Thanks for that reply. I think you have nailed what I was trying to say very well, and raised a couple of very important points along the way. In my quest for travel insurance I have found that there are indeed very few available options despite an apparent plethora of choices. Most of those “choices” are in fact the same choice cloaked in the veneer of different companies. The underlying computer checks are essentially the same and the phrasing and processes suggest that I am in fact not dealing with more than a couple of separate entities.
It is like so many of these corporate hierarchies, which disguise subsets of the same organisation under a layer of apparently distinct companies. It may be legal, but it is deceptive and immoral in my view.
I think that your comment that “Technically, the industry could be discriminating illegally” is probably correct, and it concerns me that even a group such as Choice is unable to penetrate the secrecy behind insurance company behavior.
Perhaps Choice could use its influence to initiate a political agenda to strip away some of the secrecy and to make insurance generally a fairer and more transparent area. We all need insurance; we all have insurance, but insurers also need us. Perhaps it is time the Government required the insurance industry to be more accountable and responsible, and to return to the original premise which was not to make a lot of money, but to provide protection for the community as a whole.