Cancer survivors want the right to be forgotten when it comes to mortgages and life insurance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, interesting. It makes the point that the question of which risks we wish to pool accross the entire community is ultimately a societal choice. If we tell insurers to quote without reference to gender, or without reference to specified medical issues, they can do that. It's just a question of us deciding which risks we want to pool.
 
Are mortgage protection policies priced without reference to the policyholder's gender?

(Genuine question. I don't know the answer to this.)
Click to expand...

Any personally paid protection policy is gender neutral. If it is paid for by a company, they can discriminate on gender. Company paid income protection being the obvious example.
 
ClubMan said:
That's effectively what we do with community rating in health insurance and why I, as a late 50s male, pay for maternity cover that I'm certain not to benefit from.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's not a fundamentally new thing. After all, late 50s females have always paid for maternity cover that they are certain not to benefit from.
 
I'm against community rated health insurance. I do think that we should community rate it based on age but not lifestyle. Maybe higher health insurance costs due to lifestyle would remove some of the moral hazard that our healthcare system and community rated health insurance creates and encourage more people to take better care of themselves.

I'm also against the current proposal even though it would benefit me greatly (currently my other half has breast cancer and can't get on the mortgage).

Insurance is based on risk. If you're a higher risk you should pay a higher premium. If we community rate mortgage insurance and health insurance why don't we community rate car insurance? For most people a car is more of an essential than home ownership.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
But to suggest that 5 years after someone gets the all clear, that they should be able to rock up to an insurance company and have a right to take out a €2m policy on the same terms as everyone else is mad.
Click to expand...

Hi Brendan,

Maybe I am misconstruing your view, but I really do not understand the point of treating people who get an all-clear as somehow less entitled if, after 5yrs of that all-clear, they apply for a mortgage?

In my limited knowledge and experience, a 5yr all-clear is pretty resolute outcome for cancer. Considering the medical progress of treatments against cancer, former cancer patients are generally more likely to continue testing on a regular basis to determine any prospect of a return.

It is non-diagnosed patients, where cancer is lurking undetected, that pose highest $$$ risk for insurance companies.
 
Sister Sara said:
It is non-diagnosed patients, where cancer is lurking undetected, that pose highest $$$ risk for insurance companies
Click to expand...

That is interesting but I am not quite following. Is it that say a 43 years old who has had cancer treatment but has been clear and healthy for 5 years has a lower mortality risk than a similar healthy 43 year old who has never had cancer? All other things being equal.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Insurance companies don't just make stuff up. They have long-term mortality tables which tell them how to assess risk.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Which is why the 5yr all-clear diagnosis represents an opportunity to obtain a mortgage on equal terms as everyone else and is not mad at all.
 

I cannot say for certain but I would assume given the long-term mortality tables that tell insurance companies how to assess risk that the answer is probably closer to yes, than no.
 
Sister Sara said:
I cannot say for certain but I would assume given the long-term mortality tables that tell insurance companies how to assess risk that the answer is probably closer to yes, than no.
Click to expand...

So the answer is "probably closer to yes than no" because you assume it to be so?
 
Ruffian said:
So the answer is "probably closer to yes than no" because you assume it to be so?
Click to expand...
ClubMan said:
Hmmmm....
Click to expand...

Yes. I am offering an opinion based on the information in front of me. I'm not an expert. I would suggest that a cancer survivor who has had 5yrs all year probably has an equitable mortality rate than someone who has never had cancer.

I do not know for certain, but considering the long-term mortality tables that tell insurance companies how to assess risk I would suggest that is not an unreasonable opinion.

I'm happy to accept I'm wrong based on factual knowledge and expertise.
 
Sister Sara said:
I do not know for certain, but considering the long-term mortality tables that tell insurance companies how to assess risk I would suggest that is not an unreasonable opinion
Click to expand...
In what way are you "considering the long-term mortality tables that tell insurance companies how to assess risk"?
 
Ruffian said:
In what way are you "considering the long-term mortality tables that tell insurance companies how to assess risk"?
Click to expand...

Hi Ruffian, I'm not sure I understand your question.

Insurance companies have long-term mortality tables that tell insurance companies how to assess risk. Yes? No?

I am making an assumption, purely opinion based, that after 5yrs of all clear diagnosis from a cancer diagnosis and treatment that it is not unreasonable to think that the prospect of the same cancer diagnosis returning may have the same probability of it being diagnosed in someone who has never been diagnosed before.

I could of course be incorrect but until shown to be, I don't think my opinion is unreasonable.
 
Adverse selection is key to understanding the insurance market.

If one insurer announces that they will accept cancer survivors, then this insurer will get all the cancer survivors.

If this is imposed by regulation, then cancer survivors will be distributed evenly between insurers.

I don’t think insurers care all that much once the same disadvantage is applied to their competitors
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Why do you think that insurance companies don't insure people who are 5 years free of cancer except in very specific circumstances?
Click to expand...

Hi Brendan, I actually did not know that insurance companies don't insure people who are 5yrs free of cancer. I can understand not insuring with a cancer diagnosis and undergoing treatment, but 5yrs clear, that seems a bit harsh to me. As I understand, 1 in 3 of us will have a cancer diagnosis at some point in our lives.

It is of course a complex matter, with survival rates varying between different types of cancer. The critical element as I see it is the 5yr clear diagnosis.

That is 5yrs of repeated screening and repeated clearance. It sounds pretty resolute in my opinion. Compare to someone who has never been screened for cancer yet can apply for insurance on a mortgage, perhaps unwittingly carrying a cancer tumor that has yet to be detected.

I think @Dr Strangelove sums it up well.
Dr Strangelove said:
If this is imposed by regulation, then cancer survivors will be distributed evenly between insurers.

I don’t think insurers care all that much once the same disadvantage is applied to their competitors
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register