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.
Yup, that one isnt cool, which is why we were recommended by our mortgage agent (bank) to go with a term 25 life insurance which would cover the cost of the full mortgage, so if either one of us dies, we get full amount back. We were surprise the bank rep recommended this option as we did not get the term policy with bank.
Again, i hate insurance as much as the next guy, but i honestly think travel is the most honest of them all! (and not just because i'm in the industry)!
There often seems to be a case where someone forgot or omitted a pre-existing condition they thought didn't matter.
Maybe their should be a change in how insurance is sold. Rather then going through the ringer after buying the insurance (only to find you a horrible amount of the money) maybe the insurance companies should be incentivized to pre-screen rather than post-screen. IE they be as rigourous as they want, but once they sell you the insurance they are legally required to pay out the claims. Thus the onus would be to extremely strict when selling insurance to weed out high risk customers.... I think this is a whole lot better to sell insurance to everyone and worry about the details later.
There often seems to be a case where someone forgot or omitted a pre-existing condition they thought didn't matter.
Maybe their should be a change in how insurance is sold. Rather then going through the ringer after buying the insurance (only to find you a horrible amount of the money) maybe the insurance companies should be incentivized to pre-screen rather than post-screen. IE they be as rigourous as they want, but once they sell you the insurance they are legally required to pay out the claims. Thus the onus would be to extremely strict when selling insurance to weed out high risk customers.... I think this is a whole lot better to sell insurance to everyone and worry about the details later.
Doing that would mean requesting medical reports and past health history from clients and that poses 2 problems. #1 - money - doctors charge a fee for those reports and no insurance on the planet would ever pay for this. #2 - you are at the mercy of the doctors/medical centers to comply with the request within a reasonable amount of time, but in the mean time, a client would be waiting for an answer from the insurer.
It wouldn't work for a variety of other reason but those are the main ones that come to mind when you mentioned your idea
You're crazy for leaving the country while expecting. You're also crazy for using Blue Cross. My brother had them as an individual and he couldn't even get them to pay for a simple dental appointment.
There often seems to be a case where someone forgot or omitted a pre-existing condition they thought didn't matter.
Maybe their should be a change in how insurance is sold. Rather then going through the ringer after buying the insurance (only to find you a horrible amount of the money) maybe the insurance companies should be incentivized to pre-screen rather than post-screen. IE they be as rigourous as they want, but once they sell you the insurance they are legally required to pay out the claims. Thus the onus would be to extremely strict when selling insurance to weed out high risk customers.... I think this is a whole lot better to sell insurance to everyone and worry about the details later.
Doing that would mean requesting medical reports and past health history from clients and that poses 2 problems. #1 - money - doctors charge a fee for those reports and no insurance on the planet would ever pay for this. #2 - you are at the mercy of the doctors/medical centers to comply with the request within a reasonable amount of time, but in the mean time, a client would be waiting for an answer from the insurer.
It wouldn't work for a variety of other reason but those are the main ones that come to mind when you mentioned your idea
Yah it's pretty complicated. It's too bad doctors can't submit your medical work to a networked database (which would also allow other doctors access to your records). Then you could sign a confidentiality waiver with the insurance company who could request the information. I imagine there's all sort of privacy issues with keeping medical records in a central database.
It would be very complicated to make a system like that and the question would be who pays for it.
There's also common sense. When I think of insurance of I get paranoid. I fully expect that the insurance company will use any excuse to get out paying out the money. Thus if I had any medical issues I would report them to the company, and if it was something immediate, then I don't think I would travel and risk having to deal with the insurance company.
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.
that's not how it works.
if you die, the balance is paid off...you aren't insuring yourself for a set amount, and the bank then profits from the difference.
if you bought a home and had a $200k mortgage, that value is what sets your rate (cost)...if you died 10 years later, and had a mortgage balance of $100k, it is cleared for you.
the reason why mortgage insurance isn't your best value is the "value" of the payout diminishes over time, whereas a term policy has a fixed value for the duration of its term...as well, mortgage insurance doesn't "pay you" anything, it simply pays off the mortgage...while having the mortgage paid off is a nice burden to remove, you can get term insurance for likely a similar price that will cover that and then some (meaning, you could likely get $250k of term insurance, which would allow you to pay the $100k mortgage balance and have $150k left over).
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?
I've been referred to specialists more than once. In only one case did it turn out to be serious. A decent GP will eliminate the obvious and then look for other answers if need be. So what would be better is that the GP never send you for more tests as these could be used against you? Give me a break. During an investigation into an illness a number of years back (extremely low hemoglobin) I saw I believe four different specialists (never came up with a solution for that) yet a fifth scheduled surgery for me. His opinion was that it was just lucky the other thing was found. Before the surgery I had a couple of blood transfusions and the problem apparently corrected itself.
On a short vacation it is unlikely to ever be an issue (as my original GP said I likely ignored warning signs and I now know what they are). I'm stable, taking no medication for it but if I go and see what could possibly cause it:
Well hell, lots of things (a good number were eliminated at the time). However, do you not think that an insurance company wouldn't use it if I were diagnosed with something on that list. Sorry, but in my opinion, damn right they would. I bet you a poll of even my coworkers would come up with someone who knows someone who has had a claim denied. Maybe not a big amount, but something. One of my parents was diagnosed with shingles while in Europe. Part of their claim was denied (not approved, or too expensive, I forget the reasoning). It wasn't a big enough dollar value for them to fight it, but it felt like the insurance company nickle and diming them. And yes, they actually called the insurer's line for what doctor to go to when not feeling well. Insurers do their best to keep their costs down to be competitive, this means paying only what they .have. to pay.
In the past years I'm sure a number of have seen a GP for any number of things that could be used against us if I you wanted. Sheesh, I mentioned headaches when visiting my new doctor a number of months back. Would this be used against me if I passed out on vacation and they decided I had a brain tumor?
In the past years I'm sure a number of have seen a GP for any number of things that could be used against us if I you wanted. Sheesh, I mentioned headaches when visiting my new doctor a number of months back. Would this be used against me if I passed out on vacation and they decided I had a brain tumor?
Undoubtedly it would.
As electronic health records (EHR) get more and more pervasive and intrusive, no one will ever be able to get away from anything.
This is big business down here---it will come to Canada soon enough.
The big EHR companies such as Cerner and Epic literally have thousands of employees, and campuses and computer systems that rival those of the NSA.
Down the road, a baby with a rash will end up be denied coverage for skin cancer 20 years later. Pre-existing condition, you know.
-----
The ironic fact is that it's safest to NEVER seek medical care, then there is no pre-existing condition for an insurer to use against you.
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?
I've been referred to specialists more than once. In only one case did it turn out to be serious. A decent GP will eliminate the obvious and then look for other answers if need be. So what would be better is that the GP never send you for more tests as these could be used against you? Give me a break. During an investigation into an illness a number of years back (extremely low hemoglobin) I saw I believe four different specialists (never came up with a solution for that) yet a fifth scheduled surgery for me. His opinion was that it was just lucky the other thing was found. Before the surgery I had a couple of blood transfusions and the problem apparently corrected itself.
On a short vacation it is unlikely to ever be an issue (as my original GP said I likely ignored warning signs and I now know what they are). I'm stable, taking no medication for it but if I go and see what could possibly cause it:
Well hell, lots of things (a good number were eliminated at the time). However, do you not think that an insurance company wouldn't use it if I were diagnosed with something on that list. Sorry, but in my opinion, damn right they would. I bet you a poll of even my coworkers would come up with someone who knows someone who has had a claim denied. Maybe not a big amount, but something. One of my parents was diagnosed with shingles while in Europe. Part of their claim was denied (not approved, or too expensive, I forget the reasoning). It wasn't a big enough dollar value for them to fight it, but it felt like the insurance company nickle and diming them. And yes, they actually called the insurer's line for what doctor to go to when not feeling well. Insurers do their best to keep their costs down to be competitive, this means paying only what they .have. to pay.
In the past years I'm sure a number of have seen a GP for any number of things that could be used against us if I you wanted. Sheesh, I mentioned headaches when visiting my new doctor a number of months back. Would this be used against me if I passed out on vacation and they decided I had a brain tumor?
(sorry, I can't help remembering this)
(youtube clip)
I am going to have to accept the fact that a vast majority of people will never understand the travel insurance industry and will blindly accept what they hear on the news or from their family/friends at face value and that the misconception of travel insurance will continue.
Case in point, your headaches hypothetical. There would be more than just "mentioned headaches". Were there any tests done? what symptoms were you having? were you referred to a specialist? what were you diagnosed with?
You believe that *ANY* pre-existing condition can be used against you to deny a claim, and that is false. You also believe that just mentioning headache to your GP will get you denied, well that is false as well, as i said, there would be way more than that.
If you are denied because of a pre-ex condition, it's because it is DIRECTLY related to the reason you are being seen while on trip or the reason why you are cancelling a trip, hence the stability clause. But again, people prefer to believe the hear-say from the media/friends/family.
Anyways, i hope no one takes my posts the wrong way, i'm simply trying to educate from an inside point of view that people rarely get when fighting the "big guys".
I am going to have to accept the fact that a vast majority of people will never understand the travel insurance industry and will blindly accept what they hear on the news or from their family/friends at face value and that the misconception of travel insurance will continue.
I formed no misconception when a family member had to hire a lawyer to sue the travel insurance company.
most people travel with basic coverage, the "Medi-Pac" is one that is very important.....most of the times the travel agents do not even discuss the Medi-Pac or try to up sell. "MedVac" or Medi Pac" might have been her best bet.
most people travel with basic coverage, the "Medi-Pac" is one that is very important.....most of the times the travel agents do not even discuss the Medi-Pac or try to up sell. "MedVac" or Medi Pac" might have been her best bet.
General Exclusions 6. (a) Normal pregnancy; (b) normal childbirth; or (c) any complication, condition or symptom of pregnancy occurring within the last 18 weeks before the expected delivery date
But again, people prefer to believe the hear-say from the media/friends/family.
You really are an ass, and I'm beginning to think this is your business. I did some checking. The parent had medical insurance, contracted shingles, called the insurance help line, went to the doctor they were told to go to. This was probably at least 15 years ago but there was no auto payment in place with the 'you must go to' physician and they had to pay out of pocket.
First - good thing they could afford to. It was in a country where you didn't pay a fortune for care.
When returning, with documentation / receipts, they were told that the physician had over charged and they wouldn't get full reimbursement. The couldn't remember the exact amount, however, the memory was that it was pretty close to the same cost they had paid for the insurance. They can at times be somewhat prone to exaggeration, however, I do remember at the time helping out with the insurance and government forms. There was definitely not full reimbursement. But, I should take your word that this never happens over the word of someone who raised me? Really. I remember the complaining at the time, which is why I mentioned it.
Yes, I was being a smartass about the headache (hence the Youtube clip). However, you ignored the very real problem I had with low red blood count. Never explicitly diagnosed with a cause, but stable for more than 2 years now. I don't trust that if something happened that it wouldn't be dragged out as pre-existing. There are perhaps 30+ possible causes, yet as I said, a lot were eliminated at the time. However, that doesn't preclude an insurance company years later from using it as an excuse.
However, it appears you may work for someone else. Your unflagging defense of the industry comes off that way. You seem to think that all those travellers are out there falsifying paperwork so they can cheat the poor insurance company.
=peterboro ] I formed no misconception when a family member had to hire a lawyer to sue the travel insurance company.
What happened?
Medical emergency in US that cost 80k. Ontario hospital tech misread test. Pre-existing condition not related to medical emergency. Insurance and OHIP deny coverage. Lawyer hired and threatens insurance and MOH. Hospital negotiates bills down. Insurance and MOH pay balance after notice of action served.
The f'n specialist reported my relative as well. When asked he said he didn't know who reported it. Did an FOI and sure enough it was him. Took 8 months, 6 medical exams, occ and physio therapist reports, a private driver exam for $750.00 and the full MTO written, eye and road test.
Lesson: Look up what they can take your licence for and don't seek medical help for it unless you are going to die. Even then decide if losing your licence is worth the potential possible benefits of medical intervention or go to the US where they don't have to report it.
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.
That's why you buy your own term/whole life insurance policy instead of the bank's policy.
The ironic fact is that it's safest to NEVER seek medical care, then there is no pre-existing condition for an insurer to use against you.
This is one reason why Canada should have done a deal with the Turks & Caicos in the 1970's to become part of Canada.
We can still do it ..... with Cuba. Hold the winter session of Parliament in Havana, reduce the influence of Quebec, keep our 'tourist dollars in Canada instead of the US, and show the US how to do regime change peacefully. Quadruple whammy.
But again, people prefer to believe the hear-say from the media/friends/family.
You really are an ass, and I'm beginning to think this is your business. I did some checking. The parent had medical insurance, contracted shingles, called the insurance help line, went to the doctor they were told to go to. This was probably at least 15 years ago but there was no auto payment in place with the 'you must go to' physician and they had to pay out of pocket.
First - good thing they could afford to. It was in a country where you didn't pay a fortune for care.
When returning, with documentation / receipts, they were told that the physician had over charged and they wouldn't get full reimbursement. The couldn't remember the exact amount, however, the memory was that it was pretty close to the same cost they had paid for the insurance. They can at times be somewhat prone to exaggeration, however, I do remember at the time helping out with the insurance and government forms. There was definitely not full reimbursement. But, I should take your word that this never happens over the word of someone who raised me? Really. I remember the complaining at the time, which is why I mentioned it.
Yes, I was being a smartass about the headache (hence the Youtube clip). However, you ignored the very real problem I had with low red blood count. Never explicitly diagnosed with a cause, but stable for more than 2 years now. I don't trust that if something happened that it wouldn't be dragged out as pre-existing. There are perhaps 30+ possible causes, yet as I said, a lot were eliminated at the time. However, that doesn't preclude an insurance company years later from using it as an excuse.
However, it appears you may work for someone else. Your unflagging defense of the industry comes off that way. You seem to think that all those travellers are out there falsifying paperwork so they can cheat the poor insurance company.
Meh, i never said for anyone to take my word for it, i certainly didnt post on this topic to be called an ass for pointing out facts.
Unlike you, i am talking about actual processes that are happening now, not 15+ years ago. I wasn't in the business 15+ years ago, so this probably did happen to you parent(s), which most definitely sucks. Thing most likely changed, as i have never seen this happened and it is not the way we do business.
Furthermore, in regards to your condition, your definition of stable is not the definition of stable of you insurance policy. You might want to review that. And, our policies (and most, if not all) travel insurance companies in Canada have a specific stable clause for a pre-determined amount of time,usually 90 or 180 days. So it is very unlikely that something that happened 2 years ago would be used against you. Something that happened 2 months ago would be used against you under the stability exclusion if the condition is directly related to the reason of your claim, again "Stable" as per the definition of the policy, no you, or your doctor.
Lastly, never have i said that all those travellers are falsifying documents. You seam to think that those half a dozen cases represent the whole picture of the travel insurance industry. Thousands of policy are sold yearly, millions are paid in medical claims, and only a small percentage of claims are denied.
Blue Cross reaffirms decision not to cover couple with million dollar baby
HUMBOLDT, Sask. - Saskatchewan Blue Cross says it won't reverse its decision denying the claim of a family facing more than $900,000 in medical bills for an unexpected birth in Hawaii.
»ca.news.yahoo.com/cp-new ··· 646.html ------------------------------------------------------------------- your money goes to a huge legal team that spends all it's time finding ways to avoid payouts.
the stupid thing is, if they get enough bad press, it could cost them far more in lost revenues from people not using their service than if they had simply paid it.
What's a travel policy cost? $100? Will they lose 10,000 customers? They'd notice that.
i don't know the exact cost, but $100 seems low (but could be right, not sure)...keep in mind, many travel places will sell the insurance as part of vacation packages, so if enough people hear/read this story, travel agents and/or customers may refuse this company's policy...it certainly wouldn't take long for the lost sales to add up quickly.
I can assure you that I won't be purchasing from Blue Cross as a result of this. They are unreliable. I can't take the risk. I will also be asking very, very pointed questions of whomever I might purchase it from in the future.
the stupid thing is, if they get enough bad press, it could cost them far more in lost revenues from people not using their service than if they had simply paid it.
If that were their only cost, then sure. But there's such thing as setting costly precedents.
One of the things pointed out here is that the mother was the patient insured (or not), not the child. Her travel plan unquestionably didn't cover the health-care costs of additional people (the baby). I suspect that the bulk of these costs were for the care of the infant, not the mother. Therefore not eligible under any circumstances.
I am not defending the insurance company. They can, and will be weasels with their money. But all businesses minimize costs. This isn't the first time an insurance company used a "loop-hole" to get out of paying, and won't be the last.
But how happy would people be if travel insurance were significantly more expensive for themselves based on claims like this? Still as generous with their own money, as they would be with Blue Crosses?
And why no hate for the hospital here? Suppose they had proposed a less ridiculous invoice amount? Maybe $200,000 or so. Maybe Blue Cross would have just paid it.
i'm not saying the insurance company should have covered it as i don't know everything about the case...just saying that bad press can be quite costly.
