Injured Passenger Left in Turkey (2 Threads Merged)

[procter]

Sloppy journalism as according to Wikipedia there are only 195 countries in the world and I really doubt that they actually done more than 50.

they MAY have visited (over their lifetime ) countries on 200 occasions but they sure as anything cannot say they did not know about how insurance works.

RCI get the sticky end of the stick because THEY (the couple) did not CHECK

[nordski]

Having done my share of research on travel insurance, I can't really be too critical of those who don't really understand some of the finer points of particular policies. It seems as if you need to rely on an "expert" for guidance since the language is often obscure.

 

In fact, the affinity group that handles most of our needs regularly sends out "fact sheets" to try to explain to clients how the disparate rules apply.

If you need to do this, and I thank them for it, it suggests there is room for confusion.

 

Some of those now involved in claims regarding the cancellation of Celebrity Millenium cruises are discovering interesting issues with their coverage.

 

That being said, given the wide experience of the cruisers involved in this incident, it's hard to believe they took due care.

 

At least the news coverage may lead all of us to try to take more reponsibility.

[xrvlcruiser]

Has anyone seen anything about how the man is doing? Or if he's returned to the US?

[Jade13]

The point being missed here in this entire thread, is that this couple's cruise fare was $0.00 as compensation for a fire on a previous cruise in which they purchased insurance. Since insurance is based on fare paid, they were unable to secure insurance.

 

IMHO, insurance paid for their previous cruise should have carried forward to this cruise. Rci and the insurance company need to pony up which they will.

 

Where does it say they did not have insurance?

 

Even if the base fare was $0.00, they still had to pay port fees, taxes, airfare and pre-cruise hotels.

 

A policy would cover them for trip interruption. If they didn't take insurance that is their fault. It appears they are trying to prove Azamara was negligent so they can get compensation.

[troywest]

Many people assume that if they purchase "evacuation insurance" coverage, they will be airlifted from any medical facility anywhere, back to their home facility.

 

THIS IS ALMOST NEVER THE CASE

 

Most of this type of coverage provides that the transportation (which tends to be very expensive) will be provided only if it is medically necessary.

 

People get upset when they find this out.

 

 

2 Common Examples:

 

 

1. Third world countries (e.g. China or Cuba) where facilities seem primitave, patients must often supply their own food and linens, and commonly don't get private rooms.

 

If the facility is nevertheless able to provide the necessary care -which they often can for common medical issues like broken bones or intestinal distress- most companies won't pay for evacuation.

 

 

2. Advanced countries with better medical systems than the U.K. or U.S. (e.g. France or Italy)

 

Many patients still feel uncomfortable, because of language and / or cultural differences, and the fact that close family and friends aren't nearby. Since care is as good or better than at home, don't look for insurance picking up the tab for evacuation. (some coverage will pay for a spouse or relative to be flown -coach- to the bedside of the patient).

[OCruisers]

I think many people are far too quick to judge.

 

What a horrendous situation it appeared to be for this elderly couple.

 

Yes, they should have made sure they had adequate cover, but even if they did, it would still have been very frightening and often in such circumstances people forget the obvious.

 

I hope none of the critics ever find themselves in such a situation.

 

Well said! My thoughts exactly.

 

LuLu

~~~~

[JasonTehGreat]

Many people assume that if they purchase "evacuation insurance" coverage, they will be airlifted from any medical facility anywhere, back to their home facility.

 

THIS IS ALMOST NEVER THE CASE

 

Most of this type of coverage provides that the transportation (which tends to be very expensive) will be provided only if it is medically necessary.

 

People get upset when they find this out.

 

 

2 Common Examples:

 

 

1. Third world countries (e.g. China or Cuba) where facilities seem primitave, patients must often supply their own food and linens, and commonly don't get private rooms.

 

If the facility is nevertheless able to provide the necessary care -which they often can for common medical issues like broken bones or intestinal distress- most companies won't pay for evacuation.

 

 

2. Advanced countries with better medical systems than the U.K. or U.S. (e.g. France or Italy)

 

Many patients still feel uncomfortable, because of language and / or cultural differences, and the fact that close family and friends aren't nearby. Since care is as good or better than at home, don't look for insurance picking up the tab for evacuation. (some coverage will pay for a spouse or relative to be flown -coach- to the bedside of the patient).

 

 

 

It depends on what company you go with. AirMed, for example, does not have a medical necessity requirement:

 

Q: What does “No Medical Necessity” mean?

It means that, unlike travel insurance or premium credit card plans, AirMed members don’t have to be critically ill or injured to qualify for a medical flight. The hospitalized member, his/her family, or personal doctor decides if the patient is better off at a different hospital. At which point, a phone call is made to arrange for the air evac.

 

http://airmed.com/FAQs.aspx#FAQLink3