This LA Times story over the weekend helps consumers strategize and build a patchwork health coverage plans for their family, based on what they anticipate their health needs will be.
It’s an interesting concept requiring families to look at their past few years of medical bills to determine if they really need a traditional, more comprehensive plan, or can go with a high deductible.
It sounds kind of like looking at a mutual fund’s past performance, and anticipating how much it will earn in the future.
The story says that traditional plans, with lower deductibles and good coverage “are still costly”
For a family with a risky medical history, the cost of these policies is
Uh. Yeah. But a family with a risky medical history is most likely to need good coverage to ensure they don’t get sicker.
The story emphasizes the notion that insurance is there to protect assets. But what good is insurance if it deters you from seeing the doctor because of cost. What good is insurance if you have to predict what kinds of services you’ll need? You might as well just get a fortune teller to help you plan your child’s broken arm and your unexpected heart attack.