8 ms·

Private health insurance sucks ass in WA, but other than that it does look good :)

by dmishe 14y ago

octaveguin 14y ago
That and the transportation. Otherwise, Seattle is probably the place I like to live in the states the most. The traffic and lack of good public transport options is a serious negative :(
- majorlazer 14y ago
  That and the horrible weather. If the northwest's weather didn't suck so much, I would never have moved back down to the bay area.
  - stephengillie 14y ago
    Our summers are glorious :) Don't you get bored with the constant sunshine?
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      > "Don't you get bored with the constant sunshine?" NO (former Seattleite, and the weather has been the absolute greatest gain from moving away)
    - majorlazer 14y ago
      The summers were amazing. For those 2, maybe 3 months if we were lucky, I enjoyed the hell out of life. But as soon as the rain started, I had trouble staying motivated. I wasn't depressed either, cause I was happy and had a great time there, but there is only so much you can do while it's raining and cold.
- nanodeath 14y ago
  I've been living in Seattle for over 8 years now without a car, public transit is good enough for me...
- veidr 14y ago
  Depends what kind of transportation, though; when I lived there, I made use of the great bicycle infrastructure[1] every day, and really loved how much better that was than any other US city I'd lived in. But yeah, the other forms of transportation (including plodding your own car through the traffic) kinda suck. [1]: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=206777236420238024707.0004622ed80c254fc8f04 https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=...
  - jspthrowaway2 14y ago
    Well, the Bay Area has pretty abysmal traffic as well.
  - loeg 14y ago
    Okay, if your entire route is along the Burke, bicycling is great. But if you have to go anywhere in downtown, you chose between battling cars and riding the bus. (Disclosure: I biked SODO to and from Cap hill for a while. 4th Ave during rush hour is a nightmare =).)
  - jcomis 14y ago
    Biking in Seattle is great in some areas, horrid in others. Plus, HILLS.
    - netghost 14y ago
      Free workout! My office is moving to East Lake which puts it within biking distance, but the hills between here and there are going to be pretty rough for a while.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Biking and public transit in seattle are both hit or miss, although both are also improving. If you need to bike into downtown then you're fucked, you better be an aggressive, confident biker who's ok riding in heavy traffic and sharing lanes with cars. If you just want to bike recreationally rather than to get somewhere then things are a lot better. As for public transit there are two big problems. One, coverage outside of the core downtown areas is comparatively sparse and irregular. Two, buses generally get stuck in the same traffic as cars and metro isn't smart enough to figure out how to adjust the schedules. This can mean that the same commute by bus can take an additional hour depending on the time of day. Also, using public transit for anything other than commuting to/from a normal 9-5 weekday job can be a huge hassle. These problems are very slowly being fixed though.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "lack of good public transport options" Granted, there's currently no subway, but within the city there's light rail, a decent bus system, streetcars, and generally bike-friendly infrastructure aside from the steep hills. There may be a lack of an excellent public transportation system, but there's still a good one in place. I've been using a combination of Zipcars and Uber for my other transportation needs.
- hosh 14y ago
  Traffic and public transport in Seattle is not as bad as Atlanta.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Or Philly, or Balitmore, or DC. NYC has it beat, but how could it not?
- clauretano 14y ago
  Seattle has fantastic transit, as long as you pick the right neighborhoods to live in. Basically, any neighborhood surrounding downtown has fantastic transit, as well as the U. District. Transit to the major job centers in the suburbs is also quite good.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    Have to disagree - lived in Seattle 2 years, have also lived in Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, SF, and NYC - Seattle's transit is by a very wide margin the worst out of that bunch. It's serviceable for some contrived use cases, but a long, long, long, loooong way from "fantastic". I lived in Belltown first, and then Capitol Hill (right along the Broadway corridor) - both transit experiences were pretty shitty. The transit is serviceable during off hours, but during rush it is an absolutely, completely unmitigated clusterfuck. All buses leading out of downtown are at crush capacity, and the ridiculous rule that back doors can't be opened means that at every stop there is a massive pile of human bodies as people towards the back shove and squeeze their way to the front to get out - only to run into crowds of people outside trying to get in. If you work in the central business district, and live in one of the nicer "trunk line" neighborhoods, and you can stagger your work hours to avoid the worst of the inhumanity of Seattle transit during rush hour, you can get to work pretty well. If any one of the three conditions is not met, commuting via transit is going to be absolutely dreadful. The only place I've ever experienced transit worse than Seattle was in the industrial slums of London, Ontario.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      They discontinued the free-zone a month or two ago, so passengers can now get off the bus at the rear exit.
      - Nate75Sanders 14y ago
        Uh...but the original rule at elimination of the ride-free zone was that you can get off ONLY at the rear of the bus. There were drivers who were enforcing this with an iron fist. They've since backed off, but it's pretty clear that the people making the rules at King County Metro do not ride the bus. Also, unless the attendants with portable scanners are present, you can't enter the back of the bus unless you're willing to cheat -- it's a double-edged sword.
btilly 14y ago
Personally I don't want to live in Seattle because of the earthquake risk that nobody is prepared for. See http://discovermagazine.com/2012/extreme-earth/01-big-one-earthquake-could-devastate-pacific-northwest http://discovermagazine.com/2012/extreme-earth/01-big-one-ea... if you don't know what I'm talking about.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  We've been prepping for "the big one" for generations. Many have become complacent. We're more worried about earthquakes causing a "lahar" mud slide off Rainier and plowing through lowlands. Evacuation drills are down to about 4.5 minutes. Earthquakes are a good reason not to live anywhere on the Pacific coast. Hurricanes are a good reason not to live in the southeast, or apparently, New Jersey. And I don't want to live in "tornado alley"... Edit: That article is just more FUD, designed to be fed to people who enjoy being afraid. There's no new knowledge there.
  - btilly 14y ago
    We've been prepping for "the big one" for generations. I absolutely know this to be false. I grew up just north of you in Victoria. I was a teenager when they began piecing together evidence that earthquakes of that magnitude actually could hit the area. Before then there was no thought to preparation. And large parts of my home town are still on landfill, close to sea level. (Which is not what you want during an earthquake...) Earthquakes are a good reason not to live anywhere on the Pacific coast. The earthquake risk in California is well-understood and the area is prepared for it. That risk is quite acceptable to me. The Pacific Northwest is less prepared, and has the potential for an earthquake over 10x bigger than anything that California has to worry about. That article is just more FUD, designed to be fed to people who enjoy being afraid. There's no new knowledge there. It was one of the top links when I searched for "Cascadia superfault". I did not research it carefully. I would not expect it to contain novel information.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      People are prepping for earthquakes here. The unsafe viaduct is coming down. Schools are getting seismic retrofits. Kids are doing earthquake drills. People who aren't tinfoil hat survivalists (me) are keeping 3 days of food and water handy. I respect your difference in risk tolerance, but don't think we're oblivious to earthquakes here. That's just slanderous :)
illuminate 14y ago
"Private health insurance sucks ass in WA" I wasn't aware of any place that was particularly ~good~ for private health insurance.
rdl 14y ago
WA doesn't seem worse than anywhere else -- $118 for a 33yo male for HSA compatible. All the quotes I've seen for individual health insurance in WA are good, and they have a lot of the "good" features of ObamaCare already.
- dmishe 14y ago
  118 with what? In IL I could find a 0 coinsurance plan at least, starting at around 300 depending on deductible. You can't do that in WA, they all have 30-35% coinsurance, they have deductibles of 10+ and out-of-pocket maximums at twice of that. It looks like agents are able to find a much better option, presumably inside group plans, but still.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Oh, I'm comparing to California. For $118 you get an HSA HDHP (but with great coverage, including preventive care, from $0, with full coverage once you hit the yearly $3500). For $200-300, you get a very low ($5-10) coinsurance. I judge health insurance by the coverage for catastrophic accident or major illness; lifetime limits, access to best doctors, etc., not on the $0-20 copays. I'd use leaky.com to do the comparison, once they expand from cars to health insurance (which I assume they will).

Private health insurance sucks ass in WA, but other than that it does look good :)

by dmishe 14y ago

Private health insurance sucks ass in WA, but other than that it does look good :)

That and the transportation. Otherwise, Seattle is probably the place I like to live in the states the most. The traffic and lack of good public transport options is a serious negative :(

majorlazer 14y ago
That and the horrible weather. If the northwest's weather didn't suck so much, I would never have moved back down to the bay area.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  Our summers are glorious :) Don't you get bored with the constant sunshine?
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    > "Don't you get bored with the constant sunshine?" NO (former Seattleite, and the weather has been the absolute greatest gain from moving away)
  - majorlazer 14y ago
    The summers were amazing. For those 2, maybe 3 months if we were lucky, I enjoyed the hell out of life. But as soon as the rain started, I had trouble staying motivated. I wasn't depressed either, cause I was happy and had a great time there, but there is only so much you can do while it's raining and cold.
nanodeath 14y ago
I've been living in Seattle for over 8 years now without a car, public transit is good enough for me...
veidr 14y ago
Depends what kind of transportation, though; when I lived there, I made use of the great bicycle infrastructure[1] every day, and really loved how much better that was than any other US city I'd lived in. But yeah, the other forms of transportation (including plodding your own car through the traffic) kinda suck. [1]: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=206777236420238024707.0004622ed80c254fc8f04 https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=...
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  Well, the Bay Area has pretty abysmal traffic as well.
- loeg 14y ago
  Okay, if your entire route is along the Burke, bicycling is great. But if you have to go anywhere in downtown, you chose between battling cars and riding the bus. (Disclosure: I biked SODO to and from Cap hill for a while. 4th Ave during rush hour is a nightmare =).)
- jcomis 14y ago
  Biking in Seattle is great in some areas, horrid in others. Plus, HILLS.
  - netghost 14y ago
    Free workout! My office is moving to East Lake which puts it within biking distance, but the hills between here and there are going to be pretty rough for a while.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Biking and public transit in seattle are both hit or miss, although both are also improving. If you need to bike into downtown then you're fucked, you better be an aggressive, confident biker who's ok riding in heavy traffic and sharing lanes with cars. If you just want to bike recreationally rather than to get somewhere then things are a lot better. As for public transit there are two big problems. One, coverage outside of the core downtown areas is comparatively sparse and irregular. Two, buses generally get stuck in the same traffic as cars and metro isn't smart enough to figure out how to adjust the schedules. This can mean that the same commute by bus can take an additional hour depending on the time of day. Also, using public transit for anything other than commuting to/from a normal 9-5 weekday job can be a huge hassle. These problems are very slowly being fixed though.
illuminate 14y ago
"lack of good public transport options" Granted, there's currently no subway, but within the city there's light rail, a decent bus system, streetcars, and generally bike-friendly infrastructure aside from the steep hills. There may be a lack of an excellent public transportation system, but there's still a good one in place. I've been using a combination of Zipcars and Uber for my other transportation needs.
hosh 14y ago
Traffic and public transport in Seattle is not as bad as Atlanta.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Or Philly, or Balitmore, or DC. NYC has it beat, but how could it not?
clauretano 14y ago
Seattle has fantastic transit, as long as you pick the right neighborhoods to live in. Basically, any neighborhood surrounding downtown has fantastic transit, as well as the U. District. Transit to the major job centers in the suburbs is also quite good.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Have to disagree - lived in Seattle 2 years, have also lived in Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, SF, and NYC - Seattle's transit is by a very wide margin the worst out of that bunch. It's serviceable for some contrived use cases, but a long, long, long, loooong way from "fantastic". I lived in Belltown first, and then Capitol Hill (right along the Broadway corridor) - both transit experiences were pretty shitty. The transit is serviceable during off hours, but during rush it is an absolutely, completely unmitigated clusterfuck. All buses leading out of downtown are at crush capacity, and the ridiculous rule that back doors can't be opened means that at every stop there is a massive pile of human bodies as people towards the back shove and squeeze their way to the front to get out - only to run into crowds of people outside trying to get in. If you work in the central business district, and live in one of the nicer "trunk line" neighborhoods, and you can stagger your work hours to avoid the worst of the inhumanity of Seattle transit during rush hour, you can get to work pretty well. If any one of the three conditions is not met, commuting via transit is going to be absolutely dreadful. The only place I've ever experienced transit worse than Seattle was in the industrial slums of London, Ontario.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    They discontinued the free-zone a month or two ago, so passengers can now get off the bus at the rear exit.
    - Nate75Sanders 14y ago
      Uh...but the original rule at elimination of the ride-free zone was that you can get off ONLY at the rear of the bus. There were drivers who were enforcing this with an iron fist. They've since backed off, but it's pretty clear that the people making the rules at King County Metro do not ride the bus. Also, unless the attendants with portable scanners are present, you can't enter the back of the bus unless you're willing to cheat -- it's a double-edged sword.

btilly 14y ago

Personally I don't want to live in Seattle because of the earthquake risk that nobody is prepared for. See http://discovermagazine.com/2012/extreme-earth/01-big-one-earthquake-could-devastate-pacific-northwest http://discovermagazine.com/2012/extreme-earth/01-big-one-ea... if you don't know what I'm talking about.

stephengillie 14y ago
We've been prepping for "the big one" for generations. Many have become complacent. We're more worried about earthquakes causing a "lahar" mud slide off Rainier and plowing through lowlands. Evacuation drills are down to about 4.5 minutes. Earthquakes are a good reason not to live anywhere on the Pacific coast. Hurricanes are a good reason not to live in the southeast, or apparently, New Jersey. And I don't want to live in "tornado alley"... Edit: That article is just more FUD, designed to be fed to people who enjoy being afraid. There's no new knowledge there.
- btilly 14y ago
  We've been prepping for "the big one" for generations. I absolutely know this to be false. I grew up just north of you in Victoria. I was a teenager when they began piecing together evidence that earthquakes of that magnitude actually could hit the area. Before then there was no thought to preparation. And large parts of my home town are still on landfill, close to sea level. (Which is not what you want during an earthquake...) Earthquakes are a good reason not to live anywhere on the Pacific coast. The earthquake risk in California is well-understood and the area is prepared for it. That risk is quite acceptable to me. The Pacific Northwest is less prepared, and has the potential for an earthquake over 10x bigger than anything that California has to worry about. That article is just more FUD, designed to be fed to people who enjoy being afraid. There's no new knowledge there. It was one of the top links when I searched for "Cascadia superfault". I did not research it carefully. I would not expect it to contain novel information.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    People are prepping for earthquakes here. The unsafe viaduct is coming down. Schools are getting seismic retrofits. Kids are doing earthquake drills. People who aren't tinfoil hat survivalists (me) are keeping 3 days of food and water handy. I respect your difference in risk tolerance, but don't think we're oblivious to earthquakes here. That's just slanderous :)

illuminate 14y ago

"Private health insurance sucks ass in WA" I wasn't aware of any place that was particularly ~good~ for private health insurance.

rdl 14y ago

WA doesn't seem worse than anywhere else -- $118 for a 33yo male for HSA compatible. All the quotes I've seen for individual health insurance in WA are good, and they have a lot of the "good" features of ObamaCare already.

dmishe 14y ago
118 with what? In IL I could find a 0 coinsurance plan at least, starting at around 300 depending on deductible. You can't do that in WA, they all have 30-35% coinsurance, they have deductibles of 10+ and out-of-pocket maximums at twice of that. It looks like agents are able to find a much better option, presumably inside group plans, but still.
- rdl 14y ago
  Oh, I'm comparing to California. For $118 you get an HSA HDHP (but with great coverage, including preventive care, from $0, with full coverage once you hit the yearly $3500). For $200-300, you get a very low ($5-10) coinsurance. I judge health insurance by the coverage for catastrophic accident or major illness; lifetime limits, access to best doctors, etc., not on the $0-20 copays. I'd use leaky.com to do the comparison, once they expand from cars to health insurance (which I assume they will).