New care time again!!

[Lloyd Parsons]

Got a 2019 Nissan Rogue Hybrid Saturday. Interesting vehicle imo.

Bigger than my Encore both inside and outside, with more seat and
legroom, especially in the back seat. On the non-Hybrid Rogue the
backseats are a little adjustable back and forth and tilt, on the
Hybrid they are fixed.

Has a 7" screen and supports both Carplay and Android Auto. Got to
play around a bit with both. Overall Carplay has a better look and
feel, but from a functional standpoint are fairly similar in what they
will do and how they do it. Carplay now has support for Google Maps
which was a much requested feature.

Driving this hybrid is interesting. It will take some time for me to
get used to the engine shutting off, sometimes even at highway speeds.
In the Nissan the AC is an electric compressor so most times when
stopped the engine is not running. That's a nice idea.

Even though the vehicle is a pretty good size, it comes with a 4
cylinder engine, overall HP is 176 counting both the gas and electric.
Shifting is smooth as silk as it has a CVT.

[ed]

ha, i'm looking again as well.

still looking for something small, sporty-ish, efficient, good for a long commute, preferable with a stick. ;D


i've had android auto and carplay in one of my vehicles for the past couple years, and carry both an iphone and a android phone. fundamentally, they both work just fine, and it's easy enough to work either, but if you're familiar with one vs the other, i can definitely see a wtf moment when you sit down to the other. the big difference is that android auto is far superior for voice commands still (and apple obviously still wants tight control over what your default apps are, which is kind of annoying, but ok-ish).

for fun. ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeESbGPl_Dw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Soa-5D8AlhY

[Lloyd Parsons]

I’ve seen both of those. They are fun for one watch!

The Rogue wouldn’t do for you, not really small, not sporty-ish at all but
is very efficient considering its size. I’m getting 34mpg around town for
the little driving I’ve done since I got it. The CVT is so smooth, but
Nissan gave it some sound effects to sound like it shifts even though it
constantly shifts. Kind of like the old DynaFlow of many years gone by but
without the leaks those were famous for! :)

--
Lloyd

[-hh]

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > ha, i'm looking again as well.
> >
> > still looking for something small, sporty-ish, efficient, good
> > for a long commute, preferable with a stick. ;D

Sticks are getting to be a rare breed. IIRC, both the VW Golf/GTI
& Mazda Miata remain available...a friend picked up the Golf fairly
recently, after a reportedly "long hunt" by the dealer to find one.

> > i've had android auto and carplay in one of my vehicles for the past
> > couple years, and carry both an iphone and a android phone.
> > fundamentally, they both work just fine, and it's easy enough to work
> > either, but if you're familiar with one vs the other, i can definitely
> > see a wtf moment when you sit down to the other. the big difference is
> > that android auto is far superior for voice commands still (and apple
> > obviously still wants tight control over what your default apps are,
> > which is kind of annoying, but ok-ish).
> >
> > for fun. ;D
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeESbGPl_Dw
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Soa-5D8AlhY
>
> I’ve seen both of those. They are fun for one watch!

[Will watch later]

> The Rogue wouldn’t do for you, not really small, not sporty-ish at all but
> is very efficient considering its size. I’m getting 34mpg around town for
> the little driving I’ve done since I got it. The CVT is so smooth, but
> Nissan gave it some sound effects to sound like it shifts even though it
> constantly shifts. Kind of like the old DynaFlow of many years gone by but
> without the leaks those were famous for! :)

I have two friends who have been Rogue owner+fans. The one moved on to
a Nissan Frontier (wanted the 'dirty hauling' of a pickup) and the other
has owned four of them but has been thinking about a change. They don't
know what they want, other than "not smaller".


-hh

[Lloyd Parsons]

I’ve never been a big fan of Nissan/Datsun, but I hadn’t really looked at
them for lots of years either. Years ago I had a Maxima and was fairly
disappointed with it for reasons I can’t remember. I was kind of shopping
this year and had been doing a lot of reading here and there on the web.
Didn’t even look at the Rogue in my searches. But my son was looking for a
good sub-$10K car and found an extremely good deal on a 2009 Cadillac CTS
at the Nissan dealer. As he was test driving the caddy, I looked around
the showroom and they had one of the Rogue Hybrids on the showroom floor.
That night I dug around about it, found lots to like and not much to
dislike about it. So when my son went back to close his deal, I took the
Rogue Hybrid for a spin. Got a good deal ($6K off) and closed my own deal.

I like driving a more fully sized vehicle and this fits the bill well while
still being very fuel efficient.

--
Lloyd

[Thomas E.]

I've been driving a Honda Insight for a few months. You are right, it's interesting. The Insight does not have a conventional transmission. Around town the engine runs about half time, more so on the highway. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the Rogue, so mileage is better. So far 52 combined and 60 or so around town. Both are better than the EPA ratings for the Sport version I bought.

However it's been mostly warm weather driving, Winter weather with the need for cabin heat is likely to see a mileage drop. The Element is a fun car. Initial acceleration is great, and incredibly smooth. The ride is as good as some Accords I have owned.

Overall I'm very pleased so far. I hope you are as pleased with the Nissan.

[ed]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 10:36:50 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > ha, i'm looking again as well.
> > >
> > > still looking for something small, sporty-ish, efficient, good
> > > for a long commute, preferable with a stick. ;D
>
> Sticks are getting to be a rare breed. IIRC, both the VW Golf/GTI
> & Mazda Miata remain available...a friend picked up the Golf fairly
> recently, after a reportedly "long hunt" by the dealer to find one.

golf / jetta / gti, various civics, a variety of subarus, a couple mazda 3s, minis, a handful of hyundais, brz... then a handful of trucks, econoboxes, and bmws are about it...

...

> I have two friends who have been Rogue owner+fans. The one moved on to

> a Nissan Frontier (wanted the 'dirty hauling' of a pickup)...

instead of replacing my nissan titan with another pickup, i bought a high roof cargo van. best. vehicle. ever. ;D

[Lloyd Parsons]

I got the ios13 public beta yesterday. It changes Carplay a bit like
having map and music side by side. Operationally seems the same and no
test yet with voice recognition/commands. With both Carplay and
Android Auto I wish both worked wirelessly instead of plugging them in.
I think there is a very small segment that has Android Auto wireless
but haven't heard anything about Carplay going that way. I've ordered
a phone holder for the car so I can put it where I will be less likely
to forget it. Checked 'connections' in the system. Android Auto shows
both BT and USB while Carplay shows only USB.

The touchscreen layout is quite a bit different from the Encore's
non-touch screen. Will take a bit to get used to it.

The Rogue SV trim level doesn't come with Nissan Connect which is
Nissan's answer to OnStar. Wish it did I like the crash reporting and
anti-theft services. Seems odd that they don't put it on all their
cars, GM puts OnStar in almost everything. I remembered the OnStar
mirror that was available a few years ago and decided to get one.
Nope! Discontinued quite some time back.

As to apps, well both Android Auto and Carplay restrict which apps you
can have from what I see.

[Lloyd Parsons]

I've driven about 100 miles on it so far and like pretty much
everything about it. But of course, time will tell. I hadn't thought
about winter weather. It would seem that the gas engine would need to
run quite a bit in winter to have heat in the car. I've not read
anything that discusses the mileage differences you might get between
winter/summer though it makes sense that there would be.

The Encore always felt 'tight', especially with two adults sitting in
the front. The Rogue is closer to a full size car width both out and
in. Much roomier in all directions. It is a bit taller than the
Encore, but you sit lower down in it even at the fully raised position.
Still comfortable for me and ingress/egress is quite good too. The
back seat in the Rogue is just hands down more comfortable and much
more legroom too. The Encore back seat isn't suitable for adults at
all IMO, the Rogue's is for two. Wouldn't want to be riding in the
middle of the back seat in either.

Cargo space is very much bigger than the Encore, even on the Hybrid
model. And because it is a much wider vehicle my golf clubs will go in
without lowering one of the back seats, nearly crossway but not quite.

As for mileage. Assuming it gets what EPA claims are, it will get a
little more both in town and on the highway though not by a huge
amount. But given the size difference, that's not bad at all.

[Thomas E.]

Right, that heater energy has to come from somewhere. In the Insight in cold weather you can turn the HVAC off and it jumps to EV mode instantly if the battery has enough juice. In extremely cold climates with the heater generating lots of heat energy the engine might need to run full time. I read a review by a Minnesota owner who was complaint about getting under 30 mpg in city winter driving.

I drove a rented Rouge last year. It’s a very nice vehicle.

The Insight EV battery is under the back seat. The cargo capacity is the same as the Civic, which is to say none too great. We have a CRV for hauling stuff.

[ed]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:25:00 PM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
>The Element is a fun car. Initial acceleration is great, and incredibly smooth. The ride is as good as some Accords I have owned.

*sigh*

[-hh]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 10:36:50 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > ha, i'm looking again as well.
> > > >
> > > > still looking for something small, sporty-ish, efficient, good
> > > > for a long commute, preferable with a stick. ;D
> >
> > Sticks are getting to be a rare breed. IIRC, both the VW Golf/GTI
> > & Mazda Miata remain available...a friend picked up the Golf fairly
> > recently, after a reportedly "long hunt" by the dealer to find one.
>
> golf / jetta / gti, various civics, a variety of subarus, a couple
> mazda 3s, minis, a handful of hyundais, brz...

Yeah, I've been out of the market for awhile and not paying much attention.

> ... then a handful of trucks, econoboxes, and bmws are about it...

I think a I read that BMW was cutting another ... maybe the 3 Touring?

IIRC, the 2 Series is available; a friend has a M240i as his DD and
likes it. My wife is maybe considering a 2 for her next ride, but
she won't buy a manual.

> ...
> > I have two friends who have been Rogue owner+fans. The one moved on to
> > a Nissan Frontier (wanted the 'dirty hauling' of a pickup)...
>
> instead of replacing my nissan titan with another pickup, i bought
> a high roof cargo van. best. vehicle. ever. ;D

I keep on lustfully looking back at what 'Digital Lloyd' did with a
customized Mercedes Sprinter ... and then I think about another
international trip someplace where I won't be driving my own vehicle.
Probably would be a near ideal vehicle to have in Iceland, to be able
to do multiple 'overnight' camping deployments near some of the better
hikes...bad weather last fall prevented us from doing one hike along
a river which has something like 30 waterfalls/cascades in ~5 miles.


-hh

[-hh]

Yeah. At 8.4 to 9.4 sec for 0-60mph, contemporary standards
puts this as bordering on sluggish.

<https://www.motortrend.com/news/20-slowest-2015-vehicles-from-0-60-mph/>

If the Element were still offered when this article was written,
it would have come in as tied for 15th slowest model sold.



-hh

[ed]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 1:48:10 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
...

> > ...
> > > I have two friends who have been Rogue owner+fans. The one moved on to
> > > a Nissan Frontier (wanted the 'dirty hauling' of a pickup)...
> >
> > instead of replacing my nissan titan with another pickup, i bought
> > a high roof cargo van. best. vehicle. ever. ;D
>
> I keep on lustfully looking back at what 'Digital Lloyd' did with a
> customized Mercedes Sprinter ... and then I think about another
> international trip someplace where I won't be driving my own vehicle.
> Probably would be a near ideal vehicle to have in Iceland, to be able
> to do multiple 'overnight' camping deployments near some of the better
> hikes...bad weather last fall prevented us from doing one hike along
> a river which has something like 30 waterfalls/cascades in ~5 miles.

https://cozycampers.is/fleet/cozy3/

[ed]

i think tom is really talking about his new insight. it's basically a regular civic, but slower, and made to handle more like a buick. fun!

[-hh]

I believe we saw some of this particular brand when over there. While
they're a good idea, the price isn't. At the lower shoulder season rate
of USD$360/day (vs High Season's $420/day), it works out to the same
price as having a "one step up" rental car with full CDW liability coverage
(~$100/day) and staying in B&B's (averaged $158/night) which usually
also included a hot breakfast ($15/pp).

But its still cheaper than what Digital Lloyd customized for himself,
at least for the first ~350 nights:

<https://windinmyface.com/idx-bike.html#Sprinter_BuildOptions>


-hh

[-hh]

Ah, that's right, he did mention an Insight. Book says 0-60 in ~7.7sec, so
that's just about up to being "average"..which for his "comfort first" sort of
demographic, suffices.

...although he won't survive in this neck of the woods, at least according to
this reporter from WBTV-TV in Charlotte, NC:

<https://wpgtalkradio.com/kristen-hampton-drives-in-new-jersey-wbtv/>

"... and drive a hundred and thirty seventeen MPH" (!) ;-)

-hh

[Thomas E.]

I did say initial. I did not buy it for 0-60 time.

“Sigh”

[Thomas E.]

Which is yet another reason to avoid New Jersey.

[Thomas E.]

Read this. Car and Driver would disagree.
https://www.caranddriver.com/honda/insight

[Thomas E.]

Read these too, especially the Edmunds owner reviews. I did after the test drive and before the purchase.

https://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/honda_insight_2019
https://www.edmunds.com/honda/insight/
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/honda/insight/first-drives/honda-insight-hybrid-touring-2019-review
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a26287347/2019-honda-insight-reliability-maintenance/

[ed]

not really.
'rather conventional sedan similar in character to the Honda Civic...supple suspension...about as quick as many conventionally powered compact cars..."

i'm sure it's a lovely car for someone who never goes over the speed limit and is looking for an a-b appliance. that's cool. just don't call it fun. :P

[ed]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 12:21:57 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 11:42:52 PM UTC+1, ed wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 3:11:48 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:25:00 PM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > The Element is a fun car. Initial acceleration is great,
> > > > > and incredibly smooth. The ride is as good as some Accords I have owned.
> > > >
> > > > *sigh*
> > >
> > > Yeah. At 8.4 to 9.4 sec for 0-60mph, contemporary standards
> > > puts this as bordering on sluggish.
> > >
> > > <https://www.motortrend.com/news/20-slowest-2015-vehicles-from-0-60-mph/>
> > >
> > > If the Element were still offered when this article was written,
> > > it would have come in as tied for 15th slowest model sold.
> >
> > i think tom is really talking about his new insight. it's basically a regular civic, but slower, and made to handle more like a buick. fun!
>
> Read these too, especially the Edmunds owner reviews. I did after the test drive and before the purchase.
>
> https://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/honda_insight_2019

"normal" "pokey" "relaxed" "not great for performance" "lack of pep" "chunky steering wheel hints at a sportier mission than the car delivers"

this really what you scared up to counter this being a not fun, slower, softer civic?

> https://www.edmunds.com/honda/insight/

sorry, i'll skip reader comments.

> https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/honda/insight/first-drives/honda-insight-hybrid-touring-2019-review

this review says almost nothing useful.

> https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a26287347/2019-honda-insight-reliability-maintenance/

it's "not the punishment we expected." ringing endorsement! "droning engine" that "is the main reason staffers shy away from taking the car on long trips" - ok, got me on that one; not buick like. ha.

[Alan Baker]

Fun is a 2012 BMW 135i M-Sport...

;-)

[Lloyd Parsons]

I had my fair share of 'fun' cars over the years. Age and agility make
them not so much fun now though! :) These days I save my 'fun' for
the destination.

[Lloyd Parsons]

As long as it isn't in for yet another service visit! :)

Speaking of service visits. Just noticed that the Nissan Rogue gets
oil/filter change every 6 months or 5000 miles. Seems odd they want
that done so often as they use full synthetic oil. The Encore was
using oil life which usually was 7.5K miles or 1 year with a synth
blend.

[Lloyd Parsons]

The reviews at many places weren't great for the Nissan Rogue Hybrid.
Talked about sluggishness and so forth. After driving a bit more I
think they must have had them locked in the 'Eco' mode as I thought
acceleration both off the line and for passing were quite good
considering the size/weight. Not barn burner good, but very much OK
for a compact SUV.

Economy is very good. I checked a 100 mile highway only trip and got
39.4mpg, around town/mixed seems about 35mpg. Not too shabby for
basically what passes for full size car these days.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 2:35:44 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 2:38:43 AM UTC+1, -hh wrote:

> > ...
> > ...although [Tom] won't survive in this neck of the woods, at least according

> > to this reporter from WBTV-TV in Charlotte, NC:
> >
> > <https://wpgtalkradio.com/kristen-hampton-drives-in-new-jersey-wbtv/>
> >
> > "... and drive a hundred and thirty seventeen MPH" (!) ;-)
> >
> > -hh
>
> Which is yet another reason to avoid New Jersey.

Since you lack the car .. and the cojones .. for it, that's a good personal choice for you.

Particularly since you ran away from the 'Big City' life back at age 33 (1979), to
retreat into a "Pleasantville" premature retirement life replete with traffic circles a
mere forty years ago. Self-driving electric golf carts are next for you.


FWIW, I'd speculate that this NC reporter's frazzling was more from her just
having spent several hours driving northbound in traffic of a higher density than
she's used to, which requires higher attentiveness. For example, say that she
left home that morning to drive up the I-95 corridor: by the time that she got to
a NJ rest stop, she would've already driven ~500 miles (and 9 hours), of which
the entire second half would have been north of Quantico VA and thus, not
"empty road cruising" by a long shot: the Quantico-DC-Baltimore-DE Corridor is
a high utilization road, with much of it probably averaging over four lanes wide
(and it still jams up to a dead stop during peak hours).


-hh

[Lloyd Parsons]

On 2019-06-26 11:20:40 +0000, -hh said:

> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 2:35:44 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 2:38:43 AM UTC+1, -hh wrote:
>>> ...
>>> ...although [Tom] won't survive in this neck of the woods, at least according
>>> to this reporter from WBTV-TV in Charlotte, NC:
>>>
>>> <https://wpgtalkradio.com/kristen-hampton-drives-in-new-jersey-wbtv/>
>>>
>>> "... and drive a hundred and thirty seventeen MPH" (!) ;-)
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> Which is yet another reason to avoid New Jersey.
>
> Since you lack the car .. and the cojones .. for it, that's a good
> personal choice for you.
>
> Particularly since you ran away from the 'Big City' life back at age 33
> (1979), to
> retreat into a "Pleasantville" premature retirement life replete with
> traffic circles a
> mere forty years ago. Self-driving electric golf carts are next for you.

Now you've done it! I'm forced to defend Tom's life choice.

Who the hell wants to live in the 'big city'? Crowded, horrid traffic,
more often than not very smelly. Like Tom I chose to live in fly over
country. I'm glad that you 'coasters' fly over us, keep doing that! :)

In the meantime, I bought a new built 1600 sq.ft. home for $150K, could
have bought homes less than 10 years old for that or less. The airport
is 5 minutes away with no parking fees. I know all my neighbors.

I could have lived in the city. Tiny apartment for lots of dollars,
traffic jams, bad tempers and long commutes to a job. Of course I
could buy a home in some cities or its suburbs for prices approaching
$1M for the exact same home I have here.

For what I have I gave up a bit of income, but these days could get a
job from home that would pay lots more because of the internet. Less
entertainment options, but those are only a 2 hour drive away on either
2-lane lazy roads or the interstate.

I could say less taxes, but I live in Illinois and anywhere in Illinois
isn't ever described as low tax areas. :)

>
>
> FWIW, I'd speculate that this NC reporter's frazzling was more from her just
> having spent several hours driving northbound in traffic of a higher
> density than
> she's used to, which requires higher attentiveness. For example, say that she
> left home that morning to drive up the I-95 corridor: by the time that
> she got to
> a NJ rest stop, she would've already driven ~500 miles (and 9 hours), of which
> the entire second half would have been north of Quantico VA and thus, not
> "empty road cruising" by a long shot: the Quantico-DC-Baltimore-DE Corridor is
> a high utilization road, with much of it probably averaging over four
> lanes wide
> (and it still jams up to a dead stop during peak hours).
>
>
> -hh

You and that reporter can keep that kind of driving conditions!

[Thomas E.]

Right, you skipped the glowing reader comments! Then you cherry-picked from the articles.

[Thomas E.]

Fun is an personal opinion, not a universal truth.

[Thomas E.]

Maybe fun is tooling around town getting 60 mpg. May fun for you is not fun for me.

The Insight is fine cruising at 80 if you are happy with 42 mpg.

[Thomas E.]

Oh my, talk about overreach! I "fled" a DC dead end federal job for a job in Indianapolis that paid more money, lower living costs and a 25 not 60 or 90 minute commute. I grew up in a small town, went to school in Knoxville, worked in the Cincinnati area and wound up in the Indy area. Yes it is pleasant there. So by inference you must prefer unpleasant. You certainly choose to live in one, or near to it. But, in fact, like me you choose to live in the suburbs, not Newark or NYC. Why is that?

40 years ago there was one traffic circle in the entire Indy area, that at Monument Circle. Those have been a bonus that started less than 10 years back.

I just finished 600 plus miles driving on British motorways around Manchester, Liverpool, lLeeds and Coventry. Don’t preach to me about heavy traffic and cojones. The rental was a Vauxhall with a 6 speed manual. I had a lot of fun with it. It even had Car Play!

[Thomas E.]

Amen

[ed]

no, it's not. :P

[Thomas E.]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:13:42 AM UTC+1, ed wrote:

So you don’t care to read positive reviews like

The interior is very quiet, allowing the wonderful stereo to sound awesome. The handling and ride quality are a pleasure. I'm averaging more than 51 mpg over more than 1,400 miles of mixed highway, twisty mountain roads and city driving. When I's stuck in stop and go traffic the MPG get's improves! I have a favorite breakfast place about 20 miles from my home and the Insight is averaging about 65mpg and the trip there. The engine noise when going up a hill was disturbing at first, but I'm either getting used to it or it's getting better with more miles on the car. I have been pleasantly surprised with the acceleration when entering the freeway, the Insight moves briskly when it needs to.

[ed]

the rub is, you have no idea where the readers are coming from. like this guy you quote - moves briskly? wtf is he comparing to? c'mon now.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 7:56:49 AM UTC-4, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On 2019-06-26 11:20:40 +0000, -hh said:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 2:35:44 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 2:38:43 AM UTC+1, -hh wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> ...although [Tom] won't survive in this neck of the woods, at
> >>> least according to this reporter from WBTV-TV in Charlotte, NC:
> >>>
> >>> <https://wpgtalkradio.com/kristen-hampton-drives-in-new-jersey-wbtv/>
> >>>
> >>> "... and drive a hundred and thirty seventeen MPH" (!) ;-)
> >>>
> >>> -hh
> >>
> >> Which is yet another reason to avoid New Jersey.
> >
> > Since you lack the car .. and the cojones .. for it, that's a good
> > personal choice for you.
> >
> > Particularly since you ran away from the 'Big City' life back
> > at age 33 (1979), to retreat into a "Pleasantville" premature
> > retirement life replete with traffic circles a mere forty years
> > ago. Self-driving electric golf carts are next for you.
>
> Now you've done it! I'm forced to defend Tom's life choice.

Except that everything is a trade-off, and a multivariate one at that
and the tangent was really to have an excuse to post a link to a
pretty funny (& going viral this week) video.

> Who the hell wants to live in the 'big city'? Crowded, horrid traffic,
> more often than not very smelly.

Except let us not forget how often Tom has tried to claim the urban
amenities of Indianapolis for his advocating of living in its suburbs.

In any event, I'm seriously considering moving from our version of
Suburbia into a more 'downtown' location for retirement. I've seen
the appeal of living in the boonies, but it also incurs the limitation
where nothing is close, either: a quick errand to the local grocery
or hardware store is 20+ minutes one way, so a single round trip is
easily an hour blown...plus this excursion can't be done without a car,
so as one ages and is less confident at night driving, the more the
country house functionally becomes a prison of isolation.

That's why I'm contemplating the likes of a condo located in a
readily walkable urban center. Not sure where yet; the list has
even included kicking around Paris of all places, for example.

> Like Tom I chose to live in fly over country. I'm glad that you
> 'coasters' fly over us, keep doing that! :)

The reality is that the cross-country drive incurs a large time
commitment factor, and when one is work full time and not having
large blocks of vacation time, the trade-off is to elect to fly
instead of burning days driving. Plus there's also thin pickings
for distractions along the way .. even when including stuff like
the "largest ball of twine" roadside attractions on the list.

> In the meantime, I bought a new built 1600 sq.ft. home for $150K,
> could have bought homes less than 10 years old for that or less.

Housing varies extremely widely. While its "always a good thing"
to not have too much tied up into a particular place, just how much
is 'too much' is a YMMV, particularly when put into context of
individual appeal and resale. For example, a few years ago, I was
shown a listing for what appeared to be quite a good deal: it was
IIRC a ~2500ft^2 3BR Ranch with a 2 car attached + 2 car detached
garages, plus a boat shed (high bay 1 car), sitting on ~8.5 acres
(and bordering a stream) for only $250K. The catch was that it was
remote: roughly 7 miles down a single lane country road (more
dangerous in winter), and then another ~15 miles down highway roads
to get close to a city center for groceries/MD/restaurant/etc. What
I've learned since is that utilities are another factor: this
property was outside of areas supported for CATV & high speed Internet,
so your only choice was satellite.

> The airport is 5 minutes away with no parking fees.

Is it like Tom's, where its only international if you're cargo? <g>

> I could have lived in the city. Tiny apartment for lots of dollars,
> traffic jams, bad tempers and long commutes to a job. Of course I
> could buy a home in some cities or its suburbs for prices approaching
> $1M for the exact same home I have here.

Classical supply & demand for locations with better infrastructure
and amenities.

> For what I have I gave up a bit of income, but these days could get a
> job from home that would pay lots more because of the internet. Less
> entertainment options, but those are only a 2 hour drive away on either
> 2-lane lazy roads or the interstate.
>
> I could say less taxes, but I live in Illinois and anywhere in Illinois
> isn't ever described as low tax areas. :)

Everything's relative. What I'm largely looking for is an oxymoron
of great local infrastructure & amenities, but still affordable to
be able to have a nice big condo in the middle of main street, where
within walking distance there's a nice choice of pubs, eateries, etc,
along with a bus or train stop to hop on to get across town, etc.
FWIW, that's one reason why some European cities have been mentioned.

> > FWIW, I'd speculate that this NC reporter's frazzling was more
> > from her just having spent several hours driving northbound in
> > traffic of a higher density than she's used to, which requires
> > higher attentiveness. For example, say that she left home that
> > morning to drive up the I-95 corridor: by the time that she got to
> > a NJ rest stop, she would've already driven ~500 miles (and 9 hours),
> > of which the entire second half would have been north of Quantico
> > VA and thus, not "empty road cruising" by a long shot: the Quantico
> > -DC-Baltimore-DE Corridor is a high utilization road, with much of
> > it probably averaging over four lanes wide (and it still jams up
> > to a dead stop during peak hours).
>
>

> You and that reporter can keep that kind of driving conditions!

Oh, its the reporter, not me: few locals would do the kind of roadtrip
that she apparently did, because we've learned that congested driving
is more fatiguing than 'empty country highway'. As a rule of thumb,
figure 2x-3x higher. So after driving the physiological/psychological
equivalent of 15-20 hours straight, just who wouldn't be frazzled?


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Actually, the Beemer has a "Conditioned Based Service" system for almost
everything on the car.

[Alan Baker]

Golly, Liarboy: thanks for the deep insight.

[-hh]

Funny how quickly Tom develops a thin skin, eh?

> I "fled" a DC dead end federal job ...

Seems that you made a lot of dead ends for yourself in your career, eh?
In any event, what you left was the prime location for picking up one
of those classical 'beltway bandit' lobbyist gigs...

> ... for a job in Indianapolis that paid more money, lower

> living costs and a 25 not 60 or 90 minute commute.

Granted, Fed compensation was pretty poor in that era when living in
higher cost of living regions; the law changed way back in 1990..

> I grew up in a small town, went to school in Knoxville, worked
> in the Cincinnati area and wound up in the Indy area. Yes it is
> pleasant there. So by inference you must prefer unpleasant.

Please. I've spent time in two of the three of the places you've
named and their summer heat & humidity isn't even close to "pleasant".
Granted NJ gets sticky at times too, but they're much shorter lived.

> You certainly choose to live in one, or near to it. But, in fact,
> like me you choose to live in the suburbs, not Newark or NYC.
> Why is that?

Location. Our work locations were ~30 miles apart, so we chose
a place located between them: the sum of the two daily commutes
worked out to 34 miles.

> I just finished 600 plus miles driving on British motorways
> around Manchester, Liverpool, lLeeds and Coventry. Don’t preach
> to me about heavy traffic and cojones.

That brace is ~400 miles round trip ... did you avoid the faster
Motorways and drive it on back roads instead? That would then
align with your expressed distain for the NJT ... that is, if it
really is about the road.

> The rental was a Vauxhall with a 6 speed manual. I had a lot
> of fun with it. It even had Car Play!

Vauxhall is Opel, which had been GM until just a year or so ago.
Fortunately, their design has had a lot of European influence.

Driving a manual in the UK is a learning curve, particularly with
the shift being on the left and the rotaries going clockwise.
But the traffic lights' yellow-before-green signaling does help.

YMMV, but overall, I've found UK driving to be easier than in Italy.



-hh

[Lloyd Parsons]

That’s essentially what Buick does. Nissan seems more on the ‘old’ way of
doing things.

--
Lloyd

[Thomas E.]

Wow I’m writing this from London. I got here from Indy, going home tomorrow. Just like my previous 120 international trips. So what if most involved connections.

[Thomas E.]

We also went to Wales and Preston. I’m left handed. Love the shifting, it comes naturally. Italy is a breeze, why do you think it’s not?

[Thomas E.]

We can walk to a pub, at least 6 restaurants, 2 large groceries, our dentist, GP and a Med-check. Just a bit further is a Home Depot, Office Depot, pet store, 2 department stores, and a car dealer.

Restaurants within 15 minute walk

Local Mexican x 2
Local breakfast/lunch
Local fine dining
Subway
Local Chinese
Local Pub
Outback
Olive Garden
Jersey Mikes
Donotos
Local sushi/Japanese
Red Robin

Thinking about, quite some range.
Starbucks x 2

[-hh]

> We can walk to a pub, at least 6 restaurants, 2 large groceries, our dentist, GP
> and a Med-check. Just a bit further is a Home Depot, Office Depot, pet store,
> 2 department stores, and a car dealer.
>
> Restaurants within 15 minute walk
>
> Local Mexican x 2
> Local breakfast/lunch
> Local fine dining
> Subway
> Local Chinese
> Local Pub
> Outback
> Olive Garden
> Jersey Mikes
> Donotos
> Local sushi/Japanese
> Red Robin

It all comes down to what 'walking' circle you want to claim as the goal.
From my perspective, while a 0.4 mile is 'walkable', for what I'm looking for
in future-proofing, a 0.4 mile distance is at risk of being "too far".

For example, your situation is similar to my current one where there's stuff
which is "nearby" and arguably within easy walking distance, the facts are
that its all at least 0.4 miles away, so we'll still jump in the car to go there.
Some of that, of course, is time factors, but its what's become habit too.

Plus your Outback & Red Robin are each 1.2 miles away, and the Olive Garden
and Home Depot are both further still ... when was the last time, if ever, that
you actually walked over & back to your Home Depot to buy a hardware item?


-hh

[-hh]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 6:52:50 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> ...

>
> We also went to Wales and Preston. I’m left handed. Love the shifting, it comes
> naturally.

But without a car with a manual at home, you're still going to be out of practice.

> Italy is a breeze, why do you think it’s not?

I've found the UK drivers to be a bit more sedate and overall, much more
predictable than Italian drivers.



-hh

[Thomas E.]

I find it amusing that when challenged you realized that the article cited casts a very bad light on your choice of place of residence and furiously backpedal.

[Thomas E.]

I have never walked to Red Robin. I don't even like their caloric overload menu. Trips to Home Depot often involve use of the CRV or Insight to haul purchases. Outback and Olive Garden are across a busy highway, and until very recently not a safe walk. The city just installed pedestrian lights at 106th and Michigan Road, so that is now much improved.

I do often walk to the pub and several other closer restaurants, Kroger/Starbucks, Target, the doctor, Great Clips (next to Kroger), dentist, and Walgreen's (not mentioned above, close to the pub). You are going to find it almost impossible to find that variety available within .4 miles in any urban area, including central Paris. I think you need to consider assisted living!

Oh, I forgot to mention that a new Aldi just opened across the street from Kroger.

[Lloyd Parsons]

At one point in my life I considered moving into an apartment/condo in
the city central of St. Louis. This was after they 'revitalized' their
downtown and there was lots of conversions of old buildings. But
looking around a bit we decided against it.

While the housing was very nice, they really hadn't done anything to
make it a 'walk to the store' or whatever place to be. Lots of things
down there, just not lots of things needed for daily living IMO.

>
>> Like Tom I chose to live in fly over country. I'm glad that you
>> 'coasters' fly over us, keep doing that! :)
>
> The reality is that the cross-country drive incurs a large time
> commitment factor, and when one is work full time and not having
> large blocks of vacation time, the trade-off is to elect to fly
> instead of burning days driving. Plus there's also thin pickings
> for distractions along the way .. even when including stuff like
> the "largest ball of twine" roadside attractions on the list.

You diss the 'largest ball of twine'? You swine!! :)

>
>
>> In the meantime, I bought a new built 1600 sq.ft. home for $150K,
>> could have bought homes less than 10 years old for that or less.
>
> Housing varies extremely widely. While its "always a good thing"
> to not have too much tied up into a particular place, just how much
> is 'too much' is a YMMV, particularly when put into context of
> individual appeal and resale. For example, a few years ago, I was
> shown a listing for what appeared to be quite a good deal: it was
> IIRC a ~2500ft^2 3BR Ranch with a 2 car attached + 2 car detached
> garages, plus a boat shed (high bay 1 car), sitting on ~8.5 acres
> (and bordering a stream) for only $250K. The catch was that it was
> remote: roughly 7 miles down a single lane country road (more
> dangerous in winter), and then another ~15 miles down highway roads
> to get close to a city center for groceries/MD/restaurant/etc. What
> I've learned since is that utilities are another factor: this
> property was outside of areas supported for CATV & high speed Internet,
> so your only choice was satellite.

I always look at those kinds of properties. Some really beautiful and
then think of the ongoing maintenance of them and the distances to
everything as well as the lack of CATV & internet. Those are the
reasons I didn't choose anything like that though it has a certain
allure.

Intead I'm on the edge of a small rural town of about 12K. I'm 75 and
live alone so being in town is important for lots of age and health
related reasons. Can't walk to the store and such, but I can drive
about 5 minutes to grocery, gas and of course, a Walmart. Plenty of
fast food type places and a few small restaurants.

Within a 30 mile radius is plenty more. And all without ever hitting
an interstate or even a real traffic jam!

>
>
>> The airport is 5 minutes away with no parking fees.
>
> Is it like Tom's, where its only international if you're cargo? <g>

Even smaller! Only a puddle jumper to St. Louis. Costs a little more
than a week's parking at the St. Louis airport. Time of flight about
45 minutes.

>
>
>> I could have lived in the city. Tiny apartment for lots of dollars,
>> traffic jams, bad tempers and long commutes to a job. Of course I
>> could buy a home in some cities or its suburbs for prices approaching
>> $1M for the exact same home I have here.
>
> Classical supply & demand for locations with better infrastructure
> and amenities.

Well yes and no. Many larger cities have housing that their residents
are finding difficult to afford.

>
>
>> For what I have I gave up a bit of income, but these days could get a
>> job from home that would pay lots more because of the internet. Less
>> entertainment options, but those are only a 2 hour drive away on either
>> 2-lane lazy roads or the interstate.
>>
>> I could say less taxes, but I live in Illinois and anywhere in Illinois
>> isn't ever described as low tax areas. :)
>
> Everything's relative. What I'm largely looking for is an oxymoron
> of great local infrastructure & amenities, but still affordable to
> be able to have a nice big condo in the middle of main street, where
> within walking distance there's a nice choice of pubs, eateries, etc,
> along with a bus or train stop to hop on to get across town, etc.
> FWIW, that's one reason why some European cities have been mentioned.

I've seen pictures of planned communities over the years with all those
amenities proposed. Haven't really followed how any of them fared over
the years. Always looked nice and the idea was good.
>
>
> -hh

Let's come back to the cars again. In another forum we're discussing
cars of all sorts. One wag on there said I should have gotten a full
electric car instead since I don't drive much. So I did some digging
about them a bit more. I found that they aren't ready for me yet!

I take a few trips to Kansas City each year. 350 miles one-way, would
require 2 charges on the way. How long does a charge take? Seems to
vary widely depending on the charging stations. And do all charging
stations have the same kind of plugs? And since I generally take the
'back roads' for the trip, winding through small towns and 2-lane
roads, are there charging stations along that route? (answer is mostly
no!).

With my hybrid I can just drive the damned trip with no stops at all
should I so choose. With a 400+ mile range on a single tank of gas my
ass will run out before the tank does!! :)

And he said I could save money up front. Well a quick look through
cars.com showed that wasn't right either. Local Nissan dealer is
selling the Rogue Hybrid SV for a shade less than $24K which includes a
$6K discount straight off the sticker. No pure electric that isn't
just a bit bigger than a golf cart sells for that, or at least none I
saw.

After a couple hundred miles of driving this Hybrid I'm really liking
it! The car is about the size of a 'full size' car, the ride is very
smooth and quiet and it gets small gas car mileage but with a big car.
Comfortable seats, back seats with enough legroom that a couple of
adults would find comfortable to sit in and great headroom.

[Thomas E.]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 4:04:06 AM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 11:43:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 11:42:52 PM UTC+1, ed wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 3:11:48 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:25:00 PM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > The Element is a fun car. Initial acceleration is great,
> > > > > > and incredibly smooth. The ride is as good as some Accords I have owned.
> > > > >
> > > > > *sigh*
> > > >
> > > > Yeah. At 8.4 to 9.4 sec for 0-60mph, contemporary standards
> > > > puts this as bordering on sluggish.
> > > >
> > > > <https://www.motortrend.com/news/20-slowest-2015-vehicles-from-0-60-mph/>
> > > >
> > > > If the Element were still offered when this article was written,
> > > > it would have come in as tied for 15th slowest model sold.
> > >
> > > i think tom is really talking about his new insight. it's basically a regular civic, but slower, and made to handle more like a buick. fun!
> >
> > Read this. Car and Driver would disagree.
> > https://www.caranddriver.com/honda/insight
>
> not really.
> 'rather conventional sedan similar in character to the Honda Civic...supple suspension...about as quick as many conventionally powered compact cars..."
>
> i'm sure it's a lovely car for someone who never goes over the speed limit and is looking for an a-b appliance. that's cool. just don't call it fun. :P

First of all, the Insight and Civic are very different cars that share few parts. Second, the reviews are generally positive. It will easily cruise at well over any posted speed limit. At 7.7 to 60 it easily keeps up with traffic anywhere. It will not corner with a Vette or a Porsche, but how often do you really need to in daily driving?

https://www.hybridcars.com/2019-honda-insight-real-insight-just-new-civic-hybrid/

"The combination makes 151 hp and 197 lb-ft. That’s 7 hp less than the Civic’s more common 2.0L four, but more (by) 59 lb-ft of torque. In most driving, that torque makes this car peppier than even the Civic’s 1.5T. On the move, the electric motor responds instantly with a healthy shove. Even in acceleration from a stop, the Insight feels quicker than a turbo Civic. That’s because the electric motors respond more quickly than a CVT. And the long rev-hang of the Civic’s manual gearbox means that while you’re waiting for the revs to fall so you can shift without spinning the tires, the Insight has pulled past you."


Read the last line please:

"The third-gen Insight could have easily been just another also-ran hybrid from Honda. But instead the automaker did an impressive job of making this car a premium compact first, and a hybrid second. Without sacrificing the fuel economy that brings buyers to hybrids in the first place. Instead of a penalty box with an electric motor, this is a car that easily justifies its sticker price. A price that puts it startlingly close to parity with the gas car on which it’s based. And the Insight is nicer inside and nicer for your right foot. This is probably the best sedan Honda makes right now, and after the last Insight (and previous Civic Hybrids) that’s an impressive feat."


Basically what you are saying that your fun is better than my fun. That's your ego talking, pure and simple. There is no way to prove it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-06-28 9:37 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:

> Basically what you are saying that your fun is better than my fun.
> That's your ego talking, pure and simple. There is no way to prove
> it.

Ironic coming from the guy who tried to insist that his fun (flying) was
better than my fun (racing).

:-)

[-hh]

You're reading into it what you want, Tom. The reporter was
in downright awe of things that locals take for granted.
Two items so mentioned were gas stations where your gas is
pumped for you, and NJT rest stops which have "food courts".


-hh

[-hh]

> I have never walked to Red Robin. I don't even like their caloric overload menu.

Nor apparently the Olive Garden or Outback. As such, you've demonstrated
that even a ~1 mile radius is pragmatically greater than what you're
willing to walk even today, let alone when you're age 80+.

> I do often walk to the pub and several other closer restaurants,
> Kroger/Starbucks, Target, the doctor, Great Clips (next to Kroger),
> dentist, and Walgreen's (not mentioned above, close to the pub).

Which effectively means you've already limited yourself down to a
roughly 0.5 mile radius.

> You are going to find it almost impossible to find that variety
> available within .4 miles in any urban area, including central Paris.

Oh, I've already found this in Paris, as well as in other European
cities; case in point: <https://goo.gl/maps/GX1oVLu7kvjqJ3KB7>

> I think you need to consider assisted living!

Oh, I've already been planning & budgeting for that phase too; this
discussion is the ~20 year period between prior to then.


-hh

[-hh]

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On 2019-06-26 17:58:50 +0000, -hh said:

> > [...]

> > In any event, I'm seriously considering moving from our version of
> > Suburbia into a more 'downtown' location for retirement. I've seen
> > the appeal of living in the boonies, but it also incurs the limitation
> > where nothing is close, either: a quick errand to the local grocery
> > or hardware store is 20+ minutes one way, so a single round trip is
> > easily an hour blown...plus this excursion can't be done without a car,
> > so as one ages and is less confident at night driving, the more the
> > country house functionally becomes a prison of isolation.
> >
> > That's why I'm contemplating the likes of a condo located in a
> > readily walkable urban center. Not sure where yet; the list has
> > even included kicking around Paris of all places, for example.
>
> At one point in my life I considered moving into an apartment/condo in
> the city central of St. Louis. This was after they 'revitalized' their
> downtown and there was lots of conversions of old buildings. But
> looking around a bit we decided against it.
>
> While the housing was very nice, they really hadn't done anything to
> make it a 'walk to the store' or whatever place to be. Lots of things
> down there, just not lots of things needed for daily living IMO.

Understood; it can be a challenging search for the right mix
of 'gentrification' and price, particularly as you go on to note
about prices impacting affordability. In my youth, I'd lived for
some years in a downright seedy/rundown section (price was right)
and yet, one of the things that I really appreciated about it was
the location and proximity to stuff ... and that kept me out of
the car and out walking, which is what I today need to do more of.

> >> Like Tom I chose to live in fly over country. I'm glad that
> >> you 'coasters' fly over us, keep doing that! :)
> >
> > The reality is that the cross-country drive incurs a large time
> > commitment factor, and when one is work full time and not having
> > large blocks of vacation time, the trade-off is to elect to fly
> > instead of burning days driving. Plus there's also thin pickings
> > for distractions along the way .. even when including stuff like
> > the "largest ball of twine" roadside attractions on the list.
>
> You diss the 'largest ball of twine'? You swine!! :)

Oh, I don't mind kitschy stuff like this, but when on a cross-country
trip, there's only so much of it that one can take as your premise
to take a driving break. If you prefer, I'll pick on South Dakota
instead: the world's largest corn palace and of course, the most
famous tourist trap after SC's "South of the Border" of Wall Drug Store

> >> In the meantime, I bought a new built 1600 sq.ft. home for $150K,
> >> could have bought homes less than 10 years old for that or less.
> >
> > Housing varies extremely widely. While its "always a good thing"
> > to not have too much tied up into a particular place, just how much
> > is 'too much' is a YMMV, particularly when put into context of
> > individual appeal and resale. For example, a few years ago, I was
> > shown a listing for what appeared to be quite a good deal: it was
> > IIRC a ~2500ft^2 3BR Ranch with a 2 car attached + 2 car detached
> > garages, plus a boat shed (high bay 1 car), sitting on ~8.5 acres
> > (and bordering a stream) for only $250K. The catch was that it was
> > remote: roughly 7 miles down a single lane country road (more
> > dangerous in winter), and then another ~15 miles down highway roads
> > to get close to a city center for groceries/MD/restaurant/etc. What
> > I've learned since is that utilities are another factor: this
> > property was outside of areas supported for CATV & high speed Internet,
> > so your only choice was satellite.
>
> I always look at those kinds of properties. Some really beautiful and
> then think of the ongoing maintenance of them and the distances to
> everything as well as the lack of CATV & internet. Those are the
> reasons I didn't choose anything like that though it has a certain
> allure.

What we found was that we'd taken the availabilities of such amenities
utterly for granted ... "what do you mean that I only have one ISP
to choose from?", etc.

> Instead I'm on the edge of a small rural town of about 12K. I'm 75 and

> live alone so being in town is important for lots of age and health
> related reasons. Can't walk to the store and such, but I can drive
> about 5 minutes to grocery, gas and of course, a Walmart. Plenty of
> fast food type places and a few small restaurants.

This was what I finally began to notice with our parent's retirement
choices: the one I'd already mentioned had lived year round in a
basically summer-only beach community that was a drive outside of town
and the other was pretty well located in a condo in a Florida beach
city that "trapped" them in during the crowded high season. Both
could get walking exercise by "going around the block", but lacked
anything sufficiently nearby to employ as a destination to give
purpose to walking.

> >> The airport is 5 minutes away with no parking fees.
> >
> > Is it like Tom's, where its only international if you're cargo? <g>
>
> Even smaller! Only a puddle jumper to St. Louis. Costs a little more
> than a week's parking at the St. Louis airport. Time of flight about
> 45 minutes.

Since you mentioned Illinois, maybe ~100 miles east of STL then?
I've gone out to STL at times and then driving the ~2 hours SW
to get to Fort Leonard Wood, as the puddlejumper's schedule for
TBN was quite limiting

> >> I could have lived in the city. Tiny apartment for lots of dollars,
> >> traffic jams, bad tempers and long commutes to a job. Of course I
> >> could buy a home in some cities or its suburbs for prices approaching
> >> $1M for the exact same home I have here.
> >
> > Classical supply & demand for locations with better infrastructure
> > and amenities.
>
> Well yes and no. Many larger cities have housing that their residents
> are finding difficult to afford.

Agreed; makes it a much tougher search. One city "main street" in
eastern TN that we've spent a little time looking at has been struggling
for years, so if there were a few more non-empty storefronts, I'd be
game for an upstairs condo (although for future-proofing, I'd want to
find a place which includes an elevator). But I could have bought an
old 300,000 ft^2 department store for only $300K ... yes, $1/ft^2!.
It merely needed around a half mil to mediate asbestos and prevent a
structural brick wall from collapsing ;-)

> >> For what I have I gave up a bit of income, but these days could get a
> >> job from home that would pay lots more because of the internet. Less
> >> entertainment options, but those are only a 2 hour drive away on either
> >> 2-lane lazy roads or the interstate.
> >>
> >> I could say less taxes, but I live in Illinois and anywhere in Illinois
> >> isn't ever described as low tax areas. :)
> >
> > Everything's relative. What I'm largely looking for is an oxymoron
> > of great local infrastructure & amenities, but still affordable to
> > be able to have a nice big condo in the middle of main street, where
> > within walking distance there's a nice choice of pubs, eateries, etc,
> > along with a bus or train stop to hop on to get across town, etc.
> > FWIW, that's one reason why some European cities have been mentioned.
>
> I've seen pictures of planned communities over the years with all those
> amenities proposed. Haven't really followed how any of them fared over
> the years. Always looked nice and the idea was good.

Had a now-deceased relative that moved into one of these, which they
very much adored. The configuration is basically one wing with
independent senior living condos and a second wing which has the
assisted (& higher) rooms; one moves into one of the condos and
develops roots/social friendships/etc ... when the time for a higher
level of care/assistance is required, one stays within the community
but moves over to the other wing. And for couples, the one can
stay "home" when the other moves over, and its a short indoor walk
to visit the other room.

> Let's come back to the cars again. In another forum we're discussing
> cars of all sorts. One wag on there said I should have gotten a full
> electric car instead since I don't drive much. So I did some digging
> about them a bit more. I found that they aren't ready for me yet!

Nor me. The basic problem is the lack of a solid infrastructure.

> I take a few trips to Kansas City each year. 350 miles one-way, would
> require 2 charges on the way. How long does a charge take? Seems to
> vary widely depending on the charging stations. And do all charging
> stations have the same kind of plugs? And since I generally take the
> 'back roads' for the trip, winding through small towns and 2-lane
> roads, are there charging stations along that route? (answer is mostly
> no!).

Plus there's another gotcha that you didn't mention: for many of the
recharge stations apparently, their electrical hookup to the grid is
undersized vs the peak demand of all stations pulling power to recharge.

What this means is that when there's multiple cars trying to recharge
at the same time, it can so happen that none of them get the full recharge
rating because of this supply bottleneck. This factor can easily
triple the charge time at these high performance stations.

> With my hybrid I can just drive the damned trip with no stops at all
> should I so choose. With a 400+ mile range on a single tank of gas my
> ass will run out before the tank does!! :)

FWIW, read an electric car 'test drive' story recently, where the
journalist admittedly screwed up (kid's summer camp drop-off deadline
which prompted him to keep going instead of stopping to recharge);
he ended up plugging into a conventional 110VAC outlet at his motel
and 10 hours later the next morning, the charge indicated that he
had only regained something like +12 miles worth of range from that
overnight charge.

> And he said I could save money up front. Well a quick look through
> cars.com showed that wasn't right either. Local Nissan dealer is
> selling the Rogue Hybrid SV for a shade less than $24K which includes a
> $6K discount straight off the sticker. No pure electric that isn't
> just a bit bigger than a golf cart sells for that, or at least none I
> saw.

Before diesels dried up, there were similar claims. I think I did the
math to show Nicholas that his claimed plan to buy an Audi Q7 TDI had
a "time until payback" of something like a mere ~140,000 miles.

> After a couple hundred miles of driving this Hybrid I'm really liking
> it! The car is about the size of a 'full size' car, the ride is very
> smooth and quiet and it gets small gas car mileage but with a big car.
> Comfortable seats, back seats with enough legroom that a couple of
> adults would find comfortable to sit in and great headroom.

Many of the hybrids are quite well executed. What I've been finding
interesting has been how the automakers seem to be discouraging their
use & sale ... not sure why, but I suspect a lot of it is that a
pure electric is so much simpler & cheaper for them to manufacture,
such that they're probably being financially motivated to want to
promote the Pure electrics over the Hybrids.

-hh

[Lloyd Parsons]

Two houses down from me is the town Sports Complex. Good walking/running
track and it is very underutilized.

>>>> Like Tom I chose to live in fly over country. I'm glad that
>>>> you 'coasters' fly over us, keep doing that! :)
>>>
>>> The reality is that the cross-country drive incurs a large time
>>> commitment factor, and when one is work full time and not having
>>> large blocks of vacation time, the trade-off is to elect to fly
>>> instead of burning days driving. Plus there's also thin pickings
>>> for distractions along the way .. even when including stuff like
>>> the "largest ball of twine" roadside attractions on the list.
>>
>> You diss the 'largest ball of twine'? You swine!! :)
>
> Oh, I don't mind kitschy stuff like this, but when on a cross-country
> trip, there's only so much of it that one can take as your premise
> to take a driving break. If you prefer, I'll pick on South Dakota
> instead: the world's largest corn palace and of course, the most
> famous tourist trap after SC's "South of the Border" of Wall Drug Store
>

My route to KC takes roads that have good scenery along the way. Nothing
touristy though.

>
>>>> In the meantime, I bought a new built 1600 sq.ft. home for $150K,
>>>> could have bought homes less than 10 years old for that or less.
>>>
>>> Housing varies extremely widely. While its "always a good thing"
>>> to not have too much tied up into a particular place, just how much
>>> is 'too much' is a YMMV, particularly when put into context of
>>> individual appeal and resale. For example, a few years ago, I was
>>> shown a listing for what appeared to be quite a good deal: it was
>>> IIRC a ~2500ft^2 3BR Ranch with a 2 car attached + 2 car detached
>>> garages, plus a boat shed (high bay 1 car), sitting on ~8.5 acres
>>> (and bordering a stream) for only $250K. The catch was that it was
>>> remote: roughly 7 miles down a single lane country road (more
>>> dangerous in winter), and then another ~15 miles down highway roads
>>> to get close to a city center for groceries/MD/restaurant/etc. What
>>> I've learned since is that utilities are another factor: this
>>> property was outside of areas supported for CATV & high speed Internet,
>>> so your only choice was satellite.
>>
>> I always look at those kinds of properties. Some really beautiful and
>> then think of the ongoing maintenance of them and the distances to
>> everything as well as the lack of CATV & internet. Those are the
>> reasons I didn't choose anything like that though it has a certain
>> allure.
>
> What we found was that we'd taken the availabilities of such amenities
> utterly for granted ... "what do you mean that I only have one ISP
> to choose from?", etc.
>

That’s the case in most rural towns. Only one really good ISP with maybe a
couple of lesser ones. My subdivision got cable finally finished a month
before I bought so I have good tv and ISP.

>> Instead I'm on the edge of a small rural town of about 12K. I'm 75 and
>> live alone so being in town is important for lots of age and health
>> related reasons. Can't walk to the store and such, but I can drive
>> about 5 minutes to grocery, gas and of course, a Walmart. Plenty of
>> fast food type places and a few small restaurants.
>
> This was what I finally began to notice with our parent's retirement
> choices: the one I'd already mentioned had lived year round in a
> basically summer-only beach community that was a drive outside of town
> and the other was pretty well located in a condo in a Florida beach
> city that "trapped" them in during the crowded high season. Both
> could get walking exercise by "going around the block", but lacked
> anything sufficiently nearby to employ as a destination to give
> purpose to walking.
>
>
>
>
>>>> The airport is 5 minutes away with no parking fees.
>>>
>>> Is it like Tom's, where its only international if you're cargo? <g>
>>
>> Even smaller! Only a puddle jumper to St. Louis. Costs a little more
>> than a week's parking at the St. Louis airport. Time of flight about
>> 45 minutes.
>
> Since you mentioned Illinois, maybe ~100 miles east of STL then?
> I've gone out to STL at times and then driving the ~2 hours SW
> to get to Fort Leonard Wood, as the puddlejumper's schedule for
> TBN was quite limiting
>

More like 100 miles south and east of STL. Carbondale area.

I have no plans for living in one of those. My kids have informed me they
have a plan for when I can no longer fend for myself. One of these days
they’ll tell me what it is! :). I know it doesn’t include nursing or
assisted living.

>
>> Let's come back to the cars again. In another forum we're discussing
>> cars of all sorts. One wag on there said I should have gotten a full
>> electric car instead since I don't drive much. So I did some digging
>> about them a bit more. I found that they aren't ready for me yet!
>
> Nor me. The basic problem is the lack of a solid infrastructure.
>
>
>> I take a few trips to Kansas City each year. 350 miles one-way, would
>> require 2 charges on the way. How long does a charge take? Seems to
>> vary widely depending on the charging stations. And do all charging
>> stations have the same kind of plugs? And since I generally take the
>> 'back roads' for the trip, winding through small towns and 2-lane
>> roads, are there charging stations along that route? (answer is mostly
>> no!).
>
> Plus there's another gotcha that you didn't mention: for many of the
> recharge stations apparently, their electrical hookup to the grid is
> undersized vs the peak demand of all stations pulling power to recharge.
>
> What this means is that when there's multiple cars trying to recharge
> at the same time, it can so happen that none of them get the full recharge
> rating because of this supply bottleneck. This factor can easily
> triple the charge time at these high performance stations.
>

And not all charging stations are created equal from what I’ve read. Some
even requiring different charging cables.

>
>> With my hybrid I can just drive the damned trip with no stops at all
>> should I so choose. With a 400+ mile range on a single tank of gas my
>> ass will run out before the tank does!! :)
>
> FWIW, read an electric car 'test drive' story recently, where the
> journalist admittedly screwed up (kid's summer camp drop-off deadline
> which prompted him to keep going instead of stopping to recharge);
> he ended up plugging into a conventional 110VAC outlet at his motel
> and 10 hours later the next morning, the charge indicated that he
> had only regained something like +12 miles worth of range from that
> overnight charge.
>
>> And he said I could save money up front. Well a quick look through
>> cars.com showed that wasn't right either. Local Nissan dealer is
>> selling the Rogue Hybrid SV for a shade less than $24K which includes a
>> $6K discount straight off the sticker. No pure electric that isn't
>> just a bit bigger than a golf cart sells for that, or at least none I
>> saw.
>
> Before diesels dried up, there were similar claims. I think I did the
> math to show Nicholas that his claimed plan to buy an Audi Q7 TDI had
> a "time until payback" of something like a mere ~140,000 miles.
>

I remember that.

>
>> After a couple hundred miles of driving this Hybrid I'm really liking
>> it! The car is about the size of a 'full size' car, the ride is very
>> smooth and quiet and it gets small gas car mileage but with a big car.
>> Comfortable seats, back seats with enough legroom that a couple of
>> adults would find comfortable to sit in and great headroom.
>
> Many of the hybrids are quite well executed. What I've been finding
> interesting has been how the automakers seem to be discouraging their
> use & sale ... not sure why, but I suspect a lot of it is that a
> pure electric is so much simpler & cheaper for them to manufacture,
> such that they're probably being financially motivated to want to
> promote the Pure electrics over the Hybrids.
>
> -hh
>

Nissan wasn’t selling Rogue hybrids in the Midwest until recently.
According to my sales guy, Nissan approached them about a great deal to get
a few into their dealership. I think at least part of the story is true as
they have 5 more Rogue Hybrids exactly the same as mine including same
color and trim level.


--
Lloyd

[-hh]

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 2:58:03 PM UTC-4, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> -hh wrote:
> > On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:19:02 AM UTC-4, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> >> ...

> >>
> >> You diss the 'largest ball of twine'? You swine!! :)
> >
> > Oh, I don't mind kitschy stuff like this, but when on a cross-country
> > trip, there's only so much of it that one can take as your premise
> > to take a driving break. If you prefer, I'll pick on South Dakota
> > instead: the world's largest corn palace and of course, the most
> > famous tourist trap after SC's "South of the Border" of Wall Drug Store
> >
> My route to KC takes roads that have good scenery along the way.
> Nothing touristy though.

I do enjoy "nice scenery" en route, but overall, I'm much more focused
on the destination, such that even a 'nice' drive becomes boring and
thus tedious.

> > What we found was that we'd taken the availabilities of such amenities
> > utterly for granted ... "what do you mean that I only have one ISP
> > to choose from?", etc.
>
> That’s the case in most rural towns. Only one really good ISP with maybe a
> couple of lesser ones. My subdivision got cable finally finished a month
> before I bought so I have good tv and ISP.

Subdivisions can also be an interesting business case; I've been finding
regions where the homes in an older/existing division rot on the market,
because they can't readily compete with new construction two miles down
the road. Sure, one can always adapt with an attitude of having a fire
sale to move along, but that's often emotionally unpalatable.

> > Since you mentioned Illinois, maybe ~100 miles east of STL then?
> > I've gone out to STL at times and then driving the ~2 hours SW
> > to get to Fort Leonard Wood, as the puddlejumper's schedule for
> > TBN was quite limiting
> >
> More like 100 miles south and east of STL. Carbondale area.

Ok; not sure if I've passed through that region.

> >> I've seen pictures of planned communities over the years with all those
> >> amenities proposed. Haven't really followed how any of them fared over
> >> the years. Always looked nice and the idea was good.
> >
> > Had a now-deceased relative that moved into one of these, which they
> > very much adored. The configuration is basically one wing with
> > independent senior living condos and a second wing which has the
> > assisted (& higher) rooms; one moves into one of the condos and
> > develops roots/social friendships/etc ... when the time for a higher
> > level of care/assistance is required, one stays within the community
> > but moves over to the other wing. And for couples, the one can
> > stay "home" when the other moves over, and its a short indoor walk
> > to visit the other room.
> >
> I have no plans for living in one of those. My kids have informed me they
> have a plan for when I can no longer fend for myself. One of these days
> they’ll tell me what it is! :). I know it doesn’t include nursing or
> assisted living.

Sounds like family to be caregiver. Do be helpful in discussing (and
offering up) the various Power-of-Attorney authorizations when the time
is right ... but err earlier rather than later, as that's emotionally
a hard step on both sides, such as due to avoidance.

I've been helping my nonagenarian mom with accounts and have gotten
to the PoA late, so there's been some extra stupid hassles - for example,
some claim paperwork that got lost because when they entered my
mailing address, they transposed two numbers in my zip code. Obvious
enough, but they refused my request to fix it without a PoA copy.

> >> Let's come back to the cars again. In another forum we're discussing
> >> cars of all sorts. One wag on there said I should have gotten a full
> >> electric car instead since I don't drive much. So I did some digging
> >> about them a bit more. I found that they aren't ready for me yet!
> >
> > Nor me. The basic problem is the lack of a solid infrastructure.
> >
> >
> >> I take a few trips to Kansas City each year. 350 miles one-way, would
> >> require 2 charges on the way. How long does a charge take? Seems to
> >> vary widely depending on the charging stations. And do all charging
> >> stations have the same kind of plugs? And since I generally take the
> >> 'back roads' for the trip, winding through small towns and 2-lane
> >> roads, are there charging stations along that route? (answer is mostly
> >> no!).
> >
> > Plus there's another gotcha that you didn't mention: for many of the
> > recharge stations apparently, their electrical hookup to the grid is
> > undersized vs the peak demand of all stations pulling power to recharge.
> >
> > What this means is that when there's multiple cars trying to recharge
> > at the same time, it can so happen that none of them get the full recharge
> > rating because of this supply bottleneck. This factor can easily
> > triple the charge time at these high performance stations.
>
> And not all charging stations are created equal from what I’ve read.
> Some even requiring different charging cables.

YA aspect of the overall "infrastructure fail" which makes them non-ready.

Tesla is one of the ones choosing to be proprietary...and one of the
one's who's undersized their recharge station's power input.

> Nissan wasn’t selling Rogue hybrids in the Midwest until recently.
> According to my sales guy, Nissan approached them about a great deal to get
> a few into their dealership. I think at least part of the story is true as
> they have 5 more Rogue Hybrids exactly the same as mine including same
> color and trim level.

Awhile back, my wife was interested in the Audi A3 eTron, but it never
made it to the East Coast ... apparently, they're all in California.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

I never said I walked to those places, I said I could.

Paris is always a good idea - to visit. As you age you are going to find that health care quality and affordability become critical. Where are the doctors here and how are you going to pay? Medicare will not be an issue, you can't use it.

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
> I never said I walked to those places, I said I could.

One “can” also walk the entire Appalachian Trail, but that
doesn’t make it at all likely.

> Paris is always a good idea - to visit. As you age you
> are going to find that health care quality and affordability
> become critical. Where are the doctors here and how are
> you going to pay? Medicare will not be an issue, you can't use it.

A lot of what you’re expressing is classical American ignorance:
a good friend has been living in Europe for the past 19 years...they
hosted us for Thanksgiving dinner last year...and we’ve discussed
this topic. Basically, the level of care is better in some areas and
worse in others, so it nets to about equal, at 1/4 to 1/3rd the cost,
which banks quite a bit in the years before we’re eligible for Medicare.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

So you pay for medical care out-of-pocket?

I CAN actually see living in central Paris for a while. I've stayed in that area you highlighted a few times. It's nice, but only if you want to live in a big city. Not my cuppa. A little town like Bayeux would be more my style. Stayed there a week and really enjoyed it.

[-hh]

Tom writes:
> So you pay for medical care out-of-pocket?

Retirement benefits have changed since you were younger, Tom.
Instead of companies having defined benefit packages, they’ve
been going to defined cash balance, not only for the pension, but also
for medical. Choose a fancy health plan wehen retiring young and you
can easily burn out your medical balance before you turn 65 because
you’re paying both your part and the (usually hidden) employer’s part.

IMO, we probably only get one annual report on its balance because
that’s the minimum required by law and employers don’t want to
remind their employees just how much the benefit has been reduced...

-hh

[Thomas E.]

I know that. I do keep up, but my ex-employer still offers employees traditional retirement and medical insurance.

The company even pays all of our Supplemental Plan G, dental and Part D premiums via a tax free reimbursement plan. Catch #1 is that none of this is any good outside the U.S. Catch #2 is that the reimbursement funds total of about $6k/year has not increased in the last 2 years. As premiums increase at some point part will become out-of-pocket. Since this plan went into effect 4 years ago I have not paid any copay for covered expenses. We went to Plan G from Plan F this year to stay under the reimbursement ceiling. The Medicare deductible is thus now out-of-pocket. That's small potatoes in the larger picture. I'm pretty lucky, and I know it. We have a much better insurance plan that the current employees.

It's pretty nice to go to a provider, give them your insurance information, and never get a bill. I have probably spent more time on this post than I have on paying insurance-covered medical bills in the last 4 years!

Let me rephrase. If you move to France how are you going to pay for medical expenses? I assume from your answer that you may have a high deducible insurance plan coupled with a tax deductible reimbursement arrangement. It's becoming the norm. I feel sorry for you if that's the case.

[Thomas E.]

Those places in the south are one of the reasons I'm in Indiana. As for Indy vs. Newark you will not find a lot of climate difference. See:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1B6-M5GGBIbQkACpnnMZQK2l9CD_k5Zbz

[Thomas E.]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 12:47:55 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:35:52 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:13:42 AM UTC+1, ed wrote:

> > > On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 12:21:57 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 11:42:52 PM UTC+1, ed wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 3:11:48 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:25:00 PM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > > > The Element is a fun car. Initial acceleration is great,
> > > > > > > > and incredibly smooth. The ride is as good as some Accords I have owned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *sigh*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah. At 8.4 to 9.4 sec for 0-60mph, contemporary standards
> > > > > > puts this as bordering on sluggish.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <https://www.motortrend.com/news/20-slowest-2015-vehicles-from-0-60-mph/>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the Element were still offered when this article was written,
> > > > > > it would have come in as tied for 15th slowest model sold.
> > > > >
> > > > > i think tom is really talking about his new insight. it's basically a regular civic, but slower, and made to handle more like a buick. fun!
> > > >

> > > > Read these too, especially the Edmunds owner reviews. I did after the test drive and before the purchase.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/honda_insight_2019
> > >
> > > "normal" "pokey" "relaxed" "not great for performance" "lack of pep" "chunky steering wheel hints at a sportier mission than the car delivers"
> > >
> > > this really what you scared up to counter this being a not fun, slower, softer civic?
> > >
> > > > https://www.edmunds.com/honda/insight/
> > >
> > > sorry, i'll skip reader comments.
> > >
> > > > https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/honda/insight/first-drives/honda-insight-hybrid-touring-2019-review
> > >
> > > this review says almost nothing useful.
> > >
> > > > https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a26287347/2019-honda-insight-reliability-maintenance/
> > >
> > > it's "not the punishment we expected." ringing endorsement! "droning engine" that "is the main reason staffers shy away from taking the car on long trips" - ok, got me on that one; not buick like. ha.
> >
> > So you don’t care to read positive reviews like
> >
> > The interior is very quiet, allowing the wonderful stereo to sound awesome. The handling and ride quality are a pleasure. I'm averaging more than 51 mpg over more than 1,400 miles of mixed highway, twisty mountain roads and city driving. When I's stuck in stop and go traffic the MPG get's improves! I have a favorite breakfast place about 20 miles from my home and the Insight is averaging about 65mpg and the trip there. The engine noise when going up a hill was disturbing at first, but I'm either getting used to it or it's getting better with more miles on the car. I have been pleasantly surprised with the acceleration when entering the freeway, the Insight moves briskly when it needs to.
>
> the rub is, you have no idea where the readers are coming from. like this guy you quote - moves briskly? wtf is he comparing to? c'mon now

Likely prior experience and expectations. Duh

In any event, the car easily keeps up with traffic in town and on the highway. The engine noise is noticeable because the car is otherwise so quiet and the engine does not operate full time.

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> Tom writes:
>> > So you pay for medical care out-of-pocket?
>>
>> Retirement benefits have changed since you were younger, Tom.
>> Instead of companies having defined benefit packages, they’ve
>> been going to defined cash balance, not only for the pension, but also
>> for medical. Choose a fancy health plan wehen retiring young and you
>> can easily burn out your medical balance before you turn 65 because
>> you’re paying both your part and the (usually hidden) employer’s part.
>>
>> IMO, we probably only get one annual report on its balance because
>> that’s the minimum required by law and employers don’t want to
>> remind their employees just how much the benefit has been reduced...
>

> I know that. I do keep up, but my ex-employer still offers employees
> traditional retirement and medical insurance.

A full freight plan with zero co-pays is phenomenally rare.

> The company even pays all of our Supplemental Plan G, dental and
> Part D premiums via a tax free reimbursement plan.

Is this plan like a HSA? Because HSA’s are still a form of employee
making the payment.

> Catch #1 is that none of this is any good outside the U.S.

Depends on one’s plan.

> Catch #2 is that the reimbursement funds total of about $6k/year
> has not increased in the last 2 years. As premiums increase at
> some point part will become out-of-pocket.

Which is their plan.

> Since this plan went into effect 4 years ago I have not paid any
> copay for covered expenses.

Well, actually you have: it was just from this $6K fund which they
provided. The general pattern has been for employers to go to
cheaper-for-them healthcare plans, which can be the case even
when they ass “free” funds such as you’re describing.

> We went to Plan G from Plan F this year to stay under the
> reimbursement ceiling.

See, you’re getting less overall coverage.

> The Medicare deductible is thus now out-of-pocket. That's small
> potatoes in the larger picture. I'm pretty lucky, and I know it.
> We have a much better insurance plan that the current employees.

Indeed.

> Let me rephrase. If you move to France how are you going to pay
> for medical expenses?

Even if none of my available plans proved coverage, private insurance
would be IIRC less than $5K/yr, which is basically nothing. Another option
check on what the domestic policy’s “max visit” duration rules and make sure
to fly to the US once per quarter or whatever to keep resetting its clock.

> I assume from your answer that you may have a high deducible insurance
> plan coupled with a tax deductible reimbursement arrangement. It's
> becoming the norm. I feel sorry for you if that's the case.

They’re an option, but what I’m really doing is just noting that other country’s
healthcare systems aren’t as utterly screwed up as ours is, so this creates an
easy opportunity to consider spending some retirement as an expatriate someplace.


-hh

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
> Those places in the south are one of the reasons I'm in Indiana. As for
> Indy vs. Newark you will not find a lot of climate difference. See:
>
> <https://drive.google.com/open?id=1B6-M5GGBIbQkACpnnMZQK2l9CD_>

At first glance; Newark’s average humidity is lower. Nearly ten points worth.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

Hugh, you both missed the point and do not understand totally how it works. I pay a monthly premium for AARP MediGap Plan G. Within a week the company-funded premium is deposited back into my checking account. It's called a Medical Reimbursement Arrangement. Medicare pays 80%. AARP Plan G pays the 20%. I never get a bill from the provider unless we have a deductible left. I have to look at an insurance EOB or Medicare MSN to even see a bill amount. Our Part D and dental premiums are also direct deposited back into the checking account.

We do pay our Medicare Part B out-of-pocket, just like we have since we hit 65. If we chose a Medicare Advantage plan it would be much less expensive, but very much limits your choice of providers. Medicare Part B premiums are reimbursable, but subject to the $6k limit. Potentially we could have all medical insurance premiums covered. We prefer the wider MediGap freedom of choice.

The $6k tax free company money that covers the premiums started 3+ years ago. Before that we were paying the 20% Medicare co-pay out-of-pocket for the first 14 years I was retired, plus Medicare Part B premiums. This is an incredible program, and not one many people are lucky enough to have.

While the Plan G takes care of any Medicare covered expense co-pay we do pay Part D Rx co-pay when we pick up scripts. The Rx co-pays for us are about the same as a company plan we had prior to the new plan. That is not true for everybody. Lilly provided its insulin at no cost to retirees. That ended, and diabetics hit the Plan D doughnut hole pretty quick.

We get that $6k/year regardless of the plans we choose, and it carries over if we do not spend it all. There is a wide selection of medical, dental, Rx and vision coverage available. We picked AARP Plan G Medical, 2 different Rx plans and a dental plan that provides basic coverage.

As for the 2019 Plan F to Plan G MediGap coverage change the only difference is the $185 per person deductible. I have not even met mine this year. The wife has, in spades.

Actually, the 2019 package we chose came in at about $5.8k in premiums. So I submitted enough Medicare premiums to max out the reimbursements.

Like I said, it's and incredible program.

[-hh]

Oh, I think I understand the healthcare process part well enough; just not sure
what point you're trying to make about it.

> I pay a monthly premium for AARP MediGap Plan G. Within a week the company-
> funded premium is deposited back into my checking account. It's called a Medical
> Reimbursement Arrangement. Medicare pays 80%. AARP Plan G pays the 20%.
> I never get a bill from the provider unless we have a deductible left. I have to look
> at an insurance EOB or Medicare MSN to even see a bill amount. Our Part D and
> dental premiums are also direct deposited back into the checking account.

Right, because in lieu of getting a bill, you get an EOB for it, saying that it has been
paid from your available balance. Similarly, when there's a annual deductible which
has to be paid first, the name of the statement changes, but it essentially keeps score
of how far along you are in making your deductibles before the plan kicks in to pay.

> We do pay our Medicare Part B out-of-pocket, just like we have since we hit 65.
> If we chose a Medicare Advantage plan it would be much less expensive, but very
> much limits your choice of providers. Medicare Part B premiums are reimbursable,
> but subject to the $6k limit. Potentially we could have all medical insurance premiums
> covered. We prefer the wider MediGap freedom of choice.
>
> The $6k tax free company money that covers the premiums started 3+ years ago.
> Before that we were paying the 20% Medicare co-pay out-of-pocket for the first 14
> years I was retired, plus Medicare Part B premiums. This is an incredible program,

> and not one many people are lucky enough to have....

Perhaps you "lucked out", but in general, the changes that Enterprise has made
in their healthcare programs have been for them to save money in the long run.

> We get that $6k/year regardless of the plans we choose, and it carries over if we do
> not spend it all.

For example, the 'fixed balance' RMSA plan I'd mentioned was a 2015 change.
It sounds similar to your's, except that instead of it being $6K/yr max, it is a
defined cash balance that you can spend at any rate you want, but once its been
spent, its gone forever. From the Employer's accounting standpoint, this sort of
defined cash balance is cheaper for them because it isn't an open-ended liability
like the old fashioned "for as long as you live" compensation plans are, which is
why they've been changing over to them.

And this is being illustrated in that you mentioned how you're choosing a more
expensive plan (for "wider MediGap freedom of choice") whereas others who aren't
as well off are probably choosing to downgrade their coverage in order to stay
within the provided budget. Similarly, you noted how the days of free insulin ended
as an employer benefit.

Bottom line is that healthcare costs are a hot mess in the USA, such as with
Assisted Living: Medicare doesn't cover it until your Estate is destitute (plus
with a 5 year reach back to make sure you didn't gift your assets away). If one
had the foresight to buy a LTC insurance policy, that can cut the expenses roughly
in half, so you're then looking at "only" spending $40K/yr out of pocket, but then
only up to the lifetime limit of the LTC policy (most usually are ~$250K)..


-hh

[Thomas E.]

I still don't think you get it. The quite predicable insurance premiums come out of the $6k annual allowance, not the unpredictable co-pay amounts. MediGap Plan G insurance pays co-pays, and those amounts are unlimited. From 2016 when the new plan came in until this year I did not have any medical co-pay expenses, not even a Medicare deductible. This year we have paid $185 for the wife's deductible and $130 for me.

Plan D Rx does have co-pays on our plan choice, but those are pretty small.

Our dental insurance pays for 2 routine cleanings per year with zero co-pay. Those cleanings are roughly the same cost as the premiums, and the premiums are covered within the $6k allowance. So basically our cleanings are free too. There is also 50% coverage for other dental expenses but we have not had any, so far. In any event, we are getting dental care paid for too.

And, there is no income tax on the $6k!

We are getting the same minimum $6k as all retirees that were eligible for this new plan. I suspect that some that were higher up in the company get more, but don't know that for a fact. So nobody is in worse shape than us in terms of the coverage choices they can make. The only complaint I have heard is on Plan D Rx, and those concern the insulin expenses.

You are absolutely right about health care costs being a mess. I'm feeling no pain, but that's not the general case.

The year after I retired in 2003 the company significantly raised employee health care deductibles and premiums on their self-funded program that is administered by Anthem. Again, I lucked out. We were on that program from 2003 to 2016 BUT our retiree premiums co-pays and deductibles were frozen at the 2003 level. Even so, it was not a very good program compared to today. Co-pays were out-of-pocket, and the premiums were about the same as Medicare. After age 65 and Medicare kicking in the company medical coverage and premiums went away completely for me. Dental and Rx coverage carried on, but with no premiums.

We had some major 2003-2016 co-pays. One was well over $1,000.

Then out of the blue in 2016 came this new program. Zero medical co-pay since.

[-hh]

Oh, I understand that part, as well as how in some plans there can
also be the option to have the copays get funded too.

> MediGap Plan G insurance pays co-pays, and those amounts are unlimited.

Which isn't germane to how much your (former) employer is paying.
They just gave you a $6K/yr budget & the rest is yours to figure out.

> And, there is no income tax on the $6k!

And if your employer just bought the plan for you without you
seeing the price, that would have no income taxes imposed either.
As such, this point just isn't a differentiator.

...particularly since the money's use is restricted: one is typically
not allowed to take the money and use it for some non-healthcare
purpose, even if one was willing to then pay income tax on it.

Indeed, some (all?) of these plans restrict its use to only the
specific plans that that employer offers, so one can't even use
their money to pay for some other ("external") healthcare plan.


> We are getting the same minimum $6k .... So nobody is in worse

> shape than us in terms of the coverage choices they can make.

Since everyone is getting the same $6K/yr budget, of course no one
is worse off than any other ...

... but as you're noting, the cost of your plan is creeping closer
and closer to where you'll have to decided to either downgrade your
healthcare plan, or start to pay out-of-pocket. Functionally, this
is because your employer's "deal" changed such that they're no
longer picking up all of the inflation cost growth of healthcare,
which means that they've enacted a net cut to your benefits.

And yes, its a net cut even though you've made out okay for the
past ~four years: they were smart enough to be initially generous
at the transition point so as to prevent complaining.

BTW, nothing on this observation is specific to you personally:
this is what many/most employers have been systematically doing
to cut employee benefits over the past ~decade.

> The only complaint I have heard is on Plan D Rx, and those
> concern the insulin expenses.

That example is merely a "tip of the iceberg" where the reductions
in benefits have already become more apparent...and more are
inevitable. But because everyone gets to decide for themselves
just how to spend their $6K budget, these decisions will be made
in the personal homes of retirees, which reduces its visibility
and thus, keeps it quiet such that the employer won't look bad.

> You are absolutely right about health care costs being a mess.
> I'm feeling no pain, but that's not the general case.

By the same token, you've already recognized that you've chosen

a more expensive plan (for "wider MediGap freedom of choice")

which means less surplus available for other healthcare plans,
banked for future years, etc.

FWIW, an interesting sidebar that you're prompted me to wonder
about are the potential differences between your "$6K/yr" plan
and the conventional cash balance Retirement HSA (RHSA), on at
least two different levels:

a) On the $XX/yr style plans, what's the survivorship provisions?
For example, does it remain at $XX/yr or go to $(XX*50%)/yr, etc?

b) on the defined cash balance RHSA, what's the provision for
and remaining balance after both the primary+survivor have passed,
namely from the perspective of if any cash balance gets paid out
to the Estate, or is it forfeited/lost?

For both, the answers are probably buried somewhere in the fine print.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

To answer your questions a and b

We each have our own HRA accounts, about $3k each but reimbursements are made from the $6k total. In other words if one of us goes over $3k and the other has a surplus we can tap that.

A survivor keeps their benefits and any balance in the deceased's account reverts. If there is a cash balance at the second-to-die point it also reverts to the company. It's never our money to start with. We are not putting it in out of our retirement benefits.

Second, you miss an important point. Prior to 2016 we were paying all co-pays and a higher deductible than Medicare out-of-pocket before we went on Medicare. Medicare slightly lowered the deducible but had the same 20% co-pay that the company plan. The monthly company premiums were about the same as Medicare for the spouse, mine were lower than Medicare.

Now we pay no co-pays. Even as the premium costs creep up on the premium reimbursement ceiling we are likely still WAY, and I mean WAY ahead if we start to pay some premiums out-of-pocket!

You are right about the choices we have. They come bundled, cafeteria-style. I've seen premiums for Plan G an F for other companies and they are in some cases lower than our choices. I don't care at this point. My option is to buy them out-of-pocket. If I start to have major issues with the premium reimbursement ceiling I'll go outside the plan for some of my coverage if there are lower cost options that would be a net benefit. Medicare Advantage plans might also become an option if that happens.

The bottom line is that we are much better off financially than we were before 2016 even if the benefit shrinks over time. To be worse off the 2016 plan has to go away completely. That could happen. The company is under no legal obligation to give retirees anything but our pension.

For a good overview of the HRA program see: https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/what-is-a-health-reimbursement-arrangement

Ours is a Retiree HRA, item #4 in the list of plan categories.

Oh, one last thing, you can use reimbursement funds for things like Rx co-pays and overseas health care costs. In our first year were were reimbursed about $100 for a clinic visit in New Zealand. Since our 2019 premiums fell short of the $6k limit I used the remainder to pay some Medicare Part B premiums.

AND IT'S ALL TAX FREE!

[-hh]

Tom wrote:

> -hh wrote:
>> FWIW, an interesting sidebar that you're prompted me to wonder
>> about are the potential differences between your "$6K/yr" plan
>> and the conventional cash balance Retirement HSA (RHSA), on at
>> least two different levels:
>>
>> a) On the $XX/yr style plans, what's the survivorship provisions?
>> For example, does it remain at $XX/yr or go to $(XX*50%)/yr, etc?
>>
>> b) on the defined cash balance RHSA, what's the provision for
>> and remaining balance after both the primary+survivor have passed,
>> namely from the perspective of if any cash balance gets paid out
>> to the Estate, or is it forfeited/lost?
>>
>> For both, the answers are probably buried somewhere in the fine print.
>

> To answer your questions a and b

Only for your policy, which as I understand is of form (a), not (b).

> We each have our own HRA accounts, about $3k each ... A survivor

> keeps their benefits and any balance in the deceased's account reverts.

Where the latter will never be greater than ~$6K.

> If there is a cash balance at the second-to-die point it also reverts to the
> company. It's never our money to start with.

That’s the nuance that I’m not necessarily so sure about for the (b) form.

> Second, you miss an important point. Prior to 2016 we were paying all co-pays
> and a higher deductible than Medicare out-of-pocket before we went on Medicare.
> Medicare slightly lowered the deducible but had the same 20% co-pay that the
> company plan.

No, I get that. My point is that the costs have been climbing and companies
have been aggressively cutting the expense where they can. For current
employees, it’s a delicate walk when unemployment is low, but regardless of
the economy, retirees are a different story: in a matter of speaking, you’re
never going to leave and pretty much, the worst thing you can do is to cause
the company is some bad press.

> You are right about the choices we have. They come bundled, cafeteria-style.
> I've seen premiums for Plan G an F for other companies and they are in some
> cases lower than our choices. I don't care at this point.

Think about this for a moment: they control this little closed market’s prices as
well as how much allowance they give you to spend in it.

> My option is to buy them out-of-pocket. If I start to have major issues with
> the premium reimbursement ceiling I'll go outside the plan for some of my
> coverage if there are lower cost options that would be a net benefit.

Just which “net benefit” are you referring to...mayhaps the one where you’re
choosing to go to the outside market and thus, not spend your allowance?

> The bottom line is that we are much better off financially than we were
> before 2016 even if the benefit shrinks over time.

Expect the “better off” to be more transient instead of forever.

> To be worse off the 2016 plan has to go away completely. That could happen.
> The company is under no legal obligation to give retirees anything but our pension.

Where they’ve already successfully divided these pension benefits into cash and healthcare.

> Oh, one last thing, you can use reimbursement funds for things like Rx co-pays
> and overseas health care costs. In our first year were were reimbursed about
> $100 for a clinic visit in New Zealand. Since our 2019 premiums fell short of the
> $6k limit I used the remainder to pay some Medicare Part B premiums.

That’s an interesting observation for people on other plans to look into.

> AND IT'S ALL TAX FREE!

Employer Healthcare benefits have always been tax free, even as over time they’ve
added things like copay requirements which today can be pretax. As an employment
benefit, this was done in lieu of higher absolute (cash) pay for historical reasons which
had to do with post-WW2 Federally imposed wage caps...simply put, Enterprise invented
Employer-provided healthcare as a “non wage” form of compensation as a work-around.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 7:21:54 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> >> FWIW, an interesting sidebar that you're prompted me to wonder
> >> about are the potential differences between your "$6K/yr" plan
> >> and the conventional cash balance Retirement HSA (RHSA), on at
> >> least two different levels:
> >>
> >> a) On the $XX/yr style plans, what's the survivorship provisions?
> >> For example, does it remain at $XX/yr or go to $(XX*50%)/yr, etc?
> >>
> >> b) on the defined cash balance RHSA, what's the provision for
> >> and remaining balance after both the primary+survivor have passed,
> >> namely from the perspective of if any cash balance gets paid out
> >> to the Estate, or is it forfeited/lost?
> >>
> >> For both, the answers are probably buried somewhere in the fine print.
> >
> > To answer your questions a and b
>
> Only for your policy, which as I understand is of form (a), not (b).

Our HRA accounts are identical. So my answer applies to both.

>
> > We each have our own HRA accounts, about $3k each ... A survivor
> > keeps their benefits and any balance in the deceased's account reverts.
>
> Where the latter will never be greater than ~$6K.

Wrong, the unspent balance carries over. If had both gone with Medicare Advantage this year we could have eliminated the current combined $315 monthly Plan G premium, freeing up a total $3,780 in 2019 reimbursement funds that could carry over to 2020. We could over time build up a balance well beyond $6k. However, we would also have co-pays come into effect. Those could exceed the premium savings. Plus, our provider choices would be severely limited. We like Plan G.

>
> > If there is a cash balance at the second-to-die point it also reverts to the
> > company. It's never our money to start with.
>
> That’s the nuance that I’m not necessarily so sure about for the (b) form.

I'm sure. We did not put the money into the plan, so it's not ours. That's very different from a HSA.

>
> > Second, you miss an important point. Prior to 2016 we were paying all co-pays
> > and a higher deductible than Medicare out-of-pocket before we went on Medicare.
> > Medicare slightly lowered the deducible but had the same 20% co-pay that the
> > company plan.
>
> No, I get that. My point is that the costs have been climbing and companies
> have been aggressively cutting the expense where they can. For current
> employees, it’s a delicate walk when unemployment is low, but regardless of
> the economy, retirees are a different story: in a matter of speaking, you’re
> never going to leave and pretty much, the worst thing you can do is to cause
> the company is some bad press.
>

You generalize here, and that has not applied to this plan, so far. As I stated that could change at any time.

> > You are right about the choices we have. They come bundled, cafeteria-style.
> > I've seen premiums for Plan G an F for other companies and they are in some
> > cases lower than our choices. I don't care at this point.
>
> Think about this for a moment: they control this little closed market’s prices as
> well as how much allowance they give you to spend in it.

Think about this for a moment. I'm much better off with this plan that I was before it existed. If it goes away I'm still about as well off as I was before 2016. The future is uncertain for all of us.

>
> > My option is to buy them out-of-pocket. If I start to have major issues with
> > the premium reimbursement ceiling I'll go outside the plan for some of my
> > coverage if there are lower cost options that would be a net benefit.
>
> Just which “net benefit” are you referring to...mayhaps the one where you’re
> choosing to go to the outside market and thus, not spend your allowance?

Correct. It might come to the point where I use so much for the MediGap premiums that I am willing to shop outside the plan for Rx and/or dental. Or, just forgo dental altogether.

>
> > The bottom line is that we are much better off financially than we were
> > before 2016 even if the benefit shrinks over time.
>
> Expect the “better off” to be more transient instead of forever.

We will see. I expect the benefit to erode over time, but still be positive.

>
> > To be worse off the 2016 plan has to go away completely. That could happen.
> > The company is under no legal obligation to give retirees anything but our pension.
>
> Where they’ve already successfully divided these pension benefits into cash and healthcare.

The pension benefits did not change in 2016 when this plan came into effect. So yes, the company could have just increased my pension benefit by $500 a month. But that's taxable income. Instead they gave us a new tax free benefit. I really like that.

>
> > Oh, one last thing, you can use reimbursement funds for things like Rx co-pays
> > and overseas health care costs. In our first year were were reimbursed about
> > $100 for a clinic visit in New Zealand. Since our 2019 premiums fell short of the
> > $6k limit I used the remainder to pay some Medicare Part B premiums.
>
> That’s an interesting observation for people on other plans to look into.
>
> > AND IT'S ALL TAX FREE!
>
> Employer Healthcare benefits have always been tax free, even as over time they’ve
> added things like copay requirements which today can be pretax. As an employment
> benefit, this was done in lieu of higher absolute (cash) pay for historical reasons which
> had to do with post-WW2 Federally imposed wage caps...simply put, Enterprise invented
> Employer-provided healthcare as a “non wage” form of compensation as a work-around.
>

I know the history. It required a government ruling to make the benefit tax exempt and it happened in about 1943. There were post war attempts to do away with the tax treatment, but by then the practice was so popular and widespread that those failed. IMHO the mess we have today can be traced back to that 1943 decision. Incentives in our system are upside-down. BUT, I cannot do anything about that. I have to deal with reality.

> -hh

See answers embedded in your response.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 9:10:07 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 7:21:54 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > Tom wrote:
> > > -hh wrote:
> > >> FWIW, an interesting sidebar that you're prompted me to wonder
> > >> about are the potential differences between your "$6K/yr" plan
> > >> and the conventional cash balance Retirement HSA (RHSA), on at
> > >> least two different levels:
> > >>
> > >> a) On the $XX/yr style plans, what's the survivorship provisions?
> > >> For example, does it remain at $XX/yr or go to $(XX*50%)/yr, etc?
> > >>
> > >> b) on the defined cash balance RHSA, what's the provision for
> > >> and remaining balance after both the primary+survivor have passed,
> > >> namely from the perspective of if any cash balance gets paid out
> > >> to the Estate, or is it forfeited/lost?
> > >>
> > >> For both, the answers are probably buried somewhere in the fine print.
> > >
> > > To answer your questions a and b
> >
> > Only for your policy, which as I understand is of form (a), not (b).
>
> Our HRA accounts are identical. So my answer applies to both.

Not so, because (a) and (b) are different forms of RHSA's. In a
nutshell, (a) is an annually recurring $6K budget, whereas (b) is
a "first year lump sum" which does not increase after the initial year.

To illustrate by example:

Type (a):
Year Result:

1 $6K deposited; $5K spent = $1K carry-over balance
2 $1K carryover + $6K deposit - $5.5K spent = $2.5K balance
3 $2.5K carryover + $6K deposit - $7K spent = $1.5K balance
(etc)



Type (b):
Year Result:

1 $75K deposited; $5K spent = $70K carry-over balance
2 $70K carryover + $0 - $5.5K spent = $64.5K balance
3 $64.5K carryover + $0 - $7K spent = $57.5K balance
(etc)

> > > We each have our own HRA accounts, about $3k each ... A survivor
> > > keeps their benefits and any balance in the deceased's account reverts.
> >
> > Where the latter will never be greater than ~$6K.
>
> Wrong, the unspent balance carries over. If had both gone
> with Medicare Advantage this year we could have eliminated
> the current combined $315 monthly Plan G premium, freeing up
> a total $3,780 in 2019 reimbursement funds that could carry
> over to 2020. We could over time build up a balance well beyond $6k.

In theory, sure...but not in actual practice because you're
actively using most of the benefit, so any potential accumulation
of a carry-over balance is pretty slow. Plus some plans have a
"use or lose" requirement for the carry-over year, so if the
funds aren't used within the second year, it is lost...and FYI,
some funds restrict this further, to where the use-or-lose deadline
is restricted to just the first quarter (eg, by 31 March). This
means that its not possible within such plans to ever bank more
than one year's worth of the benefit. Between these two factors,
the reality is that the carry-over either won't or can't exceed
a year's worth, so if one dies on January 2nd, then there's this
max (literal or effective) carryover of $3K plus the died-before-
it-got-spent $3K from the decedent for that year, which means
no more than $6K for the survivor.

> > > If there is a cash balance at the second-to-die point it
> > > also reverts to the company. It's never our money to start with.
> >
> > That’s the nuance that I’m not necessarily so sure about for the (b) form.
>
> I'm sure. We did not put the money into the plan, so it's not ours.
> That's very different from a HSA.

And the latter (b) is literally a cash balance Retirement HSA (RHSA),
which means that it is different than your situation of (a) and all
of what you're saying does not apply.

...

> >
> > No, I get that. My point is that the costs have been climbing
> > and companies have been aggressively cutting the expense where

> > they can....

> >
>
> You generalize here, and that has not applied to this plan, so far.
> As I stated that could change at any time.

Keyword being "so far", even though you've already acknowledged
that the prices are going up and you've commented (complained?)
that the $6K/yr budget hasn't changed.

> > > You are right about the choices we have. They come bundled,
> > > cafeteria-style. I've seen premiums for Plan G an F for
> > > other companies and they are in some cases lower than our
> > > choices. I don't care at this point.
> >
> > Think about this for a moment: they control this little
> > closed market’s prices as well as how much allowance they
> > give you to spend in it.
>
> Think about this for a moment. I'm much better off with this plan
> that I was before it existed.

Oh, I'm not contesting that you're better off in the near term.

> If it goes away I'm still about as well off as I was before 2016.

Not so, because the plans that the company offered pre-2016 were
being subsidized by them and pragmatically, it is a certainty that
they won't ever return to that program for you.

> > > My option is to buy them out-of-pocket. If I start to have
> > > major issues with the premium reimbursement ceiling I'll go
> > > outside the plan for some of my coverage if there are lower
> > > cost options that would be a net benefit.
> >
> > Just which “net benefit” are you referring to...mayhaps the
> > one where you’re choosing to go to the outside market and thus,
> > not spend your allowance?
>
> Correct. It might come to the point where I use so much for
> the MediGap premiums that I am willing to shop outside the plan
> for Rx and/or dental. Or, just forgo dental altogether.

Which represents a financial gain for the Employer before you're dead.

> > > The bottom line is that we are much better off financially than we were
> > > before 2016 even if the benefit shrinks over time.
> >
> > Expect the “better off” to be more transient instead of forever.
>
> We will see. I expect the benefit to erode over time, but still be positive.

Well, you can be positive that the erosion that you'll experience
will be greater than what your benefits would have been if your
employer had continued to pay (invisibly to you as a benefit) the
ongoing increases in healthcare costs. You need to keep in mind
that it was the costs to the Employer which motivated their changes
to their retiree healthcare plans.


> > > To be worse off the 2016 plan has to go away completely...

> >
> > Where they’ve already successfully divided these pension benefits
> > into cash and healthcare.
>
> The pension benefits did not change in 2016 when this plan came
> into effect. So yes, the company could have just increased my
> pension benefit by $500 a month. But that's taxable income. Instead
> they gave us a new tax free benefit. I really like that.

No, they took away a previously tax free benefit, which was that
they were paying your healthcare including all of the YoY increases.
They've now capped their cost growth risk for their own benefit.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

I will only correct your last rejoinder. There are errors in the others too.

On January 1 2016 I was 70 years old and on Medicare. The wife was 67 and also on Medicare. Were were getting no medical care benefits from my former employer, or her's for that matter. All we had for medical was Medicare with 80% with co-pays. We did have Rx and dental coverage that for us was comparable to what we have now. My premiums were zero, but we were paying about $175 a month for the spouse's Rx and dental.

As of January 1 2016 we enrolled in this new plan. We bought AARP's Plan F and Plan D plus a dental plan that was $40 a month for both of us. The total premiums were less than the reimbursement cap. The Plan F covered our Medicare deductibles and co-pays. That did not replace coverage. We had none from the company that was paying those expenses. Also, the wife's premiums that were going to the company went away, a $2,100 annual expense that was coming out of my retirement check.

In effect, we actually received the $6k plus a $2,100 annual bump in my after tax retirement benefit. That $2,100 was not deductible for us, so the tax effect was zero.

How much have the premiums gone up? The original Plan F was $310 a month for both. The dental premium was $40 a month for both and has not increased. The Plan D premium has $61 each, $122 for both. The reimbursement ceiling was $5,700 that first year. Including the NZ clinic reimbursement we spent it all. The subsequent ceilings were/are $5,870, $6,016 and $6,016. When stated that the ceiling has not increased I was referring to 2018-2019.

Fast forward to 2019. The AAPR Plan G premium is $315 a month for both. Add the $185 each Medicare deducible that we now pay and the effective premium is $330 a month, a $20 per month increase over 4 years.

Dental premiums have not increased.

Rx premiums have increased. The wife's premium is now $72 for the same plan as 2016, an $11 per month increase. I use almost no prescription drugs so I went with a much lower premium/benefit program that is $23 a month. I have had one Rx script filled in the last 18 months. I think the co-pay was $5. Why even carry a plan for me? Risk. Crap happens when you are 73.

Our total premium cost for these plans is $5,400 a year. Add back 2019's $370 Medicare deductibles and it's $5,770. So, I filed enough Medicare premiums to max out the $616 gap in premiums versus the ceiling.

Why Plan G? The total 2019 Plan F versus Plan G premium differential was well over the $370 Medicare deductibles. I should have gone with Plan G earlier.

I think the premium stability reflects well on the company's ability to shop and negotiate with providers.

We still have our Medicare premiums that are not enrolled in auto-reimbursement. Could be, but they are not. We would have that expense regardless.

The 6 policies that we now have and are paid for and are a net addition to our cash flow. Co-pays are gone as are the $175 a month wife's premiums under the prior program.

Why max it out every year? There is no guarantee that the program will not change. I want to get every cent of that ceiling reimbursed every year. I do not want to carry over money that does not belong to me and thus could go away with the stroke of a pen. So your argument about carryover does not hold water. You do not want to carry money over in this situation.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 12:08:40 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> [big snip]
>
> I will only correct your last rejoinder....

>
> On January 1 2016 I was 70 years old and on Medicare. The
> wife was 67 and also on Medicare. Were were getting no medical
> care benefits from my former employer, or her's for that matter.

Oh, you were previously receiving zero healthcare benefits from
your former employer(s)? Well that would make a huge difference
(because anything is better than nothing), but this doesn't quite
square with your prior comment that before the conversion, retirees
were eligible for free insulin.



> How much have the premiums gone up? The ...

Given that you apparently didn't previously have an employer
paying any part of your healthcare, the point I was making
about the employer's portion wouldn't apply to your particular
circumstances. Most people usually don't have much of a clue
as to how much their employer is paying.

> Why max it out every year? There is no guarantee that the
> program will not change.

For your particular circumstance (a), its a pretty good approach.
But for someone with the lump sum funded defined cash balance RHSA
(b), the optimization strategy needs to be different because that
program provides zero future additions which are at risk of ending.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 12:08:40 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> > [big snip]
> >
> > I will only correct your last rejoinder....
> >
> > On January 1 2016 I was 70 years old and on Medicare. The
> > wife was 67 and also on Medicare. Were were getting no medical
> > care benefits from my former employer, or her's for that matter.
>
> Oh, you were previously receiving zero healthcare benefits from
> your former employer(s)? Well that would make a huge difference
> (because anything is better than nothing), but this doesn't quite
> square with your prior comment that before the conversion, retirees
> were eligible for free insulin.
>

Hugh, by healthcare I meant medical. The company took the attitude that we were paying a 20% co-pay before we went on Medicare, the same as Medicare. So there was no need for them to continue that coverage.

As stated in my prior response we had continuing company Rx and dental coverage until 2016. Insulin is covered under Rx. I specifically mentioned that fact. We also had vision coverage options. I forgot about that. We never bought it.

>
> > How much have the premiums gone up? The ...
>
> Given that you apparently didn't previously have an employer
> paying any part of your healthcare, the point I was making
> about the employer's portion wouldn't apply to your particular
> circumstances. Most people usually don't have much of a clue
> as to how much their employer is paying.

They did after the ACA. IIRC it was on your W2 for a while at least if your employer was subsidizing health care. Actually, looking it up that is a fact. See:

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/reporting-employer-provided-health-coverage-on-form-w-2

Apparently you don't keep up to date like I do. :)

>
> > Why max it out every year? There is no guarantee that the
> > program will not change.
>
> For your particular circumstance (a), its a pretty good approach.
> But for someone with the lump sum funded defined cash balance RHSA
> (b), the optimization strategy needs to be different because that
> program provides zero future additions which are at risk of ending.

Exactly! Those programs are very different. How you play them is very different. My ex-employer made that very clear when they introduced the 2016 program.

While I was employed we had a tax free self-funded medical reimbursement option. But it had no carryover provision. All the unspent funds got pro-rated over all participants in the next year. That discouraged me!
>
> -hh

See my comments in your response.

Your generalizations are just that. I did not generalize because my situation is unique. I was just trying to make the point that you cannot make a blanket case that all ex-employers are out to put the screws to retirees. A lot are, and it sounds like you are a bitter victim of that trend.

BTW, for 3 years I did a deep dive into these issues when I was a professor at a local university and taught a Master's level course entitled "Economics of Aging." That was pre-ACA and HRA accounts, but most of it has not changed much.

[Thomas E.]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

I wonder if Lloyd had any idea how appropriate the "care" typo in his subject line was going to turn out for this conversation?

[-hh]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 2:22:19 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 12:08:40 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > [big snip]
> > >
> > > I will only correct your last rejoinder....
> > >
> > > On January 1 2016 I was 70 years old and on Medicare. The
> > > wife was 67 and also on Medicare. Were were getting no medical
> > > care benefits from my former employer, or her's for that matter.
> >
> > Oh, you were previously receiving zero healthcare benefits from
> > your former employer(s)? Well that would make a huge difference
> > (because anything is better than nothing), but this doesn't quite
> > square with your prior comment that before the conversion, retirees
> > were eligible for free insulin.
> >
>
> Hugh, by healthcare I meant medical. The company took the attitude
> that we were paying a 20% co-pay before we went on Medicare, the
> same as Medicare. So there was no need for them to continue that coverage.

As an aside, the existence of Medicare has been a boon to Enterprise
because that can use that Age 65 eligibility as a milestone to curtail
their payment of coverage.

> As stated in my prior response we had continuing company Rx and
> dental coverage until 2016. Insulin is covered under Rx. I
> specifically mentioned that fact. We also had vision coverage
> options. I forgot about that. We never bought it.

In general, I tend to roll all of things together, even though
they pedantically get broken out. Even so, you then did have
some level of (I'll broadly use the term "health-related")
benefits which had an employer-paid portion.

> > > How much have the premiums gone up? The ...
> >
> > Given that you apparently didn't previously have an employer
> > paying any part of your healthcare, the point I was making
> > about the employer's portion wouldn't apply to your particular
> > circumstances. Most people usually don't have much of a clue
> > as to how much their employer is paying.
>
> They did after the ACA. IIRC it was on your W2 for a while at
> least if your employer was subsidizing health care. Actually,
> looking it up that is a fact. See:
>
> <https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/reporting-employer-provided-health-coverage-on-form-w-2>
>
> Apparently you don't keep up to date like I do. :)

No, I was just making a broad generalization.

> > > Why max it out every year? There is no guarantee that the
> > > program will not change.
> >
> > For your particular circumstance (a), its a pretty good approach.
> > But for someone with the lump sum funded defined cash balance RHSA
> > (b), the optimization strategy needs to be different because that
> > program provides zero future additions which are at risk of ending.
>
> Exactly! Those programs are very different. How you play them
> is very different. My ex-employer made that very clear when
> they introduced the 2016 program.
>
> While I was employed we had a tax free self-funded medical
> reimbursement option. But it had no carryover provision. All
> the unspent funds got pro-rated over all participants in the
> next year. That discouraged me!

YMMV; our own (pre-retirement) HSA is entirely internal, so
we only have our own carry-over to spend .. but it does have
the "by 31 March" provision, or else the employer doesn't
throw in their free supplement into the account.

> Your generalizations are just that.

Precisely.

> I did not generalize because my situation is unique.

Perhaps it is, perhaps not...its hard to really gage.

> I was just trying to make the point that you cannot make
> a blanket case that all ex-employers are out to put the

> screws to retirees. A lot are, ...

Generalizations invariably have exceptions, which is why it
is wise to not ever try to claim "all".


> ... it sounds like you are a bitter victim of that trend.

Nope. YMMV, but I'm not the type who says "I got mine,
so I don't give a damn if the rest of the world burns".


-hh

[ed]

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:38:01 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
...
> > i'm sure it's a lovely car for someone who never goes over the speed limit and is looking for an a-b appliance. that's cool. just don't call it fun. :P
>
> First of all, the Insight and Civic are very different cars that share few parts.

the insight probably should be called the civic hybrid instead of the insight, as it has a lot more in common with the civic than the previous insight. you think it's a coincidence it has the same wheelbase and much of the same interior as a civic or something? ha! it's the same platform, reskinned (except for roof and rear quarter panel) with a different drivetrain.

> Second, the reviews are generally positive.

yep. great appliance. very normal for a hybrid. :P

...
> Read the last line please:
>
> "The third-gen Insight could have easily been just another also-ran hybrid from Honda. But instead the automaker did an impressive job of making this car a premium compact first, and a hybrid second.

ha. this thing doesn't stack up to a new mazda 3 or vw golf, nevermind an actual premium compact.

...
> Basically what you are saying that your fun is better than my fun. That's your ego talking, pure and simple. There is no way to prove it.

i'm saying you know it's not actually a fun car. but as usual, you're trying to argue that your choices are better in whatever nonsensical way you feel like at the moment (your j3 is as fast as a iphone 7! it's better because it uses outdated usb ports for which you have 8 cables lying around!).

[ed]

yes, of which you have no idea of. d'uh.

> In any event, the car easily keeps up with traffic in town and on the highway.

neat. but you don't really know, as you never exceed the speed limit, and i'm sure sometimes the traffic flow exceeds the speed limit, right? :P

[Thomas E.]

Everybody's situation is unique in some respect.

As for Medicare at age 65 many employers just do not offer coverage, and never have to retirees. The State of Indiana is one. When you retire or hit 65 your state health care plan goes away.

[Thomas E.]

Excuse me, but the insight was little in common with the Civic. Different are the drivetrain, fuel system, electrical system, dash, shifter, console, wheels, tires, lights, radio, body panels, computer controls, and HVAC system. It's heavier, longer, wider and sits lower than a Civic. The wheelbase is the same.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=2019+civic+dimensions&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN
https://www.bing.com/search?q=2019+Honda+insight+dimensions&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

You and Hugh are the ones who insist that it's not a fun car. It may not be for you, don't generalize.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 11:27:52 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-4, ed wrote:

> > ...

> >
> > i'm saying you know it's not actually a fun car. but as usual, you're trying
> > to argue that your choices are better in whatever nonsensical way you feel like

> > at the moment ...

>
> Excuse me, but the insight was little in common with the Civic. Different are
> the drivetrain, fuel system, electrical system, dash, shifter, console, wheels,
> tires, lights, radio, body panels, computer controls, and HVAC system.
> It's heavier, longer, wider and sits lower than a Civic. The wheelbase is the same.

They're made in the same manufacturing plant in Greensburg Indiana, along with
the CR-V, and they're so profoundly different they use the same CVT transmission
taken from the parts bin of the Honda Accord.

> You and Hugh are the ones who insist that it's not a fun car. It may not be
> for you, don't generalize.

Don't believe that I ever commented on "fun" or not; my comment IIRC was
that its wasn't particularly quick ("0-60mph" is objectively measurable).

Now insofar as the 'fun' quotient, I had an Accord hybrid as a loaner car some
years ago and about the most 'fun' that one could have with it was to challenge
yourself with manipulating the hybrid charging bar. Otherwise, it was very much
a disengaging vanilla cardboard transportation appliance to get from A to B,
profoundly distant from the Porsche Panameras which I've also driven, especially
for anyone who also values the 'smooth and quiet' categories.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

Neither the Accord nor the Insight hybrids have any transmission in the conventional sense. The do have a clutch that locks the engine to the drivetrain at highway speeds. The CRV and Accord 4 banger may share a CVT part. I suspect that the V6 Accord has a different part.

As for fun I have fun with a lot of cars too. A Porsche would be fun to drive, not to buy. I have fun with the Insight, as I have with my Accords and Acuras and my Mustangs. If you want to talk no-fun cars let's discuss my Oldsmobiles and the Chevy Citation.

[Thomas E.]

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 1:09:36 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2019-06-28 9:37 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
>
> > Basically what you are saying that your fun is better than my fun.
> > That's your ego talking, pure and simple. There is no way to prove
> > it.

> Ironic coming from the guy who tried to insist that his fun (flying) was
> better than my fun (racing).
>
> :-)

You seem to enjoy losing races and crashing. If that's fun for you then carry on! I've not crashed an airplane, but I don't think it would be fun.

[Alan Baker]

Just proving that you don't push your airplanes nearly as close to the
limit as one MUST push a racing car.

[Thomas E.]

I know that is true. You seem to really have fun crashing and then giving us the second-by-second excuses as to why it is never your fault.

[Alan Baker]

I've simply stated the facts, Liarboy.

[-hh]

There's still a transmission and in checking back, the Insight used the Accord's CVT
up through its second generation - - apparently just the third generation has gotten
what you're now describing - - that particular approach has been around in development
since the 1990s (VW had it with a super-insulated diesel electric hybrid) and to a
degree, largely represents a reorganization subsystems to reduce volume. But even so,
being coproduced in the same factory invariably means extensive overlap in the
underlying parts bin and core mechanicals...maybe even a Slovenian battery tray ;-)

> As for fun I have fun with a lot of cars too.

"Have"? With your current fleet? That beggars the question as to just how,
particularly since for the 'quiet' metric, a pair of ear plugs is only a dollar.

> A Porsche would be fun to drive, not to buy.

At your age, it is even more so a "now or never", and certainly someone who's
bragged about a net worth of $2M (unless its gone down?) can at least afford to
$35K for a used 911 example to have as a third car to drive at one's discretion.
Or spend a bit more for an air-cooled and watch its value hold or appreciate.

> I have fun with the Insight, as I have with my Accords and Acuras and my
> Mustangs. If you want to talk no-fun cars let's discuss my Oldsmobiles and
> the Chevy Citation.

The Citation was a '70s fuel crisis stopgap design whose sole claim to fame was
that it was a larger car than the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon or VW Rabbit, and
anyone buying one knew that going in. And as a class, one would have expected
that all of the Oldsmobiles to very much have punched your happy ticket for
delivering a comfy & quiet ride...

...but as I'd noted, if that's really what you want, you should take a Panorama out for
a test drive, if for no other reason than to understand the contemporary benchmark.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

There is no Insight or Accord Hybrid transmission unless you count a lock-up clutch and a fixed ratio planetary gear set that together lock the engine to the electric propulsion motor which is in turn always connected via direct drive to the front wheels. The instrument panel has no tach. It would be useless. Put it in neutral and depress the gas pedal and nothing happens. It's pretty strange at first, unlike any car I have ever owned.

See https://hondanews.com/releases/2019-honda-insight-press-kit#overview quoted below.

EV Drive Operation
All-electric EV Drive operation occurs when moving away gently from a stop, during light cruising and acceleration, and when braking. The gasoline engine is off and is decoupled from the drivetrain to reduce friction. Drivers can also manually select EV Drive by pressing a button on the center console, enabling pure electric operation for roughly a mile on a full charge.

Hybrid Drive Operation
The electric propulsion motor alone powers the front wheels, as the gasoline engine (decoupled from the drive wheels) powers the electric-generator motor, which in turn supplies power to the battery pack or, when power demands are high, directly to the electric propulsion motor. In this type of operation, the system works as a "series hybrid."

Engine Drive Operation
The Atkinson-cycle i-VTEC® engine is connected to the propulsion motor providing supplemental power directly to the front wheels. This is accomplished by a high-capacity lock-up clutch that connects the generator motor (always linked to the engine) and the electric propulsion motor. In this type of operation, the system works as a "parallel hybrid".

end quote

As for net worth, net of RMD distributions it has gone up about 20% since $2 mill. It's doing OK, thank you very much. I am wondering if you have even looked at the S&P 500 lately.

I could afford another car, but have no garage for it. Nor do I want the expense and bother. I'd rather travel and gift money to the two causes I deem worthy - education and the arts. That's a lot more fun for me than another car. A self-absorbed SOB like you probably cannot appreciate just how much I look forward to the annual post-RMD day when I can give a good portion of that windfall away.

Just how often do you get to actually use a 4 second 0-60 time and .95 lateral G turns? 7.7 seconds and .85 g is plenty good for me. If you do often use all that performance in normal traffic I feel sorry for the drivers around you. IMHO your love of high performance street cars is another manifestation of your self-centered "fun" definition.

The Olds I owned we certainly OK to drive, but some were maintenance nightmares. A 73 Cutlass Supreme transmission failed at 80k. My 83 Ciera blew out both headgaskets at 120k and a 96 Olds 88 intake manifold failed at just over 100k. I traded the 83 in and got $400 for it. It went to a salvage yard at 6 years old. All but one of those Olds were the ex-wife's. I drove Toyotas and Hondas/Acuras.

You are right about the 81 Citation's reason for creation, but it was also deeply flawed in design and execution. It was rusting out after less than 3 years. The paint was coming off. There were several recalls, one for brakes. I traded it off before I made the last payment.

Maybe you should go take an Insight for a test drive. If you do be sure to drive the Touring Edition with it's 17" wheels and wider tires than the EX.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-07-06 12:55 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:

> Just how often do you get to actually use a 4 second 0-60 time and
> .95 lateral G turns? 7.7 seconds and .85 g is plenty good for me. If
> you do often use all that performance in normal traffic I feel sorry
> for the drivers around you. IMHO your love of high performance street
> cars is another manifestation of your self-centered "fun"
> definition.

"Fun" is by definition self-centred, you self-important twat.

And just because you're too limited to see how one can safely enjoy
driving close to the limits of a high-performance, not only without
endangering anyone else, but also without most drivers (drivers exactly
like you) being even aware of it, that's only because you're useless as
a driver.

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
>
> There is no Insight or Accord Hybrid transmission unless you count a lock-up clutch and ..

Yup. Better stick to chicken diseases instead of the engineering of mechanical systems...

> As for net worth, net of RMD distributions it has gone up about 20% since $2 mill.
> It's doing OK, thank you very much. I am wondering if you have even looked at the
> S&P 500 lately.

Well, the S&P 500 is up by +32% since 2016 and normalized, your RMDs increased
by 10% due to age. As such, claiming a +20% increase suggests that your basis
went up by only 10% over the last three years, which is about the same as what one
would get with a 3 year CD earning a fixed 3% APR.

> I could afford another car, but have no garage for it.

As if the likes of a modern Honda really merits a garage. /s

> Nor do I want the expense and bother. I'd rather travel and gift money
> to the two causes I deem worthy - education and the arts. That's a lot
> more fun for me than another car.

Even though you’ve already tried to defend your Insight as quick, fun, etc... oopsie!

> A self-absorbed SOB like you probably cannot appreciate just how much I look
> forward to the annual post-RMD day when I can give a good portion of that windfall away.

Talking about yourself once again, we all see. Sorry, but you’ve repeatedly demonstrated
that you’re the CSMA king of self-absorbed ego stroking.

> Just how often do you get to actually use a 4 second 0-60 time and .95 lateral G turns?

Wrong question to ask. The correct one is what capability level is beneficial to defensive
driving and having a capability of better than “7.7 seconds and .85 g” to avoid trouble...

...because it can otherwise mean ending up tangling with another car in a traffic circle.

> IMHO your love of high performance street cars is another manifestation of your
> self-centered "fun" definition.

Which is why I own a “4 sec” car? Wait, I don’t own a 4sec car. What now, Tommy?
Perhaps what it really is is that I have a much better awareness than you of what
contemporary “fun” is, even if I don’t personally partake?

> The Olds I owned we certainly OK to drive, but some were maintenance nightmares.
> A 73 Cutlass Supreme transmission failed at 80k. My 83 Ciera blew out both
> headgaskets at 120k and a 96 Olds 88 intake manifold failed at just over 100k.
> I traded the 83 in and got $400 for it. It went to a salvage yard at 6 years old. All
> but one of those Olds were the ex-wife's. I drove Toyotas and Hondas/Acuras.
>
> You are right about the 81 Citation's reason for creation, but it was also deeply
> flawed in design and execution. It was rusting out after less than 3 years. The
> paint was coming off. There were several recalls, one for brakes. I traded it off
> before I made the last payment.

And despite how you went back to that tainted well four (4) times, you try to brag
about how your personal purchase choices are always vastly superior...?

> Maybe you should go take an Insight for a test drive. If you do be sure to drive
> the Touring Edition with it's 17" wheels and wider tires than the EX.

Because 17” wheels and wider tires does precisely what, and with which trade-offs?
Or is it like putting on a fart can and a blackout kit?

-hh

[Thomas E.]

I’ll ignore the fact that you don’t know a transmission from a transvesite and explain that the 20% is in spite of the annual RMD amounts of 3.5 to close 4 percent. So, close to a 30 percent increase if the funds had stayed in the accounts and increased with the market. That actually 3 RMDs. 2017, 2018 and 2019.

[Thomas E.]

Fun is self centered, you are correct. But what you have fun doing may not be. I have tons of fun delivering Meals and Wheels, taking young people on airplane rides (doing that tomorrow), giving money away, serving at my church, working on the house, and taking the wife to places she has never been but I have. I also have fun skiing, but only with other people.

What's fun for you?

If you are driving a high performance car to it's full capabilities in close proximity to other vehicles the drivers are going to notice. That would involve speed, accelerating, braking and cornering at rates higher than prevailing traffic. You would be likely to be passing and weaving in and out of traffic at very high speeds.

Of course, you are having lots of fun in your turbo Beemer, proving your manhood, compensating for your insecurities, and don't give a shit about what other drivers think. I know the type. They are plentiful in I-465.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-07-06 8:58 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:28:21 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2019-07-06 12:55 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
>>
>>> Just how often do you get to actually use a 4 second 0-60 time
>>> and .95 lateral G turns? 7.7 seconds and .85 g is plenty good for
>>> me. If you do often use all that performance in normal traffic I
>>> feel sorry for the drivers around you. IMHO your love of high
>>> performance street cars is another manifestation of your
>>> self-centered "fun" definition.
>>
>> "Fun" is by definition self-centred, you self-important twat.
>>
>> And just because you're too limited to see how one can safely
>> enjoy driving close to the limits of a high-performance, not only
>> without endangering anyone else, but also without most drivers
>> (drivers exactly like you) being even aware of it, that's only
>> because you're useless as a driver.
>
> Fun is self centered, you are correct.

So then you admit what you said before was just so much bullshit, right
Liarboy?

I'd say you owe HH an apology, wouldn't you?

> But what you have fun doing
> may not be.

What I have fun may not be... ...fun for me? Can you not even compose
coherent sentences, Liarboy?

> I have tons of fun delivering Meals and Wheels, taking
> young people on airplane rides (doing that tomorrow),

Convenient to have someone else to pay for your fun, isn't it?

> giving money
> away, serving at my church, working on the house, and taking the wife
> to places she has never been but I have. I also have fun skiing, but
> only with other people.
>
> What's fun for you?

Motor racing of course, but also skiing, golf, hockey—all with friends,
looking after my soon-to-be-four-year-old niece, playing music in my
brother's band.

And I'd hazard a guess that the "fun" you get from most of the
activities you just mentioned is mostly in your ability to brag about them.

>
> If you are driving a high performance car to it's full capabilities
> in close proximity to other vehicles the drivers are going to notice.

That's why you don't do it in close proximity, you gormless twit.

> That would involve speed, accelerating, braking and cornering at
> rates higher than prevailing traffic. You would be likely to be
> passing and weaving in and out of traffic at very high speeds.

Actually, no. You can accelerate, brake and corner at rates higher than
the prevailing traffic without ever weaving in an out of traffic or
traveling at particularly high speeds.

First of all, when you accelerate at a rate higher than other cars, you
do it when you are IN FRONT of other cars, not behind.

When you brake, you brake LATER than other cars.

When you corner, you just don't drop to as low a mid-corner speed.

I do it all the time and no one even notices.

>
> Of course, you are having lots of fun in your turbo Beemer, proving
> your manhood, compensating for your insecurities, and don't give a
> shit about what other drivers think. I know the type. They are
> plentiful in I-465.

Then you don't know me. I go with the flow on highways, Liarboy. I might
be going 5mph faster than most other traffic, but that's about the limit
of it. If we were on the same highway, and you were driving properly,
you'd never even bat an eye.

I know you'll fail to understand this, Liarboy, because you have no
actual clue about what makes road racing fun:

Going fast in a straight line doesn't anything for me. The only reasons
I go a little faster on the highway than other cars on the highway are:

1. I get where I'm going as fast as one reasonably can without risking
losing all that due to an encounter with law enforcement.

2. Statistically, it is a little safer to drive slightly faster than the
median speed.

I consider a trip down the highway—on any road actually—a complete
success only if:

1. I never get surprised by anything any other car on the road with me
does, and I'm able to maneuver to accommodate other traffic without
needing to do more than change my speed with the accelerator or using
equally gentle lateral accelerations (lane changes).

2. No other driver around me needs to do any more than that to
accommodate my maneuvers.

You know NOTHING about me and what makes me tick, Liarboy.

[Sandman]

In article <d03b3799-1d36-44cc...@googlegroups.com>, ed wrote:

> ha, i'm looking again as well.

> still looking for something small, sporty-ish, efficient, good for a
> long commute, preferable with a stick. ;D

Model 3. Driving stick does not apply. :)

--
Sandman

[-hh]

> I’ll ignore the fact that you don’t know a transmission from a transvesite ...

Oh, look: Tommy's now pretending to be an 'Engineer' and slinging Ad Hominems!

Unfortunately for Tommy, the facts are that there's still a direct mechanical
connection between ICE and Wheels that is transmitting power. Which is similarly
why Tommy also dodged on the why on the 17" wheels (and fart can) question.


> ... and explain that the 20% is in spite of the annual RMD amounts of 3.5 to close 4 percent.

"3.5, close to 4%"? A tad optimistic there...shocking!

2016 70 27.4 ...required but delay allowed until 1 April 2017
2017 71 26.5 ... that's 3.4% more than 2016
2018 72 25.6 ... that's 3.5% more than 2017
2019 73 24.7 ...that's 3.6% more than 2018

YMMV, but 3.4%, 3.5% and 3.6% averages to 3.5% ... not 'close to 4%'.

Plus (and knowing you) if you'd chosen to maximize delaying your 2016 RMD, then both
your 2016 and 2017 RMDs were distributed in 2017, so your 2018 RMD would have been
47.4% less than what you paid in RMDs in 2017.

> So, close to a 30 percent increase if the funds had stayed in the accounts and increased
> with the market. That actually 3 RMDs. 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Except that this was a Net Worth discussion, and because you've previously claimed
that your RMD's were largely being reinvested, the money's not being lost in as much
as it is simply moving between accounts and still being counted.

Similarly, you've claimed that you've been philanthropic for years, so this too is merely
a shift in existing expenditures so as to leverage a tax advantage.


-hh

[-hh]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 12:34:44 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2019-07-06 8:58 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:28:21 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2019-07-06 12:55 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just how often do you get to actually use a 4 second 0-60 time
> >>> and .95 lateral G turns? 7.7 seconds and .85 g is plenty good for
> >>> me. If you do often use all that performance in normal traffic I
> >>> feel sorry for the drivers around you. IMHO your love of high
> >>> performance street cars is another manifestation of your
> >>> self-centered "fun" definition.
> >>
> >> "Fun" is by definition self-centred, you self-important twat.
> >>
> >> And just because you're too limited to see how one can safely
> >> enjoy driving close to the limits of a high-performance, not only
> >> without endangering anyone else, but also without most drivers
> >> (drivers exactly like you) being even aware of it, that's only
> >> because you're useless as a driver.
> >
> > Fun is self centered, you are correct.
>
> So then you admit what you said before was just so much bullshit, right
> Liarboy?
>
> I'd say you owe HH an apology, wouldn't you?

Standing by... /S

> > But what you have fun doing
> > may not be.
>
> What I have fun may not be... ...fun for me? Can you not even compose
> coherent sentences, Liarboy?
>
> > I have tons of fun delivering Meals and Wheels, taking
> > young people on airplane rides (doing that tomorrow),
>
> Convenient to have someone else to pay for your fun, isn't it?
>
> > giving money
> > away, serving at my church, working on the house, and taking the wife
> > to places she has never been but I have. I also have fun skiing, but
> > only with other people.
> >
> > What's fun for you?
>
> Motor racing of course, but also skiing, golf, hockey—all with friends,
> looking after my soon-to-be-four-year-old niece, playing music in my
> brother's band.
>
> And I'd hazard a guess that the "fun" you get from most of the
> activities you just mentioned is mostly in your ability to brag about them.

"...by definition self-centred...self-important twat."

> > If you are driving a high performance car to it's full capabilities
> > in close proximity to other vehicles the drivers are going to notice.
>
> That's why you don't do it in close proximity, you gormless twit.

This is quite a blatantly flawed Straw Man attempt, since only Tommy has
even suggested the likes of 'street racing'. As I'd previously noted, the
equation factors in having larger safety margins for defensive driving.

> > That would involve speed, accelerating, braking and cornering at
> > rates higher than prevailing traffic. You would be likely to be
> > passing and weaving in and out of traffic at very high speeds.
>
> Actually, no. You can accelerate, brake and corner at rates higher than
> the prevailing traffic without ever weaving in an out of traffic or
> traveling at particularly high speeds.
>
> First of all, when you accelerate at a rate higher than other cars, you
> do it when you are IN FRONT of other cars, not behind.
>
> When you brake, you brake LATER than other cars.
>
> When you corner, you just don't drop to as low a mid-corner speed.
>
> I do it all the time and no one even notices.

Having a more capable ride is actually just another dimension to 'luxury'.
Doesn't mean that it must be used, let alone be used constantly, since
such performance metrics represent an upper limit, not a lower one:
there's nothing preventing a ~30 second 0-60mph time except for the
larger context of what else is happening around one on the roads, as
it very well may be unsafe in that context to be that slow.

> > Of course, you are having lots of fun in your turbo Beemer, proving
> > your manhood, compensating for your insecurities, and don't give a
> > shit about what other drivers think. I know the type. They are
> > plentiful in I-465.
>
> Then you don't know me. I go with the flow on highways, Liarboy. I might
> be going 5mph faster than most other traffic, but that's about the limit
> of it. If we were on the same highway, and you were driving properly,
> you'd never even bat an eye.
>
> I know you'll fail to understand this, Liarboy, because you have no
> actual clue about what makes road racing fun:
>
> Going fast in a straight line doesn't anything for me. The only reasons
> I go a little faster on the highway than other cars on the highway are:
>
> 1. I get where I'm going as fast as one reasonably can without risking
> losing all that due to an encounter with law enforcement.
>
> 2. Statistically, it is a little safer to drive slightly faster than the
> median speed.
>
> I consider a trip down the highway—on any road actually—a complete
> success only if:
>
> 1. I never get surprised by anything any other car on the road with me
> does, and I'm able to maneuver to accommodate other traffic without
> needing to do more than change my speed with the accelerator or using
> equally gentle lateral accelerations (lane changes).
>
> 2. No other driver around me needs to do any more than that to
> accommodate my maneuvers.

Similarly:

3. No contact is made with other vehicles (including in traffic circles).
Ditto for potential 'close calls'.

4. No contact is made with natural hazards; e.g. wildlife.

5. No passengers onboard are disrupted (e.g., no drinks spilled);
Ditto for cargo.

etc.

> You know NOTHING about me and what makes me tick, Liarboy.

But it must be different and therefore inferior to Tommy! /S


-hh

[Alan Baker]

I would have said those go without saying... :-)

>
> 5. No passengers onboard are disrupted (e.g., no drinks spilled);
> Ditto for cargo.

One of the things that always amazes my racing students is that I can
drive their car faster than they ever thought possible, and it's so very
smooth.

>
> etc.
>
>> You know NOTHING about me and what makes me tick, Liarboy.
>
> But it must be different and therefore inferior to Tommy! /S

Naturally!

;-)