Surgery done before City cuts me off!

**sumas** · October-24-13, 06:44 AM

Obviously the City truly fucked up with handling pensions. The legacy costs are huge but they need to be met. Promises are promises. Find a different way to balance our budget. Re-write new contracts etc. but folks that put their time in under old rules should be sacrosanct.

**sumas** · October-24-13, 06:52 AM

Oops forgot to say HI Ray, Rooting for you. For personal reasons, I am sure, is why you left Michigan. Zippo sarcasm intended.

Our fall colors are fantastic, the weather crisp and clear. Gasp, the sun even shines on Detroit.

Do you miss us a little?

**DetroitPlanner** · October-24-13, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by sumas

Obviously the City truly fucked up with handling pensions. The legacy costs are huge but they need to be met. Promises are promises. Find a different way to balance our budget. Re-write new contracts etc. but folks that put their time in under old rules should be sacrosanct.

Not really, there was a pension board that acted somewhat autonomous. There was a lot of graft on these boards. You have untrustworthy folks in charge [[I can name names, but it will just raise my blood pressure), and a shrinking number of people paying in; while the number who got pay-outs increased [[due to the City giving early retirements to save salaries).

**motz** · October-24-13, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

58 is too young to retire. Too much left to contribute at that age. A well-organized police department has tasks that can be done by someone who has served in more rigorous action as they mature. You're still pretty smart at 58.

I totally agree with this point. I hate to be negative on pensioners, but has anyone thought that part of the underfunded issue might be people contributing less years than they draw from the pensions? Especially appointees who work 5-10 years in city government and get benefits for the rest of their lives? If there was some sort of guideline that said "You need to work X amount of years or be Y age before you can retire" that was based around guidelines that made sure they contributed their fair shake, where would we be today?

The prospect that someone could retire before they are 50 just dumbfounds me as it makes absolutely no business or fiscal sense whatsoever. I really wish my generation was in a position to do this, as I'd love to be able to draw a pension, get healthcare and work a part time job.

**Ray1936** · October-24-13, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

58 is too young to retire. Too much left to contribute at that age. A well-organized police department has tasks that can be done by someone who has served in more rigorous action as they mature. You're still pretty smart at 58.

Not enough desk jobs to go around, Wesley. Police work is a young man's job, just like firefighting. It's a very rare 58-year old who can chase down a 20-something punk and then do battle with him when he resists. I had my fill of that, and by the time I was in my late forties, knew the show was over. It's the same reason the military has 20 and 25 year retirements. By the way, I stayed in good shape, even to today at 5-10 and 170 lbs. Lot of guys didn't.

**bailey** · October-24-13, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

Not enough desk jobs to go around, Wesley. Police work is a young man's job, just like firefighting. It's a very rare 58-year old who can chase down a 20-something punk and then do battle with him when he resists. I had my fill of that, and by the time I was in my late forties, knew the show was over. It's the same reason the military has 20 and 25 year retirements. By the way, I stayed in good shape, even to today at 5-10 and 170 lbs. Lot of guys didn't.

Isn't one of the main issues/complaints about DPD right now is that there are way too many uniformed cops riding desks and not on a beat? I understand the beat is a young person's job...but is payroll?

...also, I don't mean that as some sort of slam on being retired... just saying

**Bobl** · October-24-13, 11:32 AM

Good to read of your good results from cataract surgery, Ray. I'm 64 years old, and have been putting it off until "later". Think I'll look into it, now, while I am employed and have good insurance.

Per Affordable Care Act:
Just checked the Affordable Health Care Act website, after not being able to log in on Oct 2, just out of curiosity.
It went well, this time. Things I learned: "Gold" coverage for me has a monthly price range of 309 dollars [[Humana), 346 dollars [[Total Health care), 439 dollars [[Blue Cross), before subsidies, which are available to those who earn up to 45,960 dollars annually. That must be the top rate. In less than a year, I will be eligible for Medicare.
Don't know what the subsidy would be, because an application is required to estimate exactly what it would be.
I have good insurance through my employer, but for those who don't, this might be a good way to look into options. It took less than ten minutes for this Luddite to navigate. Most users would get it done more quickly.

**hhockey** · October-24-13, 12:38 PM

Bobi did those prices show what the deductible was? When i checked with Humana the deductible was 10,000 dollars and must be met before coverage takes place.

**motz** · October-24-13, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by hhockey

Bobi did those prices show what the deductible was? When i checked with Humana the deductible was 10,000 dollars and must be met before coverage takes place.

Was that on a gold plan, or a non-gold plan? Gold plans are supposed to have lower deductibles with bronze being the "catastrophic" coverage and silver being comparable to lots of employers basic plans.

And why not figure out a system where people get put to work somewhere in government after they turn a certain age? Have them work and contribute into that pension rather than saying "Oh you're 50 and it's hard to run, so just retire and we'll provide your pension for the next 35 years. Oh, and thanks for the 23 years of service!"

**cla1945** · October-24-13, 04:33 PM

We were informed that anyone 65 and older did not qualify for the Affordable Care Act. If a person is eligible for Medicare they cannot get ACA.

The City of Detroit is offering 3 health plans, one, Medicare Plus Blue PPO with a premium, the other two at no cost. The CofD is offering a Dental plan at $60/mo and a vision plan at approx. $6/mo with very minimal coverage.

High co-pays, high coinsurance, higher deductibles and minimal coverage, but it's better than nothing. I have opted to keep my BCBSM Medicare Plus Blue PPO that I have been paying the City for. They are eliminating many things from the coverage but I want to use their new plan for a year to see how it works. Dental is a consideration and vision is a no go.

If the CofD doesn't take any money from my pension I can make it but if they decide to take percentages, it may be a problem. Unfortunately, none of us retirees had any options to go downtown to check up on how the City was running things and how the retiree board was spending our money....we probably would have been thrown out of the building by security if we questioned anyone about it.

Incidentally, Detroit firefighters HAVE to retire at age 60. They do not pay into social security and cannot get Medicare until age 65. So explain to me how they are going to make it? Also, watch Fox2 news tonight. Charlie LeDuff is doing a story on Brendan Milewski, the Detroit Firefighter paralyzed when a building fell on him while he was fighting a fire in Detroit. The city isn't paying his medical bills, is going to give him $200/mo stipend to buy insurance as of January 1, 2014. This is no way for a government to treat the very people who serve and protect others. Orr, Bing, Snyder and all the other politicians should be ashamed of themselves.

**Ray1936** · October-24-13, 05:49 PM

Police and Firefighters retiring at age fifty? Horrors!! How can we let such things happen???

Ummmmm......ever wonder why professional athletes all retire by age forty? Why can't they still lineback or play right wing at age sixty? Gee Whiz!!!!!

Age catches us all. If you're a stock analyst or a programmer, no big deal. But there's limits on other professions, like it or not.

**Wesley Mouch** · October-24-13, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Isn't one of the main issues/complaints about DPD right now is that there are way too many uniformed cops riding desks and not on a beat? I understand the beat is a young person's job...but is payroll?

...also, I don't mean that as some sort of slam on being retired... just saying

This is only true if you assume that young officers can only be desk cops. Perhaps they could go into code enforcement. Or work in the fire department dispatch. Or process invoices for accounts payable.

Why do we place limits on how these fine people can contribute [[after their days of chasing robbers on foot). Ray -- I get the idea. Sure -- its a tough job in many ways. But I don't accept that a typical 55 year old cop is ready to be sent out to pasture. Surely there's something postive that they can do except collect money.

**Ray1936** · October-24-13, 07:31 PM

Actually, Wesley, many do stay well beyond their 25 years. I know of one officer who spent 50 years on the department and retired at age 72. He just worked in fleet control for the last 25. But a lot do 30 and even 35. And there are many who get disability retirements.

**Jimaz** · October-24-13, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

...Age catches us all....

I heard a great quote recently: "Being of sound mind and body is always a temporary affliction."

**Bobl** · October-25-13, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by hhockey

Bobi did those prices show what the deductible was? When i checked with Humana the deductible was 10,000 dollars and must be met before coverage takes place.

I'm still not sure, but have been told that there are caps for these plans, so the most anyone will pay out of pocket on an Affordable Care Act Plan is $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family.
It was the gold plan, which is an 80%/20% plan, as I understand it.

There needs to be more education, and less partisan talking points about this!

I've also read that the Canadian law is contained in 12 pages, ours more than a thousand. A lot of junk was added by the insurance company lobbyists.

**hhockey** · October-25-13, 10:57 AM

Motz that was under the Bronze and Silver. I was quoted through BCBS that the gold plan has low deductible but a $10,500 out of pocket expense for any catastrophic event regardless of the co-pay

**hhockey** · October-25-13, 11:02 AM

The bottom line is that you need to research each policy as they are not always forthcoming in telling you about the high deductible, nor whether you have any prescription coverage with the policy. Some prescription coverage is 20% deductible on the contractual price of the drug. Example if drug costs $300 the copay is $60 etc.

**gnome** · October-25-13, 12:54 PM

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought is had something to do with getting circumcised.

glad to learn it only involved something unimportant like eyesight.

**Wesley Mouch** · October-26-13, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

Actually, Wesley, many do stay well beyond their 25 years. I know of one officer who spent 50 years on the department and retired at age 72. He just worked in fleet control for the last 25. But a lot do 30 and even 35. And there are many who get disability retirements.

I hope I didn't sound mean at all. I would hope that we'd find a way to allow police officers to work in different capacities through their years that suit their abilities.

**Aerojoe** · October-26-13, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I hope I didn't sound mean at all. I would hope that we'd find a way to allow police officers to work in different capacities through their years that suit their abilities.

Well that would be a great idea but I will tell you there are alot of "younger" Police officers that don't really want to be Cops and take a Desk jobs first chance they get.

My father worked patrol for 25 years before he got promoted to Investigator and then Sgt.

I am sorry there is difference between working the streets of Detroit for 39+ years and putting on bumpers on a car for 39 years. I remember as a kid seeing the aftermath of my father getting thrown down a flight of stairs by a drug crazed kid that took 6 guys to finally get in handcuffs.

Yes he has more of a desk job now he does still go out on the streets every now and then. But his body is getting worn out from the years of abuse. He has had hearing aids for the last 10 years and now the city said you don't need them anymore we won't pay for them.

**erikd** · November-03-13, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

So you think Ray should have waited a few years until his vision worsened to the point where he was unable to drive or normally function? You think it would have been better to wait until then when he may be relying on Medicare and without the full pension income he was promised?......................................... .................................................. .................... Good luck in getting anyone worthwhile to sign up for that task of providing "Additional PD and FD" in Detroit if Detroit's not willing to keep their promises to those individuals that have already spent their lifetimes doing so! I don't think people realize how bad the pushback is going to be if there are significant cuts to the benefits of current and retired Detroit Police and Fire.

I am sick of hearing this bullshit about "Detroit" not keeping it's promises. Detroit is not some kind of evil empire withholding benefits from poor pensioners. Detroit is a city of citizens and taxpayers who are stuck in a shit situation because 60% of our former neighbors left and stuck the remaining 40% of us with the full bill.

I have no problem with paying my fair share of taxes to provide benefits for retirees, but I do have a problem with picking up the slack for a million people who used to live in the city, and have since moved out and now have no responsibility to help pay for the legacy costs that THEY agreed to.

I am a Detroiter, but I did not agree to pay for lifetime pensions and benefits that were negotiated and agreed to by a million+ people who actually benefited from the work of these public servants, but then left the city and shirked the bill.

I don't want retired city workers to have their pensions or benefits cut. Nobody in Detroit wants that. The problem we have is due to the million former Detroiters who left the city, and feel that they are are no longer responsible for the debts that they incurred and agreed to.

Every former Detroiter, who now lives in Warren, Sterling Heights, Oscoda, Tampa Bay, Scottsdale, and every other place that they have left Detroit for, feels like they have no responsibility to help pay for the contracts that they supported and the agreements that they made. They just shirk their debts, and then vilify their former neighbors when we can't cover our share of the debt AND THEIRS as well.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · November-03-13, 09:33 AM

Erikd, you have just made an eloquent case against government borrowing. Surely you don't think the city should restrain people from leaving, even if it were possible to do so? And Detroit does not have the ability to tax those who are not residents. And for what it's worth, former Detroiters paid a lot in other ways: their homes, which they paid good money for and maintained, sold very often for massively less money.

And a similar phenomenon is occurring elsewhere. Rich liberals vote for high taxes in Boston and New York, and then move to New Hampshire and New Jersey to pay less taxes. They are much less extreme than Detroit because they've left a lot more taxpayers behind. But no one wants to stay in a high tax area, especially if they are getting no detectable services for it.

**313WX** · November-03-13, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

And a similar phenomenon is occurring elsewhere. Rich liberals vote for high taxes in Boston and New York, and then move to New Hampshire and New Jersey to pay less taxes. They are much less extreme than Detroit because they've left a lot more taxpayers behind. But no one wants to stay in a high tax area, especially if they are getting no detectable services for it.

But Boston AND New York are growing, so how do they compare to Detroit?