Boots cancer cover

Well Nellie I suppose all insurance preys on people's fears, really.
We insure our houses because we're frightened of a tornado coming along or thieves breaking in or the water pipes bursting.
The question is whether the cost of the premiums is balanced by the risk of the dreaded occurrence taking place.
I just got a quote from the website for myself (age 63, non-smoker) and the standard cover paying out £12500 woulod cost £18.14 a month. For 'complete' cancer cover it would be £48.67 (don't know what that provides).
Obviously no-one would do without house insurance or car insurance, but personally for this sort of insurance I would rather just save the money into a rainy day fund, than pay the premiums to the insurance company.
I don't want to sound too much like Frank but I think we could cope financially if the worst happened.
Anyway with my family history I'm much more likely to pop off with a sudden heart attack

I think it's dreadful! Typical of Boots.

I have to agree with janeainsworth this is what insurance companies do and with this one I actually do not really think the language sounds too bad. Cancer is an awful disease and people do need help financially sometimes and it is our choice if we take out this sort of insurance or not. Could I possibly ask you jo8 why it is typical of Boots, I didn't quite get that, am I missing something?

I agree this is nasty. The photo targets young women, under 40, who are at a very low statistical risk of cancer (great business if you can get it!).
And there are different kinds of cover for men and women.
ANd at the end of the day you can't insure against getting cancer.
There is also the point that taking out this kind of insurance might discourage women from taking action to reduce their risk e.g. drinking less.

positivepam this will give you an idea

and this

Money, money, money!

just a huge business with no ethics

Thanks j08 - the bit about the pharmacists playing along with the request for a natural treatment for child's diarrhoea is shocking. Nothing unnatural about rehydration therapy after all.
They do sell an awful lot of useless rubbish in the pills, potions and powders sections on their pharmacy shelves. I've also seen them selling unproven gadgets that are supposed to diagnose breast cancer by shining a light.
It's a very handy store - but other countries manage fine without all this pseudo medicine.

j08 Thanks for that interesting info. I was aware of previous controversy re Boots and tax but was alarmed to see an example of pharmacists not giving correct advice.

Thanks jo8 I hadn't seen any of this, I told you I was missing something ha ha. I think asGalen said, it is definately about money money money and it does make you cross. Thanks again for the info.

jo8 Thanks for the link.

Their decision to stop their ethical declaration explains a lot about how they came to arrange that policy and publish that leaflet.

As I am sure many others did, I always used to feel Boots was a company with good practices.

I am still very though.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.