"Take that 30,000 a year in premiums and invest it yourself for thirty years, and you'd have far more." That is a reasoned argument and deserves a reasoned reply rather than a dismissal. This article thinks through saving yourself versus buying insurance with numbers and logic, fair to both sides.
The case for saving yourself, and where it's right
The saving side has genuine strengths: the money is entirely yours, with no claim conditions, no exclusions, usable for anything — and if you never fall ill, that money becomes wealth. It holds up particularly for people in good health with strong discipline. The problem is not the logic but the hidden assumption about time.
The fatal flaw: illness doesn't wait for the fund to grow
Take an illustration: saving 30,000 a year gives roughly 150,000 after five years, plus a little return. But one major illness can cost 500,000 to several million. One question decides everything: what if you fall ill in year three? The personal fund is still too small, while insurance covers the full limit from the moment the waiting period ends. That is a structural difference. Saving yourself takes ten to twenty years to build the armour; insurance is renting a full suit of armour from the first month. Health risk does not queue up according to our readiness.
Two more variables the saving side tends to forget
First, medical inflation, which runs faster than general inflation — the target you set today shrinks steadily against future treatment costs. Second, discipline and the timing of life: money in a pot with no contract attached always gets taken for something else — a car deposit, school fees, an investment opportunity. Ten years on, many people's personal treatment fund is an empty account, while the premium they were "forced" to pay has produced cover that genuinely exists.
The insurance side has to admit its weaknesses too
Fairness runs both ways. Insurance has conditions, exclusions, waiting periods, and premiums that are not returned (in pure protection plans). If you stay healthy your whole life, the premium is the cost of peace of mind, not an investment that grew. For anyone with liquid assets substantial enough to absorb a bill in the millions comfortably, self-insuring in part or in full is a genuinely reasonable choice, as we say in our article on whether you should have insurance at all.
The middle path that takes the best of both: a deductible plus your own fund
The answer planners like most is not one or the other but a mix: buy health insurance with a deductible, take the smaller risk yourself with your own fund, and let insurance take only the large catastrophe. The premium falls considerably, the difference accumulates in your own growing fund, and once that fund is large enough you can raise the deductible to lower the premium further. This path is a gradual, safe migration from relying entirely on insurance to relying more on yourself — with no period of life when the armour is missing.
In short
The right question is not "which is better value?" but "at each stage of life, in what proportion should the two be mixed?" While your capital is still small, insurance is the necessary armour. As wealth grows, take on more of the risk yourself, one step at a time. If you would like to see where your own right mix lies, message us on LINE and we can work through the numbers together.
This article was inspired by material from the Thai Financial Planners Association (TFPA) and has been entirely rewritten.