holiday abroad without insurance

"Andy Pandy" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Do you have a difficulty with the implications inherent in "first language"?

It implies that some of them might speak another language as well. It certainly doesn't imply all do. In the context of the paragraph he replied to, his point would seem to be that this other language is the "agreed common language" for those towns and that English isn't necessary.

Exactly - if you have your own insurance this could reduce or eliminate the state "insurance" (ie benefits).

How do you think they'd be able to justify that, based on actual experience of that age group?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Do you also wonder what people in France do, when they need to communicate with people in Germany? Or with the United Nations / NATO / IMF / etc?

No. If two insurance companies agree to take you on (and this is likely to be subject them knowing how much you've already got in case you do over-insure), then you have a contract with both of them and they'll have to pay out. Andy is suggesting that you're paying the state for one insurance so why pay an insurance company for another?

Rob

Obviously some (perhaps many) of them spoke English. But there is a sufficiently large enough number that don't, that everyday business, including with officialdom, is conducted in this other language.

tim

This issue is a bit like foxhuning. One side will never convince the other. But basically, I think the country should try to stand on its own feet rather than rely on state handouts, even if they've paid for them. If everyone tried to do this then we'd need to pay less. Like motor insurance. We all pay extra to put into a pool to pay for those who have been hit by uninsured drivers. If everyone paid their required insurance we'd all pay less.

Rob

Hopefully, a need to actually have a product available will cause some of them to actually work out the appropriate commercial price.

tim

"tim....." wrote

There's no "hopefully" about it... The age discrimination exception for insurance is quite specific, isn't it? It requires any discrimination on the basis of age to be justified by actual differing experience of that age group. So a "commercial price" is *required*...

People in France can talk to the tax man and other government agencies in their own language.

Haven't you noticed the headsets they all wear in these meetings? What do you they're for?

No they don't - they might pay half each, or they might agree who pays. You won't get two full payouts for the same loss unless you commit fraud.

So you don't agree with state pensions, free schools, hospitals, libraries, parks etc?

No, we'd need to pay more. That's the point. There will always be some who need state help, therefore we all forced to put into that pot. By having to put into *another* pot as well (ie insurance) we pay more.

I've often wondered what happens if one policy has an excess and the other one doesn't. Could you be *worse* off than you would be if you only had the excess-free policy?

Not so (and I'm talking about life assurance, which is where we came in, not car insurance or something like that). If both insurers agree to take you on then both will pay if you die. There are thousands of people with more than one insurance policy (me included)

Rob

No, I meant if fewer people tried to claim on the state we'd need to pay less taxes to fund the state system.

Rob

OK, fair enough, but in this case the two insurances we are talking about are "state insurance" and a personal insurance. The "state insurance" could be reduced if you have personal insurance.

Yes, as you say, fair enough.

Rob

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Yep, and people in those US towns mentioned can talk to their local tax man etc in their own language. They only need a different language if they're communicating outside their locality...

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Yep - do you think people in those US towns mentioned, can't use translators in a similar manner, or even translate themselves?