Critical Illness Claim Statistics - 2009

pedro123456

Nicko67, Have you had time to read it? what do you think to the last paragraph?

Nicko67

The last paragraph:
'It’s an industry stuffed with scams and scammers, who delight in jargon designed to exclude. Insurance capitalises on our fears and our laziness. They know that we can’t be bothered to read the small print. And they are laughing at us.'

What do I think?
'an industry stuffed with scammers' - a wild exaggeration. It's an industry that has had a bad reputation and has cleaned up its act. I think it's a cliche like the boring accountant and the sharky estate agent.
'jargon designed to exclude' - every company I have had contact with, worked for/with, has actively gone out of their way to avoid jargon! Advice standards & procedures state that the client should know exactly what they are getting and the pros & cons of it.
'Insurance capitalises on our fears' - what? Fear that if you contract cancer you might not be able to pay your mortgage? Fear that your family would be seriously disadvantaged if you died owing your creditors hundreds of thousands? How ridiculous?! (sorry - now I'm being sarcastic:()

Lazy lazy lazy journalism. Wouldn't last five minutes in a proper debate.

pedro123456

I admire your loyalty to your industry Nicko67, as for your analogy and reasoning I am less impressed. Actually my guess is that the author is aiming the venom at the high earners within the Industry, not the soldiers so to speak.

As for jargon, me thinks it’s the T&C, exclusions/inclusions or small print he /she refers too, and sorry it does actually exist by the boat load, and sorry niether you or anyone else explains them in their entirety.

Tell me Nicko67, how has the IC’s (who have by your own admission “had a bad reputation”) cleaned up its act?
What evidence do you have to substantiate your claim, is it just your opinion?
How have the Industry resolved lack of public confidence so quickly?

Your not agent Starling by any chance are you?

OshayAway

Pedro, I’ve got a direct question for you and wonder if you could give a direct answer.

If one of those 93% successful critical illness claimants approached you, say 6 months before their claimable event and said, “Pedro, I’ve got critical illness cover, do you think I should keep it or save my money?” what would you advise? Would you tell them to “recycle their insurance policy into toilet paper” as per your ‘campaign’?

pedro123456

No problem Oshay

On my assumed 10% figures (never stated as facts by the way, and you know no different), the 93% you refer to would equat to 9.3% ( lets say 9 out of 100 people).

And if I was approached by a individual as you suggest, first and foremost I would ask a few questions and relay a few answers, for eg, what are the core conditions of you CI, they may answer maybe Stroke, Heart Attack or Cancer or whatever.

I would the explain that although they may suffer any of the conditions they mentioned it doesn’t follow that they are covered or that the claim would be paid, because although the GP and or Consultant may have diagnosed their illness, the IC has their own definition, and its this definition they have to meet.

And of course IC’s not wanting to loose money ensures that these definitions are reviewed on a regular basis in order to reduce pays outs.

I’d ask “do you remember when you were sold your CI insurance, and the salesman said, if you suffer from 1 of this long list of conditions you would get a lump sum etc.

I would then express my sympathies for them taking up the CI cover in the first place, and also express my sympathies for their condition. Ang on…………………no I wouldn’t, they don’t get a CI till 6 months time do they? And of course I wouldn’t know that !!!!! :rotfl:


ps are the 93% figures from the IC's themselves?

What would I advise, avoid dacouch's partys

Nicko67

pedro123456 wrote: »

You're not agent Starling by any chance are you?

Sometimes it seems like it - getting answers from you was like playing 'quid pro quo' with Lecter!

My observations are almost entirely from personal experience. I have experienced the good and bad face of financial/mortgage advice and seen that almost invariably the bad advisers are forced out. I have myself done some of the forcing!

The continual knowledge testing, credit checking, compliance inspections etc are seen as a necessity by the vast majority of the industry and the sharks find it impossible to survive under that kind of scrutiny.

I realise that we are in some ways at polar opposites, and perhaps my views can seem somewhat idealised, but I have no time for the lazy stereotyping of the industry that goes on. 'Insurance company pays out' is not a headline, because it happens every day of the year. If anything, the fact that the wife of 'a man in a canoe' was paid shows how easy it actually is!

Now - 'You see a lot, Doctor. But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself.......?';)

pedro123456

Now my turn Oshay,

A man/woman buys a CI policy, on the understanding that should they suffer from a “condition” within the policy, lets say a stroke, they will have their claim paid, agreed?, after all its sold as a safety net, ‘just in case’ you have a stroke, Heart attack etc we will look after you, type of thing etc etc.

We buy the product, on the paperwork it say's "if you have this that the other you are covered"

So anyway some years later they have a stroke, GP says “yep you had a stroke”, Neurologist say “Yep you had a stroke”,

So here’s my direct question for you Oshay (there are no issues with none disclosure etc)

If a Consultant and or GP say youv'e had this stroke etc, how can the IC dispute it?, a stroke, is a stroke, is a stoke aint it? do you know something we dont?

OshayAway

pedro123456 wrote: »

I would then express my sympathies for them taking up the CI cover in the first place, and also express my sympathies for their condition. Ang on…………………no I wouldn’t, they don’t get a CI till 6 months time do they? And of course I wouldn’t know that !!!!

The question is hyperthetical. As suspected you would be negative about their cover, possibly causing them to cancel their cover if they put any stock in your opinion.

I wonder how they would feel about your 'advice' when they found out they would have had a successful payout?

OshayAway

pedro123456 wrote: »

Now my turn Oshay,
A man/woman buys a CI policy, on the understanding that should they suffer from a “condition” within the policy, lets say a stroke, they will have their claim paid, agreed?, after all its sold as a safety net, ‘just in case’ you have a stroke, Heart attack etc we will look after you, type of thing etc etc.
We buy the product, on the paperwork it say's "if you have this that the other you are covered"
So anyway some years later they have a stroke, GP says “yep you had a stroke”, Neurologist say “Yep you had a stroke”,
So here’s my direct question for you Oshay (there are no issues with none disclosure etc)
If a Consultant and or GP say youv'e had this stroke etc, how can the IC dispute it?, a stroke, is a stroke, is a stoke aint it? do you know something we dont?

Ok, I'll tackle your example. As with all legally binding contracts there is a need for terminology to be defined for clarification. This is why all critical illness policies refer to a specific 'policy conditions' depending on when it was taken out. it also means that insurance companies can't change those definitions for existing plans as you suggest.

This is for good reason, I recently heard someone say "did you know every time you sneeze you actually suffer a type of mini stroke?" If that person was to be responsible for the definition of stroke claim on a policy it would be a nonsense.

That is a bit extreme, however, there are many different types of stroke (as is the case with other medical conditions) that vary considerably as to the damage and prognosis. Take a look at the stroke association website for details http://www.stroke.org.uk/information/what_is_a_stroke/index.html There you will find that some types of stoke, such as a TIA or 'mini-stroke' which is "tempory - lasting a few minutes or hours, and then disappearing completely within 24 hours." Is that 'critical'? hardly. Serious, yes. A GP or consultant may even use the word critical in expressing the seriousness of getting medical help as soon as possible as it can be a sign that a more severe stoke could strike in future. How foolhardy it would be for the policy holder to 'throw their toys out of their pram' and cancel their cover in protest when an actual claimable event was even more likely.

Does that answer your question Pedro?

pedro123456

Oshay, I didn’t make any suggestion about companies changing definitions for existing plans !!!. Although now you have brought it up, they do try, as I have learned from personal experience, but that’s another story.

“This is for good reason, I recently heard someone say "did you know every time you sneeze you actually suffer a type of mini stroke?" If that person was to be responsible for the definition of stroke claim on a policy it would be a nonsense.

That is a bit extreme, however, there are many different types of stroke (as is the case with other medical conditions) that vary considerably as to the damage and prognosis. Take a look at the stroke association website for details”

What TF are you on about, sneezing so I’ve had a stroke, do me a favour Oshay, try to be a little more objective !!!!!!.

Thanks for the pointer about TIA’s etc, but frankly, I don’t need them and although you are trying to put a case forward, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Fact…………….A GP, and or consultant knows the difference between a TIA (Transient Ischemic Attack/mini stroke) as opposed to a stroke.

So I will ask once more

“If a Consultant and or GP say you’ve had this stroke etc, how can the IC dispute it?