Not the cruise line you want to cruise with

[BNBR]

4 hours ago, pokerpro5 said:

Travel insurance when you had to save for five years to afford this trip:  GOOD DECISION

 

If someone has to save 5 years for a cruise, then they probably shouldn't be spending that money on a cruise. And certainly shouldn't be spending more on insuring the vacation. 

[BNBR]

4 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

So, what? They are a business and they aren't the only business with huge profit margins. I don't pay attention to that, I decide if the business has something to offer me and if they do then I do business with them.

 

If insurance has a big profit margin, that actually means something.  And it's not good for you.  

[sparks1093]

5 hours ago, BNBR said:

 

If insurance has a big profit margin, that actually means something.  And it's not good for you.  

It means that they'll have the assets necessary to cover my claim. Other than that I don't care what kind of money they are making (well, if I were investing in stock then I would).

[ColinIllinois]

8 hours ago, BNBR said:

 

If someone has to save 5 years for a cruise, then they probably shouldn't be spending that money on a cruise. And certainly shouldn't be spending more on insuring the vacation. 

 

If someone has worked for five years without a vacation and saved their hard earned money, they most likely deserve that cruise.

[Newleno]

10 hours ago, BNBR said:

 

If someone has to save 5 years for a cruise, then they probably shouldn't be spending that money on a cruise. And certainly shouldn't be spending more on insuring the vacation. 

I found this to be very statement to be very disheartening. 

[pieshops]

15 hours ago, pokerpro5 said:

 

You can spend your money how you want.  I have no objection to that.

 

I just want people to be honest with themselves.  When I go to Disneyland, the ticket is quite expensive, as is their parking and food.  I know they are making a huge profit off of me.  But I say, "I enjoy going here sometimes, so it's still worth the money."

 

However,  insurance isn't money spent for pleasure.  You're making a small investment to protect a bigger (but not large overall) investment.  It's a financial decision.

 

You should always make financial decisions when fully informed, and based upon the right thing to do for your current situation.

 

Examples:

 

Travel insurance when your health has been questionable lately:  GOOD DECISION

 

Travel insurance when you had to save for five years to afford this trip:  GOOD DECISION

 

Travel insurance because it simply bothers you to lose $10,000 you spent on your trip:  BAD DECISION

absolutly, but then you have no right to complain about the "heartless" big bad company when you cancel and dont get any money back.  This whole complain until you shame them into paying is crazy 

[BNBR]

3 minutes ago, Newleno said:

I found this to be very statement to be very disheartening. 

 

I'm sorry you feel that way.  It was written within the context of another statement by another poster:  "You should always make financial decisions when fully informed, and based upon the right thing to do for your current situation."

 

And I pointed out that it seems like going on vacations that you cannot afford is probably not the right thing to do.

[mjkacmom]

3 minutes ago, BNBR said:

 

I'm sorry you feel that way.  It was written within the context of another statement by another poster:  "You should always make financial decisions when fully informed, and based upon the right thing to do for your current situation."

 

And I pointed out that it seems like going on vacations that you cannot afford is probably not the right thing to do.

Just because people had to save for something doesn’t need they can’t afford it. There is a difference between saving for something not really necessary (unlike things like mortgage payments, food, and retirement), and putting themselves in debt. 

[NLH Arizona]

15 minutes ago, Newleno said:

I found this to be very statement to be very disheartening. 

I just took it as the poster really doesn't care about others that are not in his financial situation and shows his character.  I'm lucky that I'm able to travel when I want even in retirement, but have met folks who save forever to take a great vacation.  The first time I went to Africa, we entered a park and there were a pride of lions and one of the ladies started crying.  When I asked her why she was crying, she said that she and her husband saved their lifetime, so that they could go on a dream trip.  BTW, they didn't have enough money for her husband to join her.  That was way back in 1993 and it made me realize how blessed I was.

Edited November 15, 2018 by NLH Arizona

[BNBR]

6 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

Just because people had to save for something doesn’t need they can’t afford it. There is a difference between saving for something not really necessary (unlike things like mortgage payments, food, and retirement), and putting themselves in debt. 

 

I understand.  It's just simply my opinion that if it takes you 5 years to save for a cruise, then you probably cannot afford it.  You could give Uber rides for a few days and pay for a 3 or 4 day cruise.  That's the perspective I have with it.  To need 5 years to come up with the funds implies some serious financial issues for that person, in which case, they probably should not be spending money on a cruise.  This is all theoretical, obviously, we aren't actually talking about anyone here, lol.  

 

I would also point out that this comes from experience.  I still managed to cruise even when I worked at McDonalds, every year, rather easily.  So to need 5 years to save up just immediately strikes me as some serious financial issues.  We aren't talking about massive once in a lifetime trips to Africa. We are talking about a cruise.

 

Anyways.  Hope the OP is having a better day today.

Edited November 15, 2018 by BNBR

[NLH Arizona]

15 minutes ago, BNBR said:

 

 

We aren't talking about massive once in a lifetime trips to Africa. We are talking about a cruise.

 

 

It wasn't a massive once in a lifetime trip to Africa IMHO, it was through the Minnesota Zoo and was very cost effective and cost less than one of my cruises that year.  

[BNBR]

13 minutes ago, NLH Arizona said:

It wasn't a massive once in a lifetime trip to Africa IMHO, it was through the Minnesota Zoo and was very cost effective and cost less than one of my cruises that year.  

 

They saved their entire lifetime to go on a trip that cost less than a cruise, and could only afford for 1 of them to go?  You aren't making a very good case for financial responsibility here.  I get the human aspect, I'm an empathetic person, but you are turning a comment I made about financial responsibility in to some sort of lack of empathy.  I'm sorry you see it that way.  I'm fairly passionate about financial literacy, so I view things maybe a little differently than you.

[NLH Arizona]

16 minutes ago, BNBR said:

 

They saved their entire lifetime to go on a trip that cost less than a cruise, and could only afford for 1 of them to go?  You aren't making a very good case for financial responsibility here.  I get the human aspect, I'm an empathetic person, but you are turning a comment I made about financial responsibility in to some sort of lack of empathy.  I'm sorry you see it that way.  I'm fairly passionate about financial literacy, so I view things maybe a little differently than you.

Some people are not as fortunate as others with regards to making a living.  The couple owned a farm and the wife was a waitress.  They lived in a small town, lived modestly and paid all their bills and I'm sure was just as passionate about their financial responsibilities as you are about yours, because they didn't take out a loan, but saved a little each week to do something they had only dreamed about.  Doesn't sound like any empathy based on your comments, but I guess we see things differently, so we will have to agree to disagree. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by NLH Arizona

[Newleno]

22 minutes ago, BNBR said:

 

They saved their entire lifetime to go on a trip that cost less than a cruise, and could only afford for 1 of them to go?  You aren't making a very good case for financial responsibility here.  I get the human aspect, I'm an empathetic person, but you are turning a comment I made about financial responsibility in to some sort of lack of empathy.  I'm sorry you see it that way.  I'm fairly passionate about financial literacy, so I view things maybe a little differently than you.

it is called sacrifice out of love, "you go this is your dream" true love indeed

[Two Wheels Only]

18 minutes ago, Newleno said:

it is called sacrifice out of love, "you go this is your dream" true love indeed

 

Did the husband buy "zebra scent" perfume for the wife and take out a huge life insurance policy on her? 😈

[Georgia_Peaches]

18 hours ago, Warm Breezes said:

I can tell you from our experience that it was a relief to know when my Grandmother passed away the day before our cruise, that we could cancel that cruise to go home and grieve with our family, and use our insurance to rebook that same cruise the following year.  We took the hit purchasing a cruise.  We paid 5% more to insure 1) we were covered in case of a medical emergency and 2) if we did have to cancel we could still take our vacation at a later date.  As you stated it was not really the loss of money, it was already gone.  It was being able to take that trip that we had saved and paid for...if not at that scheduled time then at a later date.  It was and still is a small price for us to pay for that peace of mind.

 

OP is a prime example of how distressing it can be to have something happen that causes you to cancel without insurance.  He is extremely upset because his funds are gone with nothing to show for it.  I insured that once my funds were gone, I would have something to show for it.  I went home to concentrate on grieving.   He is on cruise critic blaming NCL for not giving him that peace of mind I paid for.  Again I and I believe everyone on here as well as NCL, have empathy for the OP and his wife....but that doesn’t make NCL responsible for the OPs financial decisions.

Very well said...thank you for the perspective.  And I completely agree.

[pokerpro5]

I'm in the middle on this one.

 

I can totally understand wanting to insure a vacation which has taken a long time to save the money to take.  Yes, the money is gone either way after the vacation is over, but in one case you got the experience, and in the other you just wasted the money.  So if you want to insure that, even at a bad rate, I won't fault you.

 

Sadly most people who buy insurance aren't in that boat.  Most are in the camp of, "Wow, losing the $10,000 we spent on this would really suck, if we can't make the trip for some reason!  Better spend the little bit of extra to prevent that!  Okay!  Whew!  I have peace of mind now!"

 

Then they don't realize that, after a lot of trips taken, these same people have wasted more than $10,000 on needless insurance.

 

Not everything in life can be decided my mathematics.  For example, let's say someone gave me a deal where I choose a number between 1 and 1,000,000, and if I select the one the computer already picked, I lose $1,000,000.  Otherwise, I get $2.  This would be a positive expectation bet -- a "great deal" -- but I still wouldn't take it because the risk/reward is terrible (at best I make $2, and while highly unlikely, I can lose $1,000,000!)  However, if the same deal were proposed to me, except it was 1 and 1,000, and I'd either win $2 or lose $1000, I'd do that one all day.

 

Mathematically, trip insurance is a terrible deal.  Circumstantially (if there's a good chance you'll need it), it can be a good deal.  Life circumstantially (the money being spent on the trip is very hard to replace), it can be a reasonable decision.  But usually it's best to skip it.

[StolidCruiser]

6 minutes ago, pokerpro5 said:

I'm in the middle on this one.

 

I can totally understand wanting to insure a vacation which has taken a long time to save the money to take.  Yes, the money is gone either way after the vacation is over, but in one case you got the experience, and in the other you just wasted the money.  So if you want to insure that, even at a bad rate, I won't fault you.

 

Sadly most people who buy insurance aren't in that boat.  Most are in the camp of, "Wow, losing the $10,000 we spent on this would really suck, if we can't make the trip for some reason!  Better spend the little bit of extra to prevent that!  Okay!  Whew!  I have peace of mind now!"

 

Then they don't realize that, after a lot of trips taken, these same people have wasted more than $10,000 on needless insurance.

 

Not everything in life can be decided my mathematics.  For example, let's say someone gave me a deal where I choose a number between 1 and 1,000,000, and if I select the one the computer already picked, I lose $1,000,000.  Otherwise, I get $2.  This would be a positive expectation bet -- a "great deal" -- but I still wouldn't take it because the risk/reward is terrible (at best I make $2, and while highly unlikely, I can lose $1,000,000!)  However, if the same deal were proposed to me, except it was 1 and 1,000, and I'd either win $2 or lose $1000, I'd do that one all day.

 

Mathematically, trip insurance is a terrible deal.  Circumstantially (if there's a good chance you'll need it), it can be a good deal.  Life circumstantially (the money being spent on the trip is very hard to replace), it can be a reasonable decision.  But usually it's best to skip it.

 

It would take approximately 50 trips to have spent $10,000 in premiums to insure about $500,000 in travel costs.

 

I wouldn’t be of the opinion to “skip it” and that “it’s a terrible deal”.  

[richstowe]

8 minutes ago, pokerpro5 said:

Sadly most people who buy insurance aren't in that boat.  Most are in the camp of, "Wow, losing the $10,000 we spent on this would really suck, if we can't make the trip for some reason!  Better spend the little bit of extra to prevent that!  Okay!  Whew!  I have peace of mind now!"

 

Then they don't realize that, after a lot of trips taken, these same people have wasted more than $10,000 on needless insurance.

As Previously posted, I take my chances and self-insure . I do agree with your logic but logic doesn't enter into giving oneself peace of mind . I have discussed this with relatives who always purchase trip insurance . They want and are willing to pay for this peace of mind .

[Doughboy139]

This is OP's first post ever, he joined back on Sunday.....I would ignore this post totally.

 

[tonit964]

14 minutes ago, pokerpro5 said:

 

 

Then they don't realize that, after a lot of trips taken, these same people have wasted more than $10,000 on needless insurance.

 

 

It's only "needless" when you get home and nothing happened to cause you to make a claim. No one can predict if they'll need it or not.

 I'm a firm believer in "better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it".  In the scheme of things, trip insurance is pretty cheap compared to what you could lose.

 

 

[BNBR]

53 minutes ago, tonit964 said:

 

It's only "needless" when you get home and nothing happened to cause you to make a claim. No one can predict if they'll need it or not.

 I'm a firm believer in "better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it".  In the scheme of things, trip insurance is pretty cheap compared to what you could lose.

 

 

 

Sure, but is it better to have and not need money or insurance 🙂

 

We can do the math real quick, it's fun!

 

Checking out insuremytrip.com - $3,000 cruise, costs about $150 for comprehensive insurance (many are much more, but I'll take one of the cheapest ones).  That would be 20 cruises.  Of course, the trip cancellation insurance for $150 only covers half, or $1500, which brings break even down to 10 cruises.  But it gets better.  Let's just assume 1 cruise per year.  If you took that $150 and invested it in an S&P 500 index fund with a typical yearly return of around 10%, it would cover the $1500 your insurance would pay you in just 6 cruises (6 years).  That's just to break even.  Every year your potential loss is less and less, so by year 5, you are really paying $150 to insure... $250.  Now, for you to collect that 50% refund on a trip cancellation claim - you would need to have a serious illness, death, etc.  It's obviously not cancel for any reason.  What are the chances of you canceling one of your first couple of cruises?  Because after the savings from the first couple of cruises, the amount you would lose on a cancellation diminishes so rapidly that you would never even suggest it's worth insuring $500 for $150.

 

Now maybe you cruise twice a year.  And you are spending $300/year.  Let's roll with it.  Maybe over 20 years... That's over $20,000 to insure $1500.  You could afford a bunch of serious illness cancellations with $20,000.

 

Trip cancellation insurance is NOT cheap.  They just make you believe it is.  It's actually very expensive and a terrible purchase.  As another poster said, however, if you are expecting a potential health concern, maybe it's worth it.  But even that is pushing it.

Edited November 15, 2018 by BNBR

[Shidah]

1 hour ago, Doughboy139 said:

This is OP's first post ever, he joined back on Sunday.....I would ignore this post totally.

 

Completely agree.  It is a bogus post.

[Newleno]

10 minutes ago, Shidah said:

Doughboy139 said "This is OP's first post ever, he joined back on Sunday.....I would ignore this post totally."

"Completely agree.  It is a bogus post."

LOL oh my gosh, yeah it looks like both you all are ignoring the post!

[GeezerCouple]

1 hour ago, pokerpro5 said:

I'm in the middle on this one.

 

I can totally understand wanting to insure a vacation which has taken a long time to save the money to take.  Yes, the money is gone either way after the vacation is over, but in one case you got the experience, and in the other you just wasted the money.  So if you want to insure that, even at a bad rate, I won't fault you.

 

Sadly most people who buy insurance aren't in that boat.  Most are in the camp of, "Wow, losing the $10,000 we spent on this would really suck, if we can't make the trip for some reason!  Better spend the little bit of extra to prevent that!  Okay!  Whew!  I have peace of mind now!"

 

Then they don't realize that, after a lot of trips taken, these same people have wasted more than $10,000 on needless insurance.

 

Not everything in life can be decided my mathematics.  For example, let's say someone gave me a deal where I choose a number between 1 and 1,000,000, and if I select the one the computer already picked, I lose $1,000,000.  Otherwise, I get $2.  This would be a positive expectation bet -- a "great deal" -- but I still wouldn't take it because the risk/reward is terrible (at best I make $2, and while highly unlikely, I can lose $1,000,000!)  However, if the same deal were proposed to me, except it was 1 and 1,000, and I'd either win $2 or lose $1000, I'd do that one all day.

 

Mathematically, trip insurance is a terrible deal.  Circumstantially (if there's a good chance you'll need it), it can be a good deal.  Life circumstantially (the money being spent on the trip is very hard to replace), it can be a reasonable decision.  But usually it's best to skip it.

 

[As an aside, many of these posts in this thread would probably be better in the Travel Insurance section of CC, but, "who's counting", as they say...]

 

Fortunately (for us), regular commercial travel insurance doesn't require medical underwriting, or at least not at our semi-advanced ages.

 

We both have "pre-existing conditions", and thank goodness (& THANKS to those on CC who emphasized travel insurance while we were planning our first cruise/first "big trip"), we took out travel insurance before our first cruise/land trip.  At the time, we were surprised we were spending "that much", but it was a special celebration trip.  (It wasn't a matter of "affordability", other than *everything* is a matter of affordability to some extent unless the last name is Gates or Bezos, etc.)

 

Short version... with 2 weeks to go, we had a medical emergency.

The bottom line was that while we were dealing with travel to and from almost uncountable medical visits/treatments/etc., rather than cruise/resort travel, it was surprisingly comforting for us to glance at each other on and off and mumble, "Well, we got insurance.  It's nice to know we won't need to pay a *second* time to take this trip!"

 

There is some interesting psychology about this (no surprise).

IF we had not had insurance, I seriously think we would have been so ticked off that we would NOT have taken another "big ticket" trip.

But the replacement trip was SO much fun (DH had *finally* agreed to try cruising; I had given up going without him).  He was totally hooked by the 2nd day 

Now, that "big ticket" cost?  We don't even think twice about spending that much now, only 5 years later.

 

And we are having the times of our lives with our long delayed travel, including places we've dreamed about, and some that we haven't.

These trips have truly changed our lives.

 

And yes, we've had other claims.  Until our most recent trip ("uneventful" from an insurance perspective), we had been "ahead of the game" in terms of premiums paid/claims received. It helped to have the very first time be a "claim", if that's how one wants to "count".    

There has also been another large claim for medical reasons.  And there have been a few smaller claims for extra nights/meals due to cancelled flights, and other miscellaneous costs that do start to add up.  But we wouldn't blink at those smaller costs, although earlier in our lives, we might have blinked a bit.  But it's the few large losses that "hurt", even though we "can afford it", and relatively easily.

 

We certainly hope this "balance" continues to fade to the favor of the insurer, of course, as we would much rather take the trips/NOT get sick rather than "get our money back".

 

It might be closer to getting collision insurance on a new/recent car.  The cost of a total loss is known:  the value of the car (although in that case, the amount rarely provides "full" reimbursement of the replacement car, etc.).

But most of us could "afford" the repairs or even full cost of another car.  Yet most of us, I'd guess, have collision insurance unless we are driving a real beater.  Some might have relatively high deductibles, but most have that insurance.

But that is not like liability coverage, which is more like the medical/evacuation coverage, while the collision insurance is more like the "trip cancellation/interruption" coverage.

 

So I'm not quite sure why the travel "version" is panned, while most would "approve" of collision insurance (with <whatever> choice of deductible).

 

GC