Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are otherwise ready to retire and the only thing holding you back is health care, I say, RETIRE.
Head down to Mexico and wait out all this nonsense. If you are under 65, private health care is affordable. Or you can opt for a public plan (almost free), but you need to qualify for residency to get the public insurance.
We lived there from age 55/56 until 61/62. Came back to US reluctantly to care for an elderly parent. He has since passed on and we are once again back to Mexico, age 64/65.
As my Latin teacher taught me: Tempus Fugit.
We retired at ages 50/51 and never looked back. In a certain way, you just MAKE it happen if you want it bad enough. Same with careers, marriages, families.
My sister's ex-roommate retired in Spain. This is before ACA.
We need universal health coverage, just like every other industrialized nation. My personal health insurance is secured as I am eligible to retire and stay on my employer plan until 65. So, this is not about me. I just don't think the cost of healthcare should send people into bankruptcy or the lack of it send them to an early death. Not in one of the wealthiest countries on earth.
Other countries start with universal health coverage when it was cheap. They can't do that now.
Even NHS is having trouble right now according to the Economist. They are thinking of taxing inheritance to pay for it. I believe the UK already taxing inheritance and they want to do more.
I retired from the Military at 37, I will retire from my state job at 57, and YES, I EARNED that RIGHT. The really great thing is, if YOU don't like it, I DON't care. Oh, and I have healthcare for life, which again, I earned.
Well you need to put on your glasses and read again. I don't care when you retire and what age you retire as long as you don't expect other to pay for your healthcare under ACA. If you have military healthcare and retired early, that's great. I don't think that's the situation here. The thread is about people who want to retire early without health insurance.
I'm wondering if NewbieHere was writing fast and misspoke in her haste when she wrote "It's not right to retire before 65." Her previous comment was "But it's not a right to retire pre-Medicare age." And I agree with her previous comment. If you can qualify for disability, work a public or private sector job that allows you to retire before 65 and provides health insurance after retirement, save enough to pay for your own health insurance for a few years, or even manage to milk the ACA subsidies based on an artificially low income, then good for you. But it is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund your early retirement, we have enough people to subsidize as it is.
Thank you that's what I meant. I either typed that too early or too late as in most of the case. People need to read the title of this thread.
So it was right for you to retire early and not right for other people????
Thank you Bella for digging up my post. Read this thread again. I didn't depend on Obamacare nor AHA care, I retired base on my husband's insurance. If I didn't have his insurance I either stay working or move somewhere else. It's not a right for any body to demand healthcare from the government so they can retire early. However plenty of people who has healthcare from either the military or government do retire early. As long as you have the means to retire early, then they can retire. I don't dictate to them what to do. It's that the system will go broke. What do you say about massive of people who want to retire in their 40s or early 50s if they want to?
Last edited by NewbieHere; 03-10-2017 at 02:39 PM..
I didn't play God, but HC didn't help a lot of people either. That's the situation right now that's why people elected Trump to do over.
If by HC, you mean health care, AKA Affordable Care, I think it did help a lot of people. I guess I can see your point about people retiring in their 40s and 50s who have tons of money stashed away in accounts who take advantage of the system to get their healthcare subsidized, but what about those whose bodies wear out, or are victims of age discrimination or for whatever reason have to retire prior to age 65? I don't think it is for you or me to decide what their fate should be.
All I know is a 26 year old is NOT a child. I think that having "children" eligible under their parents health care until they are 26 is ridiculous. Time to grown up and go to school or get a job like the rest of us!
The thing is that a lot of entry level jobs do not provide health insurance. Many young people on their parent's policy are working! Staying on their parents' helps bridge the gap between school and a job with benefits. Also, it keeps them on an employer-provided insurance plan instead of getting taxpayer subsidies to buy individual insurance.
Sounds like she did something wrong with her application or didn't qualify.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
