients hostage in charging ever increasing costs. Our leaders in government need to reign in the greed of big medical and big pharma in the United States. Now that's common sense.

@6qcw - If you seriously think that ACA was a solution looking for a problem then you must be too young or oblivious to remember what it was like before ACA. Health care costs have been a crisis for as long as I can remember with health care costs rising at a must faster rate than inflation since the 1970s at least. Also, people with pre-existing conditions were often plumb out of luck and medical expenses were a leading cause of bankruptcy. It was a major campaign issue for both sides in 2008 with both sides promising to do something. I don't believe that health care is a right, but I do believe that a country that considers itself one of the richest in the world ought to be able to provide a reasonable level of health care for all its citizens, something which almost all other countries are able to do. I don't think that makes me a left-wing socialist (even Nixon advocated for it, see http://khn.org/news/nixon-proposal/), but if it does, then so be it.

State of the art Healthcare, affordable or not, which didn't even exist yet when most of us were growing up, is no more a "birthright" of any human being, born in any country on this planet, than affordable public transportation to any nearby planet in our solar system.

Sorry pal, There's Right/Left Liberal/Conservative and then there's common sense and logic. Bestowing "Birthrights" to humans that required dedicated efforts and lifelong sacrifices of other unrelated humans, then, now and in the future, and employing technologies and facilities that may or may not exist in the past/present or future is a not a logical concept.

If you wish to dedicate free money to someone. just say it. There are no "Birthrights" today that didn't exist 50 years ago and won't be 50 years into the future.

I think if Congress passes a bill that revises the ACA, the changes would need to be one that most people would benefit from, else those incumbent politicians would be flat out of a job on their next reelection bid. I'm not a looney liberal type, but there are things in my book that are sacred. One big one is affordable state-of-the-art healthcare. I put it up there with a being a birthright of all American citizens. As far as the medical insurance companies go, I'm all for them staying in business and competing for the onsumer's Dollar. So I'm a proponent of interstate (borderless) commerce in shopping for healthcare insurance. I'd also like to see tort reform to cut down on frivolous lawsuits that drive up insurance costs. Many folks may be quick to think these things won't ever change because big business are the ones funding the politicians and preventing change. I think, when it comes to essential birthright matters, such as affordable healthcare, any politician who stands in the way of bringing change, is a politician that needs to be called out and voted out of a job in Washington.

Thanks for all of the left-wing socialist comments. They are much appreciated to identify those who feel that the rest of the world should all chip in and pay for their modern expensive health care simply because they are special and they deserve it. Some of you forget that the ACA was a solution looking for a problem, and that Insurance rates skyrocketed even before the ACA was put into effect because of it's forthcoming and requirements published. The company that I worked for switched to a very expensive, one option only high-deductible, ACA-compliant plan a year or so prior to the implementation of ACA rules in anticipation of the event. Our lives have been changed for the worse ever since.

@6tac - Sorry, I was responding to 6ygu who said "It's ironic that the ACA has driven some of us to simulate poverty to qualify, isn't it? The sooner they get rid of it, the better." I was not questioning anyone's strategy for dealing with the problem of providing for health care. I'd be happy with a single-payer system myself, since one of the biggest costs what our system entails that others don't is the amount of paperwork that having so many insurers creates. But that probably won't happen because it would put a lot of insurers, who have a lot of clout, out of business. However, I do think that the odds of ACA repeal are not insignificant, though with Cruz out of the race a suspect they're smaller. If Trump wins and Congress stays the way it is, they will probably pass another repeal bill and send it to him. Not clear to me what he would do, though.

@6fgo, you make some statements and some assumptions. I just told the readers what I'm doing and why. I looked at every option available and am doing the one that best suits me at this moment. The world turns and the laws change. Either way, I'll adapt or change my options to the one that will suit me best. BTW, there is a big difference to whether I join the Chevron Medical Plan now or at 65. It's still expensive before 65 and much less costly at and beyond 65 because of Medicare. If the ACA is elimated (very doubtful) or revised (most probable), I will examine my choices and go with that. At my age, I'm not a big proponent of High Deductible Medical Plans with Health Savings Accounts. I hope not to be forced in that direction, so until I'm 65, I'll keep adapting to get whatever subsidies the government will dole out.

Well, if we get rid of ACA, then your only choice will be the CVX retiree options, which you can do now if you want, so it's not clear why you would want to do that. If the income restrictions are removed, then someone will have to pay for it, meaning a big tax increase for someone or big new taxes. This is part of the reason ACA is written the way it is. People like to complain about ACA, and it has it's faults, especially because if was a huge compromise intended to satisfy lots of different constituencies, but they never seem to come up with a good idea what to replace it with, especially one that has a snowball's chance in hell of getting enacted into law. And if you think that allowing interstate sale of policies is going to magically cut the cost of health insurance by some huge amount, I'd like to know what you're smoking, cause if Texas, California, or New York are not large enough markets to create competition (larger than many countries), I'd like to know why.

BTW, as a retiree you can opt for the High Deductible Health Plan and set up a HSA. The premium should be low and there are no income restrictions, so you don't have to simulate poverty. Of course you will have to pay a lot of doctor bills, if you have any, out of pocket. And it is ACA compliant. I know of a retiree who did this, but switched back after a year because they felt that it caused them to postpone going to the doctor, which he decided was risky in the long run.

@6ygu, thanks for the reference to the discussion board. I'll be sure to check it out later tonight. You are correct in that most early retirees must simulate poverty to max out on necessary benefits such as healthcare. Why waste one's own hard saved investments when this "Obamanation" of a quasi-socialist government is handing out candy? I didn't choose to retiree this early, Chevron decided that for me. At my age, even with a college education and level of training, it's difficult to find meaningful work. I may need to reassess my short term goals and look for contract work or lesser pay in another industry where I can have my weekends off. Aside from that, I can afford to not work anymore. But until I'm 65, I need to game the system and not burn through my 401k and other investments. While I "play poor" for a few more years and take distributions of only $2,250/month, my original 401k balance of $1.35 million and my lump sum payout of $677,000 remain conservatively invested at Vanguard. My local bank and credit union accounts are there to provide me extra cash, if needed, to avoid pulling out additional taxable income from my 401k. Hopefully many Chevron retirees will be able to one degree or another, plan their business to avoid getting heavily taxed or screwed over by high medical insurance costs. Good luck to all.

Thanks for those details, They are very helpful for those of us planning to FIRE or who have recently. but I suspect that you have more if you consider 401k savings + pension lump sum rolled over. I say more, meaning that you should have enough that with a 3-4% SWR you could net more than $2250 monthly if you were not within the filthy ACA restrictions to have reasonable HI costs. It's ironic that the ACA has driven some of us to simulate poverty to qualify, isn't it? The sooner they get rid of it, the better. If that is the case, then when you reach 65, you can take the medicare + CVX retiree insurance to allow you more flexibility to access those funds. I understand that the retiree insurance at that point is a much better deal. Then you can get the boat or RV, take vacations at your leisure, etc, if you care to do so. If you haven't yet check out that early-retirement.org discussion board. Very little ads. That group is extremely helpful and have covered every topic that you can think of.

@5ftb, I'm the retiree who is paying $58 in monthly premiums through Obamacare for me and my spouse. You are correct in that my annual household income is low. Although I chose to take my pension as a lump sum, I only draw $2,250/month ($27,000 annually). I was laid off in mid 2015 and received subsidized COBRA medical through Dec 31, 2015. So for me, it worked out conveniently. I applied for Obamacare in Nov 2015 and started my new medical plan on Jan 1, 2016. When asked on the Healthcare Marketplace application for my estimated 2016 taxable household income, I reported $27,500 to account for my 401k monthly distributions, plus anticipated bank interest. You should be aware that I can get by with $2,250/month just fine, as I paid off my home two years ago and I don't have any debts. That amount covers all my monthly expenses with not much room for extras. I haven't had to cut back on my lifestyle either. I anticipated the $2,250 amount by having tracked all my expenses for the last 3 years and grouping everything into expense categories, then averaging everything. In months where my utility bills tend to be lower than average, I keep the money in savings for the months it will be needed. For annual bills like insurance and taxes, I set aside the prorated monthly amount into savings as well. For flexibility and any emergency expenses, my wife and I maintain local bank and credit union balances that total around $135,000. We try to not touch it, but it's there if we need it.

So, that's how I manage to pay a low premium (Silver level) HMO policy through Obamacare for $58/month. We plan to maintain this plan for another 5 years until I reach 65 and can get a Medicare 65 Advantage medical policy through the Chevron Medical Plan that will keep our premiums low. If I decide to take early Social Security at 62, I'll cut back my 401k distributions by the amount of my SS benefits to keep my medical policy premiums low and max out the government subsidies. Of course, if Obamacare is repealed or revised, then I'll see what I need to do. Either way, I have a plan.

How did you get obamacare for $58/month? Your income must be extremely low. But then how can your income be so low when you are getting Chevron pension?

I do not understand

Yes. I have a pension and I am very grateful for that. With my years of service, my retiree insurance premiums is $563 a month. Not sure who has FREE healthcare from Chevron. I sure don't. But, I know people who don't even have that option and are paying even more per month for healthcare. I have told anyone who will listen that if you have to get laid off, Chevron is a good place to get laid off from in this day and age. I won't even begin to think about the packages Texaco gave out when the takeover occurred. THOSE people made out like bandits. They were at the right place at the right time.

@1ohl, I understand that health savings accounts (HSA) associated only with High Deductible Medical Plans do not expire and can be carried over to the next year. An example of a High Deductible Medical Plan is the third choice of Chevron Medical Plan. It's a version of what was once referred to as "Option 3". However, flexible spending accounts (FSA) are not not the same as a HSA. You must use up the funds in the year the FSA was set up for or forfeit the balance.

-hfw - Agree with your stance on the ACA - good synopsis. And If I would have the opportunity I would rape the tax-payers up the butt just as I'm getting myself a new sphincter ripped currently by the parasites. At least the higher income folks have paid a considerable amount into it as apposed to the you-know-who's, who get it for free.

I'm pretty sure that my HSA from my last employer does not expire and is portable. Is that not correct?

The $58/month Obamacare HMO plan I have in Houston is totally compliant with the ACA. Everyone will have their own opinion about the ACA, each opinion mostly biased on their political persuasion or financial status or whether they qualify or not. That's all fine, but the law is the law (until it is changed). I'm taking advantage of Obamacare because I CAN. You'd do the same.

But if I had the power to change things all by myself, I'd get rid of Obamacare. I'd replace it with another system that keeps the best elements of the ACA, but allow citizens to shop across State lines (increase competition), implement tort reform (eliminate frivolous lawsuits), allow tax deductable health savings accounts that don't expire, regulate prescription drug prices that are consumer helpful, yet allow pharmaceutical companies to continue to invest in R&D and make a reasonable profit.

I could be wrong but I have talked with some retirees that pay little to no healthcare. I believe the 100% medical was for those hired before the Gulf merger in 1984 I was a pseudo-contractor pending green-card from March 82 - Nov 84 when I was hired then worked for another 32 years before retiring. If I had managed to secure my green card a few months earlier then my actual hire date I perhaps would have been early enough to have me grandfathered in to the 100% medical.

Otherwise the healthcare options bite for sure!

There are non-compliant plans available in Texas. I believe they will phased out after 2017. These are much less expensive, but have limited doctors in the network and you will still have to pay the tax penalty. I personally consider the ACA to be unamerican and an abomination. It seems that most of everything in this country is being subsidized and is turning into one big welfare state. The money has to come from somewhere. I just can't go and get a low cost catastrophic type of plan anymore.

Yes, good point. Obamacare is full of loopholes and ways to milk the system. It's nice that Obarrassment has set up a system where certain people with means who can afford it can RAPE their fellow tax-payers by getting subsidies paid for by others through taxes while they get cushy insurance paid for by others and contribute next to nothing. That's really exactly what the ACA was supposed to prevent. Now we have all sorts of losers milking and sponging off off the government Teat because of it. Thanks. Obummer! And to everyone who is getting those subsidies that I go work my A$$ off to pay for everyday - YOU'RE WELCOME!!!

Around $15,000/year sound about correct for pre-65 Chevron Retiree Medical, even with the 100% medical contribution. Yes, it's costly. The Obamacare medical plans will be the retiree's best or only choice to save money. Whether one takes the annuity or lump sum pension, the key is the total household income. The lower the income, the better, as the government subsidies are higher. There is a minimum income needed to qualify for Obamacare and there's a maximum income where after a certain amount, there's no subsidy. I live in Houston and have a local HMO with $0 deductible & $900 max out of pocket annual copayment. The monthly premium for me and spouse is only $58. Yes, you read that correctly. $58 per month.

I think that the OP is just a loser who is trying to stir the pot. At retirement anytime before 65, Obamadon'tcare is cheaper if you don't take in any income, which is available to all. If you do have income, like the pension as an annuity, then it's roughly $15,000 a year for you and spouse for the retiree insurance if you have an average income until you become eligible for Medicare, which is available for all, has nothing to do with CVX. Hey OP, yes, you, idiot, how's $15,000 a year sound? Huh. dorkwad? STFU asswipe.

I think the OP confuses "100% paid medical" with the Chevron 100% Medical Contribution. The latter is only a contribution amount. 100% contribution amount is currently based on Chevron paying for 80% of the cost of the Chevron Medical Plan Option 2 premium for an active employee. When it comes to a retiree, their rates are much higher, as the pool of participants is smaller and older too, especially if they are not yet 65 years old. Chevron's medical contribution percentage could become helpful after a retiree is 65 or older and can qualify for Medicare Advantage premiums.

You have to have 10 years of service for any type of Heath care benefits. It is a sliding scaling paying only a percentage depending on year of service and eligibility. It never pays 100%.

Th OP is a stupid douche-bag troll. He doesn't have a "concern". He knows nothing about anything including pensions, and Healthcare premiums and expenses. Don't feed the idiot troll douche-bag. He doesn't work for CVX, knows no one who does and does not deserve a reply. he is asshurt because he has no pension and is too stupid to save.

@xqo summarized the healthcare costs well enough. I hope that answers the OP's concern. As for the Chevron pension, all employees are 100% vested in the pension after 5 years with company. The amount a retiree will get is based on a formula that is specified in the Chevron Retirrment Plan. The value of the payout (annuity or lump sum) is contingent on 3 main things; The employee's total years of service, The employee's highest 36-month average pay, and the month/year when the employee retirees or is separated from the company. The third item is important since the company will reduce the pension benefit for "Early Retirement". Chevron's normal retirement age is 60. Retiring before 60 reduces the calculated benefit by 5% per year before age 60 (prorated to the closest month). The longer one works for Chevron and the higher one's 36-month average pay is, the higher the pension benefit is. While everyone with over 5 year of service gets a pension, it's not a given that everyone will be set for life. Some retirees may still be forced to continue working until they are 65-70 and surviving with the help of Social Security and Medicare.