fadedbear92 said:Does anyone have solid info on whether Cigna is going to scrap the B list? My agent hasn't gotten back to me yet—funny how they’re lightning-fast when it's time to renew my policy, though.👎
I think Cigna doesn't really use a B list anymore. I switched over to Allstate supplemental coverage—they offer both A and B lists for $22. The only thing is you have to pay for your meds upfront at the pharmacy, then they just reimburse you once you send over the receipt.
bluemoose16 said:Thanks for the heads up. Does State Farm reimburse her for what she pays at the pharmacy?
Medicare told me I overpaid when I know damn well I didn't. Their IT system is a complete clusterf***.
So, I have supplemental coverage through State Farm—and for... $25 They cover both the A and B lists of medications. If the facility where you get them is in-network with State Farm—you can usually tell by the sign on the door—then they cover the costs and you don't pay a dime. If they aren't in-network, you just pay for the meds upfront and then send them the receipt in one of their prepaid envelopes to get reimbursed.
Nothing changes for you. You’ve already set up your agreement and you’re paying $25, so you’ll get that B list too. It’s not like Medicare where everything is government-run—you actually have to go in and update your contract if you want to lower those payments. Until then, I guess just keep paying and enjoy it. This policy with $25 is probably the best deal you can get in America—honestly, it beats Medicare
For that $1.75 difference, you get all your prescription meds covered—the ones with the red labels. For anyone who needs even one of those every month, I guess there isn't really a better way to go about it.
Joshua Gray75 said:I actually switched over to the US back in February, so there's nothing in the way of "doctor at home" services for me...☕
Joshua Gray75, my wife and I moved to the US in August, so we'll be getting two sets of doctors at home every month. If you happen to find a cheap option, I'd be happy to give you one for free. 🙂
Laura Gonzalez7 said:I honestly think people don't really change at their core. Throughout life, people get good at playing along with social norms and masking who they really are just to fit in better... but that fundamental nature you develop as a kid? That stays there. It never truly goes away, and eventually, it always finds a way to slip through the cracks...
People change their whole lives, though. I guess the "pedagogical" phase—where you soak up values and behaviors from parents and surroundings—mostly happens in those first few years. After that, it’s more about adult learning; we tend to adapt only when we see someone worth imitating. Like, maybe realizing through observation that staying calm during a confrontation works better than just blowing up emotionally.
Peter Wright3, you’re talking about behavior, but the actual topic here is whether personality itself can change—I guess. Most people just tweak their behavior to fit what everyone else expects if they feel they don't have a choice. Sure, you have those assertive types—people who are confident, stubborn, the ones who push back—who try to bend a demanding environment (like being in the military, for example) to suit them instead. But most people? They usually just adapt to the surroundings. They sort of put their true personality on standby and just wait for a less stressful environment to come along.
So you're talking nonsense again—thinking there are more of them?
That idea you probably heard about personality forming by age five is... well, I guess you aren't entirely wrong—but it has nothing to do with pop psychology. From what science suggests, kids follow pedagogical training up until maybe age four or five, where they just soak up their parents' advice and methods as absolute truth. After that, changing someone becomes an andragogical process—basically, we learn from others' experiences and only bother changing if it actually benefits us.
There’s a decent saying that goes something like this: we spend our youth learning prejudices and stereotypes, and then spend the rest of our lives trying to unlearn them.
And here you are—a perfect example of that (and trust me, I'm the same way sometimes, so don't sweat it)—making a comment just like this.
Well, according to Freud—the pedagogical window where real change is actually possible lasts from age three to maybe five at the latest. After that, I guess we’re stuck with andragogy—basically just mimicking behaviors in others that seem useful to us. As adults, we tend to resist being taught anything unless we've personally tested the waters ourselves (maybe we eventually start trusting only our own experiences, or perhaps we just need some big authority figure to tell us how to act before we'll actually listen).
And I agree—change is constant within us, no matter how much we convince ourselves we're already set in our ways and impossible to budge.
Look into an operating lease—basically, you put down whatever you can from your old car's trade-in value and stretch the rest over five years, with interest hovering around 7-8% annually.
Here’s how I handled it: I picked up a car for $15,000, put down a 40% down payment—roughly $6,000—and now my monthly sits at $200 for 60 months. At the end, I just buy out the car for 20% of its value.
My total cost ends up being: $6,000 down + $12,000 in payments + $3,000 buyout = $21,000.
Benefits from voluntary retirement savings can be accessed starting at age 50—though, exceptions exist for disability or death if you provide the proper documentation. Once you claim those benefits, the balance in your individual account gets transferred to your chosen MetLife, which then handles the payouts based on whatever retirement program you’ve selected.
MetLife is required to offer life annuities, but they also have the option to offer temporary annuities (which can be set for a specific term, no less than 5 years), variable annuities (where payments fluctuate based on the performance of the technical reserve assets), partial lump-sum withdrawals (capped at 30% of the total payout amount), or other benefits under their specific plan."
Just realized kids can actually participate in 401(k)-style accounts now—that's news to me.
here is what Vanguard says:
Is it possible to contribute to a voluntary retirement account for a minor?
Under the amendments to ERISA that went into effect back in July 2003, the age limit was removed—so, per the Vanguard rules, minors—basically children—can be participants.
Charles Ramos7 said:I mean, there really should be exceptions. Just like how you can qualify for early disability retirement, this kind of thing should be based on your actual health or ability to work rather than just hitting a certain age. If you have to pay out of pocket for a major surgery, you shouldn't be denied support; otherwise, you might as well just kick the bucket so someone else can actually benefit from the funds. That exact same money. If I could have gotten my hands on one thing earlier in life, it probably would’ve been a decent mentor. Having someone to point me in the right direction before I made all those rookie mistakes would have saved me a lot of grief. 🙄 Why shouldn't we, even if we're unemployed, be able to draw a pension from that fund?
It’s true that they call it a pension fund, but unlike your standard Social Security check, that money... It’s still there. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be paid.
That fund doesn't have a currency clause, does it? 🤷
That bolded part holds up—if it’s early retirement, payouts start immediately, and if the saver passes away, the heirs get the saved amount right away.
Just try to find one downside. Say, someone isn't working, but they can save money in their own name within the family; they could secure a lifetime pension. If they save, say, $133 $200 a month for 20 years, they'd have roughly $500 a decent monthly pension for life. That’s something, I guess.
There’s no guarantee from the Democratic Party, sure—but this stuff has been paying out for ten years now. People have been asking these same questions since the 401(k) era started. I guess you just take what you can get while it's being handed to you instead of guessing what might happen down the road.
You really need to decide what you want from your money. These retirement accounts are designed specifically for long-term stability—they offer a safety net, modest returns, and those government incentives. Besides, we didn't come up with the whole concept ourselves; maybe that's why it works so well as a framework.
Not many people are actually seeing any real benefit from their 401(k)s since so few have reached the payout stage—and even those who have haven't exactly built up a massive nest egg. I mean, if you look at a 10-year window involving $16667 savings, $4167 Democratic Party contributions, and interest hovering around 6% on anything up to $23333 max—those folks are looking at maybe $6667 out the door, plus whatever $16667 they put in over 5 years, roughly $3333 annually, leaving them with a pension of about $267.
That take on the tax breaks is a bit unusual. If you view it as making things harder, then sure, you don't have to take the deduction. But if you do go that route, you're essentially getting an interest-free loan—you'll pay the tax at the same rate as the deduction anyway, but you still get to use the funds every year.
You might have misheard—these voluntary funds are actually solid across the board. Here’s some data just to help rebuild some trust:
Fund: 2009 Return Raiffeisen Bank 12.02% Vanguard 15.31% State Farm 8.97% Fidelity 10.02% Goldman Sachs 14.96% BlackRock 5.44%
Plus, you still get that $1667 annual government match of 25% ($417) along with the tax breaks for 401(k)-style contributions.
There are only two real downsides—you can't start withdrawals until you're 50, and the payout structure limits you to maybe 30% in cash, with the rest spread over at least five years. Everything else is pretty great, I guess.
Yeah, exactly. Though I guess most insurance companies have some kind of option similar to what Chase and Allianz worked out. You just have to dig around and ask the right questions—it’s worth the effort.
honey said:I don't follow the logic that paying life insurance with a Mastercard makes more sense. The annual surcharge for switching from yearly to monthly payments at Allianz is 6%, while the annual interest on the Mastercard is 13.90%? I'm lost. You save 6% on the policy just to hand 14% over to the bank?! Which advisory firm are you working for—if you don't mind sharing, honey 🙂 maybe send me a DM so you aren't basically running an ad here.
Here’s some info from Allianz—a buddy of mine works there: they have a setup with JPMorgan Chase where you can set up the annual life insurance premium (which is about 5% cheaper than the monthly option) and then pay via debit card or American Express. The client pays it off monthly using the card, and the interest rate is roughly 3.5% annually.
So, the client actually comes out ahead by about 1.5% compared to just paying the standard monthly life insurance premiums.
Well, look, we've only got one domestic bank left—and you can see how in these foreign places where they don't have our "brilliant" managers running things, there isn't any stealing from the bosses. The Italians and Austrians seem pretty good at protecting what they actually earn over there.
It just goes to show how we handle our own business—if anything, these situations are better when our management isn't involved, since those kinds of robberies just don't happen there...
I mean, the second pillar is actually worse—you’re stuck saving until you hit 65 if you're a man or 60 if you're a woman before you even see a cent of that pension, and you don't get those 30% boosts like you do in the third pillar. That’s why they call it a pension; otherwise, most people would probably just blow through all that cash during a recession.