Early retirement and health care for boaters

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by cyan

I'm not sure one can draw accurate comparisons in social mobility using such data when one country has 13 times the population of the other. ...

Actually, this is a well studied area. Social mobility, as measured against how likely a parent’s socio-economic status determines the status of their offspring, has been in decline in countries like the USA, UK, and France. And conversely has been increasing in places like Denmark, Norway, Australia and yes, Canada.

Here’s a couple of graphs from the OECD reports:

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

That's a LOT. I'm 58 and paying $22/mo

have you read this thread or just the last page?

Sorry. I misspoke. I currently have family coverage. At retirement it will be about half that.

$22 a month. Sounds like a deal depending on what is covered.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Budawang

Considering the average Australian weekly full time adult wage is around $US 60,000 the household income number doesn't sound right. I suspect average incomes are pretty similar in both countries. I agree this has gone off topic but interesting nonetheless.

The problem with any of these numbers is you have to dig out the definitions and how they are calculated. Depending on the purpose, it's really easy (intentional or not) to manipulate the way it's defined and collected to get the answer you want.

Depending on what I want to prove, I can find numbers for the USA that vary between $35k & $65k per year.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Sorry. I misspoke. I currently have family coverage. At retirement it will be about half that.

$22 a month. Sounds like a deal depending on what is covered.

Well understanding how to do this is the point of the thread I feel. Not the battle about countries coverage and wages etc.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by cyan

I'm not sure one can draw accurate comparisons in social mobility using such data when one country has 13 times the population of the other. The Australian median net worth number certainly indicates a much wealthier overall middle class than the US median number. You could also use the histogram data to say that "middle class" is relative. For instance, in Australia, there are almost 5M households with a net worth above the median, $191K(USD), while in the US there are 44M households with net worth above that number, $191K(USD), albeit in the higher few deciles.

There are many factors that don't get considered when using median net worth charts to measure wealth inequality. For instance, the US has 5 times the number of millionaires as does the next highest country, China, and this really looks obscene on the histogram. But wait, the US has something that no other country has: Apple, Amazon, and so many other super-rich companies that have been doling out stock options for years as compensation to retain employees. Thousands of those employees have joined the 1% club. (and every one of those companies is currently hiring.) If we lop off the enriching effect of these American companies, perhaps the top end wouldn't be so horrifying to the masses.

Curiously, the median US household income, US$61372, is higher than the Australian median, US$47215. One could ask, where is all the money going in the US, where the median net worth is so much lower? Do Ozzies simply save more? Are Americans spending more? (on yachts?)

Finally, what does this tangent have to do with health care for the early retirement folks?
Dunno.
[emoji3]

The problem with numbers is they don't always tell the whole story, they leave other numbers out.

My dad purchased the family home in Melbourne Australia in 1964. His electrician wage was $2,800 pa, the house cost 9k. The ratio, income to house was approximately 3:1.

Fast foraward to 2017 he sold the house for $960,000 aud. The same electrician would need to be earning $320,000 pa to have the same hose price income ratio that existed in 1964! Measured against historical averages Australian real estate is majorly over valued, and real estate makes a large proportion of the middle of the class wealth.

Australian middle class might on paper be richer than their American equivalents BUT we have a housing bubble that (actually a everything that bubble), that distorts reality.

Australians have the second highest household debt in the world. It's not always what it seems. Over one million households are suffering from mortgage stress, this is in a population of approximately 22,000,000.

This most likely won't end well and our wealth on paper is misleading.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Well understanding how to do this is the point of the thread I feel. Not the battle about countries coverage and wages etc.

I agree about the "needless" battle but retirement income and where that income is going to provide the best overall quality of life is pretty important to me.

If the title of this thread remains "Early retirement and health care for boaters" then we should be talking about how people can make that happen.

I think individual circumstances have to play into it a lot.

One thing that seems true is that if one retires early and chooses to remain in the US and has no bridging insurance until Medicare then it could be a very expensive proposition and a main consideration.

[01kiwijohn]

Bottom line is that, as fiercely independent cruisers, we need to take responsibility for our own individual needs and provide for ourselves and our family. Depending on the generosity of others is not really a responsible approach.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

One thing that seems true is that if one retires early and chooses to remain in the US and has no bridging insurance until Medicare then it could be a very expensive proposition and a main consideration.

This.^^^
All the various solutions to this pickle are very important to many of us.
It seems that the US health insurance exchange (Obamacare) can work for some. However, I wonder how much longer an under-65 American with a decent IRA that is not yet touched will still be allowed to claim "subsidies" that were ostensibly intended for the poor. I really don't have much of a moral problem with this, given the obscene amount of taxes such a person has most likely already paid. I just wonder how long this will go on...

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by cyan

This.^^^
All the various solutions to this pickle are very important to many of us.
It seems that the US health insurance exchange (Obamacare) can work for some. However, I wonder how much longer an under-65 American with a decent IRA that is not yet touched will still be allowed to claim "subsidies" that were ostensibly intended for the poor. I really don't have much of a moral problem with this, given the obscene amount of taxes such a person has most likely already paid. I just wonder how long this will go on...

An asset based test is very unlikely to get put in place anytime soon, especially in the next two years.
The subsidies (without quotes) were not intended for the poor. That is Medicaid, which was expanded by the ACA act. The subsidies were intended to bring the price of purchasing health insurance inline with incomes of families at the lower end of middle class. They go up to usd$94,000 annual income for a family of four. That's aways from poor.

If you feel that subsidy with quotes really means welfare, then you should be equally offended when higher income workers get their health insurance from their employer who has the cost of the insurance subsidised by tax deductions on it.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Paul L

An asset based test is very unlikely to get put in place anytime soon, especially in the next two years.
The subsidies (without quotes) were not intended for the poor. That is Medicaid, which was expanded by the ACA act. The subsidies were intended to bring the price of purchasing health insurance inline with incomes of families at the lower end of middle class. They go up to usd$94,000 annual income for a family of four. That's aways from poor.

If you feel that subsidy with quotes really means welfare, then you should be equally offended when higher income workers get their health insurance from their employer who has the cost of the insurance subsidised by tax deductions on it.

Since the subsidies are officially based upon the Federal Poverty Level chart, I simply assumed that they were intended for the poor, what with the "Poverty" bit right there in the name. 400% of the threshold is indeed far from poor, though.
Oh, and I'm not offended by any of this. The moral hesitation? Well, I DO wonder how high the US national debt can go before something drastic happens. One day I might hear: "Grandpa, how could your generation create such a mess for my generation?"
I'll probably just say that we bought one too many aircraft carriers back in the day.
I'll skip the part about my Obamacare subsidies.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

One thing that seems true is that if one retires early and chooses to remain in the US and has no bridging insurance until Medicare then it could be a very expensive proposition and a main consideration.

So you haven't read the thread or even my responses to you.

I'm retired, 58 and wife is 57, not on Medicare, in the USA, and paying $22/mo. I have "normal" medical coverage, no co-pay at my primary, $5 copay at specialist, prescription coverage, $500/yr deductible for "stufff".

[AndyEss]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

I live in Canada, and here health care is FREE.
I think that the USA is the only country in the First World that does not provide free public health care to help cure people.

But you have a great military.

Free healthcare? TANSTAFL
What are your tax rates?

[AndyEss]

We also pay for most of the world’s pharmaceutical research

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

So you haven't read the thread or even my responses to you.

I'm retired, 58 and wife is 57, not on Medicare, in the USA, and paying $22/mo. I have "normal" medical coverage, no co-pay at my primary, $5 copay at specialist, prescription coverage, $500/yr deductible for "stufff".

It seems that SB has figured it all out. I haven’t followed the details of how he’s done it b/c it doesn’t apply to me, but he has laid it out, a number of times.

So many Americans on this forum seem to be paying what I consider exorbitantly high monthly fees. So why aren’t you all following his lead?

[Inti93]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

So you haven't read the thread or even my responses to you.

I'm retired, 58 and wife is 57, not on Medicare, in the USA, and paying $22/mo. I have "normal" medical coverage, no co-pay at my primary, $5 copay at specialist, prescription coverage, $500/yr deductible for "stufff".

sailorboy1.......I am in a very similar situation as you. Retired 60, wife 55, Florida residents.
Have bronze plan with Florida Blue for $9.46 per month. Primary copay $35, specialists $70. Deductible $6000 each. Currently shopping for 2019.
Do you mind sharing who is your provider?