Where do you want to retire?

[G5052]

LOL -- probably right where I am now. Expensive, but we like it here.  We hope the DC will stay in the area, but no guarantees.

 

There are plenty of local and online opportunities for me.  I likely will work as long as I can to supplement DH's retirement income.

[DawnM]

I would ideally like to retire in Laguna Niguel, CA.   I miss CA a lot and that area is very nice.

 

However, I can't get DH to even consider it and he wants to retire in Florida and work part time at a golf course for free golf.

 

My guess is that ultimately it would come down to our kids and grandkids as I don't want to move far from them.

[creekland]

We love where we live (South Central PA) and hubby owns his business here, so we're here for the next few years of college tuition and med school payments at the very least.  Once all of that is done we'll go back to considering retirement.  Right now a bit depends upon where our kids decide to build their nests.  We may build one near them or we may stay here and merely travel more.

 

As it is currently, with empty nesting right around the corner, we're hoping to spend a month or two traveling/working - probably in the winter (slow time for hubby's business and as we get older we like winter to be shorter).  If we end up liking that, I see no need to plan on retirement.  We're not the "do little, enjoy the rocking chair" types.  We like staying active and our jobs are a part of that enjoyment.

 

But... I'll also want to be around my grandkids and we raised our boys to be citizens of this world - not just our corner of it - so we're going to have to see where they choose for nesting sites.

[MooCow]

Saranac Lake, NY.

 

Unless we have grandkids. Then, its wherever they are.

[Chris in VA]

I don't know where we will end up.

After visiting Israel, dh would like to someday live there and teach at St George's in Jerusalem. I could see that, honestly, but not for more than a few years.

 

I hope we go somewhere where it doesn't take forever to go somewhere else--I don't want to go to FL, for example (lived there in high school and disliked it).

 

I want a view, wherever we end up. 4 seasons, but not a lot of ice or snow. Close to conveniences, close to hospital care, but...pretty.

 

I'd like to be near grands and my kids, but who knows where that will be.

 

I'd pick the ocean but I'd rather just go on long vacations there.

 

Geez, I don't know what will satisfy me!

 

 

[Lady Florida.]

We already live in a state where many people move to in their retirement years, so we don't have far to go. ;)

 

Seriously though, I want to stay here and so does dh. Dss and ddil are settled here and don't have any plans to move. Ds is only 16, but he doesn't seem to want to leave Florida either. If either of them moved out of state we *might* consider moving bur probably not. We're both "home".

 

 

 

I want to retire near my kids, which will hopefully be nearish other family. 

I hope to retire in a smaller place that requires no work, such as a condo or apartment. Or a place of some kind where things are in very good shape and outside stuff is taken care of by not me.

 

 

I snipped the last part because nothing is within walking distance, but yes to everything above. Heck, I'd move now if I could convince dh. I can't wait to 1) downsize and 2) move to a place where someone else does the maintance, both inside* and outside.

 

*I don't mean housework, just general maintenance and repairs. Although, I might need someone to take care of the house if I live long enough. My IL's are in their late 80's and 2 of the grown grandchildren take turns going there and cleaning for them.

[Aelwydd]

Why does closeness figure into the equation?  Because we go to church a LOT.  Every week, without fail, at least twice, and on many weeks, it is 4 times.  During Holy Week, every day had one, two, or three services.  The people who come from a long ways away just stay at church (or come to our house, which is one reason I want to have one close by--because I *can* and it allows me to afford hospitality to those who can't).    We don't *have* to go to all the services--we *want* to.  But I don't want to spend as long on the road as I am in the services.  Even though we live 4 miles away, traffic in this town is bad enough that the drive can be between 10 and *25* minutes.  Can you believe that?  It's awful.  It's worse if you live far away.  

 

Going to the nearest church isn't an option for those who are part of sacramental faith.  Some people might not know that, which is why I bring it up.  

 

I'm familiar with the restrictions and conditions RCC and EO have on where they can receive.  I'm a lapsed Episcopalian/Anglican, so I get it.  However, what did people do who lived before the advent of cheap energy, via gasoline powered automobiles?  They either lived close to the parish or cathedral, or they lived out in the country, in a village without a priest, and thus limited in the number of times they could receive.

 

I'm not at all knocking the choice to live close to one's parish.  I pretty much agree that the best option, if you are very active, is to live as close as possible.  I'm pointing out though, that we close in on the twilight of oil powered energy, people who have been "spoiled" by having options, will find that they may have to make choices between say, what is close to work, or their children when they retire, and what is close to their desired church.  It's why I find the current urban planning of many suburban communities severely lacking.  Ideally, people should have the ability to live within walking/ biking/ public transit distance of things like work, church, school, farmers' markets, etc.  Instead, it's "pick this neighborhood for the decent schools," and drive 30+ minutes to work, 25 minutes to church, and 10-15 minutes for entertainment, activities, grocery shopping, and so forth.

 

Highly inefficient, IMO!

 

[Luanne]

I want to retire some place where it isn't over 90 in the summer and snowing all winter long.  I doubt it will happen, but that is what I would pick if I could choose.  I guess southern California or some place in Florida.

[PrincessMommy]

I can understand all that.  But, retirement is such a complex issue anymore.  People have to consider cost of living, climate (including how prone it is to extreme weather), tax burden, health care (quality and affordability), senior community support networks, distance to family, transportation options (for when they can't drive anymore), and so forth.

 

I think the whole model of people driving 10 to 30 minutes to church every Sunday is eventually doomed the same way the suburban lifestyle of commuting to work by personal auto is, by the advent of very high fuel costs as oil becomes more scarce.  Yeah, electric and hydro cell cars are being developed, but there will be a difficult transition period. And during that period, I think that the paradigm shift from driving to workplaces and churches and schools and so forth 10 or 15 miles away to mostly public transport, biking, walking, etc. will not be quickly overturned, as the pain of paying high fuel costs and the vulnerability it presents, won't be easily forgotten.

 

Which means that unless someone can take a bus or walk to church, a lot of people are going to find it difficult to get to that "perfect" church that has the nice facade, and beautiful property, but is located on a busy boulevard with no easy pedestrian access, 10 miles away from home.  It used to be that people went to neighborhood churches. Nowadays, people drive all over tarnation, and distance from church doesn't seem to be a big priority when people buy homes.  It would be strange for retirement to suddenly overturn decades of habitual prioritization of home/work/family/schools first, and church sort of slotted in there. I think they take it for granted that they can just drive to the next town to get to their favored church or parish. 

 

Of course, there are exceptions!  Some folks plan where they live based on how close houses of worship are.  Living in a "satellite" city in the Dallas/ Fort Metroplex, I wish communities were designed to be so much more efficient than they are now.  That, if I wanted, I could walk or bus to work, walk to the grocer's market, walk to a church, school, library, etc.  Those type of homes are typically in the downtown area though, and are out of my price range!

 

Absolutely, retirement is complex... but I think for *me* and for many others who belong to a more sacramental tradition - it should be one of the major considerations along with cost-of-living or climate.  I look at my parish *as* my major support network.  It's not a nice thing I do once a week.  It's my family.   I don't see why living within 30min. of a parish is doomed?  Why do you think that?  I know that churches are struggling in rural areas as well as some in very urban areas... but that leaves a lot of options between those extremes. 

 

Distance from church is absolutely a priority for us.  We also moved closer to our church 2 yrs ago.  While is wasn't the primary reason FOR moving, it was definitely a huge help.  Going from 35min (on a good day) to 15 has been wonderful.    

 

I thought your comment: "It would be strange for retirement to suddenly overturn decades of habitual prioritization of home/work/family/schools first, and church sort of slotted in there."" is odd when I *clearly* said I was talking about people who were very committed to church...the kind that were there for years and very active in church life.  Not the kind who maybe showed up one Sunday a month or the "Creasters" (Christmas/Easter folks).  If you're not that concerned about church, then obviously it's not a priority, and that's fine for you.  I just expressed surprise at those with whom I've known it was a major priority, to  not take that into consideration when looking for a new house.

[solascriptura]

In an ideal world, Hawaii would be my chice without a doubt. But of course family obligations change a lot of things.

[Joker]

We are where we want to be. We live in a nice area of Florida and our home is only 1000 sq. ft. It is a five minute drive to church and less than that to the grocery store. We can walk to the store, a few eating places, the bank, the doctor, the dentist, and a UPS store. The only reason we would consider moving is if both our girls left the state and lived somewhere too far to visit often. If they did that, we would try to find something closer to them.

[Susan in TN]

I'd be happy enough to retire where we are. I like my house, I like my church, my kids will know where to find us. :D

[SeaConquest]

Ideally, Monte Carlo or Tel Aviv. Realistically, probably on a catamaran somewhere.

[Aelwydd]

Absolutely, retirement is complex... but I think for *me* and for many others who belong to a more sacramental tradition - it should be one of the major considerations along with cost-of-living or climate.  I look at my parish *as* my major support network.  It's not a nice thing I do once a week.  It's my family.   I don't see why living within 30min. of a parish is doomed?  Why do you think that?  I know that churches are struggling in rural areas as well as some in very urban areas... but that leaves a lot of options between those extremes. 

 

 

 

Ok, with the understanding that I'm working on the premise of rapidly dwindling oil fields the world over, and the advent of much more expensively obtained oil from deep sea drilling, etc. :

 

 

Not doomed if it's within 30 minutes of walking/ biking/ public transit.  I'm talking about the difficulty faced when gasoline costs $6, $9, $12/gallon.  Some people will be able to afford paying that to drive to places not immediately close to their homes.  Cars aren't doomed to only ever run on gasoline, but in the 10 to 15 year transition when people are hitting that huge spike, and the demand for alternate fueled vehicles far outstrips the ability of auto manufacturers and cities to build and supply energy stations for them, there will be some growing pains.  At that point, I don't think it would be feasible for most people to drive 25+ minutes every day to work, school, and to church on the weekends.  Right now, a lot of of people are already feeling the pain of high fuel prices, and are seeking well-designed communities that favor other modes of transportation than just personal vehicle, and which place the "life" of a community within a relatively small area, so that folks aren't having to drive 6 different directions for things like shopping, schools, etc.  It's that demand that's got homes and downtown condos and apartments already too pricey for a lot of people, which I think sucks.

 

I'm not saying that the church that's 30 min away is going to cease being an option.  I'm saying that the church may lose folks who are further away, yet find a stream of new locals who need an option closer to home. 

 

 

 

I thought your comment: "It would be strange for retirement to suddenly overturn decades of habitual prioritization of home/work/family/schools first, and church sort of slotted in there."" is odd when I *clearly* said I was talking about people who were very committed to church...the kind that were there for years and very active in church life.  Not the kind who maybe showed up one Sunday a month or the "Creasters" (Christmas/Easter folks).  If you're not that concerned about church, then obviously it's not a priority, and that's fine for you.  I just expressed surprise at those with whom I've known it was a major priority, to  not take that into consideration when looking for a new house.

 

 

Well, I didn't say it as a challenge to what you said.  I was offering a possible (charitable) explanation for their oversight. I wasn't making any assumptions about them only attending a few Sundays a year. I'm not wanting to debate the merits of what they chose, I'm just offering the possibility that even though they were heavily involved in church, they may have taken what they had for granted, and never really thought about how to find that in a new place.  I wouldn't judge them for that oversight.  Especially if they lived in one area for most of their lives.  For folks who don't move around a lot, or who have never done so, they might have just thought that they wouldn't have to worry about finding a similar church.  Maybe they thought there would be options.  Or, maybe, they just didn't want to think about it, and this is some sort of understated statement of "I quit."  I just figure that they were so enamored of finally getting that beach home, they just figured the rest of it would be a dream, too.  Yeah, I know, short sighted, but people are people.

 

I'm similar to you in that I would research a new place very carefully, so I could make sure I'd have options for all the really important activities in my life. However, I've moved many times in my life, so I have had a lot of experience in finding the variances in different places in terms of what they each have to offer.

[indigomama]

Where I grew up. Unfortunately, everyone from Los Angeles had the same idea, and now I can't afford to get back home :glare:  :sad:

[Aelwydd]

I'm not in disagreement with you re: the suburban planning.  Part of the problem we have in our area is that land is so high it is impossible to get enough to build a church in town (so we are renting) and when you DO get enough, there is always a government agency that can outbid you with their tax-fed coffers.  We have lost two sites to government agencies, which have not only money but more clout in overcoming NIMBYism.  

 

Not everyone can choose to live close to everything and have *everything* be the ideal.  I'm not even arguing that everyone should make the choice we did.  (I'm not sure I'm arguing at all...)  We are past the schools and jobs decision, and that frees us up as re: location and even size of house (as we do think our son will eventually move out--scowl).  

 

We also had to choose to live in a neighborhood that was downscale from where we lived or where we could have lived, farther away, and in a house that is of lower quality than we had (have always had).  Ironically, we have the BEST neighbors ever, and that makes up for a lot.  :0)    Retirement decisions are different from family-life decisions.  

 

I will be interested to see how it plays out, this aging baby-boom.  Safeway was just bought out, and one of the things I read in the stories about that is that the Gigantic Supermarket Model is dying...that people are flocking to smaller, neighborhood, focused stores, like Trader Joe's.  It is possible that we will see the Safeway shopping centers become a mini-mall of smaller grocery, clothing, shoe repair, pharmacy, Hallmark, a PO, specialty shops, possible even with some high-density housing surrounding it...  It's going to be an interesting few years to watch.  If I were into housing speculation, I'd be buying one-level houses on small lots near bus lines and these clusters of shopping and medical care.

 

It sounds like churches are facing the same situation as a lot of people.  I don't think that suburban communities have to die out--I just think that they should concentrate their schools, their stores, their churches, parks, libraries, farmers' markets, entertainment districts, restaurants, and so forth, in a more centralized hub and spoke combination.  It would help them build and maintain more of their own identity, and it means that people of all walks of life get to rub elbows at lot more on their way walking, or bicycling or whatever to church or the grocery market or whatever, KWIM? 

 

I'm not even sure I believe anymore (see the atheist thread!), but one thing I appreciate churches, mosques, synagogues, and other houses of worship for are the aesthetics it brings to a community.  When they are all spread out, one stuck here on this boulevard, and another in the warehouse district, and another on the other end of town, it means that far fewer people get to appreciate these places, or even really notice them.

 

 

[JonesinIndiana]

Contrary to my name, I live in a popular state to retire in. I don't like the beach, sand, or hot, humid weather but like a lot of people, we are stuck due to DH's job and my limits on making money in other states. I would like to stay near my children but I would LOVELOVELOVE to spend the summers in either Colorado (doubtful due to $$$) or Maine, which is a more reasonable choice $ wise.

 

Fun thread!

[Lanny]

We like Belize, but violence against Americans is on the rise. So we are considering Guatamala. But, this is about 12 years off yet, so things can change quite a bit in that time.

 

We'll also look at Jamaica, Panama City, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, and a few other locations none of which are in the U.S. We hope to retire abroad, but it is difficult to say if we will be able to do so.

 

You are correct about Belize. I know an American who retired there. They lived in a very rural area. His house was burned down (Arson). 

 

With regard to Costa Rica, you should look into the Crime situation there (as well as everywhere else you might consider!) and at the Corruption, very carefully.

 

My impression is that it is NOT a good idea to settle in an area where there are a lot of Americans and other foreigners who are retired. Some of the crime committed against them is by other foreigners...  And, they drive the costs up...

 

My advice would be to visit any place(s) you might consider, many times, at different times of the year if it is an area not near the Equator.

 

I moved to Cali, Colombia 19 years ago and am very happy with that decision. I had planned to move to Mexico and I also made 2 trips to Venezuela (in 1991) thinking it might be a good alternate to Mexico. I thank God that I did not move to Venezuela and because of the horrible violence in Mexico, during recent years, am also glad I did not move to Mexico.  

 

I have friends in the Dominican Republic (my favorite singer lives there) and my understanding is that there is a lot of crime there and that the traffic is horrible.  

 

Panama is probably quite expensive (for Latin America) because of the U.S. Dollar and the high number of foreigners who live there drive the costs up.

 

Puerto Rico has a lot of crime (it has the best things and the worst things of the USA) and is in a serious recession, but it is affiliated with the USA and that would make living there very easy. I know people who live there. I know one man (his wife is from Cali, Colombia) who lived there and then they sold their house in P.R. and built a home in Florida. He told me that was the worst mistake he'd made during his life.

 

LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP and good luck with your choice! 

[Lanny]

I can't remember if I've mentioned this to you before: lots of Brits moved to Spain, where their retirement income would go farther.  Then Spain developed economically and became as expensive as Britain.  Meanwhile, they had sold their UK houses and couldn't afford to move back into the kind of lifestyle they had had previously.

 

We decided that we didn't want to retire overseas: when we are old and possibly ill, we would like the security of a familiar culture and language around us.  We've dealt with illness overseas and it's not fun, even with the best facilities.

 

L

 

Spain has had horrible problems, for the past few years. We know a couple here (they are from Spain) who gave up what they had in Spain and moved to Cali, Colombia, to begin a new life. I know her from a web forum for my favorite singer. 

 

Many Colombians who had moved to Spain, hoping to improve their lives, during the 19 years I have lived in Colombia, have moved back to Colombia or are desperately trying to move back here. 

 

There are also problems with crime in Spain, from foreigners who also live in an E.U. country.

 

One thing in your favor Laura is that the British Pound is much stronger than the U.S. Dollar.

 

Two things U.S. Citizens must take into consideration:

(1) The U.S. Dollar has been very weak for many years and  if you live outside the USA that will affect your purchasing power. It has killed us, financially.

(2) The USA is one of 2 countries in the world (the other is a country in Africa) that taxes it's citizens based on their citizenship and not on their residency. The ACA  (American Citizens Abroad) and other groups are trying to get the law changed, so that we are taxed on our residency and not because of our citizenship.

 

I know a Brit who is retired in the Philippines, but he does not trust the doctors there and he goes to Thailand for a major medical checkup every year or two. 

 

I would NEVER suggest to anyone that they consider moving to a place where they do not have complete confidence in the doctors and hospitals there. 

[PrincessMommy]

Ok, with the understanding that I'm working on the premise of rapidly dwindling oil fields the world over, and the advent of much more expensively obtained oil from deep sea drilling, etc. :

 

 

Not doomed if it's within 30 minutes of walking/ biking/ public transit.  I'm talking about the difficulty faced when gasoline costs $6, $9, $12/gallon.  Some people will be able to afford paying that to drive to places not immediately close to their homes.  Cars aren't doomed to only ever run on gasoline, but in the 10 to 15 year transition when people are hitting that huge spike, and the demand for alternate fueled vehicles far outstrips the ability of auto manufacturers and cities to build and supply energy stations for them, there will be some growing pains.  At that point, I don't think it would be feasible for most people to drive 25+ minutes every day to work, school, and to church on the weekends.  Right now, a lot of of people are already feeling the pain of high fuel prices, and are seeking well-designed communities that favor other modes of transportation than just personal vehicle, and which place the "life" of a community within a relatively small area, so that folks aren't having to drive 6 different directions for things like shopping, schools, etc.  It's that demand that's got homes and downtown condos and apartments already too pricey for a lot of people, which I think sucks.

 

I'm not saying that the church that's 30 min away is going to cease being an option.  I'm saying that the church may lose folks who are further away, yet find a stream of new locals who need an option closer to home. 

 

 

One of the reasons we moved where we were 2.5yrs ago was because of peak Oil.  My dh spent many years studying this and we opted to a more central house closer to main roads and public transit.  Then fracking... and now according to my dh, peak oil has been pushed back probably for most of our life-time.  I'm not sure we'll see gas prices that high anytime soon.  For better or for worse is up for debate (and another thread), but fracking has contributed positively to the peak oil issue.

[creekland]

In an ideal world, Hawaii would be my chice without a doubt. But of course family obligations change a lot of things.

 

If it weren't so far away from everything else, HI would definitely be our #1 choice.  We do plan to travel there.

 

[Jenny in Florida]

I doubt I will "retire" in any traditional way. Having been out of the wage-earning world for so long, and with college tuition and loans for two kids to pay off, I have some work time to make up for in my future. 

 

If it were possible once the time comes for my husband to retire from full-time work, my dream would be to live within easy commuting distance of NYC. It's my favorite place on the earth, and it is likely that one or both of our kids will be based there. 

[Pawz4me]

DH and I toy around with the idea of retiring to Belize or Costa Rica.  But in truth I don't think it would be right for me.  I really don't want to have to adapt to another culture, and I don't want to be that far away from the boys.  I think it's likely we'll stay right here (NC).  We'll eventually downsize the house, but may consider getting a bit more land.  As long as our health holds out we'll probably RV quite a bit.  A trip to Alaska is definitely on the bucket list, and I can easily envision us heading somewhere cooler and less humid each July and August.

[plumshadow]

Probably our last duty station. We've already moved 5 times in the last 8 1/2 years by the time retirement comes we will probably opt to just stay put so I pray it isn't someplace crappy.

 

 

 

 

ETA But right now I'd love to move back to VA we had a pretty chill life there.

[Momof3littles]

Somewhere with a lower COL, lots of cultural events, but affordable property out in the country.  Off the top of my head, I'd love to be in a college town (love Chapel Hill for example).  DH may ease into retirement through consulting by that point, as his profession is one that would lend itself to that being an option.  As a result, being somewhat near an airport would be nice, particularly one that isn't overwhelmingly large or in an area with horrid traffic.

[JennyD]

I believe that DH intends to work until they carry him out of his office in a pine box, so we may be here in TN for the duration.  Otherwise, I'd love to be near our kids, wherever they wind up.  

 

If we had just gobs of money, I'd want to move back to NYC.  I can't imagine a better place to be old.

 

 

[mom31257]

We've never even talked about it, but dh may know after what I told him tonight. I took dd to visit a small Christian college in Franklin Springs, GA (north east of Athens). In the paperwork they gave us, there was a list of scholarships. Senior citizens get free tuition. Dh would definitely be up for retiring where he could go to school. 

 

 

[foxbridgeacademy]

We joke that we'll be retiring in separate places.  Me at the beach, him in the mountains.... but I usually win, don't see why that would change just because we're older.

 

If DH retires, we'll probably sell everything and buy an RV.  Travel the U.S. for awhile.  Then move near which ever of our children lives the furthest South (of the Mason Dixon preferably).  We just moved back to the Midwest and after last winter are so very over the Cold and the Wet.  

[Alice]

In reality, it will probably depend somewhat on where our kids end up. 

 

I see dh and I as being people who retire and move into a smaller place in a city rather than people who move out to the country. I'd be ok where we are (DC suburbs) but I'd prefer to be in the city or in the closer in suburbs where we could live without a car. 

 

Our closest friends dream of retiring to a farm one day so we like to say we can then visit them and they can visit us and we can enjoy the different lifestyles. :) 

[Laura Corin]

 

I would NEVER suggest to anyone that they consider moving to a place where they do not have complete confidence in the doctors and hospitals there. 

 

It's not just trusting the doctors and hospitals.  It's being a long way from 'home', feeling old and vulnerable.  My mother, living in her own country, is increasingly fearful as she gets older.  I can't imagine how scared she would be overseas.  She just feels frail and vulnerable.

 

I lived overseas for most of my adult life and loved it, but wouldn't want to be old away from home.  YMMV.

 

L

[Elfknitter.#]

In the perfect world? In a cottage on the west coast of Ireland.

 

Reality? Wherever I am working when I hit retirement age.

 

I wouldn't mind having a tiny home or treehouse by then. :)

[FaithManor]

I know a Brit who is retired in the Philippines, but he does not trust the doctors there and he goes to Thailand for a major medical checkup every year or two. I would NEVER suggest to anyone that they consider moving to a place where they do not have complete confidence in the doctors and hospitals there.

That's very interesting. I have zero confidence in the medical system here. I struggled for years with an easy to diagnose and treat illness that 13 m.d.'s refused to order tests for and ended up with a doctor in Egypt with practicing privileges in the states diagnosing and prescribing treatment in three days. The same doctor was the one that ordered treatment for dh when we found an engorged tick on him and the classic bullseye rash on his neck. Standard party line "Lyme's is not prevalent in Michigan". Our neighbor died of complications from lyme's and I'm pretty sure it was because his insurance didn't want to pay. Since insurance makes life and death decisions for you and our medical system does not stand up for the patient, I have no confidence that 15 years from now retirees will have much for medical care anyway. The rich who can pay large amounts of cash up front will have good care and everyone else will have the paltry bones tossed to them by the insurance industry while they continue to rake in billions in ever increasing premiums.

 

My brother supposedly has good insurance. He was hospitalized last week for a mid heart attack, was given a primitive level of care and turfed after 24 hrs. He was not stable. But, then again if the insurance won't pay and the docs send him home too die, it's a win for insurance. Once a customer has something go wrong, it's preferable to kill them than provide care. 19 years of paying thousands of dollars annually to this system, paying out of pocket large deductibles and never meeting them so the scum bag company never had to pay a dime, and at the first sign of trouble, collude with the doctors to send you home to wait to die! Nice racket.

 

I'm watching a local family go bankrupt with insurance over cancer that was treatable when caught, but the insurance company refused to pay for anything and without that guarantee of money, there is no access to care. By the time the lawyer had shaken out the scum bag company, the cancer spread. They are losing their house, car, furniture, everything trying to cover the lawyer fees and disallowed expenses which is pretty much anything the insurance decides on a whim not to pay. The dad is going to die, the mom and kids will be penniless, and based on last year's income taxes, they will not qualify for assistance or medicaid until 2015. So the added bonus is the widow will have to come up with moneyto pay the fine for being uninsured since she is losing her job and insurance due to the amount of time she has had to take off from work to take care of sick hubby and deal with the legal problems. No family leave act, she works for a business that only employs 27 people.

 

No confidence in health care at all as long as for profit, corrupt insurance companies are making the decisions for me.

[Aelwydd]

One of the reasons we moved where we were 2.5yrs ago was because of peak Oil.  My dh spent many years studying this and we opted to a more central house closer to main roads and public transit.  Then fracking... and now according to my dh, peak oil has been pushed back probably for most of our life-time.  I'm not sure we'll see gas prices that high anytime soon.  For better or for worse is up for debate (and another thread), but fracking has contributed positively to the peak oil issue.

 

You know, I read that with equal parts hope and dread.  On one hand, I don't want to run head long into the brave new world that peak oil would give birth to.  In that respect, the natural gas boom has been a boon. On the other, increased noxious chemicals and carcinogens in our air, and leaking contaminated water from those gas drills into the soil, the earthquakes spawned by the fracking, and the rising concerns about compromised underground water tables---eh, six of one, half dozen of another?

 

Maybe we just need to face the music and realize that it's really stupid and short sighted to draw out the inevitable, in some adolescent stubbornness to live for the moment, and use up the fresh water our grand children will need in an effort to keep our love affair with our cars, cheap energy, and disposable lifestyle.

 

This brings me to the original question of the thread: where I want to retire is preferably somewhere where my family has access to good health care, affordable housing, affordable food, clean water and environment.

 

I'm not that optimistic!

[Aelwydd]

That's very interesting. I have zero confidence in the medical system here. I struggled for years with an easy to diagnose and treat illness that 13 m.d.'s refused to order tests for and ended up with a doctor in Egypt with practicing privileges in the states diagnosing and prescribing treatment in three days. The same doctor was the one that ordered treatment for dh when we found an engorged tick on him and the classic bullseye rash on his neck. Standard party line "Lyme's is not prevalent in Michigan". Our neighbor died of complications from lyme's and I'm pretty sure it was because his insurance didn't want to pay. Since insurance makes life and death decisions for you and our medical system does not stand up for the patient, I have no confidence that 15 years from now retirees will have much for medical care anyway. The rich who can pay large amounts of cash up front will have good care and everyone else will have the paltry bones tossed to them by the insurance industry while they continue to rake in billions in ever increasing premiums.

 

My brother supposedly has good insurance. He was hospitalized last week for a mid heart attack, was given a primitive level of care and turfed after 24 hrs. He was not stable. But, then again if the insurance won't pay and the docs send him home too die, it's a win for insurance. Once a customer has something go wrong, it's preferable to kill them than provide care. 19 years of paying thousands of dollars annually to this system, paying out of pocket large deductibles and never meeting them so the scum bag company never had to pay a dime, and at the first sign of trouble, collude with the doctors to send you home to wait to die! Nice racket.

 

I'm watching a local family go bankrupt with insurance over cancer that was treatable when caught, but the insurance company refused to pay for anything and without that guarantee of money, there is no access to care. By the time the lawyer had shaken out the scum bag company, the cancer spread. They are losing their house, car, furniture, everything trying to cover the lawyer fees and disallowed expenses which is pretty much anything the insurance decides on a whim not to pay. The dad is going to die, the mom and kids will be penniless, and based on last year's income taxes, they will not qualify for assistance or medicaid until 2015. So the added bonus is the widow will have to come up with moneyto pay the fine for being uninsured since she is losing her job and insurance due to the amount of time she has had to take off from work to take care of sick hubby and deal with the legal problems. No family leave act, she works for a business that only employs 27 people.

 

No confidence in health care at all as long as for profit, corrupt insurance companies are making the decisions for me.

 

Yep.  I could add about 10 more stories of my own to demonstrate how truly capricious the US health system is. The really marvelous technology, and some of the most brilliant physicians live in work in this country.

 

Doesn't mean most of us can access that health care system!  I think of it as the different classes of seating on a commercial airliner.  In the very front, the most expensive, and the section with the fewest seats, get the best food, the most attention, and most comfort. 

 

Right behind them, you have the business class.  Slightly larger number of seats, but still limited.  These folks enjoy a much higher quality of comfort and entertainment options, food and drink, than the poor souls in steerage--I mean economy.

 

Then you have economy.  'Nuff said.

 

 

In the US, if you are fortunate enough to be able to afford to access the "first class" tier of physicians, specialists, hospitals, and so forth, I'm sure your experience will far exceed that of most people in the world.

 

Most of us aren't getting that.  Most of us are getting "economy" which is, frankly, a haphazard system full of loopholes and dropped balls. You get the doctors who are struggling to make up for incredibly expensive malpractice premiums and reduced insurance payments and increased staff wages by piling in as many patients as they can.  You get hospital staff who are overwhelmed by 15 other patients besides you, and more always streaming in.

 

 

My undergrad is in Public Health, so I am all about objective measures of health care.  When I consider what places would be good to retire in, I don't waste my time comparing First Class American care to Canadian, European, South American, Asian systems, etc.  That would be pointless, and well, stupid.  Even with a "great" health plan now, it gets me, at best, sometimes Business Class.  And when I retire, I won't be keeping that ticket.  I'll be on Medicare.

 

So, I like to compare apples to apples. And I look at how Medicare provides for its seniors, versus how Canada's system provides for theirs, and so on. 

 

There are no perfect health systems out there.

 

But, more accessible?  More affordable? Offering quality care?  Let me count the ways.