Discussion in 'Seniors' started by heilan_laddie, Oct 18, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
I suspect you are headed for an O2 Thief tag laddie. That is one of the worst posts I have ever seen. The lack of coherent writing is becoming the norm on this site at times but to ally this with the inability to spell, a moronic view of the world and no control of the Caps Lock key!
Do us all a favour fella; change the user name and try again (following an emergency communication course).
Don't be so harsh. I've seen much worse.
They are ultimately a business.
If people are making more claims then the premiums will go up. Otherwise they can't pay out. Like wise the more claims then the more risk you are in.
Nothing wrong with that.
Ref the contract. They have done this in the past. At the start of Granby, lots of lads took out insurance, then dropped it at the end. This meant a lot of cost to PAX to start/stop and pay out the claims. So they brought it in.
I am pretty sure that as late as 2002/3 they had a protection (for them) policy in force.
Again nothing wrong in that.
If you want PAX to continue to cover you, they have to make money. The staff don't work for free and the leccy bill needs paying. So do all the wounded/injured bods claiming.
What do you want them to do? Cut the payments because they can't afford them?
If you don't want to pay, look around for other products that provide similar cover.
Firstly, I do not work for PAX or any associated company. I do however work in the insurance industry, so hopefully can add a little to the frog's post.
1. Rate increase. The insurance industry is as competetive as any other. If PAX had increased their rates without justification, they would lose their business to a competitor.
Sadly, the rate increase is most likely to be due to increased claims (both in number and size). Every one now knows that the probability of being killed or injured on Ops is high - so more buy insurance, and at higher levels.
The Royal Anglian battlegroup has just finished a very hard tour in Helmand. IIRC, 12 deaths and 70+ serious injuries. If we say 20 of the VSI had lost limbs/eyes or were permanently totally disabled, that would mean 32 potential maximum claims. If they had all bought the maximum £100,000 limit, then PAX will have paid out £3.2m for the R Anglian BG alone, without taking minor injuries, the other BGs and Iraq into consideration!
2. Clauses to prevent cancellation. Insurance works on the basis that lots of people contribute a small amount each, but the total of all of those payments is enough to pay for any claims. If the only people buying PAX are those deployed on Ops, then the claims must be paid for by those people only, and the rate would be much higher. Using the R Anglian example above, a battlegroup of approx 1000 people would have to pay £3,200 EACH towards the claims cost alone!
By making people buy pax for longer period, it spreads the cost more evenly and makes it possible for more people to afford it. If you only buy insurance when you think you need it most, you must be prepared to pay more for it.
Sorry for the long post, but I hope it explains some of the reasons which may lie behind the changes.
It's a fair point really. At least they have the b@lls to actually insure us on Ops unlike some other high street monkeys I could mention.
Separate names with a comma.