BreadWithSpam[at]fractious.net wrote:

- quote -

Point taken

I have some appointments with independent insurance
agents to talk abt private health insurance

My fear is I will have to take such a high deductible
to even afford anything

me[at]privacy.net writes:
- quote -

Better than committing fraud? I should think so.

Better than both - buying adequate insurance *and*
maximizing your "protected" savings in IRAs, etc.



--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

Rich Carreiro <rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote:

- quote -

So it would actually be better to leave any funds in a
401k or Roth IRA to protect it from bankruptcy?

jIM <noreplysoccer[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

And so would a $10,000 car, or a $4,000 car. Below that you're getting
into stuff that may not even have 2-3 years of trouble free driving.

Also, if you do as Tad discussed and trade in a $30k car every two
years, you're going to spending a lot more than $30k over the 10 years
that a new $15-20k car would last, probably more like $60K (30K to
start, and then around 8K every 2 years).

If you're going to buy a 30k car instead of a 17k car and ride it for
the same 10+ years, then you're only spending an extra 13-14k. If you
go with 17k cars but never let them get more than 2-3 years old, you may
do worse than buying a much more expensive car and keeping it for its
useful life.

Personally, I like the philosophy of buying used from the extravagant
folks who need a new car every 2-3 years. It's even cheaper than buying
the 17k cars new. But those folks are getting fewer than they used to
be. The difference between buying used and new is unfortunately much
smaller now than it was 10-15 years ago, as the market has wised up to
the value of used cars. When I was a young 20-something, that
arbitrage saved me a *lot* of money. The first car I spent more than
$3000 to buy, I got only four years ago, but I've always had reliable
cars.


Michael

Antipodean Bucket Farmer <usenet2005[at]THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIGwrote:

- quote -

Point taken thanks!

me[at]privacy.net writes:

- quote -

"They" will be able to see the withdrawal records. "They" will
question you about what happened to the money. And "they" would
probably have a decent shot in getting you in trouble for bankruptcy
fraud for lying about your assets on your bankruptcy application.
And if you gave the money away "they" may well be able to pin
fraudulent conveyance charges on you.

--
Rich Carreiro rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us

Rich Carreiro <rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote:

- quote -

Understand but how would "they" know what I did with
that money or where it was?

Just a hypothetical question

In article
<9ltbp117df11vuah63vkanso1ct9cg8de8[at]4ax.com> ,
me[at]privacy.net says...
- quote -


Well, this could potentially happen...

1. You have major medical expenses (car accident, etc)
plus temporary inability to work.

2. You are treated on an emergency basis, without
having to pay (yet!)

3. The bills start coming in.

4. The hospital files a civil lawsuit against you, for
failing to pay. And they get a judgement.

5. They will grab any funds in any bank account that
they know about. If you write a cheque for a partial
payment, they may have recorded the account number.
They may also send inquiries to all banks in your area,
along with pulling your credit bureau report, looking
for relationships and assets.

6. If you have a house, they may place a lien on it.
If the amount is enough, they can, and will, forcibly
take your house, and sell it to pay the debts (any
excess from the sale goes to you.)

7. They will order you in for a "discussion" of your
assets. Failing to co-operate can possibly result in
being arrested for contempt of court. That means, go
sit in jail with neighbours who are interested in
exploring your *non*-financial ASSets, until you decide
to co-operate with the civil proceedings.

8. That meeting will involve, "Under-Penalty-Of-
Perjury" disclosure of all your assets. Including
those gold coins in your safe-deposit box. Lying
(including by omission) is a criminal offence.

9. I suspect that, if the creditors find out that you
have a safe-deposit box (they may serve an information
demand on the bank where you have your cheque account,
etc), then there *might* be some way to place a hold on
it, to be opened only with their supervision.


Personally, if I had enough assets to tempt me to sneak
around and lie to protect, I would simply do the smart,
legal thing, and buy lots of insurance.


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

me[at]privacy.net writes:

- quote -

Then they aren't protected from bankruptcy (aside from the
amount of overall assets your state lets you keep in bankruptcy).

And of course, if you cash them in you'll pay income tax (and
penalty tax, if under age 59.5).

--
Rich Carreiro rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us

"anoop" <ghanwani[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

what if I cash them both in and convert them to cash or
gold and store in a safe deposit box?

<<Only 401(k)s are protected from bankrupty. IRAs may be protected by a
state law based on residency.>
That info is obsolete/incorrect, as of October 17 of this year. See
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/...322964,00.html

John Cowart

Tad Borek wrote:

- quote -

I remember seeing this statement a few days ago and got an email from
a friend today that contradicted this. Only 401(k)s are protected from
bankrupty. IRAs may be protected by a state law based on residency.

Anoop

"HW \"Skip\" Weldon" <skip5700removethis[at]hotmail.com> writes:
- quote -

career instead of, say, a $10k car, means $20k plus its
associated compound growth over the course of many years.
That can easily be a *heap* of money.

That aside, the above reminded me of an article I read in
yesterdays's WSJ (12/1/05 - D1 - A New Approach to Savings
Plans) which talked about variations on the theme of
simplified accounts for retirement, etc ( similar to what
Bush proposed about a year ago). Part of the idea was that
if choices were more straightforward, hopefully folks would
start saving more. Anyway, there were several individuals
mentioned in the article as examples of people's behavior:

All these proposals are aimed at people lke Bowman Thompson,
a 42-year-old supervisor at an iron-working facility in
New York City. he earns $89,000 a year, including
overtime. Of that, he saves only about $2,000 a year.

He doesn't take advantage of his company's 401(k), which
matches contributions up to 1%. Nor are he and his wife, a
stay-at-home mother, saving for their 12-year-old daughter's
college education. "I know I should be saving more, but I
don't have a lot of extra money," says Mr. Thompson,
adding that a new-car payment of $549 a month is making it
harder for him to save.

Folks like that make me start thinking that mandated
savings might actually be a good idea. His poor choices
now will cost the rest of us in years to come (subsidies
for his daughter's education and his retirement).

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hv3jf.193062$zb5.28173[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

But you've got it all wrong!!!

These are the folks that are *good* for the
system. They die off quickly. It's the "healthy"
folks who hang on for decades after they should
have died that continue to milk the system, decade
after decade after decade -- never dying off,
constantly nickel-and-diming the benefits
to no end.

<grin

"I'm thinking in very simple terms on this one...the total ownership
cost
of just one $30k car represents at least ten years of maximum allowable

IRA contributions"

$30,000 is a weak analagy.

I need a car to drive to work. I need a car to have a social life. I
will state I do not NEED a $30,000 car to do this. My $17,000 car does
just fine. So the opportunity cost of a $30,000 car is $13,000 based
on purchase price. $17,000 is only 4+ years of IRA contributions, and
I have a 401k, so the money is after tax (unless I increase 401k
contribution).

the insurance on my saturn is probably lower than what a $30,000 car is
(an F150 or Camry is 30k?). Over the 10 years I have owned my saturn,
maybe that's another $2000 ($200/year savings).

I agree $15000 over the 10 years would have funded much debt repayment,
much retirement savings or even a few soccer games and plenty of beer
(the reasons I need my car when I'm not working).

Using all 30k as the measuring point was my reason for disagreement.

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:
- quote -

Skip,
Something tells me that you're in the "doing both" category (saving for
retirement while also enjoying cars, because they're something you want
to spend money on) but...

I'm thinking in very simple terms on this one...the total ownership cost
of just one $30k car represents at least ten years of maximum allowable
IRA contributions, ie "a decade of retirement savings". Especially when
you factor in that car costs are paid with marginal after-tax dollars,
while IRAs are funded with marginal before-tax dollars. So for a lot of
people a dollar spent on a car (and not shunted into an IRA or Q-plan)
is a lost $1.25 or more in retirement savings - maybe a lot more. Which
would be OK if every new car buyer was shoveling away retirement savings
too, but that's hardly the case.

Sure most people need a car but even if you buy new, it's sooo much
cheaper to avoid repeated purchases. You can get 10 years out of most
decent cars these days. An every-two-year car buyer/leaser (as an
example) rides the worst part of the depreciation curve five times over
that time period, and pays higher insurance rates along the way. Plus
there's repeated sales tax, and higher registration fees in some states.
So it's a lot of money going out the window, and it's all after-tax
dollars. There's really nothing else like it, unless you have one of
those holes-in-the-water docked at a marina!

-Tad

"HW "Skip" Weldon" <skip5700removethis[at]hotmail.com> wrote
snip Tad's comments for conciseness
- quote -

Tad and Skip,

My conversation this morning with a relatively small health
insurer I have used in the past and am considering using
again supports your claims. You all posted enough that I
would have betted you all were correct, but for the sake of
thoroughness in the archives, I wanted to add a bit more.

I figured if the relatively small health insurer I have used
in the past negotiated a significant discount with its
contracted providers /before the deductible was exceeded/,
then this was pretty much a general rule.

For both its short term high deductible and major medical
high deductible plans, this smaller insurer has a negotiated
discount with designated providers of about 20%. It does,
like you all posted, kick in before the deductible is
reached. The providers are not off-the-beaten-path. Indeed,
the hospital nearest my city recreational complex (where I
spend arguably my most "dangerous" time competing
athletically) is one of its providers.

I said to this insurer: 'So I'm really buying a kind of
coupon-discount plan when I buy catastrophic health
insurance, for use even when I don't exceed the deductible,
right?' The response: 'Absolutely!'

- quote -


On this note, I figure a call to Blue Cross Blue Shield
would be appropriate at this time, to price compare. (Tad --
All I ever indicate online to strangers is that I live "out
West." I do not live in California though I have certainly
visited. I do have relatives elsewhere who, like Californian
Tad, recommend BCBS, hence with Tad and Skip's suggestion,
my inclination to check it next.)

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:35:00 -0600, Tad Borek <borekfm[at]pacbell.netwrote:

- quote -

This idea of relating a new car purchase to 1/3 of a career's
retirement saving is fascinating. Having always preferred luxury
cars, I am getting a sinking feeling. <weak grin
Would you mind sharing the rough math that led to that conclusion?


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:25:38 -0600, Tad Borek <borekfm[at]pacbell.netwrote:

- quote -

In my State the largest insurer negotiates contracts with the various
providers and uses that "price list" for all policies (both indemnity
and high deductible plans). Tad is correct - this is a major benefit
of insurance as the insured's out-of-pocket is pegged to that
discounted price.

Occasionally I come across a large national employer's plan that has
additional price concessions from providers. Those individually
negotiated prices would apply only to their contract.

I've also noted that the larger insurance companies can command
greater price concessions from providers. Finding out exactly what
those concessions are is something that insurance-savvy consumers do.



-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

Elle wrote:
- quote -

Elle,
Yes - anyone considering a plan should find out exactly how this will
work for them. If shopping around it would be a good idea to see whether
a plan will provide this kind of discount for your preferred
docs/facilities in your area. It's one of the ancillary benefits of a
plan that otherwise provides no cash reimbursement because of the high
deductible.

What I described is correct when you get services from one of the
providers affiliated with your insurer. The high-ded plans are actually
quite similar to any other - the provider submits the bill to the
insurer, who only pays out if you've met your deductible - otherwise the
total (post-discount) is your responsibility. Instead of being billed
for the 30% or whatever it would be after meeting the deductible, you're
responsible for 100% - and they add that to your out-of-pocket tally for
the calendar year. Should you hit the deductible the plan then looks a
lot like a normal one.

But if your provider isn't part of the network you wouldn't get the
benefit of this kind of discount, unless you were able to negotiate it
with them directly.

I know you're in CA so I'll mention that I've found the list of
preferred providers to be fairly inclusive with the CA Blue Shield HSA
plan that I personally use. Blue Cross, Aetna and HealthNet are now in
the CA market too IIRC so it may be more competitive than when I first
applied (at the time only BS and BC were in the MSA market here).

-Tad