Critical Illness Claim

OshayAway

pedro123456 wrote: »

Your nearly correct somewhat, but not close enough to win a prize.


And of course the ABI "reccomended" definitions are just that "recomendations" and the clever Insurace Companies dont "have" to use/ammend them. they tend to like more recent definitions though because they are harder to attain............they get updated as the profits of the IC's are threatened, a loss of £1.75 off their millions profit will result in a definition change.

Pete

That's quite a claim pedro, do you have any proof?

pedro123456

Morning.I'm out for the day (golfing) I''ll comment tomorrow somewhat but as for asking when I knew etc, I was just after confirmation of what dunstonh was actually saying, Or rather I didn't understand what point he was making.

I wasn't sure.Just like I am unsure of what the other one is wanting.

Proof of what? Do you want copies of the amended definition statements May 2000(first one) 2002, 2006 one or the latest one?
Or do you want proof of them changing because of the £1.75 loss from profits.
Or that the definitions are guidelines?
Or that they like the more stringent definitions?
Or that there is lack of confidence in Insurance companies by the public.

pedro123456

Sorry somewhat I may be missing summat here "Why not just support his comment and help rovers out" can I ask what he said that I would support?
And can I ask do you not think my post was at helping rovers out?
I informed him that IF they could get away with it the IC will impose a later definition for his claim.

ok.........as for policy definitions lets not mince words, they are not now nore have they ever been changed because of better health provisions.

They are chaged purely and simply to promote the profits of insurance companies.........end of story, people claim......... the IC's dont like paying........... so they higher the fence.

And whats more they get supported by the incompetent wigs.

Pete

dunstonh

I informed him that IF they could get away with it the IC will impose a later definition for his claim.

The definitions are set at point of sale. Changes the provider may make on later new business does not change old plans. This is one of the key reasons why older critical illness plans are considered more desirable than modern ones......

ok.........as for policy definitions lets not mince words, they are not now nore have they ever been changed because of better health provisions.

....because modern plans have taken into improvements in health and recovery due to better health provisions.

They are chaged purely and simply to promote the profits of insurance companies.........end of story, people claim......... the IC's dont like paying........... so they higher the fence.

Not on existing plans.

pedro123456

Dunstonh............can I ask you, have you ever put in a claim for a CI, and can i ask you did the IC try (twice) to judge that claim against a definition recommeded by the ABI 3-4 years AFTER?

My guess is no you haven't.............but I have.....and I am talking from personal experince.

"because modern plans have taken into improvements in health and recovery due to better health provisions"

I think they call this spin, if we have better health provisions and we recover better,.......how come the policie premiums dont get any cheaper?.

And if we have better health why do we need insurance at all?

How many different IC are there........................thousands and the make millions, how does that work? are they printing money? or are they pinching it?

I think because the IC is just greedy & corrupt too the core.

Pete

pedro123456

Somewhatnew. P6

A number of policies bought before 2002/2003 will simply say ‘cancer’ as the definition, these days is more likely to be ‘cancer of an invasive nature…’. Quite simply, medicine has moved on – why shouldn’t the insurance companies?

What on earth are you trying to say?
Because medicine has moved on, (although no cure thus far) that the change of definition is a result of this moving on, so now the definition for cancer has altered to ‘cancer of an invasive nature’.

What’s cancer of an invasive nature when its at home?.............its purely and simply a way of making the definition harder to achieve and therefore protect the financial interest of the IC’s…………………….and no other reason at all !!!!

If you are trying to imply definition alter because of medical developments I question your reasoning, and comprehension of the subject, however feel free to voice them and lets have it out in the open .

Are you suggesting that now medicine has progressed that maybe some Critical illness's should not be considered critical illness's now?


Zorro…….. Defender of the people against the oppressive Insurance Companies, I am not Zorro….

dunstonh

Dunstonh............can I ask you, have you ever put in a claim for a CI, and can i ask you did the IC try (twice) to judge that claim against a definition recommeded by the ABI 3-4 years AFTER?

I havent personally had to claim but I have had many clients who have and each one has paid out successfully. There is no point referring to current rules for new business as the bit that matters is the rules that were in place at the point the policy was taken out. This is why you find most IFAs wont re-broke old CI policies.

Are you suggesting that now medicine has progressed that maybe some Critical illness's should not be considered critical illness's now?

Correct. If something ceases to be a critical illness, then removing it for new business cases as acceptable and understandable. It wont effect existing business though. That's common sense and why you see things added and taken away over the years.

pedro123456

"I haven’t personally had to claim"...ok so you may not be aware that IC's try and impose definitions that were not in place when the policy was taken out.
But they do try to impose more recent definitions.

I accept that they shouldn’t do, but the fact is they do, it has happened to me and I have paperwork to prove it. The tried to impose a 1992 definition on a policy I took out in 1998. So let’s not debate about this, they shouldn’t but do.

“Correct. If something ceases to be a critical illness, then removing it for new business cases as acceptable and understandable. It wont effect existing business though. That's common sense and why you see things added and taken away over the years”

Ok………….although this was asked of somewhatnew ill look at what you say.

If something is deemed not to be critical (due to the advancement of medicine) it should be removed from CI cover for new policies?....................am I correct so far?

So according to the ABI

1.2 Critical illness cover means insurance which pays out on meeting the policy definition of a specified critical illness and where all of the following are included:

I understand by this the ABI are saying you have to meet certain criteria to have a definition of a CI. I see little in this statement to suggest the definition of a CI is anything to do with a CI, actually being “critical”.
If all core conditions had to be “critical” as you are implying, how many would there be, as medicine evolves and improves there would be less and less, then there would be no CI to cover !!!!!

Which of the core conditions are in your opinion are “critical”? and which of the core conditions have not seen medical advancements? I would suggest very few.

Maybe we could discuss it elsewhere the point of my initial response to Rovers was that possibly the use of different definitions may have been used by different IC.

So lets see how rovers gets on.


Zorro…….. Defender of the people against the oppressive Insurance Companies, I am not Zorro….