Rather macabre but necessary question

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills.
dolphinsaremammals
Posts: 2094
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by dolphinsaremammals »

plnelson wrote: Totally off-topic, and speaking of women: my late wife fought a heroic battle with cancer for 4-1/2 years and I was always there holding her hand. I have no one to hold my hand now and I'd love to be in a relationship again. I JUST started dating again, using Match.com. I went on 2 wonderful, fantastic first dates over the Labor day weekend. And now this. If you think financial planning is hard with a terminal illness, just imagine trying to start a serious relationship.

Life is not boring.
There are other possibilities as well, perhaps - relatives, good friends, neighbors, church.
AddingUp
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:12 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by AddingUp »

plnelson wrote:Totally off-topic, and speaking of women: my late wife fought a heroic battle with cancer for 4-1/2 years and I was always there holding her hand. I have no one to hold my hand now and I'd love to be in a relationship again. I JUST started dating again, using Match.com. I went on 2 wonderful, fantastic first dates over the Labor day weekend. And now this. If you think financial planning is hard with a terminal illness, just imagine trying to start a serious relationship.

I'd suggest getting a second or even third opinion as you continue to date these women and others. I assume you haven't mentioned your illness to them at this early stage of knowing them. If, at some point, you decide to share this part of your life story, at least you'll know which ones really care about you. Similar to not disclosing net worth so quickly when meeting/dating.

Sorry to hear the news. I really hope it's not so dire.
User avatar
dodecahedron
Posts: 6607
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:28 am

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by dodecahedron »

If you stop working (or even just cut back drastically), you can collect Social Security survivor benefits on your late wife's work record right now and let your own grow until they hit their max at age 70. (You don't need to wait until 62 and you don't need to cut into your own work-record benefits, which I are likely higher.) I also like the suggestion of checking into the possibility of a medically underwritten annuity.

Very sorry for your loss of your wife and now this distressing diagnosis. Sometimes life is just so terribly unfair. I wish you all good things and that it turns out you happily enjoy many years of Social Security and possibly an annuity after you enjoy some fun adventures.
User avatar
celia
Posts: 16774
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by celia »

plnelson wrote:But since several people have suggested going after SS early could someone explain why?
The break even point for obtaining the largest benefit is around 78 years. That means that at that age you will have received about the same cumulative amount if you had started at age 62 (16 years earlier, but a smaller monthly amount) or at age 70 (8 years earlier, but a higher monthly amount). The two extremes are if you knew you would live past 78, the higher monthly benefit would be better and if you knew you were going to die before age 70, the up-to-8 years of smaller benefits is better than not receiving anything.

Of course you can pick an age in between them. We all have this choice but some of us feel like there's no reason we won't make it to age 78, so let's start collecting the high benefit at age 70.

According to actuarial tables, the break even point should also be the life expectancy for the average person who lives to age 62. Even though we prepare to live well past that, some of us won't. However, our spouses and children may benefit from SS after we die.
A dollar in Roth is worth more than a dollar in a taxable account. A dollar in taxable is worth more than a dollar in a tax-deferred account.
Herekittykitty
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:11 pm
Location: Flyover Country

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by Herekittykitty »

As you say, at the age of 61, you "recently" were told you have a diagnosis, which being of scientific mind you looked up in the medical literature. Just as you were getting on with your life, and meeting women and seeing the possibilities of life after loss.

As you know, the course of the condition as well as life expectancy vary. Maybe you have a few years, maybe you have a couple of decades. Bearing in mind that not only is medicine advancing - the rate of advancement is increasing. So who knows. Maybe you will live a normal life span and maybe you will forget to look both ways before you cross the train tracks tomorrow.

By the way - my mother married for the second time in her 60s to a widower she had dated in high school. He had a medical condition with a prognosis of less than a year. They had a wonderful, happy marriage for the 7 years that he lived.

I would strongly encourage you to wait awhile to make any decisions whatever. I would get a good counselor to vent about this, help me think logically, and help me come to terms with this and to grieve all that it means to me. In fact, a person receiving any difficult diagnosis might not be far off if they looked at their ensuing emotions as a grief process. I would be checking with my doctor to see if he/she had recommendations for a therapist, or if not, then doing my own research and finding myself a good one, and I would be calling to make that appointment by day after tomorrow. I would consider it insurance against doing something stupid and impulsive that couldn't be reversed. It is especially important because you don't have a spouse or close family to help you clear your head right now.

I might take a leave from work for a couple of weeks - not much longer for now.

I would get the best second and possibly third opinion I could get regarding diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. You can afford it.

If I wanted to keep meeting women and dating and I would do it. If you were going to depart within a few months, I would say you should tell them up front. But that is not the case. You are saying you might depart in a few years; apparently though, you might not. Well, you wanted to be blunt so here it is: It is hardly a news flash that a man in his 60s might depart in a few years. Or might not. It is not unfair to a woman for you to keep your medical condition to yourself until you are getting to the point of commitment on both people's parts.

I would definitely keep my financial situation to myself until at the point of commitment on both people's parts.

Frankly, it is just too soon after receiving the diagnosis and you just don't have enough information (in the absence of a second opinion - at a top institution specializing in the condition) to be making irreversible decisions.

At some point you will have done your grieving, your head will be clear, you will have more information, and then you can start whooping it up at a rate that the numbers support and that feels right.

Best wishes.

(Oh - yes, I know that none of what I said answers the questions you asked. But I hope some of what I said is useful.)
I don't know anything.
User avatar
market timer
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:42 am

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by market timer »

Agree with those who suggest taking SS early. Your insurance against living longer is simply the fact that you don't have to draw down as much from your nest egg. Anyone with shorter than average life expectancy should opt for early SS.

I'll just add one thing to consider, as a recent retiree. Having a job keeps you distracted from many concerns, such as thoughts of death. There is some value in that. My wife and I recently received some bad medical news as well, and I'm spending way too much time thinking about it.
User avatar
joe8d
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: Buffalo,NY

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by joe8d »

ralph124cf wrote:Do you like your job enough that you look forward to going to work? Some people are lucky enough to be in that position, and if you are one of them there is no reason to quit. Perhaps you could arrange for part time work that would give you enough time for extended vacations.

Ralph
+1 and if you do decide to retire, take SS immediately.
All the Best, | Joe
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95696
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by LadyGeek »

This is a very sensitive discussion, but we need to be careful about giving medical advice. I removed one comment to that effect. See: Forum Policy
Medical Issues

Questions on medical issues are beyond the scope of the forum. If you are looking for medical information online, I'd like to suggest you start with the Medical Library Association's User's Guide to Finding and Evaluating Health Information on the Web which, in addition to providing guidance on evaluating health information, includes lists of their top recommended sites in the following categories: consumer health, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. They also provide a larger, but less frequently updated, list called Top 100 List: Health Websites You Can Trust.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
LAR
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:25 am

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by LAR »

As far as travel consider signing g up to receive brochures from road scholar: http://www.roadscholar.org/
Browser
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:54 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by Browser »

First, I'm sure you've thoroughly investigated the medical expenses that might be involved during the course of your illness. That will depend on the insurance you have now with your employer and insurance you can obtain should you stop working until you qualify for Medicare at age 65. I'm a cancer survivor, only because I was lucky enough to go to Sloan-Kettering for treatment and my PPO insurance covered it at the time. Wouldn't cover it now. I feel very strongly that someone with a serious illness should, if at all possible, seek out consultations at several of the best medical facilities for treating that condition. I'd be dead now if that hadn't happened, luckily, for me. But you might have to dig into your own pocket for that unless you have unusually good health insurance. And you might have to dig into your own pocket for treatment, should you discover a place that you feel is the best for you but your insurance isn't going to cover it. That comes first, IMO. Until you've figured that part of the financial picture out, I'd hold off on the Himalayan hikes.

Second, I'm not altogether sure I'd be quick to retire from your job. One factor is how good the medical insurance is. Another factor is that - since you've lost your wife and are without a significant other - your social network and support system at work might be very important. It all depends on what the situation is there of course. Many retirees who are in excellent health are living sort of purposeless lives in retirement, having given up their social work network and the sense of daily purpose that can provide. When I was diagnosed and after my extensive treatment, I wanted very much to retire - that part of my life seemed over. But I couldn't because I didn't have a couple mil saved up. It turned out to be a blessing for me. You may, of course, be a quite resourceful person with plenty of friends and a meaningful life outside work. More power to you if that's the case, but make sure you've visualized how that is going to feel if you ditch your job and the daily contact with others and sense of accomplishment that it can provide.

If your main focus in your life becomes your money "burn rate" and your "bucket list" that will probably be unfortunate. Your life and your hopes and expectations shouldn't have to suddenly be uprooted just because you think you have a clearer vision of how much longer you might live. Many of us who are your age or even older, who think we're fortunate to not be in your predicament and don't have to think about it right now, are unfortunately dead wrong about that. Many of us have far fewer years ahead of us and we just don't know it. Whatever advice we have to give to you might better be directed toward ourselves instead.
We don't know where we are, or where we're going -- but we're making good time.
heyyou
Posts: 4461
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by heyyou »

@ the OP

Spend 18% of assets in the next year.
Then 16, 14, 12, 10, 10, 10, 10 in the following years, or some similar sequence.

To warm up to spending, you might want to spend more the second year than the first, as I believe you will find more places to go after you start traveling.

Best wishes to you on having a good retirement until you have to curtail your traveling.
Compass Living has some overseas retirement facilities that might suit me when my dementia gets worse.
User avatar
BL
Posts: 9874
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:28 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by BL »

I would apply for widower's benefits as soon as your income allows. Then you can think about when to take your own SS at any month between age 62 and 70. So it isn't a decision you have to make right now. You might think about file and suspend at full Retirement Age so you can go back to that date if you later decide you should get the most possible before age 70.

Agree to get a second or third medical opinion and to take your time before quitting your job, especially if health insurance is a consideration. Taking time off or reducing your work load might be a good alternative for now. Find someone to talk to such as a counselor or trained clergy.

Start spending more on things that have meaning to you, whether that be a trip somewhere special or paying for someone in a checkout line somewhere. Random acts of kindness can be very satisfying to many.

There is a wise saying that people who grieve should wait up to a year before making any major decisions (that don't have to be done), and I believe this would apply to your situation as well.
Topic Author
plnelson
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:49 pm

Update

Post by plnelson »

Today I saw the oncological hematologist at my local community hospital and it was very frustrating. He said my JAK2 mutation level was high enough (and my EPO level low enough) for a very confident diagnosis but not too high in the grand scheme of things (whatever that means). I asked how well the JAK2 level corresponds with blood clot risk - he didn't know. I asked whether it typically goes up over time; he didn't know. I asked him if there were any markers that could indicate my long-term prognosis (I literally told him it would help with my financial planning!), but he wasn't aware of any. He dismissed clinical trials, saying that most of them were just tweaking therapies that had been is use for decades, e.g., aspirin.

He suggested I take aspirin but I pointed out that I have a condition called paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and the current standard of care for afib is anticoagulants instead (aspirin is an anti-platelet-aggregating drug, which has little affect of the kinds of clots that form in the left atrial appendage in an afib attack). It's dangerous to take them together. Because I only get afib rarely (almost 2 years since my last one) I don't take an anticoagulant when I'm not in afib, because of the bleeding risk. But I could start. But would an anticoagulant work against the kind of clots associated with Pv? He guessed so but didn't know and couldn't cite any research. Are there support groups for Pv? Is there any group promoting research into it? He didn't know either answer.

So he was no help for financial planning, not to mention my blood cancer.

So I'm making an appointment at Dana Farber in Boston. My wife received an excellent standard of care there and I was super impressed by how knowledgeable the doctors there were about her type of cancer - leiomyosarcoma - a cancer even rarer than what I've got.

After my wife died I left a big chunk of my money in my will to Dana Farber. I don't think I should mention this when I see them 8-)

I also just want to thank everyone here for their advice, counsel, and kind wishes!!
User avatar
archbish99
Posts: 1649
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:02 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by archbish99 »

dodecahedron wrote:If you stop working (or even just cut back drastically), you can collect Social Security survivor benefits on your late wife's work record right now and let your own grow until they hit their max at age 70. (You don't need to wait until 62 and you don't need to cut into your own work-record benefits, which I are likely higher.) I also like the suggestion of checking into the possibility of a medically underwritten annuity.
I don't believe it's possible to file a restricted application (spousal only) until FRA, which is not "right now."
I'm not a financial advisor, I just play one on the Internet.
User avatar
dodecahedron
Posts: 6607
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:28 am

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by dodecahedron »

archbish99 wrote:
dodecahedron wrote:If you stop working (or even just cut back drastically), you can collect Social Security survivor benefits on your late wife's work record right now and let your own grow until they hit their max at age 70. (You don't need to wait until 62 and you don't need to cut into your own work-record benefits, which I are likely higher.) I also like the suggestion of checking into the possibility of a medically underwritten annuity.
I don't believe it's possible to file a restricted application (spousal only) until FRA, which is not "right now."
Archbish, a restricted application for "spousal only" is different from a a restricted application for "survivors benefits only." You are correct that you can't file "spousal only" until FRA, but "spousal only" refers to one's status as the spouse of a living person. A widow or widower can file for surviving spouse benefits only as early as age 60 (while letting their own record benefits grow until age 70) OR they can file for their own record only as early as 62 (while letting their surviving spouse record benefits grow until FRA.

Basically, widows and widowers have some early restricted filing options available that those whose spouses are still living do not have.
User avatar
joe8d
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: Buffalo,NY

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by joe8d »

Browser wrote:First, I'm sure you've thoroughly investigated the medical expenses that might be involved during the course of your illness. That will depend on the insurance you have now with your employer and insurance you can obtain should you stop working until you qualify for Medicare at age 65. I'm a cancer survivor, only because I was lucky enough to go to Sloan-Kettering for treatment and my PPO insurance covered it at the time. Wouldn't cover it now. I feel very strongly that someone with a serious illness should, if at all possible, seek out consultations at several of the best medical facilities for treating that condition. I'd be dead now if that hadn't happened, luckily, for me. But you might have to dig into your own pocket for that unless you have unusually good health insurance. And you might have to dig into your own pocket for treatment, should you discover a place that you feel is the best for you but your insurance isn't going to cover it. That comes first, IMO. Until you've figured that part of the financial picture out, I'd hold off on the Himalayan hikes.

Second, I'm not altogether sure I'd be quick to retire from your job. One factor is how good the medical insurance is. Another factor is that - since you've lost your wife and are without a significant other - your social network and support system at work might be very important. It all depends on what the situation is there of course. Many retirees who are in excellent health are living sort of purposeless lives in retirement, having given up their social work network and the sense of daily purpose that can provide. When I was diagnosed and after my extensive treatment, I wanted very much to retire - that part of my life seemed over. But I couldn't because I didn't have a couple mil saved up. It turned out to be a blessing for me. You may, of course, be a quite resourceful person with plenty of friends and a meaningful life outside work. More power to you if that's the case, but make sure you've visualized how that is going to feel if you ditch your job and the daily contact with others and sense of accomplishment that it can provide.

If your main focus in your life becomes your money "burn rate" and your "bucket list" that will probably be unfortunate. Your life and your hopes and expectations shouldn't have to suddenly be uprooted just because you think you have a clearer vision of how much longer you might live. Many of us who are your age or even older, who think we're fortunate to not be in your predicament and don't have to think about it right now, are unfortunately dead wrong about that. Many of us have far fewer years ahead of us and we just don't know it. Whatever advice we have to give to you might better be directed toward ourselves instead.
Excellent Advice.
All the Best, | Joe
vencat
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by vencat »

I'm a hematologist who commonly treats PV. The prognosis is not as bad as you make it out. Pts commonly live 10 years or longer if treated and monitored appropriately.
For instance from the MPN website:

Prognosis/Life Expectancy

Polycythemia vera patients have an excellent chance of living out a normal life span if properly monitored and treated as necessary. The most common cause of morbidity and mortality is the predisposition of PV patients to develop life threatening arterial thromboses (heart attacks, strokes, intestinal gangrene), venous thromboses (of the portal and/or hepatic veins), or pulmonary embolism. Important strategies for care can include aspirin, and control of the blood counts in those at high risk. For others, life expectancy can be compromised as the disease evolves to myelofibrosis, or rarely, acute leukemia.
Best wishes.

Venkat
.
Herekittykitty
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:11 pm
Location: Flyover Country

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by Herekittykitty »

You are taking an excellent step in setting up an appointment with a specialty level institution.

There are indeed differences in quality of care and outcomes between various institutions.

There is a time for everything, and now is the time for getting the best information available about your condition and in particular your condition as it may affect you in particular, considering your entire medical picture.

And it is the time for healing of mind and spirit as well.
I don't know anything.
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Update

Post by VictoriaF »

plnelson wrote:So I'm making an appointment at Dana Farber in Boston. My wife received an excellent standard of care there and I was super impressed by how knowledgeable the doctors there were about her type of cancer - leiomyosarcoma - a cancer even rarer than what I've got.

After my wife died I left a big chunk of my money in my will to Dana Farber. I don't think I should mention this when I see them 8-)
Hopefully, they will treat you well enough to deserve remaining in your will.
Hopefully, they will treat you well enough not to inherit any time soon.

Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake | Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
User avatar
Kevin M
Posts: 15788
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by Kevin M »

Did not see anything from OP about wife's work history, but assuming she worked enough to qualify for social security benefits, then starting the survivor benefit as soon as OP quits working is a good suggestion. Can then think more about deferring collecting on own record for the additional longevity insurance benefit.

I retired at 55 and started collecting the SS survivor benefit based on my deceased wife's record as soon as eligible at age 60. Based on my calculations at the time, I will come out ahead even if I defer starting collecting on my own record until age 70; i.e., there was no benefit in deferring initiation of the survivor benefit.

Kevin
If I make a calculation error, #Cruncher probably will let me know.
User avatar
sans souliers
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:38 pm
Location: By the Quinnipiac

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by sans souliers »

Life's for living. I've no advice other than to remove yourself from stress and take the time to plan your next move at a leisurely pace. That's where I am myself right now. Just the time by itself is a tonic.

Thanks for being open and good luck -- here's to twenty years.
Sometimes pessimism leaves me pretty well prepared for when things don't go my way, and pleasantly surprised when they do.
novicemoney
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:36 am

Re: Social Security

Post by novicemoney »

plnelson wrote:Several people have suggested taking SS early and I don't understand that.

With the savings I have I could sustain a pretty high burn rate for quite a while without touching SS. Furthermore lots of my savings is not in IRA/401K, which means I can withdraw it and stay in a 0-tax bracket for the first few years, giving me an opportunity for that time to pull down at least some of my IRA/401(k) at minimal taxes.

So to me it makes sense to hold off on SS, both because that way I stay in a low tax bracket while pulling out IRA/401(k) money, and also because the longer I wait the higher my SS will be. That way, if I beat the life-expectancy odds, or there's a miracle cure, I'll have something to live on.

But since several people have suggested going after SS early could someone explain why?
Would you be eligible to receive your wife's benefits? If so you could take hers early and delay your benefits until a later date say at 65 or 67 then you are covered either way. I hope things go well for you. God bless
Valuethinker
Posts: 49035
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by Valuethinker »

I'd offer the usual noises but that is pointless. I have enjoyed your posts here and I wish you the best on this difficult part of your journey.

1. get your legal and estate affairs in order ASAP. Get a lawyer and make sure it is sorted. From an estate point of view, plan to die tomorrow

2. pursue a conservative financial policy. I would suggest at least 60% in bonds. Mixture of ST and IT US Treasuries.

3. decide whether you want to retire NOW and if not, when

4. list the top 4 destinations that you really want to do, and make plans to do them NOW (or in the next 24 months at least). Antarctica? Just find a tour and book it.

5. main problem with travel will become getting adequate health insurance. However there is Lloyd's of London, an insurance market which specializes in insuring unusual risks (I had a relative with severe heart disease, in his 80s, who managed to get insurance). Try a broker, and keep trying. Don't take no for an answer. You can insure (almost) anything in the world. If your broker doesn't know about Lloyd's, someone else will.

There are other tricks re 5. A friend's wife has a severe (and little understood) degenerative disease. They do a lot of alpine walking. She is uninsurable BUT they have joined the Austrian Mountain Walkers society-- this gives them health insurance for their annual trips to Austria (from the UK).

6. making sure your health coverage is adequate. Not being American, I don't know much about the issues here

7.. keep a record of how you spend your day, and use that to make sure that everything you do gives you pleasure, or is worthwhile in terms of what you value. At least to the extent you can

8. You will have to manage your time with friends and family. Everyone will want to see you BUT on the other hand, a lot of them will shy away because of your illness.

That book the head of KPMG worldwide wrote. On the point of his retirement, he was diagnosed with cancer and died something like 9 months later. He would meet someone for 30 minutes they would say 'we must get together again' and he would say 'no this is all the time I have for you'. It is a very good (and short) book.

http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Daylight- ... 0077118472
Herekittykitty
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:11 pm
Location: Flyover Country

Re: Social Security

Post by Herekittykitty »

plnelson wrote:Several people have suggested taking SS early and I don't understand that.

With the savings I have I could sustain a pretty high burn rate for quite a while without touching SS. Furthermore lots of my savings is not in IRA/401K, which means I can withdraw it and stay in a 0-tax bracket for the first few years, giving me an opportunity for that time to pull down at least some of my IRA/401(k) at minimal taxes.

So to me it makes sense to hold off on SS, both because that way I stay in a low tax bracket while pulling out IRA/401(k) money, and also because the longer I wait the higher my SS will be. That way, if I beat the life-expectancy odds, or there's a miracle cure, I'll have something to live on.

But since several people have suggested going after SS early could someone explain why?
I keep coming back to this and I wanted to say that I don't understand the advice to draw sooner than you have to at age 70 either. Yep - I'm new here and am learning as I go - but really it looks like you have a clear understanding of how social security works (as do I - thanks to reading lots of posts by people here who are experts in the area, and thanks to reading a lot about it in quality publications.)

For me - social security is longevity insurance and I intend to delay taking it until I am 70, and were I in your position it wouldn't change what I would do. Should I find that I am certain not to make it that long (as in absolutely certain) I would likely take it earlier, but not even for a 90% probability would I do it. I doubt very seriously if my last thought on earth would be "Gee, I wish I had taken social security earlier." But I am quite certain that if I am around at age 70, my 70 year old self will appreciate my 60+ year old self for waiting.

(I will, however, start taking security based on my late husband's record as soon as I reach 66, as there is no disadvantage in doing so. I will switch to my own, which will be higher, at 70. The same strategy could be right for you.)
I don't know anything.
ripete
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:11 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by ripete »

I can only tell you this. I worked with a fella who had quite a bit of money, was pretty conservative, and retired at 65. Shortly thereafter, he was diagnosed with colon cancer. He was very optimistic in the beginning, but he would tell us that 'golden years...b/s!". He said travel while you can, enjoy life while you can, and take advantage of things while you can. There are no guarantees in life, and the one who dies with the most toys, or most money in the bank doesn't win.
I'm sure you've heard stuff like this before, but I think it bears repeating.
You don't have to spend like a drunken sailor to go, see, and do. With some investigation, you can figure out how to do it in a way that isn't ridiculously expensive.
All I'm saying is that you can, should, and deserve to have your cake and eat it.
You don't want to be saying, ''why, oh why didn't I (fill in the blank)?" The biggest regret in life is not making a mistake, it's not taking that step.
So, that's the opinion from the peanut gallery.
Think about it.
dsanders79
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:01 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by dsanders79 »

I remembered this thread because my father also has polycythemia. He was unable to take the medications and was forced to have frequent phlebotomies. [Medical advice removed by admin LadyGeek]
ripete
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:11 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by ripete »

Not macabre at all. Simply realistic.
If you have 2.0 million in the bank (including sale of your house and possible taxes paid), simply figure out how much things will cost!
Where will you live?
Will you give up an address altogether and become a peripatetic individual?
The rest of the world is far less expensive than the United States.

But you can't come to a realistic decision unless you DO think about your bucket list and what you want to do. If you want to go on Virgin Atlantic or Space X, well, that'll cost x dollars. If you want to master a stamp collection, that'll cost something entirely different.

Know thyself.

Know how you live.

If you have no financial responsibilities to anyone but yourself, you've got carte blanche to make up your mind to do what and where you want when you want.

But remember the poster whose friends have survived over 5 years with pancreatic cancer. They are outliers, no doubt, but they are here on the planet, and statistics mean nothing to them, because they're still here! So, too, you should consider all the possibilities.

If you party hearty and blow your wad, then what?

Will your pension plus social security be enough to sustain you should 'the worse' ensue and you actually SURVIVE!!!

There's no answer here. It's like going to Vegas and betting a little or betting a lot. You still don't know how the dice are going to roll.

Personally, I'd opt for longevity and make my decisions accordingly.

I wouldn't sit in a room waiting for things to happen.

I'd get out there and do, because the reason people cry at the end is because of regrets, and the biggest regret is the 'i should've' regret.

So, don't make that mistake.

But to address the original point: I'd always thought that p. vera was something that you'd enjoy a normal lifespan, as long as it's monitored and appropriate steps taken along the way.
saladdin
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 5:45 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by saladdin »

plnelson wrote:
Penguin wrote:Best wishes to you for a long and healthy life.
I would suggest that you start collecting social security retirement benefits as soon as you are eligible (age 62).
See, I was thinking just the opposite.

My thinking was to delay SS as long as possible. By doing that I could use it as possible insurance against beating the odds, because if I do last 7 years and start SS at 68 or 69 I'll get a much bigger payout, after I've blown through my savings on expensive travel, wine, women, song, etc.

Totally off-topic, and speaking of women: my late wife fought a heroic battle with cancer for 4-1/2 years and I was always there holding her hand. I have no one to hold my hand now and I'd love to be in a relationship again. I JUST started dating again, using Match.com. I went on 2 wonderful, fantastic first dates over the Labor day weekend. And now this. If you think financial planning is hard with a terminal illness, just imagine trying to start a serious relationship.

Life is not boring.
You are looking at that all wrong.

You're a millionaire on a clock. EVERY woman will be after you.

In all seriousness, good luck.

Been with same woman for over a decade and the only thing that worries about not being married is that she will not get my ss benefits. Not sure if that's enough to change my stance on marriage, but it's something to think about if you do run across some hot momma.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95696
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by LadyGeek »

This is a very sensitive discussion, but we need to be careful about giving medical advice. I again removed one comment to that effect. See: Forum Policy
Medical Issues

Questions on medical issues are beyond the scope of the forum. If you are looking for medical information online, I'd like to suggest you start with the Medical Library Association's User's Guide to Finding and Evaluating Health Information on the Web which, in addition to providing guidance on evaluating health information, includes lists of their top recommended sites in the following categories: consumer health, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. They also provide a larger, but less frequently updated, list called Top 100 List: Health Websites You Can Trust.
The content I removed may lose continuity with the rest of the post. If necessary, use PMs to communicate the intent. However, the above policy still applies.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
goodenyou
Posts: 3602
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:57 pm
Location: Skating to Where the Puck is Going to Be..or on the golf course

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by goodenyou »

Remember in the 18th century when bleeding was a standard treatment for all sorts of things? Polycythemia vera is one of the few (if not only) diseases in medicine where it's actually a standard treatment in 2014.
Hemochromatosis too. It is something I know about.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" | “At 50, everyone has the face he deserves”
WL2034
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 10:36 pm

Re: Social Security

Post by WL2034 »

plnelson wrote:Several people have suggested taking SS early and I don't understand that.

With the savings I have I could sustain a pretty high burn rate for quite a while without touching SS. Furthermore lots of my savings is not in IRA/401K, which means I can withdraw it and stay in a 0-tax bracket for the first few years, giving me an opportunity for that time to pull down at least some of my IRA/401(k) at minimal taxes.

So to me it makes sense to hold off on SS, both because that way I stay in a low tax bracket while pulling out IRA/401(k) money, and also because the longer I wait the higher my SS will be. That way, if I beat the life-expectancy odds, or there's a miracle cure, I'll have something to live on.

But since several people have suggested going after SS early could someone explain why?
This is my thought as well. Get the best medical evaluation you can find and try to get a realistic time table for what to expect. After that, spend down your savings at an appropriate rate, which should provide you with substantial cash flow for travel and other expenditures early in retirement. Save SS until late, possibly even 70, and then if you end up beating the odds you will at least have the max SS available to you. This seems ideal based on the fact that you have no heirs to be concerned with so maximizing the expected value of SS is not important compared to ensuring that you have enough income if you beat the odds and live longer than your current expectations.
User avatar
gardemanger
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:06 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by gardemanger »

The OP has not visited this forum since October 17. It was someone else who revived the topic.
HIinvestor
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:23 am

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by HIinvestor »

I agree with everyone who suggested getting a 2nd (or even 3rd) opinion from an excellent hematologist at a great medical center (preferably a teaching hospital which keeps up on the latest treatments).

In 2000, I was given a rather grim diagnosis of a severe progressive health condition and not much encouragement for a positive or healthy future. I am happy to say, I have greatly exceeded expectations and am glad we didn't decide to spend everything, expecting that my days were numbered (as the initial prognosis was VERY bleak). I am now told I may well live as long as my relatives--another 50 years or so and die of other conditions or "natural causes" or being in a bad accident--wrong place at the wrong time.

Agree that many in this thread have had good suggestions--wonder if you've decided to pursue any of them since your initial post in September and what you've decided.

I have met a man who was told and believe he had a very limited time left to live. He had been working multiple jobs and making an excellent income. He quit his jobs, simplified his life, went on disability due to his health conditions, and spent down his assets. Fast forward some years--he had NOT died but had spent all his assets and was now re-thinking what he wanted to do as he was broke and still had medical issues. I would not want to be in the shoes of this man who spent all his assets, expecting an eminent demise and then surviving in poor health and with very few assets. It just seems very uncomfortable to me. I guess I know a great number of people who have exceeded medical expectations. Yes, we are outliers, but I prefer not to be an impoverished outlier.

With assets of 2.1 million, I would think you could easily double your spending and quit your job or decrease it to part-time and spend more time doing what you love while making sure you don't spend all your assets before you die. SPIA and charitable remainder annuities can be good options to consider.
TomTX
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:43 am

Re: Social Security

Post by TomTX »

plnelson wrote:Several people have suggested taking SS early and I don't understand that.

With the savings I have I could sustain a pretty high burn rate for quite a while without touching SS. Furthermore lots of my savings is not in IRA/401K, which means I can withdraw it and stay in a 0-tax bracket for the first few years, giving me an opportunity for that time to pull down at least some of my IRA/401(k) at minimal taxes.

So to me it makes sense to hold off on SS, both because that way I stay in a low tax bracket while pulling out IRA/401(k) money, and also because the longer I wait the higher my SS will be. That way, if I beat the life-expectancy odds, or there's a miracle cure, I'll have something to live on.
If you don't need the IRA money for immediate spend, I would strongly consider annual partial Roth conversions - this means that all of your future gains on that money are tax free. :sharebeer
victork
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:26 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by victork »

My advice: Go to the Movies!
Last night, I saw The Theory of Everything. Stephen Hawking was diagnosed with ALS in college, and the prognosis was 2 years to live.
He is now 72, and working in his chosen field.

In a way, we are all in the same boat. Life is finite for us all, and the unexpected can happen any minute.
I think it's best to be optimistic.

$1.5M, spent at 4% a year, will yield $60K/year. That, plus your pension and Social Security, should keep you going.
(The 4% isn't a magic number; just a place to start thinking. Adjust it to suit your particular circumstances.)

Yes, get a good lawyer and tax advisor. Write a will. Consider whatever extended family you may have, like any kids who will need college money. Charities will give you a pension, in return for a chunk of cash now. So, write a will, and then forget about it.

Don't spend money just to spend it, but when following your interests requires it.
You have a chance to follow your own path now; enjoy it!
victork
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:26 pm

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by victork »

One other thought. You asked about how to invest?
Usually, I like to start with the idea of one's age in bonds, and then modifying it.
For example, when I was 60, I had 50%, not 60%, in bonds. My decision.
Now that I'm 71, I have 60% in bonds, not 70%.

In your case, you might want to start with 60% in bonds. Then, since you have less concern about long term inflation than about meeting shorter term needs, you could increase to 70% or 80% bonds.
Recall the general advice not to put money that you will need in < 5 years into stocks at all.
This way, you can tilt your portfolio towards your exception, without making a total bet on an unknown future.

As far as the details go, you can consider getting a portfolio review from Vanguard. If you have the bulk of your assets there, I don't think that there will be a charge. If not, I think that the cost will be well worth it.
Alex Frakt
Founder
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Rather macabre but necessary question

Post by Alex Frakt »

gardemanger wrote:The OP has not visited this forum since October 17. It was someone else who revived the topic.
I'm locking this thread. I will reopen it if the OP requests (via PM). Otherwise, if you have your own issue that falls within our posting guidelines, you are welcome to create your own new topic.
Locked