denverpilot
Tied Down
I don't disagree with your assessment of the insurance biz in medical, Tony. If you've figured out how to afford oncology treatments without medical coverage, and have that kind of bread in the bank, more power to ya. Most folks don't.
As you might have seen, a co-worker of mine just had a three year old diagnosed with cancer, and the Docs attacked it and the kid is cancer-free at four. The bill, last I heard was over $300,000, pushing $400,000.
That's bankruptcy for 90% of families if not insured. To amortize that, that's over $2000/mo for 50 years if he could make 6% on his investment.
You're correct in your assessment that it would be better for all if medical bills were cash and carry, but brain surgery and oncology aren't cheap, even at cash prices.
You may or may not be right about term life. Most folks under 40 find it a pretty small bill in the grand scheme of things, and most only insure to do exactly what you said, pay off the mortgage if something happens to the breadwinner. More coverage than that, is probably overkill as you said.
It's a trade off of the breadwinner working most of their life to pay off the mortgage and owning the house, or them passing and same result. I'm sure the family would rather have them around and having to run off to work each day than dead and the house free and clear, so I wouldn't call the dead scenario "better".
As you might have seen, a co-worker of mine just had a three year old diagnosed with cancer, and the Docs attacked it and the kid is cancer-free at four. The bill, last I heard was over $300,000, pushing $400,000.
That's bankruptcy for 90% of families if not insured. To amortize that, that's over $2000/mo for 50 years if he could make 6% on his investment.
You're correct in your assessment that it would be better for all if medical bills were cash and carry, but brain surgery and oncology aren't cheap, even at cash prices.
You may or may not be right about term life. Most folks under 40 find it a pretty small bill in the grand scheme of things, and most only insure to do exactly what you said, pay off the mortgage if something happens to the breadwinner. More coverage than that, is probably overkill as you said.
It's a trade off of the breadwinner working most of their life to pay off the mortgage and owning the house, or them passing and same result. I'm sure the family would rather have them around and having to run off to work each day than dead and the house free and clear, so I wouldn't call the dead scenario "better".
