Health Insurance Self insuring private healthcare

F

Firefly

Registered User
Messages
3,520
The Duke raised an interesting point in a separate thread regarding someone on a high income being able to self-insure their healthcare (financing private health care out of their own funds rather than taking out private healthcare with VHI).

I'm just wondering, how much money do people think they could put aside into a bank account to cover them for "going private"? Obviously this would depend on individual circumstances such as age & underlying health issues, but take a 40 year old in otherwise good health. Would 10k sitting in a bank account be a reasonable amount to cover "going private" ? Or maybe 20k? At some point there must be a break-even point after which the savings of the cost of VHI/LAYA/Others would kick in...

Firefly.
 
I think you might be ok covering consultant fees, day cases etc out of own pocket through 40s and 50s then 10k might cover it.

But for serious cardiac or hip replacement type work as you get into 60s and 70s then at least 20k.

Before "age loading" came in I think it made more sense as a strategy as you could self-fund through 40s and 50s then take out private insurance without penalty.
 
Both me and my spouse are fit and healthy and in our 40s/50s. Both of us needed surgery out of the blue in the last year. Nothing very serious, but the bills ran into the 1000s very quickly.

Its a valid strategy if you are OK with the idea of sitting in A&E for 48 hours waiting for a bed when you are 80 and the money has run out.
 
odyssey06 said:
I think you might be ok covering consultant fees, day cases etc out of own pocket through 40s and 50s then 10k might cover it.
Click to expand...

I think 10k would cover it too. I wonder....if you offered 10k excess to the VHI/LAYA what quote you could get?!


That's a fair point. I note with age loading, a charge or 2% per year applies. So taking someone who cancels his private insurance at age 40 and was paying 1,000PA, it would cost 1,400PA to take out PHI when he turns 60. By cancelling PHI however, the individual would have saved 20 years x 1k = 20k in those intervening years. That would cover the age-loading for 52 years! Obviously you would expect the PHI costs to rise during the period, but this would also result in higher savings for the individual if he saved what it would have cost. At age 60 then, the individual should have some of the original 10k plus another 20k.
 
huskerdu said:
Both me and my spouse are fit and healthy and in our 40s/50s. Both of us needed surgery out of the blue in the last year. Nothing very serious, but the bills ran into the 1000s very quickly.
Click to expand...

Would 10k have covered it for each of you?

huskerdu said:
Its a valid strategy if you are OK with the idea of sitting in A&E for 48 hours waiting for a bed when you are 80 and the money has run out.
Click to expand...

My point is that the person could take out PHI when they are 60 and are more likely to require decent healthcare.
 
Last edited:
Before age loading came in, I recommended to healthy non-smokers that they should not take out health insurance until the age of 50.

They should have put the money aside into a health fund and they would have plenty to pay for their private healthcare on the rare occasions that they would need it.

Age loading makes it a much more difficult calculation.

Health insurance is weird - if you don't have it, you will get treated free of charge in the public health system.
If you develop an illness which requires high long-term medical bills, you can take out the insurance and get full cover after the waiting period.

A reasonable compromise would be to take out the cheapest possible policy at age 30 - maybe one with a very large excess and upgrade it when you reach 50 or get sick.

Brendan
 
You're looking at it the wrong way. There is no point in looking at how much you saved if you hadn't paid the premium. What if you did have to claim? What if the doctor told you you had cancer? Your health insurance will pay for the vast majority of that. According to this article, a 7 wee course of radiotherapy in a private hospital will cost of €30,000. That was written in 2015, so it is probably higher now. And then you have all the other medical expenses and operation costs.

Insurance is there to cover you for major expenses that you couldn't afford on your own. It is catastrophe planning. Self insurance is not a good use of money for most people, better to insure the risk and pay a premium to do so.


Steven
http://www.bluewaterfp.ie (www.bluewaterfp.ie)
 
Stephen has articulated it better than I did. Its insurance. You are removing the risk of a big bill.

In the very broken health system that we have, the main reason for health insurance is to be able to get treatment fast and skip waiting lists. I don't like that but that is the way it is.

In answer to the previous question, the private hospital bills paid by my PHI for me and my spouse in the last year are far in excess of €10K.
 

Hi Stephen,

Yes, you are correct and I meant to add that to the example given....the 40 year old has critical illness cover of 100k to cover a plethora of those large & serious items.

Firefly.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
A reasonable compromise would be to take out the cheapest possible policy at age 30 - maybe one with a very large excess and upgrade it when you reach 50 or get sick.
Brendan
Click to expand...

I would go with that too. Kinda keeps you in the game.
 
OK, so just off the phone from my PHI provider. They don't offer an annual excess but rather 2 options (1) a one-time excess - any / all other hospital visits are covered or (2) an excess for each and every hospital cover. Interestingly not a whole lot in the difference in prices. Perhaps others have different options.

I think Brendan's suggestion is best.
 
SBarrett said:
What if the doctor told you you had cancer? Your health insurance will pay for the vast majority of that. According to this article, a 7 wee course of radiotherapy in a private hospital will cost of €30,000.
Click to expand...

Is there much of a difference between cancer treatment in public and private hospitals? Health insurance is great if you want a nicer room or quicker treatment or a non-urgent issue. But our health service works well for urgent issues such as cancer treatments.

Doing without health insurance is not the same as doing without fire insurance on your house. If you experience the insured event e.g. you get sick, there is a public health service there for you.

Brendan
 

A close relative of mine had cancer and the only difference we saw was a nicer room. This doesn't sound like much but it was. The person was put in a general ward due to a bed shortage and there were lots and lots of people coming and going all the time. Once a decent room was available, the person was moved and it was a lot more comfortable. Regarding the treatment though I don't think it mattered. Jumping the queue for the good room yes, but for the treatment no.
 
A good family Doctor can get you in as fast as private health insurance if need be 10000 to 14000 Euro May give you a better range of Consultants/Surgeons. There must be lots of posters on hear who could share there Experience who did not have private insurance and with the help of there family doctor finished up getting better service than if they had Private insurance.
 

I was going to mention that we do have a public health service that will look after you. I still have it mind.

A hospital consultant client of mine always maintains the cheapest health insurance cover. He doesn't want to be in a nice, quiet room. He maintains that if he's sick enough to be in hospital, he wants nurses walking by him all the time. He doesn't want to be in a private room, to be checked every once in a while. He said he could have gone cold by the time they check on him again!


Steven
http://www.bluewaterfp.ie (www.bluewaterfp.ie)
 
Good point, my father always gets a private room (because he picked up mrsa in same hospital, not because he has the cover) and many times he has been left ringing the bell and no one comes and he had one fall in the room and was there for ages before anyone looked in.

However you'd want a lot of money to self insure as you just don't know. My father had a bypass 20 odd yrs ago, bill was over 30k, his hip 10 yrs ago was over 40k due to complications and there has been a load of smaller things inbetween. He's well up at 100k by now if he was paying and none had ongoing treatment as such.
 
If you are really sick - cancer etc. then there is not a massive difference between private and public (from what I have heard). However, the wait for diagnostic tests and scans can often be massive which can delay the diagnosis and thus reduce the chance of a positive outcome. I went private for a GI issue a few years ago and at the time was told the wait for a diagnostic scan would be 12-18 months. Thankfully there was nothing wrong in the finish but if there had been, the delay would potentially have been serious.

Also in my late 20s I damaged by knee accidentally and needed minor surgery (€4kish) and about €2k worth of scans, consultant fees, physio etc (which I could claim back in full for scans and the rest at 50%) - the same could easily happen again despite me being young, non-smoker, no apparent health issues etc. You just never know, and the peace of mind has a value too.
 
The really expensive treatments such as cancer and heart are treated very well in the public health system.

It might take you a while to get a diagnosis, but if you have been saving your money in a bank account, you can pay for the tests privately.

Likewise you will have the money for quality of life issues such as knee or skin problems. And, if they persist, then you can take out insurance.


Brendan
 
But I thought if you paid for the the diagnosis privately you still had to go back on the public list for treatment so could still be a bit of delay getting the treatment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register