Insurances - death,care, illness, loss of job,

[rosemary]

It seems like govt are wanting us all to take out insurances to cover many things, like those in this topic heading. Yet when money is tight insurances can sometimes be the 1st thing people stop paying for.
The propaganda spouted which is pitting groups of people against each other is so wrong. I know many times on here we see it stated that we all pay taxes, including those 'out of work'.
As someone in work I would rather pay extra to govt for a guaranteed service, whether it be health, social care. With many insurance companies the small print can mean they dont 'pay out'. Shareholders come before people.

With welfare benefit and NHS changes ahead, plus funding for social care, how are some people going to be able to afford adequate cover?

What are your own worries for the future?

Do you see some positives aspects too in the proposed changes?

[charles47]

Some of us have health conditions that would be excluded from cover. Given my family background of heart problems, stroke and diabetes (the latter of which I definitely have), I'm darn near uninsurable at any reasonable cost.

[Eun]

Just to go on holiday one insurance company quoted us at £2,000 - for 2 weeks!! We don't have life insurance - my hubbie and his family have never believed in it. Probably wouldn't get it anyway because of my health conditions and my son certainly would not get it. We do have home contents cover and car insurance of course but that's all.

Eun

[bowlingbun]

In 2004 I was diagnosed with a potentially fatal condition which required immediate surgery to save my life. MRI scans after the op showed that everything was in order, yet the insurance company wanted £2,000 to insure me for a holiday in Australia. Only about £100 to cover my husband, although they knew nothing about the condition of his body. He died less than a year later from a heart attack at 58, despite doing all the "right" things. I am grateful every day that he took out life insurance when we were first married. It is my personal view that the state should pay for basic "insurance" if we fall ill and cannot work, so that no one falls below the poverty line. In the same way the NHS pays for basic health care, but other options are available. The continued discoveries of genetic conditions, and the development of expensive but successful drugs etc. raise huge moral questions, but I don't have any answers to them. I'm glad that I'm not the one having to choose between one and another.

[Scally]

The insurance industry is a growing threat to human and civil rights at home and abroad: I find it hard to credit that most responsible, sober and alert young drivers are paying thousands of pounds in premiums for the right to drive, just because some young people are reckless and drive badly. It is age discrimination, quite disgraceful.

As we do a lot of travelling, I'm delighted that my son is covered by family travel insurance policies, and always tick the "no pre-existing health conditions" box when we travel. Downs Syndome is a learning disability, he has never needed any form of healthcare since the age of three months, but I know fine well that many people with DS have conditions like Diabetes, heart disease etc. Imagine a future in which these companies have legal access to our DNA and family history, it really beggars belief.

My own parents are still alive, they have a combined age of 180. Needless to say, I can figure the odds of dropping dead myself, and have no life insurance at all, why waste good money on poor odds? I know a few people who have done well from life insurance, and many more who have lost money on it: it is no better than a lottery.

[bowlingbun]

The subject of young drivers is very complex. My eldest son passed his tractor test on his 16th birthday, and then went on to spend the summer between school and his apprenticeship driving large powerful tractors with huge bales of hay around our area, without mishap. To get to college he could only ride a 50cc motorbike - he's 6ft 3in and broad shouldered, he looked silly on it. (I used to ride a road racing bike!) He then restored a Land Rover ready for his 17th birthday. His inusurance cost more than the Landy, but he was far safer in that going to work 18 miles away than on his little motor bike. Some youngsters, especially those in rural areas with no public transport, need to be able to drive. That's one side of the story. The other side of the coin is what happened to me, my life was totally ruined by a young driver. I went from being able to walk 10-15 miles a day to being disabled, and housebound for 5 years, because a young driver lost control of his vehicle, hit mine head on, and ruined my knees. The police told me that if I'd been in my Escort, rather than my late husband's Land Rover, I would have been killed. His punishment? A driver retraining scheme!!!!!!!!!! I made a formal complaint to the police, but they said they have to follow government guidelines. When I lived in Australia, there was a Probationary period after passing a test. P plates had to be worn, drivers were not allowed to go over 40 mph. Any accident, regardless of blame, meant they had to retake their test. I reckon this is a brilliant idea.

[Lazydaisy]

I think that is a terrible idea,"regardless of blame." My daughter was 18 years old, parked in a layby,when a middle-aged female driver coming down the road, lost control and hit my daughter's car,which was then written off. My husband was also in the car, neither were injured thankfully.

[bowlingbun]

I agree in those circumstances, but I think the idea behind it was that every new driver was ultra careful, the P plate encouraged other drivers to be a bit understanding, and the speed limit allowed young drivers to get some experience before going faster. I'll have a look on Google Australia when I get a moment (almost bath time) and find more details when I get a moment.

[Lazydaisy]

I do agree that new drivers should display a sign, I would have appreciated that myself when I passed my test(aged 24).

[Sassy]

What function do these "P" signs actually serve?

I've seen a car clearly displaying said signs get tailgated then the driver abused... their crime? "Driving too slowly for the car behind's liking". The road in itself was an average road out in the middle of nowhere - so the driver had obviously gone out of his/her way to practice his/her driving somewhere where s/he would cause as little disruption as possible to get abuse anyway.

That is just one example of how these new drivers are treated.