Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What travel insurance really means

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 186 posts

Re: What travel insurance really means

#81

Post by gnode »

throwaway9d0291 wrote: post #20

This is why it's important to read the policy itself, not just the marketing materials. Usually they have the specific details of what you have to do and what you're entitled to receive. The insurer definitely didn't handle it well but it would have gone much smoother if the expectations were properly set by reading the policy. The travel insurance that comes for my credit card for example makes it quite clear that y…

He got a medical opinion that he was not fit for travel before his operation. This wasn't a case of not reading the small print, it was a case of the insurer valuing their own medical opinion over that of their customer's doctor.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#82

Post by patmcc »

J-dawg wrote: post #71
trocadero wrote: post #37

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the insurance company here. Travel insurance is there to take care of emergency medical care. It's not for long term care. The guy clearly didn't want to travel because he preferred to be cared in Singapore. From his e-mail: >I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet. I did consider travelling home to have surgery in the UK, but the medical Service here is excellent and I'm already schedu…

I’d always assumed that “Travel Insurance” means you’re covered for whatever treatment you need in the country you happen to be in. (EDIT: providing the accident happens on your trip). Flying you home and palming you off onto the state seems kinda shady to me. That’s not really “medical cover”, it’s just a flight home. And to make matters worse they made out as if flying him home was doing him a favour. EDIT: Reading…

>>“£5,000,000 in medical cover”

With travel insurance generally, I think there's a distinction between emergency medical care you need RIGHT NOW and medical care that you need at some point.

If I get hit by a train and need to be pieced back together, am in the ICU, etc. I'd expect travel insurance to pay for that, up to the total coverage. If I get diagnosed with a slow moving cancer that needs treatment (but not today), I wouldn't expect travel insurance to cover it. I'd expect this to be laid out in the longer agreements I'm sure he had to sign to get this insurance. That's the difference between travel insurance and health insurance. I (Canadian) can get travel insurance for a trip to the US for damn cheap; that doesn't mean I can go live in the US and use that insurance for my day-to-day stuff.

Whether this particular incident is closer to the train or the cancer might be an open question. I think the key point, and maybe where he loses the argument, is that he already flew to Singapore. He took a ~3 hour flight in a worse state then when the insurance company advised him to fly home. Don't think he's going to win this one.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#83

Post by J-dawg »

trocadero wrote: post #74
J-dawg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d always assumed that “Travel Insurance” means you’re covered for whatever treatment you need in the country you happen to be in. (EDIT: providing the accident happens on your trip). Flying you home and palming you off onto the state seems kinda shady to me. That’s not really “medical cover”, it’s just a flight home. And to make matters worse they made out as if flying him home was doing him a favour. EDIT: Reading…

Nah, travel insurance is to cover emergency medical expenses abroad. Long term care is taken care of by your local insurance or government system.

I've never expected travel insurance to cover me for long term care, I just assumed it would cover me for any surgery I needed immediately following an accident, plus a bit of recovery time.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#84

Post by matz1 »

trocadero wrote: post #68
mamurphy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's unclear to me why he didn't ask for/demand coverage for the emergency finger-attaching procedure. In the article, he skipped the details on that in terms of supposedly having to inform them beforehand for an emergency procedure. That emergency procedure, not the follow-up, seems more in line with what the plan is designed to cover.

>Yeah, it's unclear to me why he didn't ask for/demand coverage for the emergency finger-attaching procedure. That's bizarre to me as well. Why does he think not claiming reimbursement for covered expenses is being reasonable?

I can understand, maybe he thought getting reimbursement for anything is already beyond impossible in the first place so he thought maybe by reducing the claim he will somewhat slightly increase the probability getting reimbursed. Beside the 5,300 procedure maybe still somewhat manageable, the $15,000 on the other hand is more important.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#85

Post by trocadero »

Flimm wrote: post #43
TwoBit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly it was partly his fault for not reading the policy.

He did read the policy. He also read the 94 page medical manual they later sent him, which presumably wasn't in the original policy. He found the reason in all those pages of text why he was eligible for getting his costs covered, and they still replied with: > “This is a general exclusion and doesn’t apply to you specifically. Our decision still stands with curtailment. No further medical input needed. Why do you fe…

He's being willfully ignorant there. That quote comes from the section saying when an airline requires medical clearance. Two pages later there are several pages of specific medical conditions and guidance on if they should fly. One of them is "Full plaster cast" and it says that you can fly 2 days after getting one.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#86

Post by J-dawg »

patmcc wrote: post #82
J-dawg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d always assumed that “Travel Insurance” means you’re covered for whatever treatment you need in the country you happen to be in. (EDIT: providing the accident happens on your trip). Flying you home and palming you off onto the state seems kinda shady to me. That’s not really “medical cover”, it’s just a flight home. And to make matters worse they made out as if flying him home was doing him a favour. EDIT: Reading…

>>“£5,000,000 in medical cover” With travel insurance generally, I think there's a distinction between emergency medical care you need RIGHT NOW and medical care that you need at some point. If I get hit by a train and need to be pieced back together, am in the ICU, etc. I'd expect travel insurance to pay for that, up to the total coverage. If I get diagnosed with a slow moving cancer that needs treatment (but not to…

I dunno, a ~3hr flight to get to a place with much more advanced healthcare seems quite reasonable.

Also a ~14hr flight is a completely different proposition. Totally healthy people feel like shit after a flight that long. I really wouldn't want to take one if I was already in significant pain.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#87

Post by idontpost »

caymanjim wrote: post #60
forgot-my-pw wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very suspicious that the article mentions $22,000 hospital bed cost for 5 nights stay (excluding surgery).

In Singapore, with first-rate hospitals, and the highest cost of living in the world? That's not even a little surprising.

> the highest cost of living in the world

Singapore is not THAT expensive. Yes, it's first-rate, but not even close to highest COL[1]

[1] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...

Re: What travel insurance really means

#88

Post by ghaff »

throwaway9d0291 wrote: post #20

This is why it's important to read the policy itself, not just the marketing materials. Usually they have the specific details of what you have to do and what you're entitled to receive. The insurer definitely didn't handle it well but it would have gone much smoother if the expectations were properly set by reading the policy. The travel insurance that comes for my credit card for example makes it quite clear that y…

It's probably particularly important with travel insurance because travel insurance exists for reasons in addition to a standard health insurance policy (which may, in fact, be your primary health coverage for out-of-country travel in any case).

I think of travel insurance as serving two main purposes.

- Insuring against not being able to take or having to cut short an expensive pre-paid trip or

- Evacuating you (e.g. a helicopter rescue) if you injure yourself in a remote place (especially if you're doing activities like mountain climbing).

Of course, it depends on the quality of your main medical insurance.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#89

Post by patmcc »

J-dawg wrote: post #86
patmcc wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>“£5,000,000 in medical cover” With travel insurance generally, I think there's a distinction between emergency medical care you need RIGHT NOW and medical care that you need at some point. If I get hit by a train and need to be pieced back together, am in the ICU, etc. I'd expect travel insurance to pay for that, up to the total coverage. If I get diagnosed with a slow moving cancer that needs treatment (but not to…

I dunno, a ~3hr flight to get to a place with much more advanced healthcare seems quite reasonable. Also a ~14hr flight is a completely different proposition. Totally healthy people feel like shit after a flight that long. I really wouldn't want to take one if I was already in significant pain.

Yeah I don't disagree - I think the author made rational decisions, I just think he's not going to get anywhere with the insurance company.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#90

Post by rsbadger »

J-dawg wrote: post #73
trocadero wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yeah, it's unclear to me why he didn't ask for/demand coverage for the emergency finger-attaching procedure. That's bizarre to me as well. Why does he think not claiming reimbursement for covered expenses is being reasonable?

That part seemed really strange. You bought the policy, claim for whatever you’re entitled to! Part of me wonders whether this set fraud alarm bells ringing and made them scrutinise his case more. (Not that that excuses anything the company did subsequently).

I felt I shouldn't claim the first bills because I hadn't informed them before the procedure. And yes, because it turned out to be a fairly manageable bill. But the 2nd procedure was going to be considerably more, so I notified them. To clarify, I didn't want any long term care at all, I was only asking them to cover the 2nd operation that I was already scheduled in for.
Post reply on HN