ballaughbiker Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Its not just the IOM that is affected by this type of dual standards. There are some uk expats who transferred their rights of medical care for the 2 years when they left . If they don't or can't get into the foreign country's scheme in this time, they can be denied treatment in that new country and the UK should they return. Apparently it makes no difference if they have made NI contributions for a lifetime. Yet someone just of the boat from, say, Romania with nil contributions, can get full treatment. I sense this is so unfair it could all get out of hand. I hope the IOM Gov is looking into getting some cover funded by our taxes (and maybe underwritten by insurance) that gives basic short term cover (inc repatriation if required) to all IOM residents regardless of their medical history. This could never happen with a 1:1 relationship with an insurance company. As Utah says, it's only a question of where they fall ill or have an accident. If it's here, they pay anyway, as they always have done. What's the real problem Eddie? Time to prove to us all you are not just sat on your ass with that big salary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Its not just the IOM that is affected by this type of dual standards. There are some uk expats who transferred their rights of medical care for the 2 years when they left . If they don't or can't get into the foreign country's scheme in this time, they can be denied treatment in that new country and the UK should they return. Apparently it makes no difference if they have made NI contributions for a lifetime. Yet someone just of the boat from, say, Romania with nil contributions, can get full treatment. I sense this is so unfair it could all get out of hand. I hope the IOM Gov is looking into getting some cover funded by our taxes (and maybe underwritten by insurance) that gives basic short term cover (inc repatriation if required) to all IOM residents regardless of their medical history. This could never happen with a 1:1 relationship with an insurance company. As Utah says, it's only a question of where they fall ill or have an accident. If it's here, they pay anyway, as they always have done. What's the real problem Eddie? Time to prove to us all you are not just sat on your ass with that big salary! 1) Romania is in the EU, all EU citizens must be treated equally. 2) The IOM is *not* in the EU. 3) If you lose your UK domicile then you no longer qualify for free NHS treatment unless you receive a UK pension as an Island resident. There are no dual standards, I don't think Eddie should do anything. Island residents have had something for nothing, now that this has gone they are winging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 1, 2 & 3, I was well aware of. I was simply using it (if you go back to my post at 1633) as an example of how the UK are tightening the screws elsewhere. If you thought I was saying the IOM resident should have more healthcare rights in the UK than the Romanian, then you misunderstood my post. As to I don't think Eddie should do anything. Island residents have had something for nothing, now that this has gone they are winging smile.gif then I would have to disagree with you. I think if you again refer to an earlier post of mine today, I said I personally wouldn't mind paying for this extra benefit. So its not a winge, is it? Why is everything on here suddenly a winge? Its simply a debate on a huge looming problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I said I personally wouldn't mind paying for this extra benefit. So its not a winge, is it? Why is everything on here suddenly a winge? Its simply a debate on a huge looming problem. I would. They are cutting the reciprocal agreement for the Channel Islands as well but they have no NHS system so you can understand the sense as its all private so most people will be covered in the UK anyway, but we pay NI at the full rate which is a massive difference but now were going to have to lump private medical insurance or travel insurance on top and I don't think that is fair in comparison. The government should get off its arse and pay for UK treatment centrally out of the NI fund as we are paying many millions into this fund each year and quite what the f**k they do with the money is anyones guess. There must be surplus cash in the pot to cover this. I can't accept that its up to us to resolve this problem (ie, just cough up) when we are already paying millions in NI as Island residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Island residents have had something for nothing, now that this has gone they are winging As have UK visitors to the IOM. That's why it's reciprocal. I just hope that future visiting UK bikers in TT week all have good travel insurance. I bet there's going to be loads of them winging when they get thier bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I just hope that future visiting UK bikers in TT week... Doubt if there'll be that many - UK's economy has a long way to go before it really hits rock-bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I'm sure there will be enough to keep Noble's busy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 UK's economy has a long way to go before it really hits rock-bottom. Not according to yesterdays failed gilt auction ... nobody even wants to buy their debt any more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 The Isle of Man has had a pretty much laissez-faire attitude towards health matters, especially in the building of our much lauded New Hospital. Other cities in the UK will have made comparisons to see how much we spent on its building, in much the same way that our education minister has quoted £40million (I think was the figure) as the cost of a new school because that was how much a similar one is costing somewhere just now in UK. The UK will have seen our hospital cost rise from £40 million . . £80 million . . £120 million . . . . er ????? Do you really believe that the UK is prepared to further consider having a reciprocal agreement with an island that is seemingly swamped with money? Although on reflection, if we are prepared to chuck that much money at our health services then perhaps the UK are getting the worst deal from all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 This is going to be a long post. If you think "just get some insurance, what's the problem?" is the case, please stick with it. It's an illustration of what is to come if we are forced to deal direct with insurance companies when we go shopping at the Trafford Centre etc from next April. This happened yesterday teatime and is an account of a phone call between the policyholder who is a fit, healthy 51 year old who has had two or so days off work sick in 30 years. They are not on any tablets or have any real medical problems (read on....). They simply renewed their annual travel policy (fourth year with this well known company) and have never made any claim of any sort on a travel insuance policy. Ever. The small print says you must contact the company on renewal or before each and every travel (so for us each time we leave the rock) if any of the persons covered: a) Is waiting for an operation or hospital consultation/investigation b) Received treatment for any blood disorder,any psychiatric illlness,any form of cancer, a transplant, dialysis or dementia c) Received diagnosis or treatment for HIV d) Had a breathing or heart problem needing hospital treatment in the last 12 months e) Seen a Specialist in the last three months or stayed in hospital overnight f) Given a terminal prognosis g) Know any reason , medical or not, why a trip might be cut short. Now some of these are hardly surprising but a) and e) might be very trivial complaints as happened to our victim who I am describing. They had seen the skin specialist at Nobles in the last three months for an itchy scalp with possible (very minor) hair loss and has been waiting for a hearing test for well over 6 months. By the time the Dematologist appointment had arrived, the problem had sorted itself out without treatment and he discharged her as no treatment was required. The hearing test was a follow up of one 4 years ago, made at the patients request to see if it was the same. The first test had only found very minor high frequency hearing loss which most (if not all) middle aged people have. Apart from that this person has nothing wrong with them. Nothing. Zilch. So this is a shortened version of the call which was taped and I have heard the recording. Hello, I have just renewed my annual policy but need to tell you about two things in the list (above). Oh yes, what? I have seen a specialist in the last three months and I'm waiting for a hospital investigation. Oh right, I need to take some details, what was the Specialist? Skin Specialist. Why, have you got skin cancer? Hell no, just any itchy scalp with maybe a bit of hair loss but its cleared up on its own before I got my appointment and I have been discharged from hospital care. What is the test you are waiting for then? Its a hearing test. Are you going deaf? No its a follow up of a previous appointment 4 years ago made at my request to check if very slight age related hearing changes had progressed. Is you hearing worse then? Don't think so, but I just want to know. OK, I need to ask you further questions about your Specialist treatment. I didn't have any treatment. The problem has gone on its own and I have been discharged without requiring treatment. What's the problem? This must be logged on your insurance record if you have a claim otherwise the claim could be refused OK I am looking through the list and I can see Alopecia. No, he said it was nothing like Alopcecia. What was it then? Like I said an itchy scalp. Hang on I need to talk to my supervisor. (Thinks : ffs!) Hello, we have nothing on our list to match that so I cannot process this information now. We will have to ring you after the weekend. Can I phone you on Monday? What time? Between 0900 & 1700. I won't be able to talk to you on Monday. Why, are you leaving the country? You might not have cover until this is clarified No I simply start work at 0800 and finsh on Mondays at 1900. Can I phone your mobile? Not allowed to have a mobile at work. Oh, um, er can you hang on a minute whilst I ask my supervisor. 5 mins later, we will have to send you a declaration to complete in the post. OK, bye The total call was 27 minutes on a non-geographic expensive number. Remember this sort of thing will have to be done each and every time you leave the IOM, wherever you are going. Furthermore,it might be over some really trivial problems as suffered by our honest, fit and well 51 year old without any relevant medical history. So I hope you have not fallen asleep wading through this but it really is a good illustration of what's to come. Eddie, I hope you are reading this. If you want details and or a recording of the call, pm me and I'll email it to you. It really has to be heard to be believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Will the carriers refuse the right to travel in the absence of insurance? Like holiday companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 BB I admire your 'acquaintance's' honesty but really.......'need to know' old boy. I hardly think that when you are having your leg sewn back on anybody is going to be in the slightest bit interested in an itchy scalp or high-tone deafness. The insurance company wants to know whether there is a chance you are going to keel over while you're using their insurance. That's going to cost them the big bucks, not your 6-month wait to see a specialist about an ingrowing toenail. I would suggest that your 'acquaintance' wasted a great deal of not only his/hers but also the insurance company's time. In an age where individual initiative has been irradicated by 'the computer says' automaton mentality, one is hissing into the proverbial breeze to expect any logical or satisfactory outcome to the episode you describe. I learnt a very long time ago that when it comes to medical matters you disclose nothing unless it is really in YOUR best interests to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 In an age where individual initiative has been irradicated by 'the computer says' automaton mentality... That's a good phrase to describe a lot that happens today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Of course Utah, I realise that and fully expected someone to point that out. However, lets have a look at a scenario which actually happened a few years ago. Someone I worked with was skiing in France and was actually stationary enjoying the view. A snowboarder hit her at about 40mph from behind and broke both legs and her pelvis along with horrible internal injuries. Her stay at the french hospital was about 9 months (including very expensive intensive care) before she could be flown back to blighty and her claim was about £80k in total. The first thing her insurance company asked was permission to see her GP's medical records. Why? To see if she had suffered an itchy scalp or a bit of tinnitus? No, it was to see if there had been any witholding or 'material fact' to escape paying £80k. There hadn't been and they paid up. I had some personal experience of insurance companies a few years ago when a relatively minor medical problem lost me my job and a claim was made. I can tell you they are not the benevolent kind uncle looking after you. They are hard nosed bastards who don't care if you live or die. Yes, that's a bit dramatic but it's true. If you are bored enough to trawl the net looking, there are many sad stories of people's proper honest claims being rejected due to 'failure to disclose material facts'. Travel and Critical illness policies are top of their list of claims refused. Our brave itchy scalp suffered did wonder whether to mention any of this but was reminded by the skiing claim above. At no time during the detailed phone call did the person say, hey we don't need to know that nonsense! This is about proper illnesses! They are still thinking about covering our person with the self cured itchy scalp....... Failure to disclose material facts is one hell of a risk to take should the very very unlikely worst case scenario occur. If you are knocked down by a car as you cross the road outside the Liver building minutes after getting off the boat and you are in Walton for a month or three, you might have to sell your house to pay for it should they worm their way out of a claim. Again maybe over-dramatic stuff but it could just happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Someone I worked with was skiing in France and was actually stationary enjoying the view. A snowboarder hit her at about 40mph from behind and broke both legs and her pelvis along with horrible internal injuries. Her stay at the french hospital was about 9 months (including very expensive intensive care) before she could be flown back to blighty and her claim was about £80k in total. The first thing her insurance company asked was permission to see her GP's medical records. Why? To see if she had suffered an itchy scalp or a bit of tinnitus? No, it was to see if there had been any witholding or 'material fact' to escape paying £80k. There hadn't been and they paid up. Agreed insurance companies are slippery bastards when it comes to allegations of non disclosure of material facts they will go back through absolutely everything to avoid paying out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.