Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with Brightdoglover that's it's hard to understand how so many regular working people retire before age 65, principally because of the health insurance issue. It seems to me that you would need either employer subsidized health care until age 65 or gobs of money to pay for health insurance on the open market until reaching 65 with its shelter of Medicare. I retired at 61 after 34 years with the same employer because of employer subsidized health insurance which lasted to age 65, at which time the subsidy ceased entirely and I went on Medicare. I paid a small portion (20%) to the employer and was glad to do so. I consider myself very fortunate.
Other posters over time, especially LauraC, have noted that the magazine articles are geared to people who have enough money to buy the products of the advertisers in the magazines. So these articles are aimed at the fat cats, at people whose salaries are in excess of $100,000 per year, which is considerably above the median family income in this country. The rest of us have trouble relating to the smiling, silver-haired couples in their luxury homes or on their chi-chi golf courses.
This basic theme has been ably addressed by others in this thread, with the message that, essentially, many of us are quite content with a relatively frugal lifestyle and that it is not necessary for well-being and happiness to drive a BMW or a Mercedes-Benz.
I agree with Brightdoglover that's it's hard to understand how so many regular working people retire before age 65, principally because of the health insurance issue. It seems to me that you would need either employer subsidized health care until age 65 or gobs of money to pay for health insurance on the open market until reaching 65 with its shelter of Medicare. I retired at 61 after 34 years with the same employer because of employer subsidized health insurance which lasted to age 65, at which time the subsidy ceased entirely and I went on Medicare. I paid a small portion (20%) to the employer and was glad to do so. I consider myself very fortunate.
Other posters over time, especially LauraC, have noted that the magazine articles are geared to people who have enough money to buy the products of the advertisers in the magazines. So these articles are aimed at the fat cats, at people whose salaries are in excess of $100,000 per year, which is considerably above the median family income in this country. The rest of us have trouble relating to the smiling, silver-haired couples in their luxury homes or on their chi-chi golf courses.
This basic theme has been ably addressed by others in this thread, with the message that, essentially, many of us are quite content with a relatively frugal lifestyle and that it is not necessary for well-being and happiness to drive a BMW or a Mercedes-Benz.
It is our need to compare that creates the discussion and the different sides of the discussion. Whether it be luck or by individual behavior life plays out differently for all of us.
While I have been reading this chat (although not all posts), there might well come a time when one has to "adjust" their expectations/standards/beliefs/plans, etc. no matter how well "thought out" as life can life throw you a curve (unplanned on) ball.
If one went through/was lead through life without thinking/considering about the "curveball", then they better put on their big persons "undies" and give it some thought...NOW...NOW
I agree with Brightdoglover that's it's hard to understand how so many regular working people retire before age 65, principally because of the health insurance issue. It seems to me that you would need either employer subsidized health care until age 65 or gobs of money to pay for health insurance on the open market until reaching 65 with its shelter of Medicare...
You left out another category where people can retire before 65 and still afford health insurance. That would be the poor, those with low income, minimal assets and are in certain groups. This category would qualify for Medicaid. Medicaid covers much more than Medicare. Each state is different but it does provide low cost medical insurance, almost all cost for prescriptions drugs, dental coverage (mandatory for children and voluntary per adult) and the big difference from Medicare--Long Term Care.
Also, once you reach 65, you will qualify for Medicare in addition to Medicaid.
So, to be assured of good medical coverage at reasonable cost, be rich, have a good company plan with a pension or be poor and be a part of a specific group.
Note: I am not saying that being poor is the sole requirement for eligibility for Medicaid. You have to be in a specific group as well as being poor. In addition, each State is different.
"Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups."
What I am saying is that there are many groups, that differ in each State, and it is worth the effort to seek out the program in your State, if you are poor.
Livecontent
Last edited by livecontent; 11-19-2011 at 10:25 PM..
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 19,421,922 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by livecontent
You left out another category where people can retire before 65 and still afford health insurance. That would be the poor, those with low income, minimal assets and are in certain groups. This category would qualify for Medicaid. Medicaid covers much more than Medicare. Each state is different but it does provide low cost medical insurance, almost all cost for prescriptions drugs, dental coverage (mandatory for children and voluntary per adult) and the big difference from Medicare--Long Term Care.
Also, once you reach 65, you will qualify for Medicare in addition to Medicaid.
So, to be assured of good medical coverage at reasonable cost, be rich, have a good company plan with a pension or be poor and be a part of a specific group.
Note: I am not saying that being poor is the sole requirement for eligibility for Medicaid. You have to be in a specific group as well as being poor. In addition, each State is different.
"Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups."
What I am saying is that there are many groups, that differ in each State, and it is worth the effort to seek out the program in your State, if you are poor.
Livecontent
My low income is too high for me to qualify for Medicaid.
You left out another category where people can retire before 65 and still afford health insurance. That would be the poor, those with low income, minimal assets and are in certain groups. This category would qualify for Medicaid. Medicaid covers much more than Medicare. Each state is different but it does provide low cost medical insurance, almost all cost for prescriptions drugs, dental coverage (mandatory for children and voluntary per adult) and the big difference from Medicare--Long Term Care.
Also, once you reach 65, you will qualify for Medicare in addition to Medicaid.
So, to be assured of good medical coverage at reasonable cost, be rich, have a good company plan with a pension or be poor and be a part of a specific group.
https://www.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/01_Overview.asp#TopOfPage (broken link)
Note: I am not saying that being poor is the sole requirement for eligibility for Medicaid. You have to be in a specific group as well as being poor. In addition, each State is different.
"Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups." https://www.cms.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/
What I am saying is that there are many groups, that differ in each State, and it is worth the effort to seek out the program in your State, if you are poor. Livecontent
Thanks for point this out. I wasn't thinking of the poor at all when I wrote that post.
So, to be assured of good medical coverage at reasonable cost, be rich, have a good company plan with a pension or be poor and be a part of a specific group.
Livecontent
Agreed! We're fortunate to be in the middle group; not rich, not poor but with excellent medical benefits from our retirement plan, both of which are safe, secure and protected for us by law.
It's unfortunate that the other two extremes are the norm today and as we have seen in recent years, more and more are finding themselves on the low end. What's worse is those who are in the middle without good retirement benefits. They're not rich enough to afford good coverage nor poor enough to qualify for subsidized coverage. They simply join the many others falling through the cracks or work far beyond their desires and, perhaps, real capabilities. I fear it will just become worse aqs more and more Boomers want to, have to or are forced into retirement.
But what the hey, Wells Fargo bank says 80 is the new 65 and that's when most will retire so they won't need medical coverage long if they even make it to that age.
There was a study several years ago that I have mentioned before and taken a lot of criticism about... never the less, it confirms exactly your point.
A common thread to financial security is "A Good First Marriage"
The study looked at how devastating divorce is on the family unit and more often than not... to the wife.
Even looking at the time value of money bears this out. Having to "Start Over" in Mid Life just doesn't give you the benefit of time to build a nest egg and this doesn't take into the account the high cost of divorce...
Many divorcees lose their homes in the divorce as well, sinking their net value even further. If there are kids involved, forget it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
