Do I need critical illness cover?

dunstonh

Any survivor would fail to qualify for their ci, any non-survivor would not qualify either. Basically, there are no living creatures who could satisfy their definitions and survive 28 days.

Yet providers pay out on over 90% of claims made.

Another catch is that, unless you have not seen a hospital in your life (then you are unlikely to need ci ins)

Ridiculous. Your future health is not based on how often you have been to hospital in your life.

and had no bloodtests ever , they will put the price sky high.

wrong again.

Or, they will always find something you have not told them... acne 35 years ago may make them refuse to pay...

wrong again.

In my personal opinion, these insurances are the most despicably unfair businesses in the world. They thrive on deception, and feed off gullible.

Considering how wrong you are, the OP should put no weight on your opinion.

randombirdpr

I am really confused!
It is very hard to see through all of the information to get to the truth!

weighty1_2

malchish wrote: »

In my personal opinion, these insurances are the most despicably unfair businesses in the world. They thrive on deception, and feed off gullible.
After you read the small print, you will see if the "cover" makes sense.

On the basis that just 3 insurers (Zurich, Aviva, L&G) paid out £299.9 MILLION in critical illness claims in 2012 I'd say that your opinion counts for little.

Nothing more to add as Dunstonh has summed it up nicely

Blogger

malchish wrote: »

You need to very closely read the fine print in T&C.
The catch is in the critical illnesses definitions.
In my personal opinion, these insurances are the most despicably unfair businesses in the world. They thrive on deception, and feed off gullible.
After you read the small print, you will see if the "cover" makes sense.

I totally agree to these comments. I had a look at these policies and unless you get diagnosed with exactly the same condition as it says in your policy you are unlikely to get paid. Even general illnesses like heart attack or stroke have very small print of the levels of condition..

I am not sure that these sort of policies are worth the money.

IronWolf

I would say look into income protection, as this should cover a much wider range of misfortunes, especially if you are running your own business.

weighty1_2

randombirdpr wrote: »

Just another couple of points which might be useful to point out:
- we have enough to keep us going for 6 months in our emergency fund (ISAs)
- we are starting to invest in property and should be able to buy at least 1 buy to let each year
- hubby has a couple of minor health issues to consider (acid reflux and chronic rhinisitis) so he would not be on standard terms, i presume which would make the costs even higher
Does anyone have any more thoughts based on this?
I am thinking to steer clear of CI and go for IP and look at LA next year.
What do you think?
Thanks for your help!

I think it is impossible to advise on whether you should steer clear of CI and go for IP instead unless we know what condition you may be diagnosed with in the future.

For example, if you are diagnosed with cancer that triggers a CI claim but only causes you to be off work for 4-5 months then you may well be quids in in comparison to a IP claim that may not have even reached the end of the deferred period yet. Conversely, if you are diagnosed with a condition which prevents you from ever working again or something which is not critical but still keeps you off long term then you are better off with IP. Unfortunately, what the future holds, nobody knows!

There is of course nothing to stop you edging your bets and taking both IP and CI but tailoring it to a budget.....

Blogger wrote: »

I totally agree to these comments. I had a look at these policies and unless you get diagnosed with exactly the same condition as it says in your policy you are unlikely to get paid. Even general illnesses like heart attack or stroke have very small print of the levels of condition..

I am not sure that these sort of policies are worth the money.

This is not "small print" for which the purpose it to deny a claim, it is simply to provide the medical definition for a condition which is severe enough to deem it "critical", hence the name. If someone was diagnosed with a mole that has become malignant but not spread anywhere and is treated simply by removing the mole with no other treatment do you really think this should trigger a payout on a CRITICAL ILLNESS plan? The purpose of critical illness policies is to protect the policyholders against conditions which are likely to be life-changing, either permanently or at least temporarily but to a very significant degree.

They are only the money if you claim on them, same with income protection as well. I'd rather reach old age knowing that I'd wasted a lot of money but had the peace of mind in the meantime, than making a claim and not wasted the premiums.

randombirdpr

Thanks again for everyone's help on this. I am now looking into CI and IP to see what comes out best. My IFA says the IP will come out a lot more expensive so we will see what the figures say... It certainly is a minefield with so many different opinions out there