> you might have a catastrophic loss and have your finances wrecked.

If you have health insurance (in the US) and you have a catastrophic event, your finances are going to be totally wrecked anyway. You're likely to have to declare bankruptcy unless you are pretty wealthy. At least, that's how it's gone with every friend and family member of mine that had to navigate such an event. That's on top of the painful nightmare that is dealing with insurance company claims (which, to add insult to injury, you have to do when you're injured or sick).

The premiums are also so high that I'm very far from convinced that holding an actual health insurance policy is a better option than putting that premium money into an emergency fund.

▲

hobonation a day ago | parent | next [-]

Depends.

I got $300,000 in coverage for a catastrophic event and wound up paying $ 3,100.

But I did have good insurance with United Healthcare.

	▲	myrmidon 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Quick numbers that I found suggest lifetime healthcare costs of >$300k even if you're 65 already (with current yearly spending trending more towards $600k-ish). So even with a (single) catastrophic event just paying yourself might save you money still (which seems insane to me).

▲

EvanAnderson a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would agree that it's objectively terrible dealing with insurance companies, providers who are incredulous you care about the pricing of services, etc. There is no free market for healthcare services. Advocating for yourself is tremendously draining.

I'm happy with the ROI I've had with my insurance premiums over my life. I haven't had a catastrophic event but I've certainly had reasonably sizable claims. If I'd invested the last 20+ years of premium expense (about $400K to date) and had no claims I'd have a ton more money, but not enough to cover a catastrophic event later in life. The principal would also have been completely wiped-out a couple of times when I did have claims, however.

I pay the premiums because I'm not comfortable holding bets on both the market and on my health. I'm also unwilling to consider bankruptcy as a morally / socially acceptable solution.

This mixed socialized and capitalist "system" we've allowed to grow up feels like the worst possible one. Healthcare and health insurance expense are a mechanism to extract value from the middle class (i.e. everyone who has money but isn't wealthy enough to buy their way out of the "system").

My preference would be for a fully socialized system, built primarily around protection for catastrophic loss, where everyone contributes w/ no opting-out permitted.

Failing that I'll grudgingly take a fully capitalist system where people who can't afford to pay are left to fend for charity or die.

What we've got is a mix of the worst parts of both.

▲

arjie 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I had a catastrophic event and it was not particularly wrecking to my finances. Judge for yourself: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Motorcycle_Accident

I had quite a few not-bills of the sort you see there totaling more than a few hundred thousand. Insurance coverage did work in my case.

▲

rayiner a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> If you have health insurance (in the US) and you have a catastrophic event, your finances are going to be totally wrecked anyway.

For most people, this is not true. Half of cancer patients and survivors say they have medical debt, and of those half have less than $5,000: https://www.fightcancer.org/releases/survey-finds-majority-c....

▲

JohnFen 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm just reporting my personal observations here. In several cases of major medical episodes I've personally witnessed, not a single person emerged from it without catastrophic financial damage. Most of these people had insurance plans that were considered very good or excellent.

▲

starkparker a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It's wild how differently the press release you linked to frames that.

> WASHINGTON, D.C. – Nearly half (49%) of cancer patients and survivors report being burdened by medical debt alongside some (13%) who report expecting to incur medical debt as part of their treatment plan, according to a new Survivor Views survey by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN). Interestingly, nearly all (98%) were insured when medical debt occurred.

> Among those with cancer-related medical debt, nearly half (49%) have carried more than $5,000 in debt, a majority (69%) of whom have carried this debt for more than a year. Respondents also reported most commonly owing their medical debt to a hospital (76%).

...

> According to the survey, an individual with cancer-related medical debt was three times more likely to be behind on recommended cancer screenings in comparison to those who have been able to pay for their care without accumulating debt. Nearly half (49%) saw their credit score decrease with 30% having difficulty qualifying for loans.

> Cancer-related medical debt is also not felt equally and further deepens disparities. Black (13%) and Hispanic (14%) patients and survivors with medical debt were twice as likely as White respondents to report being denied care due to their debt. Black respondents were also more likely to report being contacted by collections agencies (66%) and to feel harassed by them (44%).

	▲	rayiner a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, facts are more important than framing. Look how many people in this thread are thinking about avoiding health insurance based on the premise that you’ll be financially wiped out by a catastrophic event even if you have insurance. That’s what happens when you put framing over facts. It’s important for people to understand the facts so they can make good decisions.