Skip to main content

Is private health insurance a waste of money?

Buying things we don't need. It makes us poorer, so we have to work more just to break even. Often we'd be better off not buying.

The biggest household expense, other than our house, is health / medical costs.

Is private health insurance worth it?

Finance expert Scott Pape (The Barefoot Investor) says in many cases the answer is no. He reckons if you're under 31, or earn under $90,000 ($180,000 for couples) you're probably better off without it.

Why? Australia has "one of the best public health systems on the planet" that's already paid for; so you may as well use that. (Note: This may be a different story in the USA and other countries). The exception is if you're over 30 and a high income earner.

What's wage got to do with it?

Health insurance is one product the government punishes you for not buying. If you're a high income earner you'll be taxed more if you don't buy some. If you decide to buy some later in life (later than 30) then you'll pay an extra fee on top of normal premiums - whatever your income.

Despite all these punitive measures, it still may not be worth it. Try this interactive calculator to see the pros and cons for your situation.

Is private health insurance worth it

From an advertising perspective

ABC's comedy/advertising show Gruen did a health episode. Most of the chat was about the psychology of how companies advertise - particularly to young people who generally don't need the product. "In the past year 250,000 people have ditched health insurance. The majority of them are under 34", states host Wil Anderson.

Todd Sampson on Gruen discussing private health insurance

"They can do math and they've worked it out", explains panelist Todd Sampson. The insurance companies "don't want you to use too much. They work off the 30% rule. So if you pay $1000 for your fee you get roughly $300 back a year - and $700 goes straight to profit."

PS. Make up your own mind about your situation, but do think about whether you need it and what the reasons are. According to stats, it's the second biggest single cost after housing. You may also want to see my post on how to save on housing.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

5 Reasons why we hoard - and they're wrong

"Less is More" is one of the catch-cries of downsizing. Often the fewer things we have the more we value them. So it's a great title for a book that's basically a manual for how to de-clutter your home. The introductory chapter of Less is More: How to De-clutter Your Life gives some great insights into why we find it so hard to reduce our stuff. Here are 5 of them - the last one is one of the biggest for me. 1. The cost of holding on. We were raised by our parents and grandparents and in their day items were expensive and space was cheap. It made sense in those days to hold onto stuff just in case you ever needed it. But today housing is expensive and items are cheap. It's hard to change a habit, but now we save much more by downsizing. 2. Keeping it in the family. For some reason we prefer to give things to those close to us. Again this was viable in the days of big families and lots of children to receive hand-me-downs. But these days we have smaller fa...

20 unplugged ideas

May 1-7 is Screen-Free Week . It's about spending time away from the screen and more time with each other - or doing things we love. It's a great chance to break the work-tired-watchTV-ads-shop-work cycle. This list of twenty alternative ideas is great for screen-free week. It's also a great reminder of things we could enjoy if we're shopping and spending less - and maybe working less and enjoying life more.

Will robots take your job?

The future could be very different. It's one reason I started this blog. What will technology mean for jobs? For incomes? For society? So I was excited to find Will Robots Take Your Job? at my local library. What does the book say? There's always been technological change and we've always found jobs. As the more laborious jobs were taken by machines, we took on higher skilled jobs, moving further up the "skill ladder". The main question is whether this time is different. Will the "skill ladder" continue to have higher rungs for humans to move on to? Will these rungs appear as quickly as the current rungs disappear? Either way we're headed for significant disruption. Either large-scale re-training of our workforce or massive unemployment. The author despairs that our leaders seem not to talk about this - and worse still, not have a plan for it. Farmers or horses? In 1870 about 75% of Americans worked in agriculture and used 25 million hors...