When to start purchasing insurance

[Breckski]

We recently bought our first insurance policy relating to travel.  And it was just an annual med evac policy since we'll be going to Antarctica, Svalbard and interior Mexico this year.  Such a cheap policy to cover potentially extreme evac costs.  So, we bit.

 

But it got me thinking about at what stage in life to most folks start buying true travel insurance.  We're anti-insurance as the insurance company always "wins" over the long haul given the total population served.  We're relatively young (low 50's) and very healthy (no meds whatsoever).  I'm sure we've saved over $50k in insurance cost over the years by being self-insured.  All of this to say, our logic has been to self-insure while healthy.  Then whenever we feel there's more realistic health risks to travel, we'll start buying.  But as one ages the premiums go up!!!  So maybe we'll always self in-insure???

 

Just wondering the thought process others have gone through relating to this scenario.  

 

 

[CDNPolar]

I understand everything that you are saying including the self-insured part.

 

We are risk adverse, so we purchase cancellation and interruption insurance, and we have through work medical.  If we did not have medical through work, we would purchase that too.

 

I don't believe that medical insurance is something that you purchase because you are aging.

 

You may be very well and no meds and all that is good, but what if:

 

1) You fall and break a limb

2) You are in an accident during the vacation - car, bus, pedestrian

3) Something unforeseen happens that has nothing to do with your physical health when you leave home

 

Just as a note...  if you are going to Antarctica by ship, there is no medical evacuation from the Antarctic Continent, right?  

 

Ships turn around with sick passengers and sail back to Argentina.

 

I did not understand why our cruise to Antarctica required evac insurance, because the ship has to be within helicopter range with Argentina before you would be evac'd.

[CDNPolar]

18 minutes ago, mwike said:

I'm sure we've saved over $50k in insurance cost over the years by being self-insured.  All of this to say, our logic has been to self-insure while healthy.  

 

 

 

 

You don't have to answer this question, but have you put that 50K away somewhere that it is available if you need it?  That to me would be the definition of self-insured.  You have an account where you have paid the premiums to yourself for future use.

 

Even if you have, 50K is s drop in the bucket for what something could cost many places in the world.  Some countries will not even see you unless you can pay in advance.

 

Sorry - I don't mean to sound or be confrontational about this, but we have two very different outlooks on insurance.

 

I once said to my financial advisor that I did not need disability insurance because I did not "plan" to be disabled.  Really stupid statement on my part because his answer was:  "No one does"

Edited April 4 by CDNPolar

[klfrodo]

I self-insure the cost of the trip but I do insure the potential unexpected medical emergency. I'm fortunate enough to be able to absorb the loss of the trip in case of needing to cancel. I cannot absorb the cost of emergency medical care due to a car accident, a moped accident, the zip line breaking, a stroke, tripping and falling down the Spanish Steps, etc.

I do this by limiting the amount of coverage under "Trip Costs".  Insurance companies price out their plans in $500 increments. I use the Trip Cost of $500. This way, should I miss a flight or so, I still receive 150% ($750) of trip cost under Trip Interruption or Trip Delay for hotel, meals, transportation, and still receive the max medical coverage of the policy. 

If pre-existing condition waiver is needed, some States require that you include 100% of all non-refundable expenses in the Trip Cost. Others do not.

I see that you're in your 50's and in good health. Good for you and I wish you nothing but good health. However, in the 50's is when I slowly started losing friends who were also in good health. Things happen to good people.

[CruisingAlong4Now]

I only insure expenses that not capped, generally evac and medical.

 

The cost of the trip is capped, and I've already spent the money, so I don't have any financial risk or exposure. The worst that can happen if I have to cancel my trip, is that I don't go on vacation. There are no financial risks.  A result that is sad, but not bad.

 

Medical expenses or medical evacuation however are essentially unlimited and pose significant financial risk, albeit with a very low probability.  These I insure with third-party medical insurance being the primary insurer and my regular medical insurance being a secondary payer.

 

I buy medical evacuation insurance for which I make the decision in which hospital I want to be treated. Most people return to their home hospital.

 

All other vacation expenses are not material to my long-term financial health.

[Breckski]

6 hours ago, CDNPolar said:

Just as a note...  if you are going to Antarctica by ship, there is no medical evacuation from the Antarctic Continent, right?  

 

Ships turn around with sick passengers and sail back to Argentina.

 

We got the insurance from Arch Insurance, an underwriter.  They communicated that the coverage includes evacuation from the continent, and we have this in writing but who knows what would happen if one truly needed to be evacuated??? 

 

Our TA is from a large company, and they obviously try to sell full insurance coverage for every trip.  Arch is the underwriter for the policies they sell to Antarctica.  The TA stated (again in writing) that their insurance covers evacuation from the continent if needed.  The TA's issue is they couldn't sell me an annual policy for med evac only.  I assume a corporate policy as they want to sell the full coverage policies to their clients.

 

[Breckski]

6 hours ago, CDNPolar said:

I once said to my financial advisor that I did not need disability insurance because I did not "plan" to be disabled.  Really stupid statement on my part because his answer was:  "No one does"

 

Most would agree one needs disability and life insurance (hopefully term) up until the point where they would not need additional income if they became disabled or their surviving family members would not need additional funds in the event of death.  Meaning one has enough wealth to endure such a tragedy.

[Breckski]

Thanks for the responses.  We certainly limit our vacation expenses to an amount that's immaterial to us financially.  And I always look at the vacation expenses as being gone once the cancellation date passes.  For some reason if we couldn't make a trip, we wouldn't view it as a $ loss - just a lost experience.

 

After truly considering insurance, I think we may start getting medical.  We certainly took risks in our early years of international travel without medical.  Mainly traveled by motorcycle and visited many third world/developing countries where there's essentially no enforcement of traffic laws so I bit higher risk.  But hopefully one learns a little as they age🙄.

[CDNPolar]

14 hours ago, mwike said:

We got the insurance from Arch Insurance, an underwriter.  They communicated that the coverage includes evacuation from the continent, and we have this in writing but who knows what would happen if one truly needed to be evacuated??? 

 

Our TA is from a large company, and they obviously try to sell full insurance coverage for every trip.  Arch is the underwriter for the policies they sell to Antarctica.  The TA stated (again in writing) that their insurance covers evacuation from the continent if needed.  The TA's issue is they couldn't sell me an annual policy for med evac only.  I assume a corporate policy as they want to sell the full coverage policies to their clients.

 

 

Not arguing with you, but for others that are faced with providing evacuation insurance here are my questions:

 

1) Where cruise ships on expedition normally take you to in Antarctica, there are no runways for fixed wing aircraft to land anywhere close to where the ships sail.  How will they get you off the continent?

2) The continent of Antarctica is too far from any land for helicopters to fly for evacuation.  Again, how are they going to get you off the continent?

 

Our Hurtigruten ship turned around 16 hours into the Drake Passage on the way TO Antarctica to return a passenger that fell during the Drake Passage segment and broke her hip.  No evacuation because winds and seas were too high, we had to go back to Ushuaia for her to disembark the ship.  There was going to be an attempt to get within helicopter range of Argentina but the winds were too high.  There was next going to be an attempt to get close enough to Argentina to meet a Coast Guard ship for a ship to ship transfer, but the winds and seas were too high.  The only option was to go back to port.  We essentially lost one day because of this.  (We were and are not blaming the woman that fell and she did have a full recovery... but these things happen on this kind of cruise.)

 

A Viking ship with an injured passenger (accident happened while at the Continent) turned around one or two days early to take the passenger back to Ushuaia because no evacuation was available.  This was the ship that unfortunately encountered the rogue wave that ultimately killed one passenger.  This ship turned around because no evacuation was available.

 

I don't know why these companies are forcing us to pay for this insurance when it is not a viable option if something does happen.

 

For a ship to turn around on the way or early from the Continent costs the cruise line LOTS of money and a lot of very disgruntled passengers.  If they demand evacuation coverage, why don't they use it?  Because it is not available.

 

Hopefully if someone knows differently they will come in and correct me....?

[crystalspin]

On 4/4/2024 at 8:28 AM, mwike said:

But it got me thinking about at what stage in life to most folks start buying true travel insurance.  We're anti-insurance as the insurance company always "wins" over the long haul given the total population served.  We're relatively young (low 50's) and very healthy (no meds whatsoever).

I was 36 when my husband, on a whim, bought travel insurance for the first time ever, for an escorted tour of China/central Asia. Less than five days before leaving, I developed blockage from a kidney stone! Needless to say, I was in no shape to travel. 

[CDNPolar]

4 hours ago, crystalspin said:

I was 36 when my husband, on a whim, bought travel insurance for the first time ever, for an escorted tour of China/central Asia. Less than five days before leaving, I developed blockage from a kidney stone! Needless to say, I was in no shape to travel. 

 

Stuff happens at any age.

 

We had a major medical event happen this past December that was found by chance.  By Chance!!!

 

Had to cancel our January trip and without the insurance we would have been out over $17K

[2BACRUISER]

Insurance works very differently in the US to here in the UK, you basically can't get on a cruise ship without insurance "All UK guests must have cruise specific insurance which included medical and repatriation coverage for 2 million GBP. You will be asked to confirm you have travel insurance and may need to provide proof or you may be denied boarding at your own expense" This is from specifically Cunard but most cruises booked in the UK specify this.