British tourists to Thailand: Are you really covered? Travel insurance warning for medical emergencies

[kwilco]

52 minutes ago, condo62 said:

Travel Insurance is pretty much rubbish....Slipped in the shower in Kata recently and dislocated my collarbone insurance would not cover the operation to fix it would only pay for the flight home....So much for unlimited emergency medical....???? So let it heal up and enjoyed the rest of my trip.....<deleted> CoverLess Insurance.

:dislocated my collarbone insurance would not cover the operation to fix it : - why?

[NoshowJones]

On 4/10/2023 at 8:26 AM, stratocaster said:

Was reading a UK forum and the topic accident insurance in Thailand caught my eye. Someone posted the fine print on their policy. "Policy covers treatment in state run hospitals only. No private treatment covered." "Aerial transport only covered on journeys to and from government registered airports." I assume that means hot air ballooning and skydiving is not covered. Maybe the insurance company could stretch that to bungee jumping and zip lining.

"Someone posted the fine print on their policy." Assuming fine print and small print are the same thing. a very prominent poster said there was no small print in insurance policies. I will keep that in mind for any debate on insurance companies in the future.

[NoshowJones]

On 4/10/2023 at 10:08 AM, Liverpool Lou said:

Thank you ABI for confirming, once again, that the huge majority of claims (83%) are successfully paid out by insurers.

You told me in another post that there is no small print on insurance policies, assuming small print and fine print are the same thing. If small print and fine print are not the same thing then you have my apologies.

[Liverpool Lou]

8 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

On 4/10/2023 at 10:08 AM, Liverpool Lou said:

Thank you ABI for confirming, once again, that the huge majority of claims (83%) are successfully paid out by insurers.

You told me in another post that there is no small print on insurance policies, assuming small print and fine print are the same thing. If small print and fine print are not the same thing then you have my apologies.

What's that got to do with my comment that you quoted there?  I don't need, nor want, anyone's apologies, thanks

[Liverpool Lou]

On 4/10/2023 at 9:22 AM, sidneybear said:

Spot on. Insurance companies are profit making businesses, so they have a knee jerk reaction to try to wriggle out of paying, hoping that claimants will give up.

"Spot on", but only in the context that you couldn't be more wrong.   

You really think that insurers' overall premium revenues are not set at levels that massively outweigh any likely claims liability?   Why would any business operate in a manner that is so risky to their existence that a few claims would put the company in jeopardy?  Regardless, as a safeguard, all insurers have their own risks (re-)insured so that normal policy holders' payouts have negligible effect on their bottom line.  Insurance companies "knee-jerk reactions" don't exist because they would be redundant.

[NoshowJones]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

What's that got to do with my comment that you quoted there?  I don't need, nor want, anyone's apologies, thanks

Well you have answered one thing, fine print and small print are both the same and yet you said that insurance policies don't have small print. 

[Liverpool Lou]

Just now, NoshowJones said:

Well you have answered one thing, fine print and small print are both the same and yet you said that insurance policies don't have small print. 

No, I did not specifically respond to your "small print, fine print" remark, although, just to please you I will, they are synonymous in this context.   

 

All I have ever stated on this subject is the fact that insurance policies do not have "small print, fine print" or any other type of deliberately illegible font designed to make their policy conditions indecipherable because the insurance industry watchdogs nowadays outlaw the practice.

[NoshowJones]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I did not specifically respond to your "small print, fine print" remark, although, just to please you I will, they are synonymous in this context.   

 

All I have ever stated on this subject is the fact that insurance policies do not have "small print, fine print" or any other type of deliberately illegible font designed to make their policy conditions indecipherable because the insurance industry watchdogs nowadays outlaw the practice.

Good for them, if only the restaurants and hotels would also have industry watchdogs to outlaw the practice.

[richard_smith237]

39 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

All I have ever stated on this subject is the fact that insurance policies do not have "small print, fine print" or any other type of deliberately illegible font designed to make their policy conditions indecipherable because the insurance industry watchdogs nowadays outlaw the practice.

I think thats a fair point and most understand this but still use the term ‘small / fine print’ as a colloquialism for ‘policy terms and details’.

 

These ‘policy terms and details’ which many of us would refer to as 'small print’ or ‘fine print’ are often  written with the sole purpose of protecting the insurer rather than providing the policy holder with clear, concise and unambiguous information - as such the policy documentation is often long-winded, cross-referenced with subclauses and use technical and legal language which is often difficult to follow for the layman.

 

Some insurers are better at proving clear information to the consumer than others.

[sapson]

Some posts regarding major medical claims being paid without problem by their insurers, but perhaps forum policy ? the names of these companies who have reassuringly paid are not provided.

 

The details of these trustworthy companies who settled major claims would be very useful.

[Sheryl]

Just now, sapson said:

Some posts regarding major medical claims being paid without problem by their insurers, but perhaps forum policy ? the names of these companies who have reassuringly paid are not provided.

 

The details of these trustworthy companies who settled major claims would be very useful.

No problem giving company names if post is positive

 

However note that a claim being paid may have at least as much to do with the circumstances and policy details as with the company.

 

Get in an accident while driving drunk, or without a valid license, or (motorcycle/bicycle) without a helmet = no company will cover.

 

Ditto injury sustained as a direct result of intoxication and/or very reckless behavior (balancing on balcony rail to take a selfie, diving head first into a shallow pool etc etc) will nto be covered.

 

Neither will a policy which has expired/not been renewed pay out.

 

[billd766]

On 4/11/2023 at 2:48 PM, Bangel72 said:

Curious to know if any cover is void if smoking cannabis, any changes since it was legalized?

 

Similarly alcohol it seems can make some claims void like losing a passport whilst drunk.  To be clear, I am not talking illegal activities like drunk driving.

 

Given a lot of holiday makers are under the influence about half their trip is that like not having insurance?

 

Anyone with recent insurance could check small print on this.

 

 

AFAIK smoking cannabis for recreational purposes is still illegal. If it is used on medicinal grounds it seems to be OK.

 

I could be wrong but that is what I understand.

[NoshowJones]

On 4/10/2023 at 3:51 PM, kwilco said:

It's. a realisation of a general shift in UK mentality.... being aware is not being obsessed. There isa shift away from critical thinking towards rightwing non-scientifically reasoned thought. THis is precisely the sort of thing that dominates people's thinking when it comes to understanding their insurance policies

Where insurance companies get it drastically wrong is when someone who is applying for insurance lists a previous medical condition in the application form, then claims for something which is nothing to do with the previous condition, but something which occurred after the insurance was taken out, then try to connect it with the previous condition.

The claim is made then turned down because of this previous condition.

[The Fugitive]

6 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

Where insurance companies get it drastically wrong is when someone who is applying for insurance lists a previous medical condition in the application form, then claims for something which is nothing to do with the previous condition, but something which occurred after the insurance was taken out, then try to connect it with the previous condition.

The claim is made then turned down because of this previous condition.

In other words, the customer had been completely honest and disclosed everything upon his application. The insurance company didn't state there were any exclusions until he suffered illness and made a claim?

[richard_smith237]

23 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

Where insurance companies get it drastically wrong is when someone who is applying for insurance lists a previous medical condition in the application form, then claims for something which is nothing to do with the previous condition, but something which occurred after the insurance was taken out, then try to connect it with the previous condition.

The claim is made then turned down because of this previous condition.

Agreed...   Insurance companies try anything on. 

 

My Wife, Son and I were covered with the same Health Insurance company (I was the lead Policy holder for the family). 

I then took a position with a new company which offered excellent health insurance.

I wanted to renew the insurance cover for my Wife and Son, removing myself and placing my Wife as the lead policy holder.

 

The previous year my Wife had suffered a UTI, I forget the exact wording but the renewal document excluded anything related to the previous UTI. 

 

I had to argue with the Insurance company that they cannot add on an exclusion when an existing policy is being renewed.

The insurance company were arguing that because I was ‘leaving’ they would have to start the policy anew, with pre-existing conditions. 

It took over a month and a lot of e-mails back and forth until they conceded and renewed cover for my Wife and Son rather than ‘re-start a new policy’.

 

 

 

[simon43]

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed...   Insurance companies try anything on. 

 

My Wife, Son and I were covered with the same Health Insurance company (I was the lead Policy holder for the family). 

I then took a position with a new company which offered excellent health insurance.

I wanted to renew the insurance cover for my Wife and Son, removing myself and placing my Wife as the lead policy holder.

 

The previous year my Wife had suffered a UTI, I forget the exact wording but the renewal document excluded anything related to the previous UTI. 

 

I had to argue with the Insurance company that they cannot add on an exclusion when an existing policy is being renewed.

The insurance company were arguing that because I was ‘leaving’ they would have to start the policy anew, with pre-existing conditions. 

It took over a month and a lot of e-mails back and forth until they conceded and renewed cover for my Wife and Son rather than ‘re-start a new policy’.

 

 

 

And now, how confident are you that the company will pay out if your wife/son make a claim?