▲ | ImPostingOnHN 4 days ago | |||||||||||||
Insurance is for unexpected expenses that (a) you cannot foresee and (b) would be catastrophic to your finances I do not agree with that view, and I'm not sure that is how it is used in the US at least. In the US, for many people, health insurance is the only realistic means to obtain any healthcare, not just catastrophic care. I get injured at least annually due to mostly-outdoor physical activities, and have a chronic health issue or two, so the prospect of paying thousands of dollars out of pocket before my insurance even kicks in, doesn't sound great (and wasn't, when I had HDHPs for years). I think the issue is that pretty much everything which isn't preventative care is considered "catastrophic" under this logic (because it requires paying hundreds or thousands out of pocket), even non-major issues, so "catastrophic" happens a lot. | ||||||||||||||
▲ | BobaFloutist 4 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||
I guess the idea is that you put a deductible amount of money into the account annually, and the tax-advantaged investment makes up for any difference between the deductible and the savings you get on premiums for having a HDHP (I.E. HDHP premiums + deductible - tax savings ≈ normal premiums + deductible). It's an insane way to run health insurance, and it just goes to show that expected value and mathematical benefit isn't the end-all be-all, but it's supposedly mathematically coherent. | ||||||||||||||
|