On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:53:41 +0100, Andy Pandy wrote
(in article <6cidusF3h96tiU1@mid.individual.net>):
>
> "Mike Lane" wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C489BC39002D1A28B01AD9AF@news.virginmedia.com...
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:20:29 +0100, Andy Pandy wrote
>> (in article <6ci4vhF3h4suuU1@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>>> I don't bother with travel insurance now, let alone if they start making
>>> me pay the same as a 90 year old.
>>
>> Not bothering with insurance only makes sense if you can easily afford the
>> amount that you risk.
>>
>> If you go anywhere off the beaten track and have an accident, then air
>> ambulances etc. might well be involved. I can't imagine what the cost might
>> be, but I know I wouldn't like to pay it.
>
> I've got *medical* insurance through work which covers that sort of thing.
> And it's a hell of a lot better than most travel insurance medical cover,
> which usually exclude any pre-existing conditions and exclude claims where
> you've had a drink.
Ah well, if you exclude medical claims then I agree with you. I certainly
wouldn't bother to insure anything else. If I lost my baggage on holiday, the
cost of replacing it would be the least of my worries.
However if you do exclude medical insurance then I don't see why age should
make any difference. Is an old person more likely to lose their money or
baggage or whatever?
--
Mike Lane (UK North Yorkshire)
To contact me replace invalid with mike underscore lane
|