The source link for these rough calculations is below. If anyone has another method of calculation; please let us know. The calculator uses a standard CPI government number. Whether you agree or not; this is the method used for various COLA's to the best of my knowledge. Having a COLA for a pension or SS is valuable. For those fortunate enough to have a pension, let alone a COLA; you should be 'happy'.
I'll use 10 years looking back, to present, as a sample; with $1,000 as a base number.
YES, there numerous types of CPI; including formulas that do not use government methods.
IF one had SS or a pension paying $1,000/month in 2014, then the following numbers seem to apply:
--- Pension, no COLA: One still has a $1,000 monthly payment, but the 'purchasing power is NOW $670 from 10 years ago .
--- Pension w/COLA: One's monthly payment may now be in the range of $1,332.
*** A very large gap in those two numbers in 2024, eh?
Annual in 2024:
Pension w/o COLA = $8,040
Pension w/COLA = $15,984
Compounding operates in two directions !!!
HEY, I/we need to know if there is a large mistake with this math.
Calculator source

@msf Appreciate the detailed explanation. All of the gory details and granular ins-and-outs and contingencies and add-ons and options, etc. only show what a broken non-system we have. Thanks for the corrections, too. Yes, Single-Payer, gummint-operated stuff will be, no doubt, a cluster-flop, too. ... Dental is not included, though. And I still do better getting some of my 'scripts via Canada.

I am so confused to read complaints like this from someone in Massachusetts and others about costs and screwups. Depending on Mass. county, Tufts and BCBS alike (nonprofits, or so they say) offer MA policies that are zero-premium, include (at least Tufts) serious, meaning $1500, dental prepaid card, modest eyeglasses and less-modest ($240) OTC benefits, and on and on. No referrals, huge network (or so it seems for our many docs).
My wife and I switched to Tufts Access PPO a year ago and have never given any care a second thought, even after I was hit by a car and needed all sorts of expensive care. BCBS has something similar and competitive.
Zero or low costs for all our meds too (Optum, Costco, CVS).
I am studying 2025 details to see what is going to get worse. But anyone in Mass. who has not delved at least Tufts Access PPO may be missing out bigtime.

I saw an S&P target of 8,000 by the end of the decade from a perma bull. While that number looks big, it is only about 33% over the next six years. That comes to about 5% per year or 6% inclusive of dividends and an equity risk premium of only 2% at the current 10 yr yield of 4.10%. I am tempted to reduce equity exposure in favor of high yield corporate bond fund(s) yielding at 6+%.

Just posted all ratings and flows to MFO Premium site, using Refinitiv data drop from Friday, 11 October, reflecting risk and return metrics thru 3Q24, as applicable.

"my SO and I had the same policy, went to the same PCP on the same day, had the same blood test. One of us was charged a $20 copay, the other was charged $0. One had been coded as a lab procedure ($0 copay), the other as a diagnostic test ($20 copay).. "
@msf knows the rules more than most here. So good that this coding mistake was fixed.
But that difference may be valid in many cases. The 1st test may be covered at 100% (lab procedure), but any quick repeat or follow up test (a diagnostic test) may be covered at less than 100% or require copay.
We have gotten burned on this more than once. My wife had some radiology work done, but the images didn't come out clear enough and they should have just redone it to fix their error. But they had my wife sign a paper that made it a follow up with her consent. When I questioned the insurer later, it won't budge because the policy on 1st test vs follow up (diagnostic) tests is clearly spelled out. The amount wasn't worth wasting more time, but my wife now wont sign some forms on the spot.
The point about insurers is also good - after all, the same insurers that we rely on while working are also the same ones who run Medigap insurance, but suddenly become totally untrustworthy for MA. I am in a large urban area with a large MA-PPO plan and haven't encountered any problems.

@Level5
Thanks for the well stated post. I agree that much of this comes down to trust, which is a variant of what @fred495 originally expressed as peace of mind.
Your supplemental plan, whether it is NYC's Senior Care or a standard Medigap plan (A-N), is provided by the same "dishonest" insurance companies that provide MA plans. So some trust in these companies is still needed. Though perhaps because less can go wrong with supplemental plans they are easier to trust. Or perhaps seven years of good experience has made your provider more trustworthy.
Not all MA providers are out for profit. Some, like HealthFirst, like the "Blues" that haven't yet gone over to the dark side (switching from not-for-profit to for-profit), aren't driven by making money. Maybe that makes a difference. I don't know. Though I agree that there is something off putting about profiting from, effectively, someone's misery.
For me, I've had more hassles with insurers because of incompetence than because of what motivates them.
Quick example: my SO and I had the same policy, went to the same PCP on the same day, had the same blood test. One of us was charged a $20 copay, the other was charged $0. I recognized this as a coding problem. One had been coded as a lab procedure ($0 copay), the other as a diagnostic test ($20 copay).
The insurer refused to acknowledge that this inconsistency proved that something was wrong. I had to go to the state attorney general's office (they have a special department to handle this stuff) to get the insurer to fix things. On principle.
I did mention last court decision, but dismissed it as nothing substantial: "Nothing new aside from the injunction being sustained on appeal."
With any luck, Adams won't be the one pressing on much longer. Can I say that, or is it too political? :-)

Very nice. Thanks again @Observant1

For a review of the history of our struggle to maintain our choice of health services you can visit one of the union sites here: https://psc-cuny.org/whats-happening-retiree-healthcare/
This is old news because basically nothing has changed since August 2023, when the injunction barring NYC from implementing its retiree health plan switch was made permanent. Nothing new aside from the injunction being sustained on appeal.
Since you brought up PSC CUNY, it is worth mentioning that its retirees have their own drug plan which they would not lose in a move to Aetna.
Looking at the appellate ruling, it is predicated on "Many City retirees [having] stated that their chosen providers and hospitals, like many healthcare providers, do not accept the MAPs [Medicare Advantage Plans]."
However, when using a PPO, it doesn't really matter whether a chosen provider accepts the PPO. If you go to an out-of-network provider who accepts Original Medicare, you're covered.
There are three possibilities:
1. The provider, though out-of-network, bills the PPO. I have an out-of-network provider that does this. The amount of the bill is set by law (see below) so long as it is a Medicare provider and you are enrolled in Medicare (any form, original or MA).
Your PPO pays the provider (even though out of network), less your cost-sharing portion. The provider may not take Aetna, but it will not turn down a check from Aetna. The provider then bills you the remaining balance, i.e. your cost-sharing amount.
2. You are presented a bill that you can pass along to your PPO. From there, things proceed as above.
3. The provider insists on immediate payment. I have another out-of-network provider that does this. You pay the bill and then send it along with a receipt to the PPO for reimbursement. You get reimbursed for all but your cost-sharing amount.
No matter what the procedure, at the end of the day you wind up paying just the cost-sharing amount stated in the Evidence of Coverage for the out-of-network service.
The three possibilities above are just expositions of Aetna's Evidence of Coverage:

It is best to ask an out‑of‑network provider to bill the plan first. But, if you have already paid for the covered services, we will reimburse you for our share of the cost for covered services. Or if an out‑of‑network provider sends you a bill that you think we should pay, you can send it to us for payment.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/olr/downloads/pdf/rfp/ma-hearing/cony-ma-eoc-soc-02102023.pdf
------------------
There is a federal law, §1852(k)(1) of the Social Security Act, that says that a Medicare provider cannot charge anyone enrolled in Medicare Advantage (originally called Medicare+Choice) more than it would charge a person enrolled in Original Medicare.
https://www-origin.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1852.htm
This is what makes Medicare PPOs work. If you're covered by a PPO other than Medicare Advantage (e.g. an employer plan), then a provider can charge whatever. The PPO insurer will pay only a UCR (usual, customary and reasonable) amount that it itself determines. This nearly always leaves you owing more than the policy cost sharing amount.
For example, suppose a doctor bills $100 and your stated copay is $10. If the insurer decides that the doctor should get only $50, then it will pay the doctor $40 ($50 minus your $10 copay). You'll get stuck paying the $60 difference. That shouldn't happen under Medicare since a billed amount is not subject to a provider's whim.

@Mark sadly +1

Happy Healing to You on upcoming surgery.

+1

+1.
...And I would call this nothing more than a glitch, but in my State, the "hover" feature does not work on the map, for our Maui County. Kauai, yes. Honolulu, yes. Hawaii County ("The Big Island",) yes.

NOTE:

My intention, at this time; is to present the data for the selected bond sectors, as listed; through the end of the year (2024). This 'end date' will take us through the U.S. elections period, pending actions/legislation dependent upon the election results, pending Federal Reserve actions and market movers trying to 'guess' future directions of the U.S. economy. As important during this period, are any number of global circumstances that may take a path that is not expected; and/or 'new' circumstances. In the 'cooking pot' we currently have the big ingredients of the middle east and also, how much damage Ukraine may inflict upon Russia and the response.

NOTE TWO: I MAY NOT have a report next week, as the Shop Vac comes out on Friday to remove my gall bladder. I don't know what condition, my condition will be in..... :)
FIRST: The NEWS is very full of elections info and the terrible hurricane(s) reports and the resulting suffering. Ukraine and Russia are still busy with war. And is Lebanon entering a period of becoming a GAZA-fication relative to infrastructure and death? Song lyrics arise: "No where to run to, no where to hide."
W/E October 11 , 2024..... Make your best guess week for bond NAV's
--- I was away from market news for the week, so I only have bits and pieces of the weekly picture based on the NAV's. This week found the w/e NAV price results for many of the bond sectors to have followed the overall trend for the majority of the week; down, down, down. The weekly broad bonds sectors found the long duration to be out of favor, some of the short duration had modest gains and shorter duration TIPS were more happy. The MINT etf, to the best of my recall, has maintained a positive price for the year, each and every week; and these remains for this week.
A few numbers for your viewing pleasure.
NEXT:
*** UST yields chart, 6 month - 30 year. This chart is active and will display a 6 month time frame going forward to a future date. Place/hover the mouse pointer anywhere on a line to display the date and yield for that date. The percent to the right side is the percentage change in the yield from the chart beginning date for a particular item. You may also 'right click' on the 126 days at the chart bottom to change a 'time frame' from a drop down menu. Hopefully, the line graph also lets you view the 'yield curve' in a different fashion, for the longer duration issues, at this time. Save the page to your own device for future reference. NOTE: take a peek at the right side of this graph to find the yield swings of the past week, and for the current yields for the last business day.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, October 7 - October11, 2024
***** This week (Friday), FZDXX, MM yield continues to move with Fed funds/repo/SOFR rates; and ended the week at 4.67% yield (no change). Fidelity's MM's continue to maintain decent yields, as is presumed with other vendors similar MM's. Theoretically, a new yield bottom is in place, until the next FED action. SO, one is still obtaining a decent MM yield. MOST MM's found a few hundreds basis drop in yield for the week.
--- AGG = -.46% / +3.03% (I-Shares Core bond), a benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.14% / +4.75% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.02% / +3.57% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = -.23% / +2.98% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = -.63% / +2.06% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +.08% / +4.02% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = +.23% / +4.78% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = +.30% / +4.72% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = -.76% / +2.11 % (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = -1.94% / -2.41% (I Shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = -2.82% / -5.42% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = -3.19% / -7.78% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = +4.09% / 11.98% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = -5.85% / -20.09% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 2x version of EDV etf)
*** Additional important bond sectors, for reference:
--- BAGIX = -.40% / +3.45% Baird Aggregate Bond Fund (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
--- LQD = -.64% / +3.50% (I Shares IG, corp. bonds)
--- BKLN = +.33% / +6.39% (Invesco Senior Loan, Corp. rated BB & lower)
--- HYG = -.04% / +7.63% (High Yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- HYD = -.23%/+5.36% (VanEck HY Muni)
--- MUB = -.21% /+1.67% (I Shares, National Muni Bond)
--- EMB = -.49%/+7.33% (I Shares, USD, Emerging Markets Bond)
--- CWB = +1.03% / +8.71% (SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities)
--- PFF = +.24% / +11.65% (I Shares, Preferred & Income Securities)
--- FZDXX = 4.67% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MM fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. (For reference to current date)
Comments and corrections, please.
Remain curious,
Catch

Similar story in CT.
We continue to have a "choice" (Medicare Supplemental vs Medicare Advantage) but the premium difference between the two attracted a lot of retirees to sign up for our MA option.
Both are offered by United Healthcare.
Curiously, that premium difference was a factor of 10X for 2024, with UHMA being 10X cheaper. Now that a large number of retirees have this UHMA plan, UHMA tripled their premium for 2025. The United Healthcare Medicare Supplemental plan premium actually decreased about 3% for 2025.
Seems like a pure bait and switch with the UHMA choice.

Out of curiosity, I checked my local area in IL. It shows 94 plans in my local area.
50 MAPD & MA plans from Aetna, BCBS, Cigna, Humana, United Healthcare, Wellcare
29 Medigap plans from BCBS, Cigna, Humana, Mutual of Omaha
15 Part D plans from Aetna, BCBS, Cigna, Wellcare, United Healthcare
Fido About Us indicates some selectivity is involved. It shows pictures of 3 licensed agents.
https://medicare.fidelity.com/about-us/
"Insurers we work with
We offer many high-quality plan options from trusted, vetted insurance companies. We choose insurance companies based on their:
Range of plan options, including additional benefits and discounts.
Commitment to high-quality customer service.
Ability to effectively serve customers in your area."
It seems that access to the database is open and by Zip Codes - no login required. An interesting resource to start with. Apparently, this phone service is complimentary. Fido probably gets some referral bonus or fees to put plans on this platform.

You're talking about old news here. I'll have to dredge up old links from when this was new news and I was talking about it with some NYC retirees. As I recall, neither side was being especially honest. And there was an earlier proposal for coverage provided by a joint operating agreement (or some such entity) created by two different insurers.
Most of your post (2+ of 3 paragraphs) talks about how unethical, money hungry the health care insurers are. No argument there. If your position is one of principle, how does that comport with buying Supplemental Medicare insurance from one of these private insurers?
"four of the five largest players – UnitedHealth, Humana, Elevance [formerly Anthem] and Kaiser – have faced federal lawsuits". Can we infer that the fifth in that group of largest players has not faced federal lawsuits? That would be CVS (Aetna), the insurer that NYC planned to use.
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-advantage-in-2024-enrollment-update-and-key-trends
"NYC retirees age 65+ and their eligible dependents have ... choices in how they receive their retiree health insurance benefits, with the vast majority of retirees in either HIP VIP HMO, or GHI Senior Care."
https://bplc.cssny.org/blog/nyc-retiree-health-benefits-update
HIP and GHI are insurance brands of EmblemHealth, a large regional health insurance provider. Senior Care is a "supplemental coverage plan that works with Original Medicare. HIP VIP HMO is exactly what it sounds like - an HMO. Since it is an Emblem plan, it is regional and retirees must be living in the NYC area to use it. Retirees (especially ones out of town) can also choose among other HMOs and PPOs.
https://www.nyc.gov/site/olr/health/retiree/health-retiree-choosing-a-health-plan.page
This chart (link below) compares the existing (VIP HMO and Senior Care) plans with the proposed Aetna plan. On features and value, Aetna comes out even or slightly ahead.
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/olr/downloads/pdf/health/aetna-ma-docs/plan-comparison-chart-seniorcare-hip-aetna.pdf
The union members raised many objections, such as: "concerns that retirees will be stuck with a smaller network of providers and larger out-of-pocket costs." The above cited chart says otherwise.
OTOH, the added preauthorization requirement for some procedures would be a real, change, and the only substantial objection that I found credible. The KFF study reports that over 90% of preauthorization requests are granted in full for MA insurers generally.
In court, Aetna submitted figures for its own plans. "According to Aetna, out of more than 82 million claims under its Medicare Advantage plans last year, only 3.4% were subject to prior approval, and 0.49% were denied."
https://gothamist.com/news/aetna-reveals-health-care-denial-rates-in-medicare-advantage-court-case-for-nyc-retirees
That 0.49% may not give you peace of mind, but then again, Original Medicare also denies some procedures.
P.S. When people quote from articles (or even paraphrase) it would be nice if they would cite the articles. The NYTimes article is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/upshot/medicare-advantage-fraud-allegations.html
Regarding Aetna, it says: "The fifth company, CVS Health, which owns Aetna, told investors its practices were being investigated by the Department of Justice." That was two years ago. Any updates?

The Week in Charts (10/11/24)
The most important charts and themes in markets and investing, including:
00:00 Intro
00:16 Free Wealth Path Analysis
00:54 Topics
01:41 Rising Prices at a Slower Pace
06:05 Market Expectations = Fed Expectations
13:24 The Rate Cut Tradeoff
16:39 Why Mortgage Rates Rose After the Fed Cut
21:50 What Are They Trying to Hide?
24:55 The Goldilocks Moment
29:56 Rising Real Wages
Video
Blog - 10/11 blog not currently available

I'm not going to try to dissuade you from staying with Plan F. Peace of mind has a certain intangible value that for you exceeds $372.
Regarding absence of bills with Plan F, that's the theory. And at worst, you may get a couple of bills that you're not responsible for paying. But you still have to deal with them. Crash gave an example. The result of our crazy quilt insurance system. [...]
"require prior authorization ... probably the reason why most good doctors shy away from Advantage plans". We can test that theory. Do most good doctors shy away from all commercial insurance - employer sponsored, ACA, etc.? The vast majority of these policies also require prior authorizations. [...]

Well, despite Crash's example, all I can say is that I have been on Plan F for over a decade and have never received a medical bill in my mailbox.
Regarding prior authorization, I recently came across an article in a local paper (City&State) regarding the so far unsuccessful efforts by the City of NY to force its retired employees from Original Medicare into an Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan. Here is an excerpt: "Opponents of Medicare Advantage say that the privately-managed plan will make it more difficult for retirees to receive care, citing investigative reports in The New York Times and Kaiser Health News that documented how private plans were ripping off the federal government while restricting retirees’ access to critical medical care through pre-authorizations.
The Times investigation, published in October, ran under the headline: “‘The Cash Monster Was Insatiable’: How Health Insurers Exploited Medicare for Billions – By next year half of Medicare beneficiaries will have a private Medicare Advantage plan. Most large insurers have been accused in court of fraud.”
According to the Times, “eight of the 10 biggest Medicare Advantage insurers – representing more than two-thirds of the market – have submitted inflated bills, according to the federal audits. And four of the five largest players – UnitedHealth, Humana, Elevance and Kaiser – have faced federal lawsuits alleging that efforts to over diagnose their customers crossed the line into fraud. … The additional diagnoses led to $12 billion in overpayments in 2020, according to an estimate from the group that advises Medicare on payment policies – enough to cover hearing and vision care for every American over 65.”

@BB
I have to admit that I am puzzled by your disappointment at this fund on the basis of a single data point -- 6 month returns.
Here are the metrics I see(per PV) and why I continue to hold. The 25% cash position does not bother me and I'm comfortable with managers being contrarian, not following the herd and willing to sacrifice short term returns in the interest of the long term.
From 1/1/21 to 9/30/24 as compared to VWELX
- CAGR 15.24% v 7.83%
- MaxDD -10.16% v -20.22%
- Sortino 1.78 v 0.68
- 3 month return 5.13% v 5.17%
- YTD return: 16.86% v 13.82%

I'm not going to try to dissuade you from staying with Plan F. Peace of mind has a certain intangible value that for you exceeds $372.
Regarding absence of bills with Plan F, that's the theory. And at worst, you may get a couple of bills that you're not responsible for paying. But you still have to deal with them. Crash gave an example. The result of our crazy quilt insurance system.
With a PPO, it doesn't matter (much) whether the doctor accepts the plan or not. Typically the plan will have a higher copay for out of network doctors. The doctors themselves are required to charge no more than they could charge under Original Medicare. If they won't submit a bill to an insurer, then you pay upfront and submit the bill to the PPO for reimbursement. (I know, less peace of mind, more paperwork.) The point is simply that doctors accepting only OM does not stop the conversation (for some people).
Prior authorization: it's a myth that OM never requires prior authorization. It does, albeit for just a limited number of services and for certain durable medical equipment.
https://www.cms.gov/data-research/monitoring-programs/medicare-fee-service-compliance-programs/prior-authorization-and-pre-claim-review-initiatives
And despite horror stories (there's peace of mind, again), things usually go smoothly.
"Of the 46.2 million prior authorization determinations [in MA plans] in 2022, more than 90% (42.7 million) were fully favorable, meaning the requested item or service was approved in full."
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/use-of-prior-authorization-in-medicare-advantage-exceeded-46-million-requests-in-2022/
OM prior authorization approval rates were generally lower (below 80% for outpatient services, below 70% for durable medical equipment in FYs 2021 and 2022). But that's not a fair comparison, because CMS selected for review a limited number of services that are more likely to be abused. Hence the denial rate is expected to be higher.
https://www.cms.gov/files/document/prior-authorization-and-pre-claim-review-program-statistics.pdf
"require prior authorization ... probably the reason why most good doctors shy away from Advantage plans". We can test that theory. Do most good doctors shy away from all commercial insurance - employer sponsored, ACA, etc.? The vast majority of these policies also require prior authorizations.
I know of providers that have dropped various insurers because of slow payments or other difficulties receiving payment. But it is individual insurance companies and not commercial insurance in general that they are dropping.
I do know of one doctor (4.8* on HealthGrades) who stopped taking all insurance other than OM this year. He's near retirement and fed up with dealing with insurance companies, period. As he's phasing out his practice, he doesn't mind losing some patients because of this change. I suggest that he is the exception, that most doctors take commercial insurance despite their prior authorization baggage.

Thanks, Dennis.
Unfortunately, more of the same. The managers continue to say the market is very expensive. The fund did not participate in the early Aug and early Sept market pull backs. Cash is at 25.4%. There are so many stocks below the Mag 7 that are participating in this bull market. Since the September market pull back, RSP has outperformed this fund by 4%. If there is an ETF for 493, I should check the relative performance with this fund. The fund’s stated strategy is All Cap Value. I do not have a single value fund in my watch list that returned only 1% over the past six months.
50% of the portfolio is in consumer cyclicals and 30% is in financials. I hope the holiday season is good for these sectors and the good luck spills over onto this fund.
Lurkers, Note that this fund is highly concentrated, with only 16 holdings (per M*) and the top 5 taking up 50% of the fund.
Edit: it is impressive that fund inflows are unabated. September marked three months of increasing fund inflows. June had the lowest inflows for the year - every month had inflows. Who are these people plowing their wealth into this fund when MM funds out performed over the past 6 months. If this fund has a cult following, I must avoid it. Note that the management also manages separate accounts which if I recall correctly has $4B in AUM in the same strategy, far in excess of the fund AUM. SMAs are more sticky than a mutual fund AUM. So, may be this is cultish!