Insurance, yes or no?

[bUU]

Actually, cruise insurance was [i]contrasted [/i]with extended warranties sold at stores: An extended warranty on a DVD player protects you from a loss of about $250. Cruise insurance protects you from a loss of $10,000.

The rule-of-thumb regarding insurance is that you're best-off self insuring when you can afford to and will be satisfied to pay for the loss out of your own savings. Insurance is worth it when it is covering a loss you either cannot afford to or will not be satisfied to pay for out of your own savings.

[franu]

We planned our cruise and put down our deposit almost a year before our cruise to Anarctica and the Amazon. Today,I spoke to my TA and found that my husband's cruise will be totally refunded as he recently passed away. I will go. It is a 33 day trip and the cost is high. Thank goodness for the policy. Medical insurance will protect me from any unforseen expenses like medical evacuation which could be in excess of $25,000.

I just wouldn't go without it. It is one of the expenses of travel.

[psychtobe]

[quote name='Krazy Kruizers'][b][font=Comic Sans MS][color=blue]Yes - with 50+ cruises under our belts, we have had to use the insurance only once - when DH's mother died 10 days before we were to sail. If we hadn't had insurance, we would have lost big bucks![/color][/font][/b]
[/QUOTE]
well, i'm a little dismayed to see so many people say insurance is a must, both because I didn't buy it for my upcoming cruise and because i don't think it's exactly correct advice.

(I'm knocking hard on wood as i write this, of course).

I'm a first-time cruiser but an experienced traveler and have never purchased travel insurance. Think of it this way: They wouldn't sell it if it were a good deal for you and a bad deal for them.

As StephenJohnson posted earlier, you buy insurance when the potential loss would be unaffordable (ie, you buy home insurance because most people can't afford a total home loss; you buy medical insurance not to pay for the average doctor's visit but because most people can't afford a heart transplant; you buy life insurance if you're the primary household breadwinner because your family can't survive without your income, not to give them a lottery windfall in case you die), or because the expected return compared to the frequency of the event outweighs the cost of the insurance.

Using the above example:

If insurance costs $75 per person, and KrazyKruiser went on 50 trips with 2 people each, a total of 50x2x75 = $7500 was spent on insurance. it was used once, at a presumed cost of the total loss of one cruise. If that cruise cost more than $7500 for 2 people then it was a good deal; if not, then not such a good deal.

It also depends on one's risk tolerance, and on the details of the available coverage. If you absolutely can't sleep at night w/o insurance, then spending $50-100 is a good deal if only to guarantee a restful night's sleep. If your connection time is less than 2 hours, [b]and your insurance covers it[/b], then insurance could be a good deal.

That's my 2 cents worth from someone who talks to people about this kind of stuff every day.

[bUU]

Unfortunately, one medical evacuation ruins that analysis, psychtobe.

[momofmeg]

[QUOTE=Z'Loth]I think somebody earlier equated cruise insurance with those "extended warranties" sold by those stores. First off, if the store didn't believe in the quality of a product, they shouldn't be selling it in the first place. Secondly, it is often used to pad the profits. My response is usually "No, thank you."

However, cruise insurance is sold by several companies, not just the cruise line. My mother and I have different health insurance policies. I'm less worried about cancelling out my trip (my boss has known [i]since May[/i] that I'm going on vacation), and more worried about taking a rough and tumble fall and being medically evacuated out. I don't know the quality of the medical facilities of Alcapulco, Manzanita, and Ixpata in comparison to the US equivelents.[/QUOTE]

That is the point. You got it. I may hate losing the cost of the cruise but I am more worrried if a medical evacuation is envolved. When we were younger we would chance it but now that we are well into middle age we know the chances of something like this happening goes up.

I go back to my hubby's gall bladder. That is pretty commom to have to have that removed-with him he had several attacks and yes he went to the DR. but the Dr. did not figure it out because hubby thought it was his stomach so they were checking for ulcers and they did do a heart stress test on him but no one thought to to do a gall bladder ultrassound.

Then one night he had a rich meal at Olive Garden including a super rich dessert and then about midnight he was in such horrible pain he woke up and could not sleep. We spent half the night pacing the floor and was in the Dr's office first thing-the DR sent us to the emergency room and hubby was admitted into the hosp. (we spent all day in the emergency room before he was seen- we wished we had went THERE the night before) and his gall bladder removed the next morning.

Anyway since rich meals can bring on an attack I can't help but wonder how many times this has happened on a cruiseship. The gall bladder can burst just like the appendix and as we all know THAT can kill you so it is not something you mess around with. At this point in a gall bladder attack too the pain is so bad you KNOW something bad is wrong-so it is not like you can wait until the cruise is over and then go to the DR.

[psychtobe]

[quote name='bicker']Unfortunately, one medical evacuation ruins that analysis, psychtobe.[/QUOTE]
only if a medical evacuation is so costly, and so likely an occurrence, that the cost/event x event incidence >= cost of insurance/trip x number of trips.

if one does not have medical insurance that pays for the actual medical care, then that is a separate problem, and I strongly urge everyone who has the money to go on cruises to make sure they have adequate medical insurance, as a matter of priorities.

if one has adequate medical insurance, then it is the evacuation alone which would not be covered, and that is the only part of the cost which need be considered. I would submit that despite the anecdotal horror stories submitted above, that literally millions of cruisers yearly require NO medical evacuation, and thus it is by definition a very rare event. If an evacuation could cost $1m, then perhaps the equation would be different. If it is likely to be around $10k, most of us could probably pick up the cost, even if it would be disruptive, unpleasant, etc. It is not a break-the-bank proposition, especially if you can afford to cruise.

[bUU]

Likelihood of occurance is little solace if you incur the loss. That's precisely what insurance is for.

[psychtobe]

[quote name='bicker']Likelihood of occurance is little solace if you incur the loss. That's precisely what insurance is for.[/QUOTE]
i drive an 11 year old car and carry max liability (because I can't afford the potential million dollar claim) but no collision (because totaling the car, while an expensive, several thousand dollar hassle, wouldn't break me). following an accident in which i suffered about 1000 in collision damage, i don't regret - at all - not having paid $300 every six months for collision insurance.

i've been airlifted out of a national park due to an injury - cost: a lot. i don't regret not having bought trip/hiker insurance because i would have spent at least that much on the coverage, over the scores of trips i've taken in the last few years.

by its nature, life involves risks. as in investing, if you hedge every risk, the cost of the hedge outweighs the potential gain from the investment.

your assessment is flawed on a purely numerical/analytical basis. on an emotional level - and you're talking solace - it is a purely individual decision. again, if you can't sleep at night without insurance, then $100 is a good buy.

i trust others will decide which route is more appropriate for them.

suffice it to say, i notice that the poll results indicate that 78% of all readers on this board buy trip insurance. i will bet not anywhere near that number will ever have occasion to be med-evac'd, no matter their age or health cirucmstances.

[cruzincurt]

Per PSYCHTOBE: "I'm a first-time cruiser but an experienced traveler and have never purchased travel insurance. Think of it this way: They wouldn't sell it if it were a good deal for you and a bad deal for them."

Not quite the obvious anaylsis. What does being an experienced traveler have to do with falling down the stairs in Jamaica? Think for a minute about those wrecks they call cabs and drive around wildly without seatbelts. You wouldn't dare get into a vehicle like that at home, but you do it willingly in a another country. They set the premium price to make a profit based on their claims experience. If there were no claims, the cost would be $5. Obviously there are claims and payouts. Insurance premiums are based on claims made. That's their gamble that the total collected premiums exceed the claims paid out.

Just like auto insurance; the cost for the same coverage varies from city to city, county to county. It's priced based on the history of claims made. Someone is obviously making use of the insurance.

I buy it for the $10,000 to $20,000 that I don't want to self-insure, not for the $300 doctor visit. Hindsight is 20-20 as they say.

[toddthecow]

I have never and will never sail without it for several reasons:

My (and most american managed policies) health insurance policy does not cover any care or service unless it is rendered within the USA.

A consultation with a ship board doctor (charged for any visit to the infirmary) averages $80.....this in only to see the doctor, does not include medication, x-ray ect.

Ship board medical staff does not hesistate to send passengers off the ship when in doubt. An average medical evacuation costs $10,000.

Reletives get sick and die without notice.....I don't want to lose my cruise fare and airline ticket cost if this occurs.

I have always bought my policy through insuremytrip.com, it compares all the different companies and policies.

My vote is for sure a YES!

[psychtobe]

[quote name='toddthecow']I have never and will never sail without it for several reasons:

My (and most american managed policies) health insurance policy does not cover any care or service unless it is rendered within the USA.

[/QUOTE]
it is not correct that most policies do not cover services outside the country. most US health plans do cover international services; however, it is true that you may have to pay up front (perhaps cash, depending on the country), and then get reimbursed later. when my family member was bitten by a dog in France, we paid cash, then were (fully) reimbursed by Blue Cross on returning home. both my current medical insurance and that of my fiance's (and we have completely different, unrelated plans) have confirmed they have the same policy. I don't know the rules for Medicare, however.

misinformation drives a lot of people to make a lot of bad choices.

just for kicks, i priced out insurance for my upcoming cruise for 2 young adults (31 and 30). to cover a $1600 cruise for 2 will cost from $65 (trip cancellation coverage max $800) up to $132. Picking an average $100 policy, there is no way I have a 1 in 16 chance of needing this insurance, for any reason.

it seems those who favor trip insurance are focused on the med evac risk and cost. stand alone med evac policies range from $35 (to "nearest appropriate hospital" - not very helpful if in Mexico) to $495 (member's choice hospital - much more useful, and much more costly). it still doesn't seem like a good deal to me, but i suppose if you crunch the numbers or it satisfies that psychological need or serves as protection against your perceived likelihood of needing med evac, go for it. or, if you could NOT afford a 10,000 evacuation, no matter how unlikely, you obviously need the coverage.

i also want to comment that just because most people buy travel insurance, it doesn't mean they should. a lot of people do a lot of things they shouldn't, in part because they don't have all the facts. i think the facts clearly argue that for most people, and in the absence of extenuating circumstances which may apply to a small minority of travelers, travel insurance is a bad deal.

but to each his or her own, and i am not personally affronted by another's decision to do differently than i would. i hope people at least consider whether their travel insurance $$ could be better spent elsewhere.

[momofmeg]

[quote name='psychtobe']only if a medical evacuation is so costly, and so likely an occurrence, that the cost/event x event incidence >= cost of insurance/trip x number of trips.

if one does not have medical insurance that pays for the actual medical care, then that is a separate problem, and I strongly urge everyone who has the money to go on cruises to make sure they have adequate medical insurance, as a matter of priorities.

if one has adequate medical insurance, then it is the evacuation alone which would not be covered, and that is the only part of the cost which need be considered. I would submit that despite the anecdotal horror stories submitted above, that literally millions of cruisers yearly require NO medical evacuation, and thus it is by definition a very rare event. If an evacuation could cost $1m, then perhaps the equation would be different. If it is likely to be around $10k, most of us could probably pick up the cost, even if it would be disruptive, unpleasant, etc. It is not a break-the-bank proposition, especially if you can afford to cruise.[/QUOTE]


We are just regular middle class folks who love to cruise. Our insurance is an HMO and no HMO's do not cover evacuations-the MAIN reason we now buy the cruise insurance. Our cruise next year is costing us $2,500 as we are driving to Pt. Canaraval and not flying. I would hate to lose $2,500 but I can weather that. $30,000 is a whole different story(the cost of evacuation)-as I said we would be working until we dropped dead to pay for that.

But we are well into middle age. When you are younger less chance of things happening where you would need the evacuation and even if the worse happened-it is not like something like that would keep you working and not able to retire at 65 as you have more years to pay this off.

I am not trying to terrify anyone- it up to you to weigh your situation. So don't be terrified if you have not purchased insurance for your cruise-just have a good time. Chances are nothing will happen. On my 9 cruises I have never seen or heard of anyone being evacuated-I just figure the older I get that it may be ME on the next cruise.

[cruzincurt]

PYSCHTOBE, I sure hope you are not an accountant. How does a $100 policy against a $1600 fare mean your odds of needing insurance are 1:16????

Does not compute. I think you are comparing horses to apples. True, you are spending 6.2% (1/16th) of the cruise fare for insurance, that does not mean your odds of needing it are also only 6.2%. What it means is you are investing $100 against a possible emergency medical evacuation of say $20,000. Now that works out to a 0.5 % investment.

Now, if you are hoping that the $100 will offset a possible $300 doctor bill, thats 33.3% which probably isn't a good investment. I wouldn't buy it for that reason myself, I can self insure the $300 and will get most back through my personal medical insurance anyway.

[psychtobe]

AARGGHH! I was going to leave it alone, really...

Cruzincurt, you are right that my calculation only considered the total loss of the cruise price as the maximum risk. As others have pointed out, it is the risk of medical evacuation that one must be concerned about, so my "1/16" rule, as you put it, isn't quite complete.

FWIW, I checked with my insurance and they do cover "Air Ambulance" services, whether domestic or foreign, to the nearest "appropriate" facility. Probably many others have similar services on their insurance. Buying travel insurance, therefore, is a good value only if you believe the risk of requiring Med Evac back to the US is high enough to offset the cost; in other words, evacuation to a nearby hospital is already covered by many insurance plans, and in many cruise destinations a local hospital could handle quite a few procedures satisfactorily.

Surely someone must have data on the number of Med Evacs back to the States that were required among North American Cruisers last year??? There were more than 8 million total North American Cruisers last year... if there were 8,000 Med Evacs in 2003 (and does anyone here really believe there were anywhere near that many?), then one's risk (on average) is approximatelY 8000/8,000,000 = 1 in 1000 = 0.1% risk.

I'd guess there were more like "a few hundred" or so Med Evacs back to the States last year. That would make the risk 0.01%.

With odds like that, many would feel comfortable taking their chances.

If one's medical conditions suggest a risk that would be higher, the equation could be different... but then, insurance would usually cost more, as well. If you're really all that worried about Med Evac alone, then you might want to consider year-round insurance with a company specializing in such services, such as [url]http://www.airmed.com/amMain/main.html[/url]. I've investigated them before for my backpacking/hiking trips. For about $350 per year, they cover you and a family member for Med Evac anywhere in the world, to the hospital of your choice. That's 2 people, covered for an entire year, anywhere in the world, to any hospital in the world. Seems like a much better deal than $75 per person for 7 days on a boat.

Airmed claims to have done 9000 EVACS since 1982... or an average of 410 per year... worldwide... for a company claiming to specialize in this.

To make a long story short, Med Evac is so exceedingly rare, that to insure with a broad travel policy because of the risk is likely a poor decision from a purely financial point of view. Again, those with unusual circumstances or anxious psyches should take the necessary precautions.

[bUU]

Surely, if you could get medical evacuation insurance separately, then it may very-well be the better financial move. You can't. So therefore the cruise insurance becomes nothing more than a container for the medical evacuation insurance -- the catastrophic coverage that folks need. For those who cannot afford to self-insure against a $10K loss, it's the product they need.

Also, it is important to remember that financial analysis is not the only relevant analysis. If so, then no one would ever buy a Hummer. No one who works in an office would ever buy a pick-up truck. No one would ever buy cosmetics. No one would ever book a suite aboard ship. We're talking about human beings. The metric for buying insurance is two-fold: [i]Inability[/i] to afford self-coverage of a catastrophic loss, or [b]unwillingness [/b]to cover a non-catastrophic loss from personal funds. My mother is a perfect example: She doesn't wish to accept the prospect of paying her own way to catch up with a cruise ship that left port without her. As a human being, she places value on being able to place the financial cost for that on someone else, even though it was no one's (or at least no one else's) "fault."

[momofmeg]

My daughter had a wreck last year. she was making a left turn and a person in a large truck was parked in the deceleration lane blocking her view. she thought it was clear and it wasn't. she was faulted for failure to yield but was not ticketed as the person in the truck was illegally parked-the person in the truck left the scene so he got away scott free-him and my daughter would have BOTH been faulted.

Anyway we are being sued for $85,000 now. We had just upped our insurance a few months before above the $50,000 per person limit we used to have. THANK GOD for that I say-now hubby and I are considering whether we should up the limit again. Legally we could have got away with the $50,000 miniumin but now that we are being sued I am sure glad we bought more. I think insurance is always a good thing and the difference in cost(for example for our cruise around $40 a person) is not very much money when you think of the what it COULD cost you. $120 for the 3 of us is very little in comparison.

So this is what I feel-if you can afford it and it is not going to cause you a hardship-you should get as much insurance as you can afford.

[garardo]

We will be going to Hawaii and renting 3 cars on different islands. Travel Guard offers CDW (Collision Damage Wiever sp) This insurance will pay not only for any damage you cause to the car but will pay for all of the "Down time" where the car is being repaired and can not be rented. The cost per day is charged at full rate. Even though you only paid $30 a day for the car they can and will charge you let's say $60 a day. If the the repair takes 7 days, you will be charged $420 that the CDW will cover. The problem is that the cheaper the daily rate is, the more they seem to charge for the CDW. I have seen it as high as $20 a day. The same quality insurance is available from TG for $10 a day Your regular car insurance will pay for the damage to the car but not the "Down Time". Has anyone used the TG insurance?

garardo

[laurie1534]

Have a question... We are first time cruisers and wish I had seen this site before hand... But here is the question. There are 4 of us in our family and we took the insurance through Carnival from our TA ... After seeing the price differences on [url="http://www.insuremytrip.com"]www.insuremytrip.com[/url] I see that we have probably drastically overpaid... The rates through the TA were $129.00 per adult and 59.00 per child. The rates for Travelex was $132.00 for all of us.

We called the TA and she said you can cancel the insurance but it will be prorated because we have already made our deposit. (In October)

Does anyone know if this is in fact the case or just the TA wanting the travel insurance through Carnival.

Also, need to know how the coverages compare to the Carnival coverage vs. the other insurance available.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

We do not cruise until March 20, 2005.

Thanks

Laurie :confused:

[psychtobe]

[quote name='bicker']Surely, if you could get medical evacuation insurance separately, then it may very-well be the better financial move. You can't. [/QUOTE]
bicker, not true. there are numerous providers of Med Evac Insurance. I named just one in my last post. For those who travel more than 150 miles from home more than "a few" times a year, it is a much better deal than general travel insurance.

I believe I have repeatedly concurred that a financial analysis is not the only relevant one. However, most posters to this thread have been predominantly concerned about Med Evac, which is a financial concern and not a psychological one.

[bUU]

I was aware that med evac insurance is available on an annual basis. As a matter of fact, I found out after I bought my cruise insurance that my wife is actually covered by her employer. For me, though, this'll be my only occasion to use it this year. I suspect annual insurance costs more than cruise insurance on one trip.

I wouldn't say that med evac is solely a financial concern, but the reality is that for everything except med evac I agree with you that the insurance is only of value factoring in psychological considerations.

[cruzincurt]

I'm not sure you can get your premium back pro-rated. Afterall, the insurance was in full effect on the day you bought it. Travelex pays primary coverage, that is, they pay first, others are secondary. The insurance through the cruise line is generally higher. I always want a third party insurer so they can fight with the cruise line on my behalf.

As for medivacs, on our November 13th cruise on the Veendam, I saw a least one person leave the ship in Jamaica in an ambulance. On our last sea day, someone was medevaced off the ship via the Coast Guard helicopter. So that's at least 2 medevacs on that cruise alone. But of course the HAL Veendam had an older cruiser population.

[momofmeg]

You guys won't believe this but we got a letter from American Express with travel insurance for covering medical costs alone. It is not a bad price either $15 a month. Now if we traveled more then we do I would go for that. But usually we take one vacation a year and a couple of long weekends which are not out of the country-so the $40 a person we paid to I Travel Insured is still the best deal for us. For those of you that take 3 or 4 cruises a year-you may want to look into it though. Ofcourse that just covers medical expenses outside the US-not if you need to cancel your cruise.

[sj25]

[quote name='laurie1534']Have a question... We are first time cruisers and wish I had seen this site before hand... But here is the question. There are 4 of us in our family and we took the insurance through Carnival from our TA ... After seeing the price differences on [url="http://www.insuremytrip.com/"]www.insuremytrip.com[/url] I see that we have probably drastically overpaid... The rates through the TA were $129.00 per adult and 59.00 per child. The rates for Travelex was $132.00 for all of us.

We called the TA and she said you can cancel the insurance but it will be prorated because we have already made our deposit. (In October)

Does anyone know if this is in fact the case or just the TA wanting the travel insurance through Carnival.

Also, need to know how the coverages compare to the Carnival coverage vs. the other insurance available.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

We do not cruise until March 20, 2005.

Thanks

Laurie :confused:[/QUOTE]I am not sure with Carnival but with RCCL you can cancile the insurance until your full payment is made. I also looked around and good thing did it within the 14-21 days so I can get the waiver for pre exsisting conditions but I did go through insuremytrip also and got it alot cheaper. Today called RCCL and took the insurance off and he didn't give me a hard time at all. Got the full amount credit back. So hope you the same.
I felt like alot others that I didn't purchase everything from the same company so I wanted the whole trip covered under one policy!

[GoinCruisin]

psychtobe, you can take your chances, but I'll continue to pay my $45 for peace of mind... period. I hope I never have to use it, but I do know that while many insurance companies DO cover you outside the country, their coverage is limited (especially if you have a PPO/HMO, etc). So say your insurance company will cover 60%, you break your leg in Cozumel... and your bill is $8K, you are still couging up over $3K, and you have to pay that $8K upfront. Also, with travel insurance, you are guaranteed assistance 24 hours a day. If you are traveling without a passport, you could be in for another nightmare, you may not even be allowed to be treated, travel insurance will cover this as well.. as well as many of them will wire transfer the funds to the hospital so you can be treated immediately. Aside from that, don't be so certain that foreign hospitals will accept US insurance. Medivacs can cost upwards of $100K if you want to be flown back to the states... which I WOULD since I really don't want to be treated and stuck in Mexico. Most health insurance companies are not going to pay for you to get back home... so you are stuck in a foreign country... with foreign speaking people... the mere thought is frightening. Sure, the odds are not great and if you are a gambler, go without it. Just remember, people that get injured don't KNOW they are going to get injured. Accidents happen everyday, and MANY accidents happen on cruiseships and in ports. I could care less about losing my cruise cost.... it's the other aspects that scare me into spending a measily $42. :rolleyes:

[laurie1534]

I also looked around and good thing did it within the 14-21 days so I can get the waiver for pre exsisting conditions but I did go through insuremytrip also and got it alot cheaper.

This is my question now, as I may be better off to stay with Carnival's insurance since I am 2 months past my initial deposit. Therefore, I would not qualify for pre-existing. My only concern for pre existing is kidney stones... Which I have just been to the dr. and all looks fine.. No one else in my family would have any other preexisting conditions.

Such decisions.... I just hate to spend an additional 250.00 when I could get it cheaper, that could pay for an excursion or alot of liquor... :D

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I need to make my decision real fast, as final payment is due Jan 8th :mad:

Thanks

Laurie