The biggest scam of all

Is right where you begin. Travel insurance is essentially the business of misleading people into thinking that they might be covered should something happen, at least for policies sold in the UK. We're all familiar with the idea that insurance comes with a big list of terms and conditions, and its always this way. Don't let that trick you into thinking that the terms are reasonable.

So let's consider a case: for my first trip I selected HolidaySafe backpacker travel insurance. With cover extendable up to 18months it seemed perfect, but in reality under the terms I was never actually covered. The problem term: you must be able to show intent to return home, primarily by a booked return flight. This exclusion is common to many backpacker policies, as the policies do not cover people who are emigrating, but what if you are not able to prove your intent to return home? As a backpacker its extremely unlikely that you will want to fix your return flight 18 months away, let alone all the intermediate flights. This leaves you searching for other proofs of intent, which I have had to email at least one company to have clarified. I'm slightly suspicious that this list of proofs does not appear in the terms of the contract, and is provided separately by some insurers. Common alternatives are a university place (if you have one, which could potentially be deferred for over 12 months), a job offer (deferred for 18 months?) a doctors appointment (deferred for 18 months? very unlucky), a Wedding Invite (if you have one, on the list for my latest insurer). None of these matched my first travel, though I am now equipped with both a wedding invite and doctors appointment to satisfy my latest policy.
(Update: I initially suggested proof of intent to return for the HolidaySafe policy was only by a booked return flight, as I inferred from the website and claims form at the time, a useful list of what you will be asked to provide, however HolidaySafe suggest they too accept other forms of proof of intent to return home, and possibly one that would have applied in my case, that is 'holding a UK bank account' see comments).

World nomads are noteworthy for avoiding this term, however this leads me onto my second complaint, weasel terms. If insurance is supposed to be a safety net would you choose one with holes in it. World nomads present UK underwriter doesn't insure trips where motorbikes are the main form of transport. What is the main form of transport? I'd say that by number of kilometres its aircraft but do you want to take the chance that the insurance company says otherwise. That they say it was motorbike because you had hired one for your whole time in town.

Many motorbike terms are understandble, you must wear a helmet and have a UK licence. I'm sure you have heard stories about how easy it is to get a local licence, I can understand that one. But wait, if a passenger, the driver must have a UK license. How many Thai or Indian riders, who are probably more experienced at the roads, have this. How many tourists understand they are not covered to use the registered motorcycle taxis of Bangkok in their fluorescent bibs, or of Goa. Even if their local friend has a spare helmet there is no cover, this small term borders on misleading.

It gets worse. Motorcycle cover of course only covers legal behaviour, but wait, what is legal. Does the fact that there is almost certainly no correct vehicle insurance make any bike hired in India illegal. If you made a mistake at the junction where you crashed you were probably driving illegally. If the country you are in legally requires an international diving permit (really a meaningless translation with a stamp) but has informally decided not to enforce this are you driving legally.

Then there is the question of alcohol. Who on holiday doesn't have a drink in the evening, and by the wording of the contract is then subject to reduced levels of cover. At first this sounds reasonable, until you read about the people accused by their insurer of drinking. Best not to get hit by a car in the evening in a town with a bar, and never have more than one beer. Because who knows what level of alcohol they say is diminished responsibility, the low driving limit might sound like a yardstick in court. As a fairer Australian company said in their FAQ, its relative. But if they pay half of bills which are 10 times what you can pay, you're still up a murky creek.

God forbid you have a disaster on holiday. Insurance policies most definitely do not cover disasters, or terrorism. Why did you buy insurance, well if like me you read the fine print you certainly weren't protecting yourself against the worst. There is a small catch here that sometimes your government will handle repatriation in the case of disasters, but isn't terrorism, something we've been told exists and that our government definitely needs powers to prevent, something you'd want to insure against. This exemption sounds like a joke, but it isn't.

My policy only covers care in state or government hospitals. In some countries government hospitals will refuse foreign patients. The policy covers this case by saying 'be insistent'. I can see how this one resolves, in intense pain the tourist abandons negotiations and arranges the deposit for a private hospital.

But let's say you claim, well, who are you talking to. The sales company is always a reseller for an underwriter. But in an emergency you contact the emergency assistance company, and after the claims company. The claims limitations company deals with the hospital. While I know specialisation yields results I start to become suspicious, is the seller responsible for all stages? This battle, as I have heard it can be, to get an insurer to pay for anything, comes when you will be least able to cope.

This isn't just hypothetical. A British holidaymaker in Turkey broke his neck diving into shallow water. According to his insurer this was reckless, and he wasn't covered. His family and employer were left to try and raise 100,000 GBP for bills and repatriation. Part of me wonders, and what if they failed. Has anyone been left to die through these games. It's worth noting that a reckless term is common, and that a lot of things which seem reasonable at the time could be reckless when told by your insurer. Is the path you are walking on a path or 'an unmarked rocky track on the hills behind your guesthouse'.

So here is the question, what would it take to get an insurance policy that actually insures you against medical expenses and repatriation. Insurers tell you that you should behave as you were uninsured. Here is the problem, it implies they believe people are responsible for accidents. Nobody wants to get hit by a car, I'm quite sure it really hurts without trying it. Has anyone said, you know what, I'll jump in front of that car, what the hell I've got insurance. Does anyone want to be paralysed in 1-4 limbs?

But if we're playing the spin game, insurance companies are preying on the weak, who are less able to determine the extent and therefore value of their cover. I'm one of the weak I've lost money to a company because I missed a term on the contract. (Considering the product then had no value to me). But I'm also a know it all, and I can see the solution. Just as for housing there are standard contracts, a standard insurance contract published by the government as an optional base for companies to follow.

The question is, how much more would real insurance cost. What if you challenge the very idea of having terms and exclusions for the most serious cover. The answer is, probably less than the worst case estimate.  In the united states they have recently had this situation with the creation of a state standard medical insurance. The quotes were lower than expected given that the target market was the previously uninsured. Travel insurance now is ridiculously cheap, which should give you a clue that their paying for anything is legally optional. There is scope for it to rise several fold and still be acceptable, especially given the question: do you want to put family members in the position where they have to choose between selling their home and leaving you to your fate.

For your amusement, my bonus to patient readers is a selection of people who are on my list. Judge for yourself the merits of being 'on the list'.
1. People who review insurance companies based on how easily they took the money without having claimed on the product.
2. The person who gave a positive review to a battery because it 'charged quickly'. A battery is a lot like a bucket, the electricity is water going into it. I have a few 'instant fill' buckets I could sell this guy from a sewing kit.
3. Feminists who use the gender derogatory term 'mansplaining', to categorise and dismiss the unpleasant reactionary opinions of, clearly male, opponents.