Interestingly I did the math last benefit cycle and if your employer doesn't fully pay for it the better insurance may not be worth it. The additional per month cost cancels out any savings no matter how much usage you get out of it (if you take the out of pocket max into account).
The expectation with all forms of useful insurance (health, auto, umbrella, home/renter's, life, etc.) is that for most people most of the time, they'd be better off not having it.
But in the rare cases when someone does genuinely need it (e.g. your house and all of your possessions burn down, you need treatment for cancer, etc.), it prevents financial ruin.
My point isn't insurance vs. no insurance. My point is that the type of insurance doesn't actually matter that much if you're the one paying for it (versus having premiums covered by your employer). If you get a bad accident on the low end company insurance you pay your $10k out of pocket max. On the top end insurance you pay $4k but also paid $8k more in premiums during the year. The insurance companies did the math to make sure they come out ahead no matter what you choose.
A $10k medical bill is not what I would call catastrophic. Highly unusual, yes. But not catastrophic.
A catastrophic event would be something like you get run over by a car and have to spend weeks in urgent care racking up a six figure bill. Of course, such an event is highly unusual and the vast majority of people will never make a claim of that size or even approaching that size.
By design, people who don't make very much in claims pay for the people who do make those claims but also get the benefit of knowing if such an event ever occurred to them, they wouldn't be financially ruined.
> The insurance companies did the math to make sure they come out ahead no matter what you choose.
That's plainly false. See any true medical catastrophe.
