Well, that was a short article. The university based study in the article says $206,000 for a couple, a bit less than the investment company says.
Either way, this is a personal concern of mine. Honestly, I do not expect to be able to afford in retirement the level of health care that is available to me now. I try to prepare myself for that now--it is an emotional/mental adjustment. I think of specific health problems that are likely to occur with aging and what it was like to deal with them one generation ago or even two generations ago. For some things, I will be back to dealing with them as did my parents or grandparents. I'm doubting, for example, that joint replacement surgeries will continue to be so easy to get. So if I come up with that level of --say-- hip disability, I will use canes, walker, wheelchair, become bedridden, rely on cheap pain relievers, rather than be able to afford (whether out of pocket or through insurance) surgery that has allowed my father-in-law to continue sailing, gardening, golfing, fishing, rowing, going out.
There was a time when I was pleased to be at the tail end of the baby boom because I thought the pressure of all the people older than me would mean that a lot of medical problems associated with aging would have solutions found and that funding for research would have wide support. I thought they'd work out a lot of medical problems and hone them before I was quite old enough to need them. Now however, I think that I will just get to see a lot of breakthroughs and good treatments worked out and offered for a couple decades, followed by a tightening up and unavailability of them simply because there will have been too many people in need of them---too expensive to cover for everybody. I think I will be in the position of having to know that there are treatments for what ails me, but that those treatments are not for me.
