Because you're worth it

I'd just like to say a big thank you to the nice people at Aviva Private Health Insurance for believing in me. Their latest letter to me kicks off with a massive complement 'You deserve private medical treatment', it says here. Presumably there are also worthless losers out there who don't deserve private medical treatment, but here, in black and white, on the corporate headed paper of a firm of private health insurance experts, is official confirmation that I'm seen as one of the elect, a worthy member of an exclusive meritocracy. Well done, me!

Admittedly, it would have been nicer to receive a personalised complement, rather than one addressed to 'Dear Sir/Madam', but I still like to think they must think rather highly of me.

Mind you, the further I read on, the less select and exclusive this deal sounds:

In just a few words, we'd like to show how you can benefit from prompt treatment, excellent care and comfortable surroundings. After all, we think that's what everyone deserves if they're unwell - we're sure you agree!

No I bloody well don't! You told me I deserved private medical treatment. Like I was someone special. I had visions of reclining in my exclusive private room with deferential doctors addressing me in respectfully hushed tones, as attentive nurses flitted about, mopping my fevered brow and feeding me grapes. Now, all of a sudden, it's 'everyone' who deserves 'prompt treatment, excellent care and comfortable surroundings'. If 'everyone' deserves what you're selling, how the hell am I supposed to differentiate myself from the valueless mass of paupers, plebs, scroungers, scumbags and scamps who aren't fit to have private medical insurance and deserve only to die in a ditch?

No, that won't do at all. When even private health care providers get sissy-bleeding-heart-liberal notions about what 'everyone deserves when they're unwell' (regardless of ability to pay), we're clearly living the 'nightmare of socialized medicine' that America's Teabaggers have been warning the world about. It looks as if that Jeremy Hunt's* going to have his work cut out in his new job as the National Health Service's dismantler-in-chief.


*Seriously, just when I thought my opinion of Jeremy (cough) Hunt couldn't possible get any lower than it already was, I find out that he thinks homeopathy can make a positive contribution to NHS health care. Git.

________________________________

Update - it's worth reading Ben Goldacre on Hunt. The man who's now health secretary called for the National Health Service to be dismantled back in 2009, showing that he's got just as much of a barely-hidden agenda as he did when he was supposed to be the culture secretary, objectively overseeing media ownership. I already knew he was a homeopathy nut, but Goldacre's concise summary of why this matters should be tattooed, in large, unfriendly letters, on Hunt's forehead as a warning to others:

To be clear, a Health Minister who believes in magic sugar pills is like a Chancellor who believes - literally - in money trees. Or a Transport Minister who believes in perpetual motion. 

I didn't know he was also on the extreme end of the anti-abortion spectrum and has spoken out against hybrid stem cell research, but that hardly bodes well.

Hunt's hardly got his feet under his new desk, but the warning signs couldn't be any more obvious, short of the new appointee responsible for the welfare of the NHS actually turning out to be a skeletal individual in a black cowled robe, carrying an hourglass and a scythe.

Final thought on the passage of the NHS (Monetisation and Dismantling) Bill

Tell David Cameron that if he screws up my beloved NHS I'll come back and bloody haunt him.

Claire Rayner (died 11 October 2010)

The Health and Social Care Bill (passed 20 March 2012)

Doing the right thing?

Somebody drove into my mother's car recently. She had parked outside her local sorting office to pick up a piece of post the postman hadn't been able to deliver. A young driver got into the car which had been parked in front of hers and tried to drive off. Unfortunately, he accidentally put his car into reverse instead of first gear and backed into mum's car.

There were two witnesses, the passenger in mum's car who had been waiting for her to come out of the sorting office and a postman. When mum came out, the young man apologised sheepishly and admitted that he'd made a mistake - apparently he'd just changed cars and hadn't got used to the fact that the reverse gear on his new car was on next to first gear, the gears on his old car having been arranged differently.

Details were exchanged and it seemed like a fairly straightforward case - a fender bender with no injuries, no dispute over liability. Later that day, my mother was surprised by a visit from a representative of the young man's insurers, Quinn Direct. This individual tried to persuade her to authorise Quinn Direct, rather than mum's own insurers to deal with the claim.

Fortunately, mum had already contacted her own insurers and started the insurance ball rolling and didn't sign or commit to anything. I say "fortunately" because Quinn's record when it comes to "third party capture" (the practice of the insurers of the person who caused the accident doorstepping the not-at-fault party and trying to take over the running of the claim from the not-at-fault party's insurers) doesn't inspire confidence:

Kimberley Harrison suffered severe facial injuries when another car crashed head-on with hers in March 2008.

She was surprised - and angry - to receive frequent calls from an agent of the other driver’s insurer the day after she left hospital.

“From the day I got home, the insurance company phoned me and were pressurising me not to take it any further - not to seek legal advice. I was really shocked.

“He was really forceful, like a bully - really trying to push me to close a deal,” she said.

Once she instructed lawyers, Kimberley said the insurance company in question, Quinn Direct, managed to get hold of her medical reports.

“They posed as someone working for my solicitor in order to obtain my medical records. I had no idea insurance companies would behave in that way.”

A whistleblower who used to work for Quinn Direct reinforced the impression of dodgy dealing:

Tommy Scott is a former claims handler for Quinn Direct. He told BBC Radio 4’s Money Box it was his job to “doorstep” third parties, often within hours of the accident.

“My sole job was to capture those clients - to stop them getting independent legal advice, and try to settle direct in their living room,” he said.

Quinn Direct have denied the allegations:

It said its “pro-active” approach is “based on paying fair compensation” quickly, and that third parties “appreciate” the service.

The Association of British Insurers don't appear to think there's anything wrong with the practice:

“It is the right thing for insurers to be doing, rather than requiring claimants to drag them through the courts,” said Justin Jacobs, assistant director of motor insurance at the ABI.

Despite the denials by Quinn and the ABI's "nothing to see here, move along" statement, I wouldn't be happy to see a member of my family, involved in an accident that was somebody else's fault, handing control of the claim over to the insurers of the people who caused the accident. I called the guy from Quinn Direct and told him to refrain from any further contact with my mother, who is proceeding with the claim through her own insurers.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, there could be some general justification for letting the at-fault person's insurers take over the claim. If those insurers were selfless, kindly people, just trying to do the best for everybody involved they could, in principle, settle the claim more quickly and efficiently with lower legal costs without anybody involved - apart from the lawyers- being worse off. But that's a very big "if". And even if you assume that the people doing the doorstepping have the best of intentions, are they any good? My admittedly unscientific on-line research into what people say about Quinn Direct's claims service has turned up quite a few disgruntled comments. The most telling comment about the not-so-mighty Quinn compared them to the budget airline Ryanair - cheap and not very cheerful. Why would anyone want to have their claim handled by a company acting for the other party in their insurance claim, a company who don't even seem to have much of a reputation for handling their own claims well?

Doorstepping accident victims and trying to pressure them into handing over control of their claim sounds despicable. If Quinn Direct, the other insurers who do this and the ABI want to convince people that it really is OK, I suggest that they put their case to some independent bodies - say, the Citizen's Advice Bureau or Which? magazine. If the CAB and Which? look at the evidence and come out with press releases agreeing that you'd be best off signing over control of your insurance claim to the insurers of the guy who just ran into the back of you, then I might just reconsider. Before they get round to writing those press releases, I'll also be interested to hear their views on hell freezing over.