What travel insurance really means • Hacker News Board

Re: What travel insurance really means

#121

Post by trocadero » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

rsbadger wrote: post #106

trocadero wrote: post #100

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. 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 replied to them immediately, it's just I didn't get the written "not fit to fly" until I saw the DRs again, which was the day of the surgery. I had told the insurers that the DR's had already "told" me I wasn't, and that I would get the written form when I next met them. I had to decide between having the surgery or not at that point. I couldn't go back on Monday morning, ask the Dr for his letter, and hold…

Did you do this?

>The patient may want to forward onto the treating doctor to help point out to us where in the manual the reason why he is not fit to fly as our decision would still be curtailment and he would have been fit to fly. http://www.iata.org/publications/Pages/medical-manual.aspx

Re: What travel insurance really means

#122

Post by refurb » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

rsbadger wrote: post #112

justinator wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what surprises me is that they wanted to fly the guy half way around the world. Canada and the US border each other. 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…

my insurance was for 18 months of travel though, so i intended to travel for 18 months. I think that's reasonable. Maybe my wording came out wrong in the post, I wasn't telling them, "no i wont come home" I was telling them I didn't have a return flight pre booked because I was planning on travelling for 6 more months yet.

Agreed they shafted you on that.

If the company didn't want to pay for care, they should have offered to fly you back home and back to SE Asia. That is, if it didn't impact your care in a negative way.

They were definitely trying to be cheap.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#123

Post by mijoharas » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

luispedrocoelho wrote: post #116

dblohm7 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His doctor said that he was not fit to fly back to the UK!

The incentive to say so is pretty clear: if he flies away, not only does the doctor lose a 15,000 costumer, he can also be liable if anything does go wrong. Maybe he was indeed in no shape to fly, but he should have argued it properly in those days. Even now, it seems more like "it would have been awful to fly economy" and not "it would have been dangerous".

You may argue the doctor gave the opinion in bad faith, but that's pure speculation.

As a patient what would you do? You have been given a medical opinion that it is unsafe to fly. I definitely don't think anything the guy did was unreasonable.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#124

Post by gaius » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 6:32 PM UTC

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…

He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS

Private health insurance is by definition avoiding the NHS, which was 10,000 miles away anyway, so I’m not sure what point you’re making here? If the terms of the policy were we’ll fly you home in cattle class and dump you on the taxpayer then that should be made clear

Re: What travel insurance really means

#125

Post by al_chemist » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 6:39 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #114

dalore wrote: post #3

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.

In Switzerland, it fairly common to have Legal Expenses Insurance, which might help you against your other insurance (e.g. homeowner's policies often include it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_expenses_insurance Of course, whether THEY will pay out on a claim is a separate question.

"Have you been a victim of an insurance fraud? You have believed insurer's promises and they betrayed your trust? We can insure you against that. You can trust us, we promise!"

Re: What travel insurance really means

#126

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 6:51 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: What travel insurance really means

#127

Post by chrisbennet » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 7:01 PM UTC

paidleaf wrote: post #19

dalore wrote: post #3

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.

> I always wonder when I buy insurance, if I need it will they actually pay out. I think that's every insurance purchasers worry. The insurance companies have people who work for them to look for ways to deny your claim. But if the claim is straightforward, obvious and well documented, they will pay out unless you are dealing with unscrupulous insurers.

"But if the claim is straightforward, obvious and well documented, they will pay out unless you are dealing with unscrupulous insurers."

I think this a fallacy (unless most insurers are unscrupulous). It is very common for insurance companies to reject the claim initially and hope you'll go away.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#128

Post by malyk » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

rsbadger wrote: post #111

justinator wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a dire need for an editor!

my first ever blog post attempt, I thought the gifs helped make up for my poor writing abilities

I loved the gifs and thought it was well written and 'fun' to read. You can't please everyone.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#129

Post by luispedrocoelho » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 7:08 PM UTC

mijoharas wrote: post #123

luispedrocoelho wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incentive to say so is pretty clear: if he flies away, not only does the doctor lose a 15,000 costumer, he can also be liable if anything does go wrong. Maybe he was indeed in no shape to fly, but he should have argued it properly in those days. Even now, it seems more like "it would have been awful to fly economy" and not "it would have been dangerous".

You may argue the doctor gave the opinion in bad faith, but that's pure speculation. As a patient what would you do? You have been given a medical opinion that it is unsafe to fly. I definitely don't think anything the guy did was unreasonable.

I never claimed it was in bad faith and I don't think it was. Considering incentives and conflicts of interest is perfectly normal and does not mean that someone is operating in bad faith.

I just claim that it's reasonable for the company not to take it at face value as the doctor is not impartial and may have been considering a different standard for "not fit to fly." I certainly do not take it at face value. Could he have been put on a plane with extra medical assistance, for example? That may still have been cheaper than surgery.

I think what the guy did was the best choice if he can afford it, but I also think it's not unreasonable from the company to say that it was not what travel insurance covers.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#130

Post by trocadero » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 7:09 PM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #104

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…

> 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…

>You've also mistaken his desire to finish receiving treatment in Singapore as a desire to avoid the NHS

It's right there in his e-mail. He was concerned:

"About potential waiting times on the NHS".

>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.

IMHO if his hand is well enough to be discharged then the presumption is it's well enough to travel. Of course, he can provide evidence from his doctor to rebut that presumption. The insurance co asked for that but it's not clear he ever provided it.

>The were asking him to transition his medical care from one hospital to another in another country on the other side of the globe.

Which is the service he paid for. Travel insurance is to pay for emergency care until you are able to fly home. If he wants an "any hospital, for any treatment, in any country" policy those are sold too, but, naturally, are much more expensive than Bronze level travelers insurance.