Skip to comments.Moneysense.ca: Life Insurance - Swine flu surprise
Posted on 11/09/2009 4:25:41 PM PST by dynachrome
But underwriters are breaking down H1N1 applicants into three categories: those who currently have the flu, those who had a mild case and recovered, and those who were hospitalized. Those who have it now won't be considered for coverage until they get better, he says, while those who have recovered from a mild case have to wait two to three months. Those unlucky enough to be hospitalized may not qualify for life insurance for a full year.
Marr's assessment is based on feedback from insurance industry underwriters. But when contacted by MoneySense, several insurance companies denied having such rules. One spokesperson told me I could qualify for a policy even if I had the swine flu right now.
To check, I called her company's 1-800 number and asked to take out life insurance. I pretended that I'd recently been released from hospital with a bout with swine flu. After several back and forths with an underwriter, the phone representative said the company wouldn't consider me until two to three months after a doctor said I was cured. "They want to see some stability before they make a decision," I was told. "Who knows if you're more prone to getting it again." The good news: assuming I did qualify for insurance later, I wouldn't be penalized for having had H1N1.
To avoid such delays, Marr suggests that if you've been thinking about getting life insurance, you may want to do it now, while you're still healthy. If it's too late, and you need to get life insurance right after a bout of the swine flu, your only immediate option is a policy that doesn't require disclosure of any medical information. The premiums on such policies, however, can be awfully steep usually three times as much as a normal policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at lsminsurance.ca ...
Don’t get the swine flu in Canada if you need life insurance. Claim it is the regular stuff I guess!
I’m just getting over the lingering post-swine flu cough. I haven’t had the flu in 10 or 15 years and though having the swine flu was no picnic, it wasn’t as bad as most cases of flu I’ve had in the past.
I don’t understand why this is news. I would assume that if you are in the hospital with a potentially fatal illness, it would be hard to get life insurance until I could show that I wasn’t going to die from the disease.
People that think you should be able to take out insurance after they get sick (life insurance, or health insurance) don't have a clue on how insurance works.
Could you get car insurance after a car accident (for the car that was damaged), or fire insurance while the embers are still burning?
Another case of when news is not news.
Of course people think you should be able to get health insurance after you are sick. The major push in “health care reform” is to punish insurance companies for the evil act of precluding “existing conditions”.
And all the bills are touted as “solving” the problem by eliminating restrictions based on existing conditions. And even many of the REPUBLICANS are pushing to prevent insurance companies from rejecting applicants based on pre-existing conditions.
It is bizarre to me that any thinking person could believe insurance should be available to those who have already SUFFERED the loss they are intending to insure, but apparently there are a lot of non-thinking people out there.
I was going to say that yes, I imagine soon enough there will be a push to allow people to buy homeowner’s insurance after the fire.
But then I remembered that people who failed to buy flood insurance, in many states, got courts to rule that they should be allowed to get payment for flood damage anyway, even though they didn’t buy the insurnace. I think Senator Trent Lott got post-flood flood insurance.
Health insurance hasn’t been health “insurance” for years. Take it from someone who has worked in the medical billing field for almost 20 years. It is now, who can pay my bill.
I don’t completely agree with you.
For example, I save money on my homeowners insurance by putting in smoke detectors and deadbolt locks. So, in a sense, my “insurance” paid for that, by giving me a discount.
Likewise, my health insurance gives me a “discount” in the form of paying for routine preventative care, because it lessens their risk of having to pay on a major problem. But mostly, my health insurance pays only for things related to adverse medical conditions.
They don’t pay for my vitamins, or for my gym membership. They pay for things related to medical problems.
Now, my eye “insurance” is really not insurance, it’s more of an eye-care payment plan, which just gives me increasingly smaller discounts on my yearly exams and glasses.
My dental is still pretty much insurance, except for the orthodontic care, for which I can simply choose the more expensive dental plan the year before my kids get old enough to need orthodontics, and then stop paying for it when they are done.
Now, there is (and maybe this is what you mean) a large component of the “health insurance” industry that isn’t about paying for treatment, but instead is about negotiating reduced prices for the treatment. In that regard, the insurance you buy isn’t just about getting coverage for illness, but paying someone who can get you a discount on the costs.
My life generally consists of fighting insurance companies, but when I see people come in day after day for every day ailments that could, and should be handled at home, I cringe. I also do feel sorry for people that have been denied insurance through no fault of their own, or being priced out of the insurance market. I just don't have all the answers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.