Medical Cover?

[MTP]

I think that we have created too much of a nanny state in the UK and we now have unrealistic expectations based upon this.

In the UK the NHS more than often picks up the tab for our mis-adventures, why do we expect this to happen internationally? Whither it is drinking or extreme sports or even doing something that may be considered a simple holiday pleasure like hot air balloon or airboats rides, why do we expect the consequences of our actions to be universally underwritten? We have taken private insurance against any problems, this is a limited contractual agreement, not a carte blanche safety net.

There are similarities in this thread and the thread about taking children out of school that is currently simmering (http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/topic_33675.asp). I am not saying that I have any answers, but equally I don't think we should shirk away from the responsibilities of our actions, simply because that is what happens in the UK.

[Mo Green]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by wrpac00
Insurance companies will do anything not to pay out (I know from bitter experience), I do sometimes wonder if it is really worth it.

A friend of ours was hit by a baseball whilst watching a game (this was three years ago) and the saga is still going on between the hospital and the insurance company. The insurance company say they didn't get permission from them first, the fact that she was whisked away in an ambulance seems to be irrelevant with them.
[/quote]

Your friend may have been unlucky with the company they were insured with. I went to the A&E department at Englewood late on a Saturday night having been unable to contact my insurance company. While there my BP went sky high - probably at the thought of how much this might cost - but the insurance company paid in full.

[wrpac00]

MTP,

I agree with you about the 'taking children out of school' post. Personally I can't see why someone shouldn't be fined if they take their kids out of school for 3 weeks. I wish my wife (a Deputy Head) could take 3 weeks outside of school time, we would save a fortune in air fares.

I don't think you can compare having a few drinks with extreme sports. Who determines how much drink is excessive?? I am sorry but I and everybody I know have had bad experiences with Travel Insurance, my son has one pending but I bet they wriggle out of it some way.

[Albert the Frog]

I think that the question here is what constitutes too much to drink. If I've decided to stay at the villa/hotel and have a few drinks rather than go out and drive but then slip and injure myself-whether drink related or not- from this story I wouldn't be covered-I gladly take responsibility for my own actions but I need others (insurers) to face up to their commitments to me as well.--It is a 2 way street.

[Katys Grandad]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Albert the Frog
I gladly take responsibility for my own actions but I need others (insurers) to face up to their commitments to me as well.--It is a 2 way street.

[/quote]

The insurer's commitments to you are contained in their terms and conditions. If the people in the news story had read them, they would have known that their actions invalidated the cover.

Seems fair enough to me.

[wrpac00]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Albert the Frog
I think that the question here is what constitutes too much to drink. If I've decided to stay at the villa/hotel and have a few drinks rather than go out and drive but then slip and injure myself-whether drink related or not- from this story I wouldn't be covered-I gladly take responsibility for my own actions but I need others (insurers) to face up to their commitments to me as well.--It is a 2 way street.

[/quote]

I think your absolutely right, its a one way street with insurers - their way. You have to know 'insurance talk' to know exactly what their T&C's cover.

After my Dad died whilst we were out in Florida and the insurance Co wouldn't pay up we decided to pay an additional premium when we went the following summer in case something happened to my FIL. They adverstised the fact that you could pay an additional premium but when we rang them they said they wouldn't cover his pre-existing illness so basically the insurance was worthless.

[Mo Green]

I agree with MTP and Katy's Grandad that people do have to take some responsibility for their own actions. Insurance companies do base their cover on risk assessment. Even if they do not cover you for a pre-existing illness you are still covered for any unrelated medical treatment, personal accidents, baggage loss, personal liability and legal advice so the insurance cover is not useless. If you decide you still want to risk travelling knowing you are not covered for a pre-existing illness then the choice is yours.

[Clare R]

Last report I saw on this case says the lady in question was four times over the UK drink/drive limit - I have no sympathy with her and I am glad an insurance company refuses to pay out, it would only mean higher premiums for the rest of us.

I have made two small medical claims in the past two years both have been settled (less of course the usual excess), one of which included a visit to the Englewood hospital that Mo mentions!

[steph_goodrum]

"If you decide you still want to risk travelling knowing you are not covered for a pre-existing illness then the choice is yours."

Mo I think in Pauls case the FIL was not travelling with them, but has pre existing conditions in the same way his father did when he died suddenly whilst Paul was away.

We are in the same situation in the my fil is 86 and suffers from diabetes my mil is 81 and in general good health and he has an elderly aunt and uncle whom he is very close to as they have no children so he is a sort of surrogate and helps them whenever need and is registered as their next of kin, executor to will etc so would need to come back if anything happened unexpectedly to them.

I know of at least one other case where a feloow homeowners father died just after his daughter had arrived in Florida so she changed flights and came home earlier expecting to be reimbursed for the extra cost of the flight. Because the grandfather had a routine appointment at the doctors that morning and happened to suffer a heart attack (not related to the pre existing conditions) the insurers werent going to pay as they said she should not have travelled if he was ill and there was achance something might happen, are we all supposed to stay home until there are no illnesses in the family?

[Mo Green]

Sorry I misread your posting Paul. I know how awful it is when a parent dies while you are away as it happened to my own father but we did not even try to claim as it was a pre-existing heart condition. My fil, who is 89, is diabetic and has also had a couple of mini-strokes over the past two years so when we book a holiday we know we may have to fly back at our own expense. Nobody is suggesting people stay at home if they have a realative with a terminal or serious illness but it is up to the individuals to decide if they are prepared to take the risk.