S Times: Soldiers to pay double for death/injury insurance

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by hackle, Nov 4, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Front page of our edition of today's Sunday Times (LINK). (Could equally well go in 'Finance', but it is a news story.)

    "ARRSE-exclusive" comment! - This kind of insurance was a great relief to me and my family one time I found myself heading off at very short notice, and I found myself suddenly uninsurable anywhere else. I kept the cover in force for years after that. But this is a much bigger cost than I ever had to pay and it's too much for servicemen and women to have to pay themselves just for the privilege of going on an operational tour. The increases are also further evidence of the human costs being paid every day in injuries and wounds.

    [edited to correct misleading "health insurance" heading which came from my local print edition of The Sunday Times. Mistake by a sub-editor rather than the paper's Defence Correspondent. It should now be clearer what this is about. D.Y.]
  2. I think that its a bit of a cheek - not the insurance company - the Govt (and I'm NOT getting political here - it wouldn't matter which Party was in power)!

    If a Govt send HMF to any conflict, then they should expect to pick up the tab for deaths and injuries. Personal Insurance should be used to cover other circumstances e.g. RTA, disease etc.
  3. Its good to see BAFF taking its head out of its ARRSE to get this "ARRSE-exclusive" comment!" does this mean that BAFF, are now going to look at the way PAX has rip off Vulnerable Veteran's in the past. Or are you still going to sit on the side lines until one of the other Ex Forces Charity's does the foot work.
  4. Hi 'themonsstar'. Presumably a reference to the anonymous "someone" who "requested BAFF help" with an unspecified personal problem and "didnt get it"? The "complaint" was investigated, in so far it it could be having only been stated on 'ARRSE'. BAFF wishes no embarrassment to the anonymous ex-member, who is very welcome to contact me or one of our "troubleshooters" if that would be in any way helpful. Best wishes.

  5. Sorry Hackle you have lost me, Are you saying that I'm the anonymous one, because you & I now this is arrse.

    Is this how it starts, with you trying to rubbish my name, I've always been up-front about PAX and the way it as treated me. So please donot allude to me being the anonymous one.

    And remember I am still a member of BAFF, until my membership runs out.
  6. On a bit of a tangent....

    This may be the only way REAL casualty figures get an airing. As the MOD are less the forthcoming

    Someone records them, pity its only for financial reasons

    Is there any ways to access pax/other insurance stats
  7. Reading this article today, I thought that it was probably a good idea for soldiers to have this insurance. However, I think it scandelous that the MOD isn't paying all the premiums as part of their responsibility to their employees
  8. I've corrected the heading of this thread, which misleadingly referred to "health insurance". This came from my local print edition of the Sunday Times; sub-editor's error, not the journalist's; for anyone not already aware of the PAX product I hope the subject is now clearer.
  9. The actual premium rise is 30% or so-I believe Pax have held off raising it for some years, but commercial pressure has forced them into this. The times is being slightly devious-comparing the lowest 6 month rate with the full family cover for a year. They are journos after all. Support the BAFF message fully
  10. Skimmed the article but thought it seemed quite well written on first glance. I was mpressed with the 15 comments. Everyone of them supportive of the forces (although that could be down to biased efiting I suppose).
  11. devexwarrior. You've missed the point. at present you can take the insurance out for jus the six-months of your tour, proposal is to force people to take it out for a year at a minimum.
  12. Is that really the point micksmith? I am more concerned that it is deemed necessary for service personel to pay their own injury/death insurance for operational deployments. How does that square with "the covenant"?
  13. I am waiting for the anonymous MOD spokesperson (someone like "DivisionHeadQuarters") to state something along the lines of:

    I`m sure something along these lines will surface shortly.

    Am I cynical :evil:
  14. You are of course right about the point of the article perturbed. The point devexwarrior was missing was on the scale of the increase. It's all explained in the document.
  15. This is slightly off thread so apologies, but a question.

    I have an idea it used to be the case that the estates of members of HM Forces killed in action were free of inheritance tax.

    Does anyone know whether that was indeed the case and if it did, does it apply now?

    If it does still apply, how is “action” defined?

    Finally, it seems a bit rich that whilst anyone can get insurance cover for a specified period of business or holiday travel - a couple of weeks say - HM Forces are likely to be forced to pay for a minimum of a year regardless.