"Do you ever see a day when all employers quit offering
health insurance and everything becomes "personal"
health insurance? "

I see a day like this.

why not have one insurance company for all your needs-

my life insurance, health insurance, house insurance and car insurance
purchased from one person/agent.

starting at age 16, a person starts buying car insurance and pays
health insurance. These premiums are invested similar to HSA (health
savings accounts) or permanent life insurance products. Buy a house-
insurance premiums go up some, pay more to add to life insurance.

At age 86 I need to go to long term care insurance, my total insurance
should have accumulated enough money to cover my long term care
expenses.

I may have just replaced medicare and medicaid too.

TB <borekfm[at]pacbell.net> wrote:

- quote -

Good explanation thanks!

Do you ever see a day when all employers quit offering
health insurance and everything becomes "personal"
health insurance?

"Elle" <elle_navorski[at]earthlink.net> wrote:

- quote -

It gives me great pause as well

Cause I don't know what the best strategy is any more.
Altho everyone says health insurance is still the best
strategy.... I'm just not sure the conventional
thinking works any more.

BreadWithSpam[at]fractious.net wrote:

- quote -

I guess what I'm suggesting is how abt putting all
assets into a personal trust?

Wont they be protected that way since legally you don't
own the assets but the trust does?

Or what abt liquidating all assets and turning them
into cash or gold and storing in a safe deposit box?

Veritas wrote:
- quote -

I think buying health insurance (or any insurance) is more palatable
when you think of it in slightly different terms - rather than whether
"you're one of the people the insurance company makes money off of" when
you buy health insurance but don't make a claim. That does sting, but I
think the reality is a lot better than that.

When you "lose" by not making a claim, the primary beneficiary is some
guy recovering in ICU, not the insurance company (which of course could
have been you!). The insurance company just administers a big
medical-expense hat that a community of people throw their money into.
The insurer is ALWAYS going to make money, but that's a relatively small
slice of the total amount people toss in the hat. I just read about a
UCSF study that showed that with private insurers about 10% goes to pay
for the insurance company administrative costs, marketing & profit, with
another 10%-15% spent on administrative costs outside of the insurer -
such as paperwork processing at a doctor's office. Of the insurer's 10%
it'd be a couple-few percent that is insurer profit. Sure a big chunk
doesn't land as medical expenses but of that, it's mostly admin-BS cost
rather than insurer profit.

And in theory there's a competitive market at work, among insurers -
they're motivated to gather the most premium by offering a good bargain
between rates & benefits. Yes there are some big problems with the
health-care cost system but insurer profit doesn't seem to be high on
the list. The high admin costs - yes, certainly, and lot of those
dollars go to the insurer. But the UCSF study suggests the total insurer
piece is about 10% so improved admin efficiencies there still aren't
going to solve the cost problem.

People who don't like the insurance company's piece might prefer mutual
insurance companies, just on general principles, for the types of
insurance where a mutual is available (not health). With that model the
insurance pool is run as a type of nonprofit, owned by the policy
holders. I used to use AMICA for auto insurance, it was a good deal, and
more palatable because you'd get a dividend at the end of the year
representing excess premium collected (based on claims actually made).
And back then you could only get AMICA if a current AMICA policy holder
referred you. GREAT idea right? If a lousy driver asks you to refer them
so they could tap into those better rates, you think "hmm, why would I
let this guy into the pool?"

But it doesn't work that way w/AMICA now. And anyway, mutual rates
aren't always the best available, there's more to the business than just
minimizing insurance-company profit.

-Tad

me[at]privacy.net wrote:

- quote -

This is the crux of the matter. If you can gaurantee that you're an
"average" person - i.e., you'll always have only average medical
expenses, then, yes, you're better off paying out of pocket. As has
been explained, you're one of the people the insurance company makes
money off of.

The problem is that, without a crystal ball, you never know when
you're going to get sick/sued/etc and incur huge expenses. At that
point, you'll become one of those folks the insurance company loses
money on and it suddenly is in your best interest to have it.

So, for most of us, we're better off paying for the insurance to cover
the risk of extraordinary expenses. Even though most of us, in the
long run, will pay more to the insurance company than we ever recover.
But, the downside risk is too great not to do it.

Bill gates, of course, won't miss a few hundred thousand for
chemotherapy if he needs it. I will!

- quote -

Yes. It's called insurance!

me[at]privacy.net writes:
- quote -

Um, that'd be "insurance". That's *precisely* why one buys it -
in the traditional sense, not the current "prepaid medical care"
interpretation of insurance, that is.


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

"bo peep" <cowartmisc1[at]yahoo.com> (John C.) wrote
- quote -


John,

You seem to be assuming that a health insurer will cover
every cent beyond some reasonable, initial amount. But what
if the insurer covers only 90% of the bills? Seems
reasonable, right?

The NY Times on Oct. 23 reported on the Dorsetts, a middle
income family in Indiana. In 1998,their 7-month old boy
became ill. Their insurance paid 90% of doctor's bills and
most of the costs of prescription drugs. Despite having what
co-workers of Mr. Dorsett considered a good insurance plan,
the family still personally owed $12k-$20k a year on medical
bills. (The article implies these costs have continued to
the present.) The head of the family, Mr. Dorsett, has a job
that pays him $68k a year. They declared bankruptcy this
past March.

I suppose, after declaring bankruptcy, they're in better
shape than if they had had no health insurance. But by much?

The Oct 23rd article has more examples. See
http://www.hmocrisis.com/update_112805.html ("When Health
Insurance is Not a Safeguard.")

If I were a financial planner/adviser, I suppose I would
continue to counsel that people purchase health insurance,
particularly people with families depending on them. Yet I
think consumers should know the way things are going. If
they do, then maybe they will hold off on buying a car with
$549 monthly payments on an $89k salary in middle age
(saving only $2k a year for retirement), like the family
BreadWithSpam cited today from a Dec. 1 Wall Street Journal
article. Maybe they'll put more of their income into a rainy
day fund.

OTOH, are the options (1) have no health insurance and go
bankrupt next year; and (2) have health insurance and go
bankrupt in seven years (with the accompanying pain of
trying to make ends meet those seven years) all that
different?

The situation gives me great pause.

"bo peep" <cowartmisc1[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

I agree its not possible

But is there someway to limit or eliminate that from
happening..... breaking the bank?

<<I'd rather be self-insured on everything. Auto, Homeowners, Health,
Disability -- everything.>
It's simply not possible in some areas for most people. For instance
health - you could be diagnosed with an illness today that would
generate 6 figure or even 7 figure medical bills in just a few months.
Do you have enough in your checking account to cover a $250,000 medical
bill? (if answered yes, is your real name Bill Gates?)

John Cowart

"Sgt.Sausage" <someone[at]microsoft.com> wrote:

- quote -

Well I would too really

That's why I posted question abt a method or financial
"vehicle" to do such as a bond or something.

Can something be done along that line?

"TB" <borekfm[at]pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:yTSjf.24110$7h7.8973[at]newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
- quote -

No such policy exists that I'm aware of. Loss payouts
are capped at present value (replacement value) -- which
likely has not one darned thing to do with "purchase price".

I may have paid 20K for a vehicle yesterday, but today,
on the open market I could get 14K if I sold it.

Which value will the insurance carrier pay in the
even of a total loss? (hint: it ain't the 20K).

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:2UFjf.111952$qk4.22476[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

I'd rather be self-insured on everything. Auto, Homeowners,
Health, Disability -- everything.

Think about it.

Insurance companies take in premium, and payout
benefits/claims plus expense. In addition to this, they
must make a profit.

Total premiums (plus investment interest) has got
to be equal to: payouts + expense + profit.

Look at that for a moment. What *don't* you get
out of the deal as a policyholder: Expense + profit.

When self-insured, you aren't paying the insurance
carrier's expense, and you aren't paying them
profit.

Much, much better (on average) for an individual
to be self-insured. The problem is that most folks
won't have the discipline to build up the savings
to be self-insured. In theory, over time, if the
money that would normally be spent on premiums
is saved and invested, it would (over an expected
lifetime) be greater than (less expense, less profit)
any expected payout/claims that an individual would
receive over a lifetime (on average, spread across
the universe of premium paying lives). If this was
not the case, insurance would be nothing more
than a big Ponzi scam (and it's bordering on that
now).

Anyway, the problem is most folks don't
realize this, and most folks won't have the
discipline to do it, and most folks don't
understand the math and statistics involved.

I'd rather be self-insured, but I'm too much of
a chicken-shit to be exposed while I'm building
up my reserves, so I pay premiums instead. I
suppose it's the same for all the other morons
like me that keep paying our premiums month
after month, year after year.

"Rich Carreiro" <rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote in message
news:m3k6eow1sc.fsf[at]animato.home.lan...
- quote -

Although I made reference to another thread, this is a different thread.
Perhaps I would have been smarter to put something else in the subject line.
Making sure you have enough under/uninsured motorist insurance can help you
protect your assets. I thought it was appropriate.

- quote -

The multiplier in your coverage is, to a great extent, dependent on the
protection your vehicle provides its occupants. Some vehicles provide
greater protection than others and I think the insurers have been astute
enough to observe that and build it into their premium structures.

Elizabeth Richardson

bo peep wrote:
- quote -

That's what I was thinking of, everything up to total loss of the car.
That's as bad as "damage to the car" gets and it's not really all that
bad in the grand scheme of things. I mean, sure it would be a bummer to
lose an uninsured car to an errant meteor or something, but the loss is
capped at the purchase price (which, in a sense, is the amount I'm
committed to losing anyway!). And so far I've "lost" on this insurance -
in hindsight, paid enough over the years that I could have socked away
the cost of a car by now. Though my wife had one car stolen and another
torched so I guess we even out!

Anyway...with medical expenses the sky's the limit. Anyone at any time
could be hit with some unusual medical condition (or unavoidable
accident) that incurs five, six-, seven-figure treatment costs. It's
low-probability but high-magnitude. So I'm willing to throw my money
into the pot, unlikely to ever get it back, for the assurance that those
costs will be covered, instead of me filing for bankruptcy.

Auto liability is different, the potential loss can be a lot higher than
the value of a vehicle.

-Tad

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> writes:

- quote -

So? In any event, the post by Tad (?) was talking about self-insuring
damage to one's car. This leaves me unsure what under/uninsured motorist
coverage is doing in this discussion.

The way you self-insure damage to your car is you drop the collision
and comprehensive coverage parts of your policy. In policies I've
seen, those parts are completely orthogonal to under/uninsured motorist
coverage (since collision & comp is about the *car*, but under/uninsured
motorist coverage is about the *people*) and you can have either with or
without the other.

- quote -

I don't see why under/uninsured coverage should have much of anything
to do with the car you drive, since you're insuring against the actions
of others, not against your own actions. As a datapoint, I'm near positive
in MA that under/uninsured motorist coverage is independent of the car
you drive (though I note that MA:auto insurance::Louisiana:state law).

--
Rich Carreiro rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us

"Rich Carreiro" <rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote in message
news:m3sltcwxao.fsf[at]animato.home.lan...
- quote -

Of course you are correct, Rich. But can you get under/uninsured motorist
insurance other than with automobile insurance? Your premium is dependent
primarily on what kind of car you drive, is it not? (Yes, I know there are
other factors, like community of residence, how many miles you drive to
work, etc.)

Having been in this situation, perhaps I am more sensitive to it than others
of you. I was fortunate, so to speak, only needed a couple of plastic
surgeries to my face. It was 15 years ago so $50k went a lot further than it
will today. But what would happen to your finances if your leg was shattered
when a car, driven by an unemployed person with no assets, swerved into your
lane? Will your insurance stop at $50k? Your out of pocket costs would
probably exceed your emergency fund.

Elizabeth Richardson

<<In the frugal health thread, someone posted that they would rather
self-insure their car than their health.>
Actually, what was exactly said was "I'd rather self-insure damage to
my car than to my health"

It's a good point - one of my cars is so old that it's book value is
only a few hundred dollars. Even a moderately bad fender-bender would
cause the insurance company to declare it to be totaled. My annual cost
for that portion of the insurance is a substantial fraction of the
car's value, perhaps as much as 25%.

John Cowart

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> writes:

- quote -

That under/uninsured motorist coverage is generally about *bodily* damage,
not damage to either *car*.

- quote -

Really? How many *cars* worth $50,000 are out there? (and even if they
were $50,000 new, they aren't $50,000 once they're used)

--
Rich Carreiro rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us

In the frugal health thread, someone posted that they would rather
self-insure their car than their health. Please look at your under/uninsured
motorist coverage and see if you still believe this. Do you have $50,000?
That isn't much these days if you're in an auto accident. Did you know that
if the guy who hits you has $50k of insurance, your under/uninsured coverage
won't cover one thin dime? I wouldn't self-insure my car ever.

Elizabeth Richardson