The SPD parliamentary group cited survey data from a patients’ rights lobbying group showing that 77% of medically declared cancer survivors face what it called discrimination when taking out private insurance policies.
Well, yes, OK. So there are increased risks, insurance is pricing risks and?
This of course is the disadvantage of an insurance based system.
Ha ! I’d much rather die on a trolley after having my leg sawn off my some random guy with fake papers from University of Karachi. At least it’ll be free.
Well it does depend on whether there is an increased risk i guess and it’s that lack of awareness that’s weird to me. Many cancers are just a probablistic chance on cell reproduction and once extracted risk rapidly diminishes back to average once the procedure is confirmed (not true of course for many that spread and treated systemically). Insurance market does throw up some weird ones. Underpinned houses for example.
At a guess I’d say the underpinned houses problem is that they don’t have enough data so air on the side of caution?
I don’t see why. Subsidence and underpinning were the big thing in London 40 years ago. There must be plenty of data by now, and I don’t see loads of houses falling down around me because… they’ve all been underpinned.
Yeah – before my time I’m told originally it was using unqualified cowboys for the underpinning that caused repeat issues and side effects but once it professionalised the underpinned houses have been rock solid. The London clay area is huge – much greater risk now if it hasn’t been underpinned – especially if it has brick bay windows or is period as the foundations can be non existent under load bearing walls. Oddly again though until recently many underwriters were really bad at looking at the geographic spread of risk they had taken on. Flooding was a great incentive to fix this with some modern data mining!
40 years ago loads of London houses had movement indicators across visible cracks, and there was no shortage of obvious underpinning work going on. The house in which I lived had to be done, and it was, and the work guaranteed (for what that’s worth).
Unlike the modern smartphone-tethered I tend to look around me and notice things when I walk around and it’s been a long while since I last noticed a movement indicator.
I reckon insurance companies quite like the elevated premiums they can charge in subsidence-prone areas and the gouging fuckers are ripe for disruption.
Actually clay is pretty good stuff to build on. It is classed as a rock. The problem will be site preparation. So anything built during the housing boom late C19th early C20th. Most of which is appalling crap. Lot of stuff 50’s & 60’s
Thanks. Shows my lack of knowledge about London 🙂
No loss, BiND.
A lot of the subsidence in North London 50 years ago was due to culverting of streams which led to clay drying out and shrinking. NOT due to the builders (unless you *really* think they should have hired Dr Who to advise their architects).
Recurrence rates vary with the type of cancer, but for all cancers they’re much higher than the general incidence. “Once extracted”, yes ok, but you can’t tell you’re done that.
I had my travel health insurance cancelled because the NHS classes me as high risk for lung cancer because I smoked 43 years ago and I’ve already had cancer.
The irony is that I now get regular lung scans so am less likely to have a sudden
lung serious disease episode whilst abroad, which was their concern.
“Data” from a lobbying group …
The frequency of being a member of the lobbying group is highly correlated with the perception of discrimination – it is slightly remarkable that their survey showed a figure as low as 77%.
To get any *honest* information you need to get a survey an *independent* organisation.
A chocolate teapot is more useful than a bankrupt insurance company.
There is significant competition in the German Life Insurance sector so the higher premium rates for cancer survivors will only reflect the increased risk plus a tiny amount for an increase in the profit margin to reflect the increased risk. Any higher premium would result in a loss of business to a competitor that calculates the appropriate premium more precisely.
The SPD leadership wants a discount on its premium rates that could only be afforded by putting up the premiums for all those who have not survived cancer. I find it difficult that the SPD is as financially illiterate as the Grauniad, so I have to wonder about its motivation.
Yes. I take a similar view regarding banks: would you really want to entrust your saving to a bank that didn’t make a profit?
Depends on your definition of “profit”. I have two or three accounts with the Building Society that has a branch c.400 yards away. One of these is a members-only regular savings account for a maximum of one year that pays a higher rate of interest enabling the members to benefit from any surplus that arose in the year previous to the start of the account.
A bank that made a loss (other than due to Bill Clinton and Gordon Brown) is not where I should choose to deposit my savings.
I should have said that the members account is limited to £50 a month so no-one can swipe an unjustified windfall.
“The SPD parliamentary group ”
Ah yes, a bunch of c*nts who almost certainly called for the unvaccinated to be rounded up and put in camps……