do you think that all of the bankrupcies we have in the US that are due to medical bills are people who had no medical insurance? guessing you followed luigi story as well? in the US you only really have health insurance if you are healthy. if god forbid you get sick you soon realize that you do not in fact have medical insurance…
I definitely agree with your statement, though I don’t fully understand the link between that and not being able to retire.
In what way is not retiring (let’s assume with decent savings, your typical 25X yearly expenses including typical ACA premium and deductible) significantly lowering the chances that a serious illness will cause bankruptcy, enough that it will make it worth to continue working? Isn’t the probability more or less the same in either case?
Clearly one cannot just save their way into self-insuring, as it’s trivial to imagine medical bills in the many millions of dollars if your insurance starts denying expensive treatments that you do need, wiping out everyone without a $50M+ net worth. Hell I had a routine 1h colonoscopy a while ago and it was a $20k bill (of which I “just” paid $4k out of pocket while the insurance paid $16k, “lucky” me), can’t imagine what an expensive surgery would cost if insurance denies it, there’s really no amount of savings that can shield you from such risk.
Is the thinking that for as long as a person is covered by an employer plan they will get better coverage than what’s available on the exchange, therefore it’s better to just never retire? This also doesn’t seem too logical.
Or is the thinking that by continuing to work one can mitigate the scenario where the insurances constantly nickle and dime you for some non-black-swan medications/procedures, causing one’s healthcare costs to inflate way above the stated maximum out of pockets, but in a way that can still be somewhat offset by the additional income? This is probably more plausible as I read stories of people taking medications that improve their quality of life at the cost of $2k+ per month, which they fully pay because the insurance decided not to cover those. Those can definitely put a dent in one’s planned budget.
I definitely agree with your statement, though I don’t fully understand the link between that and not being able to retire…
I think core of retiring early basically means I have financial safety to last me at least my lifetime. yet, health-related expenses weight heavily in that decision - do you really have enough?
Is the thinking that for as long as a person is covered by an employer plan they will get better coverage than what’s available on the exchange, therefore it’s better to just never retire? This also doesn’t seem too logical.
THIS is hardly ever talked about - I could not agree more. I think it is psychological thing where if you are still working the money keeps
coming in and as long as you do you may not run out… or course as you so eloquently put it - it is very ilogical
I don't understand how this follows. I think your point is clear, and I agree with it, but I don't understand how this is related to what I posted. (Given the "Do you think..." opening)
Why, if your savings are enough? You can buy insurance. Healthcare.gov is cheap if you don't have income, and there are tricks to be self-employed as well to do normal insurance.
to
* Health care costs will prevent me from retiring anytime soon, even if my savings are enough.*
was basically saying there is no health insurance in USA. getting it from healthcare.gov as you suggested or elsewhere - it is all garbage and people with all that insurance end up bankrupt. hence, saying you can’t retire because of health cost is THE number reason I hear people fear retiring
