 Poster: A snowHead
|
| snowbunny wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| snowbunny wrote: |
| ..........without separate private medical insurance to fund a scan straightaway, my knee would have remained uninsured for months, possibly years with Snowcard. |
Quite rightly, IMV. |
Fortunately, your view is irrelevant. |
Bur snowcard's is not. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| achilles wrote: |
| snowbunny wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| snowbunny wrote: |
| ..........without separate private medical insurance to fund a scan straightaway, my knee would have remained uninsured for months, possibly years with Snowcard. |
Quite rightly, IMV. |
Fortunately, your view is irrelevant. |
Bur snowcard's is not. |
That you find age related discrimination amusing, speaks volumes about you as a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| snowbunny wrote: |
| ...........That you find age related discrimination amusing, speaks volumes about you as a person. |
I'm over 60; I reckon I am allowed to find age discrimination amusing if I wish.
This time round though, I don't see age discrimination came into it. You had a knee for which your consultant needed an MRI before he could come to decision. So no cover for it. Tough. Correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
You lack the facts, of the matter, seem to base your comments wholly on personal assumption and I'm not interested in debate with you, as you have no influence on any outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| snowbunny wrote: |
| You lack the facts, of the matter, seem to base your comments wholly on personal assumption ... |
Dear thing, you wrote that you had a 'sore and fat' knee. You wrote that you had been 'referred for an MRI scan on it'. I must admit I made an assumption that the consultant's letter to 'do nothing' was written after the MRI (not so? if that is the case you could have been clearer).
| Quote: |
| .... you have no influence on any outcomes. |
Well, there you go. So true of so many sH postings. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
OK, I'm dim as well as old, but I'm really struggling with this one, possibly because snowbunny has 'shorthanded' the facts.
As I understand it snowbunny gets sore knee from an accident arising out of an activity which is covered by Snowcard. She rings Snowcard to ask if they will pay for a consultation and MRI scan. So far, there is on the face of it, no reason why they should refuse to pay out a) for the consultation b) for the MRI scan and c) for any subsequent treatment that is recommended. If they'd refused any of those things, it would be jolly odd. What doesn't seem odd to me would be for them to say, as regards any future trip, the soreness of that knee is a pre-existing condition and therefore not covered. Why is that odd? The consultant then says he can't see anything wrong with the knee, at which point Snowcard re-instate cover. That to me is odd: the knee is either still sore, or might become sore again if skied upon: it is the soreness of that knee, not any reason for the soreness, which is the pre-existing condition, so why should Snowcard cover it on renewal? Jolly nice of them, or so it seems to me.
But I guess I must have misunderstood something (including the relevance to any of this of age.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, Snowcard will have a list of conditions that they consider will get worse or make it more likely to receive an injury, as snowbunny's knee didnt have this condition Snowcard have treated it as a one off illness/injury and therfore reinstated cover . . . had the diagnosis been different they might have taken a different course of action . . . all part of the process i'm afraid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowbunny, snobunni, what is everyone rabbiting on about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
snobunni, oh, OK, that's logical too. Thanks. But it strikes me that that is still reasonably handsome of Snowcard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller,
Hurtle, like i said just how things work, people often assume that if they disclose something to an insurer it will automatically result in cover being withdrawn but thats not always the case. Admittedly thats often the insurers first response until they are in receipt of the full info on which to make an informed decision . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Bode Swiller, and was going to jump in on this one, but I am sure I will be told to hop it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
snobunni,
| Quote: |
Admittedly thats often the insurers first response until they are in receipt of the full info on which to make an informed decision . . .
|
Yes, in general, an insurer's first answer frequently being 'no' is what is inclined to inflame the policyholder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, yep and lucky old me gets to deal with all the complaints that result from it
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
OK, I'm dim as well as old, but I'm really struggling with this one, possibly because snowbunny has 'shorthanded' the facts.
As I understand it snowbunny gets sore knee from an accident arising out of an activity which is covered by Snowcard. She rings Snowcard to ask if they will pay for a consultation and MRI scan. So far, there is on the face of it, no reason why they should refuse to pay out a) for the consultation b) for the MRI scan and c) for any subsequent treatment that is recommended. If they'd refused any of those things, it would be jolly odd. What doesn't seem odd to me would be for them to say, as regards any future trip, the soreness of that knee is a pre-existing condition and therefore not covered. Why is that odd? The consultant then says he can't see anything wrong with the knee, at which point Snowcard re-instate cover. That to me is odd: the knee is either still sore, or might become sore again if skied upon: it is the soreness of that knee, not any reason for the soreness, which is the pre-existing condition, so why should Snowcard cover it on renewal? Jolly nice of them, or so it seems to me.
But I guess I must have misunderstood something (including the relevance to any of this of age.)
|
1. There was no accident.
2. Snowcard paid for nothing, connected with the investigation, or otherwise. On notification, they withdrew cover, that is all.
3. The consultant did find something and it was age related.
4. The knee in question is strong and fully functional.
5. Age related discrimination legislation will be applied to the supply of goods and services in the future (including insurance).
6. I sent the consultants report to Snowcard 4 times, using 2 different email addresses and 2 different formats, before I got any acknowledgement of receipt. Mail Responders were ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
snowbunny, the hoops you've had to jump through seem unreasonable to me, you have been treated pretty poorly in terms of having to repeatedly send the same info over to them. Regarding age discrimination this is something that the industry is very talkative about at the moment, no-one is sure how this will turn out for age related loadings for any product . . . its up to the actuaries and underwriters to provide evidence to show that age loadings, such as young driver loadings on motor insurance or increasing rates for travellers as they get older, are justified by the data apparent from industry claims experience and the like . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I've found picking up the phone and speaking to snowacard has been a pretty effective form of communication - and found them helpful and courteous.
I can't see anything in snowbunny's posts to suggest that snowcard applied age discrimination. Having said that, personally, as someone who may be affected by age discrimination in insurance, I think that such discrimination is perfectly reasonable if it is based on statistical evidence.
PS. Except as a satisfied customer (snowcard looked after me when I got the injury that earned me my sH name) I have no connection with the company. In case you were wondering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| snowbunny wrote: |
5. Age related discrimination legislation will be applied to the supply of goods and services in the future (including insurance).
|
I think you're getting two things confused here. There's the huge subject of age discrimination and then there's the tiny issue that your knee complaint is age-related and you beleive this to be discrimination. Fact is, the insurer, in this case, doesn't care whether your injury is age-related or not, they just want to make sure they aren't insuring an inevitable claim. By definition you can't insure for something that's almost a dead certainty to happen. In your case, skiing on a damaged knee is almost certain to cause more injury and mean an inevitable claim unless a qualified person tells them otherwise. Insurance is to protect you against the unforseen. Similarly, those who leave their skis unattended, unlocked, unsplit outside a restaurant and are surprised when they inevitably get stolen, are total numpties and deserve it.
Age, so i'm told, is the number one risk factor in life insurance, medical insurance, critical illness, and travel insurance so it is going to be impossible to positively discriminate in favour of older people without discriminating against younger people who will have to pick up the claims bills in their premiums (for motor insurance the graph goes the other way). So, age discrimination works both ways. Abolishing it from insurance is a non-starter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Snowcard paid up pretty quickly (with minimal work from us) for my girlfriend's broken rib, but was "only" c.£500
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
jd, Snowcard paid medical expenses incurred in ADH (less excess), for taxi to Grenoble from ADH, 4 seats on the flight going home (3 for me, 1 for my companion), a medical technician to drive me all the way home, and would have arranged recovery of my car from the airport. IIRC they paid the expenses of my friend who recovered it for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Surely it is unreasonable to expect a cheap policy to provide all the answers to all the questions and pitfalls that can occur. None of us reads the small print as carefully as we should and all of us expect a goldplated service. If you want the best policy then shop around but be willing to pay for it. Check what is covered by your household insurance (third party liability can often be added for no/minimal added premium), look at the credit cards you hold. Certain high end cards include or can offer unbeatable policies, making the high annual fee worthwhile. I also have a BUPA lifeline gold policy - comprehensive health insurance - that repaired my knee the last time to the tune of CHF 25k.
Snowbunny's trials make depressing reading but it is not surprising if the numbers are considered. My wife is currently fighting her insurers over her second ACL repair; the insurers are claiming that the condition was pre-existing because of the original op of 10 years ago. Being subjective, we don't agree of course - the first repair was a success. I don't know if we will win or not but suspect that the insurer will have to pay out as per the schedule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
