Health Insurance "Cost of claims for older people 10 times that of claims for younger people

110quests said:
The motivation in taking out health ins when young is for cover in case health problems occur. Of course it's bad value if you don't need to claim, but when a young family member becomes ill it certainly is great value.
Click to expand...

But from the outset, it is bad value. It's all about probability. You can expect to claim €300 a year, but it will cost you around €1,000. Put the €1,000 in a savings account instead. After 10 years, you will probably have €10,000. If you have an urgent problem, it will be dealt with promptly by the health service. If you have a non-urgent problem, pay for it out of the €10,000 or wait on the public lists.

If your house goes on fire, you can't insure it afterwards.
But if you are diagnosed with diabetes, you can take out gold plated health insurance. After 5 years, you will be covered.

Brendan
 
Putting 1000e in a savings a/c for health purposes would yield 20,000e after 20 yrs. An inpatient stay with all the diagnoses, tests, consultants, pathology etc would scarcely leave sufficient for an eminent surgeon to even raise a scalpel.!

If you are diagnosed with eg diabetes, 5 yrs is along time to wait for cover.....That's why it is safer to have cover in place from the outset....the value of having it is not the cost or otherwise but the reassurance....
 
Brendan Burgess said:
If you have an urgent problem, it will be dealt with promptly by the health service. If you have a non-urgent problem, pay for it out of the €10,000 or wait on the public lists.
Click to expand...
It's the issues between these two where the problems arise and that's where people are willing to pay for peace of mind. What if it's a problem that seems non-urgent to the HSE but has become a big, life-threatening problem by the time you are seen? And what if you yourself think it's a bigger problem and you spend the waiting time worried sick? You can't just take yourself for a private scan/diagnosis and then leapfrog into the public system. Strictly speaking, if you start 'private' having paid to be diagnosed, that's where you should stay.
And you're assuming you'll have no problems for 10 years and have a war chest built up - what happens if your issue arises after 3 months of saving?
Given the state of our health system and issues with waiting lists, a lot of people aren't willing to play the probability odds.
 

Brendan,

What I mean is that a young person is investing in the fact that there will be a private health insurance service available to them when they are old.
 
By Brendan's rational isn't ALL insurance bad value?

On average you will never get more out than you pay in.'c as claims come out of premiums paid and insurance companies have administrator costs, wages to pay, tax to pay... etc. out of those same premiums collected.

So I would say health insurance for younger people is "less value for money" than for older people rather than the blanket statement of "bad value".

To me insurance (of any type) is always a product that should be thought of as protecting against unlikely scenarios rather than something you buy under the assumption you will claim.
 
Last edited:
orka said:
You can't just take yourself for a private scan/diagnosis and then leapfrog into the public system.
Click to expand...

Hi orka

That's certainly an important point.

I knew that if you chose to be treated as a private patient of a consultant in a public hospital that the hospital was required to levy various charges on you (in addition to the costs of your consultant obviously) but I wasn't aware that you couldn't get an initial diagnosis privately and then treatment as a public patient. Could you direct me to the relevant rules?
 
Sarenco, it is possible to have scans, x rays done privately (covered by insurance) having been recommended by public consultant in out patient and then continue with public outpatient treatment on foot of private diagnosis. The waiting period for said treatment would probably decide whether private/public treatment is chosen.

In recent times for some conditions there is little difference in waiting times.!
 

So are we saying that it is possible to get an initial diagnosis privately and then choose to be treated within the public system? Is the advantage of being diagnosed privately that you are likely to see a consultant more quickly but there is little difference in the waiting times for treatment for some conditions?
 
Scene: GP refers to PUBLIC outpatient consultant who needs scan, x rays. These are acquired privately as can be done sooner, then back to public consultant who continues with necessary procedure. It may not be possible to do this with many/all conditions.

If the initial consultation is with a PRIVATE consultant then all subsequent diagnoses /treatments seem to be private. The waiting times to see a private consultant seem to be longer than previously but once seen the situation moves along at a better pace, but for some conditions waiting times for treatment seem to have narrowed between public/private. The waiting times for Orthopaedic in the public system seem to be extremely long, however.

The bottom line is that it depends on what the health problem is. If it is a common one in the populace there are delays everywhere. But if it's an emergency and through A&E then you get in the system anyway.
 
I doubt there are any rules articulated anywhere - not least because there would be major grey areas - no consultant is going to send someone back to a public queue if they discover a life-threatening condition during a 'paid-for-by-a-non-insured-person' consultation. For less serious things, you could get lucky and skip the public queue but it's not guaranteed. This was previously discussed on AAM:
 
Thank you both for the clarifications - this certainly seems to be a very murky area.

In the context of the topic under discussion on this thread, I'm not really sure where it leaves us! Waiting times for orthopaedic surgery are presumably less of an issue for younger people and I would guess most life threatening conditions would constitute an emergency and could be treated as such under the public system.
 

True. It is different to the fire example though - the government will never rebuild your house. But they will treat you for any illness you get, to a standard every bit as high as those who pay for insurance, with the possibility of delay.

The real problem with this is - why do we only community rate insurance when it favours the old? Young people can justifiably tell the aged to take a hike - I'll subsidise your health insurance when you subsidise my motor insurance. It's a scheme dreamt up by a gerontocracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register