Early Retirement

[ben ji]

Side Note - I am a registered R in KANSAS and am pretty ideologically opposed to medicare for all....but at the same time its pretty ridiculous that your healthcare coverage is tied to your job.

I've used basically zero health coverage of the last 10 years besides yearly checkups and just started actually learning about healthcare coverage when I began thinking about the possibility of retiring early.

So confusing!

[michigancat]

Side Note - I am a registered R in KANSAS and am pretty ideologically opposed to medicare for all....but at the same time its pretty ridiculous that your healthcare coverage is tied to your job.

I've used basically zero health coverage of the last 10 years besides yearly checkups and just started actually learning about healthcare coverage when I began thinking about the possibility of retiring early.

So confusing!

Hmm have you asked yourself why you're ideologically opposed to M4A?

[ben ji]

Side Note - I am a registered R in KANSAS and am pretty ideologically opposed to medicare for all....but at the same time its pretty ridiculous that your healthcare coverage is tied to your job.

I've used basically zero health coverage of the last 10 years besides yearly checkups and just started actually learning about healthcare coverage when I began thinking about the possibility of retiring early.

So confusing!

Hmm have you asked yourself why you're ideologically opposed to M4A?

In general I don't believe that the government can run large programs efficiently but I also recognize our current healthcare system in BONKED.

I'm not sure what the correct answer to healthcare would be but I can acknowledge that if I were to retire early M4A would benefit me.

[sys]

I don't believe that the government can run large programs efficiently.

how do you reconcile that belief with evidence of effective and efficient large programs managed by the u.s. government like the usps, the us military, noaa, etc?

although, to be fair, m4a would not involve the us govt running medical services, just centralizing payments to private medical providers.

[ben ji]

I don't believe that the government can run large programs efficiently.

how do you reconcile that belief with evidence of effective and efficient large programs managed by the u.s. government like the usps, the us military, noaa, etc?

although, to be fair, m4a would not involve the us govt running medical services, just centralizing payments to private medical providers.

USPS - Not as efficient as UPS/Fed Ex etc but its not supposed to be, its purpose is to provide mail service to everyone (Probably the best example of what M4A can be).

Military - Huge bloat but lets call a spade a spade, its basically a job training/pork program for millions of Americans. We could easily freeze our military budget for 10 years and maybe a couple of Boeing contractors get laid off but we would still be the big dog on the block. 

NOAA - Without googling this I'm assuming its a weather type agency that gets like .5% of the federal budget. I'm all for that but think that the larger a government program gets the more bloated/bureaucratic/less efficient it becomes.

[Spracne]

Well, I actually read the directions. I think about 20 per centum would do just fine.

[sys]

USPS - Not as efficient as UPS/Fed Ex etc but its not supposed to be, its purpose is to provide mail service to everyone (Probably the best example of what M4A can be).

Military - Huge bloat but lets call a spade a spade, its basically a job training/pork program for millions of Americans. We could easily freeze our military budget for 10 years and maybe a couple of Boeing contractors get laid off but we would still be the big dog on the block. 

NOAA - Without googling this I'm assuming its a weather type agency that gets like .5% of the federal budget. I'm all for that but think that the larger a government program gets the more bloated/bureaucratic/less efficient it becomes.

usps delivers vastly more mail/packages for a fraction of the price of ups/fedex.  i agree that they are somewhat different entities and it isn't a direct comparison but i don't see any coherent basis to claim usps is less efficient that it's private counterparts (but no, it is not in any way analogous to m4a.  usps has govt employees directly providing a service.  m4a would just be cutting checks to non-govt entities).

i don't know if your statement is accurate or not, but whether it is or isn't has little or nothing to do with whether the military is "efficient" or "bloated".  whether we're purchasing more military than we need or not is a different question that whether we're getting good value for our expenditure.

[slackcat]

my target is around 60k/year.  this is a fair bit more than what i what i was thinking a few years ago, and i have no doubt we could get by with less, but i think a little mission creep is much more common than not.

60k sounds a little low.  Wife and I figure on 90k to cover fixed expenses and allow for extended vacations or unexpected med.  Prolly won't spend it all but could donate to Business College.  Also plan to move somewhere with warm weather and low COL.  Haven't ruled out being ex-pat.

Trying to escape the cancer from the windmills?

along with the flicker and vertigo.

[KITNfury]

Don't want to derail the thread, but there are strong reasons to believe taxes will continue to climb into our retirement age. I think it would be wise to plan accordingly.

[catastrophe]

Actually a great reminder for everyone to get as much into a Roth as you can. (Without sacrificing major pre-tax breaks if you’re in a higher bracket)

[cfbandyman]

Side Note - I am a registered R in KANSAS and am pretty ideologically opposed to medicare for all....but at the same time its pretty ridiculous that your healthcare coverage is tied to your job.

I've used basically zero health coverage of the last 10 years besides yearly checkups and just started actually learning about healthcare coverage when I began thinking about the possibility of retiring early.

So confusing!

And not to keep going and try and make this be the pit, but given how literally every (well practically every) country on this earth has some different levels of universal health care (M4A w/e) it pretty much shows again how far behind we are becoming compared to the world.

Perfect example (since I spent and will probably spend more time there) is Canada (fun video explaining their system, and ours, and also many others can be found here):


But the long story short, we pay more more for really no benefit in health care delivered, and a ton of that is due to the inability to negotiate drug prices, and making "optional" things more restrictive. One of my favorite things to do occasionally was to note the price of like generic allegra in CA, and then compare that price in the store here. Last time I was there, you could but at most 20 tables in the US at like $15, in CA I could buy 100 at like $25 CAD (roughly $18 USD), and that is not even prescriptions. I did have another time I had a small infection that needed eye drops, I remember every step of the way from the eye doc to the pharmacy the second I said "yeah I am American, I don't have a Canadian card" they were like "oh boy, this will be expensive." How expensive? Emergency eye exam: $50 CAD, Eye Drops, $3CAD. I don't think I pay that low for that with insurance here on copays for similar things. It's so dumb. 

[slackcat]

Why is this argument all or nothing?  A good middle ground would be to provide clinic/Dr. office visits to people free of charge.  A good start imho

[cfbandyman]

There are helpfully, plenty of countries who do tiered versions of this as well...

[michigancat]

could also just lower the Medicare eligibility age

[Kat Kid]

unless you have far more money than anyone here worrying about retiring early or not, your post-retirement taxes aren't going to cost more than your health care, so yes, obviously getting the gov to pay for your healthcare would be a huge benefit.


technically, maybe offset by increased taxes when you're over 65 and current govt policy would already pay for much of your health care, but honestly we're not likely to raise taxes on middle class or even very upper middle class brackets anytime soon no matter how much we spend.

Yeah this isn’t even close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go ahead and post the math, kk

Well, for starters, it is cheaper than our current system.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/07/30/mercatus-study-finds-medicare-for-all-saves-2-trillion/

[Stupid Fitz]

Side Note - I am a registered R in KANSAS and am pretty ideologically opposed to medicare for all....but at the same time its pretty ridiculous that your healthcare coverage is tied to your job.

I've used basically zero health coverage of the last 10 years besides yearly checkups and just started actually learning about healthcare coverage when I began thinking about the possibility of retiring early.

So confusing!

Are you a registered R that is opposed to MFA or are you opposed to MFA so you are a registered R?

[Stupid Fitz]

unless you have far more money than anyone here worrying about retiring early or not, your post-retirement taxes aren't going to cost more than your health care, so yes, obviously getting the gov to pay for your healthcare would be a huge benefit.


technically, maybe offset by increased taxes when you're over 65 and current govt policy would already pay for much of your health care, but honestly we're not likely to raise taxes on middle class or even very upper middle class brackets anytime soon no matter how much we spend.

Yeah this isn’t even close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go ahead and post the math, kk

Well, for starters, it is cheaper than our current system.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/07/30/mercatus-study-finds-medicare-for-all-saves-2-trillion/

Yep, but it won't matter. Repubs have been told that the government is bad for so long that no math or science will change their minds.

[CNS]

Dan Carlin did a podcast a couple years ago that had a lot of stats on the cost of health care.  He was comparing us with the 16 other top developed countries and we spend the most out of the 17, and almost twice as much as #2 per capita yet our health outcomes are #17.  Also, the expenditure is only what the Fed Govt spends, and doesn't account for our individual premiums, deductibles, or copays.  It's only what the fed govt pays for the various things they actually cover.   If we are already far and away the #1 spender without our premiums, deductibles, and copays included, there is absolutely no way we would spend more than we do now with M4A.  No way.

[ben ji]

Side Note - I am a registered R in KANSAS and am pretty ideologically opposed to medicare for all....but at the same time its pretty ridiculous that your healthcare coverage is tied to your job.

I've used basically zero health coverage of the last 10 years besides yearly checkups and just started actually learning about healthcare coverage when I began thinking about the possibility of retiring early.

So confusing!

Are you a registered R that is opposed to MFA or are you opposed to MFA so you are a registered R?

I don't know if I'm for or against it 

I just know the more I learn about our current system the less likely it is that I would be able to retire early and be able to afford healthcare.

[CNS]

Side Note - I am a registered R in KANSAS and am pretty ideologically opposed to medicare for all....but at the same time its pretty ridiculous that your healthcare coverage is tied to your job.

I've used basically zero health coverage of the last 10 years besides yearly checkups and just started actually learning about healthcare coverage when I began thinking about the possibility of retiring early.

So confusing!

Are you a registered R that is opposed to MFA or are you opposed to MFA so you are a registered R?

I don't know if I'm for or against it 

I just know the more I learn about our current system the less likely it is that I would be able to retire early and be able to afford healthcare.

I know that about 12 yrs ago, my family had full coverage with what John McCain and Sarah palin called "Cadillac coverage" for about $530 a month.  Same family now is paying $1900 a month and we have a 16k deductible and all around shitty coverage.  I basically buy a car per year that I don't get to drive. 

If that is free market, it's broke and time to fix it. 

[Stupid Fitz]

Side Note - I am a registered R in KANSAS and am pretty ideologically opposed to medicare for all....but at the same time its pretty ridiculous that your healthcare coverage is tied to your job.

I've used basically zero health coverage of the last 10 years besides yearly checkups and just started actually learning about healthcare coverage when I began thinking about the possibility of retiring early.

So confusing!

Are you a registered R that is opposed to MFA or are you opposed to MFA so you are a registered R?

I don't know if I'm for or against it 

I just know the more I learn about our current system the less likely it is that I would be able to retire early and be able to afford healthcare.

I know that about 12 yrs ago, my family had full coverage with what John McCain and Sarah palin called "Cadillac coverage" for about $530 a month.  Same family now is paying $1900 a month and we have a 16k deductible and all around shitty coverage.  I basically buy a car per year that I don't get to drive. 

If that is free market, it's broke and time to fix it.

Yeah, I have great coverage at work (which is bullshit and stupid), but it has gone up like 10% every year for the past many years. I'd happily pay what I pay now in taxes if that meant I wasn't tied to my job or that, oh i don't know...people didn't completely destroy their financial stability by getting in a car accident or getting a disease? Like, how can anyone say that they would rather pay a bunch of money to an insurance company each month that will just increase your rates as opposed to paying towards the well being of everyone?

[kim carnes]

unless you have far more money than anyone here worrying about retiring early or not, your post-retirement taxes aren't going to cost more than your health care, so yes, obviously getting the gov to pay for your healthcare would be a huge benefit.


technically, maybe offset by increased taxes when you're over 65 and current govt policy would already pay for much of your health care, but honestly we're not likely to raise taxes on middle class or even very upper middle class brackets anytime soon no matter how much we spend.

Yeah this isn’t even close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go ahead and post the math, kk

Well, for starters, it is cheaper than our current system.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/07/30/mercatus-study-finds-medicare-for-all-saves-2-trillion/

I’m not clicking on that bc no one can say how much it will cost bc there is no way to know.  It’s a fugazi, they made up numbers.  They’re basing it on medicare reimbursement rates which healthcare providers only accept bc it is subsidized by reimbursement rates from private insurers.

[michigancat]

I’m not clicking on that bc no one can say how much it will cost bc there is no way to know.

lol

[kim carnes]

I’m not clicking on that bc no one can say how much it will cost bc there is no way to know.

lol

Mich I’ve seen the projections many times and they’re all based on cutting reimbursements and administrative costs.  Good luck telling healthcare providers they’re now getting half as much for their services. 

[michigancat]

there is know way to know