Hurricane Season 2004--please read

(Jan) wrote in message . com...
(Reef Fish) wrote in message . com...
(Jan) wrote in message om...

imo, medical problems are generally the main issue. So if I have an
accident in the Caribbean and need to go to Miami or similar, it'd be
more than a few holidays' insurance to equal the amount I'd pay for
treatment.

Good point to consider on two counts:

1. This has little or nothing to do with Trip Cancellation policies,
such as trips cancelled because of hurricanes, e.g.

yes, I'll be checking out hurricane type cancellations in a couple of
weeks. But I was saying I get insurance especially for the medical
coverage. All those I have bought do cover a variety of cancellation
reasons, but nowadays NOT all things to do with terrorism.

Jan, when I posted my comments, I did notice your ".au" ISP and that
you are probably in Australia, but my comments apply anyway.

In point 1, I was responding exactly to your point that you were
interested in MEDICAL coverage rather than trip cancellation. My
point is that you CAN get a MEDICAL travel insurance that does not
contain any "trip cancellation" insurance.

In your haste to make unwarranted inference about Americans (those
in the USA), I don't see your point about "NOT all things to do
with terrorism" when nobody mentioned anything about terrorism,
only insurance against HURRICANES. I suppose that's not the kind
of terrorism you were referring to.



2. This can be just a secondary Travel insurance to cover MEDICAL
expenses outside of the USA that is not covered by your primary
medical insurance. It covers domestic travel as well.

I don't live in the US. My home coverage (paid with my taxes, I don't
have private cover) doesn't cover me for anything to do with the US or
a lot of other places.

Do I detect a bit of gratuitous USA-bashing?


The policy you quote below is pretty awful
compared to the ones I buy in Australia,

Perhaps. For for a MEDICAL and EVALUATION coverage that covers ALL
trips within a year (not just one single trip), I thought some of the
readers in this group, if not you, might be interested.


That trip I
mentioned before was one I had to have scuba diving & emergency
evacuation coverage, and it was hard to find.

You didn't mention before that you are a scuba diver concerned with
scuba diving and emergency avacuation coverage. It you had, I would
have given you more details about DAN, as I am doing now.

Have you heard of DAN (Divers Alert Network) insurance for scuba
divers?
Have you heard of IDAN (International
DAN)?http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/ab...ernational.asp

"That trip I mentioned before" was this one, wasn't it?:

Jan imo, medical problems are generally the main issue. So if I
Jan have an accident in the Caribbean and need to go to Miami or
Jan similar, it'd be more than a few holidays' insurance to equal
Jan the amount I'd pay for treatment

DAN or its IDAN affiliate insurance would have covered you.

* DAN South East Asia Pacific (SEAP): Regions of coverage include
* Australia, New Zealand, South Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia,
* India, China, Taiwan, and Korea.


Most didn't cover
those. The one I got did cover, but I had to fight from the word go
to get them to spend money - and it was an American company.

What American company? Is it possible that you were so pre-occupied
with your anti-American sentiments that you overlooked the very
American company (and its INTERNATIONAL affiliates) ?

-- Bob.



Here's an Actual policy that may suit your needs (DISCLAIMER: I am
NOT selling this or any other insurance nor have any business
affiliation with the company, directly or indirectly!!)

Access America BASIC Annual Travel Protection

Benefits and maximum coverage amounts PER INDIVIDUAL:

Medical Expense Coverage $ 10,000
Medical Transportation $ 25,000
Travel Accident Insurance $ 25,000
Accidemt Death Insurance $100.000

Total package price: $124.
For details, call 1-866-455-6110.

For scuba divers who carry the DAN (Divers Alert Network) insurance,
for diving related accidents and medical costs throughout the world,
Access America's Emergency Evacuation costs used to be part of the
DAN insurance benefits. No longer.


-- Bob.

"Greg Mossman" wrote in message ...
"Reef Fish" wrote in message
om...

They were taking sucker bets in SHIPPING insurance.

What's your point, Greg?

Really?

This is what Chris said:

I recently purchased a $400 open box camera from Best Buy for $100 and had
the camera insured for about $10. If it breaks, they'll probably give me
a
brand new one (comparable or better), so it was well worth the risk (I've
actually thought about breaking it on purpose :-).

"Open box" and Best Buy (instead of bestbuy.com) imply that Chris was
shopping at the physical retail outlet, shipping not necessary.

If that's the case, then I gladly stand corrected.

I was responding to Dr. Yak's post, and the inexpensive purchase price
of $100 on a $400 value camera led me to assume (incorrectly) that it
purchased from some mail-order/clearance center and the $10 insurance
was for the SHIPPING.

There was no mention of any extended warranty nor that $10 was required
to purchase an insurance on the camera itself.

In any event, I made it clear that I was talking about SHIPPING insurance.


The obvious
implication is that the $10 was "insurance" in the form of an extended
warranty, the sort that Best Buy and other electronic big-box stores push on
their customers at every single purchase.

But since you're a betting man, let's bet. I'll put $100 against your $10
that my interpretation of Chris's statement is the correct one. Care to
wager?

No need on two accounts.

1. I don't make any public bet unless I am 100% sure to win.

2. In this case, I believe I made the incorrect assumption about the
$10 being the SHIPPING insurance cost. It's no big deal to simply
say, "I stand corrected" -- as I always do when I am corrected on
something I definitely or probably erred.

-- Bob.

In article ,
"Jess Englewood" writes:

Doesn't matter what a person is spending, it matters why they are spending
it. And if a few hundred for one trip, or a few thousand over several years
of trips makes sense to *them*, then that, rather than what somebody else
with a different perspective tells you to do, is "PRUDENT".

So it is "PRUDENT" to do something objectively irrational...

Well, it is certainly "IMPRUDENT" to argue against that!

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
-- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

In article ,
(Jan) writes:

Another angle is for those travelling from faraway - I've got a
feeling I read sometime back we have to have insurance for the US -
purely from the medical angle. That's why I take it out, same with
most countries, any kind of medical bill could wipe me out, or at
least seriously damage my tight budget. As I'm getting insurance for
that main expense, I go along with the lesser ones such as emergencies
and baggage.

This is an excellent point. Your health insurance may not cover medical
expenses outside the USA, and probably does NOT cover the cost of
medical support durring transportation home. It *IS* prudent to
obtain such insurance. I carry it on an annual basis as part of
my SCUBA diving coverate. However this is NOT trip insurance -- even
if the two may be groupted together.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
-- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

In article ,
Rosalie B. writes:

That's one of the reasons that I object to the mandatory insurance.
We have to insure all our cars regardless of their open market value
to the same amount, and when we have an accident, they will only pay
the blue book value or something close to it. I had an uninsured
motorist hit me, and total an old but in perfect condition nicely
running car, and they would only give me $500 for it. I could not
replace the car for that amount.

(1) The insurance required by low is LIABILITY insurance;
You are talking about COLLISION insurance. Two very different
things, even if they are often combined in the same policy.

(1) You get what you pay for. You bought insurance that covered the
book value of your car. You could have purahces "agreed value" insurance
that would cover for any reasonable amount that you and the insurance
company agreed on. Of course, you would pay more for such coverage.

For a car with a book value of less than $1000 or so, you should
consider dropping the collision coverate.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
-- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

"Reef Fish" wrote in message
om...

1. I don't make any public bet unless I am 100% sure to win.

You can bet I certainly wouldn't make a 10-1 public bet unless I were
certain to win, but then again, even with that certainty, I'm much more
likely to risk $100 than $1,000,000. As the stakes go up, 'certainty'
becomes less sure and self-doubt creeps in.

2. In this case, I believe I made the incorrect assumption about the
$10 being the SHIPPING insurance cost. It's no big deal to simply
say, "I stand corrected" -- as I always do when I am corrected on
something I definitely or probably erred.

And it's always a joy to hear you utter those words, especially in response
to me. Meet me in Guayaquil next Wednesday night and I'll buy you a virgin
cocktail of your choice to make up for my insolent behavior.

"Greg Mossman" wrote in message ...
"Reef Fish" wrote in message
m...

Furthermore, the William Boyd in question is ", not
hoppy. How do you know they are the same WIlliam Boyd?

How many William Boyds do you believe post to newsgroups from cowboy.net?

I can hear even Judge Wapner laughing at you now!!

You question is entirely irrelevant and inappropriate. Let me repeat
for you: the William Boyd in question is ".


If you're going to nitpick, and argue that " is the
same poster, then (1) the burden of proof is on YOU; (2) How do you
know how many relatives or vietnam war veteran friends this
has, had posted under under
the name William Boyd but is not the William Boyd of ?

If you want to continue wasting everyone's time, then go used the
minutes you SHOULD have spent in the first place, to argue that
your " was the person who posted the article in
question, under ".



Even if they WERE the same (I was questioning cowboy BILL of
's experience about the "cruise INDUSTRY" based
on his single anecdotal account which he generalized to indict the
entire cruise INDUSTRY, and the fact that he only posted ONCE,
up to that time (May 20, 2004), through cross-posting with
rec.travel.caribbean)), you should have found that your
had also a LIFE TIME posting history of ONE day
in rec.travel.cruises, (February 5. 2004).

Once is enough to prove "never" wrong.

You missed the MAIN point about the inexperience of
about the cruise INDUSTRY. Then you missed the relevance that your
was equally inexperienced.

Who said they "never" posted in rec.travel.cruises? Cite!

I said your sloppy-reference-boy " never posted in
any newsgroup, and I meant literally , which was
what made me correctly suspect that it was your typo. I stand by that!

Why don't you find us ONE post by before coming
back for more of your nitpick?


Greg, if I ever face YOU in court, I won't need to hire any lawyer.
I would eat you up alive, myself. :-))) Check out gooogles and
see if you can find when was the last time I said sometihng like that
to you, in your newbie days in rec.scuba. :-)

You haven't grown up much, in terms of understanding, logic, law,
or and evidence of proof.

-- Bob.

(Charlie Hammond) wrote:

In article ,
Rosalie B. writes:

That's one of the reasons that I object to the mandatory insurance.
We have to insure all our cars regardless of their open market value
to the same amount, and when we have an accident, they will only pay
the blue book value or something close to it. I had an uninsured
motorist hit me, and total an old but in perfect condition nicely
running car, and they would only give me $500 for it. I could not
replace the car for that amount.

(1) The insurance required by low is LIABILITY insurance;
You are talking about COLLISION insurance. Two very different
things, even if they are often combined in the same policy.

NO I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT COLLISION INSURANCE. I do not have
collision insurance. It would be silly for me to have collision on
such old cars.

What I am objecting to is the mandatory uninsured motorist insurance,
which is **supposed** to reimburse me if the person that hits me has
no insurance if I understand it properly. We are required to have
that insurance for a certain amount.

(1) You get what you pay for. You bought insurance that covered the
book value of your car. You could have purahces "agreed value" insurance
that would cover for any reasonable amount that you and the insurance
company agreed on. Of course, you would pay more for such coverage.

I didn't buy insurance that covered the book value of the car. I
can't purchase uninsured motorist for agreed value. I have to buy a
minimum amount which I think is about $100,000.


For a car with a book value of less than $1000 or so, you should
consider dropping the collision coverate.

I repeat - I DO NOT HAVE COLLISION INSURANCE.

grandma Rosalie

"Greg Mossman" wrote in message
...

And it's always a joy to hear you utter those words, especially in
response
to me. Meet me in Guayaquil next Wednesday night and I'll buy you a
virgin
cocktail of your choice to make up for my insolent behavior.


By any chance if you are staying at the Hilton in Guayaquil?

"Charlie Hammond" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jess Englewood" writes:

Doesn't matter what a person is spending, it matters why they are
spending
it. And if a few hundred for one trip, or a few thousand over several
years
of trips makes sense to *them*, then that, rather than what somebody else
with a different perspective tells you to do, is "PRUDENT".

So it is "PRUDENT" to do something objectively irrational...

There's nothing stated in this thread by any participants that is/was
**objectively** irrational.

Well, it is certainly "IMPRUDENT" to argue against that!

You have tried so hard to turn a cute phrase Charlie, what a shame it is
that your inane premise rendered that effort impotent.