Jumping WITH Insurance

[billvon 2,421]

> What are your motivations in posting an inflammatory quip like that?

Skydiving is a dangerous sport. You can be injured; you can even be killed. You might have nothing happen to you. You might sprain your ankle. You might break your femur and incur significant medical bills. You might break your back and be paralyzed for life. You might break your pelvis and require a quarter million dollars of surgery before you can walk again - and if you can't afford the surgery, you will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of your life.

If you are OK with that, then by all means, jump if you want to. If you are not OK with that, then don't. If you want medical coverage to pay for your care if that happens, then get medical coverage. If you don't want medical coverage, and would rather go into debt or forego treatment in the event of an injury, then do that.

Now, if you are saying that you have insurance that covers you for skydiving, great! I think that's a great idea. If you don't have insurance, and are just going to risk it, that's OK as well, although many people have lost that gamble and ended up pretty miserable.

If you have insurance that does not cover you for skydiving, but you plan to utilize it in case you do get injured skydiving, then that's fraud - and that seems to be what you are arguing for. If not, then I misunderstood your post, and I apologize.

[PiLFy 0]

Quote

> What are your motivations in posting an inflammatory quip like that?

Skydiving is a dangerous sport. You can be injured; you can even be killed. You might have nothing happen to you. You might sprain your ankle. You might break your femur and incur significant medical bills. You might break your back and be paralyzed for life. You might break your pelvis and require a quarter million dollars of surgery before you can walk again - and if you can't afford the surgery, you will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of your life.

If you are OK with that, then by all means, jump if you want to. If you are not OK with that, then don't. If you want medical coverage to pay for your care if that happens, then get medical coverage. If you don't want medical coverage, and would rather go into debt or forego treatment in the event of an injury, then do that.

Now, if you are saying that you have insurance that covers you for skydiving, great! I think that's a great idea. If you don't have insurance, and are just going to risk it, that's OK as well, although many people have lost that gamble and ended up pretty miserable.

If you have insurance that does not cover you for skydiving, but you plan to utilize it in case you do get injured skydiving, then that's fraud - and that seems to be what you are arguing for. If not, then I misunderstood your post, and I apologize.

You actually never bothered to ask me about my insurance coverage. It's very good, & I AM covered for skydiving. As someone who has worked in health care for many years. I understand the risks very well. I also understand how insurance companies operate...

[billvon 2,421]

>. . . my insurance coverage. It's very good, & I AM covered for skydiving.

Cool. I think that's a very good thing overall; sorry that I misunderstood you.

[ghost47 18]

Quote

Just because their buddies in the capital passed a law for them. That doesn't make it right.
. . .
However, I learned a long time ago to never discuss politics or religion w/strangers. They're far too polarizing. We all want to be friends here, right? I'm suuure you wouldn't want to argue about it...

I don't want to argue about it. But I wouldn't mind discussing it. So it depends on what you mean, and how we discuss it, I guess.

It appears that what you are saying is that it is NOT okay to lie to car rental companies, because you have lots of choices, and one of the choices is bound to fit your needs. But it IS okay to lie to health insurance companies, because it might be too difficult, or too expensive, to get health insurance that covers skydiving.

Additionally, you appear to be saying that health insurance companies should be forced to cover all people doing all activities, and that they should not be allowed to exclude things, or charge significantly higher rates for people who engage in higher risk activities.

If I have misunderstood, please correct me.

So let me ask you this:

1. Can a car insurance company charge a person who has had several speeding tickets more than it charges someone who has not?

2. Can a home or renter's insurance company charge a person more if their home is in a high-crime area?

3. Can a life insurance company charge a first time buyer who is old and dying a higher premium than a first time buyer who is young and healthy?

In other words, can an insurance company take risk into account when figuring out premiums?


Let me further ask this:

Say your teenager gets his license and wants to drive.

Your insurer says, okay, but the premiums are going to triple.

Why, you ask?

Because teenage boys are more prone to get into accidents, he says. So either agree that he won't drive your car, or you'll need to triple your premiums.

But I don't have enough money to pay triple, but I want my kid to drive, you say. He likes it, and I want him to be happy.

Well, those are your choices, the insurer says. You're welcome to check around, but I assure you, everyone charges a lot for teenage boys.

Would it be right to agree that your kid won't drive the car so your premium stays low, and then, when your kid drives and gets into an accident, you switch seats and say you were driving?

If that is okay, why?

If it's not, why not, and how is it different than lying to your health insurer about how you got hurt?

[andyvaughn 0]

Lying to obtain insurance benefits is fraud, period. I work for a health insurer, as a case manager - not because I particularly like the work, but rather because I got tired of taking care of 12 patients by myself on the graveyard shift and telling my kids I wouldn't be there for yet another holiday...but I digress. In the event you have health insurance that excludes coverage for skydiving - buy another policy. It's not exactly common language for skydiving related injuries to be excluded from coverage. Life insurance yes, health insurance no.
And as it was noted earlier, large employers actually have more discretion to eliminate coverage for certain diseases/accidents. I know of a employer group that has decided to exclude any benefits for genetic disorders for the children of their employees, have a child with Downs...sorry, no coverage. That is the employers choice, NOT the insurance carriers. There is another employer that refuses to pay for any accident that occurs while the employee is intoxicated - and all accidents require a drug screen before benefits are paid...again, the employers choice, not the insurance plan.
While I won't argue that insurance is sometimes a nasty business, I can tell you in my years as a case manager I have NEVER seen a patient denied benefits, claims denied, etc, on any shady level. What I have seen is people who are seriously ill, cancer, etc, buy insurance and then expect payment. If insurance worked like that, then I personally would not carry home/health/auto/life insurance. I would just wait until I had a major catastrophe, then pony up to the bar with my check and buy insurance. But, insurance companies wouldn't stay in business very long...would they?
I just had a major flood in my house,...one could say it was skydiving related, as I was out skydiving when a pipe ruptured, and I returned home to several inches of standing water throughout my first floor. Now I'm already about 15 thousand into the demolition, and looking at 60+ thousand in repairs...I pay 1400 a year for insurance...so - basically, they are never going to make a profit or be able to stay in business on a customer like me. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to have paid this claim if I called them the day of the flood and suddenly decided home insurance was a great plan. They assumed a risk when they insured me, and their gamble failed..on me at least.
This same insurer won't insure my home for earthquake damage, why? Because I live in So.Cal...it's too high a risk and they know they'd go belly up next major earthquake. Do I blame them? No...I wouldn't do it either. Do I blame life insurers for not offering skydivers/scuba divers life insurance, NO...too high a risk for them - but I was able to purchase life insurance on a group plan that doesn't exclude my leisure activities...so, my kids are financially covered in the event of my untimely demise.
I think the argument here really goes to personal responsibility. The talk is of the government mandating every person carry health insurance, and quite frankly, I don't disagree with that. If you drive you must be insured, so that the rest of us don't have to worry about you slamming into our cars and wrecking it leaving us car-less if you can't pay for the damages. Why should the rest of us be forced to pay for the health care of those that choose not to carry health insurance?

[PiLFy 0]

Hi Andy,
$60K?! My condolences. That must've been one H*ll of a flood...

"While I won't argue that insurance is sometimes a nasty business, I can tell you in my years as a case manager I have NEVER seen a patient denied benefits, claims denied, etc, on any shady level."

What say you to the links I posted last night in another reply? They very clearly show rampant systemic abuses which you claim to never have seen.

[andyvaughn 0]

Well...as I said, I've personally never seen any case of abuse on the part of the insurance company I case manage for. I absolutely have never provided benefit for a patient with a dollar figure in mind. That being said, yes, I have heard of insurance abuse - just because I haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I acknowledge that.
But, what I have seen is what I said earlier, someone who becomes very ill, cancer, etc, who is uninsured, suddenly buy insurance and try to slip it by - you might find, for a hypothetical example, a patient new to insurance under the pre-existing timeframe clause, who says "no, I never knew I had cancer" yet a brief review of their records show that they were handed their diagnosis 6 months before they bought insurance. I've seen that a number of times. While I can't blame the patient for trying, it still at the base of it is insurance fraud. Just like it would be fraud if I had a contractor say my floors were 15thousand to replace when they were really 9, and pocketed the difference. While I may think my homeowners insurance is a bunch of assholes, it's still me that has to lay down with me at night...and I prefer a clear conscience, I can't excuse my conduct on the sometimes shady conduct others may engage in...
Andrea
PS - and yes...it was a hell of a flood...who knew water could trash your whole damned house like that? I'm roaming around on slab staring at studs where drywall used to be...fun.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Well...as I said, I've personally never seen any case of abuse on the part of the insurance company I case manage for. I absolutely have never provided benefit for a patient with a dollar figure in mind. That being said, yes, I have heard of insurance abuse - just because I haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I acknowledge that.
But, what I have seen is what I said earlier, someone who becomes very ill, cancer, etc, who is uninsured, suddenly buy insurance and try to slip it by - you might find, for a hypothetical example, a patient new to insurance under the pre-existing timeframe clause, who says "no, I never knew I had cancer" yet a brief review of their records show that they were handed their diagnosis 6 months before they bought insurance. I've seen that a number of times. While I can't blame the patient for trying, it still at the base of it is insurance fraud. Just like it would be fraud if I had a contractor say my floors were 15thousand to replace when they were really 9, and pocketed the difference. While I may think my homeowners insurance is a bunch of assholes, it's still me that has to lay down with me at night...and I prefer a clear conscience, I can't excuse my conduct on the sometimes shady conduct others may engage in...
Andrea
PS - and yes...it was a hell of a flood...who knew water could trash your whole damned house like that? I'm roaming around on slab staring at studs where drywall used to be...fun.

I have one thing to say about United Health Care... thieves that you can't shoot...at least a thief that breaks into your house and steals far less... you can shoot the fucking bastard.

[PiLFy 0]

Hey Ghost,
Sorry I didn't get back to you last night. Let's give this a go.

"1. Can a car insurance company charge a person who has had several speeding tickets more than it charges someone who has not? "

**Are the speeding tickets budget-balancing, chickensh*t tickets, or legitimate? There are many towns around here who balance their budgets by having their police write bogus tickets for 3mph over the limit. That doesn't constitute a dangerous, flagrantly negligent driver in my book. If the driver keeps getting popped doing 20+ over the limit? No problem w/smacking him.

"2. Can a home or renter's insurance company charge a person more if their home is in a high-crime area?"

**Who gets to determine that the home is in a high crime area? The insurance industry is "Trusted" to self-police on many such issues. If the neighborhood is truly ghetto? Yes, they can charge a fair amount extra.

"3. Can a life insurance company charge a first time buyer who is old and dying a higher premium than a first time buyer who is young and healthy?"

**My very limited understanding of such policies would say yes.

"If it's not, why not, and how is it different than lying to your health insurer about how you got hurt?"

**My son would drive legally, or not @all. As w/the rentals, there are plenty of fairly priced options. Plus, that would be teaching dangerously bad lessons, wouldn't it (go ahead & smile ;-}).

"In other words, can an insurance company take risk into account when figuring out premiums?"

I'll try to be brief on this. Here's my take on it. If someone is driving recklessly, or habitually (not that a single incident is OK w/me) driving drunk? They are endangering others. Such people need to get smacked for our safety. They're breaking the social contract we all embrace. Everyone deserves to make it home alive. They are indeed also an increased risk for the insurers. For all those reasons. I've no problem w/higher rates for them. You cited high crime areas as a reason. In theory, a fair practice. In actuality, I've little doubt that that principle often gets abused for all it's worth. It's the self-policing thing. Who decides that it's really a high crime area? How far of a perimeter gets drawn around this dangerous area? Where does the risk diminish, & how much? My guess is that even legitimate ghettos have a very large buffer zone around them that also gets fleeced to some extent. Another example: There's a commuter alley in an area a ways north from me. It's in the sticks, but a lot of people do commute from there. The insurance rates for anyone living there are much higher than the surrounding areas. Unfairly so, I would say. To anyone who spends some time observing the supposed threats of this corridor. The argument doesn't hold water. The insurance carriers are saying it is so. Their numbers are not to be challenged, or even seen (I think). Take it or leave it, they say. Fair arguments are used as a foot in the door. Then, they are used to defend gouging. Is it 100%? No, of course not. As I've mentioned. I'm very happy w/my insurance. This wasn't always the case, though. I was just as deserving of quality medical care twenty years ago while struggling through school. I didn't get it, then. Because of this. I developed health problems which have had a negative impact on my quality of life. I'm not going to relate this to current politics, & certainly not to the current regime. I've mentioned that I work in health care. You could call it a religion of sorts for me. The insurance industry has run the costs up for health care to positively obscene levels. The insurance companies pay fire sale prices. The poor saps w/o insurance (& not on welfare...) pay exorbitant prices for the same care. If they can't afford it? Tough Luck. The greedy slugs in this world have the rest of the life experience to slither round in & steal. I don't want them affecting who can get care. All else being equal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which patient will fare infinitely better from a catastrophic dx: a poor worker bee, or a wealthy whoever. As far as I'm concerned. Quality health care is off limits to the greed sector. There is much to be said for universal health care. There is a tremendous amount of disinformation on the supposed evils of such a system. The health care system in this country is broken. The insurance industry bears much of the blame for this. Their denying some people (who choose to participate in a perfectly legal sport) medical treatment, amounts to discriminatory behavior. Of course, they would argue otherwise. As far as I'm concerned. They don't have the right to bring their BS into this end of the pool. They can go swim somewhere else. OK, a little rough after a long week @work, but there it is.

[PiLFy 0]

Kindly read my reply to Andy for most of this. You acknowledge that insurance abuses have happened? They've happened on a systematic basis, & they still do.

"...someone who becomes very ill, cancer, etc, who is uninsured, suddenly buy insurance and try to slip it by..."

Why do you keep coming back to this? It's a completely separate issue. We've never mentioned a jumper trying to do this. This post is about people who have been paying their premiums faithfully, for years. The issue is discriminatory practices by some in the insurance industry. Discrimination needs to be fought. If not, it will only get worse, later.

About the flood damage: Did you bring your poor agent flowers when you told him??? I've had the same insurance agency for something like thirty years now. Knock on wood, I've never given him a claim. I can only imagine his reaction if I walked in one day w/a $60K claim... I'm thinking the horse in Animal House.