Should I invest in a Health Insurance +1 policy from my Employer?
"If I read your figures correctly, then the cost difference is negligible. ($1.84 difference) The main determining factor, I'd think, would be the coverage.  Do you get more, or less, coverage now than you would if you went together on the same plan?  You'd both be covered, but what is the cap? Plans, and employer contributions, change all the time.  How is business in both of your companies?  Are you likely to get cut? Are you able to get back into a plan at each of your employers if you quit the plan for a while?  These rules may be unpleasant surprises if, say, your wife cancels her plan, goes on yours, and you lose your job.  She may not be able to get back into her insurance immediately, or possibly not at all.  A spouse losing a job isn't a ""qualifying life event"" the way marriage, birth of a child, divorce, etc., is." One thing to look into is if there is an extra fee for covering a spouse under you plan, if she is covered under her own employer's plan.  I know that my wife's company charges around $100-$200 a year if I was to be covered under her plan, since I am eligible for the coverage where I work. As far as tax issues, there shouldn't be any.  I think the choice comes down to the coverage offered by both plans.
"Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies.  I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k.  The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about.   In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself).  If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future.  Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options.   Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves.  I think it's called a ""nondiscrimination test"" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management.  So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer.  Good luck!" You could slip and fall in the shower tonight.  Or you might never need it. Insurance is a hedge against risk.  If the event has already occurred, you're uninsurable. If you and others would suffer if you have a bad accident and can't work, get it now. With only $2000 in the account, I wouldn't worry about investing it.  Instead, I would roll this over into a new HSA account with a different provider.  Find a provider that doesn't charge ongoing fees, perhaps with a local credit union or bank.  Although you won't be able to add money to it, you can withdraw as you have eligible medical expenses, until it is gone. "First of all, one thing that is very important: Match is always better than no match.  So, you should definitely use that match on your HSA if you've already maxed out the company match on your 401(k).  In fact, for most people there won't be much reason to invest in your 401(k) above the company match at all. If, for example, your company matches only up to 5%, and you want to invest 15% of income into retirement, you ought to open an IRA instead (Roth or standard depending on your situation) and put the extra 10% in there. Beyond that, you're right, HSA's (the accounts themselves) have all the benefits of a 401(k).  I wouldn't invest there for retirement instead an IRA, though.  There is just no reason. The only built-in downside of an HSA is the HDHP attachment, which may be undesirable to some employees or in certain situations. If you want to get down to raw dollar figures and your company is offering both a standard health plan and a HDHP+HSA, the calculation will be dependent on the premiums and benefits of each and your projected costs of your health care (which is always a crystal ball estimation anyway).  Those costs and benefits can vary wildly, from a completely obvious choice on either the HDHP or standard plan, or pretty much a wash where you decide based on your comfort level with a high deductible. To illustrate... Standard plan: Your company might offer a standard plan that costs you $100 out of pocket for an individual.  That means you pay a minimum of $1200 a year for health care.  Most plans will have copays (a flat amount like $15 you pay for standard doctor consultations), a deductible (you pay 100% of fees up to this, co-pays don't count), a percentage you pay beyond the deductible (20% is typical), and a maximum (like $1000 per individual per year - beyond this, up to a ""lifetime"" maximum benefit of like $2 million, you won't be charged anything). In a standard plan where you have no expenses, you might pay $1200 a year plus a couple co-pays, for a total of $1230.  In a bad year with surgery, you might max out, so $1200 + $30 + $1000 = $2230. HDHP/HSA: These plans are very different.  You might still pay a premium, I.E. $30 a month.  They will still have a deductible and maximum, but they might be the same amount.  You will probably not have copays (I didn't when I had one, but I could be wrong), which means a standard doctor visit will cost more like $80-100. In a good year, this will mean that you pocket $500 from your company, but pay back $360 in premiums.  A couple doctor visits would mean there's only $300 left in your account at the end of the year.  But, that's still a net cost of only $60, compared to $1230.  Big win! In a bad year, you would end up out of pocket the max (say $2000) plus premiums, minus the $500, for a total of $1860.  In this case, still better than the standard plan. The important difference will come in an in-between year.  You will reach the max quicker on an HDHP than you will on a standard plan.  With a family, where all of these numbers are higher, and you have more people to be getting sick/injured this might make the standard plan a better benefit. However, since whatever you build up in an HSA account stays with you forever, while you're single and have only your own health to be concerned about, that is probably a good choice.  When you have a family, things might change and you switch to a standard plan, but you still have that war-chest to offset copays and hospital visits in future years. I was forced onto an HSA for 2 years with a smaller company.  They had a really good contribution, $2500 if I remember right, and we saved up big time. Later, when my wife was pregnant, we were on a low-deductible standard plan and paid all our fees out of the HSA.  It worked out great. I say, as long as the averaged yearly expected costs make sense after doing calculations illustrated above, go for it!" That's not unemployment insurance. Because it's perfectly possible, and even likely, that your industry will do badly but you'll keep your job, or that your industry will do well but you'll lose your job anyway. Any bet you make to insure yourself against unemployment has to be individually about you -- there are no suitable proxies. No.  The premise is just that the money paid, by employers, to fund employee health care is just being replaced by the VAT.  If the numbers worked out right, the employers would (ideally) experience a near net zero change.    Employee wages need not go up. The insurance company is must assume you do have a preexisting condition you are unaware of.  The reason for that is that Affordable Care Act precludes the Insurance company from denying coverage of them if you do.  Insurance companies are businesses.  They are in business to make money(unless you have a nonprofit insurer).  They can not do that if you can buy insurance only when you need for them to pay out.  So even though you may not have a preexisting condition, they are precluded from requiring an examination that would detect the most expensive preexisting conditions (hidden cancers, neurological, autoimmune disorders).  So the companies must do what takes business sense and either deny you coverage or charge a rate that covers the risk they would be forced to take.   In your question on travel there was a response that suggested you get international health insurance instead of travel health insurance that would be considered credible coverage.  You are trying to save money which on a personal level is a good idea.  However that is against the societal and business need that you maintain health coverage during your healthy times to cover the costs of those who need expensive treatment.  So you will be monetarily penalized should you choose to reenter the society of insured people.  Once you have paid the higher rate for up to 18 months you should be able to get a better policy for people who have had continuous coverage.  Alternately you may be lucky enough to start working for a company that provides health insurance with out requiring continuous coverage. You're talking about ESPP? For ESPP it makes sense to utilize the most the company allows, i.e.: in your case - 15% of the paycheck (if you can afford deferring that much, I assume you can). When the stocks are purchased, I would sell them immediately, not hold. This way you have ~10% premium as your income (pretty much guaranteed, unless the stock falls significantly on the very same day), and almost no exposure. This sums up to be a nice 1.5% yearly guaranteed bonus, on top of any other compensation. As to keeping the stocks, this depends on how much you believe in your company and expect the stocks to appreciate. Being employed and dependent on the company with your salary, I'd avoid investing in your company, as you're invested in it deeply as it is. As a 24 year old, single,your needs for insurance are minimal. Why you might consider it are for these reasons. You are young, so it will be cheaper than buying say at 34. Insurance is always on sale. Two, there is no guarantee that your health will always be good, you may have to pay additional premiums later or even be refused coverage. Ask me, I pay 70% more than others my age for the same coverage.  Three, insurance ownership with equity values can grow tax free as you accumulate the monies. Consider it like a bond portfolio offering guaranteed returns on portions of the growth, and a long term return of 5.5% or slighly more. Four, stating sooner versus later means more cash buildup. Just like being in a pension will generate more cash for you by age 65, than if you had started at age 34. Insurance is only one tool in getting a good start. It is not a panacea. "Yes, you can. See the instructions for line 29 of form 1040. Self employed health insurance premiums are an ""above the line"" deduction." First off, I would question why do you need a LI policy?  While you may be single are you supporting anyone?  If not, and you have some money saved to cover a funeral; or, your next of kin would be able to pay for final expenses then you probably don't have a need.   In, general, LI is a bad investment vehicle.  I do not know hardly anything about the Indian personal finance picture, but here in the US, agents tout LI as a wonderful investment.  This can be translated as they make large commissions on such products. Here in the US one is far better off buying a term product, and investing money elsewhere.  I image it is similar in India. Next time if you want to help a friend, listen to his sales presentation, give some feedback, and hand him some cash.  It is a lot cheaper in the long run. If you can not support yourself should your father die, an insurance policy may make sense as a safety net. As an investment, it is a bad bet unless he knows something about his health that would somehow not cause his premiums to be increased tremendously yet not cause them to claim he was attempting to defraud them and refuse payment. In other words, it is a bad bet, period. Insurance is a tool. If the tool doesn't do something you specifically need, it's the wrong tool. "Probably not, though there are a few things to be said for understanding what you are doing here.  Primerica acts as an independent financial services firm and thus has various partners that specialize in various financial instruments and thus there may exist other firms that Primerica doesn't use that could offer better products.  Now, how much do you want to value your time as it could take more than a few months to go through every possible insurance firm and broker to see what rate you could get for the specific insurance you want.  There is also the question of what constitutes best here.  Is it paying the minimal premiums before getting a payout?  That would be my interpretation though this requires some amazing guesswork to know when to start paying a policy to pay out so quickly that the insurance company takes a major loss on the policy. Similarly, there are thousands of mutual funds out there and it is incredibly difficult to determine which ones would be best for your situation.  How much risk do you want to take?  How often do you plan to add to it?  What kind of accounts are you using for these investments, e.g. IRAs or just regular taxable accounts?  Do tax implications of the investments matter? Thus, I'd likely want to suggest you consider this question: How much trust do you have that this company will work well for you in handling the duty of managing your investments and insurance needs?  If you trust them, then buy what they suggest.  If you don't, then buy somewhere else but be careful about what kind of price are you prepared to pay to find the mythical ""best"" as those usually only become clear in hindsight. When it comes to trusting a company in case, there are more than a few factors I'd likely use: Questions - How well do they answer your questions or concerns from your perspective?  Do you feel that these are being treated with respect or do you get the feeling they want to say, ""What the heck are you thinking for asking that?"" in a kind of conceited perspective. Structure of meeting - Do you like to have an agenda and things all planned out or are you more of the spontaneous, ""We'll figure it out"" kind of person?  This is about how well do they know you and set things up to suit you well. Tone of talk - Do you feel valued in having these conversations and working through various exercises with the representative?  This is kind of like 1 though it would include requests they have for you. Employee turnover - How long has this person been with Primerica?  Do they generally lose people frequently?  Are you OK with your file being passed around like a hot potato?  Not that it necessarily will but just consider the possibility here. Reputation can be a factor though I'd not really use it much as some people can find those bad apples that aren't there anymore and so it isn't an issue now.  In some ways you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you.  There are more than a few companies that want to get a piece of what you'll invest, buy, and use when it comes to financial products so it may be a good idea to shop around a little." While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand,  Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither  covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible.  So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance  through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all. "From the details you have given it looks like you have ""Unit Linked"" insurance policy. In such policies a part of the premium goes towards the ""Insurance"", the balance is invested into ""Mutual Funds / stock Market"". It is generally not advisable to have ""Unit Linked"" policy compared to pure ""Term"" policy. Generally the amount of fees charged for ""Unit Linked"" policy is high and hence the returns to the end user are low. i.e. if you buy a ""Term"" insurance for the same sum insured and invest on your own the balance in any ""Mutual Fund"" you will end up making more that what you are getting now. Typically these policies have 3 years lock-in period. As you have purchased this in 2008, you can cancel the policy without any penalties. This will save you future premium and you can buy a term insurance and invest the difference yourself. Note the unit linked policy is useful for people who do not invest on their own and this is a good way to be forced into saving than nothing else."