Insurance for upcoming thru-hike?

What kind of insurance are you looking for? Life? Medical? Theft? Liability? Trip insurance? I presume you do not need auto insurance.

I've never heard of thru-hiker insurance. It could be a new product for some enterprising insurer.

Health insurance?

Kaiser might operate in all three states

Perhaps someone here is an insurance agent, and will know how this _really_ works, but I'd guess that you could get/keep home-based insurance, and then just expect coverage "on vacation."

I think the big division is when we travel internationality, and then need extended travel insurance(?)

Update: your agent should know your current vacation coverage

Actually, some recent wind damage with one of my canoes made me check on this. Your property is covered under your homeowners policy, if you have one. Health insurance will cover you. A high deductable policy, if you don't have one, is fairly inexpensive. Health insururance is another matter. We go through Allstate. But, they also cover the cars. Within a dollar of other places.

Jerry wrote: "Kaiser might operate in all three states."

Kaiser Permanente does operate in California and in Oregon (but only from Salem north to Vancouver, WA). Kaiser members also have reciprocity with Group Health in Seattle. If you're a member, you can of course get emergency treatment anywhere, but they'll insist you go to a Kaiser medical office (which may be a long way from the trail) for followup treatment. The problem comes when you are more than three months away from home, when you lose your "visiting member" status. It's probably a good idea to contact Member Services and explain your situation in advance.

There is no company that offers the best deal for every person. You have to get quotes from different companies online and see which companies can provide you with the best price: http://www.quotes-center.com

> Kaiser might operate in all three states.

Weird! Really weird! Another Americanism?

Our Health Funds and our medical system covers the whole nation. The idea of one covering only part of the country seems ridiculous to me. But what would I know?

Cheers

Roger, you ought to get out more.

–B.G.–

Hi Bob

> you ought to get out more.

And experience an inferior health system?
:-)

Cheers

Roger, are you inviting us Yanks to go down your way to become wards of the state?

–B.G.–

I'm rooting for Australia to take us over

Nevermind, that's a different thread

Andrew check Blue Cross. I know that when my kids got out of college (and no longer covered by my company), Blue Cross had special plans for young adults.

Weird! Really weird! Another Americanism?

Our Health Funds and our medical system covers the whole nation. The idea of one covering only part of the country seems ridiculous to me. But what would I know?

It is a "States versus Federal Rights" issue. Each state can enforce its own regulations. My state, the Great Welfare State of California, has more insurance regulations than the other 49 states, so some insurance companies choose not to do business here. State vs Federal Rights is very important issue here… actually many historians feel it was the real cause of the Civil War.

Andrew,

I am pretty sure that you have to purchase health insurance from a company licensed to sell insurance in your state of residency. I do not believe that it is an option to purchase health insurance across state lines at this time. Another option if you are currently employed and have health insurance, if you quit your job for the thru-hike you can continue your current program under COBRA. Premiums can be pretty expensive for this option.

Roger,

You also have to remember that coming up with an insurance program for the 22M Australian population is a far easier proposition than coming up with a program for 350M people. There are 14M more people in CA then there are in all of Australia. Heck, we have almost as many uninsured people (50M+) in this country than the populations of Canada and Australia combined (56M).

I think it has more to do with political contributions than population – why Australia has a more sensible health care system

@Jerry – Sure lobbying and political machinations play a role, but you also have a large division within this country of what the role of government should be with regards to our healthcare system. We as a country cannot come to a consensus as to what our healthcare system should look like. Instead we have an inefficient hodgepodge of state, federal, and private insurance and healthcare, that is expensive, extraordinarily cumbersome, and doesn't make us any healthier than countries with less expensive alternatives. Countries like Australia, while not perfect, at least have figured something out that works for them and they are relatively happy with. We, on the otherhand, have not. The fact that we are trying to do it on such a large scale I think plays a role.

Uh-oh – we're doing chaff on a non chaff thread : )

You're right, bigger population makes it more difficult to solve

Canada couldn't reach consensus, then they got into it one province at a time, now they seem generally satisfied with universal coverage. Does each province have a different plan now?

Maybe we could do the same thing here

I think Massachusettes has some sort of universal plan

I think Oregon would like to do some sort of universal plan but the feds won't cooperate

Besides, Roger, this is a debate that you don't want to enter unless you want to stand for political office here. We would like to have more respect for you than that.

–B.G.–

Well Sonny, when ya get to be a real senior like me ya don't have to worry 'bout insurance. Ya get Medicare! Works everywhere in the U.S.

And don't worry, it will be there when you retire. It's too important to abandon,
despite what them thar fat Republicats say.

Poor Andrew. He only got 6 good replies…or 7, I suck at counting with more than one hand.