Yeah, but that’s not what I’m saying. On average, does an out-of-network ambulance ride happen to a family of four more than once every 30 years? If it does, $100 per year to avoid that is a good deal; otherwise it’s not.
But that’s not the point of insurance, which is a cost-sharing practice (presumably, ideally) designed so that the person who DOES get the ambulance ride doesn’t have to pay for the whole thing themselves and go into financial ruin because of it.
Your argument is profoundly selfish and it’s logical conclusion is the abolishment of insurance altogether.
Yeah, but that’s not what I’m saying. On average, does an out-of-network ambulance ride happen to a family of four more than once every 30 years? If it does, $100 per year to avoid that is a good deal; otherwise it’s not.
But that’s not the point of insurance, which is a cost-sharing practice (presumably, ideally) designed so that the person who DOES get the ambulance ride doesn’t have to pay for the whole thing themselves and go into financial ruin because of it.
Your argument is profoundly selfish and it’s logical conclusion is the abolishment of insurance altogether.
I have a feeling you’ve never been in a major health situation.