| Quote: | |  | |
| I am flabbergasted, quite frankly. The Swiss tout being so democratic, and every issue is decided in a referendum (which you could interpret as the Swiss not trusting the people they elect, but that aside..). Yet they allow a health insurer to be this undemocratic?
It isn't per se the point that supplemental was denied. It is however the fact that they do not provide any explanation. Was it age? Religion? Race? I doubt those are factored into their decision, but the mere fact that they offer zero explanation does not help to take away such doubts... | |
| | |
The democratic aspect of contract law is that any two parties can make a contract if they agree, which was not the case with you and Swica. This is the standard law and not something that was crafted for supplemental health insurance.
I see the point that it's bad form to not explain the rejection but it's nothing more. Religion and race aren't collected on the forms, age is relevant for the insurer.