What travel insurance really means • Hacker News Board

Re: What travel insurance really means

#91

Post by astura » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 4:59 PM UTC

J-dawg wrote: post #80

astura wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Travel insurance is only for emergency coverage while traveling. You absolutely can't purchase travel insurance for $100 and use it to fly abroad to get non-emergency surgery.

> 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 difficult to get onto a plane and then claim you were unable to fly even if Singapore is a world closer to Indonesia than the UK.

I feel for this guy though, the situation sucks.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#92

Post by trocadero » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 5:00 PM UTC

J-dawg wrote: post #83

trocadero wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, but I wouldn't call 5 days later "immediately following an accident". It boils down to the question of whether or not he was fit to fly back to the UK to have that surgery there. Even if he wasn't, the documentation he provided for that is lackluster and I don't blame the insurance company for rejecting it.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#93

Post by codemati » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

opwieurposiu wrote: post #51

Insurers should be required to list the statics for the number of accepted and rejected claims on the policy website. Currently there is no way to tell which insurance is more or less likely to screw you.

Or, which insurer has customers who do not read their policies.

Accepted vs. rejected claims is meaningless on its own.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#94

Post by rsbadger » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

luispedrocoelho wrote: post #59

astura wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>this is exactly what travel insurance is (which is why it's so cheap) And that's one of the huge issues!! Very often people don't read their policies so they have misunderstandings about their coverage!! This is a big problem! I always read all of my policies, I suggest everyone else does the same. I want to be very clear what losses are covered and what my deductible will be before any losses occur. In fact, for le…

To be sure, travel insurance is very often a very good idea. But it's travel insurance not "whole-world, any hospital, health insurance" (which I am sure you can buy, but not at the same price).

I knew it may cause issues with my insurer, but the surgeon in Bali was on holiday for 1 or maybe 2 days and my finger was hanging off... Singapore was the closest place I could think of that would give me the best chance of saving it. And i'd do it again, in a heartbeat.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#95

Post by rsbadger » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 5:05 PM UTC

gnode wrote: post #76

weeksie wrote: post #66

He paid £275 for 18 months of travel insurance? Well yeah, of course they are going to want to fly him back to the NHS. As a US traveller my insurance was $2600 for 12 months. When you enter into a legal agreement (insurance) read the fine print, it'll save you a lot of disappointment.

> read the fine print People should be able to expect that insurance is as advertised, and there's no "not really" in the fine print. UK courts are much less accepting of such things than the US. The infamous case is PPI misselling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_protection_insurance

Also worth noting my cover was Worldwide (except USA) insurance is substantially cheaper outside of the states

Re: What travel insurance really means

#96

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 5:05 PM UTC

codemati wrote: post #93

opwieurposiu wrote: post #51

Insurers should be required to list the statics for the number of accepted and rejected claims on the policy website. Currently there is no way to tell which insurance is more or less likely to screw you.

Or, which insurer has customers who do not read their policies. Accepted vs. rejected claims is meaningless on its own.

[deleted]

Re: What travel insurance really means

#97

Post by vertex-four » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

pawelwentpawel wrote: post #75

Given the context of this thread - what would be a travel insurer for a UK resident that digital nomads of HN would actually recommend? Not necessarily the cheapest, just the most reliable one.

I believe the thing to do is to get global medical insurance, not travel insurance. Yes, it’s going to be pricier, yes, if you don’t plan on flying back to your home country as soon as you’re out of an emergency situation it’s necessary.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#98

Post by rsbadger » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #55

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).

That hospital stay was in Singapore, not Indonesia (where he got told to take a taxi to the hospital, rather than 'wait' for an ambulance, and that the surgeons felt that he needed urgent surgery, but there was no-one around that night, and there was a holiday tomorrow, so 'day after tomorrow... maybe').

so glad somebody gets it

Re: What travel insurance really means

#99

Post by rsbadger » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #69

I really feel for the guy, he has gone through a lot of pain and suffering. That said, as someone who has gone through life and used my share of insurance, I think the guys attitude is exactly backwards. There are huge numbers of people out there working insurance fraud schemes. I nearly ran into a couple that was trying to 'brake unexpectedly and get insurance payments.' Since I leave enough following distance I did…

This is true, but the reality is I doubted my insurance would pay from the start. I was expecting to pay for everything myself. It was only once I got the quotes in Singapore that I realised I might not actually be able to afford it that I resorted to the insurance. And their response was even worse than I expected it to be. I appreciate there are countless fraud attempts and they need to protect themselves, but I was lucky, it could have been a lot worse, I'm sure for other people it is. And I guarantee you when you're facing emergency surgery the LAST thing on your mind is "I best call my insurer and start the form filling process". It's fuck, FUCK. This fucking sucks.

Re: What travel insurance really means

#100

Post by trocadero » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 5:15 PM UTC

rsbadger wrote: post #90

J-dawg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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 long term care at all, I was only asking them to cover the 2nd operation that I was already scheduled in for.

Which they specifically told you you weren't covered for.

Your article says

>At this point, it’s 4 days until my scheduled surgery to have a plate fitted in my hand, and each reply from Insure and Go takes 3–4 days

The e-mails you include from Insure and Go have time stamps of June 6 and June 7. Perhaps they took more time before or after that, but during the time sensitive part of your narrative they were responsive. It was you that didn't respond to their June 7 e-mail requesting the not fit to fly until at least June 12.