travel insurance

[vince123123]

Ah this makes some sense; so they also have this subsidised rates thing?

as a visitor in another country, if you need to go to the A&E there, it will be very very costly

if your luggage suddenly decided to fly somewhere else
you can safely buy yourself new clothes

btw i do not sell insurance

 

[ortega]

Ah this makes some sense; so they also have this subsidised rates thing?

i should think so

i went to korea and went to the A&E there
my bill was S$500+++
claimed everything

when you come back to singapore and need to see doctor also can claim

 

[azul123]

hmmm.. thanks for pointing this out! i have to check this. i thought they will pay for the $1k.

$1k for broken luggage? no lah, check your policy. The handlers all don't care one anyhow throw put fragile also don't care.. have this way up sign also no use.

Insurance companies go bust like that. They repair the parts they can repair and pay you for those damaged beyond repair.

P.S. I don't work for insurance company but I always buy insurance whenever I travel.

../azul123

 

[Joshua0718]

Well, it is a valid and good point that you have raised about the medical evacuation part.
A typical medical evacuation would involved chartering a medically equipped plane for around S$20,000- $30,000. In addition to that, one would also need a Doctor on board together with a qualified nurse, both of whom will be paid on an hourly basis. Not to mention medication, resuscitation equipment - e.g. if patient is on IV drips, and is connected to a respirator during the flight... etc. etc..
These are nightmares that one would never ever wish to encounter. But these come at hefty prices. And if I may respectfully add in, nightmares such as these are independent of destinations, high risk or low risk.

Thankfully back home in Singapore, if anyone should need any of these, the A&E's are within reasonable access, and the personal critical illness insurance and life policies would kick in by then.

I believe lost baggages, delays are just part of the policies that are immediately more tangible to most customers and perhaps that is the reason why insurance companies do highlight them. But all travel insurance list medical evacuation as one of their highest priorities, if we study their payouts in detail.

Wow. You know the cost. I wanted to know but I couldn't estimate myself at all. Due to unknown estimation, I always opted for the premier plan. :dunno: :bsmilie:

Oh ya, I only buy during natas. Got 40% discount :thumbsup:

I guess then the risk will need to be considered against the cost. I can probably understand the evacuation bit; but how much would an evac like that cost? Unless you are travelling into particularly risky territories, do you also have similar insurance when you're in Singapore?

Also, the thing about travel insurace (at least what I've seen) don't seem to talk much about these major emergencies, and focus more on those lost baggage, flight delay type things to sell.

More focus on lost baggage? Not really. I see they more state on medical claim etc on AIG brochure. Maybe for baggage lost or travel delay, I don't bother to see ;p

 

[limwhow]

Wow. You know the cost. I wanted to know but I couldn't estimate myself at all. Due to unknown estimation, I always opted for the premier plan. :dunno: :bsmilie:
...

Haha... yes I do know. $20,000- $30,000 is only a rough figure. There are always some other added costs. I personally feel, Joshua0718, that buying a travel insurance is simply for coverage for this huge amount, because even before one gets air evacuated back home, one would have already incurred another huge amount in the foreign hospital's ward (or even the ICU's).
Anyway, I always buy premium, like yourself.
No point saving that few dollars. Remember, when it comes to medical coverage, a peace of mind is of utmost importance.

 

[limwhow]

Hmm in that case, if you were travelling to a major city, say London, Taipei, Tokyo, do you think that travel insurance is still necessary given that the need for such evacuation would probably be reduced?

vince123123, you have raised another good point. Let me paraphrase - Basing our discussions on major medical emergencies, if I were in London and I suffer a massive heart attack, there would be good, reputable hospitals there to ward me and treat me. I may not need Air evac. However, if I were to be in Laos (no offence to any Laotian) and unfortunately suffer the same condition, I would most likely request to be evacuated back home quickly once I am stable. Based on this, yes your statement certainly holds as the need for Air evac would be lesser if I were to be in London.

Look at this from another angle. An emergency medical condition like a massive heart attack would require:
1. A number of intrinsically expensive medicine to be administered immediately.
2. Cardiac ICU 24 hours monitoring for a period.
3. A series of intensive heart scans, and tests to locate, say, the blockage and repeated blood tests followed by more tests.
4. If needed, urgent balloon stenting by the Cardiologist.
5. A further hospitalisation after ICU.
6. Medications.

Yes, I save on my Air evac costs. But my goodness, the amount that I would have incurred just to undergo all those above in a reputable London, Tokyo or Taipei hospital! The amount would be astronomical!
[In Singapore it would cost one upwards of S$20,000 in a government hospital (private rate) and more than $30,000 in a private hospital (very conservative estimate in the latter).]

I can see where you come from in terms of not buying travel insurance. But again, what I have mentioned are but just my own view on why I would always choose to adopt the more cautious approach.

 

[fz30_user]

but i thought we should go for the lowest excess ?

correct me if i'm wrong, but excess mean that they will pay for anything above that amount ? e.g. if you excess is $1000, and the damage is $1500, you pay $1000, they pay $500... no ?

i just checked.. excess is the maximum amount you'll pay.. even the damage is 10k you only pay $1000 then this 1k will be paid by your travel insurance.

 

[vince123123]

Ah, thanks for the elaboration; I will take these into consideration when deciding on travel insurance. I've all along thought of it as a lost baggage delayed flights thing. The part about medical emergencies will be borne in mind the next time

Hence, it will also mean that if you are higher risk (heart conditions or older folks) the need for travel insurance is higher than say, a teenager or young adult.

vince123123, you have raised another good point. Let me paraphrase - Basing our discussions on major medical emergencies, if I were in London and I suffer a massive heart attack, there would be good, reputable hospitals there to ward me and treat me. I may not need Air evac. However, if I were to be in Laos (no offence to any Laotian) and unfortunately suffer the same condition, I would most likely request to be evacuated back home quickly once I am stable. Based on this, yes your statement certainly holds as the need for Air evac would be lesser if I were to be in London.

Look at this from another angle. An emergency medical condition like a massive heart attack would require:
1. A number of intrinsically expensive medicine to be administered immediately.
2. Cardiac ICU 24 hours monitoring for a period.
3. A series of intensive heart scans, and tests to locate, say, the blockage and repeated blood tests followed by more tests.
4. If needed, urgent balloon stenting by the Cardiologist.
5. A further hospitalisation after ICU.
6. Medications.

Yes, I save on my Air evac costs. But my goodness, the amount that I would have incurred just to undergo all those above in a reputable London, Tokyo or Taipei hospital! The amount would be astronomical!
[In Singapore it would cost one upwards of S$20,000 in a government hospital (private rate) and more than $30,000 in a private hospital (very conservative estimate in the latter).]

I can see where you come from in terms of not buying travel insurance. But again, what I have mentioned are but just my own view on why I would always choose to adopt the more cautious approach.

 

[limwhow]

Ah, thanks for the elaboration; I will take these into consideration when deciding on travel insurance. I've all along thought of it as a lost baggage delayed flights thing. The part about medical emergencies will be borne in mind the next time

Hence, it will also mean that if you are higher risk (heart conditions or older folks) the need for travel insurance is higher than say, a teenager or young adult.

Agree with you.
That is why when it comes to travel insurance, those above 70yrs old pay either a higher premium, or there are certain exclusions.

 

[azul123]

i usually think that insurance is useless as well,
the problem is for us non-singaporean to go europe we need to apply a schengen visa,
and one of the requirement is to have insurance. so now that i already have insurance, and my luggage is broken? can i claim?
or not? if can.. how?
hehehe...

Any update?? how was the process?

../azul123