I used to think that way too. But, to be honest, I can’t tell whether it would make that big a difference between say, $30,000,000.00 vs $60,000,00.00 - once it gets to a certain point, I find it rather meaningless. Especially for our existing lifestyles and the fact that we have no children to worry about it.

Different priorities for different people, obviously - but if I ever needed a reminder of knowing when to quit when I’m ahead, I just look up the former PM of Malaysia, Najib Razak. If he only knew how to call it a day, he might still be the PM today, no?

At >80 y.o, why need substantial medical treatment?

I think he is talking about private medical costs which is not covered by medical card because those above 70 usually cannot get medical card. My mum at 74 broke her arm and we kids paid for her surgery. Costs us close to 80K including metal plate, surgery and stays at the hospital.

I think the economics terminology is “marginal utility”. What is the extra satisfaction we get per extra unit of money we spent. To give an example: take a person with income of 10k and he spends 3k only with saving rate of 70%. If he increases his expenses to 6k. The extra 3k will provide a lot of utility/satisfaction because he can now enjoy air cond, high speed Internet, once a while outings with friends for drink or cafes . In such a case, the savings of 3k over the long run is in my opinion not wise. If his income later increases to 20k, then a case can be made for him to maintain his expenses at 6k because, once the most basic needs/wants are covered, additional spending provides lesser and lesser utility . So, ya, it’s a constant evaluation of “how much more happy am I going to be by spending this money” . If you are driving a Myvi, probably spending more on a Vios does not provide much added utility.. but going from taking bus to driving Axia is a huge increase in utility .
Yes.
The problem is, unless you have way way more than needed, we don’t know really know whether we need the extra money/buffer in the future ... if only we know when and how we will die, then yes, we can spend the “extra”
Is there complication? 80k is a lot right for arm surgery ?
Is the bulk of charges from ICU? Even bypass does not cost that much right?

If i set aside money for sickness, i will drop insurance coverage. But if i dont set money for sickness, better have insurance. Also, nowadays not difficult to get insurance coverage up to age 100.

Btw medical insurance at age >80 not cheap. Depends on much you value the medical insurance.
in this example, appendicitis only... not any big disease like cancer, etc. To say no need treatment then not applicable at this moment.

Government hospital is a option.

I think most medical policies that cover up to 100 now with the new BNM ruling that came effect since July 2019 that requires insurers to ensure that the policy is sustainable up to 100. So I have also bought a ILP with medical coverage up to RM 1.5mil annually. Reason I bought ILP instead of standalone medical card is the hope that the fund value is able to offset the increase in insurance cost in the future when I FI/RE. I do not want to over burden myself with insurance premiums when I get old later.

So if everything is constant, I only have to set aside RM400 per month for insurance premium, not going to affect my plan to FI/RE tremendously.

I know there is still some stereotyping when it comes to government hospital. However speaking from personal experience I really want to defend gov hospitals here.

When it comes to specialized fields, sometimes gov hospital can be better than private, especially when comes to facilities and even the doctor quality - of course not comparing with those super high end world class doctors that costs an arm/leg.

If you are not on emergency case and don’t mind waiting a bit longer, government hospital specialists are great too and save a lot of cost

Disclosure: I'm a doctor in private practice in Singapore.

Having said that, I agree 100% with what l4nc3k said above. I am still a visiting consultant to the "restructured" (ie. fancy term for government-funded) hospitals in Singapore, simply because the facilities there are equivalent and sometimes/often more advanced than private ones.

I'm fully covered with comprehensive medical insurance (bought with riders) which means I don't even have to fork out the excess, and I can choose either government or private hospitals.

However, if push ever came to shove, and I find myself needing tertiary care, the choice wouldn't be determined on the basis of government vs private hospital. I'd be more inclined to go with a good doctor that I can trust - and if that doctor happens to be in the government hospital, I'm happy to be under his care there.

Just because I'm covered 100% for all medical illnesses doesn't mean I have to max out and squeeze my policy dry. It doesn't benefit anyone - least of all honest premium payers.