Suze Orman hates FIRE

[millennialmoney]

Nothing in life is 100% safe. But you're not getting out this thing alive anyway, so who the hell cares? Jump when you feel ready.

Absolutely. Suze Orman is just another part of the fear machine. She judges people because she doesn't like herself. To each their own.

[Abe Froman]

I listened to this podcast - and I was struck by how much she seemed to LOVE herself.   IMO it seemed that there was ZERO humility on two accounts.

First I found that I was listening like I was gawking at a car wreck - incredulous that someone would publicly speak in such a manner. I have over $100M, I was welcomed with Open Arms back to NBC - they love me, I live on a private island, I am the best at Finance. If I didn't know it was Orman I would swear it was Trump.

Second, I found it surprising there was no care by Orman to ask what FIRE was, what it means to others.

It will be interesting to find out the reactions to her over the Webs .

[Nightwatchman9270]

She's the worst.  I can't stand her.  I remember back in 1999 or 2000 she fancied herself a stockpicker.  She even had a show kind of like that clown Jim Cramer until her ratings tanked because she was even worse at picking stocks than HE was.
Then she restyled herself as a sort of lesbian Dave Ramsey.  How anyone can't listen to her anooying voice is beyond me.

MOD EDIT: What did this add?

[Mgmny]

Am I missing something?

My health insurance policy has an out-of-pocket max of $4,000 per year for my family. How can a "medical disaster" cost me $300,000?

Even if I need a helicopter ride, and 100 days in the ICU with 10 surgeries, shouldn't I still only have to pay $4,000? Isn't that the point of insurance?

Am I missing something (serious)? Under what circumstance would I be on the hook for $300k in medical bills?

[nereo]

Am I missing something?

My health insurance policy has an out-of-pocket max of $4,000 per year for my family. How can a "medical disaster" cost me $300,000?

Even if I need a helicopter ride, and 100 days in the ICU with 10 surgeries, shouldn't I still only have to pay $4,000? Isn't that the point of insurance?

Am I missing something (serious)? Under what circumstance would I be on the hook for $300k in medical bills?

You would only be 'on the hook' if your insurance did not cover the care needed. This is very rare but does occasionally happen.  As other posters have pointed out, there are other, better options should one be faced with this dilemma, like medical-tourism.

[maizefolk]

Am I missing something?

My health insurance policy has an out-of-pocket max of $4,000 per year for my family. How can a "medical disaster" cost me $300,000?

Even if I need a helicopter ride, and 100 days in the ICU with 10 surgeries, shouldn't I still only have to pay $4,000? Isn't that the point of insurance?

Am I missing something (serious)? Under what circumstance would I be on the hook for $300k in medical bills?

In some states, in some situations you might have to worry about "balance billing" for things like a helicopter ride if the helicopter provider is outside of your insurance network. That said, even in those cases you can usually negotiate them down and settle for far less than they originally bill you for.

[markbike528CBX]

How do you all survive without a private island?  She is completely out of touch with reality.

What she really needs is her own private Idaho.

[Zoot]

Two interesting snippets from the Wikipedia article on Suze Orman:

===========
While she has proven herself a wealth of information about credit and very general financial issues, Orman's understanding of comprehensive financial planning has been questioned by many in the industry. Senior MarketWatch columnist Chuck Jaffe, for example, states that Orman "scores very high on the personality index, but very low on the knowledge and understanding of the complex issues that face a lot of her audience. She's giving generic, simple solutions to people's most difficult problems, and judging from her [own personal investment] portfolio she's taking them on a path she really hasn't traveled herself."
===========

===========
In 2012, Orman introduced a prepaid debit card, backed by Bancorp Bank, aimed at budget-challenged consumers. In personal appearances, she claimed the card would contribute to improving the cardholder's FICO score, even though only one credit agency – TransUnion – had reviewed the proposal and had agreed only to "examine data from [the] cards". The website for the debit card claimed, "I am proud to say that the Approved card is the first prepaid card in history to share information with TransUnion, a major credit bureau."[29] Two years later, the program was quietly ended.
===========

[SKL-HOU]

Suze, Dave Ramsey, MMM, they're all trying to sell you on something.

Wow, I can't believe everyone let this pass. Do you really thing MMM is selling the same way the other two are? Where's his book? Where is his university? Where are his mega-millions?

@mathlete, I completely respect your opinion. Would you care to elaborate a little further?

Maybe MMM is not trying to sell you the same things (like a book) but of course he is selling you something. If you think he is not, you are very naïve. I have no doubt he gets paid by the products he "recommends". He has this blog to make money, not out of the goodness of his heart.

[Mgmny]

In some states, in some situations you might have to worry about "balance billing" for things like a helicopter ride if the helicopter provider is outside of your insurance network. That said, even in those cases you can usually negotiate them down and settle for far less than they originally bill you for.

You would only be 'on the hook' if your insurance did not cover the care needed. This is very rare but does occasionally happen.  As other posters have pointed out, there are other, better options should one be faced with this dilemma, like medical-tourism.

Thanks team!

Seems like a very unlikely scenario that I shouldn't be "planning" for (who plans for a helicopter ride that is out of network... dumb.)

Thank you!

[rantk81]

Suze, Dave Ramsey, MMM, they're all trying to sell you on something.

Wow, I can't believe everyone let this pass. Do you really thing MMM is selling the same way the other two are? Where's his book? Where is his university? Where are his mega-millions?

@mathlete, I completely respect your opinion. Would you care to elaborate a little further?

Maybe MMM is not trying to sell you the same things (like a book) but of course he is selling you something. If you think he is not, you are very naïve. I have no doubt he gets paid by the products he "recommends". He has this blog to make money, not out of the goodness of his heart.

Not sure I agree with that.  There was a blog post a while back about how MMM walked away from something like $10K/month in advertising income from a credit card company, because the CC company wanted MMM to censor certain four-letter-words from his blog posts.  He decided it was better to just stop participating with that advertising campaign.  If MMM was all about the money, this would most certainly not have happened.

[dude]

She brings up a lot of compelling points that I've heard other people make in less hyperbolic terms. Namely, that you spend more money as you age.

This simply isn't true. All prevailing evidence I've seen suggests we spend far less as we age, with the exception the unfortunate ones who have serious medical problems.

[Dicey]

Suze, Dave Ramsey, MMM, they're all trying to sell you on something.

Wow, I can't believe everyone let this pass. Do you really thing MMM is selling the same way the other two are? Where's his book? Where is his university? Where are his mega-millions?

@mathlete, I completely respect your opinion. Would you care to elaborate a little further?

Maybe MMM is not trying to sell you the same things (like a book) but of course he is selling you something. If you think he is not, you are very naïve. I have no doubt he gets paid by the products he "recommends". He has this blog to make money, not out of the goodness of his heart.

Not sure I agree with that.  There was a blog post a while back about how MMM walked away from something like $10K/month in advertising income from a credit card company, because the CC company wanted MMM to censor certain four-letter-words from his blog posts.  He decided it was better to just stop participating with that advertising campaign.  If MMM was all about the money, this would most certainly not have happened.

rantk81 is correct. Another huge difference is though MMM may have a few small, clearly disclosed links on his blog, I don't have to buy anything to participate in Mustachianism to the highest degree I desire. If you can't see the distinction @SKL-HOU, you may want to reconsider tossing around the word "naive" quite so blithely.

[rockstache]

In some states, in some situations you might have to worry about "balance billing" for things like a helicopter ride if the helicopter provider is outside of your insurance network. That said, even in those cases you can usually negotiate them down and settle for far less than they originally bill you for.

You would only be 'on the hook' if your insurance did not cover the care needed. This is very rare but does occasionally happen.  As other posters have pointed out, there are other, better options should one be faced with this dilemma, like medical-tourism.

Thanks team!

Seems like a very unlikely scenario that I shouldn't be "planning" for (who plans for a helicopter ride that is out of network... dumb.)

Thank you!

Ehhh...my husband works in insurance and is dealing with a case like this right now. The couple had a toddler medi-vaced from state X (their state) to state Y (which has the best hospital for the disease), and they *thought* it was covered because of the emergency. However, the insurance company decided it wasn't 'medically necessary,' (they can do this on basically any procedure they want to, even if the doctors say otherwise - not just helicopter rides) and so now they're getting a $300K bill.

Out of pocket maximum doesn't mean maximum at all. A lot of plans have exclusions in the fine print that one might not realize or expect.


ETA: Not that I'm agreeing with Orman. Medical tourism is exactly how I would handle that sort of issue myself, I'm just saying it's more common than you might expect for bills to exceed the OOP max, and in the throes of an emergency, it may be hard to check your coverage before making the decision to act.

[YevKassem]

She is telling everyone to work until 70.  Some people won’t live that long.  I have lost 3 friends between 59-67 all to cancer.  They all did everything right diet and exercise included. You just don’t know when your time is up.

Sorry for your losses. I've also lost 3 friends to cancer recently -- all in their 30s and took good care of themselves. To me, that's more reason to retire early -- not less.

[Cpa Cat]

AI is coming - by 2030 we will have 25% unemployment. Tax brackets will increase to compensate for all the people not working and not paying taxes. Higher tax brackets mean you will keep a smaller % of your portfolio (e.g. 401k)

This is an incredibly pessimistic view of technological progress, and nothing in the entirety of human history suggests it has any basis in reality.

In every other instance in human history, technological advances lead to greater efficiency, economic advances, societal advances, and frequently improved employment conditions. While some jobs may not exist in the future because of AI, many other jobs are likely to be created, some of which do not exist today, while others will be changed or expanded by AI.

[ixtap]

She is telling everyone to work until 70.  Some people won’t live that long.  I have lost 3 friends between 59-67 all to cancer.  They all did everything right diet and exercise included. You just don’t know when your time is up.

Sorry for your losses. I've also lost 3 friends to cancer recently -- all in their 30s and took good care of themselves. To me, that's more reason to retire early -- not less.

We were already frugal, already saving, but what got my husband interested in listening to optimization and retirement vs extended sabbatical was a colleague having a heart attack at his desk in his late 30s.

[YevKassem]

If $2-3M isn't enough, doesn't that bode incredibly poorly for something like 90% of the population? If you can't retire on that, retirement as a concept is dead.

Yup. And her goal is to scare the 90% into buying her BS.

[Mgmny]

In some states, in some situations you might have to worry about "balance billing" for things like a helicopter ride if the helicopter provider is outside of your insurance network. That said, even in those cases you can usually negotiate them down and settle for far less than they originally bill you for.

You would only be 'on the hook' if your insurance did not cover the care needed. This is very rare but does occasionally happen.  As other posters have pointed out, there are other, better options should one be faced with this dilemma, like medical-tourism.

Thanks team!

Seems like a very unlikely scenario that I shouldn't be "planning" for (who plans for a helicopter ride that is out of network... dumb.)

Thank you!

Ehhh...my husband works in insurance and is dealing with a case like this right now. The couple had a toddler medi-vaced from state X (their state) to state Y (which has the best hospital for the disease), and they *thought* it was covered because of the emergency. However, the insurance company decided it wasn't 'medically necessary,' (they can do this on basically any procedure they want to, even if the doctors say otherwise - not just helicopter rides) and so now they're getting a $300K bill.

Out of pocket maximum doesn't mean maximum at all. A lot of plans have exclusions in the fine print that one might not realize or expect.


ETA: Not that I'm agreeing with Orman. Medical tourism is exactly how I would handle that sort of issue myself, I'm just saying it's more common than you might expect for bills to exceed the OOP max, and in the throes of an emergency, it may be hard to check your coverage before making the decision to act.

OK, but would still being employed change that at all? Like, is there coverage that an employee would have that a FIRE'd person would not?

I ask because shit happens, sure, but i don't know how an employee would be better handled to deal with the $300k helicopter ride (for arguments sake, not always a helicopter as you say) than a FIRE'd person? the FIRE'd person would just need to go back to work for xYears to pay for the $300k expense, just like an already employed person would have to work for xYears longer to pay for it?

Right?

[rockstache]

In some states, in some situations you might have to worry about "balance billing" for things like a helicopter ride if the helicopter provider is outside of your insurance network. That said, even in those cases you can usually negotiate them down and settle for far less than they originally bill you for.

You would only be 'on the hook' if your insurance did not cover the care needed. This is very rare but does occasionally happen.  As other posters have pointed out, there are other, better options should one be faced with this dilemma, like medical-tourism.

Thanks team!

Seems like a very unlikely scenario that I shouldn't be "planning" for (who plans for a helicopter ride that is out of network... dumb.)

Thank you!

Ehhh...my husband works in insurance and is dealing with a case like this right now. The couple had a toddler medi-vaced from state X (their state) to state Y (which has the best hospital for the disease), and they *thought* it was covered because of the emergency. However, the insurance company decided it wasn't 'medically necessary,' (they can do this on basically any procedure they want to, even if the doctors say otherwise - not just helicopter rides) and so now they're getting a $300K bill.

Out of pocket maximum doesn't mean maximum at all. A lot of plans have exclusions in the fine print that one might not realize or expect.


ETA: Not that I'm agreeing with Orman. Medical tourism is exactly how I would handle that sort of issue myself, I'm just saying it's more common than you might expect for bills to exceed the OOP max, and in the throes of an emergency, it may be hard to check your coverage before making the decision to act.

OK, but would still being employed change that at all? Like, is there coverage that an employee would have that a FIRE'd person would not?

I ask because shit happens, sure, but i don't know how an employee would be better handled to deal with the $300k helicopter ride (for arguments sake, not always a helicopter as you say) than a FIRE'd person? the FIRE'd person would just need to go back to work for xYears to pay for the $300k expense, just like an already employed person would have to work for xYears longer to pay for it?

Right?

Sure. I don't have a clue how insurance plans differ for employee vs. non-employees. I was really just addressing the comment about an OOP max. In other words that it's not useful to use that as a true OOP max when planning out future healthcare expenses, because it isn't....necessarily.

[mm1970]

In some states, in some situations you might have to worry about "balance billing" for things like a helicopter ride if the helicopter provider is outside of your insurance network. That said, even in those cases you can usually negotiate them down and settle for far less than they originally bill you for.

You would only be 'on the hook' if your insurance did not cover the care needed. This is very rare but does occasionally happen.  As other posters have pointed out, there are other, better options should one be faced with this dilemma, like medical-tourism.

Thanks team!

Seems like a very unlikely scenario that I shouldn't be "planning" for (who plans for a helicopter ride that is out of network... dumb.)

Thank you!

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctor-56000-bill-air-ambulance-ride-accident-atv/story?id=58125900

[Mgmny]

In some states, in some situations you might have to worry about "balance billing" for things like a helicopter ride if the helicopter provider is outside of your insurance network. That said, even in those cases you can usually negotiate them down and settle for far less than they originally bill you for.

You would only be 'on the hook' if your insurance did not cover the care needed. This is very rare but does occasionally happen.  As other posters have pointed out, there are other, better options should one be faced with this dilemma, like medical-tourism.

Thanks team!

Seems like a very unlikely scenario that I shouldn't be "planning" for (who plans for a helicopter ride that is out of network... dumb.)

Thank you!

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctor-56000-bill-air-ambulance-ride-accident-atv/story?id=58125900

Well, at least it's nice to know that a helicopter flight is "only" $11,000 not $300,000....

[nereo]

We're veering rapidly OT, but I work in remote areas and consequentially we are all required to have medical evacuation insurance in addition to our employer-sponsored health care.  We recently had a colleague who had to be medivaced out and the helicopter cost was in the mid 5-figures (and that was from a pretty remote area).

Evac & medical transport insurance is a couple hundred per person per year.  If you're really concerned about emergency medical transportation bankrupting you in FIRE it's not hard (or costly) to insure against; pad your 'stache by another 5-10k and you can afford to tack-on all sorts of extremely unlikely but potentially very expensive medical costs.  Or you can accept that the likelihood you'll need helicopter transport in your life is a tiny fraction of 1%, and that a healthy portfolio could take a $44,600 hit and still keep chugging along just fine.

[Slee_stack]

Sooze is something else, for sure.

I can't buy-in to planning for the improbable though.  That's a pretty poor viewpoint in life. 

Who wants to be a Doomsday survivor anyway?  Would it really be that great to 'win' in that scenario??

[CheapScholar]

This reminds me of one of Jim Gaffigan’s jokes.  His wife begs him to eat healthier and gives the reason that he needs to be around to walk his daughter down the aisle someday.  He then jokes that’s an awful reason to be motivated.  Something like, “Hey, don’t you die!  There’s going to be a huge insanely expensive and awkward party that you have to pay for in the future!”

[hadabeardonce]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-biggest-financial-mistake-you-could-ever-make-according-to-suze-orman-2018-10-02

^ We're all just a part of generating clickbait, traffic for websites, impressions, views... somehow it turns into revenue for Paula, Suze and MarketWatch which funds the cycle.

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

Lol oook OMG..... Anyone else not really sure what her argument is? I mean aside from the long term disability insurance, that might be a valid claim. But the rest is a big circular argument. She gives the impression that there is never enough money to be made, ever. There appears to be a HUGE disconnect between her and the middle and lower class.

[Monocle Money Mouth]

I think we can safely ignore Suze’s warnings and advice. We should all be saving for early retirement because even if you want to work until you are 70, most employers don’t want 70 year old employees. You’ll be too weak and brittle for anything physically demanding. You’ll probably have a hard time understanding technology by the time you are 70 too.  The sharpest 70 year olds I have met are still baffled by computers, smartphones, and the internet. I’d like to think I will be able to learn new technology at that age, but I’m sure something will be created that young people grok immediately with minimal effort that will completely stimey me.

I’d rather have a nice nest egg that lets me walk away from work in my 40’s than be sweating it until social security and Medicare are available.

[Adam Zapple]

My guess is that what she really hates about the FIRE movement is that the advice given by those pushing FIRE contradicts her advice and is hurting her bottom line.

[ixtap]

I think we can safely ignore Suze’s warnings and advice. We should all be saving for early retirement because even if you want to work until you are 70, most employers don’t want 70 year old employees. You’ll be too weak and brittle for anything physically demanding. You’ll probably have a hard time understanding technology by the time you are 70 too.  The sharpest 70 year olds I have met are still baffled by computers, smartphones, and the internet. I’d like to think I will be able to learn new technology at that age, but I’m sure something will be created that young people grok immediately with minimal effort that will completely stimey me.

I’d rather have a nice nest egg that lets me walk away from work in my 40’s than be sweating it until social security and Medicare are available.

You only know feeble, feeble minded 70 somethings? Both sides of my family, and most of their friends, must be pretty blessed. Statistically, I think that age group can go either way  , but to not know any who are sharp seems like an awfully limited social circle.

[UnleashHell]

maybe she hate fire because she's 67 and still working.

[BTDretire]

In some states, in some situations you might have to worry about "balance billing" for things like a helicopter ride if the helicopter provider is outside of your insurance network. That said, even in those cases you can usually negotiate them down and settle for far less than they originally bill you for.

You would only be 'on the hook' if your insurance did not cover the care needed. This is very rare but does occasionally happen.  As other posters have pointed out, there are other, better options should one be faced with this dilemma, like medical-tourism.

Thanks team!

Seems like a very unlikely scenario that I shouldn't be "planning" for (who plans for a helicopter ride that is out of network... dumb.)

Thank you!

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctor-56000-bill-air-ambulance-ride-accident-atv/story?id=58125900

Well, at least it's nice to know that a helicopter flight is "only" $11,000 not $300,000....

We have an MMM memeber that had to deal with an emergency Helicopter flight bill.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/post-fire/large-air-ambulance-bill-post-retirement/

[Monocle Money Mouth]

I think we can safely ignore Suze’s warnings and advice. We should all be saving for early retirement because even if you want to work until you are 70, most employers don’t want 70 year old employees. You’ll be too weak and brittle for anything physically demanding. You’ll probably have a hard time understanding technology by the time you are 70 too.  The sharpest 70 year olds I have met are still baffled by computers, smartphones, and the internet. I’d like to think I will be able to learn new technology at that age, but I’m sure something will be created that young people grok immediately with minimal effort that will completely stimey me.

I’d rather have a nice nest egg that lets me walk away from work in my 40’s than be sweating it until social security and Medicare are available.

You only know feeble, feeble minded 70 somethings? Both sides of my family, and most of their friends, must be pretty blessed. Statistically, I think that age group can go either way  , but to not know any who are sharp seems like an awfully limited social circle.

Feeble minded is not the phrase I would use, but they are not comfortable using technology unless they have step by step instructions. If anything goes slightly off script, like an unexpected dialog window or message, they usually cannot figure it out on their own. I’m not saying there aren’t competent septuagenarian computer users, but I haven’t met any in person.

[maizefolk]

Yeah, I think this isn't a feeble mind issue, it's a growing-up-with-that-kind-of-technology issue. I remember being a kid when computers were relatively new and with no formal training I could easily figure out how to solve problems and make the computer do weird new things that my parents (who would have been in their 30s at the time) couldn't. Now the generation that grow up with computers from the time they were small children is in their 30s and 40s and even 50s, so the stereotype of the child/teenage computer wiz isn't nearly as common anymore (think the children who figure out how to restart the electric fences and door locks in Jurassic Park, or the teenager on SeaQuest who was just there to magically solve computer problems).

The next time the way we interact with the world and do our jobs changes as radically as the change caused by personal computers, I fully expect to be on the other side of that divide.

[BTDretire]

Back in the 90s I joined a ham radio club, computers were already a big thing in that community, which
was mostly 50, 60 and 70 year olds. Most of the members were very computer literate. I have breakfast a couple times a week with several of them, two of them in their upper 70s continue to stay updated and can out do me any day on computer use, program installation, programing Excel, etc.
 They are my goto when I need computer help.
 The computer I'm using was built with the exact components one of the 70 years olds decided to use when he built his computer. I need to talk him into building a later version, this one is just a weeks shy of it 9th birthday.
 

[ixtap]

I think we can safely ignore Suze’s warnings and advice. We should all be saving for early retirement because even if you want to work until you are 70, most employers don’t want 70 year old employees. You’ll be too weak and brittle for anything physically demanding. You’ll probably have a hard time understanding technology by the time you are 70 too.  The sharpest 70 year olds I have met are still baffled by computers, smartphones, and the internet. I’d like to think I will be able to learn new technology at that age, but I’m sure something will be created that young people grok immediately with minimal effort that will completely stimey me.

I’d rather have a nice nest egg that lets me walk away from work in my 40’s than be sweating it until social security and Medicare are available.

You only know feeble, feeble minded 70 somethings? Both sides of my family, and most of their friends, must be pretty blessed. Statistically, I think that age group can go either way  , but to not know any who are sharp seems like an awfully limited social circle.

Feeble minded is not the phrase I would use, but they are not comfortable using technology unless they have step by step instructions. If anything goes slightly off script, like an unexpected dialog window or message, they usually cannot figure it out on their own. I’m not saying there aren’t competent septuagenarian computer users, but I haven’t met any in person.

I just happen to think that you either have a limited social circle of that age group or you are only noticing the problems. I happen to know 90 year olds who do just fine, since it is mostly a question of critical thinking and curiosity.

[Slee_stack]

Sooze doesn't need the money but she still has a huge ego to fill.

Telling a group that has better-than-average financial acumen that they are wrong! would probably sate that ego fairly well.

[Cassie]

I am 64 and am not afraid of technology. Most of my friends are savvy in this regard. 6 years ago I taught myself a computer program because I was teaching a online college class and needed to learn it. Recently I am doing consulting in my field and had to learn their computer billing system with no issues.  Btw my field is human services and not computer related. I am still working part time because I enjoy it.

[ketchup]

Yeah, I think this isn't a feeble mind issue, it's a growing-up-with-that-kind-of-technology issue. I remember being a kid when computers were relatively new and with no formal training I could easily figure out how to solve problems and make the computer do weird new things that my parents (who would have been in their 30s at the time) couldn't. Now the generation that grow up with computers from the time they were small children is in their 30s and 40s and even 50s, so the stereotype of the child/teenage computer wiz isn't nearly as common anymore (think the children who figure out how to restart the electric fences and door locks in Jurassic Park, or the teenager on SeaQuest who was just there to magically solve computer problems).

The next time the way we interact with the world and do our jobs changes as radically as the change caused by personal computers, I fully expect to be on the other side of that divide.

At least in terms of computer literacy, the peak intuitive competency demographic seems to have aged.  It's now roughly 25-45.  I'm an IT manager at a small company and there have been some 22 year old college grads we've hired recently that seem to barely know how to use a computer.  They might not know what drives (H:, S:, R:) are, some barely seem to know what files are, and one called the Windows desktop her "home screen." >_>

I'm only 27 myself, so things have changed a lot very quickly.  Smartphones only took off in late high school for me (graduated in 2009), but for people where that happened five years earlier, in middle school, they've had much less of a need to use computers over smartphones/tablets as default in their personal lives.  It's fucking weird.

[Westoftown]

She has some points, but I doubt she has really researched the FIRE movement deeply.   She probably thinks that people want to continue to live on an amount that is similar to their former salary.  She also has good points about healthcare and sickness, but I doubt many FIRE retirees go broke from health expenses, because they thought about that going into it.  Finally, you know - we can always go back to work if it doesnt work out!   

Quite honestly, I imagine there are quite a few millenials who also don't understand it.   They just dont want to work a  9-5 but are not willing to give up the latest Iphone or other expensive habits.

There is no way I would contemplate working full time in a stressful job until 70 when my life expectancy as a man is 76.   Suze points out that people are living to 95-100, but you know what?  If I get to age 97 somehow and run out of money I will consider myself blessed and take my chances!

[mathlete]

Suze, Dave Ramsey, MMM, they're all trying to sell you on something.

Wow, I can't believe everyone let this pass. Do you really thing MMM is selling the same way the other two are? Where's his book? Where is his university? Where are his mega-millions?

@mathlete, I completely respect your opinion. Would you care to elaborate a little further?

He sells advertising on his website. Is it the "same" as the other two? Yes and no. They all give financial advice. They all profit from it by selling things while they do it. Two of them are a lot louder, more famous, are a lot more obnoxious with their sales pitches, and probably make a lot more money than the third.

I'm sure you know who is who. ;)

MMM's blog is actually one of the few remaining, readable websites on the Internet, though. So much of the Internet is bogged down with horrible native advertising and affiliate links. It makes me miss the Internet of yore. He deserves a lot of credit for that because I'm sure he could be making so much more off this website than he is.

My point was just that the guy (and other bloggers) makes a lot of money by selling stuff while advising about FIRE. You can discount their advice in the same way that people in here discount Suze's advice.

[Slee_stack]

Suze, Dave Ramsey, MMM, they're all trying to sell you on something.

Wow, I can't believe everyone let this pass. Do you really thing MMM is selling the same way the other two are? Where's his book? Where is his university? Where are his mega-millions?

@mathlete, I completely respect your opinion. Would you care to elaborate a little further?

He sells advertising on his website. Is it the "same" as the other two? Yes and no. They all give financial advice. They all profit from it by selling things while they do it. Two of them are a lot louder, more famous, are a lot more obnoxious with their sales pitches, and probably make a lot more money than the third.

I'm sure you know who is who. ;)

MMM's blog is actually one of the few remaining, readable websites on the Internet, though. So much of the Internet is bogged down with horrible native advertising and affiliate links. It makes me miss the Internet of yore. He deserves a lot of credit for that because I'm sure he could be making so much more off this website than he is.

My point was just that the guy (and other bloggers) makes a lot of money by selling stuff while advising about FIRE. You can discount their advice in the same way that people in here discount Suze's advice.

So whose advice do you discount or not and why?

[mathlete]

So whose advice do you discount or not and why?

Mine. I am unimpeachable and incorruptible.

...just kidding.

Everyone's. Discount Suze's claim that you'll never be happy if you retire unless you have an 8 figure net worth because she probably can't wrap her head around not living such a posh lifestyle anymore. Discount some of what the FIRE community says because they have a vested interest and making FIRE broadly appealing.

No one is 100% correct about everything. I'm pretty critical of a lot of what Suze said in the podcast. It was cringey listening to her hijack the podcast and turn it into one of her TV show segments. But I understand the criticisms she is making in broad terms. I think it is a mistake to look at a blogger's bare bones spending that may or may not give the full picture of what a cool life they lead, multiply by 25, and think that financial security is having $700K.

Not everyone in the FIRE community is doing that. I'm certainly not. But I think some people are, and I full expect them to get burned when the other shoe drops (LTC hits, we end this historically long bull market run, etc.)

When that happens, Suze Orman will proclaim that she was right. But we'll know that she was only kind of half right.

[farmecologist]

I'm not sure I have ever liked Orman.  Frankly, she needs to keep people 'engaged' so they keep buying her books, attending her lectures, etc...  The longer people work/save the longer she can collect.  :-)

Frankly, *all* these 'financial gurus', etc...sell is common sense.

SNL says it best :  https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/dont-buy-stuff/n12020

[MrsPete]

i'm sure some do, though I suspect the regrets are more about all the money they've wasted on things that didnt really give them joy vs. having wanted to spend more years in the work force.   Of course this forum is doubtlessly not a representative sample, but the number of times Ive heard people express regret at not having spent more time being with the ones they loved and doing the things they liked far outnumber the people who wish they had worked years longer.  but thats just my impression.

This is what I've read about when people do surveys of regrets from the terminally ill. Most of the regrets revolve around either not spending enough time with family or not pursuing passions (at all or earlier or more vigorously). Those regrets seem easier to address is you manage to FIRE -- or at least hit FI -- in your 30s than if you don't.

You've missed my point, but so what?

Dont buy her books....better free info out there.  :-)

I don't think her books are bad -- for those who are new to frugality -- but I'd say don't read ONLY her books.  In fact, I'd say don't read ONLY any one author; rather, read as much as you can from different viewpoints.  You're not going to agree with everything anyone says, but every author is going to give you SOMETHING valuable -- even if it's just a slightly different take on something you already knew. 

maybe she hate fire because she's 67 and still working.

In all honesty, if I could have a job rehashing the same financial advice in new books ... occasionally giving a speech or appearing on TV, I might not be too anxious to retire!  Sounds like easy and profitable work. 

[effigy98]

Lol oook OMG..... Anyone else not really sure what her argument is? I mean aside from the long term disability insurance, that might be a valid claim. But the rest is a big circular argument. She gives the impression that there is never enough money to be made, ever. There appears to be a HUGE disconnect between her and the middle and lower class.

Longterm disability costs me like $100 a year... That is so cheap not even sure why she brings that up as something to worry about other then just get it. My state also pays it if you cannot work, I have known 45 year old's on it, though it pays a lot less (social security levels).

[LibrarianFuzz]

Do something you love, huh?

I still haven't figured out how to get paid to read anything of my choosing for 8 hours a day.

Librarian is the closest you can come, and I do all reading on my off hours, on my own time and own dime.

[Bateaux]

I first ready Suze's books in the early 2000s.  I was already saving at the time, but I'd give her some credit for helping keep me on track.

[Slow2FIRE]

In some states, in some situations you might have to worry about "balance billing" for things like a helicopter ride if the helicopter provider is outside of your insurance network. That said, even in those cases you can usually negotiate them down and settle for far less than they originally bill you for.

You would only be 'on the hook' if your insurance did not cover the care needed. This is very rare but does occasionally happen.  As other posters have pointed out, there are other, better options should one be faced with this dilemma, like medical-tourism.

Thanks team!

Seems like a very unlikely scenario that I shouldn't be "planning" for (who plans for a helicopter ride that is out of network... dumb.)

Thank you!

Oddly enough, I just watched a video where someone was involved in a pretty bad accident and had to get helicopter transport.  The insurance company refused to cover the costs and the Helicopter company's stance was something along the lines of "Medicaid and Medicare pay us so little that when someone with a decent income needs our services we charge them a crap ton to make up for our shortfall".  A separate "expert" said the problem was too many helicopter services exist so they are each taking a small piece of the total number of trips forcing them to have higher costs and you can't really ask ahead of time how much is that flight going to cost me.

[slugline]

I see Paula Pant just released a followup episode to her Orman interview. If you don't know her stuff already, expect a pro-FIRE response.