Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its le any other topis that comes up jusy like gu control i the resent tragedy. It does not detract form the tragedy itself in nay way and I think mnay of the victims will be wander that themsels who survived.Its a discussio not a debate as to the OPs question.Mnay insurance as i rea call to do cover acts of terror at elast inproperty insurnce.
Good Question. I wonder if some companies will consider this to be an uninsurable "act of god" just to get out of paying. fortunately the hospitals do whatever is needed and let the accountants and bill collectors work the payments out later.
Running isn't the most expensive sport in the world, but people that do marathons like Boston are normally are at least middle class. It costs a lot of money to participate in Boston. Especially for out of town folks. By the time you take off work, buy a plane ticket, secure a hotel and everything else you have to be doing all right. Plus, marathoners do a lot of sightseeing. That's one of the attractions of the sport. Travel.
These people almost certainly have health insurance.
And I doubt any insurance company is going to risk bad PR by denying payment for a high profile event like this.
Most races have clauses in the race entrance forms that address injuries incurred during a race. An event like Boston probably requires participants to have health insurance. Kinda like renting a car.
Is there some reason why an insurance policy that covers ordinary accidents and illnesses (bitten by a bear or snake while hiking, struck by lightning, catching bird flu etc.) would not cover getting injured in a terrorist attack like the Boston Marathon one?
it depends on each person's policy (those from another country will have to work with their insurance providers or country's offered insurance for reciprocal payment/treatments).
also, many times charities will cover some of the expenses (and more than likely, many charities are being formed at this moment). some are covered through anonymous donations or companies who have donated (like those runners sponsored by a company/corporation) etc.
No one will get a bill, the pr would be aweful. The hospitals will eat the cost or the state or feds will pay for it all. So one way or another we will pay the bill. But those hurt will not pay.
If they're here from another country, the odds are about 100% that they purchased a travel insurance plan that includes medical before they came here. Americans do the same thing before they travel abroad.
The devil is in the details. Many of the travel insurance policies have a substantial number of restrictions/exclusions. Including, I'm recalling, injuries due to acts of terrorism. I think relatively few travelers purchase such policies, however. Since this would have been emergency care, the hospitals which cared for an uninsured or underinsured patient would, most likely, eat the loss ... as they often do.
why would you even bother to bring something like this up right now? We are all saddened by this awful act, those injured, or dead and their families are going through HELL and you want to start a debate about who pays for what just to try and prove some point. wow, this is really a first I think.
My thoughts exactly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
