Would I benefit from a (prohibitive) cancer insurance?

[Unix]

This company that I cite would be appropriate at the ages 45-59. One thing I forgot to tell about it, is that it pays $450/month for a duration of just one month if not being able to work for at least 30 days:

I compared to another insurance company now, which surprisingly doesn't offer any discounts, not even for being a non-smoker. The fee doesn't get higher as rapidly in the ages 45 and up.
The fee is pretty high and doesn't pay anywhere near as much for cancer, but this insurance includes a few more interesting things: benignt (non-cancerous) tumour above the brain, psychiatrist (10 times) at the chock of getting a severe disease or if a close relative dies, epilepsy, death by any cause, and pays ~$125 if going to hospital for one day overnight in an emergency, much less for the following days.

I found another insurance company which would be more appropriate earlier than the above one. One of the differences is that it actually pays $140 for one day and night in hospital, which is more. It's based on a percentage disability and pays for a number of diseases. This option would be appropriate up to the age 44, but not yet, not until my mother's health starts to deteriorate severely and there would be a risk of having to use an insurance for paying up to get to meet a psychologist/psychiatrist 10 times. This insurance costs $27/month at today's currency exchange rate, starting from the age 35. It doesn't pay for epilepsy.



Both of the insurances also pay if dying from whatever reason. Currently I don't have coverage for death. This is not very important in an insurance, but better coverage than if dying from an accident.



(I've also talked to health information and a funeral service company, and got a phone number to a lawyer. It would be good to write a deal about that my books should go to some specific person, the electronic ones too. I don't have any specific person in mind yet - and I suspect it will take me some time to come up with that. The lawyer charges $175/hour. It will take a lot of effort to find a cheap lawyer that will agree on bypassing the law, I don't want my books to be sold for the money to go to my daughters. I might temporarily solve this by giving the password for the books to my best friend. She is not interested in installing the books. The problem is she doesn't know English very well and lacks personal interest in these particular type of books so she can have difficulties finding to whom to give the password if I would die or get so injured or sick that I can't talk, before having someone myself whom I'd specifically want the books to go to.)



What do You think, do I still need the first insurance in this thread right now, the cancer part of it, from now until the ages ~37 or so? Or should I postpone it? From the age 40 and up there is a difference in the fee for not smoking. I'm starting to think I shouldn't take this insurance until I'm 40 but I have to wonder whether the price will still be the same at that time - what makes me wonder is that this insurance used to be much more expensive but they lowered the fee recently. A compromise solution would be having no cancer-part insurance in the ages 33½-34.

 

[Unix]

I'm a bit nervous about the afternoon + have been thinking too much about insurances and had therefore trouble getting sleep now, so I used about 1½ hours for estimating in my head, offline without checking all possible statistics but just having a hunch, what my risks would be, and remembering how much the insurance costs and how much it pays, I managed to calculate that I think the profit margin must be that they keep 70% of my fees and pay me 30%. Of course if I actually would get cancer I would get my money a few times back, but I was just calculating a risk of 8% and having the insurance for 25 years - if You think these figures are unrealistic please tell me!:

I'm unsure about their profit level, but I'm sure that on average they profit on this insurance.

With my entire planning for insurances I think I would reap 35% back of what I've sown and the insurance companies would keep 65%. So I think it's a little bit safer to have a decent coverage than just cancer and accident insurance. If it wouldn't be this way around I wouldn't consider the extra insurances at all as in my heart I still feel it's a bit silly to have insurances for every scenario that can possibly be covered with a few insurances.



I got one opinion in a different subforum (I tried make everyone post here though): "Planning to not be a burden is planning well." Source: Is money your god?.

 

[Unix]

Right now I'm discussing with the first insurance company if it's OK to go to tests while having the cancer part of the insurance, then to quit the insurance and then to be able to take back the insurance again without limitations. If this is not possible I'm very disappointed with it and don't want it. What would be the point with an insurance that can't be paused?

 

[Unix]

The first insurance company now replied. They said I can go and get myself tested without restrictions or limitations being applied to the insurance, but of course 90 days need to go by before the tests because the insurance doesn't cover if getting sick during that time-period:

Right now I'm discussing with the first insurance company if it's OK to go to tests while having the cancer part of the insurance, then to quit the insurance and then to be able to take back the insurance again without limitations. If this is not possible I'm very disappointed with it and don't want it. What would be the point with an insurance that can't be paused?

EDIT: during several years mom has told me that I should go and check my physical health thoroughly. Neither of us have any suspicions.