I was confused by his wording, too. But I took it to mean his insurance was just for those kind of things. A true catastrophic policy to ensure his assets wouldn’t get wiped out. Not the “minor” stuff he’d simply absorb into his ongoing living expenses.
The uncertainty alone of future health care costs is the biggest reason I would be inclined to not retire too early and put another 30% or more than anticipated need into my nest egg, depending on how early I would retire. The earlier my planned retirement the greater the uncertainty and thus the more I would anticipate needing to hedge against cost increase.
The other option, have a low enough income and expenses to insure I would be able to qualify for assistance. I’d like to not need to live off the system or depend on it but to make sure I can well provide for myself.
I read about some life hackers retiring before 30 because they cut costs to an extremely low level, and have enough to sustain their expected future needs but you never know what kind huge increased medical costs might be on the horizon or if your blogging or youtube income will be sustainable. That would make me nervous.
For those that have replaced their income with rental properties, etc it is a fair option but without the systems fully in place to truly run itself you’re really only partially retired.
The benefit though is many early retirees work a job they want to work to stay productive and it’s something you want to do but not need to do to continue producing income.
I’m a cisgender male. 'Nuff said.
OK, maybe one more thing:
I knew, even way back, that I’m not prone whatsoever to mental illness.
You got it. Appreciate that. Seemed obvious to me. Maybe in 2020 not to everyone.
It’s a deficiency of mine, I guess. Lack empathy for younger folks who never lived, as I have, in a truly free country. It’s not their fault in the least. Without that wonderful experience how could they possibly understand the blessings such freedom once bestowed.
It must be akin to color blindness. Color blind persons cannot be expected to comprehend the full multicolor experience most of us take for granted.
I would also observe: You cannot teach calculus to a cat.
2020 has nothing to do with that. I’ve never had to look at details of “catastrophic policy”, so it’s not obvious. I don’t know how comprehensive the “catastrophic” part can be.
From the way you write about what you think used to be but is no longer “truly free country”, I wouldn’t be so sure. You could similarly argue that it hasn’t been “truly free” since the passage of the 16th amendment, which predates you.
There was no reason to just assume it meant to exclude high cost care; the name alone should be pretty self-evident as to what the plan was designed to cover.
The desired policies had an absurdly high deductible, like $20k or $30k, then covered everything beyond that (often up to like a $2-million annual cap). It’d take a truly catastrophic health issue for the coverage to kick in at all. While claims payouts would be pretty expensive, they were also pretty rare - so the monthly premiums were often well under $50/month.
The ACA’s “catastrophic” plans are just stupid, and are catastrophic in name only. Their deductibles are only slightly higher than Bronze plans, and they still cover a lot of “routine” stuff (making a broken arm or a case of the flu a “catastrophy”). No one is talking about these plans when they’re only wanting catastrophic coverage.
It has everything to do with what I asserted. Today there exist millions of people who were not yet born when the sort of policy I needed, and was able to purchase, actually existed.
I agree you would not have any way to be sure. You had to be there. And you apparently were not there.
Not your fault. Sorry you missed out.
Me personally? True.
But not my mother and dad, both of whom had a rather large influence on me. They were able to convey and impart a sense of, and appreciation for, America’s earlier freedoms and liberties once treasured . . . . now surrendered and lost, but not forgotten.
I can’t follow what you are trying to say. In a prior post you wrote: “Lack empathy for younger folks who never lived, as I have, in a truly free country.” And I’m saying that no, you have not lived in a truly free country, because the 16th Amendment predates you. And what do you even mean by “truly free”? I’m only guessing you are complaining about a single issue (the ACA mandate or the future medicare for all), while conveniently ignoring society’s other problems. You’re creating your own definition of freedom (or, more likely, parroting someone else’s) without putting it in quotes or realizing it’s way too narrow in scope.
Our rights and freedoms have been taken away gradually, over a very long period of time. And I am speaking in general; the ACA is only a subset of the overall.
I just finished watching the Democrat debate. A great many Americans now, in particular younger people it would seem, appear to favor further erosion of our freedoms. They richly deserve the future they so earnestly crave.
So things like income taxes, social security, medicare, capital gains taxes, property taxes, vehicle registration, handgun registration, ACA mandate are all things that have contributed to erosion of our rights and freedoms, do I understand you correctly?
Interesting banter but what does this have to do with the OP again?
Actually it is rampant liberalism/socialism/communism which has done that. Did you see last night’s farcical debate? If not, watch it on YouTube. As someone who lived through the entirety of the cold war I believe the Russkies of that era could take lessons from the six consummate nitwits on that stage . . . and you can throw in the “moderators”, too.
Uh, not a lot. But when scripta and myself get going, stopping is like trying to restrain the advance of an oil tanker.
A woman can have a baby at 8, but that does not mean that she should. Physical ability and emotional intelligence and responsibility don’t come at the same age. The draft is probably based on physical ability and the ability to follow commands. I don’t think they can seriously be considered as eroding freedom.
The freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you want to whomever you want. That freedom always came with restrictions, including protection of public order (no yelling “fire” in a crowd) and the rights and reputations of other people (not lying / slandering, or using the wrong gender). You are redefining what you think it should be as opposed to what the majority of the society decided it should be.
The large coke and fries I’m kind of with you, but you are still FREE to buy a hundred medium cokes and fries, right?
Watching it now. Was not easy to find on youtube.
This is a stupid argument. Cigarettes and alcohol are not easily found in nature. Someone’s ability to give birth or shoot a weapon and follow orders has nothing to do with their ability to make good decisions. I’m not an authority, but neither are you, so we should let the MDs and PhDs do their research and guide public policy.
Yeah, it’s called statutory rape. Not quite a license to have a baby, but in a similar vein.
I didn’t say it wasn’t, I said it’s not easily found in nature, and certainly not in the same amounts as can be easily purchased now. These are ridiculous comparisons.
I believe in freedom, but freedom has never been free. You think an 8-y-o should be allowed to smoke, drink, and have babies, and probably all at the same time (nature won’t complain right away!). I do not.
I’d like to think that I can judge what’s fair and reasonable regardless of its impact on me personally. Yea sure I’d like to own property and guns without anyone knowing about it, but I can see how this could be problematic if everyone else did that.
Im not with that, but that’s because I’m responsible for paying for the healthcare…
No need to buy mediums to get around it though. Why not just buy Child Size?
I didn’t say “my reason” of not wanting the government to encourage the destructive behaviour since I pay for it was a legal or “freedom” reason.
That sounds racist.