UK travel insurance

"Mike....." <mikexclothing@freedomnames.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1oe0vg6rctgur.qmirwf6m4x1v$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I think I heard on the news that the government is to introduce legislation
> to disallow dicriminatory age related insurance premiums. Should mean we
> can keep travelling later at the expense of higher premiums for younger
> people. Excellent! Forcing the insurance companies to spread the risk (what
> insurance is for) rather than ever more closely tie the premium to
> individuals claims, which if taken to its logical conclusion, would negate
> the value of insurance! :-)

Yeah - and the same for car insurance so a 20 year old could get the same rate
as a 40 year old. Why should the young pay more, just cos they're more likely to
claim?

--
Andy

"Mike....." <mikexclothing@freedomnames.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4upkprdgunlz$.so2rf94fsl1g$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Following up to Andy Pandy
>
> > I don't bother with travel insurance now, let alone if they start making me
pay
> > the same as a 90 year old.
>
> you wouldnt pay what a 90 year old pays now, you would pay the average like
> everybody

I wouldn't pay anything.

> and those with medical problems would be subsidised by the rest
> of us. It would make no difference to the insurance companies but you
> wouldnt need all the actuaries anymore of course. But I suppose thats too
> much like socialism for you?

There's nowt wrong with that. It's what the EHIC card is for (although I also
have insurance through work).

--
Andy

"Mike....." <mikexclothing@freedomnames.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1h63afpr08ldu$.a1ifm7d89kix$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> >> This is what the insurance business is about - probabilities.
> >
> > Yes,
>
> the insurance companies increasingly think it is, but its actually about
> spreading risk. If they become too good at guessing *individual*
> probabilities, which there is a danger of in health insurance in future,
> for instance, they lose all purpose as they are effectively just
> predicting the bill before it happens. You might as well cut out their
> middlemen and just invest money to meet the bill yourself :-)

So answer the question about what criteria insurance companies *should* be
allowed to use.

--
Andy

"Mike....." <mikexclothing@freedomnames.co.uk> kirjoitti
viestissä:1h63afpr08ldu$.a1ifm7d89kix$.dlg@40tude. net...
> Following up to Andy Pandy
>
>>> This is what the insurance business is about - probabilities.
>>
>> Yes,
>
> the insurance companies increasingly think it is, but its actually about
> spreading risk. If they become too good at guessing *individual*
> probabilities, which there is a danger of in health insurance in future,
> for instance, they lose all purpose as they are effectively just
>
Of course it is. Costs of premiums are typically variable depending who is
going to be the insured party.

"Mike....." <mikexclothing@freedomnames.co.uk> wrote in message
news:16z2vwpaxd6wl$.13rka3mhmetyl.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> Following up to Andy Pandy
>
> > So answer the question about what criteria insurance companies *should* be
> > allowed to use.
>
> things under your control would be OK by me. So if you have a bad driving
> record you pay more. If your family history is prone to heart disease you
> dont, its averaged through the community.

So you think a 90 year old should pay the same life insurance premium as a 20
year old?

--
Andy

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:20:29 +0100, Andy Pandy wrote
(in article <6ci4vhF3h4suuU1@mid.>):

> I don't bother with travel insurance now, let alone if they start making
> me pay the same as a 90 year old.

Not bothering with insurance only makes sense if you can easily afford the
amount that you risk.

If you go anywhere off the beaten track and have an accident, then air
ambulances etc. might well be involved. I can't imagine what the cost might
be, but I know I wouldn't like to pay it.

--
Mike Lane (UK North Yorkshire)
To contact me replace invalid with mike underscore lane

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:35:53 +0100, Mike Lane wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:20:29 +0100, Andy Pandy wrote
> (in article <6ci4vhF3h4suuU1@mid.>):
>
>> I don't bother with travel insurance now, let alone if they start making
>> me pay the same as a 90 year old.
>
> Not bothering with insurance only makes sense if you can easily afford the
> amount that you risk.
>
> If you go anywhere off the beaten track and have an accident, then air
> ambulances etc. might well be involved. I can't imagine what the cost might
> be, but I know I wouldn't like to pay it.

For example, Austrian national health insurance pays the helicopter service
¤850 for non-Alpine rescues, and up to ¤1500 for motor accidents - which
doesn't come near the actual costs. iirc, alpine rescues have to be paid
for by the patient or private insurance and is something like ¤70 per
flight minute and ¤40 per ground rescuer/hour. So if you are in an
avalanche and have a crew of 20 + dogs looking for you for 12 hours, and
they whisk you away to a hospital 15 mins flight away will set you back
around ¤12000.
--
Tim C.

"Tim C." <timchallenger.uk> wrote in message
news:1g3fdqpzig2k0.85t372n7304p$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >> I don't bother with travel insurance now, let alone if they start making
> >> me pay the same as a 90 year old.
> >
> > Not bothering with insurance only makes sense if you can easily afford the
> > amount that you risk.
> >
> > If you go anywhere off the beaten track and have an accident, then air
> > ambulances etc. might well be involved. I can't imagine what the cost might
> > be, but I know I wouldn't like to pay it.
>
> For example, Austrian national health insurance pays the helicopter service
> ¤850 for non-Alpine rescues, and up to ¤1500 for motor accidents - which
> doesn't come near the actual costs. iirc, alpine rescues have to be paid
> for by the patient or private insurance and is something like ¤70 per
> flight minute and ¤40 per ground rescuer/hour. So if you are in an
> avalanche and have a crew of 20 + dogs looking for you for 12 hours, and
> they whisk you away to a hospital 15 mins flight away will set you back
> around ¤12000.

Not particularly relevant to me, but I'm interested in this concept. Do they get
you to agree the price before rescuing you? If not how can you be forced to pay
for a service you didn't agree on the price of beforehand? What if you say you
can't afford it, do they leave you there? Do all Austrians who live in the
mountains have insurance for this sort of thing?

--
Andy

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:37:26 +0100, Mike..... wrote:

> Following up to Tim C.
>
>> Do people get left to die in the US for example
>> if they say they can't pay for the rescue?
>
> you are confusing it with medical care afterwards :-) wouldnt that be
> ironic, rescuing somebody and then they die through lack of health
> insurance.

I'm sure it's happened though.

--
Tim C.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:13:00 +0100, Andy Pandy wrote:

> You do all you can to reasonably can to avoid accidents, injury, loss or damage.
> You must not take part in any dangerous activities.



And it's the differing interpretations of these sort of phrases that can
land you a bloody huge bill.

The Austrian rescue will always try and get their money off some insurer as
a first line. eg, the Austrian medical system. If they have no luck there,
they'll try (if you're a Brit) the UK. If the UK refuses to pay, you'll
probably get the bill yourself.

--
Tim C.