No pension. No health benefits.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha ... a spouse who is bearish on the market.

Martha, you are the master mistress of understatement.

[Spanky]

No pension or health coverage -- that's one of the reasons that I encourage my daughters to get a government job.

[73ss454]

JG

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Send over the pictures so we can check her out.

[tryan]

I am out next month at 43 no pension or employer health coverage. BC/BS - if accepted - will run $580/mo with 3k deductable for a family of 4. Else COBRA at $1054/mo ... ouch!

As far getting comfortable with finances stretching 60 years ... its all rental income.

[pbrane]

I didn't think I had enough to last 6 decades when I left work. My plan was to spend less than my income so that the nest egg would grow. Also, to tell the complete story, I've also made a few dollars by moving every few years and doing light rehabs on each house. But I look at this as just trying to bolster my real estate returns a bit because I live in an area (WI) with low appreciation rates compared to some of the "hot" markets in the country (wish I would have stayed in FL).

Regarding health insurance, I haven't had it for over10 years and am thereby "highly incentivized" to take care of my health. Of course, I worry about accidents (like when I'm using my table saw....without eye protection -ha!). Going without ins. might be foolhardy, but it seems like such a poor value. I'm thinking that if I were to need a big operation, I could go to Thailand or (?). *In fact, I'm planning a trip to Venezuela or Argentina to have an expensive dental bridge done. My dentist wants about $2500 but I think I can get the SAME one done (state of the art material) elsewhere for around $1000 ("free" vacation).

-m

[Jarhead*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 JG did it with no fat portfolio yet fails to state his wife still works. Nothing wrong with that, I'm sort of jealous.

73ss454: This is an anonymous internet board, and therefore some posters should be taken with a grain of salt.

JG quit his job at 49, but had a number of years of full time and part time employment after that until he married his working wife.

Advice: Don't be overly influenced by anybody's "story", on this or any other board.

Jarhead

[73ss454]

Jarhead,

I'm a little slow but after a year of reading JG's posts even I figured it out.

Thanks

[Gone4Good]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intercst Did the research that showed 4% would survive even the worst of times for 30 years. For a sixty-year pay out period, it's maybe 80-85% safe, but I only have maybe a 2% to 5% chance of living to age 100. The joint probability of me living to age 100 and having my portfolio survive a 4% withdrawal for sixty-years is probably still above 90%. intercst

I guess the "SWR" concept requires a bit of faith - and I haven't been to church in years Still young (34) but could retire tomorrow to a comfortable middle class lifestyle at a 4% WR. I guess I like the belt and suspender financial security I have now. If my portfolio goes down, I still have my job. If I lose my job, I still have my portfolio. If both happen at once, at least I have up-to-date job skills.

I'm fortunately well positioned for ER someday, but the thought of subjecting my financial future to the whims of the Market Gods for as much as 60 years gives me heart burn.

[yakers]

Quote:

Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go I'm fortunately well positioned for ER someday, but the thought of subjecting my financial future to the whims of the Market Gods for as much as 60 years gives me heart burn.

Well thats true but things are a little relative and you need to find your comfort level. We all trust in something whether we know it or not, like it or not. I mean you could have "secure" real estate and it gets washed away. You could have a secure annuity and the insurance company folds. You could be in stocks in the twin towers. You get the idea.
You are in a good position as you have diversified sources of income. So its just how much itch to not be on a work schedule especially if you don't like your work. Some folks here look like they could take your resources and RE and make it work. At least you have choices and you know they are your choices.

[intercst]

Quote:

Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go I guess the "SWR" concept requires a bit of faith - and I haven't been to church in years* * Still young (34) but could retire tomorrow to a comfortable middle class lifestyle at a 4% WR.* I guess I like the belt and suspender financial security I have now.* If my portfolio goes down, I still have my job.* If I lose my job, I still have my portfolio.* If both happen at once, at least I have up-to-date job skills.*

Not really, just the ability to learn from history.

My assumption is that the next 50 years won't be any worse than anything we've seen in the last 130 years (e.g. Crash of 1929 and the Great Depresson.)

If you think the future is worse, then keep working or adopt a lower SWR.

intercst

[ShokWaveRider]

We retired at 49 and 45 respectively, No Pension, No Health Care, No Worries.

Response to some of the following posts:

I never said we ignored the necessity of health care, just it was not a RE stopper. We still have to buy it. But we do not spend too much time worrying about it.

SWR

[AltaRed]

Can't imagine no worries(with no pension and no health care) unless you are a multi-millionaire many times over. Even then, it would be easy to burn up $1 million in a serious health crisis.

[intercst]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AltaRed Can't imagine no worries(with no pension and no health care) unless you are a multi-millionaire many times over.* Even then, it would be easy to burn up $1 million in a serious health crisis.

I wonder what percentage of the population has a $1 million health crisis. It's probably more common than winning the lottery, but is it even a 1/10th of 1%?

intercst

[vic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intercst I wonder what percentage of the population has a $1 million health crisis. It's probably more common than winning the lottery, but is it even a 1/10th of 1%? intercst

I think a serious health care cisis has a much higher probability than that. Not even a month after DH lost his job and health insurance, he was diagnosed with very fast spreading cancer. Low chance this could happen to a 20-some y/o, right? He paid 100K+ out of pocket and many more $$$$ were paid back over the next 7 years. Without a surgeon that volunteered his services for free, he would not have been dead by now. You can also be struck by a driver without insurance etc.. Do you like to take that chance? Anyone who chooses to RE in the US should seriously consider at least catastrophic insurance.

Vicky

[unclemick]

No health insurance since 1993. No homeowners either - out of pocket - hmmm - maybe 100k - courtesy Katirina.

People worry too much - and try to control too much - or think they have control over things that they really don't.

may price insurance someday - or not.

Heh, heh, heh, heh.

[maddythebeagle]

I think health insurance is cheap enough that I wouldnt FIRE without. I am also looking forward to using the HSA money to lower my taxes to take more out of my 401k and sock away.

[Peter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intercst I wonder what percentage of the population has a $1 million health crisis. It's probably more common than winning the lottery, but is it even a 1/10th of 1%? intercst

Don't know what the percentage is, but it happened to me. My wife was diagnosed with cancer in 1984, and treatment costs topped $2MM by the time she died in 1997. The last 12 months alone were in excess of $1MM.

Fortunately all covered by insurance.

I'm afraid it's all too easy to run up bills in the 6 figure range with our screwed up system of health care. (Screwed up in my opinion, that is!)

Peter

[GTM]

Health insurance is a must I do not know how anyone could ignor its necessity.

As far as what type of policy one should have some say buy catastophic insurance with a high deductible so the premiums will be less.

I disagree.

Even a healthy person should have regular exams that are not covered if you have a catastrophic only plan.
I do not know the costs but full blood tests should be done once a year and other forms of preventative medicine are important. Out of pocket expenses would be very high.
And prescriptions are necessary for many people a couple of times a year.
HMO's may be a good choice, PPO's better.

Only a good plan is going to cover this.

[MRGALT2U]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vic I think a serious health care cisis has a much higher probability than that. Not even a month after DH lost his job and health insurance, he was diagnosed with very fast spreading cancer. Low chance this could happen to a 20-some y/o, right? He paid 100K+ out of pocket and many more $$$$ were paid back over the next 7 years. Without a surgeon that volunteered his services for free, he would not have been dead by now. You can also be struck by a driver without insurance etc..* Do you like to take that chance? Anyone who chooses to RE in the US should seriously consider at least catastrophic insurance. Vicky

Al Pacino would agree.

JG

[MRGALT2U]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTM Health insurance is a must I do not know how anyone could ignor its necessity. As far as what type of policy one should have some say buy catastophic insurance with a high deductible so the premiums will be less. I disagree. Even a healthy person should have regular exams that are not covered if you have a catastrophic only plan. I do not know the costs but full blood tests should be done once a year and other forms of preventative medicine are important. Out of pocket expenses would be very high. And prescriptions are necessary for many people a couple of times a year. HMO's may be a good choice, PPO's better. Only a good plan is going to cover this.

I have considered "going bare" but never have. OTOH, I suspect I could
work my way out of most economic problems. I might be dead first but hey................I can't afford a "good plan", so I have to roll the dice.
The annual "check ups/tests" are out, but they would be even if I had
full coverage. IMHO, if they look long enough, they will find something
and it will be expensive.

JG