self insuring is always a risky strategy in my opinion…
You might indeed save the premiums and generate a nice little nest-egg but that can disappear in a flash if you are faced with a massive bill - and then what happens if you face another medical emergency?
false economy imo - that’s the actual point of insurance otherwise everyone would be doing it 
5 Likes
Not sure who this was directed at, but we each have our own appetite for risk. I am happy with a 300% hospital policy safe in the knowledge that I can get top quality hospital care should it be needed. And 0% for everything else (apart from ALD which is 100% covered). To date this has cost in the region of €50/year each to cover the non-reimbursable proportion of medical acts. So for us it is foolish to pay more.
If the situation changes we can alter our policy to cover more fairly instantaneously.
So I think quite a lot of people do this, or why would there be hospital only policies!
1 Like
it immediately followed Chris’ post quoting Geof Cox… It’s a quirk of the system over which we have no control but you could always ask James to change the flags in Discourse.
so the comment couldn’t have pointed at you… I’m aware of your hospital only cover (you’ve mentioned it often enough) and since you have insurance, the comment couldn’t have been intended in your direction, could it…
One makes choices throughout life.
Some people go for 3rd party/fire/theft on their vehicles… others go Comprehensive…
it’s a choice…
and with House Insurance… and/or contents of course… some folk don’t bother… and for many it doesn’t matter as they never suffer floods, electrical failure, fire, theft… whatever… just one of those things… you make an informed choice but must be prepared to live with the costs of not having cover… should the worst happen 
@Stella - but for house insurance I understood this was a legal obligation in France, much the same as cars???
don’t get me started on folk who dodge their legal obligations…
EDIT
There are folk who choose to gamble… and, hopefully, their gamble pays off…
Me, I’m a stick-in-the-mud and like to be sure what’s what…
and re House Insurance… I stress the need to keep Insurers aware of the situation re the Property (change of use of some rooms, alterations, etc etc…) so that there is no wriggling…
like that old UK Insurance advert… no-one wants to make a drama out of a crisis
1 Like
unfortunately, there are too many who are prepared to allow a crisis to develop into a drama
1 Like
So I am correct, it is a legal obligation then.
Incredible if folks avoid taking insurance out 
can barely believe it
I thought Stella was talking about not choosing to insure the contents as well as the building. Maybe I am wrong.
Nope, only if you are renting a property when it is obligatory. Owners can choose not to insurance at all, but would be daft not to have basic cover and third party.
1 Like
Very interesting, especially if you consider potential damage to adjoining property. My house is independent, some distance away from the nearest house, but if someone lives in the village joined to neighbours and they somehow cause damage to an adjoining property, I guess that’s where it would get awkward.
Expensive. Or not as the case might be. A neighbour had no interest in insuring her house, which was damaged by a chimney fire. She paid to get it sorted, but in discussion with her about potential for huge bill she shrugged and said well if I haven’t got the money what are people going to do!
I wrote something very much along those lines, Graham, but with additional wittering which made me delete all.
What if the first emergency happens early in the savings routine?
I have one chronic condition - dodgy knee - that might need doing some time soon. And the discussion about eyesight and difficulties driving in twilight/darkness has highlighted [sic] the fact that my car insurance might be in jeopardy if the condition resulted in accident on that account.
I’ve added back €47 p.m. by selling my van [ins] and switching from Orange to Sosh for exactly the same service. That puts me in range of @JaneJones hospital policy. I’d like to hear more about that, Jane, if you would.
Sue you for what you do have and then hand you over to the beak , who bangs you up?
No, put a charge on your house, which they recoupe when you are dead…
That’s not at all fair on third parties who have come off badly.
Yes, this really is the nub of my question.
On a related note (and something that almost made me post in the ‘good things about the the UK’ thread) the NHS is pretty darned exceptional in its concept. Ok, delivery has its issues but as a starting point, I think is beats the French system with its state + top-up solution.
1 Like
Exactly. This is my broader point (hence my remark about the NHS above) We really shouldn’t be drawn into this spreadsheet analysis (cost v benefit) when it comes to our health.
At the risk of being on a roll, we shouldn’t have to. Have to have an attitude to risk that is. I want to pitch up to an A&E (well, I don’t actually but you know what I mean) without worrying about the cost of the room I’m placed in.
(Sorry @JaneJones , I’m not disagreeing with you. Far from it in fact, I’m generally speaking of the same opinion as you, I’m just using your comment as a springboard)
1 Like
If you have the misfortune to end up in A&E and then be admitted, if you haven’t specifically requested a single room then you will not be charged more than the standard daily rate that everyone pays (€20) even if they put you in the honeymoon suite. The French system is actually quite fair.
I am an NHS baby through and through, to the extent that one of the big mental hurdles in moving here was leaving the NHS. And there are pros and cons of both systems, but over time I have come to appreciate the over complex, bureaucratic French system. I have certainly never had such good healthcare since I was a kid.
So I don’t wish to risk going back to the rather flawed NHS. With a concept that worked in 1947 (bless you Nye) but doesn’t work now.
1 Like