But that's my point--the catastrophic loss isn't likely. And what are we investing for? Just to build up a pile of a gazillion dollars? Or to have money for: living well in retirement, covering emergencies, having something for the spur of the moment purchase that doesn't break the bank, etc?

The issue is not to have no insurance and go happily whistling in the dark, but simply not to pay unnecessary money to others for taking care of yourself. And those investments, and those purposes for the investment process, are reached more quickly if you invest all of your money and not spend a serious amount on things like insurance.

BTW, my health example would have overwhelmed an MSA--these were catastrophic surgeries. Not that an MSA is a not bad thing--it's not too different from what I'm talking about. The primary advantage is their tax sheltered status; their primary disadvantage is the limit on how much you can put into one (I'm a little hazy on the limits, would you believe that they're not allowed in the great state of New Mexico, where I live?)

What I'm getting at is that an MSA-like process is better, in my two cents worth, as an allocation of the proceeds from my investing, not simply handed over to an insurance company.

Eric Hines