[jacoblyles]

poppycock. Not everybody is going to need the same amount of healthcare. You can insure against the risk that something dire is going to strike you.

Your argument may work for old-age care, where the cost of care for most people soars off the charts for last-ditch, cutting-edge efforts to stay alive. But there is no reason the insurance model can't work for most of the population.

[3825]

I heard so much about death panels and blah blah blah but I absolutely want to sign a document that says that if keeping me alive is going to cost over x dollars, please pull the plug and save the money.

The x will probably change as I make more money. Right now, two million dollars is probably where I'd balk. (Pretty sad I know but I think the government could put that two million dollars to better use than to keeping me alive.)

I guess a death panel is inevitable. I am pretty sure I will change my mind and chicken out at the last minute and say "I want to live even if it costs ten million to keep me alive". Don't listen to the senile me! Let me die and use the money on what matters -- kids.

I don't have kids and don't plan on having any anytime soon.

[EvanAnderson]

Agreed. Insuring against inevitability is silly, and health insurance shouldn't cover those events.

A friend of mine uses the analogy of "food insurance" to describe the dysfunctional nature of attempts to insure against the inevitable.

[dalore]

So life/death insurance is silly?

No, insuring against an inevitability isn't silly because there are other factors to consider. Like when the inevitable occurs. Insurers are taking a risk that you put more in before that happens.

[maxerickson]

Lots of times insurance companies only end up making a profit from investing (that is, they pay out more in claims than they take in premiums but make up the difference by investing wisely).

[sjg007]

Life insurance is really only necessary for surviving spouses and children.