Snazy

If that life insurance or medical insurance?
Medical insurance has no form of payouts for death does it?

I really do need to just get some quotes and spend a day reading through the small print to see if there is anything out there worth while, and worth the money.

Its only a thought, not a must at the mo.

Simon K

Im under scale B in BUPA. There's scale a, b and c. The difference between them are the amounts they pay for physio / hosptial private rooms / Different private hospitals / etc etc.

Like car insurance, my g/f and son are under my name, so my limits could be eaten up by one of them, so fingers cross two of us dont become ill in a year :-)

All BUPA does it skip the queues. The same surgeons that operate on you, also do the same operations in the NHS. I dont like the way I have to have private health as I pay so much tax. However, the system is flooded by ponces, and this govn and the last as raped the NHS, so I just have to look after myself and family.

With cancer its all about time. If they find it quick enough your okay. My mother went in for a heart mumor, which BUPA was going to fix. On the day of the operation, up in London Clinic harley st, they check her heart by placing her under this new scan machine that scans the whole body, which found her lung cancer. They removed the lung in under 2 days of finding it !!!! On the nhs, we would of waited for weeks, and by then the cancer would of spread. The same surgoen did the hear mumour and the lung, as he was a specialist in both areas. Again this wouldnt of happened on the nhs. So, its this Im paying £2.5K a year for, the idea that I dont have to wait, and get things done asap.

Since becoming a father, Ive had to sit down and consider my health / death. I dont want my lady and son to be in financial trouble if I was to die, and have now brought Life Insurance too. I pay £32 a month, for my partner and I, if either one of us died, the other one gets £250K. If we were both to died in a car crash, then my son would get £500K.

I tell ya, if you sit down and work out how much you pay for insurances, polices, health, etc etc, life is dear !

SBK

SJ_Skyline

Norwich Union

Sorry for the delay mate, only just saw your post

Klaatu

Any Govn't funded health schemes are ponzi schemes. Eventually you will have to pay tax on your income for "NHS" and buy it private, just liike Australia. And then, if you are a "high risk", which sounds just like you Snazy, you will pay dearly.

Snazy

lol, me, high risk, never.... Just a few op's here and there lol.

Cheers for the info and views guys.
Guess the long and the short is, if you can afford it, its well worth having.

stuart n

Sounds like a similar scheme to mine, it's classed as a taxable benefit.
You pay the tax on the amount the cover costs the company. It's great value. They discovered my old man had cancer and operated in under 3 weeks
Makes me laugh when people say private health is too expsensive but they're quite happy to pay £40+ a month for Sky tv

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I have many problems with the NHS at times, but in fairness, when my Mam was diagnosed with cancer(and she was diagnosed quickly), she too was in for her op within about the same amount of time, only a few weeks. That was with the NHS.

As for expense, I don't think it's just it's too expensive, it's the fact you are more or less paying twice, so it's not just say £40 a month, it's that on top of what goes out via tax as well. It's not like if you have sky, you are already paying for the same sort of service already. I see your point, but you could apply that sort of thinking to many things people pay out for.

rob878

As opposed to paying a TV license, then watching BBC programs on your Sky Box??? Seems like you would be paying twice for that!!!

Thinking about it, you pay for a bog standard service through your taxes for the NHS, in the same way that you get a bog standard TV service through your TV license. However if you pay for private medical case, you get an uprated service, shorter waiting times, being able to choose your consultants and have much nicer hospitals if Ross Hall is anything to go by. This is pretty much the same if you pay Sky and get the option of a large amount of channels, HD and Anytime

To be honest you couldn't have chosen a worse analogy if you had tried!!

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I didn't mention it, I was responding to a comment. But as you want to pick. You pay a licence as you have to, just to have a TV in your home(if you don't want to risk a fine). If you just want a few extra channels, you can get freeview for a small one off fee, people go with sky as you get alot more. I was merely saying why people would choose to get sky.

I'm not disagreeing with people getting medical insurance. All I was getting at is that you do effectively pay twice to a point. Yeah you can say the same for sky, but it's not like your licence is payment for a fair few channels, is it? It is only the BBC. If it was a charge for even all standard free to view channels, and you still paid a wedge to get a few more, ok, but you are only paying for the BBC, regardless of if you watch it.

Faults and all, the NHS, is more than bog standard, like a couple of TV channels imo. When my Mam went in for her op, as said in a fairly short time , she was treated and stayed in the same place as those with insurance.

I'm not knocking getting insurance at all, but I can understand there are people who can't justify the cost(on top of what they pay out in taxes), or simply can't afford it.

rob878

Not picking, but you analogy was massively floored and you proved it yourself in your own reply. Additionally in the UK, is NHS not bog standard?is there a lower form of health care available in this country?

In both cases you mentioned you pay twice, and in paying twice you get access to greater benefits!. If people can't justify paying twice then that is fair enough. However in doing so, in my experience the benefits far out way the costs (though that is debatable for sky)

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Go back and read. I didn't make an analogy, I responded to a comment made by someone else, and explained why I thought someone would want to pay extra for TV.

I'm not even saying it's not for similar reasoning. Pay extra, get extra.

I just pointed out, with the point you made about paying twice for TV, it's sort of different, as you are not paying for a whole host of services, then paying to upgrade to more, you are paying the BBC not to show ads, that's it.

I have had good and bad experiences of the NHS, some pretty crap, but I also have experienced (via a parent) how good, and similar it has been to paying on top. You have your experiences, I have mine, others have theirs. I was simply putting an opinion across on a comment made, and at no time slating getting medical insurance.

rob878

yes i have read the post in question maybe, you would like too re-read it as well.

You aren't paying the BBC just not to show adverts. You pay your license fee to the BBC to provide you with Period Dramas, Sporting Events, Current Affairs Programs, Music, News, SitComs, the range of radio stations, the iplayer etc etc, which with out advertisers money are paid for partly by your licence fee . With this range of programs and services available, you get a "mini" version of Sky, a taster of most kinds of programs that Sky are able to devote entire channels to.

You may remember the BBC adverts "the unique way we are funded" oddly enough they weren't talking about the fact that the Planet Earth programs didn't have a 5 min ad break in the middle, more that the license fee had paid for such a program to be made.

However as this is drifting massively from Snazys original post. Yes mate you will pay twice, however as stuart n mentioned, if you can afford 40 quid for sky, the 60 quid for private health insurance is definitely affordable, and probably a damn sight better investment.

Snazy

Jeeeez how complex can this get. lol

Heathcare and home entertainment cannot be compared.
As far as im concerned, once you commit to healthcare you commit for life.
Pointless paying it for 15 years, then cancelling only to need it year 16.
With anything else like that you can stop and start as you please, without any effect on your quality of life.

To me, healthcare is for life, most other things are optional, and disposable and can be cancelled without worrying about the concequences.

Klaatu

The only problem with that is you pay tax for Govn't services, health is one. You, in the UK pay NI, and then you have to "buy" private health care. In Aus, we pay a medicare levy, yeah it's a tax by another name, and we are "encouraged" to buy private health care (Price regulated by Govn't) as well. Double plus good (tax). Is that fair? Well no. I pay tax and I expect my Govn't to provide, that's what it is for. I don't expect to pay the same tax, while Govn't "privatises" services, which I have to pay for with no reduction in tax.

Snazy

I guess ultimatly its about the quality you demand.
Happy with average, shop in Sainsbury's, demand better, go Waitrose, want the best, got F&M or Harrods etc...

I understand the whole paying tax/twice for something that should be right the first time. But the NHS is there regardless of if you are paying or not (rightly or wrongly)
To get better service, faster, or however you grade it, is a choice.

Cant really compare it but its like expecting the best seats on a plane for an economy price.

Right or wrong, if I can get the right cover, im more than happy to pay.
Especially after seeing the invoice for my arm operation.

Klaatu

That's the point. We are all "fooled" into believing we get better choice, well you don't. You believe you do, but in fact you don't. The reason why Gummint opted out of providing services via taxes is because we're all getting older, nations that is, and they needed tp pass that burden on to...the taxpaying individual...who is already paying tax for state funded services.

In the UK and Aus, we PAYE, so you get no say in how much tax you pay and where your taxes go. You just pay, and just shut up. I would not have an issue with this if I could withhold my tax until tax year end, deduct my expenses, like health care, and then pay my tax...which I think is the US system.

Snazy

I would have to disagree.
Some private insurances allow for a totally different experience of treatment.
You get what you pay for.

Klaatu

In my experience (Ok, this was back in the '90's, may have changed since but I very much doubt it) but BUPA fed me into the NHS grinder serveral times *before* they'd see me. Must have referals from GP, must go to NHS first etc etc. Regardless, if you are paying for medical care, through you taxes, why pay again? Choice? My ****! Consumers, you and I, lose. Govn't and "providers" win.

TelBoy

The need to go to an NHS doctor for a referral annoys me, why can't that be privatised too? I'd willingly pay to avoid the perma-engaged phones and interminable waits in stuffy doctors' waiting rooms at inconvenient times.

I have medical insurance as a perk also. I've not used it often, but the next-day treatment in a clean, chav-free environment has always been a pleasure. The NHS can only do so much, given its size and the resources it wastes on non-patient costs.

Klaatu

Wastes on "managers" and "administrators" rather than health care. I mean, it's not rocket science.

Snazy

I have no problem seeing my GP for referral.
Getting to see him is never a problem, and being referred has never been an issue.

Its the wait after that where the difference could be important.

To me anyway.

TelBoy

Tell them the solution then. Because God knows they need one.

Klaatu

Well its all well and good when you are, funnily enough, healthy and paying. But when you are not, the ball game changes. The UK, and Aus, have adopted the US "health care" model, you pay, you get. You don't/can't pay, you get propped up against a tree on public land. Awsome! Do we (UK and Aus) really want the US model? At least 13 million poeple who cannot afford medical insurance, but pay their taxes. It's OK while you have access to "private health", but when that goes....think about it.

Snazy

That makes the NHS sound shockingly useless. However from my own experiences I would disagree with it.
I have been dealt with promptly, and happy with everything that happened.

Given the work load of the NHS I think it does a fantastic job. However there are times when private can deal with the matter quicker. And with health time can sometimes be the difference.

TelBoy

The thing is, Snazy, is that nobody really knows how the NHS will continue to be funded in say, 20 years' time. It's being conveniently disregarded. "Something will turn up" seems to be the hope. But i can just see the imbalance in the public finances that has recently been created being used as the perfect reason to scale down free public health provision. Some very uncomfortable choices will have to be made. What seems to be certain though, is that things can't go on like they are, not unless many other public services are sacrificed to maintain it. But it's easy to let that be somebody else's problem, that's human nature after all.

Snazy

Yeah I hear ya Tel, and while I agree with the statement, I dont think it really has to much bearing on making the decision to go private or not. Not at this point anyway.

Either way I think my mind is made up on the original question..
Everyones contributions have been invaluable.