3 ms·

a mid-range plan for a family of 5 here in NC can easily be $1500/month - assuming CA is higher, and she's got a family plan, I can't imagine it's "super platin

a mid-range plan for a family of 5 here in NC can easily be $1500/month - assuming CA is higher, and she's got a family plan, I can't imagine it's "super platinum" but average. somewhat OT, but ... is there any value in billionaire's having 'health insurance'? When you are worth more than some smaller insurance companies... what value is there in buying insurance? Aren't you already self-insured? There may be procedures that the insurance company wouldn't fund anyway, but you can just pay for it yourself? EDIT: Just looked up family of 3 - higher end "blue cross" in CA may be $1200/month. Other companies are cheaper (wow, must be nice to have so many options! in NC, I have 2 options, and only 1 the year before, that's it). Throw in a dental plan, and that might bring you to ~$1300/month. Add in expected increases over the next 2 years and.. $2k/month is probably still on the high side, but perhaps not by too much? http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CoveredCA-2017-rate-booklet.pdf http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CoveredCA-2017-rate-bookl... shows that there's an expected 13% average increase in 2017.

bjterry 10y ago
Because of the way insurance prices are structured post-ACA, if you are old you are getting a big underwriting subsidy. If you are a typical billionaire, it is cheaper to purchase insurance than it is to self-insure, because part of your costs are being borne by younger premium holders. If you are a billionaire in your 20s you should probably self-insure for the same reason. Under the ACA the maximum ratio between insurance rates for old and young is 3:1, but the Society of Actuaries estimates that healthcare costs for the elderly are roughly 4.8 times as expensive[1]. 1: Referenced here on page 22: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51130-Health_Insurance_Premiums.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-...
- mgkimsal 10y ago
  Perhaps removing the 'lifetime caps' on most services changes this? I'd have thought, for example, if there's a lifetime cap of $10m on services from my insurance company, and I have, say, $50m in an account just for my medical needs, I'm more than self-insured compared to what I'm protecting myself from with insurance. It seems 'lifetime caps' are largely gone for most services now. EDIT - thanks for your reply.

bjterry 10y ago

Because of the way insurance prices are structured post-ACA, if you are old you are getting a big underwriting subsidy. If you are a typical billionaire, it is cheaper to purchase insurance than it is to self-insure, because part of your costs are being borne by younger premium holders. If you are a billionaire in your 20s you should probably self-insure for the same reason. Under the ACA the maximum ratio between insurance rates for old and young is 3:1, but the Society of Actuaries estimates that healthcare costs for the elderly are roughly 4.8 times as expensive[1]. 1: Referenced here on page 22: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51130-Health_Insurance_Premiums.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-...

mgkimsal 10y ago
Perhaps removing the 'lifetime caps' on most services changes this? I'd have thought, for example, if there's a lifetime cap of $10m on services from my insurance company, and I have, say, $50m in an account just for my medical needs, I'm more than self-insured compared to what I'm protecting myself from with insurance. It seems 'lifetime caps' are largely gone for most services now. EDIT - thanks for your reply.