
What travel insurance really means - rsbadger
https://medium.com/@ryanbadger/how-insure-and-go-left-me-with-a-20-000-bill-d353491c6386
======
trocadero
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.

~~~
J-dawg
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
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
> _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
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.

~~~
J-dawg
> _This is why I said in another post you absolutely have to read and
> understand your policy before you experience a loss!!_

Yep, and this post has been an education for me!

However, I still have issues with the way it's marketed. I think part of the
problem is showing these huge numbers for medical cover. It's almost a
psychological trick, in the same way that lottery players see an enormous
jackpot and somehow conflate it with the likelihood of winning. It's falsely
reassuring.

In reality, most claimants are going to spend much less than 1% of that £5
million limit before they get flown home. It only really applies to people who
are at death's door and end up with a long stay in intensive care, or need a
fully-staffed medical flight to get them home.

~~~
luispedrocoelho
> In reality, most claimants are going to spend much less than 1% of that £5
> million limit before they get flown home. It only really applies to people
> who are at death's door and end up with a long stay in intensive care, or
> need a fully-staffed medical flight to get them home.

Exactly, but you're saying it like it's a bad thing instead of "this is just
what travel insurance is and why it's so cheap."

~~~
J-dawg
I’m saying it’s both of those things. I’m grateful to the author that I found
out this way.

I still think it’s marketed in a deliberately misleading way.

------
dalore
I always wonder when I buy insurance, if I need it will they actually pay out.

You should be able to get insurance for your insurance. So when you need
insurance and it doesn't pay out. Then that insurance company can go after the
first one without having to resort to twitter or medium to shame them.

~~~
legohead
Every time my wife's parents travel to the US we get them insurance. Their
most recent visit was the first time we actually needed to use it, and it was
just minor.

After they arrived they both quickly got sick, not flu type symptoms but a
weird spot on the neck, dizziness, and a couple other things I can't remember.
It seemed like it could be serious so we took them in. Doctor examined them,
said they were okay and we went home. Filed a claim with insurance.

Insurance asked for medical history. They literally don't have any, nor was it
really relevant as they weren't diagnosed with anything. I think the insurance
wanted to claim pre-existing conditions (which they don't cover). They still
refused to pay anything. The bill wasn't even that much, maybe a few hundred
dollars? It was less than what I paid the insurance!

~~~
gamblor956
Report it to your state's insurance commissioner.

~~~
DoreenMichele
^

Look up contact info here:

[https://www.naic.org/state_web_map.htm](https://www.naic.org/state_web_map.htm)

------
kinard
Contact the financial ombudsman, they will be able to help, and in a lot of
cases they side with the consumer. [http://www.financial-
ombudsman.org.uk](http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

~~~
bancrates
I would like to second and strongly advise this advice to contact the
ombudsman.

I got cheap UK travel insurance, got my jaw broken in Australia, racked up
huge hospital bills, hotel bills, curtailment bills...

They tried every trick in the book to not pay.

Although it took over a year the ombudsman made them repay every penny.

It seems you documented everything well - the ombudsman attaches a huge
weighting to the medical opinions of treating doctors, so you have a good
shot.

------
true_religion
Looks like they wanted him to use NHS, unless he was dying. Luckily, I live in
America, where no travel insurrer will ever tell you to return to as costs
will increase by 40x.

~~~
jochakovsky
I think they would still tell you to return, since any costs in the US would
be paid by your regular medical insurance, not your travel insurance.

~~~
gnode
In this case I presume you'd not be paying for US insurance, as you'd expect
to be backpacking for many months more.

~~~
ghaff
But the expectation of most travel insurance is that you also have regular
health insurance.

If you think you've found a neat hack like:

\-- Skip buying regular health insurance

\-- Buy a $300 12-month travel insurance instead

\-- Spend the savings traveling around for a year while being fully covered
for medical expenses

You're probably missing something.

------
luispedrocoelho
From his telling, the company was not very communicative when he contacted
them, but, fundamentally, saying he should fly back to the UK for treatment
and they'll cover the flight does not seem unreasonable.

He complains that "unless you are injured so horrifically that you cannot
survive another moment without life saving surgery, odds are they’ll just tell
you to fly home and have the surgery for free." But, to me, this is exactly
what travel insurance is (which is why it's so cheap). Expecting fancy
Singaporean hospitals unless it is strictly necessary seems totally
unreasonable.

If they were not so communicative, he also basically decided to not get back
to them on the vital "is he fit to fly?" issue for a few days (he had been OK
to fly to Singapore after all), until after the surgery. There were a few days
to go until the surgery, so that was enough time to get him back to the UK.
Also, why hadn't he gotten in touch before? He texts pictures to friends,
books flights, &c, and does not call the insurer or even ask somebody else to
call on his behalf?

For what it's worth, I think he made the right decision in getting treatment
in Singapore at his own expense, but that was still his decision.

~~~
dblohm7
His doctor said that he was not fit to fly back to the UK!

~~~
luispedrocoelho
The incentive to say so is pretty clear: if he flies away, not only does the
doctor lose a 15,000 costumer, he can also be liable if anything does go
wrong.

Maybe he was indeed in no shape to fly, but he should have argued it properly
in those days. Even now, it seems more like "it would have been awful to fly
economy" and not "it would have been dangerous".

~~~
mijoharas
You may argue the doctor gave the opinion in bad faith, but that's pure
speculation.

As a patient what would you do? You have been given a medical opinion that it
is unsafe to fly. I definitely don't think anything the guy did was
unreasonable.

~~~
luispedrocoelho
I never claimed it was in bad faith and I don't think it was. Considering
incentives and conflicts of interest is perfectly normal and does not mean
that someone is operating in bad faith.

I just claim that it's reasonable for the company not to take it at face value
as the doctor is not impartial and may have been considering a different
standard for "not fit to fly." I certainly do not take it at face value. Could
he have been put on a plane with extra medical assistance, for example? That
may still have been cheaper than surgery.

I think what the guy did was the best choice if he can afford it, but I also
think it's not unreasonable from the company to say that it was not what
travel insurance covers.

------
reacharavindh
This is horrifying. Glad you made it out okay.

Insurance companies always felt like a Govt sanctioned scam. These companies
are the real scammers that thrive by finding grey areas and loop holes to
shirk their responsibility. Making this mandatory is just the government
whoring its citizens out to these companies.

I cant imagine how I'd have dealt with a $20000 hole in my pocket. Come to
think of it, I should seriously work on saving up for a "personal insurance
fund" that I can draw from in cases of emergencies like this and not trust the
insurance companies at all. Your story was a wake up call.

~~~
Waterluvian
I think it depends on where you live and what kind of insurance it is.

In Canada I've had zero problem making claims against health, dental, car, and
home insurance. But pet insurance dragged their feet every step of the way on
a very obviously valid claim. Definitely have no evidence but my first Avenue
of thought is that pet insurance is probably less regulated.

~~~
astura
>Canada

See this CBC Marketplace piece on travel health insurance.

[https://youtu.be/G08phgECt3I](https://youtu.be/G08phgECt3I)

Basically, from what I recall, those medical forms are impossible to fill out
correctly and they are used to deny claims.

~~~
astura
Too late to edit, but after skimming through it a second time, here's the
issues laid out in the piece:

They make you fill out medical forms that are written by lawyers and for
lawyers. Any minor mistake on the form is grounds for denial for any claim. So
if you forgot you stubbed your toe 11 months ago, your aneurysm isn't covered.
For one man interviewed they used unintentionally undisclosed GI bleeding to
deny his claim for a heart attack. Even though his GI bleeding had nothing to
do with his heart attack.

The form is impossible to fill out 100% correctly 100% of the time. The issues
are:

-Patients, especially the elderly, a unaware or forget some things in their medical file, or the doctor explains things a different way than the form asks.

-You have to read the fine print of all of the definitions because they have "gotcha" clauses, such as the definition of "cardiac treatment" including diagnostic tests that didn't result in any diagnosis.

-Travel agents/salespeople give incorrect information to people who have questions about the form, even though they aren't authorized to give any information or assistance.

They suggest contacting your doctor if you have questions filling out the form
but even if you were a doctor with full access to the patient's medical file,
the doctor might still get the "legalese" wrong.

~~~
mikeash
I can see two obvious solutions to this. One would be to require insurers to
prove bad faith when using a form error to deny a claim. Honest mistakes
should not result in denied claims. Another would be to have a statute of
limitations, where the insurer has, say, three months to find and point out
any mistakes, and after that they’re stuck with what they have.

------
emurray
Warning for anyone who's squeamish: there are some fairly gruesome photos of
an injury in the article.

~~~
trocadero
And a ridiculous amount of gifs of random crap

~~~
justinator
And a dire need for an editor!

~~~
rsbadger
my first ever blog post attempt, I thought the gifs helped make up for my poor
writing abilities

~~~
malyk
I loved the gifs and thought it was well written and 'fun' to read. You can't
please everyone.

~~~
justinator
There's always room for improvement.

------
refurb
This approach by the company is not surprising at all.

I have family in Canada who come and visit the US. They buy the insurance. One
of them had a heart attach while in the US. Insurance paid something like
$50,000 to put them on a private medical jet back to Canada. Far cheaper than
having the care in the US.

~~~
justinator
I think what surprises me is that they wanted to fly the guy half way around
the world. Canada and the US border each other.

I DO think that the gentleman made a bad decision saying that he was intent on
staying in-country for 6 months afterwards. That's probably all the insurance
company needed to think, "Yeah, this guy is using travel insurance as regular
insurance"

Still, I do think the gentleman get the wrong end of the stick. I know I won't
use this company, but now I really don't know who to use.

~~~
rsbadger
my insurance was for 18 months of travel though, so i intended to travel for
18 months. I think that's reasonable. Maybe my wording came out wrong in the
post, I wasn't telling them, "no i wont come home" I was telling them I didn't
have a return flight pre booked because I was planning on travelling for 6
more months yet.

~~~
justinator
I'm surprised they would allow you in country for > year without a return
flight. I couldn't get even in the EU without showing them I had a way to get
out. What sort of visa did you have?

You do mention being a, "digital nomad" which sort of signals to me that
you're not into coming back to wherever you started. I don't know the best
type of health insurance you should set up for that, but I wouldn't be
surprised if traveler insurance companies don't want to be thought of as,
"regular health insurance, but for people traveling".

------
ChuckMcM
I really feel for the guy, he has gone through a lot of pain and suffering.

That said, as someone who has gone through life and used my share of
insurance, I think the guys attitude is exactly backwards. There are huge
numbers of people out there working insurance fraud schemes. I nearly ran into
a couple that was trying to 'brake unexpectedly and get insurance payments.'
Since I leave enough following distance I didn't hit them and they were quite
irritated. It would have been funny if it were not sad.

So the insurance folks try to set up a lot of processes that minimize that
fraud or make it harder on perpetrators.

This guy seems to have set out with the idea that insurance was trying to rip
him off, and by operating under that assumption, taking actions (or not taking
actions) that make himself look suspicious.

An alternative course of action might have been to familiarize himself with
the policy before hand, and the processes and requirements he needs to meet
when he needs to use it. And then set up things like putting into his wallet,
"If I am being treated at a hospital or clinic please call this number and
inform this insurance company xx xx xx xxxx" My sister in law is a nurse and
we know a guy who works as a volunteer medic around the world, and when you
come into the hospital they will always look through your wallet for
identification and insurance information, help them out there.

Life is so much harder if you assume other people are "out to rip you off" or
"get you" as your going in position. It can ruin possible relationships and it
certainly damages business relationships.

~~~
rsbadger
This is true, but the reality is I doubted my insurance would pay from the
start. I was expecting to pay for everything myself. It was only once I got
the quotes in Singapore that I realised I might not actually be able to afford
it that I resorted to the insurance. And their response was even worse than I
expected it to be. I appreciate there are countless fraud attempts and they
need to protect themselves, but I was lucky, it could have been a lot worse,
I'm sure for other people it is. And I guarantee you when you're facing
emergency surgery the LAST thing on your mind is "I best call my insurer and
start the form filling process". It's fuck, FUCK. This fucking sucks.

~~~
ChuckMcM
This part it sooo true: _And I guarantee you when you 're facing emergency
surgery the LAST thing on your mind is "I best call my insurer and start the
form filling process"._

Something that I carry on me when I'm travelling in my wallet is a piece of
paper. It is written in both English and the predominant language of where I'm
travelling. This paper is titled "Instructions and information for emergency
personnel." It has my name, home address, blood type, allergies, short medical
history, insurance numbers and international numbers to call for
authorization. It also includes numbers of people who can be called for more
information (like my primary care physician)

It is easy to make, write it up before the trip, run it through Google
translate for the destination language, and fold it up into my wallet.

I got this idea from a friend of my father's who was a diplomat and so
travelling a lot. He had stories about how it had saved his life in when he
crashed his bike in the Alps. He too said that the last thing on your mind is
explaining all of this stuff to people when he was injured. But once he
realized that he didn't have to explain it, he only needed to let them know
who to ask to get the information.

------
opwieurposiu
Insurers should be required to list the statics for the number of accepted and
rejected claims on the policy website. Currently there is no way to tell which
insurance is more or less likely to screw you.

~~~
codemati
Or, which insurer has customers who do not read their policies.

Accepted vs. rejected claims is meaningless on its own.

~~~
moltar
It is not meaningless. If the insurance policy is 1000 pages of legalese it’s
a dark pattern designed to dissuade you from reading it. Ultimately, the
accepted to denied ratio is the measure to watch for as a consumer.

------
robjan
The insurance company is likely not in the wrong here. I think part of the
problem is that, as Brits, we are used to not worrying about this kind of
thing. If we get hurt in the UK we get unlimited "free" healthcare (paid
through taxes) and there are reciprocal agreements throughout Europe whereby
healthcare is either free or has a nominal charge to reduce Moral Hazard. We
don't have to think about communicating with an insurance company.

Since moving abroad I have gotten used to carrying my insurance card and
calling their number before any elective insurable event takes place. I feel
that the OP was unfortunate in finding this out the hard way.

~~~
aembleton
You really should have health insurance when travelling around Europe. A
friend of mine broke her arm and had a one night stay in a hospital in
Germany. It came to €1000.

Her insurance were excellent and paid the hospital, in full, directly. The
insurance company is STA - [http://www.statravel.com/travel-
insurance.htm](http://www.statravel.com/travel-insurance.htm)

------
sunstone
There's no point in even buying travel insurance if your upfront assumption is
that you're not likely to need it so you're going to buy on price.

On the other hand insurance is tricky at the best of times. (shill warning) In
situations like this I put my trust in Costco because they have a track record
of consistently providing a good deal the price.

I once knew a guy who ran a roofing business. He said that it was easy for him
to insure his workers if they fell off the roof, but difficult to get coverage
for when they hit the ground.

------
weeksie
He paid £275 for 18 months of travel insurance? Well yeah, of course they are
going to want to fly him back to the NHS. As a US traveller my insurance was
$2600 for 12 months. When you enter into a legal agreement (insurance) read
the fine print, it'll save you a lot of disappointment.

~~~
gnode
> read the fine print

People should be able to expect that insurance is as advertised, and there's
no "not really" in the fine print. UK courts are much less accepting of such
things than the US. The infamous case is PPI misselling:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_protection_insurance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_protection_insurance)

~~~
weeksie
Insurance policies are not the same as an iTunes TOS. The policy is an
agreement with a company outlining very specific circumstances in which they
pay you. I'm sure the company was garbage (they sure sound that way) but when
I've had travel insurance it has always outlines the circumstances where I
could make a claim.

In the case of an insurance policy the fine print is what you're buying.

Again, to be fair, the insurance company could have had a misleading policy
and if that's the case they should be raked over the coals.

------
markbnj
When our daughter visited Bali with a friend last year she was also in a
motorbike crash. I guess a lot of people think it will be fun to ride a
motorbike in Bali. Her hand was badly cut and needed stitches. We had to
transfer the cash to her friend's debit account so it could be paid out on the
spot, but once that was done the ER docs did a great job sewing her up, and
$700 seemed like a hell of a bargain compared to what a visit to the ER and
some stitches probably would have cost in the U.S.

~~~
forgot-my-pw
I'm very suspicious that the article mentions $22,000 hospital bed cost for 5
nights stay (excluding surgery).

~~~
caymanjim
In Singapore, with first-rate hospitals, and the highest cost of living in the
world? That's not even a little surprising.

~~~
idontpost
> the highest cost of living in the world

Singapore is not THAT expensive. Yes, it's first-rate, but not even close to
highest COL[1]

[1] [https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-
living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-
living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Singapore&city1=San+Francisco%2C+CA&city2=Singapore&tracking=getDispatchComparison)

~~~
caymanjim
Cost of living is complicated and lifestyle-dependent, and living in the city
core vs. the suburbs makes a huge difference in most places. According to
Forbes and The Economist, Singapore is #1. San Francisco may have laughably-
high rents, but the cost of consumer goods, food, and many other things is far
cheaper in San Francisco than in Singapore, for example, and it heavily skews
the results.

Singapore is a "top 10" city by any metric and that was the main point.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/03/19/the-
ci...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/03/19/the-cities-with-
the-highest-cost-of-living-infographic/#39df0d36320c)
[https://www.economist.com/graphic-
detail/2017/03/21/measurin...](https://www.economist.com/graphic-
detail/2017/03/21/measuring-the-cost-of-living-worldwide)
[https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/most-expensive-
cities-...](https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/most-expensive-cities-in-
the-world-2018)

------
wjnc
What a story. But it's not insurance that's bad, it's (local) insurers. In the
Netherlands for international coverage there are two main support companies
covering all insurers that provide help while abroad. That help is pretty
extensive. If you deliver early abroad, they might send a nurse or doctor to
help fly you back. They can book you flights and taxis if a relative dies or
get you a new car pretty much anywhere worldwide. This all from personal
experience, my professional experience gives me the same impression. In this
case they would have probably guided him with a nurse or doctor to Singapore.

Which leads to my only gripe about this story. Why did he act though and not
ask for help from the get go. Is there no international support in UK
policies? Flying while sedated and bleeding...

Any insurer should see paying out as the prime deliverance of the customer
promise. You don't skimp on paying out, but do try to be very careful about
getting swindled. Getting called after 20k is spent would get the flags up in
any insurer, good faith or bad.

My 2 cents would be that a good timeline and documented claim (like this blog
post without the fluff) could still get him the 20k. It's an insured event,
without the time for proper evaluation and without malice. That's a good basis
for any claim.

------
kioleanu
What I was astonished to find out is that insurers actually have people or
departments whose sole job is to find reasons not to pay and how they cling to
absolutely every detail, true or not.

More or less the same thing happened to me with a 6 months travel insurance. I
had an unfortunate series of light medical problems that racked up about 1500
EUR. I was somehow lucky that I over-informed the insurer anytime anything
concerned them and they pre-approved each doctor's visit. When it was time to
get my money back, they denied the claim saying that I flew back home one
month into the trip (and then left again) and that legally concluded my trip.
That was, of course, non sense.

I wrote them a letter saying that if they don't return my money in 30 days, I
will fill in a complaint with the insurance oversight authority in my country.
They didn't so I did. The nice part is that this authority shoots first and
asks questions later so in a few days I got a really passive aggressive letter
saying they will be paying in full, that they already decided that a week
before so there was no need for me to file the complaint (I was, of course,
not informed) and they asked me to withdraw my complaint.

~~~
rsbadger
I'm assuming Insure and Go will be in touch at some point requesting me to
take down my post as it's amassed 30k views in 24 hours. But I won't. Even if
they don't pay out because of it, I'd prefer that people have access to this
information. Paying me the $22k would be a drop in the ocean for them, but
hopefully, the post will live on for years.

------
Bucephalus355
Absolutely shameful. Has this insurer ever paid out an actual claim to anyone?

------
otterley
Expecting insurers to be magnanimous will always lead to disappointment and
anger.

Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that insurers will nearly always err on
the side of denying a claim if they can find an excuse to. That's why it's
important to (a) read the fine print in the policies you purchase and (b) hire
an attorney if you believe that you have been unfairly denied a claim.

Even if a claim is valid, insurers will also do whatever it takes to minimize
their payouts. In this case, paying for transport to the UK for additional
treatment would have been far cheaper than paying a Singaporean hospital for
it, and so it's unsurprising that they pressured the claimant to hop on a
flight instead of stay in Singapore since the injury did not contraindicate
air travel (or at least there was significant disagreement as to that
question).

------
nrki
Since moving to the UK I've found that insurers here have SO much more
legalese in their contracts. It's really hard to figure out what they actually
cover ("two-fifths of fuck all").

My top "Gold" level travel insurance doesn't even cover my phone getting
stolen while overseas.

------
throwaway9d0291
This is why it's important to read the policy itself, not just the marketing
materials. Usually they have the specific details of what you have to do and
what you're entitled to receive.

The insurer definitely didn't handle it well but it would have gone much
smoother if the expectations were properly set by reading the policy.

The travel insurance that comes for my credit card for example makes it quite
clear that you have to contact the insurer as soon as possible after an
accident and that in most cases, they'll opt to have you repatriated for care
in your home country.

~~~
icebraining
_in most cases, they 'll opt to have you repatriated for care in your home
country._

Yes; and that's a shitty thing to require when the person has a broken rib and
a detached fingertip and is 20h+ away from the home country.

The problem wasn't that he didn't know the policy, it was the policy itself.

~~~
TwoBit
Certainly it was partly his fault for not reading the policy.

~~~
Flimm
He did read the policy. He also read the 94 page medical manual they later
sent him, which presumably wasn't in the original policy. He found the reason
in all those pages of text why he was eligible for getting his costs covered,
and they still replied with:

> “This is a general exclusion and doesn’t apply to you specifically. Our
> decision still stands with curtailment. No further medical input needed.

Why do you feel that he shares any part of the blame here? Why do you expect
him to be an expert in reading and interpreting insurance policies in the
middle of a medical emergency?

~~~
trocadero
He's being willfully ignorant there. That quote comes from the section saying
when an airline requires medical clearance. Two pages later there are several
pages of specific medical conditions and guidance on if they should fly. One
of them is "Full plaster cast" and it says that you can fly 2 days after
getting one.

~~~
rsbadger
I felt that paragraph was the most relevant to me, I had been told by my DR
that I shouldn't fly. They had already told me I was crazy to have flown to SG
with my finger hanging off without being stitched up first. And I didn't have
a plaster cast, they had given me a make shift thing in Bali, but once I
reached SG I was unfit for flying home due to the risk of further damage to
the hand. It was massively swollen and 2 of the bones were pretty badly
shattered. I wasn't going to ignore the advice of a DR who was holding my
X-rays to appease an insurance company who doesn't give 2 shits about my
health.

~~~
trocadero
>I felt that paragraph was the most relevant to me

And not the one specifically dealing with broken bones?

>I wasn't going to ignore the advice of a DR who was holding my X-rays to
appease an insurance company who doesn't give 2 shits about my health.

Which is not something anyone is going to argue about with you. Except, of
course, those that have to write the $15K check. They are going to want more
documentation that a one liner when standard medical advice says you can fly.

~~~
armitron
Standard medical advice? Are you even reading what he wrote? His doctor did
not clear him to fly. It's crystal clear from the way they conducted
themselves that the insurance company would find any excuse to deny his claim.
It's also very probable that their delays were deliberate. I hope OP can talk
to an attorney and take them to the cleaners. At the very least, he named them
so potential future victims will have something to find if they perform due
diligence.

With all the responses you've generated here and the way you go about your
argumentation I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you work for the
insurer.

~~~
trocadero
>Standard medical advice? Are you even reading what he wrote? His doctor did
not clear him to fly.

That's not how insurance works. They aren't going to pay for stuff on the say
so of one doctor. The expectation is that they pay for treatment according to
published and accepted standards of care. In this case, those say that you can
fly with broken bones.

>With all the responses you've generated here and the way you go about your
argumentation I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you work for the
insurer.

Of course I don't work for the insurer. I am just an experienced backpacker
that understands the concept of travel insurance.

> It's crystal clear from the way they conducted themselves that the insurance
> company would find any excuse to deny his claim

I see no evidence of that. What they offered was exactly what travel insurance
is there for. That is, travel home for further treatment after a patient is
stabilized. OP wanted to argue he wasn't stabilized. In response, they told
him specifically what he needed to get from his doctor in order to justify his
claim. As far as I know OP, for whatever reason, never bothered to get that.

IMHO, it's debatable whether or not you should be travelling with unset broken
fingers. However, if all you bring to your side of the debate is a single
sentence, you're going to lose.

We also don't know what their reaction to paying for the emergency services
would be. OP, for reasons that are clear only to him, has decided not to claim
~$6,000 worth of covered expenses.

~~~
rsbadger
Just to clarify your comment on "What they offered was exactly what travel
insurance is there for." They didn't offer me anything. Not one piece of my
cover was offered. They 'offered' me a flight home as a goodwill gesture. They
stressed that they didn't have to. It was a really shitty tactic. If you
complain to a company and accept "their goodwill gesture" you are agreeing
that no further action will be taken. If I had accepted their flight home,
that would have been my insurance void and I would have no grounds to appeal.

~~~
trocadero
Your booklet says:

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.

That's what travel insurance is. It's there to pay for care until you can fly
home. Accepting their flight home isn't voiding your insurance. It's getting
the coverage you paid for.

~~~
rsbadger
It would have been if they said "we will fly you home, as per your cover" but
they didn't, the flight home was a goodwill gesture. If they weren't going to
pay for my 2nd operation, I would have ditched the "reasonable attitude" and
claimed for the 1st operation. They knew that, so by offering me the goodwill
flight home they were literally trying to make me void my own cover.

Furthermore, the policy says clearly, until I CAN fly home. My DR had
explicitly told me I could not. I wasn't going to risk my health for the sake
of my arsehole insurance company and their bullshit attempts to wriggle out of
paying.

Ask yourself, would YOU have ignored the advice of your DR, who knew your case
personally, in favour of the "opinion" of a private company whose sole
motivation is financial?

------
nwsm
I'm shocked at how much expense you weren't looking for them to cover.

------
ordinaryperson
Once I filed for travel insurance after my travel plans to Patagonia were
delayed by a blizzard.

Getting there required 3 separate flights and 2-hr cab ride in the middle of
nowhere Chile, which cost like $200.

After Kafkaesque paperwork my claim was initially denied. They said I didn't
have my boarding pass from the 3rd flight (first 2 legs were Air Canada, easy
to reproduce, but the third was some small, domestic Chilean airline with a
barely-there website and a Spanish-only hotline).

Who saves a boarding pass at the start of a 2-week hiking trip through the
Patagonian wilderness? Why is that third flight stub necessary, since I'm
asking to be reimbursed for the cab ride when I got there (which I have
documented proof for)?

I had to arrange for a conference call with a Spanish translator and the
insurer (srsly), and eventually they paid up. But how many people go that far?
It felt like the plot of "The Rainmaker".

The only other time I had to use travel insurance was when I lost my brand new
iPod while changing planes in Seoul, South Korea. Even though the insurance
covered "lost or stolen" they claimed they couldn't reimburse me because I
hadn't filed a police report with the South Korean airport police (it was the
middle of the night, I don't speak Korean and I didn't realize it was gone
until later). And why do I need to have a police report if it was lost?

So I can definitely sympathize with how unscrupulous these travel insurance
rackets are. That being said, I don't think asking him to fly home was that
unreasonable. How are they supposed to validate the care he's getting there?
He just going to dictate his care and hand over a massive bill from Singapore?

But usually this involves taking them to court and getting a settlement.

------
ghaff
This whole thread has me curious. If you're in a country with national health
insurance (and no private supplementary insurance), are you pretty much always
advised to buy travel insurance when out of the country?

In the US, decent private medical plans typically cover emergency medical
treatment when traveling. Pretty much the only time I buy travel insurance is
when I either have large non-refundable payments because you never know when
you'll have an accident or a family emergency or I'm doing some specific
activity like a Nepal trek where an evacuation could be very costly.

I'd never buy travel insurance because of potentially lost luggage or extra
flights/taxi rides.

------
J-dawg
I wonder whether the author has contacted any of the consumer rights TV
programmes such as "Watchdog" [0], which are quite popular in the UK. Martin
Lewis [1] might also be interested.

This story seems tailor-made for them. It's an emotive story, connected to a
wider issue ("Can YOU trust your travel insurer?"), and just in time for
summer holidays!

[0]
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mg74](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mg74)
[1] [https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/](https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/)

------
21
Question for those who might know about this:

If I find myself in a similar situation as in this article, is there some sort
of "insurance professional handler" laywer kind of guy you can hire so that he
does what is necessary and who knows all the traps, so that you have good
chances of being covered?

~~~
astura
This person is in the UK, I can't speak for the UK but in the US you can
contact the Department of Insurance for your state if you have issues with
insurance companies. They are responsible for regulating insurance companies
and making sure their actions are within the bounds of the law.

~~~
21
I meant during the thing. Like you don't talk to the police without a lawyer
present, maybe you shouldn't talk to the insurer without a professional
present.

~~~
DubiousPusher
It's probably best to start by trying to work with them in good faith. But
figure out within 24-48 hours what they intend to cover. If you can't get that
specific for lack of information feel them out. If they're being difficult at
all, speak with an attorney.

------
ecolonsmak
wow, that's brutal. I've been looking at something similar through this outfit
- [https://www.globalrescue.com/](https://www.globalrescue.com/) and now I'm
not so sure if it's worth it or not.

~~~
ghaff
They sound like they're probably the real deal:
[https://www.wired.com/2015/08/search-and-rescue-for-
sale/](https://www.wired.com/2015/08/search-and-rescue-for-sale/)

But, without looking at what they offer in detail, I'd be pretty sure they're
quite a bit different from normal travel insurance and are priced accordingly.
This is about potentially saving your life when things go sideways in some
remote corner of the globe.

Not hopefully paying you out some money because your tour operator went belly-
up or you need to take an emergency flight home because of an injury or other
problem (which is what most travel insurance emphasizes).

------
pawelwentpawel
Given the context of this thread - what would be a travel insurer for a UK
resident that digital nomads of HN would actually recommend? Not necessarily
the cheapest, just the most reliable one.

~~~
vertex-four
I believe the thing to do is to get global medical insurance, not travel
insurance. Yes, it’s going to be pricier, yes, if you don’t plan on flying
back to your home country as soon as you’re out of an emergency situation it’s
necessary.

------
humanhair
Well done Banger u did a good job friend

------
timwaagh
yeah thats why i try to avoid buying insurance. i only buy it if my parents
insist or it is mandated by law.

------
cooervo
damn lets upvote this. This horrible company needs the bad PR.

~~~
paulcole
Might be a silly question, but how do you even know he bought insurance from
Insure and Go?

You’re awful quick to want to shame “this horrible company.”

~~~
clavalle
Let me ask you this: how much would you bet that he didn't?

Because I'd be willing to bet $100 that he did.

Am I sure? No. It is impossible to be sure. But I think it's highly likely
considering the detail of the article and my difficulty in imagining why he'd
put so much effort into a lie that could land him in hot water.

So, let's dump the idea that people can't take action no matter how small
unless we are 100% sure of something. Almost nothing is 100%.

But things can be likely. Put your money where your mouth is.

If we get enough people in the pool, perhaps we can cut in the author of the
article in return for documentation.

~~~
rsbadger
Now you can be sure:
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/5nmgqv7gqz55uhl/Screenshot%202018-...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/5nmgqv7gqz55uhl/Screenshot%202018-07-18%2001.19.08.png?dl=0)

------
rootsudo
This is why I'm an expat in the philippines.

~~~
willio58
Are insurance companies better in the Philippines?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I’m guessing, at least, out of pocket medical expenses are cheaper. Don’t they
have a medical tourism thing going on?

------
forgot-my-pw
There's no way a 5 day hospital stay in Bali (excluding surgery) costs
$22,000. That sounds way too crazy. No way the locals can pay for something
like that.

~~~
mertd
Singapore, not Bali.

~~~
forgot-my-pw
That makes more sense. Thought it was in Bali.

