randomguy wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:18 pm
ychuck46 wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:27 pm
This survey was probably one of the worst I have seen so far. Our adopted state for the last nine years, TN, always ranks high as far as affordability, and affordability is the one metric the vast majority of retirees are looking at. Supposedly this survey is based on three criteria, COL, health care, and quality of life. We have the first completely covered, our healthcare providers are top notch, and for most you cannot get a better quality of life as long as you like the outdoors. I believe this so-called survey was meant for no other reason than to give huge importance to a nebulous criteria called "quality of life" that might favor some states in the North and West that would consistently be at the very bottom of such surveys if they only took COL into account. But I suppose I should be happy that they ranked TN so low; we have too many people coming here to escape their high taxes, and then trying to turn TN into exactly what they were escaping from.
TN does well on affordability but poorly on the QOL and health care in this study. This list is really mislabeled. It isn't the "Best places to retire". It is more along the lines of "The places where retirees are doing the best". A lot of questions just ask about if you have enough money to afford food, housing, and medical care. And even more are you in a healthy demographic. It isn't clear that if you take the same person and in one case they retire to MN and the other to Missisippi that they will have bad health, poor mental health, a disability, obesity, inability to sleep, no drug plan, and so on. Those numbers are at least as driven by what happened before as what you do in retirement.
Again I think there's some validity to that criticism. Some of the health and QOL items are a little like the drunk looking for his lost keys only under the lamp post, 'because that's where I can see'. It's a lot easier to get stats of the health of whole 65+ population than to collect 'stats' (what would they actually be?) on how a specific person will fare in healthcare moving from out of state to TN v. MN.
However I don't entirely agree this makes the healthcare ranking meaningless. First it also has a lot of measures which are per capita availability of HC resources, and a couple which which neither that nor the health of the population. And even the ones which are health of the state's existing (65+) population are not IMO 100% irrelevant to a newcomer. You will be competing, at 65+, with the existing population for access to care under basically the same health system, Medicare*, so it's better for you if they aren't as sick. And also to *some* degree, not in all cases by any means, a prevailing culture of poorer health habits *might* in fact have some effect on you.
*not all 65+ people use only Medicare, there's VA and other. There are add ons to Medicare. Some people pay for non-Medicare, some retirees are pre-Medicare, etc. But in general a lot of 65+ people depend on that system, different than working age where a lot of the worst off people are not competing with you for care because they rely on unreimbursed care for people with no insurance, insurance plans your provider doesn't take, etc. Whereas the single system of Medicare-accepting providers is presumably more stressed in relatively unhealthy MS than relatively healthy MN, even besides less resources per capita.