Gov'nt advisory against non-essential travel to Mexico?

Are you concerned because you plan on spending time in these states, or just passing through?

And, are you concerned because you might trip and break a toe while in one of these states, or that you might get shot?

It seems you are getting different answers for different concerns

I personally wouldn't worry about the crime factor unless I were to be putting myself in odd places doing odd things. In all my years going into the Tiajuana area, I never had a problem and I was a party guy in my 20's. I always stayed low key and didn't go walking down dimly lit ally's several blocks from the main area. Also have had drunken exclusions through Mexicali, Tecate, San Filpe, Ensenada, and all points in between. Admittedly the drug export crime issues have increased since then, but they are doinfpg their thing and I'm guessing you won't be looking to make drug deals in the back of off beat bars.

If you are just passing through, what are the odds you'd bust your toe while en route?

If you do bust a toe, just go get treated and pay for it out of pocket

I guess my point is, you just need to ask yourself, how likely is it you will have an issue

Best way to stay out of trouble is not go where trouble is. Only problem is that with some folks, wherever they are is where trouble is. Then some just like to be part of it.

Kidoo wrote:
They say if I go in these regions, I was not covered for insurance.

I think this answers your question. ;)

Fulltimewanabe wrote:
You should ask the question direct of your health coverage provider but I'll almost hasten a bet that you are not covered for anything period in "no go zones". Onus is on you to ensure you are covered directly through your company and for the area and timeframe you intend to be there at point of departure/arrival.

I think that covers the whole situation quite well. ;)

Just like people who ignore travel warnings and still go to the middle eastern countries, knowing the risks. Then want our government, at tax payers expense, to rescue them when they get into trouble and held against their will. I have no sympathy for them. "Travel at your own risk" means just that!

When daughter was insured with AMA for a 5 week trip from Alberta to Thailand, Australia, NZ an Fiji, 7 years ago, there was internal unrest occurring after all booked in Thailand and was classified as a no go zone, and we were categorically told that if she continued to travel there she would not be covered whatsoever. Even if she tripped in the street and broke an ankle = they would not cover her for diddly squat for health.

She did in fact slice her big toe really badly on there bad streets and it was literally flapping around. With Thailand being so filthy I was really concerned about infection and worse. For the 5 days remaining there I had her bathe it in alcohol and keep it covered with dressings I packed for the girls. As soon as she got to Australia, instructions reversed with, open it up and let the air get to it to dry it out.

You should ask the question direct of your health coverage provider but I'll almost hasten a bet that you are not covered for anything period in "no go zones". Onus is on you to ensure you are covered directly through your company and for the area and timeframe you intend to be there at point of departure/arrival.

What about if you just get sick and have to see a doctor in these region?

It's all about liability. I don't want to start a p****** contest but I can't recall an rver incident in any of those states. If so, it's been many many moons ago. Insurance is a business, and the more restrictions they put on you the more money they make.

I would suggest the reasoning behind it is the elevated risk of violence. With that said, it's an insurance company. If they can deny coverage, they probably will.