Health Insurance EV question

[captZEEbo1]

Not sure where to post this. People say that it's -EV to have health insurance but +utilityEV or something along those lines, basically it's -EV but it will help when you really need it b/c it'd be too costly. Can someone estimate the appropriate bankroll you'd need to not want health insurance.

Depends on age/health.

[primetime32]

Not having health insurance is probably one of the dumber ideas out there.

yeah, there is a chance nothing will happen, but no one knows when they can suddenly get sick. The medical bills could easily wipe out your bankroll 10 times over.

A bankroll concept doesn't apply to this. A bankroll is a way of insuring against the risk of ruin. Theres no income generation in not having health insurance so there is no bankroll, nor ROR, in the way we think of it. There's no variance to limit.

I would think 40k would cover most costs.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on age/health.

[/ QUOTE ]21, mostly fine, slightly high blood pressure.

[ QUOTE ]
Not having health insurance is probably one of the dumber ideas out there.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you saying Bill Gates would be dumb if he did not have health insurance? There's obviously some income level you can have where health insurance becomes dumb to have, I'm just wondering what that point that is.

[ QUOTE ]
A bankroll concept doesn't apply to this. A bankroll is a way of insuring against the risk of ruin. Theres no income generation in not having health insurance so there is no bankroll, nor ROR, in the way we think of it. There's no variance to limit.

[/ QUOTE ]Isn't the ruin you going broke because you can't afford the cost of a certain medical operation? The variance is like let's say you only had 25k to your name....health insurance covers everything from pills ($100) to mild surgery ($10k) some open heart surgery ($50k) or something like that...so the variance is you're not properly bankrolled to handle open heart surgery? See what I'm saying?

Anyways I have no idea what anything costs or what I could expect to pay if something would happen.

[StacysMom]

I thought the same thing before, health insurrance is -EV and only necesary for those w/o a large enough BR. However, this fails to take into consideration the power that health insurrance companies have in negotiating lower rates. So their rake is mitigated.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depends on age/health.

[/ QUOTE ]21, mostly fine, slightly high blood pressure.

[ QUOTE ]
Not having health insurance is probably one of the dumber ideas out there.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you saying Bill Gates would be dumb if he did not have health insurance? There's obviously some income level you can have where health insurance becomes dumb to have, I'm just wondering what that point that is.

[ QUOTE ]
A bankroll concept doesn't apply to this. A bankroll is a way of insuring against the risk of ruin. Theres no income generation in not having health insurance so there is no bankroll, nor ROR, in the way we think of it. There's no variance to limit.

[/ QUOTE ]Isn't the ruin you going broke because you can't afford the cost of a certain medical operation? The variance is like let's say you only had 25k to your name....health insurance covers everything from pills to some open heart surgery or something that range is like $100-50k or something, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I suppose we could treat it that way if we want to say that each months payment is a gamble with a certain negative EV. The issue here isn't the positive or negative expectation, however. It's the variance, which is extremely extremely high. Would you play poker if the variance was 10 times higher, even if it was still a beatable game?

At a certain point the variance become so high that the ROR is 100% if you lose a single wager. Health insurance is a great example. Even if it's positive EV, there is a 100% ROR for any typical American for losing a single wager, so the game is not worth playing. I would say I wouldn't wager more of my income then I could lose without dramatically affecting my lifestyle.

A typical bad injury probably costs between 1k and 35k. So I would want to have an income where 35K is not a dramatic loss. Maybe a half-million a year after taxes could do it?

Note that Im looking at it backwards, IE, not having it is gambling. This might be a bad way to go about it, suffice it to say, the variance is a real bitch in high stakes low odds games.

[obsidian]

You should at least get major medical. The big problem is something major happening and wiping out your bankroll (or a large portion of it) which costs you potential money you would have made.

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Not having health insurance is probably one of the dumber ideas out there.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you saying Bill Gates would be dumb if he did not have health insurance? There's obviously some income level you can have where health insurance becomes dumb to have, I'm just wondering what that point that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you get seriously sick and need multiple procedures and hospital time and medication the costs can run in the hundreds of thousands if not more.

Do you think bill gates doesnt have insurance on his home because he is so rich he can buy a new one if it burns down?

Personally, i leave the gambling to the pokerrooms and not my life. Being cheap with your health just isnt a good idea. EV or no EV.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the same thing before, health insurrance is -EV and only necesary for those w/o a large enough BR. However, this fails to take into consideration the power that health insurrance companies have in negotiating lower rates. So their rake is mitigated.

[/ QUOTE ]are you saying health insurance companies actually get better deals, enough to offset the costs of health insurance? I find this somewhat hard to believe, can you be more specific or provide evidence somewhere? I'm not saying you're wrong I want to believe you I just want proof. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Would this fall under getting better deals on regular medicine, or would this fall under getting better deals if I needed to undergo multiple serious operations?

[ QUOTE ]
You should at least get major medical. The big problem is something major happening and wiping out your bankroll (or a large portion of it) which costs you potential money you would have made.

[/ QUOTE ]You're making assumptions on how much I make. That question wasn't "should every poker player just skip health insurance?", but rather "At what income level is health insurance not a good idea to have?"

[ QUOTE ]
If you get seriously sick and need multiple procedures and hospital time and medication the costs can run in the hundreds of thousands if not more.

Do you think bill gates doesnt have insurance on his home because he is so rich he can buy a new one if it burns down?

Personally, i leave the gambling to the pokerrooms and not my life. Being cheap with your health just isnt a good idea. EV or no EV.

[/ QUOTE ]WOW 200k+? How common is this? If I were Bill Gates I would not have home insurance (except that I think it's required by law). I'm not necessarily gambling with my life, I don't see where you get that from.


[ QUOTE ]
At a certain point the variance become so high that the ROR is 100% if you lose a single wager. Health insurance is a great example. Even if it's positive EV, there is a 100% ROR for any typical American for losing a single wager, so the game is not worth playing. I would say I wouldn't wager more of my income then I could lose without dramatically affecting my lifestyle.

A typical bad injury probably costs between 1k and 35k. So I would want to have an income where 35K is not a dramatic loss. Maybe a half-million a year after taxes could do it?

Note that Im looking at it backwards, IE, not having it is gambling. This might be a bad way to go about it, suffice it to say, the variance is a real bitch in high stakes low odds games.

[/ QUOTE ]What are the odds that you'd have to spend more than 35k in a year? More than 100k? More than 300k? I just have no clue what anything costs or how frequently people undergo operations. Also not having health insurance isn't gambling with an infinite bankroll (Bill Gates), and certainly it's not gambling with smaller bankrolls too. It sounds like you're saying that after 500k it's not really gambling anymore.