> You can comfortably afford the best available health insurance. Even on not-so-good insurance, isn't this why out-of-pocket maximums exists? I'm not a fan of

> You can comfortably afford the best available health insurance. Even on not-so-good insurance, isn't this why out-of-pocket maximums exists? I'm not a fan of the current system of healthcare insurance, and I'm not an apologist for how these companies push costs back onto people. However out-of-pocket maximum exists so that you don't go bankrupt for a catastrophic event that requires substantial care over the course of a year. It will vary from carrier to carrier, but I doubt a you'll ever pay more than $20k on a year of treatment for lowered tiered plans. With $300k, this person's cap is more likely to be between $5k and $10k. That's going to sting a bit, but $10k is still only 3% of the total income. I don't deny that a disabling event can really screw things up for a family, but even insurance has its limit on how much they can screw you. But also: > On $300k a year, either you're not really precarious or you're making utterly reckless financial decisions.