Health insurer for those with pre-existing health conditions?

torncurtain

Sandtree said:

torncurtain said:
Re why insurers wouldn't insure someone who is born or acquires a condition still doesn't quite hold water for me. I think we can get into the thick of it but it would take us away from my main question, which I'm reluctant to do. The gist of it: We may not have much choice in terms of where we can afford to live, unless of course we increase our income and decrease our outgoings (both possible choices) but we do choose and if an area is high crime it makes sense that the rates are higher. But, you can still get insurance. If you're born with a congenital condition, you don't choose, you can only live with it and it appears more than a little difficult to get insurance. 

If you have no health conditions, you will eventually have them. That's what old age affords us. Until such time, our genes, environment, choices are ticking. Two of these in my opinion are mostly beyond our control. 

For the avoidance of doubt, they will insure you (in most cases) just not for the pre-inception condition. My condition is congenital too and I can get cover from regular providers however it will include a statement that it excludes my condition and related conditions. My problem is that too much could fall under the "related" banner however if you've a more mundane condition then it may be something you're comfortable with. 

If you've had a heart attack for example, you'd be fully covered for cancer treatment

Thank-you Sandtree! Either I'm using the comparison tools incorrectly, I'm not understanding the wording or there's a fault elsewhere. I'm always happy to consider it's my blip. Do you mind sharing who your provider is (I'm not sure if you can message me directly, if you can and that suits you, you're welcome to)? Would you say you're happy with them generally? And, believe they're cost effective, all things considered. 

On a side note, I'm really sorry to read of your heart attack. That must have been utterly terrifying. I hope you're doing much better now. 

I appreciate your feedback, thanks again. 

torncurtain

lisyloo said:

torncurtain said:

lisyloo said:

On the moratorium basis I think they would check when you claim rather than in advance.

Have you thought about talking to a broker about this?

yes of course the deck is stacked against people likely to claim.
home insurers charge people more if they live in flood areas.
car insurers charge more (or refuse) people who live in high claims areas or keep crashing their cars.
why would this not be the case? 

Its bad luck if you don’t have great health. We just don’t all get dealt the same cards.

the point about employers was not entirely facetious.
my last 2 employers had “medical history disregarded” schemes.
it would quite seriously be a factor for me. Secondary to the job and location, but all, other things being equal I consider these schemes to be “gold plated”.
i still left my last employer because the job was crap but the health insurance was definitely a loss.

A broker is a good idea! Thanks. I actually hadn't thought about this. 

Oh, I didn't think you were being facetious at all. I'm sorry I came across in a way that made you think I did assume that. Nope, I thought you were trying to be helpful but I failed to include the necessary details in my original post. Crap jobs can be a strain. I hope you're somewhere now that's better suited and you're able to find some good insurance again. 

Re why insurers wouldn't insure someone who is born or acquires a condition still doesn't quite hold water for me. I think we can get into the thick of it but it would take us away from my main question, which I'm reluctant to do. The gist of it: We may not have much choice in terms of where we can afford to live, unless of course we increase our income and decrease our outgoings (both possible choices) but we do choose and if an area is high crime it makes sense that the rates are higher. But, you can still get insurance. If you're born with a congenital condition, you don't choose, you can only live with it and it appears more than a little difficult to get insurance. 

If you have no health conditions, you will eventually have them. That's what old age affords us. Until such time, our genes, environment, choices are ticking. Two of these in my opinion are mostly beyond our control. 

You appear to be taking the view that private health cover is a right (apologies if I’ve misunderstood).
its not a right and insurers generally don’t take on pre-existing conditions whether that’s subsidence on a house, an already stolen car, existing leaking pipe work etc.
if someone was unlucky enough to have serious health problems then they’d find it very difficult to get travel insurance (for example) - it simply isn’t a right,

As for old age, private health insurance does become prohibitively expensive.
my broker told me that was around age 73.

i don’t understand the comment of not being able to choose where to live.
yes there are family, financial and job constraints, but people can live where they like within those constraints and some can choose to improve their situation (I personally don’t believe everyone can improve their prospects).

No-no, I'm not taking that view, no. I can see how it would read that way but that's not my position. 

Erm, I didn't say people can't choose where they live. I said people CAN choose where they live. ('We may not have much choice in terms of where we can afford to live'...'but we do choose'). And, we both agree that not everyone CAN improve their prospects. 

I think we've gone off in a direction I was hoping to avoid, which is getting away from the main question. This isn't to say there's no value in this discussion, just that it's not why I came to ask the forum. 

Your suggestion of the broker is great one, one I'd not considered and it's something I'll look into. Thanks for your help. 

lisyloo

I found a great broker and they were very helpful, so I would always suggest that where it’s not straightforward.

apologies for misunderstaing.
Some people get great value from the tangents but not always the person asking the questio.

Sandtree

torncurtain said:

Sandtree said:

torncurtain said:
Re why insurers wouldn't insure someone who is born or acquires a condition still doesn't quite hold water for me. I think we can get into the thick of it but it would take us away from my main question, which I'm reluctant to do. The gist of it: We may not have much choice in terms of where we can afford to live, unless of course we increase our income and decrease our outgoings (both possible choices) but we do choose and if an area is high crime it makes sense that the rates are higher. But, you can still get insurance. If you're born with a congenital condition, you don't choose, you can only live with it and it appears more than a little difficult to get insurance. 

If you have no health conditions, you will eventually have them. That's what old age affords us. Until such time, our genes, environment, choices are ticking. Two of these in my opinion are mostly beyond our control. 

For the avoidance of doubt, they will insure you (in most cases) just not for the pre-inception condition. My condition is congenital too and I can get cover from regular providers however it will include a statement that it excludes my condition and related conditions. My problem is that too much could fall under the "related" banner however if you've a more mundane condition then it may be something you're comfortable with. 

If you've had a heart attack for example, you'd be fully covered for cancer treatment

Thank-you Sandtree! Either I'm using the comparison tools incorrectly, I'm not understanding the wording or there's a fault elsewhere. I'm always happy to consider it's my blip. Do you mind sharing who your provider is (I'm not sure if you can message me directly, if you can and that suits you, you're welcome to)? Would you say you're happy with them generally? And, believe they're cost effective, all things considered. 

On a side note, I'm really sorry to read of your heart attack. That must have been utterly terrifying. I hope you're doing much better now. 

I appreciate your feedback, thanks again. 

My condition is congenital and its issue is you could link many things to it... not personally had a heart attack but saying the simplicity of a contained condition like that means you can be comfortable that cancer wouldn't be excluded because of the heart attack etc.

We are with Bupa, the two claims we've made were dealt with promptly seeing a consultant within a couple of days of the referral, MRI scan same day etc. Cost effective is a difficult one to judge and probably like most insurance, those that have successfully made a big claim think its a no brainer and those that have had it a decade without a claim are more borderline. I am effectively self employed so no form of sick pay (until my PHI kicks in) and as such the PMI is as much about getting me back into work quicker as it is about making me feel better/increase chances of surviving. 

torncurtain

lisyloo said:

I found a great broker and they were very helpful, so I would always suggest that where it’s not straightforward.

apologies for misunderstaing.
Some people get great value from the tangents but not always the person asking the questio.

I think we agree on this issue, broadly. And, I agree there's great value from these types of tangents. I'd be happy to have one with you/others another time. I find in person easier, but that's just me. I'm more than happy for others to continue the dialogue without me. And, who knows, maybe when this is resolved I'll pop back and we can pick up where we left off.  

You have nil reason to apologise. Honestly. You didn't accuse me of anything, you weren't rude or too assumptive. I've misread (literally and figuratively) things, I've also not always explained things in a clear way. So, we're in the same boat, even if we're paddling in opposite directions at times! Pardon the terrible metaphor. 

If you're up for sharing your brokers details, that could be handy. I said to another user they can direct message me if it's preferable, same applies for you. No hard feelings if you'd rather not share. You've been helpful enough as it is. 

torncurtain

Sandtree said:

torncurtain said:

Sandtree said:

torncurtain said:
Re why insurers wouldn't insure someone who is born or acquires a condition still doesn't quite hold water for me. I think we can get into the thick of it but it would take us away from my main question, which I'm reluctant to do. The gist of it: We may not have much choice in terms of where we can afford to live, unless of course we increase our income and decrease our outgoings (both possible choices) but we do choose and if an area is high crime it makes sense that the rates are higher. But, you can still get insurance. If you're born with a congenital condition, you don't choose, you can only live with it and it appears more than a little difficult to get insurance. 

If you have no health conditions, you will eventually have them. That's what old age affords us. Until such time, our genes, environment, choices are ticking. Two of these in my opinion are mostly beyond our control. 

For the avoidance of doubt, they will insure you (in most cases) just not for the pre-inception condition. My condition is congenital too and I can get cover from regular providers however it will include a statement that it excludes my condition and related conditions. My problem is that too much could fall under the "related" banner however if you've a more mundane condition then it may be something you're comfortable with. 

If you've had a heart attack for example, you'd be fully covered for cancer treatment

Thank-you Sandtree! Either I'm using the comparison tools incorrectly, I'm not understanding the wording or there's a fault elsewhere. I'm always happy to consider it's my blip. Do you mind sharing who your provider is (I'm not sure if you can message me directly, if you can and that suits you, you're welcome to)? Would you say you're happy with them generally? And, believe they're cost effective, all things considered. 

On a side note, I'm really sorry to read of your heart attack. That must have been utterly terrifying. I hope you're doing much better now. 

I appreciate your feedback, thanks again. 

My condition is congenital and its issue is you could link many things to it... not personally had a heart attack but saying the simplicity of a contained condition like that means you can be comfortable that cancer wouldn't be excluded because of the heart attack etc.

We are with Bupa, the two claims we've made were dealt with promptly seeing a consultant within a couple of days of the referral, MRI scan same day etc. Cost effective is a difficult one to judge and probably like most insurance, those that have successfully made a big claim think its a no brainer and those that have had it a decade without a claim are more borderline. I am effectively self employed so no form of sick pay (until my PHI kicks in) and as such the PMI is as much about getting me back into work quicker as it is about making me feel better/increase chances of surviving. 

(I'm still figure out this forum, you'd think I'd know by now! When I try to edit down what I'm quoting I get an error message if I post a reply -- I'll get there but sorry for the wall of text until I do grow a brain!)

Everything you've said makes sense, yes. And, also something to keep in mind I agree. 

Thank-you for your insights and help. Very much appreciated. 

torncurtain

lisyloo said:

I found a great broker and they were very helpful, so I would always suggest that where it’s not straightforward.

apologies for misunderstaing.
Some people get great value from the tangents but not always the person asking the questio.

Hi Lisyloo would you be up for sharing your Broker's details?  You're welcome to private message me if that's better for you. Thanks and hope you're well. 

SevenOfNine

The answer to a question in a newspaper yesterday gave this web address  moneyhelper.org.uk & under the 'hot topics' was a list of 28 insurers with "most conditions covered", they don't include the words "for a price", which of course will apply!  Might be useful to narrow a search field for cover.