Health Insurance Warning!

[jazzbo]

As per Ms. F1's post #26 -- BUPA Platinum covers each disability up to 5 million baht with no annual or lifetime limit -- there are very few procedures in Thailand that would exceed that amount and there is no deductible or co-payment ... I do not know of the cost of coverage in UK ... However, in Thailand Non-Thais and Thais pay the same premium rate for coverage and BUPA has about 80% of the specialty health care market -- So I guess you know something that the general Thai population does not.

BTW I purchase a 3 million baht per incident travel policy for my annual trip to the USA ... one year coverage (maximum 60 days per stay before returning to Thailand) about US$ 100.

[Spee]

The Netherlands is an unusual case where since 2006 people of working age have been mandated to purchase a standard health insurance package from private insurers, regulated by the state and arms-length bodies. The earlier poster doesn't mention the risk equalisation and risk pooling put in place as a result of governmental intervention

And your post doesn't mention about wrong and discriminatory such government-mandated policies are. Government should not have the right to force an individual to enter into a private contract, under force of law and penalty. If a 21 year old perfectly healthy and fit individual may not want to purchase health insurance, what place is it of the government or any other body to force him or her to do so? Government-mandated insurance has nothing to do with traditional open market insurance practices. All it does is create crony capitalism. It certainly doesn't equalize and pool risk. It is also economically unsustainable.

[WarpSpeed]

Don't you people read the policies? The references to pre-existing conditions are there. The conditions in respect to a serious illness being diagnosed within 2 years are clearly stated. The reasons these policies are subject to such conditions are due to people taking out policies once they realize they have illnesses, and yes it happens regularly. The contract wordings are such to eliminate any doubt and sometimes gray cases get dealt with harshly. If it wasn't that way, the health insurers would go bankrupt.

You're partly right except the part about them going broke as that's their ptich, they truth is they'd just have a little less profit margin..

[WarpSpeed]

Don't you people read the policies? The references to pre-existing conditions are there. The conditions in respect to a serious illness being diagnosed within 2 years are clearly stated. The reasons these policies are subject to such conditions are due to people taking out policies once they realize they have illnesses, and yes it happens regularly. The contract wordings are such to eliminate any doubt and sometimes gray cases get dealt with harshly. If it wasn't that way, the health insurers would go bankrupt.

Very few people are up to reading the small print, or even understand the medical jargon.

Having said that, I am sympathetic to the point you have made.

Trying to get them clearly stated in English as an issue too I'm finding...

[manarak]

...despite the fact that we had no idea our daughter was epileptic at the time the policy was taken out, the policy was effectively null and void. If something happened that was related to her epilepsy, we could claim nothing.

We questioned this with the person who sold us the policy, her response was to lie about the cause of death. I was speechless.

Even if a doctor could be convinced to falsify the death certificate, who on earth would want to do such a thing in the case of the death of their child.

one of the rare cases where two wrongs make a right.

[citizen33]

The Netherlands is an unusual case where since 2006 people of working age have been mandated to purchase a standard health insurance package from private insurers, regulated by the state and arms-length bodies. The earlier poster doesn't mention the risk equalisation and risk pooling put in place as a result of governmental intervention

And your post doesn't mention about wrong and discriminatory such government-mandated policies are. Government should not have the right to force an individual to enter into a private contract, under force of law and penalty. If a 21 year old perfectly healthy and fit individual may not want to purchase health insurance, what place is it of the government or any other body to force him or her to do so? Government-mandated insurance has nothing to do with traditional open market insurance practices. All it does is create crony capitalism. It certainly doesn't equalize and pool risk. It is also economically unsustainable.

I was just making the point that the private system of the Netherlands is very different from that of pre-2010 USA - something which your post confirms. We know only too well that the Tea Party movement believes that UC is just as great a threat to individual freedom as gun control. Similar individual freedom arguments come up if you look at old newsreel film from Canada or the UK - it is just that those who have experienced those systems don't recognise the description. The limitations of conventional private insurance when you get old and sick are evident in spades in Thailand - very few Thais rely entirely on PMI when past 60, and not that many at any age.

I think at least 31 US states have filed law suites to fight the individual mandate since last March, which some of us find rather depressing.

The Dutch scheme has attracted international interest because of the risk sharing arrangements, which you would understand if you read the article at the link. Many European social theorists believe that social health insurance was necessary to support industrialisation and that, without it, capitalism would have been unsustainable. Otto von Bismarck was not a liberal!

Edited February 25, 2011 by citizen33

[samran]

The Netherlands is an unusual case where since 2006 people of working age have been mandated to purchase a standard health insurance package from private insurers, regulated by the state and arms-length bodies. The earlier poster doesn't mention the risk equalisation and risk pooling put in place as a result of governmental intervention

And your post doesn't mention about wrong and discriminatory such government-mandated policies are. Government should not have the right to force an individual to enter into a private contract, under force of law and penalty. If a 21 year old perfectly healthy and fit individual may not want to purchase health insurance, what place is it of the government or any other body to force him or her to do so? Government-mandated insurance has nothing to do with traditional open market insurance practices. All it does is create crony capitalism. It certainly doesn't equalize and pool risk. It is also economically unsustainable.

Sounds like individualism at the misery of others.

We enter private contracts all the time, government or not. Use a car park, you are under contract. Walt on a footpath, you are under contract.

Then there are social contracts - which are essential, unless you prefer living in anarchy. We agree to drive on a certain side of the road, at a certain speed limit.

As for the 21 year old, well you mandate his insurance as like many 21 year olds (and the rest of us) they underestimate their risk profile, and under-insure (or forgoe insurance all together). It also allows a more effective pooling of risk - that is economics 101. But economics is something the lunatic right has never been good at.

Having said that, while it isn't optimal, sure, let there be an 'opt out' option for people with insurance. If a tin foil hat wearing, gun-toting, the-government-has-microchipped-me libertarian living in Idaho wants to opt out of a government mandated insurance scheme then they can tick the box. It gives them the 'choice' they so much crave.

Behavioural economics tells you most people won't so the integrity of the a scheme is essentially still intact.

Edited February 26, 2011 by samran

[Spee]

I think at least 31 US states have filed law suites to fight the individual mandate since last March, which some of us find rather depressing.

The lawsuits are significant but a distant third in importance after a federal judge has ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the US House has refused to fund it.

As depressing as you and others may find it, these events have significant impact on the future of the US, not to mention the global insurance industry. Why do you think some expats, especially retired expats, find it so difficult to get reliable major medical insurance coverage in Thailand?

The answer is quite simple. Government control of health care destroys the insurance companies' ability to measure and manage risk, not to mention being able to price it affordably. The only insurance companies that survive are those that succomb to crony capitalism. And the insurance industry has been corrupted for some time for these very reasons.

The British health care system is broke. While it does function at some level (yes, I used to pay UK taxes and had an NHS number), what was once moderate rationing has become more and more severe as time goes on. In another 5 or 10 years, non-resident UK retirees will be lucky to get the <deleted>' time o' day from the NHS. If there is no insurance, or more likely, no affordable insurance, the people will be left high and dry.

Fortunately, the US has temporarily avoided the disaster of nationalized health care. Speaking of health care, may we all hope that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court stay in good health for the next two years, until BO gets the boot.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Spee

[F1fanatic]

As per Ms. F1's post #26 -- BUPA Platinum covers each disability up to 5 million baht with no annual or lifetime limit -- there are very few procedures in Thailand that would exceed that amount and there is no deductible or co-payment ... I do not know of the cost of coverage in UK ... However, in Thailand Non-Thais and Thais pay the same premium rate for coverage and BUPA has about 80% of the specialty health care market -- So I guess you know something that the general Thai population does not.

BTW I purchase a 3 million baht per incident travel policy for my annual trip to the USA ... one year coverage (maximum 60 days per stay before returning to Thailand) about US$ 100.

BUPA Thailand Platinum is the most expensive policy - and more expensive that Bupa International.

Perhaps you did not read all of my post? - "Disappointingly I found that the basic cover is far too basic if one is unfortunate enough to come down with a serious medical problem, and once I looked at their top packages they were no cheaper than BUPA International!"

[jazzbo]

#39 -- Perhaps you did not read all of my post? Yes, I read it particularly about the part in #26 that says 'It makes no sense at all' ... and as I said BUPA/Thailand has 80% of the specialty health insurance market in Thailand. Similar coverage for me in USA would be around US$ 10K per year if I could get it at all so it makes sense for me.

Edited February 26, 2011 by jazzbo

[Gary A]

If the USA wants to make the cost of medical care much more reasonable, they need to put a bounty on lawyers. That would also substantially help small business, insurance companies and the entire country. That's not to mention the crooked politicians that would be thinned out.

LMG here in Thailand promised to never cancel my coverage regardless of age. They never mentioned that the increase in premiums would eventually force me to cancel.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Gary A

[samran]

As per Ms. F1's post #26 -- BUPA Platinum covers each disability up to 5 million baht with no annual or lifetime limit -- there are very few procedures in Thailand that would exceed that amount and there is no deductible or co-payment ... I do not know of the cost of coverage in UK ... However, in Thailand Non-Thais and Thais pay the same premium rate for coverage and BUPA has about 80% of the specialty health care market -- So I guess you know something that the general Thai population does not.

BTW I purchase a 3 million baht per incident travel policy for my annual trip to the USA ... one year coverage (maximum 60 days per stay before returning to Thailand) about US$ 100.

BUPA Thailand Platinum is the most expensive policy - and more expensive that Bupa International.

Perhaps you did not read all of my post? - "Disappointingly I found that the basic cover is far too basic if one is unfortunate enough to come down with a serious medical problem, and once I looked at their top packages they were no cheaper than BUPA International!"

We are with William Russel - through the UK. For us (family of 4, working age parents) the premiums were a 'sweet spot' for us. Premiums slightly cheaper than the 'high end' ones available on the Thai market but with coverage that far exceeded anything on offer in Thailand.

Additionally, they have come through for us time and again, including on life threatening issues. And after all that, premiums are still extremely reasonable.

[jazzbo]

Very good for you and your family Kuhn Samran -- as it says on the William Russell website:

"Our customers have the assurance of knowing that our insurance are underwritten by Hauteville Insurance Company Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Allianz, one of Europe's leading insurance companies with a Standard & Poor's rating of AA."

As I said in an earlier post, I applied simultaneously to four international companies who are basically underwriters for Lloyd's of London (You can tell as they say that you as US citizen must be ex-USA for a minimum 6 months per year, no exceptions). All 4 turned me down and they do not say why other than that it was an 'underwriting decision'. So even though these companies may have offered coverage including the USA at a cost similar or less than BUPA/Thailand, it is moot point for me.

... And now if I ever were to again apply for health insurance elsewhere, I would have to answer 'Yes' to the ever-present question: Have you ever been turned down for health coverage?

So that's what makes sense for me: To stick with BUPA/Thailand and feel dam_n lucky I have it.

BTW what I like best about BUPA/Thailand is that the insurance office of my local hospital is in contact with them probably about 100 times per day ... if a staff doctor at the BUPA network hospital in Thailand deems an In-Patient procedure as 'necessary' there is little if any debate from BUPA ... how often during the course of the average day does my hospital communicate with the rep in London from William Russell?

Edited February 26, 2011 by jazzbo

[F1fanatic]

#39 -- Perhaps you did not read all of my post? Yes, I read it particularly about the part in #26 that says 'It makes no sense at all' ... and as I said BUPA/Thailand has 80% of the specialty health insurance market in Thailand. Similar coverage for me in USA would be around US$ 10K per year if I could get it at all so it makes sense for me.

Why are you so angry?

This is a post about health insurance in Thailand, something in which many of us are interested.

So, we are posting our views.

I'll take your word for it that medical insurance in the USA would be more expensive. The only point I was making was that BUPA UK is cheaper than BUPA International and Thailand, even though medical costs are far more expensive in the UK!

I was trying to say (obviously badly!) that comparing Bupa Thailand (top policy) and Bupa International (cheapest policy and excluding N USA) - BUPA Thailand was more expensive, even though they were comparable in cover.

Sorry to keep banging on about Bupa, but its the only medical insurance company of which I have knowledge, other than the Canadian company with whom my husband (BAD mistake) took out a policy - only to be seriously let down.

Edited February 26, 2011 by F1fanatic

[citizen33]

The lawsuits are significant but a distant third in importance after a federal judge has ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the US House has refused to fund it.

I mentioned the law suites because they give a sense of the multi-pronged effort by the corporations and the neo-cons to roll back a progressive reform. Twenty six of the states are plaintiffs in the action in Florida. It's hard to predict how this will turn out, but my guess is that Vinson's judgment will be overturned on appeal because the attempt to strike down the whole Act will founder on the dubious nature of the severability doctrine.

The negotiations in Congress are obviously very difficult, but horse trading can work in both directions.

Where in the world do retirees get reliable and affordable private insurance without state regulation? Why was it necessary to create Medicare in the US? How many Thai retirees have private health insurance as their primary guarantee of health care?

Anyway I can see that I won't convince anybody on the other side and this is somewhat off topic. Thankfully there are plenty of people in the MoPH and NHSO here in Thailand whose plans are informed by a very different vision.

Edited February 26, 2011 by citizen33

[jazzbo]

from Post #44 -- Why are you so angry? I do not believe I am angry but I do believe on this issue I am very passionate -- hundreds of Thousands if not millions of Thais have made the decision to use BUPA here in Thailand which you say 'makes no sense at all' given the cost of medical treatment ... drinking CocaCola makes 'no sense at all' to me but around a billion people do it every day.

I do not know about nor can comment about the health situation in UK ... but at least so far I have not been 'let down' by BUPA/Thailand.

... and I also noted that there were covers available for US citizens that were about the same price (with deductible) but had the advantage of covering costs in USA if outside USA for at least 6 months per year ... all of them turned me down so with me BUPA Thailand is a compromise but one I will gladly accept.

Edited February 26, 2011 by jazzbo

[jazzbo]

Correction to Post #46 above : I got a little carried away at 5AM -- on the BUPA Thailand website that it provides coverage for around 2000 companies plus individuals in Thailand -- BUPA Worldwide insures about 10 million total people in 195 countries -- so around 100 +/- K persons in Thailand may be accurate ... and for those persons I guess it makes sense.

[Spee]

It's hard to predict how this will turn out, but my guess is that Vinson's judgment will be overturned on appeal because the attempt to strike down the whole Act will founder on the dubious nature of the severability doctrine.

The negotiations in Congress are obviously very difficult, but horse trading can work in both directions.

Ummmm ... Judge Vinson sits on the Federal Court bench, the second highest court in the land. There is no appeal. Someone may petition the US Supreme Court to hear the case, but the only way they will entertain it is if someone can prove misconduct or malfeasance. The judge has ruled that the law is unconstitutional. By continuing to try to push the healthcare agenda, Obama, Sebelius, et al, are acting lawlessly in contempt of court. On the other hand, the House defunding of the agenda is acting in compliance with the court ruling. But no one hears it written that way in the mass media.

Where in the world do retirees get reliable and affordable private insurance without state regulation? Why was it necessary to create Medicare in the US? How many Thai retirees have private health insurance as their primary guarantee of health care?

Like so many, you seem to be very confused with respect to keeping "health care" and "health insurance" separate, and the role of the state in destroying the insurance business. This clouding of terms is a big part of the reason we have the problems that we have, not to mention working right into the hands of those who want national programs.

Always remember, "A confused society is a controllable society." Politicians and bureacrats live to create confusion because it makes it easier to exert influence and control over large groups of voters. The 45-year failure of the "Great Society" (including Medicare) is more than ample evidence.

I would submit that most Thai retirees do not have "health insurance" and they get their "health care" in more or less the same way they got it all of their working lives, going to the clinic or hospital and either paying what they can out of pocket or not paying at all because they don't have the money. Sometimes the health care is acceptable. Sometimes it is atrocious. Look at that poor kid in Phichit who died in the hospital because of mistreatment of appedicitis.

Nationalized health care systems are the classic example of the laws of unintended consequences. They tend to destroy or corrupt the insurance industry, while at the same time causing insurance costs to skyrocket for reasons I have already mentioned. This makes quality insurance unaffordable to lower income groups and opens the door for all of the sleazy practices that cause these people to get screwed when they think they have covereage.

Further, the ultimate end of nationalized health care is rationing of health care and treatment decisions being taken away from the patient and doctor and put into the hands of some faceless bureaucrat. One need look no further than the NHS as more than ample proof. You can get seen by a doctor for basic care, providing you are there first thing in the morning and prepared to wait as long as all day for the doctor to work through the waiting list. As for more extensive care and treatment, such as breast cancer, for some time there has been an inhumanely long list of women who have been denied care, and suffer and die because of it.

People who did well in their working lives and can afford to pay health care out of pocket and/or pay for a high quality insurance premium, will always get the best of it. People who scraped out a modest income for their working lives, and now live on a modest pension and counting on the government to cover them, are going to be the first ones to be screwed. This goes for expat retirees in Thailand, as well as retirees still living in their home country.

[jazzbo]

Post #48: Ummmm ... Judge Vinson sits on the Federal Court bench, the second highest court in the land. There is no appeal. Negative.

Clyde Roger Vinson (born February 19, 1940) is a senior federal judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Appeals of decisions made by the Northern District Florida US Court are heard by the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/links/index.php

[citizen33]

Where in the world do retirees get reliable and affordable private insurance without state regulation? Why was it necessary to create Medicare in the US? How many Thai retirees have private health insurance as their primary guarantee of health care?

I would submit that most Thai retirees do not have "health insurance" and they get their "health care" in more or less the same way they got it all of their working lives, going to the clinic or hospital and either paying what they can out of pocket or not paying at all because they don't have the money. Sometimes the health care is acceptable. Sometimes it is atrocious. Look at that poor kid in Phichit who died in the hospital because of mistreatment of appedicitis.

I may or may not be confused but still manage to make a living in this field. There is a lot of misinformation in that last post. Just at the straightforward level, relatively few Thais have private health insurance in retirement but are covered by one of three public schemes - the Civil Servant Medical Benefits Scheme (fringe benefit), the Social Security Scheme (employment contribution based) or the UCS (tax funded). There is an ample literature to help you learn about these schemes if you search the web. I imagine you may quibble over what counts as insurance, but this is what they have and how their treatments are funded. It is an imperfect system but one of the best in a lower middle income country. I think a lot of expats wish they had had the chance to sign up for the SSS (some in work do) or even a chance to buy into the UCS(the gold card scheme) - it would give them a basic safety net.

Edited February 27, 2011 by citizen33

[danny4tsa]

If the USA wants to make the cost of medical care much more reasonable, they need to put a bounty on lawyers. That would also substantially help small business, insurance companies and the entire country. That's not to mention the crooked politicians that would be thinned out.

LMG here in Thailand promised to never cancel my coverage regardless of age. They never mentioned that the increase in premiums would eventually force me to cancel.

i started this thread...i hope you'd never need to use them.

i am having a HUGE problem with them.

[KKvampire]

Can anyone give me a list of insurance companies and/or recommend any here)(Thailand other than BUPA?

[Chivas]

Don't you people read the policies? The references to pre-existing conditions are there. The conditions in respect to a serious illness being diagnosed within 2 years are clearly stated. The reasons these policies are subject to such conditions are due to people taking out policies once they realize they have illnesses, and yes it happens regularly. The contract wordings are such to eliminate any doubt and sometimes gray cases get dealt with harshly. If it wasn't that way, the health insurers would go bankrupt.

5 years for serious illness on the Annual Policy I have not 2 years.

Fortunately my final check up for cancer was just under 6 years ago so have full cover (or so they say !!!!!)

[thaibeachlovers]

Ideally a government insurance would be best as they are not out to make a profit. However governments agencies are not the most cost effective or efficient.

My masters studies in health economics cares to differ.

Governments insurance is generally best a pooling all community risk, lowering 'premiums' for all as you have both good risk (ie the young) and the not so good risk (the old) all under the same insurance umbrella.

The government as the 'purchaser' of both health products (ie Doctors and their services) as well as pharmaceuticals means the government can use its extraordinary size and negotiation power to bring down prices of both of these.

Add in reduced admin costs and you generally have a leaner and more cost effective system where health costs are a lower % of GDP for those countries which have government insurance. (this also ignores the forgone costs of having people uninsured, getting sick and thus being a drag on economic productivity).

Unfortunately for you Americans, some idiot will throw in the word 'socialism' which for some reason scares the bejezus out of you, despite the fact that in most of the western world 'socialist' doctors still drive BMW's and Mercedes to work, live in the best suburbs in the biggest houses, send their kids to the best private school and have a weekender down the coast when they aren't on their foreign holidays.

ney, they tend to forget there is no such thing as a 'free market' when it comes to health care. On the demand side you don't choose to consume health care (ie no one chooses to get sick) and on the supply side it isn't as if you have an unlimited supply of doctors to choose from who will bid down the cost of their services to get customers.

Yes, I know all about "socialist" doctors living rich lifestyles, having worked in the NHS. They ( consultants ) do it by holding the government to ransom so that THEY get decent salaries, but they have no such compunction to look after the nurses that make their jobs possible. No average "working" nurse ( not in management- and I really hate those parasites ) has anything like a decent wage comensurate to what they have to do.

So let's not forget that health care involves a lot more people than just drs, and most of them are well underpaid.

[samran]

Ideally a government insurance would be best as they are not out to make a profit. However governments agencies are not the most cost effective or efficient.

My masters studies in health economics cares to differ.

Governments insurance is generally best a pooling all community risk, lowering 'premiums' for all as you have both good risk (ie the young) and the not so good risk (the old) all under the same insurance umbrella.

The government as the 'purchaser' of both health products (ie Doctors and their services) as well as pharmaceuticals means the government can use its extraordinary size and negotiation power to bring down prices of both of these.

Add in reduced admin costs and you generally have a leaner and more cost effective system where health costs are a lower % of GDP for those countries which have government insurance. (this also ignores the forgone costs of having people uninsured, getting sick and thus being a drag on economic productivity).

Unfortunately for you Americans, some idiot will throw in the word 'socialism' which for some reason scares the bejezus out of you, despite the fact that in most of the western world 'socialist' doctors still drive BMW's and Mercedes to work, live in the best suburbs in the biggest houses, send their kids to the best private school and have a weekender down the coast when they aren't on their foreign holidays.

ney, they tend to forget there is no such thing as a 'free market' when it comes to health care. On the demand side you don't choose to consume health care (ie no one chooses to get sick) and on the supply side it isn't as if you have an unlimited supply of doctors to choose from who will bid down the cost of their services to get customers.

Yes, I know all about "socialist" doctors living rich lifestyles, having worked in the NHS. They ( consultants ) do it by holding the government to ransom so that THEY get decent salaries, but they have no such compunction to look after the nurses that make their jobs possible. No average "working" nurse ( not in management- and I really hate those parasites ) has anything like a decent wage comensurate to what they have to do.

So let's not forget that health care involves a lot more people than just drs, and most of them are well underpaid.

As one who has more than the average level of interaction with nurses in recent times (more than most will experience in a life time), I generally agree with your point. One thing that the US does do rather well is employ nurse practitioners, which I'd like to see more of. The doctors hate it (of course). Comes with much higher pay.

[tonydabbs]

I have been skimming the insurance thread for years. Seldom do I agree with the complaints or comments I read.

Sometimes I jump in with my own comment to correct misinformation.

There was one writer on this thread I gave a "Like" to. But others down the line might have qualified also.

Danny4tsa and Gary A definitely didn't qualify for a "Like". Just the opposite.

In any case, I didn't see any mention of the (Thailand) Office of Insurance Commission (OIC). The OIC is here to assist you if you are in the right. And, if there is serious doubt in their mind about which of you is right or wrong, they will rule in favor of the insured. I have experienced them in action.

Edited March 31, 2013 by tonydabbs

[FunFon]

I have been skimming the insurance thread for years. Seldom do I agree with the complaints or comments I read.

Sometimes I jump in with my own comment to correct misinformation.

There was one writer on this thread I gave a "Like" to. But others down the line might have qualified also.

Danny4tsa and Gary A definitely didn't qualify for a "Like". Just the opposite.

In any case, I didn't see any mention of the (Thailand) Office of Insurance Commission (OIC). The OIC is here to assist you if you are in the right. And, if there is serious doubt in their mind about which of you is right or wrong, they will rule in favor of the insured. I have experienced them in action.

-

Well since you've bothered to resurrect a zombie thread from years ago, perhaps you could share your experience and recommend decent insurance companies and perhaps even specific plans you think are good?

Particularly ones that can't be cancelled due to age or high utilization, as long as you keep paying consistently from say before 50. . .

Edited March 31, 2013 by FunFon

[Rancid]

Insurance companies are bestards and do what ever they can to deny a claim. Back home I had a canvas roof stolen off an old sportscar, had to drive it 20 ks so the company could confirm that the roof was in fact gone. Was self employed and wages insured, had an accident and couldn't work, they cancelled the policy after 3 months and refused to pay. Another car in an accident, had to fight them for 2 years through the courts before the judge threw them out.

As such I personally would never trust an insurance co. to pay up, better off having the cash. If in hospital and they wont pay could be be a life threatening situation.

[FunFon]

As such I personally would never trust an insurance co. to pay up, better off having the cash. If in hospital and they wont pay could be be a life threatening situation.

-

For many simply not an option when medical costs can reach millions of dollars/pounds, if you happen to lose that particular bad-lottery.

Some people are lucky enough to be citizens of jurisdictions that effectively regulate this (I agree mostly scammy) industry, and may even be able to purchase long-term health insurance that protects them wherever in the world they happen to live (often specifically excluding the USA for obvious reasons).

I'm hoping someone with that kind of information will contribute positive specifics on the topic.

Edited March 31, 2013 by FunFon

[tonydabbs]

Well since you've bothered to resurrect a zombie thread from years ago, perhaps you could share your experience and recommend decent insurance companies and perhaps even specific plans you think are good?

Particularly ones that can't be cancelled due to age or high utilization, as long as you keep paying consistently from say before 50. . .

Yes, I can recommend some. But you need to understand that there is no ideal medical coverage. Taxpayer supported health care is probably the most practical way to go, as long as the taxes don't start eating us alive.

Private health insurance without taxpayer support has to keep raising your premiums as you continue to get older. That is reality, and you need to prepare for it.