# >>Is VHI good value?



## Brendan Burgess

If I have a house with rebuilding costs of £200k, I will pay half the premium of someone who insures their house for £ 400k. I will pay 10% of the premium of someone who insures their house for £ 2m. 

With 20 years of accident free driving, I pay £ 500 to insure my 5 year old Honda Civic. My friend who drives a new sports car who has a conviction for drunken driving pays 10 times as much as I do.

But if you are a healthy, non smoking, non drinking, 20 year old, you will pay exactly the same premium as an 80 year old smoking alcoholic. The difference in risk between these two people is huge. I would guess that, if health insurance was deregulated the 20 year old would pay about 20% of the premium he is currently paying. Of course, the 80 year old would pay much more. 

Why not introduce community rating for car insurance? We will all pay £1500 insurance a year irrespective of our age, the car we drive, our attitude to alcohol or our claims experience. 

Permanent Health Insurance is the closest to health cover. An 18 year old male, non-smoker, office worker can get £300 per week Permanent Health Insurance from Friends First payable after 13 weeks
ceasing at age 65 at a fixed premium of £20.00 per month. A 59 year old female, smoking horticulturist will pay £611.87 per month for the same level of cover. 


*Is this good social policy?*

That is a separate argument from the question of value. Personally, I am happy to contribute to society through taxes. I don’t mind my taxes subsidizing public hospitals. But I don't like voluntarily contributing to funding smoking alcoholics to be treated in the Blackrock Clinic.

*My strategy*

I paid VHI for years without considering what lousy value it was. I paid for whichever plan would get me private care in St Vincents Private Hospital. ( I like watching the golf).

I had one claim in 30 years of cover. I had an emergency minor operation and was hospitalized for a week. If I had not had private health insurance, I would have been operated on anyway and I would have been in a public ward. Would that have been a disaster? It would probably have been good for me on balance.

If I had invested the premiums over the 30 years, I would have a huge fund now. 

I stopped paying VHI a few years ago. This year I had about £1000 in medical expenses due to an accident. I paid these bills myself out of the VHI premiums I have saved. 

What happens if I need a quadruple bypass? I would not be in a high risk category, but this is a real risk. I am happy to accept this risk. Depending on my financial position at that stage, I might have to remortgage my house. I am prepared to take that risk.

What I would like is a risk adjusted medical policy with a £ 5,000 excess. In other words, I will pay the first £5 000 of claims myself. And if I get hit with a whopper, I will claim. With annual premiums of £700 for VHI, I won't be long in building up my £ 5000 fund. Others might be more comfortable with a lower or higher excess.

When I am 54 or if I develop a medical condition, I will start paying VHI again. I know that the cost of the existing complaint will not be covered for 5 years, but the long term treatment will be covered.

*The tax position*

VHI attracts tax relief at 20% of the premiums.

Medical expenses in excess of £100 attract tax relief at 42%. So my medical expenses this year have only cost me about £500. 

*Some alternatives to VHI*

If they scrapped community rating, it might become prohibitive for older people. But why not a scheme whereby a level premium is paid throughout your life ? If I join at 55, charge me a huge premium. But if I have overpaid during my younger years, give me the benefit through lower premiums later. 

Or at least adjust the premiums for smokers.


----------



## Devils Ad

*Re: VHI*

Two examples... (real cases)

I'm sure there are hundreds more.

(A) A young man, in his prime (non-smoker) is knocked down by a guy in a stolen car. You don't need details but particularly nasty injuries. He has to spend the next ten months in hospital, having spent 3-4 weeks there already.


(B) Under public health services there is a 3 year waiting list for hip replacements. Under private health insurance the wait is 6 months, still very long but when compared to the public health service??

Investing money in the stock market is risk taking. Not taking out VHI/BUPA because you might end up paying more than you should if you don't fall ill is not taking a risk, it's sheer maddness. 

You say needing a triple heart bypass is a real risk for you. Look at the carnage on our roads every year. That's probably an even bigger risk. Can you even begin to imagine the medical expenses incurred by case A above. How much outpatient treatment is he going to need when he leaves hospital - and before he was hit by the lunatic he was fit as a fiddle.

Ask About Money is supposed to be an advice based site for the consumer. I know you qualify your reasoning below as *my strategy* but it can't be read any other way than advice. 

You are possibly putting people in serious financial danger and as a result thier health in serious danger, by not quanitfying your comments and strategy with the potential downside of your action. 

Last year your medical bill was £500, or half of what you medical bills came to. What would be half of the bills for case A above?? What does nearly a year in hospital care cost these days?

I don't know the answer, but I don't need to because my Health Insurance will cover it.

Do you know the answer? You should. 

Investing in the stock market has a limited risk. The worst that could happen is you lose your entire investment.

What the worst case scenario of not having VHI/BUPA in place? 

Immesurable.

Your objections seem to be on principal and yet you say you would have a tidy lump-sum had you invested you contributions over the past 30 years. You also ask is it good value?

My contributions, at the moment, cost me £20 per month. What is that going to do for me elsewhere?

£240 p.a. is unbelievably god value!!

Dangerous comments Brendan.


----------



## rainyday

*Re: VHI*

I disagree with Devils view that even discussing this topic is dangerous. Such discussion will surely lead to individuals thinking further about this issue and making a sensible, educated decision that suits their own circumstance. Let's not be afraid of discussion.

Having said that, I too disagree with Brendan's premise. I fear that while the risk of being faced with astronomical bills may be relatively small, it is worth insuring. I would guess that at times of serious illness, the last thing you want to have to worry about is money/remortgaging etc.

I agree that community rating is unfair and unjustified. I reckon it was devised by grey 50-year-old male civil servants. However, in the absence of an alternative in the Irish marketplace, I will continue to be a VHI member. To some extent, the issue is 'hidden' from me as my employer pays my VHI subscription automatically (though this benefit is BIK'ed).

The one benefit of VHI & other health insurers is they actually have some leverage over the medical profession. They have used this leverage in recent years to bring in fixed costs per procedure for certain routine procedures.

Regards - RainyDay


----------



## UDS

*Re: VHI*

Yup. In a decision to purchase, the key issue is not whether the insurance could be cheaper if the market were differently organised but rather, given how the market is organised, and given the price of the insurance, is it worth that price to me to avoid the risk?

_"Perhaps one could, by contract or promise, transfer the equity, but I don't see how this would cause a change in the land registry's concept of ownership of the property."_

Yup again. In fact, when there was only the VHI it was effectively a monopsony (opposite of monopoly - many sellers but only one buyer). Just as a monopoly tends to force prices up above their open market level, so a monopsony tends to force them down below their open market level. The prediction was that the introduction of competition in the health insurance market would break down this monopsony and would be followed by an overall rise in healthcare costs, and this indeed has happened.


----------



## tedd

I can understand Brendan's point which was discussed at length on the old board but I think it is a risky strategy to advise for people in general.

I am particularly concerned about the idea of remortgaging your house to get cash for medical expenses! I find it hard to believe that a bank would remortgage to pay medical bills for someone who may represent a repayment risk (eg if the expensive treatment doesn't work!). In many cases, this could leave a spouse in a very difficult situation with an ill partner, possibly no longer able to work, AND the pressures of a monthly mortgage.

To present this alternative without advising some other fallback plan (eg significant life assurance to cover the costs of remortgaging if you die or a permanent health policy that will kick in with payments after 12 weeks or whatever) in case it all goes horribly wrong  is, in my view, irresponsible.

tedd


----------



## Devils Ad

I wholly concur with tedd on his point on irresponsibility.

Rainyday, I am not at all against this discussion nor did I suggest that discussing it was dangerous.

I feel that as Brendan is offering the above as an alternative to taking out VHI/BUPA it was potentially dangerous and certainly irresponsible not to disclose the very real downsides to his advice.

Dev.


----------



## Marion

Brendan,

Your  non-payment of VHI strategy is perfect for the Bilbo Bagginses of this world, "who possess (apparently) perpetual youth as well as (reputedly) inexhaustible wealth."   

Marion :hat


----------



## rainyday

Hi Devil's Ad - My apologies - I jumped to the wrong conclusion. 

Regards - RainyDay


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Devil's Ad

It's good to get a response. I thought I was being ignored there for a while.

I asked a question _ Is VHI good value?_

I don't think it is. No one has disagreed with me yet.

If the general public wants to overpay for medical insurance, that's fine for them.

Most people don't bother with VHI and they rely on the public health service. 

Your two examples: I don't understand the relevance of A. He will be paid out of his personal injury claim.

The hip replacement. We have evolved over millions of years without hip replacements. There are some things which we can't insure against. Marriages breaking up, mental illness, old age etc. Yes, you can take out insurance for a hip replacement or a triple bypass. Is it worth it? I don't think so.

Ask me when I am 55 and I will tell you it's great value.

Brendan


----------



## Brian

*VHI*

Brendan

I wanted to see the replies before adding mine. 

I have a young family and consequently am a member of the VHI. I think that it is very expensive, but I also think that it represents value for money. Value for money because in my view it is essential as our health service is appalling. I have had 2 previous occasions where I have had to use the VHI, both, while not emergencies, were quite distressing. The peace of mind we had knowing we were in the VHI was invaluable.

I think that it is like a lot of things in life, it depends on personal circumstances and experiences.

I think that it is wrong that we feel that we have to pay to receive adequate health care, maybe even immoral as it creates a two tier society, however, until we have an adequate health service I will continue to pay the premium.

Brian


----------



## Devils Ad

*Re: VHI*

Hi Brendan,

*No one has disagreed with me yet*

If you look at the end of my first reply you will see me disagreeing. "£240 p.a. Unbelievably good value."

*Your two examples: I don't understand the relevance of A. He will be paid out of his personal injury claim.*

He was hit by a stolen car and an un-insured driver. I know there is a way to be paid compensation when involved in an accident with an un-insured driver, but how long do these things take to finally get a payment, meanwhile you are relying on the public health service and are simply not getting anywhere near the treatment you would be getting if you had VHI/BUPA. 

Plus the extra stress of going through a lengthy settlement case.

The hip repalcement is just one of probably thousands of procedures where there is a waiting list 10 times longer on the public health service.

My main problem is the alternative. You still have not provided an answer that offers an alternative one tenth as good as having VHI/BUPU in place. 

Nor did you answer my question, where else could I put the £20 a month I currently pay for health insurance, to ensure if I'm ill in the future I will be able to look after the costs? As this is one of your alternatives.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*Re: VHI*

Hi Devil's Ad

I missed that last line - sorry. 

However, it still does not explain why it's good value. The premium is out of all proportion to the cost of claims for a young and healthy person. 

You can put your £240 a year into an equity based investment and most of the time, you will be far richer when you are 50 than if you had paid Vhi all those years. 

You are not excluded from private healthcare if you are not in the VHI. You can  pay for it yourself. Most of the time your fund will be sufficient to pay your bills. Some of the time, your fund will not be sufficient and you will have to find the cost elsewhere or rely on the public health service. 

But don't forget, heart surgeryand hip replacements are relatively recent developments. Even our wealthiest grandparents got along fine without them. 

I just don't like overpaying for anything. And in particular, I don't like overpaying for health insurance to sponsor those who don't look after their health - through smoking or other drug abuse.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*A simple question - I think*

Is it fair that smokers and non smokers are charged the same premium by the VHI ?

Brendan


----------



## rainyday

*Re: A simple question - I think*

Simple answer - No

Complex answer - where do you draw the line? Should those who don't take regular exercise pay more? Should those who drink more than the recommended levels of alcohol pay more? Should those who work in stressful high-powered jobs pay more?

And even more controversially, should those with family history of heart disease pay more?

Regards - RainyDay


----------



## Devils Ad

*Re: A simple question - I think*

Hi Brendan,

*However, it still does not explain why it's good value.*

Let me expand. 

I would pay a lot more than £20 per month for the peace of mind it gives me in the knowledge that should anything major happen to me I will be looked after. Hence it's unbelievably good value.

£240 a year in even the best performing equity based fund around would not be nearly enough to cover any kind of serious or semi-serious medical emergency. After 10 years I might just have enough to have an ingrowing toenail looked at!

As for our grandparents not having heart surgery available, in that case they should stop reseaching cures for disease as we get on fine now without a cure for cancer/AIDS/Parkinsons, if they find a full and proper cure for any of these the procedures would probably be expensive and thereby push up the price of insurance. 

To re-quote UDS (because I couldn't possibly put it better)

*In a decision to purchase, the key issue is not whether the insurance could be cheaper if the market were differently organised but rather, given how the market is organised, and given the price of the insurance, is it worth that price to me to avoid the risk?*

A resounding yes.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*Re: A simple question - I think*

Hi Devil's Ad

What is your opinion on the smokers' question? 

I know it's a different question from the original, but it is important. If it's good value for smokers, it must be bad value for somebody else. 

But maybe we have different ideas of value. £ 240 is not much to you or to me. However, I just don't like paying £240 for something, which if properly priced, would cost me about £100. 

And from the Government's strategy for health announced today, it seems that everyone will get a world class health service whether or not they are in the VHI. Seems crazy to me.

Brendan


----------



## UDS

*Re: A simple question - I think*

_"If it's good value for smokers, it must be bad value for somebody else."_

It all depends on what you mean by "value", but in my terms this is not so. It may be good value for non-smokers and even better value for smokers.

Brendan, let me put another question to you, and perhaps a more relevant one than the smokers question. Women consume more of the health services than men. Should a woman be charged a higher premium? I suggest that this is more relevant, because smokers have a choice about whether to smoke, and views about what premiums to charge smokers may be coloured by moral views about smoking or by social policy objectives of discouraging smoking. But age and sex are a given.


----------



## Devils Ad

*Re: A simple question - I think*

Again I agree with UDS.

* It may be good value for non-smokers and even better value for smokers.*

However, what I actually pay each month in relation to what I would be willing to pay for the exact same sevice/product is the only issue relavent in determining my attitude to its value.

I would be willing to pay more, a lot more, for the level of cover and peace of mind which I have - whether or not I could get it cheaper if smokers were charged more and hence I would be charged less is irrelevent.

*However, I just don't like paying £240 for something, which if properly priced, would cost me about £100.*

That's all well and good if there is a viable alternative. But there isn't. To me you are putting your health at risk for the sake of £240.

*And from the Government's strategy for health announced today, it seems that everyone will get a world class health service whether or not they are in the VHI.*

I hope there's a touch of irony in that statement. Do you honestly belive they will actually deliver on all these promises? The timing of such an announcement is a little too convenient for my liking.

How many months are we away from a general election? Or weeks if Mr. Gildea heads off back to Donegal and refuses to vote in any more government votes.


----------



## Marion

"As the VHI has not calculated the annual costs incurred by it in paying for treatment for smoking related illnesses,*it is not known whether non smokers insured through the VHI are presently subsidising the costs incurred by the VHI in the treatment of smokers suffering from smoking related illnesses*….

The Committee notes that the White Paper in rejecting the imposition of a "premium loading for smokers" does not address or consider the issue of whether non-smokers presently pay higher premiums for health insurance than would be necessary as a consequence of the expenditure incurred by the VHI in the provision of treatment for tobacco related illnesses suffered by its insured smokers or the victims of environmental tobacco smoke."

Source:  www.irlgov.ie/committees-99/c-health/Rep-H&S/Page4.htm

Brendan,

I agree on this point with regard to smokers and VHI. Let's not forget that <!--EZCODE BOLD START-->* Smokers make a choice* - to smoke or not and I really do not see a conflict between it and community rating.


*Approximately half of all patients at St James's Hospital, Dublin are there due to smoking-related illnesses, Prof Luke Clancy, respiratory consultant has told the Oireachtas Committee*
Prof Clancy went on to say that these figures were not exclusive to St James', but typical of most hospitals.

Of course, we do not know if these patients are VHI members or not or indeed the percentage of these which are VHI members or not.

Consequently, I would be in favour of higher premiums for those who not only abuse their own hearts and lungs but those of others (passive smokers) as well, if it were shown by empirical data that I am subsidising costs incurred by the VHI due to smoking. This is the relevant issue to be considered here.

Marion :hat


----------



## CM

*Where will it all end...*

Why single out smoking? Why not a loading for those who _choose _to engage in _any sort _of activity which involves a health risk (e.g. extreme sports, highly stressful and/or physically dangerous career, recreational drug use, driving a fast car, living in a an area of high pollution, going out in winter with no coat on :lol etc.) :rolleyes 

I'm a non smoker by the way!


----------



## Freddie Kruger

*Re: Where will it all end...*

Hi CM,

"....highly stressful and/or physically *dangerous* career...."

Crikes!! At that rate I could end up working just to pay my VHI premium :lol  :lol


----------



## Devils Ad

Marion,

You're trickling off the point.

Whether smokers are rated or not is irrelevent to the debate.

Personally, I think they should be, but they are not. So when determining the value of VHI/BUPA the only question you needs to ask yourself is

*is it worth that price to me to avoid the risk?*

The smoking issue then becomes a matter of principal, not value for money.

So brendan doesn't pay VHI/BUPA on a matter of principal.  

Brendan, would you be prepared to pay £240 p.a. for VHI/BUPA if smokers had to pay £500 p.a.?

You say it should only be about £100 p.a. Does that mean that you would be willing to pay £100 p.a. for VHI/BUPA?

If so my previous statement was incorrect.

You are putting your health at risk for the sake £140 p.a.


----------



## Marion

Hi Devil's ad

While I accept the the smoking issue is not the substantive one in terms of the debate,I don't think that it is entirely irrelevant to the question of "value for money"

If smokers were charged more (if it were proven that they do in fact contribute to the costs of VHI), then, non-smoking members would perhaps benefit by reduced annual price increases adding to their perception of "good value"

I perceive I'm getting good value now, because I know that I am protected; but if the cost of VHI/BUPA continues to spiral upwards, perhaps it won't be too long before many people will take a chance and opt out of the scheme, not for reasons of principle, but because they will no longer be able to afford it.

If the impostition of higher premiums for smokers did in fact reduce costs for the VHI, then this would be a very welcome outcome. I would be very glad to be a non-smoker and I would perceive myself to be getting even better value for money.

Marion :hat


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*I have 225,000 friends*

I thought that I was the only person paying for my own healthcare and was beginning to feel very lonely.

But in last Sunday's times there was an article on the subject. Obviously this applies to the UK only, but I hadn't realized that there was a debate going on in the UK, where there is proper rating of health insurance.



> The number of people paying for private treatment out of their own pockets has soared by about 40% to 225,000 over the past 2 years.
> 
> Standard Life Healthcare has developed a scheme for pay-as-you-go customers. Its Choices service ...includes insurance to cover expensive operations.
> 
> Customers can choose to pay up to £1000, £2500 or £5000 themselves and the insurer will step in to cover the rest. Monthly premiums would be £5.93 for a 29 year old prepared to pay up to £5000 towards a claim.
> 
> *Experts point out that big claims are rare. *Most are for less than £2000, while only 4% are for amounts in excess of £5000 and only 1% are for more than £10,000.



Further information on pay as you go can be found at

www.carehealth.co.uk and [broken link removed] (this might be a pyramid scheme so watch out)



Brendan


----------



## Freddie Kruger

*Re: I have 225,000 friends*

Brendan,

Not that it is important to the debate, but in entire population terms this represents about *135* in the ROI.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*Re: I have 225,000 friends*

I don't know about you Freddie, but 135 close friends is enough for me !

By the way, how did you calculate this figure? The UK population is about 15 times the size of the Irish population. So, I would have thought that the corresponding figure for Ireland should be about 15,000 ( 225,000/15) Irish people pay their own health care. I know that my arithmetic has been savaged by CM, Rupert and a few others in the past, but could I be out by such a wide margin?

Brendan


----------



## Freddie Kruger

*Re: I have 225,000 friends*

Oh dear!! Pressed the wrong button on the euro calculator, so I did :lol   A small matter of a couple of zeros missing I'm afraid  (13,500).

I suppose one shouldn't read much into these figures. After all, my decison not to join/pay for VHI or BUPA would effect a couple of people(responsibility) whereas a single person would be deciding for one.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*Re: I have 225,000 friends*

Strangely enough if you are responsible for the healthcare of a few people, you are better off paying as you go. As the premiums should be higher for a group, you are effectively spreading the risk anyway.

But with community rating, you will probably tell me that families pay the same as a single person.

Brendan


----------



## geoffreyod

*VHI health insurance is good value for money*

a) because my company pays 100% of the cost(BUPA or VHI) so I only pay BIK but even if I were paying 100% myself I'd stump up the money for peace of mind - hard to put a monetary value on piece of mind but it's more than my VHI premium.  I was paying 50% until recently.

b) no health insurance is not an option in Ireland, Britain maybe.

c) I want my father and others I know and like to have affordable health insurance.
Doesn't everyone have parents or friends?  If so, why is this thread so long?

d) I don't trust BUPA in the long run.

Think of VHI as an invisible tax that unlike other taxes go where it is intended(not on sport stadiums or mansions in the Phoeinix park) then paying your premiums becomes easier.


----------



## Devils Ad

*Re: VHI health insurance is good value for money*

Hi Geoffrey,

I would tend to agree with you on a) & b).

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point in c)

and how come don't you trust BUPA? If they pulled out VHI will take you on with no break in cover. As in, if you transfer your insurance straight over to VHI from BUPA, existing conditions will be covered and there will be no initial period of non-cover. (currently 6 months for new members)

Essential Plus has the same cover as Plan B except it is 2/3rds of the price. Why not avail of the cheaper option available. If needs be down the line you can simply jump ship.

Dev.


----------



## geoffreyod

*points c and d*

I'm of the opinion that BUPA aren't quite as ethical as VHI as evidenced by their fuzzy\misleading radio adverts.

My father would find it difficult to be covered by BUPA.
I hope to live long enough to be old one day and want VHI around then as I don't fancy having no health insurance when I'm older.  If I don't support VHI now they won't be around when I need them.  To think any other way is risky and short-sighted.

yes I know that others benefit more from VHI than I do while paying the exact same amount i.e. women and the elderly but I'm not going to be a dog in the manger about it.  

If you object to high consultants fees, administration costs, etc.. which are associated with VHI then that's one thing but I don't object to VHI itself clear out upper management in VHI and those problems will be addressed.

Check out www.vhihealthcare.com/cor...unity.html for info on community rating.


----------



## Devils Ad

*Re: points c and d*

Hi Geoffrey,

I don't understand, why would your father find it difficult to get cover with BUPA?

If you are with BUPA now they are hardly going to kick you out when you get older.

If you are with BUPA now and at a later stage you would like to change over to VHI, I don't think they will turn you down just because you had been with BUPA, in fact, I'm sure they would be glad of your custom, after all it is now a competitive market.

As for community rating, I've no problem with it. I'm wth you on the peace of mind issue. For me it's to do with how much the cover is worth to me not how much somebody else is paying for the same cover who is older/sicker/a smoker. 

The VHI/BUPA issue is simply financial. I can get the same cover with both, it's just that BUPA are considerably cheaper.


----------



## geoffreyod

*it isn't a financial decision*

Lifetime long Health cover is just too important.
My father through ignorance hasn't had health insurance for most of his life and although in good health would now not be covered by BUPA as easily as through the VHI(researched this).  The time may come when I or someone I know wouldn't be covered either.  

If I don't support VHI they will go out of business.  The only thing that keeps BUPA in check is VHI's presence in the market.
If you believe that BUPA would keep their prices low if VHI exited the market or lost their dominant position then you are making the right decision but I don't share your beliefs.

In my personal life I routinely change vendors when I percieve there is better value to be had but healthcare isn't a place to make short term economies.

Yes,  BUPA currently offers cheaper health insurance.  The majority of the population thinking 'logically' should switch from VHI to BUPA which would result in VHI going out of business which leads to BUPA putting up prices and victimising certain sections of the community.  Ireland being the closed economy that it is will suffer as no new health care companies enter the market. 

The majority stay with VHI through inertia, I make a concious decision to stay with them.

When/If the public health service in Ireland improves to British or Scandinavian levels then I will reconsider my stance on this issue as the risks associated with changing from one to the other will be reduced.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*Re: points c and d*

Hi Geoffrey

That's a great link to the VHI website spin on community rating. I had tried to get information on the relative costs of health care without success



> ...With car insurance young people are regarded as the highest risks and they pay up to three or four times more than older people. In healthcare the opposite is true, older people cost up to six times more than younger people.



This is crazy stuff. Young people are paying up to 5 times the true risk adjusted price for their health insurance! This makes no sense. I don't have a problem with a little bit of subsidization, but this is far worse than even I had thought.

Brendan


----------



## geoffreyod

*agree with you on car insurance*

That is why I'm donating to the Motor Insurance Justice Action group's election campaign.

Happy that you mention motor insurance because if you go to www.MIJAG.COM's web site you will find info. on how the countries that use a quasi community rating for motor insurance have the lowest motor insurance premiums.


----------



## Dr Benton

*You must be joking!*



> When/If the public health service in Ireland improves to British or Scandinavian levels then I will reconsider my stance on this issue as the risks associated with changing from one to the other will be reduced



In my experience *geoffreyod*, if you think the Irish public healthcare system has to IMPROVE to get to the current standards of the British system, you are very much mistaken.

I do agree with you about the excellent standards of Scandanavian healthcare, however. But in Sweden, for example, the current debate would be useless as private healthcare does not exist.


----------



## geoffreyod

*No, I'm not joking*

You get more on the health service in the UK.

From experience within my family you get more and while it isn't as good as it could be it is still better than Ireland.

Proper maternity care and good hospices are more than we've got here.

Sweden is excellent and much better than the UK.  I've worked with plenty of Swedes in my company and they all stop complaining about their high taxes when they see the benefits they haven't got here in Ireland.


----------



## Devils Ad

*Re: You must be joking!*

Geoffrey,

You certainly make an interesting point regarding sticking with VHI.

I'm curious, why would your father not be covered as easily as through VHI?

One has a six month inital period of non-cover (VHI) the other the period is 26 weeks. 

Both have a waiting period of 5 years for existing conditions.

These are for new members who are not transferring from existing cover.

I know that BUPA take an international stance on the existing private health care company you are switching from. Someone I know transferred from private health care in  France to BUPA without the imposition of the waiting periods. I don't know if VHI are the same? Anyone?

What else is there? what other restrictions does BUPA apply to people like your father? Is it an age thing? 

Brendan,

We're both going over old turf, but, you may be right, commuity rating may be "Crazy Stuff".

This still doesn't escape the fact that I'm only paying £20 per month for my cover. Is £20 per month worth the cover I get in return - absolutely.


----------



## geoffreyod

*regarding my father*

can't disclose!


----------



## tedd

*VHI vs BUPA*

Hi geoffreyod

If the circumstances which allow VHI to insure your father but not BUPA are so specific that they potentially identify you or him, then I would suggest that perhaps your opinion on the subject (that everyone should stick with VHI) might not be the best course of action for everyone. 

Nonetheless, I can see how you personally might want to support a company that has demonstrated flexibility towards your own family.

tedd


----------



## Dr Benton

*UK vs Irish maternity standards*

geoffreyod--

"Proper maternity care"....more than we've got here?

Not quite true: 
Irish maternal mortality (ie death during childbirth) 3.2 per 100,000 births www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8824037&dopt=Abstract

UK maternal mortality 6-7 per 100,000 births
[broken link removed] 

Only one statistic of many...


----------



## geoffreyod

*reply to Tedd*

I'll talk about making money go as far as possible all day long but I'm less comfortable with talking about the health of another.
I just finally replied to the thread out of courtesy to Devils Ad.
Flame away if your that way inclined.


----------



## tedd

*Flame???*

Hi Geoffreyod

Not a flame at all, but a fair point I think. Your point is that some particular individuals may be able to have insurance through VHI who may not be insurable through BUPA. That is a very important point for a small number of people. 

But VHI is not necessarily the best choice for everyone as the cover it provides is more expensive, and the vast majority of people (obviously unlike your father) can choose freely between the two options, and are therefore free to choose the cheaper one (BUPA).


----------



## ClubMan

*comments by geoffreyod*

I find your comments offensive and unnecessary.

_The post in question has been removed._


----------



## zag

*Political Correctness gone mad*

geoffreyod said "I'd like them to delete my last two posts to the thread"

[relevant material deleted]


----------



## CM

*Political Correctness gone mad*

Geoffrey - give it a break. Your latest posts are adding nothing to the discussion in hand. Please take facetious comments to . If you review the AAM posting guidlines you'll see that offensive comments _will _be edited/deleted. 

CM (aka ClubMan)


----------



## zag

*Moderators, your reply please?*

geoffreyod said "I'd like them to delete my last two posts to the thread"

[relevant material deleted]


----------



## CM

*Moderators, your reply please?*

Unfortunately I am not in a position to enter into an email discussion about this.

Point 2 of the posting guidelines states:

_We also delete offensive comments in an otherwise proper post._

Obviously at least one poster was genuinely offended by some of the earlier comments which were, in any case, irrelevant to the discussion in hand. For these reasons they were removed. 

In case you're not aware AAM is run on a completely voluntary basis by Brendan in conjunction with a small set of moderators and technical assistants. Minimal levels of censorship are enforced but if necessary offensive/irrelevant comments will be removed.

I hope you appreciate my/AAM's position on this matter.


----------



## Sammy

*Health Insurance*

I have a theory that the older generation who practically had no insurance on themselves (health, PHI, life assurance, house in surance in many cases etc etc lived longer and happier.

I just have an uneasy feeling that if our sub concious mind knows we are insured against certain perils that such perils inevitably come to pass.
Call me crazy ......... but .........


----------



## rainyday

*Re: Moderators, your reply please?*

_Posted by Darag on ;_
it's not that funny
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 i'm with brendan on this. i canceled my bupa plan last year after observing what happened to a friend with no health insurance who got appendicitis last year. they were promptly treated. it cost them around 40 quid. horror of horrors, they had to share a ward with hoi polloi. in the vast majority of cases, this is the only difference in treatment between the insured and the uninsured for non-elective hospitalization and i'm not that fussy. when i'm sixty, i'll buy the top health insurance plan which will ensure i get good value subsidised by the under 40s.

nor do i bother paying 4 quid a month to insure a 39 euro mobile phone.


----------



## Tommy

*Re: Health Insurance*

The rationale for VHI/BUPA was never (or at least it never should have been) the possibility of emergency hospitalization, for conditions such as appendicitis but for elective surgery and treatments that can take forever to take place if you are on a public waiting list. I know of one man who died at 52 years old after spending 3 years waiting for cardiac treatment. When his turn came around, the doctors told him his condition was too far advanced for surgery to be of any use. He died about 3 months later. He could have afforded VHI or Bupa subs.


----------



## rainyday

*Re: Moderators, your reply please?*

For ladies of child-bearing age, access to private or semi-private rooms during 'confinement' for childbirth is a big issue too.



> when i'm sixty, i'll buy the top health insurance plan which will ensure i get good value subsidised by the under 40s.


Hi Darag - Don't forget that there is no guarantee that 'community rating' will still be available to new members in the future, so you may be facing a huge bill when you come to purchase insurance in your 60's.


----------



## darag

*Re: Health Insurance*

sure rainyday, i accept that for some people vhi or bupa offers real benefits but i've thought through my situation and decided that it doesn't really make sense for me.

yes tommy, elective treatment is a different story but i honestly don't know of a single friend or even friend of a friend of my age who has had elective medical care.  i believe the chance of me benefitting from this aspect of the cover is miniscule.  obviously as you get older, it's different and if i were hitting sixty i'd certainly buy cover.  however, maybe at that stage the public health system will have improved also; who knows.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*Re: Moderators, your reply please?*

Hi darag

It's great to have someone who actually agrees with me. 

Rainyday made a point about pregnant women and it reinforces my point very well. If you are planning to have big medical expenses - e.g. if you are planning to have a baby, then VHI is great value. If you are not expecting to be sick, because you are young, healthy, non-smoking and not expecting to have a baby, then VHI is terrible value. 

I would pay for VHI if it was the same as any other insurance. Link the premium to the risk.

Brendan


----------



## Jasper

*Health Insurance*

Or...

We could move to just about any other European country as Ireland has the worst public health system in Western Europe;  (or is it Europe?)

Why is that in Ireland which is now a leading world economy still has such a dire public health service?  A country where one in two people feel it necessary to take out private health insurance.  

Even in the UK nine out of ten people *don't* take out private health insurance.


----------



## Max Hopper

*Is VHI good value?*

The mere fact that VHI/BUPA is being debated speaks volumes about the ignorance of health insurance.

Say you own a corner shop and pay corporate taxes. The rates include civil protection, i.e. Gardai. Some yobbo comes along and 'sells' you an 'additional' policy that protects you from unsavoury characters and unforseen damage. So you pay the chap weekly from the till.

The scenario described above is called extortion and is patently criminal.

The Health Service 'advises' you of a lengthy wait for a procedure which is either elective or non-life threatening. Then the same gang offers you a 'policy' that protects you from unforseen delays. Sounds the same to me.


----------



## shoegirl

*Interesting proposal, but . . .*

The proposal is interesting and an increasing number of younger people are opting out of health insurance altogether.  These people make community rating possible - i.e. they basically subsidise those who claim (and older people make more claims as their health starts to deteriorate) and in their turn when they get older are subsidised by younger people.  Its all very egalitarian, and all very unfair.

This is because every other insurance industry in Ireland is market based rather than government controlled.  Therefore the 24 year old who may only make a claim once every 5 years will heavily subsidise the 59 year old with a heart condition, but he will not be subsidised in return for car insurance or other insurances which are risk based.

Another problem is that if the cost of VHI escalates too much and younger people drop out completely, the company will be unable to support sicker members.  Perhaps there is a need to make insurance more competitive and slightly loosen the regulatory environment enough to keep people insured.


----------



## AcrossEu

*europeanhealth*

Jasper,

In quite a few European countries, if one's income is above a certain level, one is legally obliged to take out private health insurance. If your income is above the cutoff level and you do not have private health insurance, you have no entitlement to any free treatment from the health service. 

If one's income is below this amount, one comes under a public health insurance. If a patient is ill, that patient
receives the same treatment and care in the same hospital irrespective of whether the patient is privately or publically insured.

Either people pay for it via their taxes or via an insurance policy. 'Free Health care' is a misnomer in that health services have to be paid for someway.


----------



## Guest

*Interesting proposal, but . . .*

> If a patient is ill, that patient receives the same treatment and care in the same hospital irrespective of whether the patient is privately or publically insured.

That is the case here too - just that privately insured patients may be entitled to avail of alternative forms of accommodation (e.g. semi-private or private - always subject to availability!) rather than just going on the public wards and they can also skip waiting lists for elective procedures. However the actual medical care and treatment will generally be exactly the same regardless of whether one is a public or a private patient.


----------



## rainyday

*Re: europeanhealth*



> However the actual medical care and treatment will generally be exactly the same regardless of whether one is a public or a private patient.


The treatment itself may be the same, but it may come 1-3 years later for a public patient. Health insurance is more than just getting a nice room.


----------



## Guest

*Interesting proposal, but . . .*

Yeah - that's why I EXPLICITLY mentioned privately insured patients potentially skipping waiting lists... :rolleyes  My point was that many people mistakenly assume that private health insurance necessarily buys better medical care and treatment. This is a fallacy. It may buy better accommodation and the ability to skip the queue but everybody is treated the same once inside.


----------



## Marble

*VHI no more!!*

Following another announced increase in VHI membership fees (4% this time) and, having listened to the arrogance of VHI's Chief Exec. on the radio this morning, I have just initiated a transfer from VHI to BUPA and have saved €224 per year with equivalent cover.

Wasn't it the wife of a former US Ambassador to Ireland who was asked on leaving of her impression of Ireland and replied that it is a beautiful country but Irish people lack a sense of outrage.

Well, this country has just got too expensive to accept the mediocrity that is doled out by the likes of the VHI head bean-counter so I am expressing my outrage and moving to the competition.


----------



## ajapale

*as evidenced by their fuzzy\misleading radio adverts.*

geoffreyod,



> as evidenced by their fuzzy\misleading radio adverts.



I agree with your objection to BUPA's fuzzy\dissembling radio adverts. To be specific ... they state "we are rated highly by the community". This is a deliberate and misleading play on the words "community rating".

Having said that, I'm saving myself over €350 a year since I moved to BUPA and their back office administration is much better. I miss the VHI nurse on call service and the front line call centre people in Kilkenny (always very pleasant and curteous).

ajapale


----------



## miswell

*BUPA or VHI: which plan?*

After glancing at their brochures and website, I find it difficult to figure out which plan - by either VHI or BUPA -  would best suit the following circumstances:  female, single, upper 30's, no children or dependents, average income, fairly healthy, no known existing medical conditions, non smoker, non drinker, 10,000 miles per annum driver.

Being fortunate not to have had personal experience of illness, hospitals and medical costs, it is difficult to calculate which cover would be prudent.

Any advice out there?


----------



## Guest

*as evidenced by their fuzzy\misleading radio adverts.*

The comparison report mentioned in this topic might be of some help when trying to decide which insurer and product to go with:


----------



## Coordinated

Marian Finucan in and interview with the VHI boss mentioned that there were some who believed that health insurance for young healthy individuals in Ireland was a waste of money. This thread dates from 2001. Has anything changed since the early 2000's to change posters minds?


----------



## lff12

When I joined VHI in my own right in 1997 they were much more lax about waiting periods/gap in cover than they are now.  Now I notice that unless you join via a corporate deal you have to wait up to 5 years to get treatment for existing complaints unless you were insured by somebody else for those 5 years.

I would guess that the real thing that will cripple VHI and the other insureres is people wising up to the fact that they get nothing for years but then suddenly it will start paying for itself once they do start to have health problems - so many people I know put off joining at all until their 40s or 50s.

Now I reckon the insurers are going to get tough on this, and start introducing waiting periods for new illnesses for new joiners, which will stop this.

While it might seem very tempting to not pay health insurance, the cost of medical inflation is so high that its going to be very expensive indeed in 10 or 15 years - and who knows what the government are going to do to save money?  So I would choose to stay with the insurer, though if I didn't get some or all paid by an employer I have to admit I'd be on the cheapest hospital plan.


----------



## sunrock

*Re: Interesting proposal, but . . .*



> Yeah - that's why I EXPLICITLY mentioned privately insured patients potentially skipping waiting lists... :rolleyes My point was that many people mistakenly assume that private health insurance necessarily buys better medical care and treatment. This is a fallacy. It may buy better accommodation and the ability to skip the queue but everybody is treated the same once inside.


 
thats just the point!
skipping the queue is absolutely crucial
no point getting the same treatment if you can.t get into hospital in the first place
i believe its a good idea to get on a plan _even the cheapest _definetly by 40  so you will in 5 yrs be eligible for all illnesses <talking about the 5 years you have to be insured before eligible....
you can always upgrade your plan later
we seem to be moving towards an american style health service
public health services seem really stretched  _trolleys etc
the gov is loaded  all the tds talk the talk, and yet we have such problems with waiting lists ,beds etc
is the health service deliberately being run down  or is it something else.
anyway its great selling pt for the health insurers


----------

