If you're married to a younger person who won't be retiring at the
same time you do, you can get a cheaper rate on family health
insurance if your spouse works at a place that offers it. Just
something to think about.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

Avrum Lapin wrote:

- quote -

For what it's worth, I've heard the same extremes from most others. My
wife has KP now through her employer and is in between, mainly because
she can't use the doctors that she'd used prior to being in KP. I've
used them in the past through an employer and I would consider myself in
between as well. The care was fine but not outstanding compared to
other plans I've had.

-Will

william dot trice at ngc dot com

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Sep 10, 6:10 pm, Will Trice <n...[at]monitored.net> wrote:

- quote -

Those are "teaser rates". if you have any pre-existing
condition you are offered much more expensive insurance
or denied outright. A pre-existing condition includes
a recorded BP reading over 120/80, a LDL over 100,
a prescription for a chronic condition, cancer or heart
attack, etc. About 25% of applicants 50-65 are denied.
The NY Times and LA Times have been wrting many
articles about this.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

In article <NOOdnRwy6Zu25FXVnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d[at]earthlink.com> ,
Reed <reedh[at]rmi.net> wrote:
:
snip
- quote -

Premiums do vary across the country (even between adjacent counties).
For individuals, Kaiser uses underwriting which means that the quoted
rates are for those without preexisting conditions. A person with
significant preexisting conditions may pay several times more.
- quote -

Kaiser is an HMO - which implies that you see your primary care Kaiser
physician first and require referrals to see Kaiser specialists. As a
SHIP (Medicare) counsellor I have heard only two opinions about Kaiser -
"the greatest thing since sliced bread" or "I wouldn't send a dog there"
- nothing in between. Kaiser is one of the few HMOs which accepts
individuals. Their costs (premiums) are average.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:38:20 -0500, Avrum Lapin <avrum223[at]verizon.netwrote:

- quote -

The problem here in SC is that employers who still continue coverage
on retired employees - primarily public employers like State and
Federal government - are not dropping the benefit, but hiking the
retiree's out of pocket costs by a noticeable amount. Ditto for the
plan deductibles and co-insurance benefits.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

Will Trice wrote:
- quote -

Bear in mind that KP is not really an "insurance" co. They are a
*non-profit* health "plan". Their salaried doctors, their
hospitals, etc. Only available in 9 states where they have their
own facilities.

Check this from:

https://prospectivemembers.kaiserper...p/entrypage.do

"About us
Kaiser Permanente is the largest nonprofit health plan* in the
United States, serving 8.6 million members in nine states and the
District of Columbia. We are an integrated health delivery system,
which means that we provide and coordinate the entire scope of
care for our members"


Don't get me wrong, I have several family members in Denver who
have KP coverage, and their care has been excellent, and
reasonable cost. I wish it was available in CT. Quotes I have for
individual insurance coverage, age 64, in CT, start about
$900/month. Which is why I am still working, with coverage thru
employer.

--Reed

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:

- quote -

This is certainly a concern, but your healthcare insurance premium seems
high. I just got a price sheet from Kaiser Permanente for individual
(non-employer) plans. Monthly rates for each covered adult ages 50-54
are $199, 55-59 are $249, 60-64 are $298. This is a 70/30 plan, $2000
deductible with hospitalization and prescription coverage, $30 copays.
This is similar to plans I've had with previous employers so I would
call this a "good" plan, but perhaps it's not? Do health insurance
premiums vary that widely region to region? Perhaps then early
retirement may also entail changing residence to a
lower-health-insurance-premium location?

-Will

william dot trice at ngc dot com

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

In article <rLRxk.33697$Mh5.27699[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> ,
"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote:

- quote -

part of McDonnell Douglas now Boeing) was that the offer of health care
after retirement was not a contractual promise and was not covered by
ERISA (pension law).

I suspect that if you read the Alaska plan it specifically promises
coverage after retirement. I no longer have the booklets that I got from
General Dynamics which offered coverage until age 65 and then an
allowance to cover the cost of Part B. After GD sold the missile
business to Hughes, we were left to Hughes' generosity - the ability to
buy health coverage at COBRA rates until age 65 and then you depend
solely on Medicare. There was a legal challenge but the Douglas
precedent held.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"Chris Cowles" <garbageaddress[at]bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:JfHxk.29930$bx1.11487[at]bignews1.bellsouth.net...
- quote -

There are several "tiers" to the PERS retirement system in Alaska. The court
has ruled that the retirement benefit package promised to the employees,
including system-paid health care, are a contract and cannot be unilateraly
revoked. I don't know why this doesn't seem to apply to privately
admnistered pensions. Perhaps the employees aren't so well organized nor
represented.

Elizabeth Richardson

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"Tad Borek" <borekfm[at]pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:kGUvk.9245$cn7.5968[at]flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...

- quote -

I don't think anyone can plan for employer-provided health benefits in
retirement. You might have them when you retire, but how long will it be
before the employer makes unilateral changes?
--
Chris Cowles
Gainesville, FL

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

rick++ wrote:
- quote -


My belief is that costs won't keep rising at these rates because the
money isn't there to pay for them - same reason $140/bbl oil doesn't
currently look sustainable. We talked through this topic in the Feb 08
thread "Planning for health care costs in retirement" - it was when that
Fidelity study was getting press, where they said a newly retired couple
needs $215k just for health care. But this requires a market where money
just appears from thin air, because the average retired couple has
something like 1/3 that amount saved, for all retirement costs.

Many economists used to say that US gasoline consumption isn't
price-sensitive. Then gas hits $4/gallon and you can't give away an SUV,
and we see the first-ever drop in year-on-year gasoline use. At some
point the same will happen with health care, it's not going to become
1/2 of the US economy (which it would, if the Fidelity study's figures
are rolled forward 25+ years).

Or put another way, there's a finite pool of dollars available for
consumption of all these things...health care, housing, energy, etc.
It's zero-sum, so a dollar more for energy is a dollar less for the
others. And none of them are immune to basic principles of supply and
demand. The costs can temporarily get skewed by bad policy (cheap
financing for subprime borrowers, lack of workable health-care insurance
approach for all of US, federal subsidies for the purchase of
low-mileage passenger vehicles) but that won't go on forever.

-Tad

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Sep 4, 6:06 pm, joetaxpayer <joetaxpa...[at]nospam.com> wrote:
- quote -

The US has an insatiable appetite for medical care - basic healing,
extreme healing ($100K drugs for a few extra months of life), looking
good, and sport. 16% of US GDP is now health-related, with
projections
of 20% to 25% by mid-century not out of line. The wealthy US economy
decided to spend its economic surpluses on health.

That 16% isnt funded out of thin air. Its a mixture of public and
private revenues. 25% of the federal budget goes to medical:
19% for medicare & medicaid, 3% for federal retiree medical,
and 3% for veterns medical. So I'm personally paying a 7%
"medical tax" of all my income - 1/4 of my total taxes last year.
My additioanl private expenditures doesnt bring me up to that 16%,
but I can see where that could happen for sicker people.

Its not of line to project 1/4 to 1/2 of my retirement budget
to be devoted to medical premiums and expenses, the way trends
are going.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

rick++ wrote:

- quote -

At some point, won't costs have to level out? If any one sector grows
faster than the rest of the economy, won't it grow as its share of the
pie, until it crowds out all others?
(I recall in 1984 being told that semiconductor sales in $$ grew at 14%
long term. I mumbled 'not for long' and was asked to explain myself. If
the economy grew at 5%, that meant that semi's share of the pie would
double in 8 years, give or take. Indeed, cars were using more
electronics each year, but at some point it had to level out. It took a
couple decades, but the growth and forecasted growth had mitigated.)

Joe

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Sep 4, 8:04 am, "HW \"Skip\" Weldon" <skip5700removet...[at]yahoo.comwrote:
- quote -

I've observed health care costs have been doubling every five
years for middle age. About half of that is due to premium age
adjustments - every five-year cohort is 40%+ higher premiums
and copays. The other half is half is medical inflation- a good 10%
a year. So age 50 to 65 is three doublings or a factor of eight.
I find the 5-year doubling period for the past 15 years when I total
all my premiums and outlays.

Meidcare premiums and copays are on the same doubling rate,
but starting at a lower amount. The premiums have inreased from
$53 a month to $122 for standard medicare in the past five years. Plus
co-pays are going up. Plus means-testing is phasing in ...

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"HW "Skip" Weldon" <skip5700removethis[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dlpvb498r3uch2bn42aeat8pviantrh7s9[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

Skip, I'll use a term I've used before. That $1000 a month pays for sick
care, not health care. Health care comes from daily exercise, spending time
and money in the produce department at the grocery store, and minimizing
stress in one's life. These are far less expensive ways of addressing the
issue.

That said, I'll be the first to admit that we wouldn't have been able to
retire early if it hadn't been for the health insurance component of my
husband's pension.

Elizabeth Richardson

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On 2008-09-04, HW "Skip" Weldon <skip5700removethis[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

The 401K withdrawal difficulties only would last until the age when
the withdrawal penalty goes away.

Also, younger people spend more than older people, on things such as
kids and mortgage. So when one gets to the point of retirement,
hopefully the kids are grown and do not require maintenance, house is
paid off, etc.

Also, instead of full retirement, one could opt for working part
time or just getting a less demanding job.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

- quote -


1) accumulating the money
2) expenses in retirement

As joe alludes- most of my ER strategy now is accumulation. I started
saving 6% of my pay (small amount- just graduated and single) in
1997. Fast forward a marriage, twins born in 2008 and our savings
rate is 20% of 3X my original salary now. Every year I will attempt
to bleed another % or two out of this. If I am saving 50% my personal
savings will mean more than compounding in many ways to reach the
desired level. Most people which ER have a savings rate of 30-40% (or
so I read).

The expenses part also varies, but if a person could LBYM to save
30-40% then they could easily retire spending less than they earned
while working. I think the living below one's means is an important
part of early retirement planning.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:

- quote -

As Dave responded, the health issue may be more about bridging the gap
to 65. If 'normal' is median, then it just doesn't happen. On the other
hand, you read about the $80,000 earners who never changed lifestyle as
they worked up from $40,000. If one can save a high (25-30) percent of
income, they may find they are saving toward that 20X number but they
can live on less than half their pre-retirement gross.

I think the health warning is the one to worry about more than any
other. I can plan for a certain lifestyle yet cut back on things like
vacations, dinners out, etc. in bad times, but the rising health costs
are toughest to plan, and will eat into everything else.

Joe

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:
- quote -


Skip, as someone mentioned you only need to bridge yourself until
Medicare eligibility, not a lifetime, and it might be more like a 10-12%
withdrawal rate. But you're right, it's going to be a substantial cost
for an early retiree, under the present system (which I believe will
change, but who knows how long that will take). Some possible ways to help:

* get some part time work that has benefits, even if only access to
self-paid health insurance at group rates (if that's helpful). Not an
option everywhere but it's out there.

* do some part-time work as an independent contractor, strictly for the
purpose of paying for this, and being able to fully deduct it - which
effectively reduces the cost. Under current law you would pay only
self-employment taxes if you earn $12k and pay $12k in health insurance
premiums. With no SE income it's an itemized deduction, part of medical
expenses, which are only deductible to the extent they exceed 7.5% of
your AGI.

* plan waaaay in advance and stick with a career that leaves you with
some benefits, if early retirement is a priority. I'm doing my best to
talk a client into this one at the moment...staying put with the present
employer instead of job-hopping to yet another, very similar job, would
set up excellent early-retirement benefits. People need to factor this
into job changes once they reach a certain age.

I don't think working a bit is such a bad way to go, if you plan it in
advance so you have something enjoyable (or at least tolerable) to do.
Especially if the upside is being able to retire early.

-Tad

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

- quote -

Most of my research on early retirement suggests 4% withdraw rate
might be "too high" and 3% might be closer for money to last 40 or 50
years. 3% allows for initial withdraws to be the dividend yield of a
portfolio, allowing principal to grow for a significant time while
retired.

There is more than one way to retire early, more than one way to
withdraw and I have found a whole web community which discusses this
(not sure if appropriate to post links, if you want a link, ask).

Having a good handle on expenses is important.
Health care as you mentioned is on that list. Replacement cars every
10 years, funding the new roof or home repairs is also on that list.
Travel or other leisure expenses to. To retire early having a handle
on the expenses appears to be a pre-requisite.

Withdraw strategies also factor in- the 4% rule was designed for a
60-40 porfolio to last 30 years. Increase the duration to 40-50-60
years and there is risk that 4% as the starting withdraw rate is too
high.

Dividend yield is one way many people can retire early (live off
yield, let principal grow).
Not increasing withdraws when market drops is another.
There is a 95% rule I don't fully understand, but I believe it
suggests to leave 95% of portfolio value intact or to adjust withdraw
rate once portfolio is 95% of original value which some people also
use.

I have 18 years to retire at age 53. I plan to have an HSA for health
expenses, a paid off house and travel much more than I do now (Europe,
cruises, skiing in the rockies, white water rafting).

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.