Food poisoning?
Nov 28th, 2014, 01:18 PM
#21
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 34,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been to Mexico numerous times and have never gotten sick, once. I've been to the Cancun/Playa del Carmen area numerous times, also. I don't know who told you these things, the water isn't dangerous in those resort areas.
I also agree some people don't understand what "food poisoning" is. It can be very serious and I have never heard that the majority of people get food poisoning in Mexico. Some diarrhea due to slightly dfiferent bacteria or something, fine, but not food poisoning which is salmonella, etc.
I don't do dumb things and don't eat street food, actually (I rarely eat between meals, in general), and I do drink bottled water in Mexico, but that's about it. There is no reason to be eating "street food" anyway, if that literally means food from someone that isn't even a restaurant. I haven't really seen a lot of that, actually, in Playa del Carmen. Of course you can buy an ice cream cone at some ice cream shop. I've never even seen a buffet in Mexico, but I agree I wouldn't eat from one, but I never do, anyway.
I also agree some people don't understand what "food poisoning" is. It can be very serious and I have never heard that the majority of people get food poisoning in Mexico. Some diarrhea due to slightly dfiferent bacteria or something, fine, but not food poisoning which is salmonella, etc.
I don't do dumb things and don't eat street food, actually (I rarely eat between meals, in general), and I do drink bottled water in Mexico, but that's about it. There is no reason to be eating "street food" anyway, if that literally means food from someone that isn't even a restaurant. I haven't really seen a lot of that, actually, in Playa del Carmen. Of course you can buy an ice cream cone at some ice cream shop. I've never even seen a buffet in Mexico, but I agree I wouldn't eat from one, but I never do, anyway.
Nov 28th, 2014, 01:23 PM
#22
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 34,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the OP is from the U.S. her insurance will be fine in Mexico should she have the need.>>
Where are you getting this information from? You have no idea what kind of insurance she has and whether it will cover her in Mexico or not. She never even said what kind of insurance she has. This isn't preposterous at all, saying don't worry is preposterous. Many insurance policies in the US do NOT cover you abroad at all, she would have to find out if hers does, and if not, she had better buy travel medical insurance. It is simply not true that all US insurance policies cover you wherever you are in the world.
Where are you getting this information from? You have no idea what kind of insurance she has and whether it will cover her in Mexico or not. She never even said what kind of insurance she has. This isn't preposterous at all, saying don't worry is preposterous. Many insurance policies in the US do NOT cover you abroad at all, she would have to find out if hers does, and if not, she had better buy travel medical insurance. It is simply not true that all US insurance policies cover you wherever you are in the world.
Nov 28th, 2014, 02:49 PM
#25
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TJ
You could not be more wrong Typhoid is possible everywhere in Mexico & NOT just from drinking the water.
Improper food handling, unwashed hands & many other things can lead to this I personally know a half a dozen Gringos who have contracted typhoid through no fault of their own in resort cities.
The shots are virtually painless & are good for two years. Had my renewal 2 weeks ago.
You could not be more wrong Typhoid is possible everywhere in Mexico & NOT just from drinking the water.
Improper food handling, unwashed hands & many other things can lead to this I personally know a half a dozen Gringos who have contracted typhoid through no fault of their own in resort cities.
The shots are virtually painless & are good for two years. Had my renewal 2 weeks ago.
Nov 29th, 2014, 06:36 AM
#27
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not trying to scaremonger at all but rather bring up a subject that obviously does not get explained enough.
I wrote that the OP should check her insurance re her pregnancy. WHAT is it that anyone finds to disagree with about that?
Crosscheck, what trimester is the OP travelling in, do you know? What guarantee is there that she will not have a premature delivery in the second trimester? The Canadian who went to Hawaii was in fact 6 months at the time. Within the 32 week guideline many insurance policies cover for DELIVERY. But the OP has not responded to the question asked at all, so why would you ASSUME anything? Especially regarding whether her insurance would cover the BABY once it was born. That's where the major costs arise, not the delivery. How many times do I have to explain it for people to understand where the risk lies?
Mlgb, what is it about pregnancy that I 'clearly' don't understand? Or do you think making inane statements somehow gets a $770,000 hospital bill paid.
TC, what's 'ridiculous'about the information? Are you suggesting it is not factual? Or are you suggesting it doesn't apply to the OP? I'd say suggesting her US medical insurance will cover a premature baby's care is ridiulous unless you KNOW what insurance she has. I don't think you have understood the problem at all or understand much about travel medical insurance. Her domestic USA policy IF she has one is unlikely to cover a baby's care in Mexico.
Christina, you are right, she hasn't said anything about her insurance but it is also important to understand that most travel medical policies will NOT cover the baby's care, only the delivery.
That's the whole crux of the issue. How do you get medical coverage for a child that has not yet been born. Once born, the child needs his/her own policy! It's a 'Catch-22' situation and I think pregnant travellers need to be aware of it and the potential consequences.
I would really like to see a response from isemeda on the issue. All it takes is a phone call to your insurance provider to ask what would happen IF there was a premature delivery. Would the delivery be covered and would the subseqent care of the baby be covered.
I wrote that the OP should check her insurance re her pregnancy. WHAT is it that anyone finds to disagree with about that?
Crosscheck, what trimester is the OP travelling in, do you know? What guarantee is there that she will not have a premature delivery in the second trimester? The Canadian who went to Hawaii was in fact 6 months at the time. Within the 32 week guideline many insurance policies cover for DELIVERY. But the OP has not responded to the question asked at all, so why would you ASSUME anything? Especially regarding whether her insurance would cover the BABY once it was born. That's where the major costs arise, not the delivery. How many times do I have to explain it for people to understand where the risk lies?
Mlgb, what is it about pregnancy that I 'clearly' don't understand? Or do you think making inane statements somehow gets a $770,000 hospital bill paid.
TC, what's 'ridiculous'about the information? Are you suggesting it is not factual? Or are you suggesting it doesn't apply to the OP? I'd say suggesting her US medical insurance will cover a premature baby's care is ridiulous unless you KNOW what insurance she has. I don't think you have understood the problem at all or understand much about travel medical insurance. Her domestic USA policy IF she has one is unlikely to cover a baby's care in Mexico.
Christina, you are right, she hasn't said anything about her insurance but it is also important to understand that most travel medical policies will NOT cover the baby's care, only the delivery.
That's the whole crux of the issue. How do you get medical coverage for a child that has not yet been born. Once born, the child needs his/her own policy! It's a 'Catch-22' situation and I think pregnant travellers need to be aware of it and the potential consequences.
I would really like to see a response from isemeda on the issue. All it takes is a phone call to your insurance provider to ask what would happen IF there was a premature delivery. Would the delivery be covered and would the subseqent care of the baby be covered.
Nov 29th, 2014, 06:50 AM
#28
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This couple got lucky and the insurance paid but it clearly indicates the issues involved and not every insurance company is going to back down (as shown in the previous examples linked)and cover the costs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...baby-bill.html
Here is more info.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle4241665/
Here is an insurance underwriter's response.
http://blog.travelunderwriters.com/e...emature-birth/
This doesn't mean, don't travel while pregnant, it means make SURE you are covered. Policies specifically for travelling while pregnant do exist.
http://www.goodtogoinsurance.com/pre...avel-insurance
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...baby-bill.html
Here is more info.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle4241665/
Here is an insurance underwriter's response.
http://blog.travelunderwriters.com/e...emature-birth/
This doesn't mean, don't travel while pregnant, it means make SURE you are covered. Policies specifically for travelling while pregnant do exist.
http://www.goodtogoinsurance.com/pre...avel-insurance
Nov 30th, 2014, 07:22 AM
#30
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHAT MISINFORMATION??? State what misinformation is posted here. Specifically, what????
People who make statements without being able to back up their comments are a dime a dozen. People who can mount a logical argument are far more scarce. So far, NO ONE has provided ANY counter argument to what I have raised as an issue for pregnant travellers.
People who make statements without being able to back up their comments are a dime a dozen. People who can mount a logical argument are far more scarce. So far, NO ONE has provided ANY counter argument to what I have raised as an issue for pregnant travellers.
Nov 30th, 2014, 08:46 AM
#31
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SJT....are you an insurance salesman? What exactly do YOU know about U.S. insurance policies and what they cover? What do you know about travel insurance policies for that matter? You've read a couple of anecdotal articles in UK news sources. That's hardly a complete source.
The OP asked a question about food poisoning. She got good answers to that question. Why not leave it at that? We all know you and how you love to start these little dust ups to amuse yourself. Whatever....
The OP asked a question about food poisoning. She got good answers to that question. Why not leave it at that? We all know you and how you love to start these little dust ups to amuse yourself. Whatever....
Nov 30th, 2014, 11:42 AM
#33
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So are you suggesting that if someone has a premature birth they should hope that the fetus is not 'viable' mlgb?
It is true that 'viability' of a baby born at less than 24 weeks is very low but are you going to suggest to a pregnant woman that provided she plans to return home from her vacation before her 24th week, that she shouldn't worry about it? Hardly a 'slight technicality' I'd say.
Many insurance policies only state that the mother must return before her 33rd week. What about a fetus born between 24 and 32 weeks where viability is quite possible? That is what happened in the cases I mentioned. Their doctor said they were OK to travel and the insurance companies said the same, you're OK till your 33 week. But the baby was not covered by insurance.
TC, I have no connection to any insurance company. I do however have a working knowledge of travel insurance as a user of that product.
What exactly do YOU know about the risk and frequency of premature birth? If you disagree with my assessment of the risk involved to the pregnant traveller, why don't you provide some evidence of your own to substantiate your difference of opinion? My evidence may be anecdotal but it is also factual. Your evidence is what? Your evidence is where?
Preterm birth is estimated at around 5-7% in developed countries. Would you suggest not insuring against something with a 5% risk of occurence? If someone said, 5% of people have their pocket picked in X, would you say, 'don't worry about it'?
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/1/08-062554/en/
Look people, all I am saying is that if a pregnant woman plans to travel she should make sure her insurance will cover her AND the baby if there is a chance the premature baby would survive (or be 'viable' as mlgb tried to skirt around the point).
I don't believe any of you would be saying, don't worry about making sure you are insured against pickpockets if the person was planning to carry $700,000 in their pocket.
It is true that 'viability' of a baby born at less than 24 weeks is very low but are you going to suggest to a pregnant woman that provided she plans to return home from her vacation before her 24th week, that she shouldn't worry about it? Hardly a 'slight technicality' I'd say.
Many insurance policies only state that the mother must return before her 33rd week. What about a fetus born between 24 and 32 weeks where viability is quite possible? That is what happened in the cases I mentioned. Their doctor said they were OK to travel and the insurance companies said the same, you're OK till your 33 week. But the baby was not covered by insurance.
TC, I have no connection to any insurance company. I do however have a working knowledge of travel insurance as a user of that product.
What exactly do YOU know about the risk and frequency of premature birth? If you disagree with my assessment of the risk involved to the pregnant traveller, why don't you provide some evidence of your own to substantiate your difference of opinion? My evidence may be anecdotal but it is also factual. Your evidence is what? Your evidence is where?
Preterm birth is estimated at around 5-7% in developed countries. Would you suggest not insuring against something with a 5% risk of occurence? If someone said, 5% of people have their pocket picked in X, would you say, 'don't worry about it'?
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/1/08-062554/en/
Look people, all I am saying is that if a pregnant woman plans to travel she should make sure her insurance will cover her AND the baby if there is a chance the premature baby would survive (or be 'viable' as mlgb tried to skirt around the point).
I don't believe any of you would be saying, don't worry about making sure you are insured against pickpockets if the person was planning to carry $700,000 in their pocket.
Nov 30th, 2014, 03:59 PM
#37
"Tourista is caused by a bacteria in food that our particular system isn't used to. It isn't that the food is necessarily spoiled. Everyone has bacteria in their gut -- ours is just different than the bacteria from other countries. If Mexicans travel to the U.S., they can often get equally as sick."
Not really true. Mexican water is dangerous because it is often contaminated. This is seldom the case on the U.S., though of course it does occur. Drink bottled water, -- most Mexicans do. As mentioned above, most tourist grade hotels and restaurants used purified water/ice and you are unlikely to experience tourista.
Not really true. Mexican water is dangerous because it is often contaminated. This is seldom the case on the U.S., though of course it does occur. Drink bottled water, -- most Mexicans do. As mentioned above, most tourist grade hotels and restaurants used purified water/ice and you are unlikely to experience tourista.
Nov 30th, 2014, 05:10 PM
#39
There are isolated instances of pollution. Nothing comparable to what you'll find in Mexico. People with property interests in Mexico or who are otherwise interested in spreading misinformation should really identify themselves as such.
