As we near retirement we get a lot more interested in exactly what to expect from Medicare. Unfortunately, as great as it is Medicare is only good for about 80% of your medical bills. For this reason most retirees opt for a supplement policy called Medigap to protect them from a long term illness that could really hurt the saving account. Luckily, it is regulated by the government and the cost is very low. Here is some great information on the subject, and they are not trying to sell you insurance.
www.medigapcost.com

I am hoping this changes a bit by the time I have to make a decision on supplemental coverage for Medicare.

There is just so much to absorb!

Meanwhile, here's a link from Medicare.gov that allows you to put in your ZIP code and find a Medigap policy in your geographic area.

Although this is an older thread, it is always a topic of interest.

You CANNOT count on Medicare paying 80% of your healthcare costs. The 80% figure is based on what they pay for the costs they actually pick up. There are many costs they DO NOT pay, such as:

- dental
- vision
- prescriptions (that's what Part D is for)
- emergency transportation such as ambulances or paramedical
- long term care
- home healthcare

In reality, studies have shown that Medicare pays about 51-60% of TOTAL healthcare costs for seniors. So everyone, especially women since they live longer on average, needs to budget properly to cover all or most of their potential healthcare costs as they age.

Good point, Jakkom, And good to see you back here!

The teleseminar call I did last night with Pamela Sams was very instructional with regard to this topic. Pam spent a lot of time talking about the need to budget for healthcare in retirement. She referred to a recent Fidelity report that says that a 65-year old couple who plans to retire in 2012 needs an additional $240,000 over their projected lifetimes, to cover out-of-pocket costs not covered by Medicare.

This figure shocked me, but apparently it's been hanging around in that vicinity for a number of years according to an article I found about this topic that was published in US News and World Report in May 2012.

Another more recent article, published in October in the New York Times says:

As I'm young enough not to qualify for Medicare, I have never really looked into it. But it seems we really need to plan for the ability to manage significant healthcare expenses in retirement.

How to do that is something I'm still working on... Meanwhile, if anyone reading this post would like me to upload a link to the recording of Thursday's teleseminar, let me know. Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, it hasn't yet been published on the NABBW site.

Anne, I'd like to see it, if possible. If we need that much savings for health care, I'm sure we'd wither away!

Here's a link to the NABBW teleseminar replay page.

I was in shock that she says couples retiring today at age 65 will need that much -- but she was referencing a report that's just recently been published by Fidelity.

The link above is to an article analyzing the report that was recently published in US News and World Report, but here's a link to the actual Fidelity study.

I don't currently have an extra $250K lying around that I can put towards this, and I doubt too many people do. So you can see why Pam Sams says on the call that we all need to plan to work as long as possible, so we can remain on our employer's healthcare insurance.

But as for me, being as I AM the employer, I guess it just means I have to plan to work until I'm at least 70... and while I'm at it, keeping building up my fund.