Do you have health insurance?

Ubbquittious

jimmy86 wrote: »

Just a point to note, for every year you go above your 35th birthday they add a 2% loading to the premium.. so if you're 40 when you first take out a policy it is an extra 10% and will be for as long as you hold a policy. I think it's to encourage people to take out policies when they are younger.

Ah yes the auld "Lucker". I remember a bunch of happy smiley positive sounding ads appearing on the auld tellybox when health insurance industry lobbyists succeeded in getting our overlords to bring that in.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

But if the scan says you need surgery and the public waiting list is years - that's when you'll appreciate the difference between forking out the odd time and having full cover.

If it's a life-threatening condition you won't wait on a public system for years. If it is for a joint replacement you certainly will. But increasingly, insurance is not fully covering orthopaedic procedures as it seems so many people have them. You have to fork out something like 20% of the cost from your own savings. One option is to go public and then have it done overseas under EU scheme. Also the HSE is increasingly purchasing procedures through the private hospitals. Trying to use one's private insurance in the Beacon now means "competing against" public patients. Therefore I'm inclined to believe insurance is becoming relatively less advantageous compared to what it was some years ago, except by having it you are further funding the overall health provision in this country. Yet I still have it, as I'm way too nervous of giving it up.

meeeeh

I wouldn't be without it. Too many times I heard gp say: 'I really don't want to ask this but do you have insurance...'

Ubbquittious

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If it's a life-threatening condition you won't wait on a public system for years. If it is for a joint replacement you certainly will. But increasingly, insurance is not fully covering orthopaedic procedures as it seems so many people have them. You have to fork out something like 20% of the cost from your own savings. One option is to go public and then have it done overseas under EU scheme. Also the HSE is increasingly purchasing procedures through the private hospitals. Trying to use one's private insurance in the Beacon now means "competing against" public patients. Therefore I'm inclined to believe insurance is becoming relatively less advantageous compared to what it was some years ago, except by having it you are further funding the overall health provision in this country. Yet I still have it, as I'm way too nervous of giving it up.

Youd think if so many people were getting them the cost would go down and they would become more reliable, further driving down costs.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

In the case posted above, a baby needing vital life-saving heart surgery, it would surely be a national scandal if it depended on having private insurance to have it done in a time-scale to enable to save a child's life. I think if this is going on it really needs to be brought to wider attention. It would be disgraceful that if a child in Ireland these days needs to be on private insurance to have its life saved.

Well, that's why I said 'if there's a waiting list...' it was advantageous to have insurance. Obviously emergent threats to life need to be treated quickly, and I certainly hope the situation doesn't occur where there has to be an national outrage over a missed window to save a child.

I think good healthcare should be a right in all countries that can afford it, but in the case of Ireland the system is soaked in money that doesn't translate to the services and that's what needs to be examined and pruned. I'm not sure that'll ever happen.

Antares35

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

We went private for all of our kids. Obviously, I was behind whatever way my partner wanted to “do it”. She knew who she wanted and we were willing to pay for that.

You get a lot more scans and there’s little, to no, waiting around time. I was always reassured it was worth it whenever we’d be passing the waiting room, down in “steerage”, as we headed for the private clinic.

The recovery times on C-Sections are between 3 or 4 days so having your own room is nearly essential. I’m sure it’s fine “on the wards” but we decided that wasn’t for us.

That's interesting. I haven't experienced long waits at all, except the initial booking appointment but that's because you see midwife, consultant, get bloods, BMI, scan etc. It's more that it's a long appointment really, but very little waiting. Always had 12 week scan at NMH, unfortunately had to use their A&E once and couldn't fault it - thankfully all was ok. Anomaly scan at 20-22 weeks and usually a small scan with each midwife appointment too.

Just a point to note and it might not be intentional but your use of phrases like "steerage" and "on the wards" when referring to women availing of public antenatal care comes across a little condescending. Though I appreciate if it was unintended

Listening to Conor Pope on the radio and seeing this thread, I was reminded to go on the HIA comparison tool and it is just a quagmire. I've also applied to a few brokers like Cornmarket as my renewal is coming up in April, like so many public servants of old, whose renewal date falls this time. So far from what I can see, in order to get the cover I really better want (better access to Blackrock & Mater Private) I should be paying about €300 extra to my own insurer VHI.

The cheapest plans are fairly useless if one wants to benefit from more modern and evolving procedures, like robotic surgery which can enable some major surgeries to be done with minimal trauma on an overnight basis.

I have heard that in the main, private hospitals, going forward, have a policy of providing all private rooms to enable better infection control. On two previous admissions I had to be in a private room by virtue of the fact I had become potentially infectious to other patients and had notices put up outside "do not enter without consulting nursing station". I was in a private room in any case. On my last admission to a private hospital I was turfed out of my private room to make way for a patient who was potentially infectious. What I am saying here is that insurance cover did not factor in here.

In 2016 I checked with VHI that I was going to be fully covered for my full colectomy with ileostomy in the Beacon, and they assured me I was indeed entirely covered. A couple of months after discharge I received an additional 4 figure bill from a debt collector, as this was not forget the amount but it was something that took me aback slightly. VHI told me that they were not paying the full ICU bill as this had not been agreed, especially that the ICU Consultant was asking more than they were prepared to pay him. A series of letters/phone calls later the charge was dropped. When advising me my surgery would be covered it seems the necessary ICU admission wasn't considered. Ordinarily an overnight in ICU is needed after such a surgery, I required 3 nights due to finding I had more complicated disease during surgery than anticipated. So even when you think you are fully covered, it is not an absolute guarantee that you are. The moral of the story is to have about €8K in accessible savings to cover such scenarios.

Greyfox

Nope, cant afford it. Luckily its been 15 years since i needed a gp or nurse so that would of been 15 years of paying for nothing.

SEPT 23 1989

It's very confusing

Every policy I look at contains maternity related cover

Why would a 43 year old male need that?

meeeeh

Antares35 wrote: »

That's interesting. I haven't experienced long waits at all, except the initial booking appointment but that's because you see midwife, consultant, get bloods, BMI, scan etc. It's more that it's a long appointment really, but very little waiting. Always had 12 week scan at NMH, unfortunately had to use their A&E once and couldn't fault it - thankfully all was ok. Anomaly scan at 20-22 weeks and usually a small scan with each midwife appointment too.

Just a point to note and it might not be intentional but your use of phrases like "steerage" and "on the wards" when referring to women availing of public antenatal care comes across a little condescending. Though I appreciate if it was unintended

I went private for first and public for second. I got more tests and scans when public. By complete coincidence I also got private room both times. Probably there are significant differences between maternity hospitals and how overcrowded they are but in my opinion private maternity care is very bad value the price. I say that as someone who pays almost 4k per year on family private insurance.

SEPT 23 1989

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It's very confusing

Every policy I look at contains maternity related cover

Why would a 43 year old male need that?

I'm sorry for your burden. My burden is that my insurance covers prostate cancer and epididymitis and many conditions I'm not at risk for but I'm managing to cope with that injustice without too much confusion.

Greyfox

Greyfox wrote: »

Nope, cant afford it. Luckily its been 15 years since i needed a gp or nurse so that would of been 15 years of paying for nothing.

I was virtually "born" into VHI since the 60s, and of course hardly ever had claim from it until my 40s when my colitis went downhill and I got lots of complications. Now of course I could have got this managed entirely on the public system, but for the years 2010 to about 2017 the nature of my condition meant that having privacy most of time was enormously appreciated. Also the food was at least tailored perfectly to my condition in the private; in the public I was given food which was totally unsuitable even after surgery to remedy bowel obstruction. An awful lot of food is wasted in the public (SVUH) as it has to be turned away and you end up half starving for want of something you are actually able to eat. Years of payment for nothing, then a decade of nonstop drain on VHI. It's kind of the way it works. Like all insurance, you hope hot to have to use it.

meeeeh

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It's very confusing

Every policy I look at contains maternity related cover

Why would a 43 year old male need that?

And every policy I have is offering cover for acupuncture. Why would any sane person want that and yet we are still paying for it.

kippy

It is a scam. Let's be honest here. There's absolutely no reason why a health service funded to the tune of 20 billion a year, or maybe less for a relatively healthy population of around 5 million people, a million or so of whome are under 18 should require further funding to provide adequate care for an individual.
However we live in a reality whereby IF you do need to be seen for a scan or explority work or even treatment, particularly when it comes to cancer, having the right insurance is the difference between life and death or extending your life.

Is it right? No..its complete nonsense.
Is it needed? No. Until you need it.
Should we as an electorate demand better? Yes.
Too many people aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing and too many vested interests keep the wheel turning.

Bigbooty

My other half has it and I'll probably join her work policy at some point as it's about 90 euro a month. If anyone does any form of sport it's worth having. You'll never know when you'll need orthopaedic surgery which costs an absolute bomb if you don't have private health insurance. It's a complete money racket but unfortunately we are far off having a decent public healthcare system.

The government could just pay for everyone's healthcare and make the system more efficient through centralisation but we're along way off. But sure that's a different thread.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

I'm sorry for your burden. My burden is that my insurance covers prostate cancer and epididymitis and many conditions I'm not at risk for but I'm managing to cope with that injustice without too much confusion.

Some day we might find ourselves faced with insurance more related to the actual risks of disease we individually face, but this would be a double-edged sword.

Bigbooty

Bigbooty wrote: »

My other half has it and I'll probably join her work policy at some point as it's about 90 euro a month. If anyone does any form of sport it's worth having. You'll never know when you'll need orthopaedic surgery which costs an absolute bomb if you don't have private health insurance. It's a complete money racket but unfortunately we are far off having a decent public healthcare system.

The government could just pay for everyone's healthcare and make the system more efficient through centralisation but we're along way off. But sure that's a different thread.

Watch out about orthopaedic cover. Increasingly the cover for these seems to be getting more limited, especially with more running etc being done and wearing out joints earlier.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Some day we might find ourselves faced with insurance more related to the actual risks of disease we individually face, but this would be a double-edged sword.

I see insurance companies offering DNA tests so that patients can 'live a healthier lifestyle' or to see what they have in common with family members (!) but in reality it's so they can phase in refusing to provide total cover to people who's test shows up risks they don't want the expense of treating.

I will never get a DNA test, once it's out there there is no doubt it's going to be weaponized against customers. They're not going to be using your results to help you get preemptive treatment, it's going to be grounds to refuse you cover.

meeeeh

Orthopaedic insurance is being curtailed because insurers are not allowed to discriminate against older people. They know they are more expensive but also more likely require orthopaedic surgery. It's a well known trick to keep pensioners of their books or getting them to pay for very expensive plans.

kippy

FGR wrote: »

I remember one person in my life questioning why anyone needed health insurance as if something is life threatening then it'll be looked after publicly.

Then he got a pain in his hip about a year later. Onto the public list and is still waiting.

My uncle, who has health insurance; got a similar pain two months afterwards and has had both replaced since.

Moral of the story is that if you get a heart attack you'll be treated just as well with or without health insurance but if it's something that won't kill you overnight then you're going to be waiting.

It's not a fair system but for the sake of €45 a month it's well worth it just in case.

Let me tell you, for €45 a month you are getting a very basic level of cover - you'd be surprised what it DOESN'T cover.

Bigbooty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Watch out about orthopaedic cover. Increasingly the cover for these seems to be getting more limited, especially with more running etc being done and wearing out joints earlier.

Cheers, I'll go through the fine print on hers and decide what do to.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

I see insurance companies offering DNA tests so that patients can 'live a healthier lifestyle' or to see what they have in common with family members (!) but in reality it's so they can phase in refusing to provide total cover to people who's test shows up risks they don't want the expense of treating.

I will never get a DNA test, once it's out there there is no doubt it's going to be weaponized against customers. They're not going to be using your results to help you get preemptive treatment, it's going to be grounds to refuse you cover.

Absolutely no doubt about it. Actually I did get DNA analysed and have discovered so far, that in spite of my creaking door status for past decade or so, that I'm less likely than average to suffer most of the very serious life-shortening stuff. There is decent longevity in the family, but maybe the insurance companies wouldn't like having to fork out the maintenance fees to keep my type going so long! Coming on 60, I'm way past childbearing, but the analysis did reveal I'm a CF carrier, and had I ever born children with another CF carrier, well we all know what happens there. The insurance companies will no doubt very much be wishing to probe what you are likely to get, maybe to load you if you have increased overall risk of certain stuff or refuse to cover conditions for which you have both alleles.

Will_I_Regret

kippy wrote: »

Let me tell you, for €45 a month you are getting a very basic level of cover - you'd be surprised what it DOESN'T cover.

What would you need to be paying per month for a decent policy?

thebronze14

I don't have it and haven't had it bar one year when I started working. Moved to Manchester when I was 28, shortly after developed cancer. Was lucky it happened over there as from being first seen, countless MRIs and scans, ultrasounds, 5 weeks radiotherapy and an operation was all done within six months. Not a hope in hell it would have been that quick in Ireland. Also didn't have to pay a penny. The treatment I got in the Christie was unbelieveable. I didn't really want to move originally but went along with my partners wishes but I feel I got lucky. Nearly 34 now so last chance decision to make regarding insurance before premiums are added but I still can't justify it

Strumms

Had it from 20 to about 34... never nearly needed it. My company paid for 70% of a good plan so it was a no brainer...

A new tosser of a manager came in and scraped it though, well still paid 20%...of the most basic plan. Through carelessness I let it lapse, then in ‘16 i was taken seriously ill, no cover...

Hospital certainly saved my life but subsequently the majority of rehabilitation was paid for privately.... recently got reinsured but at a price but worth it... don’t cover the pre existing condition for x time I can’t remember exactly but worth it.

kippy

Will_I_Regret wrote: »

What would you need to be paying per month for a decent policy?

It would depend completely on the what you'd define as "decent" and of course what illness/issue you had down the line that you needed cover for.
Away you go here:

https://www.hia.ie/comparison-tool/#/
And compare what you think is "decent"

Bigbooty

Bigbooty wrote: »

Cheers, I'll go through the fine print on hers and decide what do to.

I got knee done on shorter leg in 2018, which suffered uneven wear. It was fully covered, but only as a "concession". It's a complete quagmire, but I'm hearing that these times they are getting more reluctant to cover elective orthopaedics. Years ago people who needed new joints were typically in 70s. Nowadays a lot of people do running and sports which are overall really healthy but they do accelerate joint wear, and also people are additionally "better nourished", so joint replacements are happening in younger folk, in the 50s and even sometimes before. Goodness knows what stance they will take in the next decade or two. A state savings bond, available through post office, is probably the best bet for putting aside the extra that is likely to be needed to top up for such surgery. They are secure, not too instantly/thoughtlessly broken into, yet there is not too much hassle either in accessing them, and the tiny bit of current interest is tax free.

Regarding joints, it's always worth looking at newer possibilities of joint tissue regeneration which are available in reputable clinics in likes of Lithuania. After a joint replacement the joint loses a hell of a lot if it's function even if it is no longer as bothersome as it was coming up to pint of surgery.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

Had it from 20 to about 34... never nearly needed it. My company paid for 70% of a good plan so it was a no brainer...

A new tosser of a manager came in and scraped it though, well still paid 20%...of the most basic plan. Through carelessness I let it lapse, then in ‘16 i was taken seriously ill, no cover...

Hospital certainly saved my life but subsequently the majority of rehabilitation was paid for privately.... recently got reinsured but at a price but worth it... don’t cover the pre existing condition for x time I can’t remember exactly but worth it.

Most unexpected/emergency life-threatening stuff is dealt with by major public hospitals, but of course, any physio afterwards, you pay for yourself. If you collapse/can't walk in on your own volition, you automatically get taken by ambulance to a public hospital. In fact you are much better off in a public hospital the scenario of serious illness. Last time I was in a private one, a person in my room suddenly went down with sepsis in the middle of the night and couldn't not be put on a ventilator until the elderly private consultant arrived on duty in the morning. They were all night trying to resuscitate her and all the floor resources were taken up trying to keep the person alive, which they succeeded in doing. It was a very sobering thing to witness as the person had been chatting away normally an hour before becoming ill. Another person in the room was just after major surgery that evening and never got as much as a paracetamol because all resources were deviated from caring for other patients. The floor just wasn't set up for unexpected sepsis which can happen after any pretty ordinary procedure. A public hospital always has better resources to fall back upon.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

It would depend completely on the what you'd define as "decent" and of course what illness/issue you had down the line that you needed cover for.
Away you go here:

https://www.hia.ie/comparison-tool/#/
And compare what you think is "decent"

I always laugh when consumer issues experts or officials from the insurance companies say something like "it depends on what cover you are looking for". The answer would naturally be, it depends on what illness the fates have stored up, it's not exactly a consumer decision. As I said earlier, the tendency for hospitals, especially private, is to make all rooms private and en-suite for infection control; and treatment depends on what treatment technology becomes available in the future and which hospitals then provide it. Years ago it was a simple matter of privacy and relative "luxury" that dictated one's decision to go private, now it's mostly to compete for available treatment.

landofthetree

Funny the amount of people who wont get it yet by March of every year they would probably have spent the equivalent of a decent plan on beer down the pub.