dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1203
mr weather
Premium Member
join:2002-02-27
Mississauga, ON

mr weather to EUS

Premium Member

to EUS

Re: The perils of Travel Insurance

said by EUS:

No matter the spin, or who's charging whom, or who owes what, $1MM to deliver a baby is insanity.

This situation went well beyond and uncomplicated child birth. Having said that, sure the hospital is going to pad their bill as much as possible. Just like lawyers do. And they'll immediately lop off a significant percentage if you lean on them. Just like lawyers will.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1 to yyzlhr

Premium Member

to yyzlhr
said by yyzlhr:

Not atypical. Us Canadians are accustomed to not paying a cent out of our pockets for health care. There's a reason why medical bills is one of the largest triggers of bankruptcy in the United States.

True that.

Actually I am surprised the bill was not higher.

-----

As was said, the Canadian system did the exact same thing to an Australian visitor.

Australia’s foreign affairs minister is looking into the case of a Sydney couple stuck with a million-dollar hospital bill after their daughter was born in Vancouver last August.

John Kan and Rachel Evans had taken out travel insurance and extra cover for Ms. Evans’ pregnancy without realizing the policy would not cover birth or the baby.

They were about to return to Australia after their B.C. vacation when Ms. Evans went into premature labour at the airport.

Piper Kan stayed in the neo-natal ward of the B.C. Women’s Hospital and Health Centre for three months and the bill ended up being about $1-million.

Australian media reports the couple negotiated a payment plan with the hospital at about $300 a month, which would take 278 years to pay off.

»www.theglobeandmail.com/ ··· 4096233/

digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium Member
join:2000-07-15
GTA

1 recommendation

digitalfutur to elwoodblues

Premium Member

to elwoodblues
Show us where anyone in this forum has proposed a U.S. style system. Walk the talk.

nitzguy
Premium Member
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON

nitzguy to mr weather

Premium Member

to mr weather
said by mr weather:

said by EUS:

No matter the spin, or who's charging whom, or who owes what, $1MM to deliver a baby is insanity.

This situation went well beyond and uncomplicated child birth. Having said that, sure the hospital is going to pad their bill as much as possible. Just like lawyers do. And they'll immediately lop off a significant percentage if you lean on them. Just like lawyers will.

Don't US Hospitals bill something ridiculous like $28 for a tylenol pill?...because its to cover those who end up not paying in due to lack of coverage/no coverage/etc?...

A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

A Lurker to elwoodblues

Premium Member

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

What was the pre-existing condition you ask? She had a bladder infection, which caused a bit of hemorrhaging. Even the doctors in Hawaii, said the that shouldn't cause a premature water break.

Okay, under the concept of TMI, it's not uncommon for women who aren't pregnant to see blood in urine during a bladder infection. Her pregnancy may have been a factor, however, it could also be the insurance company jumping on an unrelated illness.

»www.mayoclinic.org/disea ··· 20037892

The insurance company is doing what they do best, looking for loopholes to not pay. A doctor cleared her to travel, sounds like an insurance agent told her she was covered, and off she went. Maybe not the smartest idea to go to the US (where costs would almost certainly be the highest), but I can understand why a couple might want one last trip before the fun starts.

Kitlope
join:2004-07-29
Edmonton, Ab

Kitlope

Member

I believe they also sat down with the insurance agent and specifically said she was pregnant. She got the all clear from Blue Cross, the doctor... everybody needed. They did their due diligence.

But I'm also in the camp that think's it was foolish to travel abroad while 6 months preggers, especially to the US and their made for profit health care system and the fact insurance companies try to weasel out of paying insurance when needed. Either points is no secret. It was potential for disaster and it happened. I'm not victim blaming but there were risks.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

said by Kitlope:

I believe they also sat down with the insurance agent and specifically said she was pregnant.

And the agent/broker must have seen that with his own eyes, if the woman was almost 6 months pregnant by that point.

The insurer is latching on to the bladder infection to try to deny payment.

This is their SOP.

Some of these companies put the Mafia to shame.

Kitlope
join:2004-07-29
Edmonton, Ab

Kitlope

Member

Remember all the people that were wrongfully denied insurance 10 years ago regarding hurricane Katrina?

I believe there was class action lawsuits and millions of dollars in fines.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1 to nitzguy

Premium Member

to nitzguy
said by nitzguy:

Don't US Hospitals bill something ridiculous like $28 for a tylenol pill?

Yes.
said by nitzguy:

Because its to cover those who end up not paying in due to lack of coverage/no coverage/etc?...

Yes, which was part of the push behind "Obamacare", to have more people covered.

But you also have things like this:

Newly-released tax documents show UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) compensated 30 employees at least $1 million in the fiscal year ending June 30, including seven who were paid more than $2 million.

Heading the list was UPMC president and CEO Jeffrey Romoff, whose total compensation for the year was $6.55 million, up from $6.01 million a year earlier....

Others at UPMC earning above $2 million were outgoing executive vice president Elizabeth Concordia ($2.64 million), Diane Holder, president and CEO of UPMC Health Plan ($2.12 million), and physicians Ghassan Bejjani ($2.54 million), Victor Morrell ($2.21 million), James Luketich ($2.65 million) and David Farner ($2.10 million).

»www.post-gazette.com/new ··· 05160182

Which leads to this:

A day spent as an inpatient at an American hospital costs on average more than $4,000, five times the charge in many other developed countries, according to the International Federation of Health Plans, a global network of health insurance industries. The most expensive hospitals charge more than $12,500 a day. And at many of them, including California Pacific Medical Center, emergency rooms are profit centers. That is why one of the simplest and oldest medical procedures — closing a wound with a needle and thread — typically leads to bills of at least $1,500 and often much more.

»www.nytimes.com/2013/12/ ··· all&_r=0
jaberi
join:2010-08-13

jaberi to Kitlope

Member

to Kitlope
said by Kitlope:

I believe they also sat down with the insurance agent and specifically said she was pregnant. She got the all clear from Blue Cross, the doctor... everybody needed. They did their due diligence.

But I'm also in the camp that think's it was foolish to travel abroad while 6 months preggers, especially to the US and their made for profit health care system and the fact insurance companies try to weasel out of paying insurance when needed. Either points is no secret. It was potential for disaster and it happened. I'm not victim blaming but there were risks.

here is a story of good old Ralph performing under pressure.

»ca.news.yahoo.com/millio ··· 337.html

The Alberta government, with the help of some generous Calgarians, paid the bills and saved the Wolfes from financial ruin.

Kitlope
join:2004-07-29
Edmonton, Ab

Kitlope

Member

Great story Jaberi, I don't remember it myself but nice to see.

Problem is, this is exactly what the insurance company wants. Deny valid claims, wait for the government or good Samaritans to step in and then profit!

As has been said, the Canadian insurance industry needs some serious cleaning up.

A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium Member
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N

A Lurker to jaberi

Premium Member

to jaberi
said by jaberi:

The Alberta government, with the help of some generous Calgarians, paid the bills and saved the Wolfes from financial ruin.

As a taxpayer I would have an issue with that. Without knowing the background it might have been better if the generous Calgarians provided money to take on the insurance company. If insurance companies aren't willing to cover premature labour - state that and don't sell the policy once someone mentions they are pregnant. A lot exclude people by age, so be up front, 'non-pregnant women only'. I'm sure though over the years they've collected enough money to cover the few exceptions.

However, selling a policy to someone you never plan to cover if something happens is fraud, isn't it?

OverrRyde
join:2007-04-10
Waterdown, ON

OverrRyde to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
I can't almost guarantee you that there is a lot more to the story than is being told.

Getting an "all clear" by your doctor doesn't mean that you will be covered while you are travelling if you have travel insurance. You want to be certain of your coverage? RTFP! (read the f**king policy)

Everyone saying that Blue Cross/insurances just try to weasel themselves out of paying are very likely wrong when it comes to travel insurance. Home/auto, critical illness, accidental and other insurance sectors "MAY" be guilty of this with their convoluted wording and terms/conditions, but travel insurance is a different beast all together. Travel insurance is one of the clearest policy and straight forward when it comes to paying or denying a claim. You would be surprised to know the % of claims that are denied vs paid. But of course, you only hear the bad ones or the ones that get denied, even if there is grounds for denial. People have this misconception that just because you paid for a policy that everything is owed to you and that you are entitled to anything you want. Get real.

No, i don't work for Blue Cross.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

1 recommendation

PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

said by OverrRyde:

But of course, you only hear the bad ones or the ones that get denied, even if there is grounds for denial. People have this misconception that just because you paid for a policy that everything is owed to you and that you are entitled to anything you want. Get real.

No, people are not entitled to anything they want, but they are entitled to what they are supposed to receive.

This is a lot of money, and as such a lawsuit or other adjudication (such as binding arbitration or intervention by the insurance regulators) certainly will end up taking place.

At that point we will see the definitive determination of whether or not this medical episode was properly covered or denied.

As an American doctor, I can tell you that some health insurance companies use [every] excuse to delay, distract, divert, and deny.

The bigger the claim, the more incentive there is to do this.

Sometimes they will even give pre-authorization for a surgical operation, then after the surgery they will say "Gee we changed our mind".

-----

By the way, Canada has seven different Blue Cross companies. Has it been said which one this was?

OverrRyde
join:2007-04-10
Waterdown, ON

OverrRyde

Member

said by PX Eliezer1:

said by OverrRyde:

But of course, you only hear the bad ones or the ones that get denied, even if there is grounds for denial. People have this misconception that just because you paid for a policy that everything is owed to you and that you are entitled to anything you want. Get real.

No, people are not entitled to anything they want, but they are entitled to what they are supposed to receive.

This is a lot of money, and as such a lawsuit or other adjudication (such as binding arbitration or intervention by the insurance regulators) certainly will end up taking place.

At that point we will see the definitive determination of whether or not this medical episode was properly covered or denied.

As an American doctor, I can tell you that some health insurance companies use [every] excuse to delay, distract, divert, and deny.

The bigger the claim, the more incentive there is to do this.

Sometimes they will even give pre-authorization for a surgical operation, then after the surgery they will say "Gee we changed our mind".

-----

By the way, Canada has seven different Blue Cross companies. Has it been said which one this was?

No doubt that this happens in the USA with your run of the mill HMO's/private insurance, which are completely different from Canadian travel insurance.

And i can assure you that (in my case), there is no such thing as delay/distract/divert/deny or change minds after approval has been done, that is unethical and inhuman. If you get denied, there is a reason, and that reason 100% of the time could have been avoided would the client have read their policy.

Again, US health insurance is different than Canadian travel insurance.

shaner
Premium Member
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB

shaner to PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

to PX Eliezer1
Don't get me started on UPMC, which should be held as the example of predatory business practices and a "let them eat cake" corporate ethos.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to A Lurker

Premium Member

to A Lurker
said by A Lurker:

but I can understand why a couple might want one last trip before the fun starts.

My thoughts also, one last blast and when the kid comes that's it.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas

Premium Member

They call it a babymoon.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1 to OverrRyde

Premium Member

to OverrRyde
said by OverrRyde:

Again, US health insurance is different than Canadian travel insurance.

Travel insurance doesn't pay for these bank customers:

Three customers who bought travel insurance from Canadian banks are outraged after being left with large foreign medical bills....

In each case, the medical emergencies abroad had nothing to do with any pre-existing conditions they were asked about....

Insurance broker Bruce Cappon is lobbying for provincial regulators to force insurance companies to be more up front about what the medical questions really mean.

“The way the system is rigged right now is that insurers have a legal weapon. The misrepresentation clause is a legal weapon,” said Cappon.

“I find it very unfair that you are asking these people to fight back when the remedies would be very simple, just to add a few changes to the regulations.”

He also thinks it should be illegal for insurers to refuse to pay for treatment unrelated to any pre-existing conditions.

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b ··· .2651318

Travel insurance company disputes claim from man who was diagnosed with cancer:

Travel insurance is supposed to protect you if you get sick and have to cancel your trip, but a Calgary man has been left in the cold by his provider after being diagnosed with cancer.

Last September, Neil Steenveld booked a family vacation to Mexico, but found out he had throat cancer just two months later and had to cancel. However, when he made a claim through Manulife Global Travel, they would only refund half of the cost—equaling $1,500.

The reason? Manulife says that because Steenveld saw his family doctor for a sore throat last April and was referred to a specialist, it fit the definition of a pre-existing condition.

»globalnews.ca/news/54287 ··· -cancer/

It would seem that there are some Canadians who are less than perfectly satisfied.

The notion of pre-existing condition is quite a useful weapon to deny coverage even if the connection to the real illness is tenuous or imaginary.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

It happened to me to get increased life insurance benefits at work.
I broke my foot many moons ago, and was up front about it in the paperwork, and considiering that I sit on my butt 80% of the day, I have no idea what it has to be with my life or my job.

NOPE denied...

joeblow3
join:2000-12-27
h0h0h0

joeblow3 to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
and most MEDICAL travel insurance is POST qualified (depending on your age). Meaning if you buy and try to claim they then see if you qualify for the insurance. If you do not then they will refund your premium.

Whereas life insurance is pre-qualified. You don`t qualified then you are denied to even purchase the insurance. Also check if you have mortgage insurance, it may also be post-qualified.

OverrRyde
join:2007-04-10
Waterdown, ON

OverrRyde to PX Eliezer1

Member

to PX Eliezer1
said by PX Eliezer1:

said by OverrRyde:

Again, US health insurance is different than Canadian travel insurance.

Travel insurance doesn't pay for these bank customers:

Three customers who bought travel insurance from Canadian banks are outraged after being left with large foreign medical bills....

In each case, the medical emergencies abroad had nothing to do with any pre-existing conditions they were asked about....

Insurance broker Bruce Cappon is lobbying for provincial regulators to force insurance companies to be more up front about what the medical questions really mean.

“The way the system is rigged right now is that insurers have a legal weapon. The misrepresentation clause is a legal weapon,” said Cappon.

“I find it very unfair that you are asking these people to fight back when the remedies would be very simple, just to add a few changes to the regulations.”

He also thinks it should be illegal for insurers to refuse to pay for treatment unrelated to any pre-existing conditions.

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b ··· .2651318

Travel insurance company disputes claim from man who was diagnosed with cancer:

Travel insurance is supposed to protect you if you get sick and have to cancel your trip, but a Calgary man has been left in the cold by his provider after being diagnosed with cancer.

Last September, Neil Steenveld booked a family vacation to Mexico, but found out he had throat cancer just two months later and had to cancel. However, when he made a claim through Manulife Global Travel, they would only refund half of the cost—equaling $1,500.

The reason? Manulife says that because Steenveld saw his family doctor for a sore throat last April and was referred to a specialist, it fit the definition of a pre-existing condition.

»globalnews.ca/news/54287 ··· -cancer/

It would seem that there are some Canadians who are less than perfectly satisfied.

The notion of pre-existing condition is quite a useful weapon to deny coverage even if the connection to the real illness is tenuous or imaginary.

I don't understand why you bring these cases up, they are clear misrepresentations by the client, therefore causing a policy to be voided. Ignorance is not a reason to pay a claim. Other than the case of the CIBC woman (Peixoto), those cases a clear cut.

And what about the guy with cancer? He claims he didnt know he had a problem. Im sorry, but if you see your doctor and you are referred to a specialist, chances are you have a problem. This falls under the definition of a pre-existing medical condition. Where's the problem? Just because he can't read or chooses not to read his policy he should be paid out?

All these so-called cases of "the insurance being the bad guy" all boil down to the simple little fact that people DON'T read their policies, or answer the medical questionnaire correctly, which again, is entirely in their control. Those news article are not giving the full story, you are only getting a small glimpse from the client's point of view, but there is a lot more that goes into denying a claim, trust me.
OverrRyde

OverrRyde to joeblow3

Member

to joeblow3
said by joeblow3:

and most MEDICAL travel insurance is POST qualified (depending on your age). Meaning if you buy and try to claim they then see if you qualify for the insurance. If you do not then they will refund your premium.

Whereas life insurance is pre-qualified. You don`t qualified then you are denied to even purchase the insurance. Also check if you have mortgage insurance, it may also be post-qualified.

Incorrect, the only people that may fall under this category are people over the age of 60 or 65 (depending on the company). Everyone else is subject to a stable clause (meaning, you have to be stable X days prior to departure)

joeblow3
join:2000-12-27
h0h0h0

joeblow3 to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
right on the stable....but they will not deny taking your money and assigning a policy until you attempt to claim. Then they will deny the claim based on pre-existing condition.

Whereas others will deny you a policy BEFORE taking your money based on pre-existing condition or deny certain portions based on pre-existing condition BEFORE you buy.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0 to OverrRyde

Premium Member

to OverrRyde
said by OverrRyde:

said by joeblow3:

and most MEDICAL travel insurance is POST qualified (depending on your age). Meaning if you buy and try to claim they then see if you qualify for the insurance. If you do not then they will refund your premium.

Whereas life insurance is pre-qualified. You don`t qualified then you are denied to even purchase the insurance. Also check if you have mortgage insurance, it may also be post-qualified.

Incorrect, the only people that may fall under this category are people over the age of 60 or 65 (depending on the company). Everyone else is subject to a stable clause (meaning, you have to be stable X days prior to departure)

my FIL required a quadruple bypass a couple of years ago...after getting the "all good" a couple of months later (stable for x days, like you mentioned), his coverage resumed and he can continue his travel to FL as they own a place there and live there during the winter...they were concerned they wouldn't have coverage, but they did state, as long as you have your X days stable, authorized by the doctor, you are as good as new...in actuality, you are less likely to have an issue since you've just been fixed up.

OverrRyde
join:2007-04-10
Waterdown, ON

OverrRyde to joeblow3

Member

to joeblow3
said by joeblow3:

right on the stable....but they will not deny taking your money and assigning a policy until you attempt to claim. Then they will deny the claim based on pre-existing condition.

Whereas others will deny you a policy BEFORE taking your money based on pre-existing condition or deny certain portions based on pre-existing condition BEFORE you buy.

So who's fault is it that a claim is denied if a client does not answer the medical questionnaire correctly?

A claim denied based on the medical questionnaire is because of eligibility. The fact that a policy is issued and paid for is a moot point, as if discovered that the policy is voided, premium is refunded.

Listen, it's simple, answer the questionnaire correctly and you will be fine. Try to weasel yourself into a smaller premium by not declaring that little pill you take for blood pressure, then you will be denied.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1 to OverrRyde

Premium Member

to OverrRyde
said by OverrRyde:

And what about the guy with cancer? He claims he didn't know he had a problem. Im sorry, but if you see your doctor and you are referred to a specialist, chances are you have a problem. This falls under the definition of a pre-existing medical condition. Where's the problem? Just because he can't read or chooses not to read his policy he should be paid out?

All these so-called cases of "the insurance being the bad guy" all boil down to the simple little fact that people DON'T read their policies, or answer the medical questionnaire correctly, which again, is entirely in their control. Those news article are not giving the full story, you are only getting a small glimpse from the client's point of view, but there is a lot more that goes into denying a claim, trust me.

The questionnaires sometimes can be as designed to entrap as to enlighten.

I'm sorry, we're going to be disagreeing on this issue, I'm afraid.

Point is, pretty much EVERYONE has something pre-existing if you want to dig deeply enough.

Just as EVERYONE breaks some type of law at some point, even without realizing it.

[Decades ago in Canada there was a TV show which showed various events, and then the audience had to figure out which law had been broken. There always was SOME law broken, but it was usually hard to figure out.]

Again, everyone has a pre-existing something. The more important point is relevance.

In the case with the throat cancer, the man had been told at the time that he had no problem.

But some of these other situations the connection seems more tenuous.

Insurance companies are supposed to be in the basis of insuring, which means taking risk.

It's not quite fair for them to try to retroactively find reasons to escape their obligations unless there has been clear, purposeful, and relevant fraud by the customer.

-----

Years ago a Louisiana politician was in a mental hospital for a while. In a subsequent election, when criticized by his opponents, he said words to this effect: "I have a document signed by a psychiatrist that verifies my sanity. Where's yours?"

It's sort of like a house into which a plane has crashed. A good house to buy afterwards, because what are the odds there will be a second one?

[Sorry if my spelling is hard on the eyes].

OverrRyde
join:2007-04-10
Waterdown, ON

OverrRyde

Member

said by PX Eliezer1:

said by OverrRyde:

And what about the guy with cancer? He claims he didn't know he had a problem. Im sorry, but if you see your doctor and you are referred to a specialist, chances are you have a problem. This falls under the definition of a pre-existing medical condition. Where's the problem? Just because he can't read or chooses not to read his policy he should be paid out?

All these so-called cases of "the insurance being the bad guy" all boil down to the simple little fact that people DON'T read their policies, or answer the medical questionnaire correctly, which again, is entirely in their control. Those news article are not giving the full story, you are only getting a small glimpse from the client's point of view, but there is a lot more that goes into denying a claim, trust me.

The questionnaires sometimes can be as designed to entrap as to enlighten.

I'm sorry, we're going to be disagreeing on this issue, I'm afraid.

Point is, pretty much EVERYONE has something pre-existing if you want to dig deeply enough.

Just as EVERYONE breaks some type of law at some point, even without realizing it.

[Decades ago in Canada there was a TV show which showed various events, and then the audience had to figure out which law had been broken. There always was SOME law broken, but it was usually hard to figure out.]

Again, everyone has a pre-existing something. The more important point is relevance.

In the case with the throat cancer, the man had been told at the time that he had no problem.

But some of these other situations the connection seems more tenuous.

Insurance companies are supposed to be in the basis of insuring, which means taking risk.

It's not quite fair for them to try to retroactively find reasons to escape their obligations unless there has been clear, purposeful, and relevant fraud by the customer.

I guess we will have to disagree, but i will say this, everyone may have a pre-ex condition, but not all conditions are listed on a travel insurance medical questionnaire, which is where your theory fails.

An insurance doesn't have to dig deep when someone has misrepresented themselves on a questionnaire. BTW, have you ever seen a travel insurance questionnaire?

The throat cancer guy, who told him he had no problem? From what i read, he had a issue, saw his GP, GP referred him to a specialist, client booked travel/insurance, went on trip and was denied coverage on the stability basis. What the news article doesn't tell you is when his specialist visit was, and what the outcome of that visit was. Either way, where do you get that he was told nothing was wrong when he eventually was diagnosed with throat cancer? Furthermore, he was partially reimbursed for his claim, which leads me to believe that the real reason he was partially denied has nothing to do with pre-ex condition/stability, and more to do with him not cancelling his trip when he had a reason to cancel, such as A VISIT TO A SPECIALIST! Again, all this in the terms and condition of his policy, guaranteed, 100%, but as previously mentioned, not read by the client.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

From the GlobalNews.Ca article:

“I’m under the impression that they said, ‘Well, you should have known better than to book a trip if you’re going to see a specialist,’” Steeveld says, adding that his doctor says there was no sign of cancer when he booked the vacation, and wrote a letter to back it up.

But you've made some good points, and I hope that the original case of the woman who had her baby in Hawaii [does] go to court because I would like to see the court's findings both as to the facts of the case and the contract issues involved.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to joeblow3

Premium Member

to joeblow3
said by joeblow3:

and most MEDICAL travel insurance is POST qualified (depending on your age). Meaning if you buy and try to claim they then see if you qualify for the insurance. If you do not then they will refund your premium.

Whereas life insurance is pre-qualified. You don`t qualified then you are denied to even purchase the insurance. Also check if you have mortgage insurance, it may also be post-qualified.

Now Mortgage insurance is the biggest scam of them all.
You get insurance (for the sake of arguement) for 200K.

You pay and pay, all at the same time paying down your mortgage.
FF a number of years and you die leaving 50K left to pay on the mortgage.

The banks gets the entire 200K, your mortgage is covered and they make 150K to boot.