Yeah, I wouldn't consider any HDHP (High-Deductable Healthcare Plan) to be "good insurance".
Routine care, including shit that's a little unlucky should be paid for out of pocket.
In the US, health care and health insurance have become synonymous such that all the good bits of insurance are out the door and all the bad ones have stayed. And polluted the true cost of getting simple, routine care.
Getting a kid is not an accident for most modern people, and should never be seen as an event that could bankrupt anybody.
Hence, deferring to the definition of insurance is futile.
Then again - the US is the only country I know of that insists that health is something you insure.
Having a kid without complications should not cost $50K. It should be a few grand at the most. If the kid now needs NICU, then yes, that's what insurance is for.
In EU countries the spirit of health insurance is socializing the cost / solidarity which we explicitly do not consider in the thread - please read the parents of that was not clear.
The one's that companies offer are quite good, actually.
I'd have depleted my life savings, and gone bankrupt several times around COVID years with my parents health, if I didn't have company health insurance.
Good for me, because I knew people in hospital sitting in the waiting lobby literally crying because they were done financially. Like finished for life.
Having said, this in India the market for this things is still building up, and given how big India is it will take years before it reaches the US stage of profit seeking.
I did scratch an eyeball recently. The cost turned out to be €50 for drops which ain’t covered by single-payer insurance. 3k out of pocket would be pretty bad even naming nice salary. And could cause big issues to a massive portion of people.
If you're like me and can shake off a few grand medical expense out of pocket, suddenly it's the best plan.
I have a HDHP and paid less than $10k all year for my family's medical expenses and we had a freaking baby lol.
That's only fair given all the pre-work I did to set it up for myself.
It's weird to tie your little extra money to your health insurance plan.
It's a nice incremental addition to the existing system. Way more feasible than changing the system.
Feels like the equivalent of other things we give tax benefits for. Various things for your and your dependents' well being.
The minuscule tax advantage here is that 1. you're paying for your health care costs with pre-tax dollars, but you can generally still deduct these even without an HSA, so +0 advantage there, and 2. you are allowed to invest the savings, and gains are not taxed at the federal level (but may be taxed at the state level), so the advantage here is your savings account size x your effective tax rate. The premiums for a HDHP also tend to be slightly less than PPO or other plans.
For most of us that tax advantage is tiny. I would rather have an insurance plan that actually covered my costs minus a copay, even better one without a copay, even better Medicare For All where I don't even have to worry about an insurance company or pay insurance premiums. HDHP + HSA is pretty much the worst of the bunch.
yeah so for most of you, don't do it?
I like that I can stuff away $7k+ I'd be stuffing away anyways tax free. And all I have to do is keep a responsible emergency fund.
In terms of non-exceptional costs, I'd say I spend about as much on medical bills every year as I do keeping my cars in good shape. Less than my house and less than I spend on hobby stuff, my cats' vet, or jewelry haha.
Insurance is for unexpected expenses that (a) you cannot foresee and (b) would be catastrophic to your finances. Thinks like major storm or fire damage to your house. A car accident that results in a total loss or worse, liability for someone's injuries.
Your annual physical, eye exam, and dental hygiene vists, and other routine medical expenses are as predictable as your utilites or grocery expenses. You can plan and save for those in an HSA, and your HDHP can cover anything catastrophic.
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.
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.
I prefer the option of don't spend thousands out of pocket, pay taxes on the unspent income. If I'm paying 100% of my healthcare costs, what good is the health insurance?
Here I think it boils down to whether one thinks it's okay for everybody to spend tens of thousands of dollars per year on medical care, as long as they (probably) aren't bankrupted.
If so, then they are probably more likely to view "don't bankrupt me bro" as the use case for health insurance, rather than "I need affordable medical care".
Your idea that insurance is only for things that are catastrophic to your finances is wrong. Health insurance is mandatory for the common good, even if your net worth is in the millions. You can't forgo health insurance just because you are rich enough. There have been long debates about ACA that led to mandatory health insurance that I will not rehash. And auto insurance is another example: you are still required to buy it even if covering liability for accidents and covering the loss of your car would be completely affordable for yourself.