Navigation | ||
My WhyNot? | ||
Icon Key | ||||||||||||
The community's level of support for this idea is...
| ||||||||||||
Health Life Insurance | |||||||||||||||||
I bring you, Health/Life insurance. It is structured to pay out whatever amount necessary to keep you alive so they don't have to pay out the big bucks when you die, at least, not until your policy expires. I havn't fully thought it all out yet but here are some other ideas to go with it. 1) Maximum health benefit = death benefit 2) Enhances, does not replace, existing health insurance 3) Requires minimal health insurance coverage 4) Every dollar spent to keep you alive decreases the death benefit by an equal amount. 5) Pays out to completion for illnesses contracted within the term limit. i.e. you get cancer 5 months before the end of your term, it pays for treatment to remission, how ever long that takes. 6) MINIMUM payout per incident applies ($2,500-$50,000--only covers major medical costs)
phlish, Jan 18 2007
What do you think of this idea or comment?
| |||||||||||||||||
I agree
No opinion
I disagreeUsers who liked this idea also liked: | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Add your comment
i like the idea of bundling health and life to create incentives for keeping patients alive. the details are tricky though. consider someone with a disease with a low probability of survival like pancreatic cancer. would the insurance company rather pay now for treatment or make money in interest on what they'll have to pay out in a few months when you die? also consider an unconscious patient whose spouse has to decide on treatment for a grave illness (such as whether to maintain expensive life support). that spouse is likely the beneficiary of the life insurance.