101–110 of 186 posts
From his telling, the company was not very communicative when he contacted them, but, fundamentally, saying he should fly back to the UK for treatment and they'll cover the flight does not seem unreasonable. He complains that "unless you are injured so horrifically that you cannot survive another moment without life saving surgery, odds are they’ll just tell you to fly home and have the surgery for free." But, to me,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might be a silly question, but how do you even know he bought insurance from Insure and Go? You’re awful quick to want to shame “this horrible company.”
Let me ask you this: how much would you bet that he didn't? Because I'd be willing to bet $100 that he did. Am I sure? No. It is impossible to be sure. But I think it's highly likely considering the detail of the article and my difficulty in imagining why he'd put so much effort into a lie that could land him in hot water. So, let's dump the idea that people can't take action no matter how small unless we are 100% su…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
They inquired if he had a pre booked flight home:
>> Our medical team believe this injury may require long term care, so we would see if beneficial that you return to the UK for treatment, if you have a pre booked flight home please advise us on the date?
His response to that line was:
>> The medical team here have suggested that I will require physiotherapy once a week for 4 to 6 weeks. I have no return flight booked at present, as 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 is excellent and I'm already scheduled in for the procedure on Monday.
The partial quote you took, "I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet", was his justification for not having a pre booked flight home, not an expression of his refusal to comply with their recommendations.
> He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS.
You've also mistaken his desire to finish receiving treatment in Singapore as a desire to avoid the NHS. His desire was to receive the most immediate care possible and the surgery was intended to install a plate to stabilize his hand and ensure that it heals properly.
They were asking him to fly for 20+ hours in a coach seat, considering his hand was unstable that seams unreasonable. It also increases the likelihood of additional injury as he travels.
The were asking him to transition his medical care from one hospital to another in another country on the other side of the globe. That by itself would introduce considerable delay in treatment as the new medical team would need to fully access his treatment up to that point and establish a new treatment plan. The surgery he was prescribed was to stabilize his injury to ensure it healed properly, delaying that treatment could potentially lead to improper healing.
As someone who popped a pulled tendon and had to wait 6 months (MURICA!) for an appointment with an orthopedist at which point my injury was healed (thankfully correctly), I can fully understand his desire to stay put and finish his treatment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You absolutely can't purchase travel insurance for $100 and use it to fly abroad to get non-emergency surgery. I've certainly never thought that was the case, and I don't think my comment implied that (I've edited it for clarity anyway). What I meant was, I've always assumed that if I had an accident abroad, it would cover me for any surgery I needed in the immediate aftermath, until I was well enough to either res…
This is why I said in another post you absolutely have to read and understand your policy before you experience a loss!! Depends on the policy but I doubt there is a "somewhat comfortably" clause - if you want your insurance policy to cover you you generally have to follow what their policy requires and with cheapo insurance like this, if you are clear to fly, you are expected to fly home. It's gonna be very difficul…
Yep, and this post has been an education for me!
However, I still have issues with the way it's marketed. I think part of the problem is showing these huge numbers for medical cover. It's almost a psychological trick, in the same way that lottery players see an enormous jackpot and somehow conflate it with the likelihood of winning. It's falsely reassuring.
In reality, most claimants are going to spend much less than 1% of that £5 million limit before they get flown home. It only really applies to people who are at death's door and end up with a long stay in intensive care, or need a fully-staffed medical flight to get them home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>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. What you did after the accident was reasonable. Claim the bills that you were covered for. > 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…
I always wonder when I buy insurance, if I need it will they actually pay out. You should be able to get insurance for your insurance. So when you need insurance and it doesn't pay out. Then that insurance company can go after the first one without having to resort to twitter or medium to shame them.
If this doesn't exist it seems like an opportunity worth investigating. Your premiums would essentially be paying for consumer research on insurers (this should also include so-called "extended warranties," which is a huge market). The relative costs of premiums for different insurers should drive consumers to more trustworthy insurers, which should improve the insurance marketplace for everyone.
It's possible it just may not be economically viable though.
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…
> So he's pretty clearly trying to game the situation. I think you've misinterpreted some ambiguity in his statement because he neglected to use the proper tense when justifying his reason for not having a return flight booked. They inquired if he had a pre booked flight home: >> Our medical team believe this injury may require long term care, so we would see if beneficial that you return to the UK for treatment, if…
This approach by the company is not surprising at all. I have family in Canada who come and visit the US. They buy the insurance. One of them had a heart attach while in the US. Insurance paid something like $50,000 to put them on a private medical jet back to Canada. Far cheaper than having the care in the US.
I DO think that the gentleman made a bad decision saying that he was intent on staying in-country for 6 months afterwards. That's probably all the insurance company needed to think, "Yeah, this guy is using travel insurance as regular insurance"
Still, I do think the gentleman get the wrong end of the stick. I know I won't use this company, but now I really don't know who to use.
