[DailyHN]

> Yeah! It's like golf!

Yes, and par would be like needing a doctor about once every three months. Keep it less frequent than that, and you're winning the game.

A friend of mine without insurance skateboards at a skate park. And I'm like "dude, that's pretty risky for not having insurance."

He explained the math to me, as long as he doesn't break a bone or need stitches more than once every few months, then not paying for insurance saves him money even if he has to pay $300-500 out of pocket at a walk-in clinic.

For young people in America, it seems that the only time that insurance isn't a net negative is when: 1) you have a chronic illness that requires regular treatments, 2) you have been diagnosed with cancer, and 3) pregnancy.

[dragonwriter]

> For young people in America, it seems that the only time that insurance isn't a net negative

Insurance inherently is on average a net negative, but it constrains the risk that your needed costs unexpectedly are significantly above average, which can be catastrophic otherwise, especially in a system where care beyond immediate stabilization is gated by ability to pay. so that not having resources doesn't just mean a debt dischargeable in bankruptcy but potential denial of care.

[dsfyu404ed]

Insurance is a net negative for anybody paying for regular, routine care. Insurance and the massive rats nest of middle men and perverse incentives it creates is why a physical, stitches and every other boring service provided thousands of times per day costs hundreds of dollars.

[jklein11]

There is no way that a broken bone without insurance is 300-500. It is probably closer to 3000-5000.