Insurance policies

I take back all I said in my previous post! Attitudes are not changing - if anything, they're hardening.
When I first decided to travel after having finished radiotherapy, my friends told me it'd be difficult to get a travel insurance policy - people who have had cancer are thought to be a bad risk, even though they're probably better observed and checked medically than anyone else on the planet. It gave me great pleasure, then, to be able to say that I'd found insurance that covered me  and for the same price as for a 'normal risk' person even though it was difficult to do so.

How things have changed. Today, I needed to renew my policy. Only a few days ago, it wasn't a problem but, suddenly, with no warning at all, I was told today that because I've had cancer I'd have to pay FOUR TIMES the amount required from those who haven't had (or at least haven't been diagnosed with) cancer. I queried this and asked if there'd been a policy change. Apparently, there has been, though it wasn't mentioned when the renewal notice arrived. Five years seems to be the cut-off point. Annoyingly, I'm just over 2 months off that. 

I was told that if I agreed that I would waive the right to any cancer-related claim, I could purchase the policy for the same amount as anyone else. So, I've decided to take that risk. My travel plans can be changed for no extra cost so I could come home if I needed to do so. I'm unlikely to make a claim for anything cancer-related - why would I, when the cancer has been totally removed and I've been given a complete discharge by the hospital? I can understand that if I were in the middle of treatment, the risk to the insurance company might be higher but, at present, I'm no greater risk than anyone else. However, if you don't have cancer but have to make a claim on your travel insurance because you're diagnosed with it while away (and, let's face it, you're likely to have a good idea there's something wrong before you travel if you reach a state where you have to make a claim) you're covered - unless, of course, the insurance company tries to weasel out of paying by claiming 'pre-existing condition'. So why are those who recover from cancer discriminated against like this?

I even tried insurance companies that claim to 'specialise' in insuring those who've had cancer - and yet they wouldn't insure me, despite the fact that I have recovered and have been fully discharged. Not only that, but when I was first diagnosed, I was told by the oncologist, 'You're very lucky - this is one cancer that we can cure.' 

Blatant discrimination, in my view. If I hit the same problem when I'm past that five year mark, I may well feel a campaign coming on. How very, very dare they!