patrick.net

Because after 70 you get all kind of weird things happen to your body, whether you are a diet snob or not.

Most people probably could, just as most people could get along fine without any car insurance until, say, their attention wavers and they're at fault in an accident causing $100K in damage and medical bills, at which point they're no longer "most people". The point of insurance should be to cover the extraordinary and unexpected, not to cover the everyday.

The second part of this question is how long could you live and not be bankrupt without health insurance. In 1950 if you broke an arm, chances are you could pay for it. Do that today and wallah- probably 10's of thousands of dollars. Even a short term stay in the hospital can easily run up to the 100's of thousands of dollars.

That goes back to question No.1- the OP's question. So let's say you decide to take a chance and not have health insurance. The next day you get in a wreck and have a nice little stay in the hospital, exiting with a $250,000 bill. For most people that would basically spell the end of their financial future. As such they would probably also forgo future medial treatments, eat less healthy, and so on. Thus this in turn could very easily contribute to a decline in their health and possibly a shortening of their life expectancy as well.

That's an interesting question, TechGromit. Two points:

What exactly is life expectancy anyway? Since for example people born in 1950 have not died yet in large numbers, how do we know that they will on the average fulfill their life expectancy of 66/71 years? It has to be a prediction or an estimate from some existing data.

The second point is that if life expectancy in 1997 (say) was about 73/79, how much larger would the gain be if it was not for the much worse diet in 2010 than in 1950? In other words, has some of the value of improved medical technology been negated by worse eating habits? Likely the answer is yes.

It looks like life expectancy numbers for humans is not much more than extrapolation of trend data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_forecasting

Government, insurance companies have their fingers on the scales, so to speak. It behooves them to make the actuaries extend life estimates because payouts can be lower over time with nobody the wiser, plus it makes everybody "feel" good to think they will live these long lives.

Nursing Care insurance? Your policy will change underwriters numerous times over the 20 or 30 years you pay premiums, then you are too old to fight the insurance companies when they deny coverage, the perfect insurance product from the insurance company's view, that's why they carry such great commissions.

As you get to your 40's, you start to notice something funny, people in your age group you didn't expect start to deteriorate and occasionally die from sundry causes. A lot of people with pre dispositions to illnesses and cancers or self induced conditions such as drug use, smoking and drinking to excess start to become quite ill and in poor health in their 40's, many are trashed in their 50's, long before medicare kicks in at age 65, those are the ones who are bankrupted by medical bills or often become disabled and can't work, but cost the medical system umpteen dollars.

One in seven men in the USA at least die before they even get to collect medicare at age 65. In Russia, the men can collect their pensions at 59, but only half live long enough to do so, most usually because of alcoholism.

I think good health is less common than is commonly presumed, and the "powers that be" nurture the delusion of long life and good health to keep the herd from getting depressed or unhappy.

That's a good question although it brings up other ones.

Here's a long article that talks a bit about that subject
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

Basically simply having health insurance not exactly a indication of health. Many people put off care and not everything can be solved. One could argue that someone might develop more stress and stress related conditions if they know they have them.

The article argues that the health care provided with health insurance is more about quality of life rather than longevity. It could be argued from an emotional standpoint that seeing a doctor is more about seeing someone that examines you but someone that might actually care. It can also be said that just the establishment of records can be a determinant of what the future of care should be. Also if there is the development of a cluster of a given condition (say cancers) it might be worth examining for environmental effects.justme says

The second point is that if life expectancy in 1997 (say) was about 73/79, how much larger would the gain be if it was not for the much worse diet in 2010 than in 1950?

The growth in longevity I think is caused by a number of factors. Better technology, more access to a wider variety of foods (locovores be damned), more information about foods (remember when butter was used for burns!)

I tend to eat more for health rather than taste. Yes of course I like things like ice cream, pizza and the occasional burger but if you don't eat right it doesn't help in the long run.oddhack says

The point of insurance should be to cover the extraordinary and unexpected, not to cover the everyday.

That might be the original intent sure but I think it is a fair bet to say that major causes of death become fairly common. Heart diseases and cancers I would say are going to kill the majority of people on the planet. These are conditions that usually occur more as someone ages and that's where medicare picks up the tab..but this also explains why medicare costs are so high.

This might open up a can of worms and be a bit touchy but that is eventually people cannot fight death. I heard a speech by Mike Dukakis on health care and he said they were considering operating on the chest of his mother even though she was in her 90's (she passed at 100). To open up someones chest at that age and expect a recovery might not work. When one relative of mine passed technically we could have tried to fight the cancer a bit more but the mounting costs of nursing home care added up and she said it was time to go.

Here's a book that tends to look at groups (not racial but more religious) and how it effects health. Devout Mormons actually live about 10 years longer than the national average. I'm not promoting the religion but the lifestyle might be looked at
http://tinyurl.com/6bwsdhk

Well, I'm not sure. Its a good question. I was a pretty sick kid but I dont recall having anything life threating. But it hard to metric what would have happened to some illnesses had I not had any access to medical care.

I can say one of my best friends would have died at 18 had she not had health insurance. No money would have meant no expensive surgery. No expensive surgery would have meant death at home.

I was diagnosed with cancer at age 28. I can say without a doubt that modern medicine is the only reason I am alive to type this. The bill was around $60,000 to save my life, and since I save my money, I would have been able to pay it out of pocket. With my insurance it cost me about $5000.

My point is that I would still be alive without insurance, it's not insurance that saved me, it was actually the electrical, mechanical, and computer engineers that built the MRI machine, the chemical engineers and scientists that devise the treatment plans, etc.

This is why I work in the field of engineering, because I owe my life to the field and the fine people in that field who actually help others.