# It'll now cost a 65 year old couple $275,000 to cover their medical costs in retirement (in America) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 9, 2017, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944 "2017-09-09T21:07:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2017, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/1 "2017-09-09T21:07:43Z")
Thats great. If the inflation rate of consumer medical costs are 6%, that means in 10-11 years it’ll be half a million. > **[Health-care costs could eat up retirement funds, forecast shows](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/health-care-costs-couldeat-up-retirement-funds-forecast-shows/)** > > A 65-year-old couple retiring this year will need $275,000 to cover health-care costs throughout retirement, Fidelity Investments calculated in its annual cost estimate. That figure is the medical costs not covered by medicare. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2017, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/2 "2017-09-09T22:25:07Z")
There should be criminal penalties for this sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2017, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/3 "2017-09-10T00:32:28Z")
An amazing number to be sure but not surprising to me. My wife and I are retired and in good health. Including twice annual dental exams, we spend $732/month for Medicare premiums, MediGap, Part D and LTC premiums. Doing the math for a 25 year retirement, that is a bit less than $220,000 - and does not include any co-pays, serious dental work, eyeglasses etc. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2017, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/4 "2017-09-10T06:24:49Z")
No where in the article does it give life expectancy leading to this number. If it is 25 years, it would be a bit over $5,000 a year per person, not counting inflation, which sounds a lot better. Especially for someone like me who paid a lot more than that for good COBRA coverage before going on Medicare. Part if Fidelity (and other finance companies) marketing strategy is to scare the crap out of people so they’ll put more money into their funds for retirement. Not that most people shouldn’t do this, but if you run their calculators you always lose. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2017, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/5 "2017-09-10T14:03:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > No where in the article does it give life expectancy leading to this number. If it is 25 years, it would be a bit over $5,000 a year per person, not counting inflation, which sounds a lot better. Especially for someone like me who paid a lot more than that for good COBRA coverage before going on Medicare. > > Part if Fidelity (and other finance companies) marketing strategy is to scare the crap out of people so they’ll put more money into their funds for retirement. Not that most people shouldn’t do this, but if you run their calculators you always lose. Life expectancy at 65 is about 19 years, about $600 per person per month. However the numbers are going to keep going up. Even with medicare, medical costs of $1000 per person per month are not far off. That isn’t sustainable. I know retired people who spend less than 1k a month on housing, food, utilities and transportation combined. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2017, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/6 "2017-09-10T14:47:46Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > An amazing number to be sure but not surprising to me. My wife and I are retired and in good health. Including twice annual dental exams, we spend $732/month for Medicare premiums, MediGap, Part D and LTC premiums.n $220,000 - and does not include any co-pays, serious dental work, eyeglasses etc. As a self-employed individual, I pay about $1100/month for health insurance (and that does not included dental). That’s just for me. Assuming I get half the savings of one part of the couple, I will be thrilled to see my premium reduced by ~$550/month in a few years when I reach Medicare age. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2017, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/7 "2017-09-10T16:01:10Z")
I’m sure all Dopers living in countries with UHC are simply astounded by these figures. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/8 "2017-09-10T16:09:20Z")
It’s like reading a thread about getting in line at the market early before all the toilet paper is gone. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/9 "2017-09-10T16:57:38Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I’m sure all Dopers living in countries with UHC are simply astounded by these figures. That depends on the country. In [Germany](http://www.deutsche-rentenversicherung.de/Allgemein/en/Navigation/03_leistungen/05_kvdr/kvdr_node.html), roughly 15% of your pension(s) (split between pensioner and provider) goes towards health insurance. Other European countries are similar but the U.K. with the NHS is very different. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/10 "2017-09-11T01:36:49Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > That depends on the country. In [Germany](http://www.deutsche-rentenversicherung.de/Allgemein/en/Navigation/03_leistungen/05_kvdr/kvdr_node.html), roughly 15% of your pension(s) (split between pensioner and provider) goes towards health insurance. Other European countries are similar but the U.K. with the NHS is very different. Yeah but people over 65 in the US get medicare, which is a single payer program that covers the elderly. However health care is so overpriced in America that medicare recipients will need about 140k per person to cover medical costs not covered by medicare in retirement. And that number will grow. Even people covered by single payer in America are having serious trouble affording health care. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/11 "2017-09-11T07:07:59Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > That depends on the country. In [Germany](http://www.deutsche-rentenversicherung.de/Allgemein/en/Navigation/03_leistungen/05_kvdr/kvdr_node.html), roughly 15% of your pension(s) (split between pensioner and provider) goes towards health insurance. Other European countries are similar but the U.K. with the NHS is very different. But in pretty much every UHC country in Europe you care to mention this is all means-tested. i.e. If you can’t work or have very little money then you contribute very little or nothing and yet still receive the same standard of care. That’s pretty much the definition of “universal”. There is no real concept of having to “save” for your retirement healthcare. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/12 "2017-09-11T11:44:06Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I’m sure all Dopers living in countries with UHC are simply astounded by these figures. Yes indeed. Here in the UK I’m 64. I don’t have to pay for (having paid earlier in taxes as National Insurance): - appointments with the doctor - a recent lengthy series of hospital tests for bowel cancer (which thankfully proved negative) ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/13 "2017-09-11T13:04:54Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I’m sure all Dopers living in countries with UHC are simply astounded by these figures. > [@glee](#): > > Yes indeed. > Here in the UK I’m 64. > I don’t have to pay for (having paid earlier in taxes as National Insurance): Okay, but you had to pay taxes. You still do pay taxes; perhaps as a retiree you pay fewer taxes, but you’re still paying a variety of taxes. In the last year I can find figures for, FY 2014, the UK spent 180 billion pounds on the NHS, which converting to U.S. dollars is about $4000 a head, give or take, for every man, woman and child. That’s a hell of a lot of money. Of course, 1. It’s inherently means-tested; rich people pay more, and 2. It’s still less than the USA. In Ontario, where I live, the per person health care spending figure is actually less than the UK, about $3100 per person, but it’s not totally comprehensive; you need drug plans, dental plans, and the like, so I suspect the total figure is about the same. It’s not that far off U.S. insurance rates. Where Americans are getting ripped off is that they have to pay for private insurance _and they’re still paying a fortune in tax for health care._ In 2015, U.S. spending on its two primary UHI programs, Medicare (old people) and Medicaid (poor people) was $1.2 trillion, about $3600 per person - roughly the same amount Britons and Canadians pay in taxes, and yet it only covers old people and poor people and then not very comprehensively. ---
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/14 "2017-09-11T13:23:52Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Yeah but people over 65 in the US get medicare, which is a single payer program that covers the elderly. > > However health care is so overpriced in America that medicare recipients will need about 140k per person to cover medical costs not covered by medicare in retirement. > > And that number will grow. Even people covered by single payer in America are having serious trouble affording health care. Sorry, I don’t follow one statement – What do you mean by “single payer”? We don’t have that. Medicare? Medicare is in desperate need of an overhaul; it was created and conceived when medical care was much less sophisticated, and thus costs were lower. A deductible and 20% of the allowed amount wasn’t bad back in the 1960s. Medications weren’t as expensive. Today? I’d never go on traditional Medicare myself (and I worked for them for 15 years). I’d join a Medicare Advantage plan. They work like PPOs or HMOs; one has copays, not “in-network, you pay 20% of the allowed amount after deductible”; and a person isn’t reamed if they need inpatient care. Most of these plans also cover medications; some cover vision. _By law, these plans must provide at least the same coverage as traditional FFS Medicare._ If my parents didn’t have the equivalent of a retiree AMEX black card (Medicare plus federal retiree Blue Cross benefits), I’d encourage them to get an Advantage plan. ---
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/15 "2017-09-11T13:32:34Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > But in pretty much every UHC country in Europe you care to mention this is all means-tested. i.e. If you can’t work or have very little money then you contribute very little or nothing and yet still receive the same standard of care. That’s pretty much the definition of “universal”. > There is no real concept of having to “save” for your retirement healthcare. We can’t have nice things like that in Dog’s Own Murka because a very vocal (and ill-educated) portion of the populace believes that UHC is SOCIALLLIZZZZZM!!! Their confused minds think that socialism = fascist totalitarian leftist rule, and that Obama will take their guns away when they’re sedated during their free UHC colonoscopy. Or something. I did recently see a report stating that something like 2/3 of Americans now support some kind of UHC, which gives me hope. I hope we can vote out the politicians who are holding us back from UHC damn quick, not least because I really don’t want to have to worry about being 55, unemployed, _ **and** _ without health insurance. I already get taxed out the arse for not having kids and for not owning a home and for having a good job. I’d prefer it to go to helping people instead of lining Halliburton’s pockets. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/16 "2017-09-11T14:00:55Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I’m sure all Dopers living in countries with UHC are simply astounded by these figures. No actually astounded, because I’ve been aware of such numbers for quite a while. I think a better word would be “appalled”. > [@RickJay](#): > > In Ontario, where I live, the per person health care spending figure is actually less than the UK, about $3100 per person, but it’s not totally comprehensive; you need drug plans, dental plans, and the like, so I suspect the total figure is about the same. It’s not that far off U.S. insurance rates. It is pretty far off, though. [See post #6.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20469407&postcount=6) My American relatives are paying even more. Combined public and private spending per capita is [twice as much in the US as it is in Canada overall](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg). I think you’re about right about the $3100, which is about the same Canada-wide, but notice how US public spending _ **alone** _ is way more than that, and private spending of around $4500 doubles the total to a staggering $9000 per capita. But I think the only way to conclude that the $3100 is not far off private insurance costs is to factor in a lot of low-grade policies with poor coverage and very high deductibles. The thing about the $3100 in Ontario is that the health care you get is pretty comprehensive with essentially zero out-of-pocket costs, except for dental. It’s true that prescription drugs aren’t covered, but virtually every employed person gets that covered through a minimal cheap supplementary plan, and retirees are covered by a public drug plan. As a retired person I basically have no health care costs at all. > [@RickJay](#): > > Where Americans are getting ripped off is that they have to pay for private insurance _and they’re still paying a fortune in tax for health care._ In 2015, U.S. spending on its two primary UHI programs, Medicare (old people) and Medicaid (poor people) was $1.2 trillion, about $3600 per person - roughly the same amount Britons and Canadians pay in taxes, and yet it only covers old people and poor people and then not very comprehensively. Agreed. This is a big part of the problem. The whole private insurance fiasco is a two-pronged problem. Prong #1 is that it’s inherently more expensive because of very high administrative costs, and this is prong #2 – that it’s almost impossible to control costs within the health care system itself, and there are extreme inefficiencies due to things like EMTALA that make it even worse. Thus, the government itself and public tax dollars are caught up in the mess, due to programs like ACA subsidies, Medicare, and Medicaid, while the average citizen has to pay for all this while also personally getting gouged on insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/17 "2017-09-11T16:36:43Z")
> [@glee](#): > > Yes indeed. > Here in the UK I’m 64. > I don’t have to pay for (having paid earlier in taxes as National Insurance): > > - appointments with the doctor > - a recent lengthy series of hospital tests for bowel cancer (which thankfully proved negative) I’m in the Good Old U. S. of A. I don’t _have to_ pay for anything. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/18 "2017-09-11T16:51:00Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No actually astounded, because I’ve been aware of such numbers for quite a while. I think a better word would be “appalled”. You know, I think you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/19 "2017-09-11T18:07:14Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > I’m in the Good Old U. S. of A. > > I don’t _have to_ pay for anything. So your plan is, that if you get sick, you’ll just head to the hospital and let someone else pick up the tab? Or what? ---
**Author:** ![fervour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@fervour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fervour)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2017, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944/20 "2017-09-11T18:23:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > As a self-employed individual, I pay about $1100/month for health insurance (and that does not included dental). That’s just for me. Assuming I get half the savings of one part of the couple, I will be thrilled to see my premium reduced by ~$550/month in a few years when I reach Medicare age. HaHaHa! I’m checking out when I can no longer do this. 14.5 billion years happened before me. 5 billion will happen before the sun goes red giant. What’s a billion years between friends? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itll-now-cost-a-65-year-old-couple-275-000-to-cover-their-medical-costs-in-retirement-in-america/795944.md?page=2)