8 ms·

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the insurance company here. Travel insurance is there to take care of emergency medical care. It's not for long term care. The guy

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the insurance company here. Travel insurance is there to take care of emergency medical care. It's not for long term care. The guy clearly didn't want to travel because he preferred to be cared in Singapore. From his e-mail: >I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet. I did consider travelling home to have surgery in the UK, but the medical Service here is excellent and I'm already scheduled in for the procedure on Monday. I was concerned about the long haul flight and travel time with a broken hand and fractured rib, as well as potential waiting times on the NHS. So he's pretty clearly trying to game the situation. He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS. The letter from the doctor saying he was not fit to fly simply states: >The patient Badger Ryan Sean was admitted from 11/6 to 12/6 for an operation for a right index finger proximal phalanx avulsion fracture on 31/5 and was not fit for flying before his operation for his fracture. It's reasonable for the insurance company to ask for more details and a specific reason why he wasn't fit to fly.

mamurphy 8y ago
Yeah, it's unclear to me why he didn't ask for/demand coverage for the emergency finger-attaching procedure. In the article, he skipped the details on that in terms of supposedly having to inform them beforehand for an emergency procedure. That emergency procedure, not the follow-up, seems more in line with what the plan is designed to cover.
- trocadero 8y ago
  >Yeah, it's unclear to me why he didn't ask for/demand coverage for the emergency finger-attaching procedure. That's bizarre to me as well. Why does he think not claiming reimbursement for covered expenses is being reasonable?
  - J-dawg 8y ago
    That part seemed really strange. You bought the policy, claim for whatever you’re entitled to! Part of me wonders whether this set fraud alarm bells ringing and made them scrutinise his case more. (Not that that excuses anything the company did subsequently).
    - rsbadger 8y ago
      I felt I shouldn't claim the first bills because I hadn't informed them before the procedure. And yes, because it turned out to be a fairly manageable bill. But the 2nd procedure was going to be considerably more, so I notified them. To clarify, I didn't want any long term care at all, I was only asking them to cover the 2nd operation that I was already scheduled in for.
      - trocadero 8y ago
        >I felt I shouldn't claim the first bills because I hadn't informed them before the procedure. And yes, because it turned out to be a fairly manageable bill. What you did after the accident was reasonable. Claim the bills that you were covered for. > And yes, because it turned out to be a fairly manageable bill. But the 2nd procedure was going to be considerably more, so I notified them. To clarify, I didn't want any long term care at all, I was only asking them to cover the 2nd operation that I was already scheduled in for. Which they specifically told you you weren't covered for. Your article says >At this point, it’s 4 days until my scheduled surgery to have a plate fitted in my hand, and each reply from Insure and Go takes 3–4 days The e-mails you include from Insure and Go have time stamps of June 6 and June 7. Perhaps they took more time before or after that, but during the time sensitive part of your narrative they were responsive. It was you that didn't respond to their June 7 e-mail requesting the not fit to fly until at least June 12.
        rsbadger 8y ago
        I always replied to them immediately, it's just I didn't get the written "not fit to fly" until I saw the DRs again, which was the day of the surgery. I had told the insurers that the DR's had already "told" me I wasn't, and that I would get the written form when I next met them. I had to decide between having the surgery or not at that point. I couldn't go back on Monday morning, ask the Dr for his letter, and hold off on the operation until my insurer emails back. Which coincidentally they didn't do until the 19th, 7 days later.
        8y ago
  - matz1 8y ago
    I can understand, maybe he thought getting reimbursement for anything is already beyond impossible in the first place so he thought maybe by reducing the claim he will somewhat slightly increase the probability getting reimbursed. Beside the 5,300 procedure maybe still somewhat manageable, the $15,000 on the other hand is more important.
3pt14159 8y ago
Warning bells starting chiming as soon as I read how much the insurance cost. He might not have known better, but £273.70 for 18 months of insurance is at least 10x too low. My trick is simple: Get an Amex Platinum if you need insurance for under 2 weeks [1] and buy insurance from your bank for anything longer. Banks compete on trust, so they don't randomly fuck you over. I actually used my bank's health insurance when I needed it and they were nothing but professional. It was RBC Canada, if it matters. [1] Reach out to me if you do this and we'll both get enough points for a free transatlantic flight.
- lozenge 8y ago
  That's a perfectly normal price for travel insurance in the UK. Because it doesn't include healthcare when you aren't travelling.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    That's a pretty normal price in the US too because it also typically doesn't cover healthcare when you're not travelling or, indeed, non-emergency healthcare at all. Normal travel insurance != global healthcare insurance.
- mendez 8y ago
  I thought it sounded really expensive. My annual AMEX travel insurance is £31 a year, however it does have a max trip length of 90 days so wouldn't be suitable for "Digital Nomading".
J-dawg 8y ago
I’d always assumed that “Travel Insurance” means you’re covered for whatever treatment you need in the country you happen to be in. (EDIT: providing the accident happens on your trip). Flying you home and palming you off onto the state seems kinda shady to me. That’s not really “medical cover”, it’s just a flight home. And to make matters worse they made out as if flying him home was doing him a favour. EDIT: Reading some of the other comments makes me think I’m just another mug who doesn’t read his insurance policies. But I still think that offering “£5,000,000 in medical cover” without qualifying that it really means "£5,000,000 in medical cover, only if we absolutely can't get you home and get the NHS to do it for free", borders on deliberately misleading.
- astura 8y ago
  Travel insurance is only for emergency coverage while traveling. You absolutely can't purchase travel insurance for $100 and use it to fly abroad to get non-emergency surgery.
  - J-dawg 8y ago
    > You absolutely can't purchase travel insurance for $100 and use it to fly abroad to get non-emergency surgery. I've certainly never thought that was the case, and I don't think my comment implied that (I've edited it for clarity anyway). What I meant was, I've always assumed that if I had an accident abroad, it would cover me for any surgery I needed in the immediate aftermath, until I was well enough to either resume my trip, or fly home somewhat comfortably. I still don't think that's an unreasonable assumption, but I've learned something today!
    - astura 8y ago
      This is why I said in another post you absolutely have to read and understand your policy before you experience a loss!! Depends on the policy but I doubt there is a "somewhat comfortably" clause - if you want your insurance policy to cover you you generally have to follow what their policy requires and with cheapo insurance like this, if you are clear to fly, you are expected to fly home. It's gonna be very difficult to get onto a plane and then claim you were unable to fly even if Singapore is a world closer to Indonesia than the UK. I feel for this guy though, the situation sucks.
cptskippy 8y ago
> So he's pretty clearly trying to game the situation. I think you've misinterpreted some ambiguity in his statement because he neglected to use the proper tense when justifying his reason for not having a return flight booked. They inquired if he had a pre booked flight home: >> Our medical team believe this injury may require long term care, so we would see if beneficial that you return to the UK for treatment, if you have a pre booked flight home please advise us on the date? His response to that line was: >> The medical team here have suggested that I will require physiotherapy once a week for 4 to 6 weeks. I have no return flight booked at present, as I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet. I did consider travelling home to have surgery in the UK, but the medical Service is excellent and I'm already scheduled in for the procedure on Monday. The partial quote you took, "I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet", was his justification for not having a pre booked flight home, not an expression of his refusal to comply with their recommendations. > He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS. You've also mistaken his desire to finish receiving treatment in Singapore as a desire to avoid the NHS. His desire was to receive the most immediate care possible and the surgery was intended to install a plate to stabilize his hand and ensure that it heals properly. They were asking him to fly for 20+ hours in a coach seat, considering his hand was unstable that seams unreasonable. It also increases the likelihood of additional injury as he travels. The were asking him to transition his medical care from one hospital to another in another country on the other side of the globe. That by itself would introduce considerable delay in treatment as the new medical team would need to fully access his treatment up to that point and establish a new treatment plan. The surgery he was prescribed was to stabilize his injury to ensure it healed properly, delaying that treatment could potentially lead to improper healing. As someone who popped a pulled tendon and had to wait 6 months (MURICA!) for an appointment with an orthopedist at which point my injury was healed (thankfully correctly), I can fully understand his desire to stay put and finish his treatment.
- rsbadger 8y ago
  Yes to all of this.
- trocadero 8y ago
  >You've also mistaken his desire to finish receiving treatment in Singapore as a desire to avoid the NHS It's right there in his e-mail. He was concerned: "About potential waiting times on the NHS". >They were asking him to fly for 20+ hours in a coach seat, considering his hand was unstable that seams unreasonable. It also increases the likelihood of additional injury as he travels. IMHO if his hand is well enough to be discharged then the presumption is it's well enough to travel. Of course, he can provide evidence from his doctor to rebut that presumption. The insurance co asked for that but it's not clear he ever provided it. >The were asking him to transition his medical care from one hospital to another in another country on the other side of the globe. Which is the service he paid for. Travel insurance is to pay for emergency care until you are able to fly home. If he wants an "any hospital, for any treatment, in any country" policy those are sold too, but, naturally, are much more expensive than Bronze level travelers insurance.
gaius 8y ago
He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS Private health insurance is by definition avoiding the NHS, which was 10,000 miles away anyway, so I’m not sure what point you’re making here? If the terms of the policy were we’ll fly you home in cattle class and dump you on the taxpayer then that should be made clear
- luispedrocoelho 8y ago
  But he did not purchase health insurance, he purchased travel insurance. It seems to me that the whole thing is "I bought travel insurance and I thought I would be getting global health insurance, but it turns out it's really travel insurance." I guess because the NHS is paid through your taxes it may not have been so blindingly obvious to someone in the UK that anything similar to what he is asking for would have cost at least "300£ per month" (and that is assuming he is young and healthy) instead of "300£ for 18 months".
- trocadero 8y ago
  Here's the handbook for the policy he bought: https://www.insureandgo.com/media/1228/iag_mf_pw_adv_0518.pdf https://www.insureandgo.com/media/1228/iag_mf_pw_adv_0518.pd... Page 20 says: What you are covered for We will pay up to the amount shown in the table of benefits on pages 4 and 5 for any costs for the following that are reasonable and necessary (see definition on page 14) as a result of you being unexpectedly injured or ill during your trip. 1. Emergency medical, surgical and hospital treatment and ambulance costs. It also says: Special exclusions which apply to section B We will not cover the following: 2. Any treatment or surgery which we think you do not need immediately and can wait until you return home. Our decision is final. 12. Any medical treatment that you receive after you have refused the offer of returning to your home area, when, in the opinion of our medical advisors, you are fit to travel.
  - throwaway-hn123 8y ago
    Wow, what kind of cunt goes and spends that much time looking into this. Sort your life out, you little incel bitch.
  - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jwmoz 8y ago
You sound really callous and lack empathy. Good job next time you're injured you can sympathise with the insurance company and just sit there in pain.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
I worked in insurance for a company with a reputation for being unusually ethical, etc. While working in insurance, I heard that it was quite common for other insurance companies to train their claims processors to look for a reason to deny, not a reason to pay. I was trained to look for a reason to pay, not a reason to deny and still sometimes found the bureaucratic process stomach-turning. I generally am sympathetic to the conclusion of the author that the intent was to screw him out of his money. Having working in insurance, I have heard from reliable sources that this is a common tactic and attitude at most insurance companies and I believe that to be true. Then, on top of that, issues for the insured are compounded by bureaucratic snafus etc. which I find abhorrent given that the industry generally runs on claims of being there for you when they are needed. I have said previously that it boggles my mind that insurance is legal, especially health insurance. I think car insurance and house insurance and such make more sense, but health insurance strikes me as being like an ugly Running Man style game show called "You Bet Your Life" and I go through life shaking my head at the idea that the world is apparently okay with this state of things.
- Flenser 8y ago
  Do you think making insurance companies publish their payout:deny ratios would change their behaviour?
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I have no idea, but I wouldn't count on it. At the highly ethical, respectable company where I worked, this was going on: Periodically, some actuarial would have a cow about how some benefit was costing too much. The policy would get sent to the legal department for review. Legal would find some defensible creative new interpretation for the language of the benefit in question. They would announce that we has been paying this benefit "wrong" the entire time the policy existed. They would retrain the entire claims department to "pay the benefit correctly."
- zaarn 8y ago
  The problem there is profit orientation and it's true for all insurances. Even car insurances do this even if you think they don't. They'll look for a reason to not pay you a dime even if it's on legally uneven feet. When an insurance is profit motivated, then maximizing profits is the first instincts. Maximizing profits happens by maximizing the deny:payout ratio. My car insurance did this by denying me reimbursement on a covered repair because I didn't go the the repair shop the insurance would have preferred (of which I was informed later and per law this doesn't matter anyway). On the other hand, my statutory insurance has covered any of my eye-care costs with zero questions asked or simple policies usually simply copied from the relevant laws (1 free pair of glasses per calendar year, up to 200€ IIRC, 10€/day for hospital stay beyond medical emergency, etc). The difference? Statutory insurance here is non-profit. Most insurances, even the private ones are non-profit. Very few insurances operate for profit at all. Other than the management overhead, the fees collected go straight into covering medical costs or are invested into fonds as a reserve.
moltar 8y ago
I think it is completely unreasonable to expect anyone to indur a long international flight. The fact that they expect him to fly with broken bones is inhumane.

mamurphy 8y ago

Yeah, it's unclear to me why he didn't ask for/demand coverage for the emergency finger-attaching procedure. In the article, he skipped the details on that in terms of supposedly having to inform them beforehand for an emergency procedure. That emergency procedure, not the follow-up, seems more in line with what the plan is designed to cover.

trocadero 8y ago
>Yeah, it's unclear to me why he didn't ask for/demand coverage for the emergency finger-attaching procedure. That's bizarre to me as well. Why does he think not claiming reimbursement for covered expenses is being reasonable?
- J-dawg 8y ago
  That part seemed really strange. You bought the policy, claim for whatever you’re entitled to! Part of me wonders whether this set fraud alarm bells ringing and made them scrutinise his case more. (Not that that excuses anything the company did subsequently).
  - rsbadger 8y ago
    I felt I shouldn't claim the first bills because I hadn't informed them before the procedure. And yes, because it turned out to be a fairly manageable bill. But the 2nd procedure was going to be considerably more, so I notified them. To clarify, I didn't want any long term care at all, I was only asking them to cover the 2nd operation that I was already scheduled in for.
    - trocadero 8y ago
      >I felt I shouldn't claim the first bills because I hadn't informed them before the procedure. And yes, because it turned out to be a fairly manageable bill. What you did after the accident was reasonable. Claim the bills that you were covered for. > And yes, because it turned out to be a fairly manageable bill. But the 2nd procedure was going to be considerably more, so I notified them. To clarify, I didn't want any long term care at all, I was only asking them to cover the 2nd operation that I was already scheduled in for. Which they specifically told you you weren't covered for. Your article says >At this point, it’s 4 days until my scheduled surgery to have a plate fitted in my hand, and each reply from Insure and Go takes 3–4 days The e-mails you include from Insure and Go have time stamps of June 6 and June 7. Perhaps they took more time before or after that, but during the time sensitive part of your narrative they were responsive. It was you that didn't respond to their June 7 e-mail requesting the not fit to fly until at least June 12.
      - rsbadger 8y ago
        I always replied to them immediately, it's just I didn't get the written "not fit to fly" until I saw the DRs again, which was the day of the surgery. I had told the insurers that the DR's had already "told" me I wasn't, and that I would get the written form when I next met them. I had to decide between having the surgery or not at that point. I couldn't go back on Monday morning, ask the Dr for his letter, and hold off on the operation until my insurer emails back. Which coincidentally they didn't do until the 19th, 7 days later.
        8y ago
- matz1 8y ago
  I can understand, maybe he thought getting reimbursement for anything is already beyond impossible in the first place so he thought maybe by reducing the claim he will somewhat slightly increase the probability getting reimbursed. Beside the 5,300 procedure maybe still somewhat manageable, the $15,000 on the other hand is more important.

3pt14159 8y ago

Warning bells starting chiming as soon as I read how much the insurance cost. He might not have known better, but £273.70 for 18 months of insurance is at least 10x too low. My trick is simple: Get an Amex Platinum if you need insurance for under 2 weeks [1] and buy insurance from your bank for anything longer. Banks compete on trust, so they don't randomly fuck you over. I actually used my bank's health insurance when I needed it and they were nothing but professional. It was RBC Canada, if it matters. [1] Reach out to me if you do this and we'll both get enough points for a free transatlantic flight.

lozenge 8y ago
That's a perfectly normal price for travel insurance in the UK. Because it doesn't include healthcare when you aren't travelling.
- ghaff 8y ago
  That's a pretty normal price in the US too because it also typically doesn't cover healthcare when you're not travelling or, indeed, non-emergency healthcare at all. Normal travel insurance != global healthcare insurance.
mendez 8y ago
I thought it sounded really expensive. My annual AMEX travel insurance is £31 a year, however it does have a max trip length of 90 days so wouldn't be suitable for "Digital Nomading".

J-dawg 8y ago

I’d always assumed that “Travel Insurance” means you’re covered for whatever treatment you need in the country you happen to be in. (EDIT: providing the accident happens on your trip). Flying you home and palming you off onto the state seems kinda shady to me. That’s not really “medical cover”, it’s just a flight home. And to make matters worse they made out as if flying him home was doing him a favour. EDIT: Reading some of the other comments makes me think I’m just another mug who doesn’t read his insurance policies. But I still think that offering “£5,000,000 in medical cover” without qualifying that it really means "£5,000,000 in medical cover, only if we absolutely can't get you home and get the NHS to do it for free", borders on deliberately misleading.

astura 8y ago
Travel insurance is only for emergency coverage while traveling. You absolutely can't purchase travel insurance for $100 and use it to fly abroad to get non-emergency surgery.
- J-dawg 8y ago
  > You absolutely can't purchase travel insurance for $100 and use it to fly abroad to get non-emergency surgery. I've certainly never thought that was the case, and I don't think my comment implied that (I've edited it for clarity anyway). What I meant was, I've always assumed that if I had an accident abroad, it would cover me for any surgery I needed in the immediate aftermath, until I was well enough to either resume my trip, or fly home somewhat comfortably. I still don't think that's an unreasonable assumption, but I've learned something today!
  - astura 8y ago
    This is why I said in another post you absolutely have to read and understand your policy before you experience a loss!! Depends on the policy but I doubt there is a "somewhat comfortably" clause - if you want your insurance policy to cover you you generally have to follow what their policy requires and with cheapo insurance like this, if you are clear to fly, you are expected to fly home. It's gonna be very difficult to get onto a plane and then claim you were unable to fly even if Singapore is a world closer to Indonesia than the UK. I feel for this guy though, the situation sucks.

cptskippy 8y ago

> So he's pretty clearly trying to game the situation. I think you've misinterpreted some ambiguity in his statement because he neglected to use the proper tense when justifying his reason for not having a return flight booked. They inquired if he had a pre booked flight home: >> Our medical team believe this injury may require long term care, so we would see if beneficial that you return to the UK for treatment, if you have a pre booked flight home please advise us on the date? His response to that line was: >> The medical team here have suggested that I will require physiotherapy once a week for 4 to 6 weeks. I have no return flight booked at present, as I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet. I did consider travelling home to have surgery in the UK, but the medical Service is excellent and I'm already scheduled in for the procedure on Monday. The partial quote you took, "I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet", was his justification for not having a pre booked flight home, not an expression of his refusal to comply with their recommendations. > He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS. You've also mistaken his desire to finish receiving treatment in Singapore as a desire to avoid the NHS. His desire was to receive the most immediate care possible and the surgery was intended to install a plate to stabilize his hand and ensure that it heals properly. They were asking him to fly for 20+ hours in a coach seat, considering his hand was unstable that seams unreasonable. It also increases the likelihood of additional injury as he travels. The were asking him to transition his medical care from one hospital to another in another country on the other side of the globe. That by itself would introduce considerable delay in treatment as the new medical team would need to fully access his treatment up to that point and establish a new treatment plan. The surgery he was prescribed was to stabilize his injury to ensure it healed properly, delaying that treatment could potentially lead to improper healing. As someone who popped a pulled tendon and had to wait 6 months (MURICA!) for an appointment with an orthopedist at which point my injury was healed (thankfully correctly), I can fully understand his desire to stay put and finish his treatment.

rsbadger 8y ago
Yes to all of this.
trocadero 8y ago
>You've also mistaken his desire to finish receiving treatment in Singapore as a desire to avoid the NHS It's right there in his e-mail. He was concerned: "About potential waiting times on the NHS". >They were asking him to fly for 20+ hours in a coach seat, considering his hand was unstable that seams unreasonable. It also increases the likelihood of additional injury as he travels. IMHO if his hand is well enough to be discharged then the presumption is it's well enough to travel. Of course, he can provide evidence from his doctor to rebut that presumption. The insurance co asked for that but it's not clear he ever provided it. >The were asking him to transition his medical care from one hospital to another in another country on the other side of the globe. Which is the service he paid for. Travel insurance is to pay for emergency care until you are able to fly home. If he wants an "any hospital, for any treatment, in any country" policy those are sold too, but, naturally, are much more expensive than Bronze level travelers insurance.

gaius 8y ago

He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS Private health insurance is by definition avoiding the NHS, which was 10,000 miles away anyway, so I’m not sure what point you’re making here? If the terms of the policy were we’ll fly you home in cattle class and dump you on the taxpayer then that should be made clear

luispedrocoelho 8y ago
But he did not purchase health insurance, he purchased travel insurance. It seems to me that the whole thing is "I bought travel insurance and I thought I would be getting global health insurance, but it turns out it's really travel insurance." I guess because the NHS is paid through your taxes it may not have been so blindingly obvious to someone in the UK that anything similar to what he is asking for would have cost at least "300£ per month" (and that is assuming he is young and healthy) instead of "300£ for 18 months".
trocadero 8y ago
Here's the handbook for the policy he bought: https://www.insureandgo.com/media/1228/iag_mf_pw_adv_0518.pdf https://www.insureandgo.com/media/1228/iag_mf_pw_adv_0518.pd... Page 20 says: What you are covered for We will pay up to the amount shown in the table of benefits on pages 4 and 5 for any costs for the following that are reasonable and necessary (see definition on page 14) as a result of you being unexpectedly injured or ill during your trip. 1. Emergency medical, surgical and hospital treatment and ambulance costs. It also says: Special exclusions which apply to section B We will not cover the following: 2. Any treatment or surgery which we think you do not need immediately and can wait until you return home. Our decision is final. 12. Any medical treatment that you receive after you have refused the offer of returning to your home area, when, in the opinion of our medical advisors, you are fit to travel.
- throwaway-hn123 8y ago
  Wow, what kind of cunt goes and spends that much time looking into this. Sort your life out, you little incel bitch.
- 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jwmoz 8y ago

You sound really callous and lack empathy. Good job next time you're injured you can sympathise with the insurance company and just sit there in pain.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

I worked in insurance for a company with a reputation for being unusually ethical, etc. While working in insurance, I heard that it was quite common for other insurance companies to train their claims processors to look for a reason to deny, not a reason to pay. I was trained to look for a reason to pay, not a reason to deny and still sometimes found the bureaucratic process stomach-turning. I generally am sympathetic to the conclusion of the author that the intent was to screw him out of his money. Having working in insurance, I have heard from reliable sources that this is a common tactic and attitude at most insurance companies and I believe that to be true. Then, on top of that, issues for the insured are compounded by bureaucratic snafus etc. which I find abhorrent given that the industry generally runs on claims of being there for you when they are needed. I have said previously that it boggles my mind that insurance is legal, especially health insurance. I think car insurance and house insurance and such make more sense, but health insurance strikes me as being like an ugly Running Man style game show called "You Bet Your Life" and I go through life shaking my head at the idea that the world is apparently okay with this state of things.

Flenser 8y ago
Do you think making insurance companies publish their payout:deny ratios would change their behaviour?
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I have no idea, but I wouldn't count on it. At the highly ethical, respectable company where I worked, this was going on: Periodically, some actuarial would have a cow about how some benefit was costing too much. The policy would get sent to the legal department for review. Legal would find some defensible creative new interpretation for the language of the benefit in question. They would announce that we has been paying this benefit "wrong" the entire time the policy existed. They would retrain the entire claims department to "pay the benefit correctly."
zaarn 8y ago
The problem there is profit orientation and it's true for all insurances. Even car insurances do this even if you think they don't. They'll look for a reason to not pay you a dime even if it's on legally uneven feet. When an insurance is profit motivated, then maximizing profits is the first instincts. Maximizing profits happens by maximizing the deny:payout ratio. My car insurance did this by denying me reimbursement on a covered repair because I didn't go the the repair shop the insurance would have preferred (of which I was informed later and per law this doesn't matter anyway). On the other hand, my statutory insurance has covered any of my eye-care costs with zero questions asked or simple policies usually simply copied from the relevant laws (1 free pair of glasses per calendar year, up to 200€ IIRC, 10€/day for hospital stay beyond medical emergency, etc). The difference? Statutory insurance here is non-profit. Most insurances, even the private ones are non-profit. Very few insurances operate for profit at all. Other than the management overhead, the fees collected go straight into covering medical costs or are invested into fonds as a reserve.

moltar 8y ago

I think it is completely unreasonable to expect anyone to indur a long international flight. The fact that they expect him to fly with broken bones is inhumane.